Q: My fiancé, Alan, recently had a heart attack. If we go ahead with the wedding, he will be covered by my health insurance (he has none), but I'll become liable for all his current medical bills. What should I do?

A: Like Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, you've been misinformed. Individuals are not legally liable for debts their spouses incurred before they were married. As a practical matter, though, those bills do indeed come with your fiancé. The fact that you're not personally on the hook doesn't mean that, as a couple, you won't have to figure out how you're going to pay them off.

We understand why you're reluctant to put yourself in this kind of hole. But before his heart attack, Alan was the man you were committed to spending the rest of your life with, and now he really needs you. Are you obligated to marry him? No. But you do have a big-time moral obligation to help the guy out.
Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: Is there anything wrong with asking a good friend to secure the loan I'm giving him with the title to his car? Tom really needs the money, but he can be pretty irresponsible, and I don't want my $2,500 to become a gift.

Answer: In a word, No. And in two words, Absolutely Not.

Lending a flakey friend that kind of dough is a very generous thing to do, and insisting on some security in no way dilutes your generosity. After all, nowhere is it written that, in lending people money, you are required to make it as easy as possible for them not to repay you. And neither is it written that at the Bank of Friends and Family, the borrower gets to set the terms. If Tom is unhappy with the arrangement you propose, he can always try to find a friend or relative —- or, of course, a real bank —- who’ll offer him a better deal.

That said, we suggest you not secure the loan with his car. Why? Because if Tom’s as irresponsible as you say, there’s a good chance you’ll end up having to choose between two equally unattractive alternatives: taking possession of your buddy’s car (and there goes your friendship) or ending up with nothing.

Instead, consider asking Tom to give you some collateral to hold until he repays you: a fine watch, say, or his prized Stratocaster -— something of sufficient value to give him a real incentive to pay off the loan. Because you’re right: You don’t want to bet $2,500 on the good intentions of an irresponsible friend.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Q: My parents were always careful with money. But since Mom died, Dad has taken up with a much wealthier widow and is blowing through his savings entertaining her. Isn't she wrong to let him undermine his financial security like that?

A: Maybe. The key question: Is your dad's lady friend in the dark as to his resources or is she just uncaring? If your father has been pretending to be her financial peer, you can't blame the woman he's squiring around for his extravagance. If not, though, she — like every adult — has an obligation not to allow someone to spend more money on her than the person can afford.

But unless the merry widow has been holding a gun to his head, it's your dad who's responsible for jeopardizing his financial security. While he has a right to spend his money as he chooses, he also has an obligation to see that he doesn't run out of dough and leave others – you, for one, us taxpayers, for another – stuck with his support.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: A friend gave me a subscription to a magazine I don’t care for. When I canceled after one issue, the magazine sent the refund to Gretchen. I don’t want to seem small, but especially since I’d given her a nice present, shouldn’t Gretchen have given that money –- or another gift –- to me?

Answer: Call us unsentimental, but gift-giving is a transaction as well as a pleasure. And, usually, part of the deal is that the presents don’t just go one way. Reciprocation of some type isn’t only gracious, it’s required. So had your friend, say, accidentally left a gift intended for you behind on a train or ordered something for you that never arrived, she’d still owe you one. Bad luck and good intentions don’t wash away obligation.
More

Question: My boyfriend lent me $12,000, saying to repay him when I could. Six months later, when I broke up with him and didn’t pay the loan back right away, he e-mailed my friends, family and new boyfriend revealing secrets I’d told only to him. He also e-mailed prospective clients of my new business saying I was unreliable and untrustworthy. Especially since I lost customers because of Adam, am I still obligated to repay him?

Answer: Apparently Adam doesn’t take rejection well.

We hope you’ve talked to a lawyer and the police about whether you have grounds for bringing a civil complaint or pressing harassment charges against your former squeeze. More

Question: Karen, my otherwise good financial adviser, often e-mails me articles on Obama's handling of the economy. These pieces are politically one-sided, and it's not my side. Should I complain?

Answer: Very irritating, these folks with an ax to grind who relentlessly forward "interesting" e-mails to everyone they know. More

Question: The stock market wiped out my elderly parents' savings. My two sisters and I now have to help with their bills. How should we divide them, given that some of us have more money and some of us have more kids?

