Can the lender determine that the borrower's spouse has made several repayments to determine that the loan is a joint debt of the husband and wife?

In practice, after the borrower personally issues the IOU, can the lender determine that the loan is an expression of the joint intent of the husband and wife or that one of the husband and wife has made subsequent recognition on the basis that the borrower has made several repayments by the borrower, and then that the loan involved in the case is a joint debt of the husband and wife?

(Image source network invasion and deletion)

Brief facts of the case

Plaintiff Li and defendant Liu were friends, and defendant Guo and defendant Liu were originally husband and wife, and later divorced by agreement. Liu borrowed 400,000 yuan from Li in 2014, and in October 2019, Liu issued an IOU and signed it. Because Liu failed to repay the loan as agreed, Li sued Liu and Guo as defendants in 2022, demanding that the two repay the loan and pay interest. In this case, Liu argued that the loan was true and agreed to repay the loan, and Li voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit against Guo. The two parties reached an agreement: Liu will repay 200,000 yuan to Li before January 20, 2023, and 200,000 yuan before September 30, 2023. The agreement also stipulates other things. Because Liu failed to perform the repayment obligation as agreed in the agreement, Li was later sued by Liu and Guo to the Huaiyin Court, requesting that the debts determined by the above-mentioned mediation agreement be confirmed as joint debts of the husband and wife, and that Guo bear joint repayment responsibilities. In this case, Li submitted bank statements, claiming that during the existence of the marital relationship between Liu and Guo, Guo had repaid interest to him several times with his personal bank card. At the same time, the company established by Liu, with Guo as the supervisor, should be determined that the above-mentioned loan is used for joint production and operation, which is a joint debt of husband and wife, and Guo should bear the joint responsibility for repayment.

Guo argued that Li constituted a duplicate lawsuit, and at the same time, the IOU involved in the case was only signed by Li, because Li's bank card was frozen, Li controlled and used his bank card to carry out relevant transfer operations, and Li had no evidence to prove that the loan was used for the operation of the above-mentioned company, so it was not a joint debt of husband and wife.

Heard by the courts

The focus of the dispute in this case is: 1. Does Li constitute a duplicate lawsuit? 2. Is the loan involved in the case a joint debt of the husband and wife?

Regarding the focus of dispute 1, the court held that although Li sued in other courts in the early stage of the debt involved in the case, Li withdrew the lawsuit against Guo in this case, so the case is not the same as the parties in this case; The subject matter of the previous lawsuit is the lawsuit for the payment of the creditor's rights and debts involved in the case, and the subject matter of the lawsuit is the lawsuit for Guo's assumption of the loan involved in the case based on the confirmation of the joint debts of the husband and wife, and the subject matter of the previous lawsuit is different from the subsequent lawsuit; The former lawsuit required the debtor to repay the principal and interest of the loan, and the present lawsuit required Guo to bear the joint repayment liability according to the joint debts of the husband and wife, and the litigation claims in the previous lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit were also different. Therefore, this case does not constitute a duplicate action.

Regarding the focus of dispute 2: After trial, the court held that, firstly, there was only the signature of Liu in the IOU involved in the case, and there was no co-signature of Guo. Although Li submitted the relevant bank statements and the Schedule of the money transferred by Guo to him to prove that Guo had subsequently recognized the debts he had assumed, on the one hand, there was no interest agreement in the above-mentioned IOU, and the above-mentioned transfer was not deterinitely related to the loan relationship in this case; On the other hand, Guo had appeared in court to state that Liu's bank account was frozen, so he used his bank card to conduct relevant transactions. Guo's transfer of money does not constitute an ex post facto recognition in the legal sense, nor is it necessarily related to whether it constitutes a joint debt of husband and wife. Secondly, Li submitted relevant enterprise credit publicity information, confirming that the loan involved in the case was used for the joint operation of the two. However, the enterprise credit publicity information can only confirm that the two have jointly operated the company, and the loan involved in the case was not transferred to the company, but to the bank account of a certain person Liu, and Li has no other evidence to prove that the loan involved in the case was indeed used in the joint production and operation of the two.

To sum up, the court held that the existing evidence submitted by Li was insufficient to prove that the debts involved in the case belonged to the joint debts of Liu and Guo and that Guo had recognized the debts, nor could it be proved that the loans were used for the joint production and operation of the two, so Li's litigation claims were not supported.

What the judge said

With the development of social economy, private lending, as a common and important economic activity, has played an active role in meeting people's needs for production and living funds and invigorating the local economy. However, with the expansion and complexity of private lending, the issue of joint debts of husband and wife has become increasingly prominent, and its handling is not only related to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of creditors, but also affects the responsibilities of both husband and wife under the legal framework.

In practice, borrowers often have a misunderstanding, that is, they believe that as long as the loan occurs during the existence of the marital relationship, it is a joint debt of the husband and wife. However, in fact, there are strict legal standards for the determination of joint debts between husband and wife, and it is necessary to examine whether there is a common expression of intent such as the joint signature of both husband and wife or the subsequent recognition of one of the husband and wife, and whether the debts are used for the husband and wife's common life and joint production and operation. To determine whether the actual use of the debt is for the husband and wife to live together or to carry out joint production and business activities, it is necessary to conduct a meticulous, comprehensive and detailed analysis and consideration based on a series of factual materials such as the evidence provided by the creditor, bank records, transaction vouchers, etc. In this case, although the lender adduced evidence that the borrower's spouse had repaid the loan to him with his personal account, the repayment did not constitute an ex post facto recognition in the legal sense, nor was it necessarily related to whether it constituted a joint debt of the husband and wife, and at the same time, the loan did not have the common intention of the husband and wife, nor did it point to the joint production and operation of the husband and wife, so the court rejected the borrower's claim.

Links to legal provisions

Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China Debts borne by the joint signature of both husband and wife or subsequent recognition by one of the husband and wife, as well as 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. Debts incurred by one of the spouses in his or her own name during the existence of the marital relationship in excess of the daily needs of the family are not joint debts of the husband and wife; However, the creditor can prove that the debt was used for the husband and wife's common life, joint production and business, or based on the joint intention of the husband and wife.

Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China Article 247 Where a party sues again during the course of litigation or after the judgment has taken effect on a matter that has already been litigated, and the following conditions are met at the same time, it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit: (1) the parties to the later lawsuit are the same as those in the previous lawsuit; (2) The subject matter of the later litigation is the same as that of the previous litigation; (3) The claims of the later litigation are the same as those of the previous litigation, or the litigation claims of the later litigation substantially negate the judgment of the previous litigation. Where the parties file repeated lawsuits, a ruling is made not to accept them; where it has already been accepted, a ruling is made to reject the lawsuit, except as otherwise provided by laws or judicial interpretations.

Source: Xi'an Intermediate People's Court