# Monopoly: Can you go bankrupt by having someone else go bankrupt on you?

Here's an example with 3 players:

1. Player 1 has \$0, and only owns the cheapest property, which is not mortgaged
2. Player 2 has \$0, and a lot of properties which are all mortgaged
3. Player 3 has \$0 and no properties

Is this interpretation of the rules correct: Should Player 2 land on Player 1's property, Player 2 would go bankrupt; Player 1 would then owe the bank 10% of the value of all of Player 2's properties, and would therefore go bankrupt to the bank, causing Player 3 to win the game.

Could Player 1 do anything to not lose the game?

Also, if Player 3 went bankrupt before Player 2, would Player 1 win the game because Player 1 would be the only player left before going bankrupt to the bank himself?

And a side question: if instead of landing on Player 1, Player 2 got the "Pay \$50 to each player" card, what would happen? He would instantly owe money to both players, and going bankrupt to either would cause the other to win the game.

• A good and very interesting "edge case" question. Dec 30, 2020 at 23:20

If Player 1 does not want to lose the game, one thing (and the only thing) he can do is to mortgage the (only) property that he owned. So although he will still lose \$15 from this deal, at least he would not go bankrupt when Player 2 lands on his property.

Doing this move is a gamble as Player 2 might not land on his property at all (For obvious reasons, you can't do anything in the time interval between when the opponent rolls the dice and moves his token to the square). This includes mortgaging too. (Although I don't have a source for that, unfortunately, this should be quite obvious to understand -- otherwise there would be people instantly upgrading houses to hotels once someone rolls a 7.)

Though look at the chances of this happening -

The cheapest property would be either property in the brown set, right after GO, and thus if Player 2 was to land on it, he would have been able to pay the \$2 or \$4 rent after collecting \$200 from GO. Thus, the ONLY chance of this repeated bankrupting happening as described is when Player 2 lands on Community Chest, then drawing the Go Back To Old Kent Road/Baltic card. If Player 2 rolled a 2 or 3 AFTER passing go, owing a \$4 rent, Player 2 will definitely have either some cash or some unmortgaged properties, as he will collect \$200 from passing GO. Thus, this case is impossible.

For any further hope of Player 1 winning the game, he has to survive up to one round of the monopoly board without paying a single dollar, and collect the \$200 upon passing Go.

For the side question -

This situation occurred in a Monopoly Tournament

"Phil Orbanes, who wrote The MONOPOLY Companion and is the official Judge at the World Championships provided me with this answer when it came up in tournament play a few months ago:

If you cannot pay a debt to ONE player due to a card, you go bankrupt to that player and turn over all asset (std. procedure here).

If you cannot pay a debt to TWO or MORE players (after calculating any money you could get from the bank by mortgaging and selling houses) due to a card, you go bankrupt to them all. The issue then becomes: fairness. How do you divide your assets as evenly as possible? Procedure: after selling any houses for 1/2 price to the bank, the bank then rebuys your properties at face value if unmortaged, or for 1/2 value if mortgaged. You divide the resulting cash as evenly as possible, with the player(s) to your left collecting any odd dollar(s). The bank then auctions all properties it purchased to the highest bidders."

Source : Quora.com : Kevin Tostado, Director of "Under the Boardwalk: The MONOPOLY Story." MonopolyDocumentary.com AND a previous question that also discusses on this situation

Conclusion: The players may get a lot more than the \$50 that they were originally owed.

• I completely changed the answer after browsing through other Monopoly questions. Apr 22, 2020 at 0:40
• it would be nice if your link the sources Apr 22, 2020 at 14:27
• What source do you have that the property transfer will bankrupt the player who receives the mortgaged properties? Apr 22, 2020 at 16:42
• This answer is also wrong from the point that the player in question will not be able to mortgage the property to prevent the player from owing rent after they land on it and it is something that has to be done before the other player rolls for their turn. Apr 22, 2020 at 22:04
• In the question, it was explicitly mentioned that the property transfer will bankrupt player 1. Also, think of common sense -- Imagine yourself rolling a 6, onto a set of orange properties, without buildings. You owe \$40. However, the person who owns the orange set suddenly builds up a hotel on the property you landed on, and 4 houses to each of the others in the colour set. Now, you owe \$1,000. This is what I mean by what I said. Apr 23, 2020 at 0:03

You can avoid bankruptcy by not collecting the rent. You have the right, but not the obligation to do so. Then the one player is not bankrupt, doesn't have to forfeit the property, and you don't have to pay 10% to unmortgage the property that you don't collect.

In some versions of the game, you lose the right to collect rent after the next player rolls, in other versions, it is after the "second" player rolls.