


































Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

46 
 

Original Paper 

Research on the Determination of Joint Debt of Husband and 

Wife 

Qin Yuan
1
 

1
 Political Science and Law, Tibet University 

 

Received: February 2, 2025   Accepted: February 14, 2025    Online Published: February 15, 2025 

doi:10.22158/elp.v8n1p46            URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v8n1p46 

 

Abstract 

The identification of joint debt is in a fundamental position in the settlement of marital debt disputes, 

but the existing research has exposed the defects of insufficient connection between procedures and 

entities. On the basis of systematically interpreting the rules for determining the joint debt of husband 

and wife, through the case situation, it can be found that there are problems such as value imbalance, 

vague standards and mechanical application of the rules of proof in Article 1064 of the Civil Code. 

Based on this, targeted suggestions for improvement can not only help the couple’s debt disputes to be 

properly handled, but also effectively respond to the legislative expectations of “summarizing practical 

experience”, promote the couple’s debt litigation rules to get rid of the “extreme” legislation, and 

gradually realize the balance of multiple values. 

Keywords 

common interests, joint debt of husband and wife, balance of interests 

 

1. Introduction 

The settlement of marital debt disputes mainly involves the determination, settlement and execution of 

debt nature, which directly affects the interests of debtors and creditors, and indirectly affects the 

stability of marriage and family and the safety of market transactions. Once it is determined that a joint 

debt is established, the husband and wife should bear the responsibility of jointly paying off the debt, 

and the joint property and personal property should be taken as the object of execution in the execution 

procedure. It can be seen that the determination of joint debt is in a fundamental position in the 

handling of marital debt disputes. However, for the identification of the joint debt of husband and wife 

under the triple role of family law, property law and procedural law, compared with the fruitful 

research results at the entity level, the procedural issues have been put on hold for a long time, and the 

connection between entities and procedures is pending due to the lack of necessary care. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

47 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In addition, the burden of proof, as a link between substantive and procedural issues, is the closest 

combination of substantive law and procedural law. There are not only obvious theoretical differences 

in the burden of proof on the facts of the use of debt by one of the spouses, but also the problems of 

generalization of application. This is not only contrary to the consensus of strengthening the 

collaborative research of entities and procedures, but also does not help to promote the resolution of 

practical problems by breaking the internal disciplinary barriers of law. Therefore, it is necessary to 

study the criteria for determining the joint debt of husband and wife and the burden of proof directly 

related to it from the perspective of civil integration. 

 

2. The Historical Evolution of the Rules for the Determination of Joint Debts of Husband and 

Wife 

The different legislative values in different periods lead to frequent changes in the rules for the 

determination of joint debts of husband and wife. From Article 24 of the Interpretation of the Supreme 

People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People’s 

Republic of China (II) (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of the Marriage Law (II) ) to Article 

1064 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application 

of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Marital Debt Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the 

Interpretation of Marital Debt) and Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China 

(hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code), the determination of the joint debt of husband and wife has 

always been a matter of great concern to the legislative, judicial organs and researchers, during which a 

fierce exchange of views has been formed. 

(1) Interpretation of Marriage Law (2) Interpretation of Article 24 

Article 41 of the “Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Marriage Law”) first established the criteria for determining the joint debt of husband and wife “living 

together for husband and wife”. According to the “normative theory” of the distribution of the burden 

of proof, each party must claim and prove the conditions of the legal effect on its own favorable norms. 

Article 91 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil 

Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretation of the 

Civil Procedure Law”) clearly stipulates the rules for the distribution of burden of proof for different 

legal elements. Specific to the husband and wife debt disputes, the creditor who claims that the debt of 

one of the husband and wife is a common debt should bear the burden of proof of the fact that “living 

together for the husband and wife”. However, as a third party outside the relationship between husband 

and wife, the creditor is often difficult to prove the specific use of the debt. In addition, a large number 

of husband and wife colluded with each other and transferred property at that time, which caused great 

damage to the interests of the creditor. The Supreme People’s Court passed the “Marriage Law 

Interpretation” (2) Article 24 stipulates that the people’s court can directly presume that the debt’s 

“husband and wife live together” is true according to the basic fact that the debt of one of the spouses 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

48 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

occurs during the “duration of marriage”, and then determine the establishment of the joint debt of the 

husband and wife. Unless one of the spouses can prove that “the creditor and the debtor clearly agreed 

to personal debt” or belong to the “marriage law Article 19, paragraph 3” of the situation. 

