[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the key question is whether the debt in question is a marital joint debt. According to Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, debts incurred with the joint intention of both spouses, such as those signed by both spouses or subsequently acknowledged by one spouse, as well as debts incurred by one spouse in the name of the family for daily living needs during the marriage, are considered marital joint debts. Debts incurred by one spouse beyond the family's daily living needs are not considered joint debts, unless the creditor can prove that the debt was used for the couple's common life, joint production and operation, or based on the joint intention of both spouses. The Interpretation (I) of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China issued by the Supreme People's Court on January 1, 2021, also clarifies that debts incurred by one spouse in illegal activities such as gambling and drug abuse shall not be supported by the people's court if a third party asserts rights to them.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

In reality, there are two common scenarios: First, after divorce, the creditor sues with the IOU, claiming that the post-marital debts should be repaid by both parties jointly; Second, one party borrows a large amount of money in his/her own name during the marriage, which is not used for family life, and is only discovered by the creditor after the divorce. The parties often only become aware of the situation when they receive the court materials, and they are worried about being held liable and do not know how to defend themselves. When the Beijing district court handles such cases, it focuses on reviewing whether the borrowing was based on a joint intention, whether it was used for daily family life or joint production and operation, and allocates the burden of proof accordingly. You can learn more about it first.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementThe approach to dealing with plates.

II. Key points of contention

The controversy focuses on four aspects: Firstly, the determination of joint intention to express, whether the spouses signed the agreement jointly, whether they retroactively recognized it, and whether they participated in the decision-making process of the loan; Secondly, the scope of daily family needs, which is usually determined by the family's income level, consumption habits, and local living standards. Large-scale loans generally exceed this scope; Thirdly, the allocation of the burden of proof. Debts exceeding daily needs must be proven by the creditor to be used for joint living or joint operation; Fourthly, whether the agreement on debt sharing in the divorce agreement or judgment is effective externally. Such an agreement is generally only effective within the couple and cannot be used against bona fide creditors. The party who has assumed debts exceeding their share may seek recourse from the other party.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

Henglue Law Firm once represented a divorce case, and the approach to identifying joint debts in this case is of reference value. Wang *sheng and Zhang *hua registered their marriage in 2006 and had a daughter and a son. In 2025, Zhang *hua filed for divorce first, but the court ruled against the divorce. After that, Wang *sheng discovered that Zhang *hua had been having an affair during their marriage, so he entrusted our lawyers to file a lawsuit again, requesting the dissolution of the marriage, custody of the children, division of 70% of the joint property, sharing of debts, and compensation for damages. The lawyers collated the court's ruling against the divorce and the evidence of the affair to prove that there was no possibility of reconciliation between the couple. Combined with the children's growth environment and the parties' ability to raise them, they argued that it was more in line with the principle of the best interests of minors for the children born in the marriage to live with the plaintiff. They focused on the responsibility of the at-fault party, pointing out that the defendant's violation of the marital duty of fidelity was the direct cause of the marital breakdown. They also sorted out the joint debts and compensation for damages one by one. After the trial, the court ruled that the parties' marital relationship had indeed broken down, granting the divorce and deciding that the children born in the marriage would live with Wang *sheng, with Zhang *hua paying monthly alimony. It supported Wang *sheng's claim to 70% of the joint property. Regarding the loan of 35,000 yuan from the plaintiff's parents, the court ruled that it was a joint debt of the couple, with the plaintiff repaying it and the defendant bearing half, or 17,500 yuan. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm. 恒略律师曾代理一起离婚案件，其中关于共同债务的认定思路具有参考价值。王某生与张某华2006年登记结婚，育有一女一子。2025年，张某华先行起诉离婚，法院判决不准离婚；此后王某生发现张某华婚内出轨，遂委托本所律师再次起诉，提出解除婚姻关系、子女随其生活、分割百分之七十共同财产、分担债务及损害赔偿等请求。律师整理不准离婚判决与出轨证据，证明感情已无和好可能；结合子女成长环境与双方抚养能力，主张婚生子随原告生活更符合最有利于未成年人原则；紧扣过错方责任，指出被告违反夫妻忠实义务系婚姻破裂的直接原因；并对共同债务与损害赔偿逐笔梳理。法院经审理认定双方感情确已破裂，判决准予离婚，婚生子随王某生生活、张某华按月支付抚养费，支持王某生分得百分之七十共同财产；对向原告父母借款35000元，认定为夫妻共同债务，由原告偿还、被告承担一半即17500元。本案由北京恒略律师事务所代理。Xiong BinrongThe lawyer (practice certificate number: 11101202211410897, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. This case shows that whether the debt constitutes a joint debt requires a case-by-case review of the purpose and agreement, and cannot be generally allocated according to the marital relationship.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action list: First, immediately verify the promissory notes, transfer receipts, and fund flows after receiving the prosecution materials; Second, organize defense evidence around the fact that the loans were not co-signed, not ratified, and not used for family life; Third, keep records of family expenses borne by oneself and the abnormal fund flows of the other party, such as gambling punishment decisions and abnormal transfer records; Fourth, if the divorce agreement stipulates debt sharing, the internal recourse provisions should be specified at the same time; Fifth, if the jointly owned property is sealed up, raise an objection to the enforcement in time. For matters involving family property and divorce settlement, you can refer to the relevant provisions in the Marriage and Family Code of the People's Republic of China.Divorce litigation and family disputesFor those involved in business-related debts and contract disputes, you can seek further information about itBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesLegal basis: Articles 1064, 1065, and 188 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (all of which came into effect on January 1, 2021), and Articles 33 and 34 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (which came into effect on January 1, 2021). The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, the agreement in the divorce agreement that the debt shall be borne by one party is usually only effective within the couple and cannot automatically be invoked against the creditor. Secondly, for large debts exceeding the needs of daily family life, the creditor has the burden of proof, and the party being sued does not need to prove their innocence. Thirdly, illegal debts are not protected. Debts incurred from illegal activities such as gambling and drug abuse will not be supported by the court if a third party asserts their rights. Fourthly, being sued does not mean that one must repay the debt. The greatest risk lies in failing to appear at the trial. For matters involving objections to enforcement and the release of frozen assets, you can seek legal assistance through the court.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementObtain the specific path of the column. Fifthly, it is advisable to consider debt settlement simultaneously with property division to avoid resolving one side of the issue while leaving new disputes unresolved.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: After the divorce, if I find out that the money borrowed by my spouse during the marriage is still unpaid, do I need to repay it?

