Is the joint will of Ningbo husband and wife valid? How to write it is not for nothing

To state the conclusion upfront: Although the Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code does not contain the term “joint will” anywhere, judicial practice has not categorically rejected it. When both spouses, on the same document, make dispositions regarding their joint marital property or designate each other as heirs, courts generally tend to recognize the validity of such arrangements, provided that the formal requirements for a will are met and it can be proven that they reflect the true intentions of the testators. Conversely, “joint wills” in which the authorship is unclear, witness testimony is lacking, signatures are illegible, or the date is incomplete are often deemed wholly invalid. Therefore, the issue with a joint will is not whether it can be made, but rather how to draft it so that it does not end up being invalid or ineffective.

This kind of dispute is becoming more and more common in family trials, and behind it is often the interweaving of two wishes: one is to leave the property to his wife first, and then to share it with his children when his wife leaves; The second is to prevent the children from competing for birth after their death and the wife's evening scene is bleak. To transform this wish into a legally enforceable document, one must simultaneously understand three key aspects: the types of joint wills, the rules for determining their validity, and the seemingly minor yet potentially fatal formal requirements.

1. what is a joint will of husband and wife, and what are its three forms?

The joint will of husband and wife refers to a will jointly made by both husband and wife and related to each other. Its most significant difference from a standard will lies in the fact that a standard will is a unilateral legal act by one individual, whereas a joint will embodies the testamentary intentions of two individuals. Since Article 1133 of the Civil Code only stipulates that “natural persons” may make a will to dispose of their personal property, and does not specifically recognize the act of two persons acting “jointly,” its validity has long been a subject of debate. In practice, it is typically categorized into three forms. Before you start writing, clearly identify which form you belong to—this will serve as the foundation for determining your subsequent writing approach.

• Mutual type (mutual inheritance type). The spouses agreed that, upon the death of one party, the surviving spouse shall inherit the deceased’s estate; and upon the death of the surviving spouse, the estate shall be distributed to the children or other designated persons. The core principle is to first ensure the spouse’s well-being in their later years.
• Co-designated type (third-party beneficiary type).The husband and wife jointly designate one or more third persons (usually children and grandchildren) as heirs, and each shall dispose of its own share of the property. For example, "The two houses under our name will be inherited by the first child and the second child, respectively," which is more akin to combining two wills with consistent objectives and similar content into a single document.
• Effective type after the death of one party (associated effective type).It is agreed that the will will not take effect temporarily or only partially at the time of the death of one party, and will be executed together after the death of the other party, or it is agreed that "neither party may unilaterally change or revoke", so that the disposition of the two persons is bound to each other. The “Case 20: Enforcing a Joint Will—Respecting the Deceased’s Last Wishes” published by the Jiangsu High People’s Court falls into this category: Mr. Chen and Mrs. Xie, as a married couple, executed a joint will stipulating that two houses be inherited by their two sons, respectively, and that a compensation payment of RMB 500,000 be given to their granddaughter, Xiaoli. The will also contained a specific provision stating: “If one spouse predeceases the other, all property shall vest in the surviving spouse, who must respect the terms of the joint will and may not alter them.”

2. Validity Determination: Differences and Mainstream Rules in Judicial Practice

Around the effect of the joint will of husband and wife, there are three views in practice for a long time. Only by understanding these three views can we avoid minefields when writing.

The first is the "whole invalid".It is considered that the Civil Code only lists six forms of legal wills: self-writing, writing, printing, audio and video recording, oral and notarization, and the common will is not included, and the arrangement of the joint disposition of an estate by both parties does not meet any type of formal elements, and should be invalid as a whole. This view, being overly mechanistic, has ceased to be mainstream in recent years.

The second is "partially effective".It is considered that the part written and signed by the person who wrote it will be valid according to the corresponding will form, and the part signed by the other party without independent intention is invalid. This compromise is commonly seen in cases where one party drafts the document and both parties sign it; however, it severs the true mutual intent of the spouses and may easily lead to unfairness.

