A player lands into someone´s property and they are supposed to pay $1000, they don't have enough cash (only have $600) but have property and houses they can mortgage. Can the two players agree to say I owe you $400, will pay later when I get the money?

  • If two players want to collude, just don't ask for rent. – Hurkyl Dec 28 '17 at 23:54
  • 1
    You are asking about house rules... house rules can entail anything you want, regardless of what the game's rules actually say... but I believe @kinnth has an answer that regards what the rules actually state... – Odin1806 Dec 30 '17 at 15:26
  • 1
    I don't think you want the house rule tag, since house rules the answer is always "Yes, if the house rules are agreed to allow it, and no if they are agreed to not allow it" House rules are whatever the players agree on for the game as a modification of the game's base published rules. – Andrew Dec 30 '17 at 16:53

You must do everything in your power as the debtor to pay off the debt

  • Count your cash
  • Sell houses
  • Mortgage properties

If you then still don't have enough you can ask other players to buy the mortgaged properties from you to raise enough cash. This could come from the person you owe money to. Otherwise, you are declared bankrupt.

In practical terms, not many players want to continue playing with no money and wholly mortgaged properties, therefore usually bankruptcy is the best option.

  • I personally think it's nicer to trade/sell an un-mortgaged property than try to sell a mortgaged property, especially if you just mortgaged it to try to pay your debt. Remember that it takes an extra 10% to pay off the mortgage. – computercarguy Dec 27 '17 at 20:35
  • 1
    Of course it’s “nicer”... but why would you be nice to the person that just eliminated you from the game? – GendoIkari Dec 28 '17 at 18:42

Yes and no. The rules state that if a player cannot pay what they owe, then they are bankrupt and out of the game.

However, any trades are allowed, so there is nothing stopping players from trading $5 for $1000 so that they have enough to pay, and promising to trade back on a later turn. But if they do this, there’s no way to enforce that future trade. The player could simply go back on his word and he would not be breaking any rules.

  • wow, is the player not supposed to settle what they owe before the game can move on? if you start having virtual money does it not disadvantage other players? – Jeph Dec 26 '17 at 22:10
  • 1
    I’m not sure what you mean. The player does have to settle what they owe before the game moves on. And you can’t have “virtual money”. Which is why there basic answer is “no”. But there’s nothing preventing a player from trading to get the money they need. – GendoIkari Dec 26 '17 at 22:38
  • thanks. I get it "The player does have to settle what they owe before the game moves on." – Jeph Dec 26 '17 at 22:51
  • You can not trade $5 for $1000. This is against the rule as it is the same as giving the other player $995. You could sell the other player a get out of jail free card for $995 or a property for $ 995 more then it's worth. – Martin Charette Jan 16 at 18:05

Anything in Monopoly has value if another player ascribes value to it, and this can include non-tangible things. The only specific rule around loans (based on tournament rules) is that "Money can only be loaned to a player by the Bank and then only by mortgaging property" (page 10, Miscellaneous). That would seem to preclude "I will pay you back" and "IOUs" (except when the bank runs out of money). Whether that includes "Gifts" is another question entirely.

However, certain versions of Monopoly have introduced alternative "interests" that can be traded, which inherently gives them value (the value of which is determined by the other players, of course). On the Playstation 1 version of the game, for example, a player may offer instances of "Rent Immunity," whereby the owner of a property chooses not to collect rent the first X times the receiver lands on a certain property.

It's unclear whether that is officially allowed by tournament Monopoly rules ("loan" is not defined very well), but it demonstrates that there are more ways to resolve a debt than via Mortgages and Bankruptcy. It is presumably also at a player's discretion to accept less than the required amount of Rent. Likewise, a player could simply "forget to ask for rent." The tournament rules do specifically call out this scenario.

The owner may not collect his/her rent if he/she fails to ask for it before the second player following throws the dice. (page 8, Paying Rent)

In your case, if you did not want to eliminate the payer, you could simply "forget to ask" and have the next player take their turn, and the debt would be nullified.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.