[Direct answer]Three steps to deal with it. Firstly, not recognizing the debt and requiring the other party to provide evidence. The party claiming the fictitious debt needs to prove that the debt is genuine and used for the couple's common life or joint operation. Secondly, questioning the debt from aspects such as the formation time, capital flow, rationality of use, and the creditor's related relationships. If necessary, apply for an appraisal of the formation time of the IOU and request the creditor to appear in court. Thirdly, cite Article 1092 of the Civil Code: If one party forges a joint debt of the couple in an attempt to embezzle the other party's property, the court may award a smaller share or no share to that party when dividing the joint property in a divorce; if the other party discovers it after the divorce, they may file a lawsuit with the court to request a second division. If the circumstances are serious, it may also constitute a false lawsuit, and the party involved will bear corresponding legal responsibilities.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

When the division of marital property cannot be negotiated, some people will suddenly pull out a stack of IOUs: those borrowed from parents, friends, or companies, often amounting to hundreds of thousands or even millions of yuan, all claimed as marital joint debts. The purpose is straightforward—to first offset a large portion of the divisible property, significantly reducing the share the other party receives. Such tactics are mixed with deception, and if not identified and countered in time, it's easy to suffer losses during the evidence-gathering process.

II. Key points of contention

First, the criterion for judging the authenticity of the debt is whether there was actually a transfer of funds and whether the funds were used for joint living or business purposes. Second, whether a formally complete IOU can be directly deemed as a genuine debt. Third, how to distinguish between a spouse's personal debts and joint debts. Fourth, the legal consequences of forging debts, which include not only a reduced or no division of property but also the possibility of false litigation. Fifth, the remedies available if the act of forgery is discovered after divorce.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first level involves four key aspects of debt authenticity review. Firstly, the formation time: whether the promissory note was issued around the time of divorce and whether it aligns with the family's actual needs. Secondly, the fund flow: whether the claimed loan actually involved cash transactions and whether it can be verified by bank records. For cases where there is only a promissory note but no delivery receipts, the evidentiary value is limited. Thirdly, the rationality of the use of funds: whether the loan was used for joint matters such as purchasing property, operating a business, or medical expenses, or for personal extravagance or non-family-related expenses. Fourthly, the creditor's affiliation: whether the lender is a close relative or related party of one of the parties, and whether there is a possibility of collusion. Organizing cross-examination around these four points is the core method of exposing fraudulent debts.

The second layer is that the allocation of the burden of proof is favorable to the parties involved. The party claiming a joint debt bears the burden of proof and cannot simply demand that the other party share the responsibility based on a promissory note alone. If the other party denies it, the court will require the claiming party to further prove the delivery and use of the funds. In practice, if the creditor is only a relative of one party, there are no transfer receipts, and the amount of the loan is obviously inconsistent with the family's consumption, the court usually does not accept it as evidence.

The third level is to master the procedural countermeasures. If there are doubts about the authenticity of the IOU, you can apply for a handwriting and formation time appraisal; if there are doubts about the creditor's statement, you can apply for him to appear in court for questioning; for obviously fictitious acts of attempting to seize property through litigation, you can report them to the court and claim to investigate the responsibility for false litigation. If the circumstances are serious, they may bear criminal responsibility according to law.

Fourthly, post-divorce relief is equally important. If the debt was falsified and not detected during the divorce but was discovered afterwards, the party concerned may file a lawsuit separately in accordance with Article 1092 of the Civil Code to request the division of the couple's joint property again. At the same time, it is necessary to assert rights within the statutory time limit to avoid increasing the difficulty of providing evidence due to prolonged delay.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

First, after receiving the debt claim raised by the other party, request them to provide the promissory note, transfer receipts, and evidence of the purpose of the funds one by one. Second, sort out the family's income and expenditure and bank statements independently to form a fund ledger that can be compared. Third, apply for appraisal of suspicious promissory notes in a timely manner and request the suspicious creditor to appear in court. Fourth, if fraudulent acts are discovered after divorce, collect clues and file a lawsuit as soon as possible. Main legal basis: Articles 1064 and 1092 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the provisions on the burden of proof in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 307-1 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China regarding suspected false litigation; the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Three sentences to deal with forged debts: deny the debt, demand evidence, and track the flow of funds; a promissory note does not equal a debt; debts without delivery receipts cannot stand up to scrutiny; forged debts can result in a reduced share, and serious cases may even constitute false litigation. For matters involving divorce property division and debt determination, you can seek assistance through legal channels.Divorce litigation and family disputesThe service provides a comprehensive solution, which involves the integration of creditor-debtor relationships and enforcement measuresCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcement casesFor reference, you can check the section related to corporate contracts and financial transactionsBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor the column, if you need a comprehensive solution, please feel free to consult usSpecial servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Will the court determine that the debt claimed by the other party is fraudulent?

It's not easy to determine the validity of a debt. The party claiming a joint debt bears the burden of proof. If there is only a promissory note but no delivery receipt, the purpose of the loan is unclear, or the creditor is a close relative of the debtor, the court usually does not accept it. Refusing to recognize the debt and providing timely cross-examination is the key to preventing false debts from being recognized.

Q2: How can we prove that the debt is forged?

There are four aspects to consider: whether the time of forming the IOU is concentrated around the time of divorce; whether there is a cash flow corresponding to the loan; whether the loan is used for family common affairs; and whether the lender has a relationship with the borrower. If necessary, apply for an appraisal of the time of forming the IOU or request the creditor to appear in court for questioning.

Q3: Are the legal fees for dealing with fraudulent debts high?

The fees are set according to market conditions and are usually negotiated based on the workload of the case and the subject matter. Fees for appraisal and investigation of evidence are charged separately. If the amount of the debt is large and it is necessary to conduct a thorough review of the flow of funds, the workload will increase and the fees may rise. It is recommended to clarify the scope of services and fee points before signing the contract.

Q4: How long will it take to resolve such disputes?

The first-instance summary procedure is usually concluded within three months, the ordinary procedure is generally six months, and the second-instance procedure is usually three months. If the case involves appraisal or investigation and evidence collection, the period will be extended. If the parties claim for another division after the divorce, the time limit for the trial will be calculated according to the new litigation procedure.

Q5: If I only discover after the divorce that the other party forged debts, can I still pursue legal action against them?

Yes. Article 1092 of the Civil Code stipulates that if the other party discovers that the other party has forged debts or embezzled property after the divorce, they can file a lawsuit with the court to request a second division of the couple's joint property. It is recommended to fix evidence such as IOUs and transaction records as soon as possible to avoid increasing the difficulty of providing evidence due to the passage of time.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretation in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Divorce litigation legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.