Definitely see a credit counsellor, but first check with your local consumer protection agency (here it's through the Attorney Generals Office) to make sure they're legit. Nothing could be worse than signing up with a shady credit counsellor and finding yourself worse off than before. Don't fall for payday loans or other quick-relief schemes. And tell your friend you're handling it. My in-laws listened to a 'friend' and filed bankruptcy even though their credit was sterling. The only deal was that they couldn't make their car payment and credit card payments and still have enough to get by every month comfortably. Meaning there was no cushion. They didn't even have their cards charged up to the max, and were not behind on payments, EVER. Their total debt less than $10,000...most of that being the car loan. Some shyster got them to file bankruptcy using scare tactics and the same baloney logic you seem to be getting from your friend. Later, after it was discharged, they financed another car, but because of the bankruptcy they had a very high interest rate. Then those payments got too high for their comfort, so they traded in that car and got the balance added to the new loan (negative equity) so now they drive a car worth no more than $3000 that they owe $17,000 on and their payments were lowered only $20/mo, but spread out for 7 years. All because some one told them to file bankruptcy. How far out on your car loan are you? Can you sell it and get out from under it with any equity? Any way to unload the other party? Or at least make them start contributing? Best of luck, I feel for you!

From the Connecticut Post, May 18,2011: A Connecticut federal judge has rejected as "meager" the proposed settlement of a nationwide, class-action lawsuit against DirectBuy Inc. for fraudulent pricing practices. "The court cannot conclude that this settlement falls within the range of reasonableness," U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall said yesterday in a written opinion. Judge Hall explained her decision by noting that the proposed settlement called for DirectBuy to provide free memberships worth some $3,000 each to approximately 800,000 class members. "The best possible recovery...may amount to well over $2 billion," Judge Hall wrote. "In light of this best possible recovery, the Settlement Agreement -- which the court has calculated as being worth, at most, between $15 million and $27 million -- appears quite small." In late April, the attorneys general of 27 states, as well as those from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, objected to the proposed settlement, arguing in a 36-page amicus curiae brief that it "offers no real benefits to consumers. "The proposed settlement is, in essence, a sales vehicle for defendants designed to drive current and former customers into membership renewal contracts and to the same manufacturers and suppliers from whom defendants have acknowledged receiving kickbacks and incentives," the brief stated. DirectBuy promotes itself as an insider's buyers' club where members can purchase brand-name goods directly from manufacturers at wholesale prices. In addition to annual fees, members pay anywhere from $3,000 to $7,000 to join the privately held company's "clubs." The 2009 lawsuit (Wilson et al v. DirectBuy, Inc., et al) accused the Indiana-based company of fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging it received tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks and incentives from suppliers and manufacturers, inflating the cost of its goods well above the advertised wholesale prices. The lawsuit accused DirectBuy of failing to disclose this arrangement to customers until early 2009. DirectBuy spokesman Mike Georgeff told Consumer Ally in April the company was confident Judge Hall would approve the settlement. While yesterday's decision was disappointing, he said it wasn't completely unexpected. "We were disappointed to learn of Judge Hall's decision, but not entirely surprised given the great deal of publicity that has surrounded this case," Georgeff told Consumer Ally. "We were hopeful for a quick resolution to this matter which would have ultimately benefited class members. While we disagree with the decision, we look forward to successful closure of the matters at hand, and will continue to work with the attorneys general of any state to ensure we remain compliant with all state consumer protection laws," he added. The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, which represented a class member who objected to the terms of the proposed settlement, applauded Judge Hall's decision. Had the proposed settlement stood, the group said a statement, more than 836,000 class members would have been forced to relinquished "a broad set of claims" against the company in exchange for extended DirectBuy memberships. "We are pleased that the judge agreed with our argument that the proposed settlement was essentially a coupon of little or no value to the class," Michael Kirkpatrick, the Public Citizen attorney representing one of the objecting class members, said in a statement. "Absent class members should not have valuable claims released in exchange for so little." Public Citizen also cited other class-action suits against the company, which alleged a number of abuses, including high-pressure sales tactics to pressure consumers into spending thousands of dollars on DirectBuy memberships, as well as prices that often result in little or no savings compared to traditional or online retailers. "Within the last several years, a number of lawsuits have been filed in addition to this one, accusing DirectBuy of misrepresentation, fraud, and coercion, " Judge Hall noted in her decision. Consumer Ally wrote about several of the lawsuits in an October 2010 feature on the company.

