Can I force him to pay?
"Its best to seek a lawyer, but it is unlikely you can force him to pay.  You probably know couples, that are in some part of the divorce process, that have trouble obtaining court ordered payments.  In your case you have less of a legal standing (exception: if you have children together).  As far as the house goes, the two of you entered into some sort of business arrangement and it will be difficult to ""force"" him to pay.   One thing that works for you is that he has excellent credit.  If he is interested in keeping a high credit rating he will ensure that no payments are late on the home.  Your question suggests that the two of you are not getting along very well right now, and that needs to stop.  The best financial decision you can make right now is to get along with him.   It seems that the two of you have not officially broken up.  If you do decide to depart ways, do so as amicably as possible.  You will have to work to get the home in your name only, and him off the deed.  This benefits both of you as you will have sole control of the house and this ill advised business decision can end.  He will have the home off his credit and will not be responsible if you miss a payment and can also buy a home or whatever of his own. Good luck and do your best to work this out.  Seeking peace will cost you a lot less money in the long run.  Fighting in court cost a lot of money.  Giving in to semi-reasonable demands are far cheaper then fighting. Here is an example.  Lets say he normally contributes $500 to the mortgage, and he decides to move out.  I would ask him to contribute $200 until you can get his name off the loan, say 6 months at the most.  After that you will put the house up for sale if you cannot obtain a mortgage in your own name and will split any profits."
"&gt; The laws just mean you can't make your decision on the basis of religion. Make your decision because they don't interview well, they can't do the job, they have poor qualifications, etc.  Which means people are being forced to lie and make up excuses to hide the real reason they don't want to hire someone.  &gt; Substitute, say, ""black people"" for the reference to religious expression and you see where this is a problem. Paraphrased, you've got: ""Why should I be forced to hire black people who I fundamentally oppose (and do not wish to support, however indirectly via a paycheck), why is their right to be black more valid than my right to not like black people?""  There is a MORAL problem with this insfar as I object to bigotry.  There should not, however, be a LEGAL problem with it.  If the local bigot business owner does not wish to serve blacks, they shouldn't be forced to do it - it is THEIR business. They took the risk, they pay the bills, and they should be free to hire, fire, and serve whomever they wish as long as they to not use fraud, force, or threat to do so.    if you think otherwise, then you're asking goverment to be in the morality business and this does not end well.  it is EXACTLY because of this that we see the right trying to enforce morality codes when they are in power, the left trying to enforce some version of fairness codes when they are in power.  I want one code: a code liberty that applies to everyone equally.  Yes, that means there will be bigots that do not serve blacks or gays.  But it also means that I can start a business, hire whom I wish, serve whom I wish, and thereby create community-specific value." As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend. "I can understand your nervousness being 40 and no retirement savings.  Its understandable especially given your parents.   Before going further, I would really recommend the books and seminars on Love and Respect.  The subject matter is Christian based, but it based upon a lot of secular research from the University of Washington and some other colleges.  It sounds like to me, this is more of a relationship issue than a money issue.   For the first step I would focus on the positive.  The biggest benefit you have is:  Your husband is willing to work!  Was he lazy, there would be a whole different set of issues.  You should thank him for this.   More positives are that you don't have any credit card debt, you only have one car payment (not two), and that you are paying additional payments on each.  I'd prefer that you had no car payment.  But your situation is not horrible. So how do you improve your situation? In my opinion getting your husband on board would be the first priority.  Ask him if he would like to get the car paid off as fast as possible, or, building an emergency fund?  Pick one of those to focus on, and do it together.   Having an emergency fund of 3 to 6 months of expense is a necessary precursor to investing, anyway so you from the limited info in your post you are not ready to pour money into your 401K. Have you ever asked what his vision is for his family financially?  Something like:  ""Honey you care for us so wonderfully, what is your vision for me and our children?  Where do you see us in 5, 10 and 20 years?""     I cannot stress enough how this is a relationship issue, not a math issue.  While the problems manifests themselves in your balance sheet they are only a symptom.  Attempting to cure the symptom will likely result in resentment for both of you.  