The third is the "effective statement of true meaning", which is also the current judicial mainstream.As long as the husband and wife jointly sign, the meaning is true, and on the whole can conform to the spirit of the formal elements of the will, it should be considered valid, not because of the word "common" and demanding a form that is not listed in the law. The relevant judicial opinions of the Beijing Higher People’s Court clearly state: a will jointly executed in the names of both spouses, which disposes of their joint marital property and satisfies the formal requirements for a will, is valid; claims that it is invalid solely on the ground that it was drafted by only one party and does not meet the statutory requirements for a will prepared by a scrivener will not be upheld. In Case No. 20, the Jiangsu High People’s Court also emphasized that although current laws do not contain specific provisions regarding joint wills, the practice of spouses jointly executing a will is consistent with China’s national conditions and traditional customs; therefore, its validity should not be dismissed mechanically, but rather the elderly couple’s autonomy in disposing of their property should be respected. Based on this, the Zhangjiagang City Court determined that the agreement stipulating that “the property of the deceased spouse shall devolve to the surviving spouse” became effective upon Chen’s death, and ruled that the two houses be inherited by Xie. The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court upheld this decision in its second-instance judgment.

Equally important as the determination of validity is the limitation of withdrawal and change. If there are two separate and independent wills, either party may, in accordance with Article 1142, at any time revoke or amend their own will. However, in jointly executed wills that exhibit a strong degree of interdependence, the prevailing view holds that, while both parties are still alive, the will may still be revoked upon notification to the other party or by mutual agreement; butOnce one party dies or loses civil capacity, the surviving party may not unilaterally withdraw or change.Otherwise, it is tantamount to letting the living tear up the punishment of the deceased, contrary to the principle of good faith and the wishes of the deceased. Therefore, including clauses such as “not to be altered” is by no means superfluous; on the contrary, they can serve as a basis for the surviving party’s claims in the event of future disputes.

3. effective formal elements, and those common pitfalls of ineffectiveness

No matter which form, the common will will eventually fall into the "form. A will is a causa mortis act; once the testator has passed away, it cannot be rectified, and the court can only review the document as it stands. First, let’s clearly list the essential elements of the six statutory forms:

• Self-written will (Article 1134): Written and signed by the testator, indicating the year, month and day.
• Wills on behalf of the witness (Article 1135): Two or more witnesses are present, one of them is the witness, and the testator, the witness and other witnesses sign, indicating the year, month and day.
• Printing a will (Article 1136): Two or more witnesses are present to witness, and the testator and the witnesses shall sign each page of the will, indicating the year, month and day.
• Audio and video recording Wills (Article 1137): Two or more witnesses are present to testify, and the testator and the witnesses shall record their names or portraits, as well as the year, month and day, in the audio and video recording.
• Oral wills (Article 1138): only in a critical situation, with more than two witnesses present; if a will can be made in writing or in audio and video form after the critical situation is eliminated, the oral will is invalid.
• Notarized wills (Article 1139): by the testator through a notary public. The Civil Code has abolished the preferential validity of notarized wills; in cases where multiple wills contain conflicting provisions, the most recent one shall prevail.

To land a joint will of husband and wife, both of them must meet the formal requirements. In practice, the following pitfalls are the most common sources of failure.

Trap one: there is no witness to print the will, or the witness is not complete.This is the invalid reason for the current highest frequency. Many people type up their wills on a computer, print them out, and then sign them, thinking that’s all there is to it. However, Article 1136 stipulates that a holographic will must be witnessed by two or more witnesses who are present throughout the entire process, and both the testator and the witnesses must sign each page and indicate the date. The absence of a single witness, a missing signature on a page, or an omitted date can all lead to outright rejection. Even more problematic is the situation where the testator cannot operate a computer and has someone else type the will: if the testator lacks the ability to print, and another person types it on their behalf, courts will typically treat it as a scrivener’s will, requiring two witnesses to be present and the scrivener to sign; otherwise, the will is invalid.

