No, we are not aware of an Illinois law or case that would generally hold a parent liable for a child’s debts. A parent in Illinois may be held liable up to a limited amount for a child’s debts in cases of the child’s willful or malicious acts, provided that the child is between 11 and 18 years old and lives with the parent. For example, based on that law, an Illinois court has held a parent liable for a child’s check forgery. But other than the special case of a minor’s willful or malicious act, we are not aware of any laws or cases generally holding a parent responsible for a child’s debts.
Also note that while Section 45.1 of Illinois Banking Act binds a minor to a bank’s rules and regulations when opening deposit accounts, that provision would not apply to loans, nor do we believe that it would apply to overdrafts on a deposit account. (Note that this provision was enacted long before overdrafts became a common account feature.) Outside of that provision, the general rule in Illinois is that an agreement with a minor is not enforceable because it is voidable by the minor party (with some exceptions, as in cases of emancipated minors or contracts entered into by minors for the purpose of obtaining “necessities,” such as food or lodging).
For resources related to our guidance, please see:
- Parental Responsibility Law, 740 ILCS 115/3 (“The parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated minor who resides with such parent or legal guardian is liable for actual damages for the willful or malicious acts of such minor which cause injury to a person or property . . . .”)
- Parental Responsibility Law, 740 ILCS 115/2 (“‘Minor’ means a person who is above the age of 11 years, but not yet 19 years of age.”)
- Parental Responsibility Law, 740 ILCS 115/5 (“No recovery under this Act may exceed $20,000 actual damages . . . for the first act or occurrence . . . and $30,000 if a pattern or practice of willful or malicious acts by a minor exists . . . in addition to taxable court costs and attorney’s fees. . . .”)
- Robison v. First State Bank of Pekin, 144 Ill.App.3d 991, 993 (3d Dist. 1986) (“. . . the plaintiff's 17-year-old son, who then resided with the plaintiff, forged the plaintiff's signature on the withdrawal slip . . . . The Bank acknowledged its obligation to pay $1,200 due to the forgery. Consequently, the wilful or malicious conduct of the plaintiff's unemancipated 17-year-old son who resided with the plaintiff, caused the Bank to innocently incur damages of $1,200. Clearly, based on these facts, the legislature imposed responsibility for the Bank's loss upon the plaintiff [the 17-year-old’s parent] . . . .”)
- Illinois Banking Act, 205 ILCS 5/45.1 (“A state bank may accept deposits made by a minor and may open an account in the name of such minor and the rules and regulations of such bank with respect to each such deposit and account shall be as binding upon such minor as if such minor were of full age and legal capacity.”)
- Dixon National Bank v. Neal, 5 Ill.2d 328, 336 (1955) (“It is well established that contracts of minors which inure to their benefit are not void, but voidable only at the election of the minor on arrival at maturity. . . .”)
- 750 ILCS 30/5(a) (“A mature minor ordered emancipated under this Act shall have the right to enter into valid legal contracts, and shall have such other rights and responsibilities as the court may order that are not inconsistent with the specific age requirements of the State or federal constitution or any State or federal law.”)
- Fitzpatrick v. Ill. Dept. of Public Aid, 52 Ill.2d 218, 221 (1972) (“It has been established by this court that a minor’s estate may be liable for necessities furnished to the minor. . . .”)