The Times reports how debt that survives the deceased is collected from relatives who survive the deceased.

The Times explains that families of the departed are not personally obligated upon their lost loved ones' debts. It would be reactionary were it otherwise.

Herein lies the rub: the collectors know that. Yet, the bereaved families may not know it and the collectors do not volunteer an explanation of the law. Thus, innocents are led to believe they must pay back debts, although the borrower has passed on.

When I read that lawyers are among those collecting, I wince.

Note from the article that the estates of the dead are fair game to collectors. Additionally, survivors might wish to pay back debts. Insofar as good consideration was offered for such debts, that is commendable.

However, where payment of your lost one's debt is voluntary, then collectors should be obligated to disclose that fact.

Kudos to the journalist for exposing this ugly practice.

But... and it's a big but: the Times does not address the differences in state law. California is a community property state; New York is not. This article addresses California law: http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2009/May/1212943_1.html

So, there are still potential pitfalls out there.