The marital property relationship plays an external guarantee role in the personal relationship. As an 

important part of the marital property system, the determination of the joint debt of husband and wife 

directly affects the maintenance of marriage and family relations. Correspondingly, the protection of 

creditors’ interests in the determination of joint debts of husband and wife not only affects the security 

of market transactions based on private lending, but also has a direct impact on financial investment 

transactions, which is enough to see its social value in market transaction mode and security guarantee. 

If the application field of the rules for determining the joint debt of husband and wife is limited to the 

divorce process, in fact, the rules for adjusting the external legal relationship of husband and wife are 

limited to the internal legal relationship of husband and wife. The social value of creditors and their 

representatives will inevitably be obscured, which will not help the balance of multiple values. 

(2) Analysis of “husband and wife debt explanation” 

In order to enable creditors to control risks in the early stage to avoid the difficulty of proof in the later 

stage, under the premise that the “husband and wife debt interpretation” refines the criteria for 

determining the joint debt of husband and wife, the “joint debt presumption” of one spouse’s external 

debt is changed to “individual debt presumption”. It is stipulated that in addition to the debt of one 

spouse’s “daily life needs of the family” is directly presumed to be the joint debt of husband and wife, 

other debts must be proved by creditors’ “joint debt co-signing” or “living together for husband and 

wife, common production and operation” in order to be recognized as joint debt of husband and wife.  

In the specific litigation process, the parties’ claims, denials, defenses, re-defenses and other attack 

defense systems constitute the basic framework for the distribution of the burden of proof. In view of 

the facts of various legal elements, the proof activities of the parties who bear the burden of proof 

belong to this certificate, and a high probability proof standard needs to be achieved; the proof activity 

of the other party is counter-evidence, and it is only necessary to lower the fact that the judge has 

formed the essential facts to the state of unclear authenticity. Such a cycle, supplemented by the judge’s 

interpretation of the provisional evidence based on the proof activities of the parties, gradually 

promotes the identification of the facts of the elements, and finally forms the evaluation of the 

authenticity of the facts of the elements. 

According to the “interpretation of husband and wife debt”, “joint debt signing” and “living together 

for husband and wife, common production and operation” need to be borne by the creditor who 

advocates the establishment of joint debt of husband and wife. The burden of proof should meet the 

high probability proof standard, and there is basically no difference in understanding. However, there is 

a view that it is a “beautiful-looking” practice to set different rules of proof for the “daily life of the 

family” as the boundary of the “husband and wife debt interpretation”, which is ultimately the 

creditor’s burden of proof for the purpose of the debt. This is obviously inconsistent with the basic 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

49 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

requirements of the application of the presumption rules. 

(3) Analysis of Article 1064 of the “Civil Code” 

The compilation of the Civil Code provides an opportunity for the improvement of the rules for the 

determination of joint debts of husband and wife. Researchers have made suggestions. There is a view 

that the “joint debt and joint signature” of husband and wife should be incorporated into the “Civil 

Code” and used as a principled standard for the determination of the joint debt of husband and wife; 

however, there is a view that the “joint debt and joint signature” of husband and wife is not established. 

The “interpretation of marital debt” establishes the rule only to correct the influence of Article 24 of the 

“interpretation of marriage law” (2), and to guide judicial practice to avoid the expediency of extreme 

cases; it is also believed that based on the particularity of the relationship between husband and wife, 

the independence of husband and wife as the subject of legal relationship and the protection of 

creditors’ rights, the joint debt and joint signature of husband and wife can only be an exceptional 

supplementary rule at most. 

In the face of fierce academic debate, the attitude of the legislature on the determination of the joint 

debt of husband and wife has also changed significantly, and has made difficult choices. The draft 

absorbs the provisions of the new judicial interpretation and clarifies the scope of the joint debt of 

husband and wife. However, the rules for determining the joint debt of husband and wife established in 

Article 1064 of the Civil Code have not achieved the balance of interests of all parties in the handling 

of marital debt disputes, and there is still room for further improvement.  