There is only one financial author that focuses on relationships and their effect on finances:  Dave Ramsey.  Pick up a copy of The Total Money Makeover, do something nice for him, and then ask him to read it.  If he does, do something else nice for him and then ask him what he thinks." "That ain't nothing.  It's really easy to get ""whipped up"" into a sense of entitlement, and forget to be grateful for what you do have.  If this house doesn't exist, what would his costs of housing be elsewhere?  Realistically.  Would landlords rent to him? Would other bankers lend him money to buy a house? Would those costs really be any better?  What about the intangible benefits like not having any landlord hassles or having a good relationship with the neighbors?  It's entirely possible he has a sweet deal here, and just doesn't make enough money.  If your credit rating is poor, your housing options really suck.  Banks won't lend you money for a house unless you have a huge ton of upfront cash.  Most landlords won't rent to you at all, because they are going to automated scoring systems to avoid accusations of racism.  In this day and age, there are lots of ways to make money with a property you own.  In fact, I believe very firmly in Robert Allen's doctrine: Never sell.  That way you avoid the tens of thousands of dollars of overhead costs you bear with every sale. That's pure profit gone up in smoke.  Keep the property forever, keep it working for you.  If he doesn't know how, learn.  To ""get bootstrapped"" he can put it up on AirBnB or other services. Or do ""housemate shares"".  When your house is not show-condition, just be very honest and relatable about the condition.  Don't oversell it, tell them exactly what they're going to get.  People like honesty in the social sharing economy.  And here's the important part: Don't booze away the new income, invest it back into the property to make it a better money-maker - better at AirBnB, better at housemate shares, better as a month-to-month renter. So it's too big - Is there a way to subdivide the unit to make it a better renter or AirBnB?  Can he carve out an ""in-law unit"" that would be a good size for him alone? If he can keep turning the money back into the property like that, he could do alright.  This is what the new sharing economy is all about.  Of course, sister might show up with her hand out, wanting half the revenue since it's half her house.  Tell her hell no, this pays the mortgage and you don't!  She deserves nothing, yet is getting half the equity from those mortgage payments, and that's enough, doggone it!  And if she wants to go to court, get a judge to tell her that.  Not that he's going to sell it, but it's a huge deal. He needs to know how much of his payments on the house are turning into real equity that belongs to him.   ""Owning it on paper"" doesn't mean you own it.  There's a mortgage on it, which means you don't own all of it.  The amount you own is the value of the house minus the mortgage owed.   This is called your equity.   Of course a sale also MINUS the costs of bringing the house up to mandatory code requirements,  MINUS the cost of cosmetically making the house presentable.   But when you actually sell, there's also the 6% Realtors' commission and other closing costs.  This is where the mortgage is more than the house is worth.  This is a dangerous situation.  If you keep the house and keep paying the mortgage all right, that is stable, and can be cheaper than the intense disruption and credit-rating shock of a foreclosure or short sale.  If sister is half owner, she'll get a credit burn also. That may be why she doesn't want to sell.  And that is leverage he has over her.  I imagine a ""Winter's bone"" (great movie) situation where the family is hanging on by a thread and hasn't told the bank the parents died.  That could get very complex especially if the brother/sister are not creditworthy, because that means the bank would simply call the loan and force a sale.   The upside is this won't result in a credit-rating burn or bankruptcy for the children, because they are not owners of the house and children do not inherit parents' debt." "You say your primary goal is to clean up your credit report, and you're willing to spend some cash to do it.   OK.  But beware: the law in this area is a funhouse mirror, everything works upside down and backwards. To start, let's be clear: Credit reports are not extortion to force you into paying. They are a historical record of your creditworthiness, and almost impossible to fix without altering history.  Paying on this debt will affirm the old data was correct, and glue it to your report.  Here's how credit reporting works for R-9 (sent to collections) amounts.  The data is on your credit report for 7 years.  The danger is in this clock being restarted.  What will not restart the clock?  Ignoring the debt, talking casusally to collectors, and the debt being sold from one collector to another.  What will restart the clock? Acknowledging the debt formally, court judgment, paying the debt, or paying on the debt (obviously, paying acknowledges the debt.)  Crazy!  You could have a debt that's over 7 years old, pay it because you're a decent person, and BOOM! Clock restarts and 7 more years of bad luck.  Even worse-- if they write-off or forgive any part of the debt, that's income and you'll need to pay income tax on it.  Ugh!  