Answer: Hold on. Before you divvy the bills, there's a lot more to consider than bank accounts and kids. What if, for example, one sister is providing most of your parents' day-to-day care? Or one of you previously received large gifts of money from your parents? Or the only reason one of you can't contribute is that she's a spendthrift? To equitably apportion your folks' expenses, you need to put everything on the table. More

Question:  My husband and I are divorced (no kids), but we’ve been unable to sell our house, so we’re both still living in it. Since I’m away a lot on business, shouldn’t he be paying more than half of the utility bills?

Answer:  But what if you take longer showers?

We’re not kidding. There are countless ways you and your ex consume water and energy unequally. Perhaps one of you likes to crank up the air conditioning or to grow tomatoes or to stay up late microwaving popcorn and watching movies. You can’t pick just one variable in the utility bill equation and then cry foul.

Moreover, life is filled with per person, as opposed to per usage, fees. Planes, trains and buses, for example, charge per seat, not per pound, even though heavyweights cost more to transport than bantams. Rare is the car wash that has more than two price points, even though autos come in all shapes and sizes. And, as you’ll discover once you sell the house and start looking for new digs, rarer still are roommates who are willing to split the utility bill on anything other than a per person basis.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: A friend who goes out a lot tells me he tips 25-30 percent in bars, so bartenders are always giving him free drinks. Jake says everyone knows to do this. Even if they do, isn’t this cheating the bar owner?

Answer: A penguin goes into a bar and says to the bartender “Have you seen my father?” The bartender says “I don’t know. What’s he look like?”

Don’t bartenders put up with enough as perennial straight men without catching flak for pouring the occasional free drink? Seriously, a happy customer is a return customer. And while Jake may not know it, the hospitality industry has a long tradition of offering perks to regulars and big spenders — a cocktail here, a room upgrade there — to keep them coming back.

So if Jake’s getting those complimentary drinks because his fanny’s frequently on a bar stool, there’s no problem. And there’s no problem either with bartenders accepting Jake’s fat tips, whatever his motives may be.

But is there a dark side to this practice? Absolutely. It’s if, in exchange for Jake’s largess, bartenders are serving him more free drinks than the bar owners — the folks who are actually paying for the alcohol — would approve of. In that case, you’re right: the bartenders are stealing and so is your pal. And what Jake’s leaving isn’t a tip, it’s a bribe.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: We often eat out with another couple, always dividing the check 50/50. Since Pam and I are economizing these days, we no longer order drinks in restaurants. Our friends do, though, and they don’t seem to notice that splitting the check has become an awfully good deal for them. I think they should offer to pay for their booze, but Pam thinks our long-standing 50/50 arrangement is fine. Who’s right?

Answer: No wonder your friends aren’t cutting back on the cocktails in order to economize. They’ve got you to pick up half their bar tab. Count your blessings they’re not drinking more, now that their libations come with a 50% discount.

While we sympathize with Pam’s desire to avoid unsettling the friendship, this boat needs rocking. Presumably you’ve been splitting checks with your friends, not only because it’s gracious and easy, but because over time things have more or less been evening out. But unless the stimulus package includes some cocktail tokens for you, that’s no longer true — which means it’s time to change the deal.

Our advice? Stop wishing your friends would offer to pay for their drinks and tell them nicely but directly that, since you’re no longer ordering alcohol in restaurants, you’d like them to ask for a separate bar tab. Of course, you might want to first fortify yourselves with a stiff one at home.

Cheers — and good luck.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: My boss recently laid off a lot of people. As a result, she's given me much more responsibility – but no raise and no better title. Is this fair? She says she won't promote me until she sees how I do.

Answer: Call it a wild guess, but we're betting your boss didn't lay those people off just to be mean. We agree that in a perfect world, an increase in responsibility should be accompanied by a bump in pay. But today's economy is anything but perfect. When organizations are forced to reduce their payrolls, many prefer to minimize layoffs rather than cut even more jobs to increase the compensation of workers who remain. In making that tradeoff, employers aren't behaving unethically, even if some employees (like you) may deserve a raise.

