5 ms·

I follow how there can be liability, but unless the families are co-signing how can they be liable? Can families that fight back recoup legal costs potentially

I follow how there can be liability, but unless the families are co-signing how can they be liable? Can families that fight back recoup legal costs potentially getting a judgement against some or all of the landlord's property? The post raises more questions than answers. Seems like a "proper" legal system should deal with this soon enough without any extra legislation. Granted it's Japan.

gizmo686 11y ago
I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any familiarity with the Japanese legal system. My guess would be that the landlord can make a claim against the dead tenant's estate. Because this estate would usually be inherited by the family, and the family is the party responsible for handling it, this situation is effectively the landlord suing the family. And, of course, as the article identifies, you have families who do not fight it, in which case no legal justification is necessary.
- arielweisberg 11y ago
  A claim on the estate isn't a claim on the family. AFAIK you can't inherit debt or liability unless you actually signed on to the debt. So they can sue the estate, but they can't sue the family. They have no claim on assets that are not part of the estate.
patio11 11y ago
I follow how there can be liability, but unless the families are co-signing how can they be liable? It is highly likely that the parents were "guarantors" (保証人) for their children, which is standard practice here. This is similar to the US concept of co-signing. Also, socially speaking, "my adult child caused trouble for you implies I have a responsibility to you" is something that more than 90% of Japanese people would strongly agree to.
- rmason 11y ago
  Curious, can you specifically search for suicide apartments? If I could save 30-40% with the high cost of living in Japan that is where I would want to live.
  - krapp 11y ago
    There is a related post at the bottom of the linked article about exactly that.
- arielweisberg 11y ago
  That is an unfortunate way to structure things.
avar 11y ago
I'd also really like an answer to this. I've read a few articles about the subject that allude to there being such a thing as "clan liability" in Japan but they've never actually gone into any detail on the subject. I know that in feudal Japan personhood effectively didn't exist in the form that it does today. You were part of a clan, if you killed someone and died in the process the clan of that someone could extract revenge on your clan. They were the actor, not you. I understand that much of this survives today in the form of shaming, you don't just bring shame to yourself, but to your family (clan). But is there actually any legal system in Japan that treats a family or clan as a collective? Can the liabilities of adults that kill themselves be transferred to their family?
- shiro 11y ago
  As patio11 mentioned in the sibling response, it is likely that family members had signed as guarantors. It is very common that the landlord demands that, even for short-term lease. If family members aren't guarantors, then there's technically no legal ground for landlords to sue the family members. But just being sued is a big stigma in Japan. If the family member has certain social position there's a strong incentive to avoid being sued, or to settle it asap if they are actually sued.
  - avar 11y ago
    This just raises more questions. If the transfer of liability to family members isn't a thing wouldn't this just be thrown out at first hearing as a frivolous lawsuit? And it's shameful to be sued but not shameful to file obviously frivolous lawsuits, or at the very least being the subject of a frivolous lawsuit would imply no shaming?
    - shiro 11y ago
      Assuming the family members aren't a guarantor, I think it's highly likely that they can win if they go to the court. But even if they're not liable legally, they tend to feel morally responsible and reluctant to fight in court. Note that I'm not sure what the actual contract terms were in those cases in the article. I suspect it's a guarantor thing. It's very very common to have parents or relatives signed, even if you're an adult. And I also assume that who actually filed a lawsuit was the property managing company, and some of those companies doesn't care much about reputation. When the issue is between individuals, it's not as common to take it to the court as in US.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
When I lived in Japan, the person who hired me was responsible for me on my renting apartment. It is standard practice in Japan, and works pretty well. There is the implicit belief that you have to respect others first."You" is not you as individual, but includes "your social group", your family, your boss, your company. In the US they can sue you for all kinds of stupid reasons and ask you millions(if you have them). In the US it is about the individual first, you and only you. It is the US the one who is different. Most of the world operates under a mixture of social responsibility for your actions and personal responsibility.

gizmo686 11y ago

I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any familiarity with the Japanese legal system. My guess would be that the landlord can make a claim against the dead tenant's estate. Because this estate would usually be inherited by the family, and the family is the party responsible for handling it, this situation is effectively the landlord suing the family. And, of course, as the article identifies, you have families who do not fight it, in which case no legal justification is necessary.

arielweisberg 11y ago
A claim on the estate isn't a claim on the family. AFAIK you can't inherit debt or liability unless you actually signed on to the debt. So they can sue the estate, but they can't sue the family. They have no claim on assets that are not part of the estate.

patio11 11y ago

I follow how there can be liability, but unless the families are co-signing how can they be liable? It is highly likely that the parents were "guarantors" (保証人) for their children, which is standard practice here. This is similar to the US concept of co-signing. Also, socially speaking, "my adult child caused trouble for you implies I have a responsibility to you" is something that more than 90% of Japanese people would strongly agree to.

rmason 11y ago
Curious, can you specifically search for suicide apartments? If I could save 30-40% with the high cost of living in Japan that is where I would want to live.
- krapp 11y ago
  There is a related post at the bottom of the linked article about exactly that.
arielweisberg 11y ago
That is an unfortunate way to structure things.

avar 11y ago

I'd also really like an answer to this. I've read a few articles about the subject that allude to there being such a thing as "clan liability" in Japan but they've never actually gone into any detail on the subject. I know that in feudal Japan personhood effectively didn't exist in the form that it does today. You were part of a clan, if you killed someone and died in the process the clan of that someone could extract revenge on your clan. They were the actor, not you. I understand that much of this survives today in the form of shaming, you don't just bring shame to yourself, but to your family (clan). But is there actually any legal system in Japan that treats a family or clan as a collective? Can the liabilities of adults that kill themselves be transferred to their family?

shiro 11y ago
As patio11 mentioned in the sibling response, it is likely that family members had signed as guarantors. It is very common that the landlord demands that, even for short-term lease. If family members aren't guarantors, then there's technically no legal ground for landlords to sue the family members. But just being sued is a big stigma in Japan. If the family member has certain social position there's a strong incentive to avoid being sued, or to settle it asap if they are actually sued.
- avar 11y ago
  This just raises more questions. If the transfer of liability to family members isn't a thing wouldn't this just be thrown out at first hearing as a frivolous lawsuit? And it's shameful to be sued but not shameful to file obviously frivolous lawsuits, or at the very least being the subject of a frivolous lawsuit would imply no shaming?
  - shiro 11y ago
    Assuming the family members aren't a guarantor, I think it's highly likely that they can win if they go to the court. But even if they're not liable legally, they tend to feel morally responsible and reluctant to fight in court. Note that I'm not sure what the actual contract terms were in those cases in the article. I suspect it's a guarantor thing. It's very very common to have parents or relatives signed, even if you're an adult. And I also assume that who actually filed a lawsuit was the property managing company, and some of those companies doesn't care much about reputation. When the issue is between individuals, it's not as common to take it to the court as in US.

Htsthbjig 11y ago

When I lived in Japan, the person who hired me was responsible for me on my renting apartment. It is standard practice in Japan, and works pretty well. There is the implicit belief that you have to respect others first."You" is not you as individual, but includes "your social group", your family, your boss, your company. In the US they can sue you for all kinds of stupid reasons and ask you millions(if you have them). In the US it is about the individual first, you and only you. It is the US the one who is different. Most of the world operates under a mixture of social responsibility for your actions and personal responsibility.