Trap 2: The signature is not the real name and the handwriting is inconsistent.Self-written wills emphasize "handwritten". If the testator signs not with the name registered on their ID card or household registration book, but with a nickname or alias, or if the handwriting varies significantly in ink density throughout the document—suggesting it was written in segments by different individuals—the authenticity of the will may be called into question. If an expert examination is unable to confirm its validity, the will could be deemed invalid.

Trap 3: Missing or ambiguous dates. Year, month, and day are all essential. The date is relevant both to the testator’s capacity to make a will at the time of its execution and to the chronological order of multiple wills. Writing only “2023” without specifying the month and day, or writing only the month and day without the year, can both create potential issues in determining the validity of the document.

Trap four: the witness is not qualified or after the signing.Article 1140 makes it clear that persons with no capacity for civil conduct, persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, heirs, legatees, and persons who have an interest in the heirs and legatees shall not be witnesses. If the children, daughters-in-law, sons-in-law, and the legatee themselves come to “witness,” it amounts to a meaningless witness. Witnesses must be present on the spot and throughout the entire process; a post‑facto signature constitutes a significant defect. There have been court rulings holding that, where witnesses to a scrivener’s will signed after the fact, the will is invalid.

4. Must Keep a Residence with Widow: Don't "Write No" to Vulnerable Families"

Even if the form is perfect, the content cannot be written as full as possible. Article 1141 stipulates: A will shall reserve a necessary share of the estate for heirs who lack the capacity to work and have no source of livelihood. This is the "must-stay" system, which is a legal restriction on the freedom of the will, in order to strike a balance between the freedom of the will and the right to survival of the vulnerable groups.

It should be noted that the mandatory retention only protects the legal heirs who meet both the conditions of "lack of ability to work" and "no source of income. Jiangsu High People’s Court Case No. 19, “Freedom of Testamentary Disposition Is Limited; a Reserved Portion Must Be Preserved,” is a typical example: Mr. Fan made a handwritten will bequeathing all his real estate and assets to his remarried wife, Ms. Liu. His son, Mr. Fan Xiao, suffers from kidney disease requiring long-term dialysis and has also experienced a cerebral hemorrhage; he is unable to work and has no source of income. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit seeking to have the portion of the will that fails to reserve a necessary share declared invalid. The court held that although the will reflected the testator’s true intentions, a necessary share should be reserved for Fan Xiao. Consequently, the court ruled that the house would remain under Liu’s inheritance, with Liu required to pay Fan Xiao a lump-sum compensation of RMB 85,000. This judicial approach both honors the testator’s wishes as expressed in the will and safeguards the basic livelihood of vulnerable heirs, achieving a balanced resolution through “monetary compensation.” On the other hand, if the so-called vulnerable heir actually has parents to support, or he has a stable source of income, it is not a "double shortage" situation, the will may not reserve a share for it.

To complement the mandatory retention is the "widow's right of residence". The most common request in a joint will by a married couple is: “Let the surviving spouse continue to live there, with the house ultimately passing to the children.” To achieve this effect, it is not necessary to write a common will, and it is entirely possible to use the system of residence rights compiled by property rights: article 366 establishes the right of residence, and article 371 makes it clear that the right of residence can be established by will. The testator may specify in the will that ownership of the house shall be inherited by the children, while a right of lifetime occupancy shall be established for the surviving spouse. This arrangement allows the children to obtain ownership of the property while ensuring that the surviving spouse has a place to live in their later years.

The Jiangsu High Court's "Case 11 Agreement stipulates that the residence rights and interests of the elderly should be protected" also reflects this orientation: Yuan and his wife took the demolition rights and interests as consideration and agreed that their son and daughter-in-law would buy a resettlement house for them to live until their old age. The house was later transferred to their granddaughter. After the husband died, the daughter-in-law refused Yuan to continue to live. The court found that Yuan enjoyed independent and exclusive residence rights and the successor should be respected, the house was delivered to him for habitation. This suggests that courts will afford preferential protection to the housing interests of elderly individuals. In addition to the right of habitation, arrangements such as conditional wills and testamentary trusts can be used to achieve a structure in which the surviving spouse enjoys use during their lifetime, with ultimate ownership passing to the children. It is important to clearly specify “who has what rights under what conditions and until when,” rather than making a vague statement like “the house is left to the surviving spouse.”