As for the promotion, though, we're on your side. Assuming the payroll's frozen, your boss should try to reward you in other ways. A better job title is a good place to start.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

By Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. and Leonard Schwarz

Question: My fiancé’s wealthy aunt and uncle agreed to let us use their beautiful lake-view home for our wedding, and we’ve sent out the invitations. But now they’re insisting that each guest sign a form releasing them from any liability in the event of an accident. I’m appalled. Are they being unreasonable, or am I just naive?

Answer: You’re naïve only if you imagine that liability isn’t an issue here, because it is. Too bad no one thought of it before the invitations went out. We’d place most of the blame for that on your fiancé’s aunt and uncle, as presumably they’re worldlier, as well as wealthier, than you. But we can’t blame them for getting nervous, especially if you’re planning to serve alcohol.

So where do you go from here? These folks are sure to have homeowners’ insurance, and it almost certainly covers personal liability. If they don’t realize this, a call to their insurance agent may put their minds at ease.

If it doesn’t, talk to your insurance agent about “special events coverage.” A one day policy will insure your fiancé’s aunt and uncle against any liability arising from your wedding and will cost you a lot less than a ballroom or banquet hall.

If neither of these approaches satisfies them, then we’d agree: Your fiancé’s relatives are being unreasonable. It’s one thing to be more-than-a-little late in raising the liability issue. But once the invitations go out, it’s wrong to insist that your guests sign the kind of legal document they might expect to be handed were they signing up for skydiving lessons, not attending a wedding.
Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

By Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. and Leonard Schwarz

Question: My husband has negotiated a price for painting our house that's significantly lower than a bid we got a while back from the same small business. I think he may be taking unfair advantage of people who are hurting in the recession. Is he?

Answer: Remember the good old days – you know, two years ago? As we recall, painters weren't reluctant to push their bids up then, when demand for their services was strong. That behavior wasn't unethical, and neither is it unethical for you to take advantage of the fact that today business is slow. Indeed, the effect that supply and demand have on prices is at the core of a market economy. You'll be paying a price the painters agreed to, and you can rest assured they want the work.

Is it possible to overstep? Yes. Squeezing the desperate isn't right. So if your husband has extracted a price from these painters that's genuinely exploitative – for example, if you know the business owner needs the cash to save his house but will have to do the work for five bucks an hour – then you should revisit this bid and agree on a more equitable price.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. and Leonard Schwarz

Question: Two years ago my father left a large inheritance to my brother's young girls – that is, to his grandchildren. Recently my brother used all of it, plus some of his own money, to buy a vacation home for his family (he says there are good deals out there these days). Was this ethical, or did Michael cheat his kids?

Answer: Not only did Michael cheat his kids, but he betrayed his father. Whatever his rationalization may be – that the whole family benefits from the vacation home, that the kids wanted to do it, that he'll reimburse them someday – his what's-yours-is-mine attitude toward his daughters' inheritance is unethical. If your brother desperately needed to pay the heating bill, that might be one thing. But raiding the girls' nest eggs to buy a vacation place? In our book, that's stealing.

We hope you'll contact a lawyer in your area for some advice. Even if you can't take Michael to court – or can't bring yourself to – we hope you'll try to shame him into putting his daughters' names on the title to the house.

Finally, we have a suggestion: If you have designated your brother as the executor of your will, say, or as your children's guardian in the event of your death, it's time to get out an eraser.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: The man I love is married to another woman. He wants to leave her, but he says that he can’t afford to get a divorce – that he’ll lose his house and end up with huge child support payments. I have the resources to help him out. But I’m wondering, is it ethical for me, his girlfriend, to subsidize Danny’s divorce?

Answer: There is nothing unethical per se about helping a boyfriend with the expenses that weigh him down. After all, what are those resources of yours for if not to help you find happiness with the man you love? Trouble is, what you’re considering doing is not so much helping Danny with a financial problem as encouraging him to end his marriage. And that’s not right.

Had Danny gotten divorced before you came into the picture, your easing the financial burdens of that divorce would be an act of kindness. But while Danny remains married to and living with his wife, your bank account should not be playing a role in his thoughts about his marriage – and, to be frank, neither should you.

True, these things happen, and your question is about money and ethics, not marriage and ethics. But on either score, what matters is that Danny’s married. And until he isn’t, you shouldn’t be giving him reasons – romantic or financial – to leave his wife.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.