The misconception that accounts are closed after death is incorrect; joint debts still remain legally binding.

This article is from: Ningxia Daily

Our reporter Ma Zhong

“Once the person has passed away, do the debts still have to be repaid?” Recently, the Ga shawo Sub-bureau of the Yanchi County Judicial Bureau successfully mediated a dispute over a private lending transaction. It carried out popular-law education by explaining the case on the spot through mediation.

In October 2022, Chen Dazhu (a pseudonym) and Li Xiufang (a pseudonym), a married couple, due to difficulties in capital turnover for their breeding business, borrowed 100,000 yuan from others. Unexpectedly, in 2023, Chen Dazhu passed away due to illness. The repayment of that debt immediately fell into a deadlock of performance. By the end of 2023, after the lenders repeatedly demanded payment, Li Xiufang had only repaid 10,000 yuan. During 2024, she also made additional repayments of 3,000 yuan in sequence; after that, she frequently did not answer the lenders’ calls. In early 2026, unable to obtain payment after repeated requests, the lenders came to the Ga shawo Sub-bureau for help, requesting Li Xiufang to repay the remaining 87,000 yuan of the outstanding debt.

After receiving the mediation application, Wang Yuan, the head of the Ga shawo Sub-bureau, organized both parties to carry out on-site mediation. During the mediation, Li Xiufang tried to delay repayment by claiming that “the spouse has already passed away.” Wang Yuan cited relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China to explain that this loan was incurred during the marriage relationship, and that it was used entirely for the breeding business jointly operated by the family; therefore, it legally qualifies as the couple’s joint debt. Even if one spouse dies, the other spouse still must assume full responsibility for repayment.

At the same time, Wang Yuan further explained by combining legal articles: the borrower should repay the loan within the agreed time limit. In this case, Li Xiufang’s behavior of delaying repayment and refusing to answer calls violated both the principle of honesty and trustworthiness and also crossed the legal bottom line. If she continues to refuse to fulfill the repayment obligation, the lender may safeguard its rights through litigation. Even after the court issues an effective judgment, if payment is still not made, the obligor will face compulsory enforcement measures such as freezing bank accounts and sealing personal property.

In addition, regarding the issue of interest agreement in private lending, Wang Yuan also issued a legal-knowledge reminder on the spot: in accordance with the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Private Lending, the interest rate on the loan may not exceed four times the one-year Loan Prime Rate quoted at the time the contract is formed. The portion that exceeds this limit is not protected by law.