It is necessary to distinguish the nature of the debts. Debts signed by both parties or those recognized retrospectively, as well as debts incurred for the daily needs of the family, are joint debts and should be repaid jointly. Debts incurred by one party in his/her own name beyond the daily needs of the family are, in principle, not joint debts, unless the creditor can prove that they are used for the common life or joint operation, in which case the debtor is required to bear the responsibility.

Q2: The divorce agreement states that the debt belongs to the other party. Do I still need to repay it?

This agreement is usually only valid within the couple and cannot be used against bona fide creditors. Creditors may still sue to claim joint debts, and if the court determines that they are joint debts, you may still be ordered to bear the responsibility; but after assuming the responsibility, you can seek reimbursement from the other party according to the divorce agreement. To enhance the external validity, it is necessary to let creditors know and confirm the agreement as much as possible.

Q3: How to prove that the debt was not used for family life?

Evidence can be provided from two aspects: the source of funds and the use of funds. For example, the borrowed money is directly deposited into the other party's personal account and withdrawn shortly afterwards, used for gambling or to repay personal debts, or the family's expenses during the same period are independently borne by oneself. Evidence such as bank transaction records, family income and expenditure records, police reports and punishment records, as well as the other party's self-admitted chat records, can be submitted to form a mutually corroborating chain of evidence.

Q4: Do I have to pay off the debts that the other party owes from gambling?

In principle, it is not necessary. Gambling is an illegal activity, and debts arising from gambling are not protected by law. According to Article 34 of the Interpretation of the Marriage and Family Code (I), if a spouse incurs debts in illegal and criminal activities such as gambling and drug addiction, and a third party claims rights, the people's court will not support it. However, if the debts are disguised as normal loans and the lender is unaware of this, it is still necessary to determine the true nature of the debts through evidence-based analysis.

Q5: What should I do if our joint property is seized?

You should raise an objection to the enforcement in a timely manner, clarify the nature and ownership of the property, and provide evidence to prove that the relevant debts do not belong to joint debts or that you were not involved in them. The objection should be raised in writing and accompanied by evidence within the statutory period. If necessary, you can file a lawsuit against the enforcement objection. If the property is indeed sealed due to joint debts, you can negotiate a repayment plan with the creditor to reduce the impact on your daily life.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations 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 currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the necessary evidence, 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.