The academic debate and the change of legal rules on the determination of the joint debt of husband 

and wife are all to meet the complicated practical needs. The judicial situation is not only the best 

yardstick to test whether the academic point of view is reasonable or not, but also the guide to grasp the 

direction of rule improvement. At present, although there are a small number of research results on the 

empirical analysis of the determination of the joint debt of husband and wife, they often criticize the 

practice of not strictly judging according to law in judicial practice, lacking comprehensiveness, 

objectivity and neutrality, which is obviously inconsistent with the Supreme People’s Court’s 

interpretation of Article 1064 of the “Civil Code”. The expectation that “it needs to be further explored 

and summarized in judicial practice to balance the interests of creditors and non-borrowing spouses” is 

obviously inconsistent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

50 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Analysis of the Judicial Determination of the Joint Debt of Husband and Wife 

Article 1064 of the Civil Code fully inherits the interpretation of matrimonial debt. The application of 

the interpretation of matrimonial debt still has important reference value for the study of Article 1064 

of the Civil Code. This part examines the judicial determination of the joint debt of husband and wife 

from the macro and micro levels. At the macro level, taking private lending disputes as a reference 

system, it can be intuitively seen that in private lending cases involving the identification of joint debts 

of husband and wife, the appeal rate and retrial rate of the parties are generally significantly higher than 

those of ordinary private lending cases, which can explain the complexity of the identification of joint 

debts of husband and wife.  

In order to further understand the judicial application of the rules for the determination of the joint debt 

of husband and wife, this part next takes the identification standard as the main line from the micro 

level, and examines the judge’s derivation of the legal elements of the joint debt of husband and wife 

according to the facts of the case by summarizing the demonstration of specific cases. 

(1) The husband and wife’s “joint debt and joint signature” are different 

The couple’s “joint debt co-signing” includes the debt formed by the couple and the creditor based on 

the common meaning at the beginning of the debt, as well as the debt that one of the spouses bears 

externally and is subsequently recognized by his or her spouse. The above two types of situations have 

differences in application in practice.  

First, as to whether the couple’s “joint debt and joint signature” can be determined according to the 

guarantee behavior of the debtor’s spouse, a judge believes that “although Meng signed the loan 

contract as a guarantor, the signature is sufficient to prove that he agreed to Xiao’s loan to Li, and the 

loan involved should be regarded as the common intention of Xiao and Meng, so the loan in this case 

belongs to the joint debt of the couple”; however, a judge believed that for the debts of one of the 

husband and wife, the spouse’s signature as a guarantor indicated that he was only willing to assume 

the guarantee responsibility and did not have the intention to borrow jointly with the borrowing 

husband and wife. The loan does not belong to the joint debt of the husband and wife. 

Second, as to whether the couple’s “joint debt co-signing” can be determined according to the money 

involved in the case of the debtor’s spouse account, a judge believes that “although the defendant Niu 

did not sign the debit, the plaintiff transferred some of the loan to Niu’s account, indicating that the 

defendant Niu was aware of the loan, and supported the plaintiff’s claim for the joint debt of the 

husband and wife according to the provisions of Article 1 of the “husband and wife debt interpretation”; 

however, a judge held that “although part of the loan involved in the case occurred during the marriage 

of the two defendants and part of the money was transferred to a bank card of Zeng, whether the loan 

involved in the case was a joint debt of the husband and wife should still be proved by the plaintiff”. If 

such differences are summarized as the debtor’s spouse account “partial collection, full debt 

recognition”, and the referee judge’s insistence on “partial collection, partial recognition”.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

51 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Thirdly, whether the debt can be recognized as “joint debt and joint signature” according to the 

debtor’s spouse’s knowledge of the debt, a judge believes that the defendant Yang Mouli is not a 

guarantor, but he is in a husband-and-wife relationship with the defendant Wang, and should be aware 

of the generation of the debt. Therefore, the debt is a joint debt of the husband and wife, and the 

defendant Yang Mouli should bear the joint repayment responsibility; However, a judge held that 

“although Mr. Qin and Mr. Shi were still in the husband-and-wife relationship during the period when 

Mr. Qin issued a loan to the plaintiff, according to the statements of both parties, Mr. Shi’s behavior of 

taking the loan to the plaintiff and informing Mr. Qin of the proper use of the loan can only prove that 

he was informed of Mr. Qin’s borrowing from the plaintiff, and cannot directly presume that Mr. Shi 

made a joint loan with Mr. Qin”. 

