Let's consider the problem from the lawyer's point of view. Don't have the spirit of contract, and don't lend money to anyone, even if the other party asks grandpa to sue grandma. This is because the lawyer has made it clear to you. Because your father has passed away, you can deny the authenticity of this IOU for any reason. At the same time, you can take all measures to destroy all the handwriting and traces left by your father, as if your father had never existed. With this lawyer's action, I suggest that you don't lend money to others, because money will be spent and transferred, unlike other substances. At the same time, the borrower can deny the loan for any reason because the loan is easy to be tampered with, forged or lost. Cover your pockets and don't show off your wealth.
What if this iou is true, the father didn't return it, but the children didn't inherit the father's inheritance? In other words, the father has no inheritance, or the father borrows money for abnormal expenses, such as gambling. Can children refuse to pay back? Personally, I think so: both father and children are independent civil liability persons. Children who inherit their father's estate have the obligation to pay debts on behalf of their father; If there is evidence that the father's debt is used for improper expenses, the children also have reason to refuse to pay the debt on behalf of the father.
My father died many years ago, so I borrowed it. It has been many years, and now it is stipulated that economic cases will not be mentioned after two years, which seems to be invalid. But for special reasons, people didn't feel embarrassed to mention it at that time, but now they do. What should I do? I should give it back to someone else. I also believe this is true. At that time, your family was in trouble and people lent it to you to tide over the difficulties. Parents died, and people were not embarrassed to mention it. It took so many years to bring it up. You still have humanity.
Assuming that the loan relationship is established, it depends on how much it is inherited. If the son inherits the inheritance, he has the obligation to pay back the money, and only within the scope of inheritance, otherwise he has no obligation to pay back the money. Although they are father and son, they are also independent natural persons, each of whom bears the creditor's rights and debts. This is an ancient legend with no legal basis.
As long as the loan is proved to be reasonable, it must be repaid, but this incident is questionable. 1. This man doesn't know. His father died many years ago, and he knew about your father's death at that time. If he knows, it will be problematic to delay for many years. Therefore, it is necessary to ask more relatives and friends if they know each other, and find out how his father and the people who want money know each other, and whether they know anyone together. And ask more details about borrowing money, and ask more about this person's character. It doesn't mean that the bad character means that the loan is fake, but it is possible. For example, his father paid back the money, but the loan was not recovered, so it is necessary to confirm that it is not a breach of contract.
The creditor's rights that have expired cannot be claimed through litigation, and the court will not accept them. If the debtor agrees, he can repay the money. In the above situation, if the heir knows that the old man owes money to others, he should pay it back. Children can't let the dead old man bear the guilt of the inheritance. If you really don't know, the other party will prove it. If the other party can find the evidence, he will pay back the money from the inheritance. If the other party can't find evidence, it can't be considered as a debt.
Having been with my father for decades should have an answer. If the loan is true, but all kinds of evidence are insufficient, you can still. That's for your ancestors. If parents have the habit of not borrowing money all their lives, the other party has all kinds of evidence. This is for you. All kinds of evidence are excuses. You should handle it properly, neither offending people nor cowardice.
First of all, it depends on the characteristics of the debtor. Don't say dad is dead, and you won't pay back the money if you don't die. Find a lawyer and say you don't have to pay it back after two years. Two years later, your family is in trouble, and two years later, your family is. The lawyer said the time limit had expired. What bad luck it is for people who borrow money from your family. Fuck that reasoning, damn it.
This situation is uncertain. It is quite possible that the money has been paid back. I have personal experience. I borrowed money from my friend twice, and I paid it back in advance. When I wanted to collect debts, my friends said that I had already torn them up. Only he knows whether the debt has been torn up. You can ignore this situation because your father died many years ago. Not a deadbeat!
We must first determine whether his father borrowed it, and if so, his father's debt will be paid. It should be returned to others. If you are not sure, let the debt collector have no other physical evidence except IOUs. If the facts are conclusive, they should be returned to others. If not, let him sue. You can't kick people out when they ask for the bill. What if you really owe someone money? In addition, what kind of person was his father before his death, and was it possible to owe others debts? As a family member, you should have a situation when you meet a debt collector.
Be a man and do things according to your conscience. If it is really your father's note, please return it. If there are difficulties, you can explain them, but you must not acquiesce. This is a matter of character. I know an old man. Before his son died, he called all the debtors to confirm. Finally, the old man went to babysit and pay the bills. Being a man is really a lever. An old man who is almost 70 years old is really respectable.
It is doubtful that if it is not gambling, why do you have to wait for many years to pay the bill? If he wants the bill, you can ask him to ask the court to transfer it to you. Even if it is a formal debt, many of you don't understand it. At least explain the situation to the court, and you can give enough reasons before you can take it seriously, because there is nothing wrong with not taking it, and the law is fair.
It should be returned. If not, why will people come to you? Eh, it's not to ask for other people's accounts. It's natural that the pen is real. People at that time wanted it, but their families might also encounter some difficulties. At this time, there was a famous saying in the ancients that people only wanted it because they thought the old debts were poor, and they lent it to your father, which proved that it was a good person and they had to pay it back.
Force yourself, in the simplest way, will your children know about your human relations? In the past, my parents' relatives in the countryside, especially their cousins of that generation, were basically unknown to their descendants. Especially now, the migration of personnel is more serious, and it is not enough to refuse because you don't understand it. No matter from a legal point of view or a reasonable point of view, it is unnecessary for the debtor's son to pay back the money. Is this fair to creditors? Have you considered creditors? If so, who dares to lend money to others? Because if the other person dies, the money will never come back. This also reminds me that I don't lend money to others easily, and I never borrow money from others no matter what difficulties I have. But someone really asked me to borrow money, so I lent it out, and I was embarrassed to let the other party write an iou. It seems that you should pay attention in the future!