He and his wife are in their late twenties and have been paying $495 a month for the past five years toward Parent PLUS loans his mother-in-law took out to cover his wife’s private college education. The original agreement was that his wife would be responsible for half the cost of her education, but she didn’t fully understand how the financing worked until after graduation, when she learned her mother had borrowed somewhere between $130,000 and $140,000 in Parent PLUS loans for essentially the entire cost.
His mother-in-law called today with a new position. Because his wife is almost 30, she should now be taking over the full $990 monthly payment herself. The reason offered was that his sister-in-law’s student loans are coming due and his mother-in-law can no longer cover both. She also mentioned that his sister-in-law may need treatment for an eating disorder, implying that expense is another factor in why his wife should absorb the full payment now.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
Some additional context matters here. His mother-in-law was physically and verbally abusive toward his wife growing up and has been openly hostile toward him since they’ve been together, calling him names and accusing him of bad intentions. While his wife was still in college and her mother still had access to her bank account, she withdrew extra money from it without permission. They’re aware that legally they have no obligation to pay these loans at all since Parent PLUS loans belong to the parent who borrowed them. They’re leaning toward continuing to pay the agreed-upon half and want to know if that’s a fair position.
The legal reality is worth stating clearly
Parent PLUS loans are borrowed by the parent, not the student. They are legally the mother-in-law’s debt. His wife’s name is not on them, she did not sign for them, and she has no legal obligation to pay any portion of them regardless of any verbal agreement about education costs. The $495 a month they’ve been paying for five years has been a voluntary contribution toward a debt that is not theirs, made in good faith based on a verbal understanding that existed before his wife knew how the financing was actually structured.
That context matters when evaluating whether continuing to pay half is fair. They’re not being asked to honor a debt they owe. They’re being asked to increase a voluntary payment they’ve been making for five years toward someone else’s loan, on short notice, because that person’s financial situation has changed due to factors that have nothing to do with his wife’s education.
The justification for the increase doesn’t hold up
His sister-in-law’s loans coming due is not his wife’s financial responsibility. His sister-in-law’s potential treatment costs are not his wife’s financial responsibility. These are real challenges for his mother-in-law to navigate, but presenting them as reasons his wife should double her monthly payment treats his wife as a resource to be drawn on when circumstances get difficult rather than as an adult child with her own financial obligations and limits.
The pattern here, taking extra money from his wife’s bank account in college, structuring education financing in a way his wife didn’t understand until after graduation, and now calling to say the terms of an informal agreement have changed because of unrelated family expenses, is consistent with someone who treats financial arrangements with his wife as adjustable based on her own needs rather than on what was actually agreed to.
The discharge reality changes the long-term math
He’s already identified the most important piece of the long-term picture. The loan is on the longest available repayment plan and is unlikely to ever be fully repaid given the balance and the timeline. Parent PLUS loans are discharged upon the death of the borrower, which means this debt will almost certainly not need to be paid in full over the course of its repayment term. The monthly payments they’ve been making are reducing a balance that, realistically, may never reach zero through repayment alone.
That doesn’t mean they should stop paying. It means the moral weight of the original agreement, honoring half the cost of an education his wife received, is already being honored through the payments they’ve been making and would continue to be honored if they maintain those payments. Taking on the full payment in addition to their own financial obligations would mean paying more than the original agreement required, on a debt that isn’t theirs, at the request of someone who has a documented history of financial boundary violations with his wife.
Continuing to pay half is more than fair
The moral case for paying half is strong. His wife received an education she benefited from. There was a verbal agreement about sharing the cost. They’ve honored that agreement consistently for five years. None of that changes because his mother-in-law’s financial situation has become more complicated due to his sister-in-law’s circumstances.
Continuing to pay $495 a month on a debt they have no legal obligation to pay at all is a generous and good-faith response to an imperfect situation that his wife didn’t fully understand when it was created. Doubling that payment because his mother-in-law called and said the old arrangement no longer worked for her is not something they owe, morally or legally, and the framing of the request, using his sister-in-law’s needs as leverage, makes it less compelling rather than more.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: