Guangzhou lawyer Zhang Jing answers: The creditor can prove that the debtor borrowed money for the common life of the husband and wife through WeChat chat records, call recordings, transfer records and other evidence (note: the debtor said it does not count, but the wife says it), if the connection cannot be proved, the debtor's spouse cannot claim joint repayment. In the following case, the creditor claimed that the debt was a joint debt of the husband and wife, and submitted a transfer statement for the debtor to transfer the money to his wife after borrowing the money for the release of the property. After the trial, the court held that the interval between the creditor's transfer to the debtor and the debtor's transfer to his wife was 6 months, which was not enough to make the two payments related, and ruled that the debtor's wife was not jointly and severally liable for repayment.
Excerpt from the verdict:
Article 1064 of the Civil Code stipulates that "debts incurred by both husband and wife in the joint signature of the husband and wife or by one of the husband and wife in the subsequent recognition of the common intention, 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 husband and wife 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, unless the creditor can prove that the debt was used for the husband and wife's common life, joint production and operation, or based on the common intention of the husband and wife, "In this case, the defendant Liang's wife did not sign the IOU and the letter of commitment to repay the loan, nor did she recognize the debt in the lawsuit; In addition, although Deng Fu transferred 1.14 million yuan to an outsider to Xiang X on July 28, 2020 to handle the mortgage cancellation procedures for the house in Liang's wife's name, the amount of money and the loan provided by Wang have been separated by half a year, which is not enough to prove that the transfer has a corresponding relationship with the loan provided by Wang According to the evidence rule of "who asserts, who shall present evidence", Wang's evidence is not sufficient to prove that the money involved in the case is a debt based on the common intention of the husband and wife In summary, this court did not support Wang's claim that the debts involved in the case were joint debts of the husband and wife, and that Liang's wife should bear joint liability for repayment