Interpretation of the trend of Ningbo's common debt referee
Core Summary
since the implementation of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in Cases Involving Spousal Debt Disputes in 2018, the concept of joint debt adjudication between husband and wife has undergone a fundamental change from "presumed co-debt" to "co-signing of debt. Article 1064 of the Civil Code further consolidates this trend. The revised decision guidance of the National Court in 2025 shows that the court pays more attention to substantive review in the determination of joint debt, the burden of proof of creditors continues to increase, and the protection of non-borrowers continues to strengthen. Based on the judicial practice in Ningbo, this paper interprets the trend of joint debt adjudication and its influence on the parties in recent years.
1. Legislative Evolution from "Presumed Co-Debt" to "Co-Debt Co-Signature"
the evolution of the rules of joint debt adjudication has gone through three stages. The first stage is the period of Article 24 of the judicial interpretation of the Marriage Law (II), the implementation of the rule of "presumption of co-debt", the debt incurred by one party during the marriage relationship is in principle presumed to be a common debt, and the non-borrower needs to prove that it is a personal debt. This rule has led to a large number of "indebted" cases in practice, which has aroused widespread concern in the society. The second stage is the 2018 judicial interpretation period, which establishes the principle of "co-debt co-signing" and redistributes the burden of proof to creditors. For large debts that exceed the daily needs of the family, creditors need to prove that they are used to live together or operate together. This change significantly reduces the burden of proof on non-borrowers. The third stage is that since the implementation of the Civil Code, Article 1064 has fixed the rule of "co-debt co-signing" in legal form, while the revised decision guidance of the National Court in 2025 further refines the criteria for determination. The direction of the trend is: more and more attention to substantive review, more and more strict requirements for creditors to bear the burden of proof, more and more fully protect the rights and interests of non-borrowers.
Three New Changes 2. Referee Trends in 2025
the first change is that the identification of "family daily needs" is more refined. Previously, the court's judgment on this concept was more extensive, and the amount was the main reference indicator. The 2025 guidance requires the court to combine multi-dimensional factors such as local consumption levels, household income status, consumption habits, and debt use. The Ningbo District Court began to adopt the "proportional principle", that is, when the ratio of the amount of debt to the family's monthly income exceeds a certain multiple, it is no longer simply presumed to be a daily need. The second change is that the identification of joint production and operation debt is more prudent. Previously, as long as the operating income was partially used for the family, the court tended to identify all operating debts as joint debts. The trend in 2025 is "corresponding to the determination", I .e. the amount of common debt based on the proportion of income actually used for family life. This change has been reflected in the debt disputes of individual industrial and commercial households in Ningbo. The third change is the more standardized handling of debt recourse after divorce. The 2025 guidance clarifies the procedural rules for creditors to recover joint debts after divorce: creditors may choose to assert their rights against either or both parties, but not beyond the scope of the joint debt. One party may recover compensation from the other party after settlement, and the proportion of recovery shall be executed according to the divorce agreement or the court decision.
The performance of the tightening of the standard of proof for 3. creditors.
In joint debt litigation, the standard of proof for creditors continues to rise, mainly in the following areas. First, the complete chain of evidence requirements for the flow of funds. Previously, creditors can provide loan contracts and transfer records. The court now requires creditors to provide complete evidence of the flow of funds from the borrower to the end-user. The court may deny the nature of a joint debt if the funds are transferred repeatedly for personal consumption rather than for household expenses. Second, the substantive examination of the common meaning. For a debt that a party later recognizes, the court no longer determines the recognition to be valid on the basis of a WeChat message or a phone recording. The court will examine whether the ratification was a true expression of intent, whether the amount and purpose of the debt were known at the time of the ratification, and whether there was coercion or deception. Third, in-depth investigation of joint business participation. The court began to examine the actual degree of participation of non-borrowers, including whether they participated in business decisions, whether they worked on the premises, whether they invested personal property in the operation, and whether they shared in the proceeds of the operation. The mere provision of domestic services is no longer recognized as a joint operation. Fourth, the legal consequences of failure to provide evidence are clearer. The 2025 guidance emphasizes that creditors should bear adverse consequences if they fail to complete the proof. The court may not find a joint debt on the speculative ground of "likely for the family.
New trends in the protection of the rights and interests of non-borrowers in 4.
The protection of the rights and interests of non-borrowers has shown a trend of strengthening in recent years. First, protection of the right to know. When hearing joint debt cases, the court pays more attention to protecting the right to information and participation of non-borrowers. If the creditor knew that the debtor was married but claimed rights against only one party without notifying the other party, the court may find that the proceedings were defective. Second, facilitation of evidence. The court provides more evidentiary facilities for non-borrowers, including allowing applications for court investigation orders to obtain bank flow, allowing applications for additional creditors to participate in divorce proceedings for third parties, and so on. In the Ningbo area, the courts have relaxed the criteria for reviewing applications for investigation orders from non-borrowers. Third, the implementation of the link to distinguish protection. At the enforcement stage, the courts pay more attention to distinguishing the scope of enforcement of common and individual debts. For those identified as personal debts, the personal property of the other party shall not be executed. In the case of joint debts, the share of property necessary for the basic livelihood of the other party shall be reserved in execution. Fourth, the smooth flow of relief channels after divorce. A party who discovers after divorce that the former spouse concealed the debt during the marriage may claim the debt as a personal debt to the court within a certain period of time from the date of knowledge. This relief mechanism is further clarified in the 20
25guidance.