How to Write 5.: An Operational List

Combining the above rules, if you want the couple's joint will to be truly established, you can prepare it in the following order.

First, if you can stand separately, you can stand separately.This is the safest way of thinking. The husband and wife each wrote a self-written will, each disposing of their own part of the property, the two contents echo each other. In this way, each part independently satisfies the formal requirements, so there is no need to continue debating “what form a joint will should be considered.” Only when both parties strongly wish, on an emotional level, to express their intentions jointly and in a manner that cannot be altered should a joint will be considered; however, in such cases, the threshold for validity is higher, and the associated risks are greater.

Second, the form is high and not low. Priority is given to a notarized will or a lawyer to witness the will. Notary offices review identity, capacity to act, and ownership of property, thereby minimizing formal defects; attorney witnessing requires that the witnessing attorney be present throughout the entire process, sign the will in person, and maintain a complete record of the proceedings (including interview transcripts and video recordings). If you insist on self-writing, be sure to write, sign and write the whole year, month and day in your own handwriting, and do not print or write by others in the middle.

Third, the entire video. Whether the will is handwritten, dictated to another for writing, or printed, it is advisable to simultaneously record the entire process on video. The footage should clearly show the testator’s and the witnesses’ faces, their identification documents, and the contents of the will, with an oral statement such as: “Today is [year] [month] [day], and I voluntarily make this will.” Video recordings often serve to substantiate the authenticity of expressions of intent and, when the validity of such expressions is in doubt, constitute crucial corroborating evidence.

Fourth, the witness is as neutral and qualified as possible.It is best to choose adults who have no interest in inheritance by community workers, two or more unrelated friends or professional witnesses. Never let your children, daughter-in-law and son-in-law act as witnesses.

Fifth, the clause should write a specific list, rather than a general "all property".The property is located, the certificate number, the bank where the deposit is located and the approximate amount, vehicles, equity, insurance, etc. are itemized. At the same time, clearly state: “This will disposes of my individual share in the marital joint property,” so as to avoid disposing of my spouse’s share and rendering part of the will invalid.

Sixth, a positive response must be kept. First, conduct a self‑assessment to determine whether there are any statutory heirs who are both incapable of working and have no source of livelihood. If so, proactively reserve the necessary share for them or devise a cash‑out compensation arrangement to prevent the entire will from being invalidated due to this issue.

Seventh, write "no unilateral changes" and "residential arrangements".In the mutual arrangement, it is stated that "neither party may unilaterally revoke or change", and when housing is involved, the spouse's right of residence and its duration and scope are stated together, so that the intention of "the wife lives until the end of life and the house is the child" falls on the terms.

6. common invalid situation analysis

Scene 1: A probate will witnessed by a lawyer, signed only by the testator. Zhao Moutai made a will on behalf of the law firm, which was written and printed by the lawyer. I pressed my finger and the law firm issued the "Lawyer's Certificate" and "Transcript of Conversation", but only Zhao Moutai signed the will, not the signatory or other witnesses. The court held that the proxy will must have more than two witnesses present, written by one person, and signed by the testator, the proxy and other witnesses, while the "lawyer's certificate" only witnessed the "signature according to the mold" fragment, can not replace the legal signature, the will is invalid.

Scenario 2: Printing the “Bequest” document without witness signatures. Zhu Mougen left a printed "Legacy" before his death, with the words "handwritten" and fingerprints and private seals. However, the date was written by others, and he did not have the cooperation of signing on behalf of the writer or witness. The court found that the print did not conform to the constituent elements of the written will, and did not conform to the form of a dual-service contract of the bequest maintenance agreement, and was neither a valid bequest nor a bequest maintenance agreement, and did not have effect.

