The couple divorced after borrowing money from someone else
The parties agree that one party will repay the loan
But both have since become defendants
Can divorce "get out" of debt?
How does the law say it?
How will the court decide?
Case review
Xiao Liu (pseudonym) and Xiao Ling (pseudonym) registered their marriage at the Huaiyang District Civil Affairs Bureau in 2010, and both parties had children after marriage. In 2023, due to emotional discord, the two parties agreed to divorce in the Huaiyang District People's Court, and the two parties divided the child support, joint property, and joint creditor's rights and debts, and agreed that Xiaoling would bear a debt of 100,000 yuan owed to a bank.
In May 2024, a bank filed a lawsuit with Xiao Liu and Xiao Ling as defendants in the Huaiyang District People's Court, demanding that the two jointly repay their debts. Xiao Liu argued that Xiao Ling should bear the repayment obligation in accordance with the divorce agreement, and Xiao Ling argued that the loan user was Xiao Liu and should be repaid by Xiao Liu.
Court decision
After trial, the court held that the "Personal Loan Contract" signed by a bank, Xiao Liu and Xiao Ling was an expression of the true intention of both parties, did not violate the mandatory provisions of relevant laws and regulations, and was a legal and valid contract, and the parties should perform the corresponding obligations in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid contract.
Regarding Xiao Ling's argument that Xiao Liu should repay the loan. According to Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, "the debts borne by the husband and wife jointly signed or the joint intention of one of the husband and wife to be recognized afterwards, as well as the debts incurred by one of the husband and wife in his or her own name for the daily needs of the family during the existence of the marital relationship, are joint debts of the husband and wife". In accordance with the above-mentioned legal provisions, Xiao Liu and Xiao Ling's respective signatures in the Personal Loan Contract should be regarded as debts incurred by the parties based on their common intention during the existence of their marital relationship, so Xiao Ling's argument is not accepted.
Regarding Xiao Liu's argument, according to the (2023) Yu 1603 Min Chu No. XX Civil Mediation Document, Xiao Ling should repay the loan in this case. According to <中华人民共和国民法典>Article 35 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section, "if the divorce agreement of the parties or the effective judgment, ruling or mediation document of the people's court has already dealt with the issue of the division of the property of the husband and wife, the creditor still has the right to claim rights against the man and the woman in respect of the joint debts of the husband and wife." Where, after one party bears the responsibility for the repayment of the joint debts of the husband and wife, it claims that the other party should bear the corresponding debts in accordance with the divorce agreement or the legal documents of the people's court, the people's court shall support it." According to the judicial interpretation, the agreement on the joint property and debts of the husband and wife in the divorce agreement between Xiao Liu and Xiao Ling is only binding on Xiao Liu and Xiao Ling, and the plaintiff, as a creditor, still has the right to claim rights against Xiao Liu and Xiao Ling; Xiao Liu was not allowed to use the divorce agreement with Xiao Ling to confront a bank as a creditor, so Xiao Liu's argument was not accepted.
Because Xiao Liu and Xiao Ling failed to repay the principal and interest of the loan to a certain bank as agreed, and their conduct constituted a breach of contract, the bank's appeal for Xiao Liu and Xiao Ling to repay the principal and interest of the loan was based on law and should be supported.
Judge reminds
In judicial practice, it is not uncommon for some husband and wife to refuse to repay the loan on the grounds that they are unaware of the loan or that the marriage relationship between the two parties has been dissolved.
Contributed by: Huaiyang District Court, Zhoukou City