5. case proof
case Background: Mr. Zhao, a restaurant owner in Ningbo, owed 680000 yuan to the supplier in his own name. The supplier sued for joint repayment by Mr. Zhao and his wife, Ms. Sun. Ms. Sun claimed that she was unaware of the credit and that Mr. Zhao's operating income was not used for family life. Court: Ningbo zhenhai district People's Court Case No.:(2024) Zhejiang 0211 Minchu XXX Result: The court ruled that 680000 yuan was Mr. Zhao's personal debt, and Ms. Sun was not jointly and severally liable. Strategy: Ms. Sun provides evidence that she has an independent job and source of income, the bank flow of the family's daily expenses paid by her salary, and Mr. Zhao's transfer records of operating income for personal investment rather than family. Enlightenment: This case embodies the concept of "corresponding determination" and "substantive review" in the judgment trend of 2025. The court did not simply identify the entire debt as joint debt because the operating proceeds may be used in part for the family, but rather examined the flow of funds and the actual benefits of the family. Creditors failed to meet the burden of proof, bear the adverse consequences.
6. Risk Alert
first, be alert to the risk of being "indebted. Even under the new rules, non-borrowers may still face the risk of being "indebted. It is recommended to pay attention to the financial situation of spouses in the marriage relationship, especially large loans and guarantees. Evidence should be retained in time when abnormalities are found. Second, pay attention to the statute of limitations. The defense of claiming that the debt is a personal debt should be raised in a timely manner in the litigation. After the statutory time limit is exceeded, the right of defense may be lost even if there is sufficient evidence. Third, the timely exercise of enforcement objections. If one's property is enforced as a result of the spouse's personal debt, an objection to the enforcement shall be filed within the statutory time limit from the date of knowledge of the enforcement. Fourth, the debt agreement in the divorce agreement needs to be cautious. Although the debt-sharing agreement in the divorce agreement cannot be used against creditors, it is still valid between the parties. It is recommended that the agreement specify the liability and recovery mechanism for each debt.
7. FAQ
question 1: Has the rate of court determinations of joint debt declined in recent years?
Yes. Since the implementation of the "co-debt co-signing" rule, the proportion of common debt found by the court has decreased significantly. In particular, large debts and operating debts have reduced the success rate of creditors. This reflects the increase in the court's evidentiary requirements for creditors and the strengthening of the protection of non-borrowers.
Question 2: How does the court now judge the "daily needs of the family"?
The court no longer looks only at the size of the amount, but takes into account factors such as local consumption levels, household income status, consumption habits, and the use of debt. The Ningbo District Court began to adopt the "proportional principle", which refers to the multiple relationship between the amount of debt and the monthly income of the family, but it is not an absolute standard.
Question 3: Must the spouse's business debt not be a joint debt?
Not necessarily. If the operating proceeds are used for the family to live together, or if the other party is actually involved in the business, the related debt may still be considered a joint debt. The key is whether the creditor can prove the link between the business and the family.
Question 4: What if the ex-spouse is found to be hiding debts after divorce?
The debt may be claimed to the court as a personal debt of the former spouse within a certain period of time from the date on which the debt was known or should have been known. It is recommended to collect evidence that you do not know and do not benefit, and consult a professional lawyer in a timely manner to evaluate litigation strategies.
Practical Experience of 8. Lawyers
reading this kind of trend interpretation, the most taboo to draw a simple conclusion-now all talk about co-debt co-signing, so I certainly don't have to pay back the money owed by the other party. The direction is indeed that the burden of proof of creditors is increasing and the protection of non-borrowers is being strengthened, but when it comes to specific cases, it still depends on where the money actually goes, whether it is related to the family, and whether you participate or benefit. Trends can help you judge the general direction and cannot replace combing through your own facts. Therefore, instead of remembering the conclusion, what should be done is to go through your own situation according to the evidence.
As a party that may be implicated, we should prepare around three points: no signature, no ratification and no benefit. Signature and guarantee are the hardest connection. After that, he promised to repay the loan in WeChat and transfer the money for the other party with his own account, which may also be understood as ratification. These should be clearly explained in advance. As for the benefits, make it clear where the family's daily expenses come from, whether the other party's business has anything to do with you, and whether he took the money from home. Conversely, creditors who claim common debt can't produce evidence of the flow of funds, your defense will stand. The burden of proof must be pointed out at the negotiating table.
The handling of debt issues should be tied to divorce proceedings. In the agreement or lawsuit, the attribution of the debt is clearly written. Although it is valid internally, whether the external can resist the creditor depends on whether the other party knows about it, so don't think that everything will be fine if you write a debt to him. More realistically, the property clue is fixed at the same time to prevent the other party from making low or transferring the property in the name of debt. When it comes to the implementation stage, spouses can take the path of analysis and objection to keep their share. When negotiating, the creditor's difficulty in giving evidence is itself a bargaining chip, which can be used well in exchange for substantial concessions on the division of property.