Lufa case [2024] 094
Image source network invasion and deletion)
In life, husbands and wives are often seen as a community of shared destiny. When one of the spouses borrows money and the IOU has both of their names in it, is it a joint debt? Let's take a look.
Brief facts of the case
On October 25, 2012, the defendant Li borrowed 100,000 yuan from the plaintiff Hao on the grounds that he was in urgent need of money, and issued an IOU to the plaintiff, which read: "IOU owes 10,000 yuan in cash today, 100,000 yuan Li and Xu on October 25, 2012." After repaying 10,000 yuan, on November 29, 2022, after settlement, the two parties reached an agreement that the defendant Li would issue an IOU to the plaintiff, which read: "IOU today borrow cash to pick up 10,000 yuan, interest 10,000 yuan, total: 10,000 yuan (110,000 yuan) Li on November 29, 2022". After the plaintiff's repeated reminders to no avail, the defendants Li and Xu (Xu was originally Li's wife) were sued to the court, requiring the defendants Li and Xu to jointly bear the responsibility for repayment. The plaintiff, Hao, argued that the two defendants were husband and wife at the time of the loan, and Xu should be liable for repayment regardless of whether he signed the IOU or not. Defendant Xu believed that the loan involved in the case was a unilateral loan by Li, and he did not know about it, so he should not bear the responsibility for repayment, and the signature of "Xu" in the IOU was written by Li, not by himself, and Li did not inform the defendant when writing, nor did he get his approval, and the two have been divorced for many years, and there is no joint debt between the two parties, and the plaintiff's claim against Xu should be rejected in accordance with law.
Heard by the courts
In this case, the defendant Li borrowed 100,000 yuan from the plaintiff Hao on October 25, 2012, and later repaid 10,000 yuan. After settlement, on November 29, 2022, the defendant Li issued another IOU to the plaintiff Hao, stating that he would borrow 100,000 yuan in cash and 10,000 yuan in interest, totaling 110,000 yuan. Defendant Li recognized the IOU as a replacement note and voluntarily added interest to the plaintiff. Based on the statements of both parties, the IOUs and the facts of this case, it can be determined that the 10,000 yuan repaid by the defendant Li before November 29, 2022 is interest, and the 10,000 yuan that the defendant Li claims to repay is the principal, and the reason is not established. The plaintiff's claim that the defendant Li should return the loan of 100,000 yuan and the interest of 10,000 yuan was not improper, and the court supported it. On the issue of whether the defendant Xu should bear the responsibility for repayment: although the IOU involved in the case contains the word "Xu", the defendant Xu does not recognize that it was signed by himself, and the defendant Li admits that the word "Xu" was signed by him, and the plaintiff does not apply for an appraisal of whether the word "Xu" is written by the defendant Xu, and only requires the defendant Xu and the defendant Li to bear joint responsibility for repayment on the grounds that the loan involved in the case occurred during the marriage of the two defendants, and the plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the debt involved in the case is a joint debt of the two defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the defendant Xu bear the responsibility for repayment has no factual basis and is not supported by the court. The court ruled that the defendant Li should pay the plaintiff Hao the principal of the loan of 100,000 yuan and the interest of 10,000 yuan.
What the judge said
Joint debts refer to debts incurred by the husband and wife for the common life of the husband and wife, as well as the management, use, income and disposal of the joint property. Debts incurred during the relationship as a result of the need for the family to live together must be repaid jointly by both spouses, even after divorce. Debts incurred by one of the spouses in his or her own name during the marriage in excess of the daily necessities 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 joint production and life of the husband and wife, or was expressed jointly by the husband and wife.
Specifically, in this case, Hao's claim that the debt occurred during the existence of the marriage relationship between the two defendants, and that Xu should bear the responsibility for repayment regardless of whether Xu signed or not, was obviously a misunderstanding of the law. Once the joint debts of the husband and wife are determined to have a far-reaching impact on the parties, in order to avoid disputes, the creditor must sign a complete formality when lending to avoid unnecessary disputes.
Links to legal provisions
Article 675 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of ChinaIt stipulates: "The borrower shall return the loan within the agreed time limit. Where there is no agreement on the term of the loan or the agreement is not clear, and it is still uncertain in accordance with the provisions of Article 510 of this Law, the borrower may return it at any time; The lender may demand the borrower to return it within a reasonable period of time. ”
Paragraph 2 of Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of ChinaIt stipulates: "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 shall not be 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 common intention of the husband and wife. ”