I looked into this because I thought it was a little odd. The only precedence I can find of this is a single lawsuit, the PDF of which is here: http://www.paco

I looked into this because I thought it was a little odd. The only precedence I can find of this is a single lawsuit, the PDF of which is here: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/A36025_11.pdf http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/A36025_1... This really doesn't have anything to do with inheritance, especially so since his mother wasn't (and presumably still isn't) deceased. It has to do with some states having laws requiring parents/children, who have the means to do so, to support their child/parent who is poor or otherwise incapable of supporting themselves. In this court case, the child was found to be financially capable and also legally liable for supporting his mother. Because of this, he was found responsible for paying off the debt, but only as he was capable of doing so. If the son in this case only made the national median income, had a large family to support, and didn't have any wiggle room in his budget, he very likely would not have been found liable for this debt.