Like I say, the only way to remove a bad mark is to alter history. Simple fact:   The collector doesn't care about your bad credit mark; he wants money. And it costs a lot of money, time and/or stress for both of you to demand they research it, negotiate, play phone-tag, and ultimately go to court.  So this works very well (this is just the guts, you have to add all the who, what, where, signature block, formalities etc.):   1 Company and Customer absolutely disagree as to whether Customer owes   Company this debt: (explicitly named debt with numbers and amount) 2 But Company and Customer both eagerly agree that the expense, time, and   stress of research, negotiation, and litigation is burdensome for both of us.    We both strongly desire a quick, final and no-fault solution.  Therefore:  3 Parties agree Customer shall pay Company (acceptable fraction here).    Payment within 30 days.  To be acknowledged in writing by Company.  4 This shall be absolute and final resolution.  5 NO-FAULT.  Parties agree this settlement resolves the matter in good faith.   Parties agree this settlement is done for practical reasons, this bill has not been established as a valid debt, and any difference between billed and settled amount is not a canceled nor forgiven debt.  6 Neither party nor its assigns will make any adverse statements to third parties relating to this bill or agreement.  Parties agree they have a continuous duty to remove adverse statements, and agree to do so within seven days of request.  7 Parties specifically agree no adverse mark nor any mark of any kind shall be placed on Customer's credit report; and in the event such a mark appears, Parties will disavow it continuously.  Parties agree that a good credit report has a monetary value and specific impacts on a customer's life.  8 Jurisdiction of law shall be where the effects are felt, and that shall be (place of service) regarding the amounts of the bill proper.  Severable, inseparable, counterparts, witness, signature lines blah blah. A collector is gonna sign this because it's free money and it's not tricky.  What does this do?  1, 2 and 5 alter history to make the debt never have existed in the first place.  To do this, it must formally answer the question of why the heck would you pay a debt that isn't real and you don't owe: out of sheer practicality; it's cheaper than Rogaine.  This is your ""get out of jail free"" card both with the credit bureaus and the IRS.   Of course, 3 gives the creditor motivation to go along with it.  6 says they can't burn your credit. 7 says it again and they're agreeing you can sue for cash money.  8 lets you pick the court.  The collector won't get hung up on any of these since he can easily remove the bad mark. (don't be mad that they won't do it ""for free"", that's what 3 is for.)  The key to getting them to take a settlement is to be reasonable and fair.  Make sure the agreement works for them too.  6 says you can't badmouth them on social media. 4 and 5 says it can't be used against them. 8 throws them a bone by letting them sue in their home court for the bill they just settled (a right they already had).  If it's medical, add ""HIPAA does not apply to this document"" to save them a ton of paperwork.  Make it easy for them. You want the collector to take it to his boss and say ""this is pretty good. Do it.""  Don't send the money until their signed copy is in your hands.  Then send promptly with an SASE for the receipt.  Make it easy for them.  This is on you.  As far as ""getting them to send you an offer"", creditors are reluctant to mail things especially to people they don't think will pay, because it costs them money to write and send.  So you may need to be proactive about running them down with your offer.  Like I say, it's a funhouse mirror." I'm a little confused by your question to be honest. It sounds like you haven't sold it to him, but you have a verbal arrangement for him to use the car like it's his. I'm going to assume that's the case for this answer. This is incredibly risky. If you've got the car on credit and he stops paying, or you guys break up... you will be liable for continuing to make payments! If the loan is in your name, it's your responsibility. Edited. The credit is yours. If he decides to stop paying, you're a little stuck. not if it's only Bob and a couple others that are having the problem.  The company is spending more money on the wages of the guy helping him out than what Bob brought to the company with his purchase.  There's no sense in paying for a customer. "He entered into a contract to pay because he liked the payment methods offered He entered into a contract.  Full stop.  End of story. Therefore he is off the hook for repayment AND doesn't need to add a new method of payment Your friend needs to look at the contract (or better, have someone who actually understands contracts look at it for him). He needs to understand not what he thinks it says or what he wants it to say or whatever farcical interpretation of contract law he's talked himself into, but what it does in reality say.  Which, in every such contract I've ever seen, has never, ever, said ""you will pay in the manner you choose and if we choose not to accept it then gosh darn you win and get to live here for free!"". I suspect your friend is in for a lot more very bad outcomes in life if he thinks this is how contracts, and life in general, works.  :-)"