I think the question you might want to ask your hubby would be "is it more selfish to keep his sister under his wing, basically ensuring that she will never get back on her feet, or to start setting some rules and sticking by them so she is able to grow and become solvent again?" IMO, it's very selfish of *him* to keep enabling her. Sounds like a co-dependant relationship to me (and I'm not a shrink or anything, so that is *not* a professional opinion) - paying her way and keeping her in his house is his way of feeling "godlike" - like she *needs* him in order to survive. Maybe he doesn't realize that he's doing it, but it's selfish of him to hold her back by allowing her to not pay rent, etc., IMO. Sometimes people need that swift kick in the rear to get moving again - bailing her out when her power will be shut off and allowing her to live rent-free is *not* helping that at all. Your hubby must have a very low opinion of his sister if he doesn't believe she can survive and eventually thrive without his intervention. People usually live up (or down) to our expectations...there are exceptions, but for the most part if we expect greatness, they do well, if not, they don't. She needs him to believe that she *can* live a normal life, rather than his believing that she can't live without him. Good luck - I have no real advice for you...but I hope your DH wakes up soon...

Thank you, everybody, for your comments. It's nice to know that I'm not the one who is nuts. Sweeby, what you said about DH and how he sees his role is absolutely true. He is the "provider." He comes from a very modest background, and has the best work ethic and drive of anyone I know. He is a very good father and a great husband. While he is out of town during the week, the weekends are spent exclusively with the family. However, he does this kind of thing that just drives me crazy, and it's the only thing we ever argue about. It truly makes me doubt his judgment as a parent. His sister thinks, because he can be stoic and reserved, that maybe he is attempting to forge a stronger father/son bond, and sees buying a car as a way to do that. Or that son is unhappy, and this is his way to try and make son happy. Dana - you're right - DHs don't know how to bond with wayward sons without buying them big ticket items. The home contract that SS had to agree to before we allowed him to come home explicitly states that he understands that he "will be required to EARN an element of responsibility and trust before he will be allowed to go outside the home, school or pre-approved functions." That probationary period is 4 weeks, and is up next week. Maybe he has earned enough trust to be outside the home for limited periods. His curfew is still pretty early, it will slide up to no later than 9:00 pm on weekdays and 11:00 pm on weekends over a three week period - although I guarantee you we will get some arguments on such an early curfew, and I'll let you all know when that happens. But I don't think he has earned enough trust to take a loan from us to buy a newer car, not after the debacle of the Jeep, and especially since the Jeep will work just fine for his needs for the next several months. I love my SS, and I want him to be happy. I'm glad he decided to come back home to our house. It does seem like DH is allowing son to pick and choose from the contract (doesn't want to attend AA meetings, DH did let son go fishing with some friends last weekend for 3 hours, and there was an incident where I thought son was getting a ride straight to work, but turns out his ride to work had to stop at home, and they ended up hanging out there until work, for 2 hours, with no parents at home, and it's someone he used to get high with. DH willingly accepted his explanation that it was out of the way for friend to bring him to our house, and he was doing homework there, not drugs. One of my friends said I need to let this one go - it's a car, and it's between DH and his son, and I won't "win" this one. I don't want to "win" anything - I simply want DH to realize that this is all wrong, and that he's doing more harm to son in the long run than being helpful right now. Another friend, and fellow barn mom, told me, "Screw it. Let them do what they want. Go buy DD14 the jumper of her dreams." I'm tempted, except the jumper of her dreams has a $200,000 price tag.