(2) The boundary of “for the daily needs of the family” is unclear 

In order to make up for the defects that the family agency disputes caused by the lack of legislation 

cannot be solved smoothly, and the rights and interests of the bona fide counterpart and the transaction 

security cannot be guaranteed, Article 1060 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates the family agency 

system for the first time, and stipulates that the debts borne by one of the husband and wife “for the 

daily needs of the family” have legal effect on both husband and wife unless otherwise agreed with the 

counterpart. However, because this article does not specify the scope of application of the family 

agency right, it leads to the judicial chaos of determining the joint debt of husband and wife by this 

standard. 

First, there are obvious differences in the judgment cases on whether it can be directly determined that 

it is “for the daily needs of the family” according to the amount of debt raised by one of the spouses. 

First of all, according to the appearance of the small amount of debt raised by one of the spouses, it is 

directly determined that the debt is “for the daily needs of the family”. A judge believes that “the 

defendant Wang Weixia borrowed a small amount from the plaintiff Zhao Shishan, which did not 

exceed the daily living expenses of the family, and should be identified as the joint debt of the husband 

and wife”; but some judges hold a negative view. In addition, for one of the husband and wife to buy a 

house, a family car and other large debts, a judge classified it into the category of “daily life needs of 

the family”; however, some judges believe that the expenditure has gone beyond the scope of “for the 

daily needs of the family”, and require creditors to prove the objective use of the debt. 

Second, as to whether one of the husband and wife’s “daily life needs of the family” includes business 

activities, a judge believes that “daily life needs include both production needs and life needs”. In this 

case, the second defendant owes the seasoning money for business needs during the existence of the 

relationship between husband and wife. According to the second provision of “husband and wife debt 

interpretation”, it should belong to the joint debt of husband and wife. However, some judges believe 

that “Sun did not sign the loan contract, and Cheng also recognized that the loan was mostly used for 

company operation, and did not submit evidence to confirm that the loan was used for the daily needs 

of husband and wife, so he did not support Cheng’s claim for joint debt of husband and wife”. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

52 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Thirdly, on the issue of whether “for the daily needs of the family” includes the infringement of one of 

the spouses, a judge believes that the debt of compensation for infringement damages arising from the 

case arises from the defendant Guo’s driving during the duration of the marriage relationship to 

maintain the daily needs of the family. During the operation of the van that benefits the family, and it 

has not been proved that there is an agreement between the husband and wife that the marital property 

is owned separately, and the two defendants should share it; however, some judges first recognized that 

the debt of the husband and wife to foreign infringement occurred on the way to pick up their spouses 

and children, which was for the daily needs of the family. However, after a turn of words, it was 

pointed out that the existing rules for the determination of joint debts of husband and wife focused on 

contract disputes based on private lending, and there was no clear response to the determination of joint 

debts of husband and wife in infringement disputes. Based on the principle that the tort liability should 

be borne by the actor himself, the debt involved in the case does not constitute the joint debt of the 

husband and wife. 

(3) The application of the standard of “living together for husband and wife, common production and 

operation” is chaotic 

In the criteria for the determination of the joint debt of husband and wife, the most difficult dispute 

between the parties and the court is “living together, producing and operating together”. The staff of the 

legislature also admitted that there is great uncertainty in the judicial application of the standard, and 

“the issue of who will prove the proof is the most complex and controversial issue”.  

First, it is strictly recognized by the standards established in Article 1064 of the Civil Code. Due to the 

privacy of husband and wife’s life, it is often difficult for creditors to prove whether the debt is “for 

husband and wife to live together and jointly produce and operate”. According to the logic of judicial 

syllogism, deductive reasoning is carried out, and the vast majority of cases are ultimately lost to 

creditors because of the inability to prove. Because the husband or wife’s business behavior in social 

life is generally ultimately to meet the needs of family life, if the debt involved in the case is identified 

as the joint debt of the husband and wife, the legal provisions will be generalized in use. That is to say, 

in this case, even if the judge considers that it is highly possible for one of the spouses to borrow 

money to meet the needs of family life, but as long as the creditor cannot prove that the debt is directly 

used for the couple’s common life, the joint debt will not be established. 