Scene 3: The witness has an interest or sign up afterwards. It is hard to ask the heirs, legatees or people with interest to act as witnesses, or to find someone to sign up afterwards. Witnesses must be impartial, present on the scene, and observe the entire process. On the other hand, in Jiangsu case 20, Chen mou wrote it in his own handwriting, the husband and wife signed and stamped it, and two staff members of the social mediation service center witnessed it on the spot and stamped it with the official seal. the content was clear, and it was also stated that "the elderly who are alive shall not be changed". it is these elements that have brought together the true meaning, complete form and clear content that make it valid in the dispute. It is clear that the decisive factor lies not in the word “common,” but in whether the details hold up.

Case Reference: A joint will executed by spouses must satisfy the formal requirements for a will as to each spouse individually. In some cases, the joint will of the husband and wife is written by one party, the other party only signed but not signed the date, and not formed in the same time and space, the court found that the part of the party is invalid due to lack of evidence of true meaning, and its estate is treated as legal inheritance. Trial court: Beijing Haidian District People's Court of first instance, Beijing First Intermediate People's Court of second instance; Source: "Chinese Court 2026 Cases · Marriage, Family and Inheritance Disputes".

7. Frequently Asked Questions

Question: For a joint will drafted by one spouse and signed by both, is it legally valid?Answer: Not necessarily; the key depends on whether the formal requirements are met. If it is written by hand, if two people sign their names and date, they can usually be approved in the form of self-book. If printing or writing on behalf of others is involved, the signature of the witness shall be completed. For the sake of safety, it is best to write separately or under professional witness.

question: after one party dies first, can the other party go back on his word and change his will? Answer: If it is two wills which are independent of each other, the living party can change and withdraw his own one at any time according to Article 1142; but if it is a common will with mutually bound contents and with "no change" agreement, the surviving party after the death of one party shall not withdraw and change it unilaterally in principle.

Q: How do you write if you want your wife to live until she is old and the house will eventually be given to her children? Answer: Lifetime residence right can be established for the spouse in the will (Article 371), and the ownership of the house is inherited by the children, and the term and scope of the residence right are stated; supplemented by conditional will or testamentary trust when necessary, and the intention of "using first and having last" is written in detail.

8. Practical insights from a lawyer's experience

Many couples want to write the property arrangement as a common will like "I will give it to my wife first, and then give it to my children when my wife leaves", but they always wonder in their hearts: Do two people write it on a piece of paper, does it count? This kind of doubt is not unreasonable. The law does not have a special "common will". Whether it can be recognized depends on whether it meets the formal requirements of the will and whether it can be proved to be the true meaning of the husband and wife. If the writing subject is unclear, the signature is vague, the date is incomplete, and the witness is absent, it is often denied as a whole, which is equal to white writing. On the contrary, if the form is solid, it can usually be recognized.

Before writing, think clearly about the type, whether the husband and wife designate each other to inherit, or whether one party disposes of their share first, or agrees to dispose of the common property of the husband and wife. The writing methods of different types vary greatly. The safest way is to write or sign their own part of the punishment meaning by their own hands, indicating the date, month and date. For those involved in the substitution and printing, more than two witnesses with no interest must be present and signed. The share of vulnerable families should also be counted as sufficient. Don't "write off" spouses or children who lack the ability to work and have no source of income, otherwise the will may be adjusted in this part.

The most difficult thing about a common will is not to make it, but how to finish it later. After one party leaves first, if the surviving party goes back on its word or wants to change its own share, whether it can change and whether it will move the punishment of the deceased party is a point of great controversy. Therefore, it is better to write clearly "whether and how one party can change after the death of the other party" before writing, and to do notarization if necessary to enhance the proof force. It is much easier for the family to reach an agreement on this arrangement and clarify each other's expectations than for the children to argue with different understandings afterwards. There are really differences. It is better to fix the evidence earlier than to turn over the old scores when it is divided.