Second, with loose standards, it is determined that “couples live together and produce and operate 

together”. In the face of the harshness of the criteria for determining the joint debts of husband and 

wife established in Article 1064 of the Civil Code, some judges have relaxed the conditions for 

determining the objective use of the debts of one of the spouses beyond the daily needs of the family, 

and given full play to the judicial initiative. With the help of daily life experience and marriage and 

family living habits, reasoning, through the facts of specific cases, “living together for husband and 

wife, common production and operation”, forming a free evaluation of the use of debts of one of the 

spouses. But unfortunately, the logic of some judges’ inferences has exposed obvious differences. For 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

53 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

example, there are a large number of judges presume that the joint debt of the husband and wife is 

directly based on the fact that the debt of one of the husband and wife occurs during the “duration of 

marriage”; another judge held that “according to common sense of life, during the period of husband 

and wife living together, the husband or wife’s foreign farming cooperatives are one of the economic 

sources of family life, and there is no evidence to confirm that the debt involved in the case is the debt 

of a certain person, and the debt of a certain person in the name of a person during the existence of the 

relationship between husband and wife should belong to the joint debt of husband and wife”. 

According to the facts of the case, the judges inferred that the husband and wife “co-debt co-signing”, 

“for the daily needs of the family”, “for the husband and wife to live together, co-production and 

operation” have different conclusions, exposing the obvious problem of “different judgments in the 

same case”, which is obviously inconsistent with the general requirement that the legal argumentation 

field should strengthen the consistency of supporting judicial adjudication argumentation. Under the 

background of gradually promoting the “case retrieval” mechanism of difficult cases to assist judicial 

adjudication, the above-mentioned differences exposed in the judicial determination of the joint debt of 

husband and wife will not only make the judges of similar cases at a loss, but also obviously contradict 

the requirements of “further standardizing the application of unified law, ensuring the unified and 

correct implementation of law, effectively safeguarding the dignity and authority of the national legal 

system, ensuring judicial justice and improving judicial credibility” proposed in the “Implementation 

Measures for the Unified Application of Law by the Supreme People’s Court”. 

 

4. Analysis of the Causes of the Judicial Determination of the Joint Debt of Husband and Wife 

and Suggestions for Improvement 

The reasonable identification of the joint debt of husband and wife first needs to establish the basic 

concept of balancing and protecting the interests of the parties to the dispute. Then, it is necessary to 

clarify the applicable boundary of each identification standard. Finally, the proof mechanism of the use 

standard of the husband and wife should be optimized. 

(1) To establish the basic concept of balancing the interests of creditors and debtors’ spouses 

In the whole development process of modern law, although the courts, legislators and jurists are likely 

to lack a clear conclusion about what is being done, they are engaged in seeking practical adjustment 

and coordination methods for various conflicting and overlapping interests under the control of a clear 

practical purpose instinct. On legislative issues, legal norms are formulated by legislators to solve 

various conflicts of interest; in judicial activities, judges should make a just judgment and balance the 

conflicting interests. When the legislative value is biased, the burden of balancing the interests should 

be borne by the case judge. 

The treatment of marital debt disputes is also fundamentally a balance of interests between creditors 

and debtor spouses. A perfect husband and wife debt system design should seek a balance between the 

two, not only to protect the legitimate rights and interests of creditors, but also to prevent the debtor’s 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

54 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

spouse from unwarranted joint debt settlement responsibility. Although countries and regions outside 

the region have different legislative models, it is a common legislative purpose to seek balanced 

protection between the interests of creditors and debtor spouses. On the contrary, the presumption rule 

of joint debt of husband and wife established in Article 24 of China’s “Interpretation of Marriage Law 

(II)” adheres to the purpose of giving priority to the protection of the interests of creditors. Article 1064 

of the “Interpretation of Marital Debt” and “Civil Code” is too biased towards the prevention of the risk 

that the debtor’s spouse may be unjustifiably “indebted”, and enters the other end of giving priority to 

the protection of the interests of the debtor’s spouse. The problem of “different judgments in the same 

case” in the determination of the joint debt of husband and wife is ultimately reflected in the fact that 

the judge adheres to the legislative norms with unbalanced value and exerts judicial initiative to 

balance the interests of the parties. Whether it is based on the behavior of the debtor’s spouse to 

guarantee the debts of one of the spouses, the referee judge determines that the husband and wife 

“jointly sign the debts”, or infers that the debtor’s spouse benefits directly or indirectly from the debts 

involved in the case based on daily life experience. It is all to protect the interests of creditors by 

expanding the scope of the legal elements of the joint debt of husband and wife. 

(2) To clarify the relationship between the criteria for determining the joint debt of husband and wife 

On the basis of clarifying that the determination of the joint debt of husband and wife needs to adhere 

to the basic concept of balancing the interests of creditors and debtor spouses, it is necessary to further 

clarify the relationship between the various identification standards to prevent functional disorders 

caused by unclear relationships.  

First, the primary and secondary relationship between the “subjective meaning theory” and the 

“objective use theory” standards. The debate on the primary and secondary relationship between the 

criteria of “subjective meaning theory” and “objective use theory” in the determination of husband and 

wife’s joint debt is due to the researchers’ differences in the understanding of “individual standard” and 

“family standard” of marriage and family life in the current social transformation process. This paper 

argues that the family is not a place of complete personal will and private autonomy. On the contrary, it 

is a love-based ethical entity composed of family members with husband and wife as the core, and 

follows the principle of “identity”. Even in the tide of modernization transformation, the traditional 

principle of the unity of husband and wife has added the other-body factor, and the independent 

personality and equal status of husband and wife have become increasingly prominent. However, as the 

core of modern family, husband and wife still show a community of family and property that is blessed 

and difficult to share, carrying the integrity of the family and the characteristics of the identity 

community. 

From the perspective of the joint property system of husband and wife, those who implement the 

property system generally take the principle of husband and wife integration as the basic principle. 

Husband and wife usually share the interests of debt, and should give priority to the recognition of 

husband and wife debt as common debt, supplemented by the judgment standard of individualism.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

55 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Second, the relationship between the “subjective meaning theory” standard and the “objective use 

theory” standard. On the whole, the “subjective meaning theory” and “objective use theory” standards 

for the determination of the joint debt of husband and wife are in parallel. If the couple reaches a “joint 

debt agreement”, the debt should be recognized as a joint debt regardless of whether the couple shares 

the debt proceeds. And vice versa. This means that not only does some of the referee judges know that 

one of the spouses borrows foreign debts according to the spouse, and finds that the husband and wife 

have a “common debt agreement”, and then finds that the inference that the debt involved in the case is 

“living together for the husband and wife, common production and operation” is not necessarily 

established, and some of the referee judges directly determine that the debt is objectively “living 

together for the husband and wife” according to the subjective use indicated by the spouse when 

borrowing. The inference is also difficult to establish. 

 

5. Conclusion 

The rules for determining the joint debt of husband and wife have changed frequently, and the 

legislative value has been swinging at both ends of the protection of the interests of creditors and 

debtor spouses, exposing the obvious “extreme” legislative tendency. In the final analysis, this is 

closely related to the social background of rapid transformation. Because the transitional society shows 

the “multiplication effect of mutual tearing and divergence of social systems”. But there is no doubt 

that the transformation still contains the mainstream social values and behavior habits, and maintain 

stability in a certain period of time. In the process of determining the joint debt of husband and wife, 

whether it is to expand the interpretation of the constituent elements, or to use the rule of thumb to 

derive the statutory elements from the specific facts, it shows the practical rationality of the referee 

judge to ease the strictness of the rules for determining the joint debt of husband and wife, and has 

certain rationality in balancing the interests of the parties to the dispute. However, in order to prevent 

the “black box operation” in the process of factual reasoning by applying the rule of thumb and 

enhance the acceptability of the parties to the dispute and the public for the judicial judgment, it is 

necessary for the judge to strengthen the interpretation and reasoning of the judgment documents and 

disclose their psychological evidence in time when the judge deduces the debt use of one of the spouses 

according to the specific facts. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 1, 2025 

56 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Cai, W. R. (2023). Why does one party guarantee form the joint debt of husband and wife ?—Analysis 

and development based on “common interests”. Legal Forum, 38(03), 75-85. 

Dou, H. Y. (2024). The defects and remedies in the judicial application of the joint debt system of 

husband and wife in China. People’s Justice, 2024(20), 7-10.  

Li, Z. (2021). Judicial determination of joint debts of husband and wife in private lending disputes. 

Modern law, 43(02), 75-88.  

Liu, Z. F. (2021). Identification of joint debt of husband and wife. Jurisprudence, 2021(11), 115-129.  

Wang, Y., & Bao, D. Y. R. (2021). Empirical study on the identification and settlement rules of joint 

debts of husband and wife. Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law, 24(01), 

6-23.  

Zhu, X. F. (2022). On the rules for determining the joint debt of husband and wife in the protection of 

balance of interests. Rule of law society, 2022(02), 77-93.  

Zi, P. Y. (2023). Research on the identification of joint debt of husband and wife from the perspective 

of civil integration. Journal of Henan University of Finance, Economics and Law, 38(04), 

145-156.  

  


