Dowa Case Analysis | Should a Son Repay His Father's Debt? Should the Heir Assume the Debtor's Obligations While Inheriting the Heritage?

Case Summary

Big Brother Zhang and Second Brother Zhang are brothers. Zhang 1 is the legitimate child of Big Brother Zhang and his wife. Big Brother Zhang died in 2022, and Zhang 1 is his legal heir. Second Brother Zhang had a legitimate child, Zhang 2, with his former wife. Second Brother Zhang died in 2019, and Zhang 2 is his legal heir. In 2016, Second Brother Zhang borrowed 150,000 yuan from Big Brother Zhang and issued a promissory note on the same day, which did not specify the interest on the loan or the repayment date. After Second Brother Zhang's death, two properties were registered in his name, and Zhang 2 is his legal heir.

After Big Brother Zhang's death, Zhang 1 filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that Zhang 2 repay himself 150,000 yuan and interest within the scope of the inheritance of Second Brother Zhang's estate. Zhang 2 argued that as the son of the deceased debtor Second Brother Zhang, according to relevant laws and regulations, his son has no obligation to repay the debt, and Zhang 1's claim has exceeded the statute of limitations, with six years between the date of the loan and the date of the lawsuit.

Issues in Dispute

One: Whether Zhang 2, as the legal heir of the debtor Second Brother Zhang, should repay the 150,000 yuan debt of the deceased Second Brother Zhang.

Two: Whether Zhang 1's claim has exceeded the statute of limitations.

Judgment Result

The court ruled that Zhang 2 should repay the 150,000 yuan debt owed by the deceased Second Brother Zhang to Zhang 1 within twenty days from the date of the judgment.

Commentary by Dao Hua

In this case, Second Brother Zhang issued a promissory note to Big Brother Zhang in 2016, which can prove the fact that Second Brother Zhang borrowed money from Big Brother Zhang. Article 1161, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates: The heir shall pay the taxes and debts that the deceased should pay according to law within the actual value of the inherited property. Disputes over the payment of the deceased's debts are accessory cases, and the relevant legal relationships should be considered comprehensively. Although there is no direct evidence to prove the actual value of the two properties in Second Brother Zhang's inheritance, based on the actual status of the two properties in Second Brother Zhang's inheritance and the specific circumstances of the benefits obtained by Zhang 2 after inheriting Second Brother Zhang's estate, it can be inferred that the actual value of the two properties in Second Brother Zhang's inheritance meets the 150,000 yuan, so Zhang 2 should legally repay the 150,000 yuan debt owed by the deceased Second Brother Zhang;

Zhang 2 argued that Zhang 1's claim has exceeded the statute of limitations, with six years between the date of the loan and the date of the lawsuit. The defense that Zhang 1 did not assert his rights against Zhang 2 during this period is not valid. This case is a dispute over the payment of the deceased's debts, not a civil loan dispute, and the basis of the legal relationship of the claims is different. The basis of the claim in a civil loan dispute is the债权debt arising from the contractual relationship, while the basis of the claim in a dispute over the payment of the deceased's debts is the legal relationship arising from the inheritance dispute. Therefore, the court should apply the statute of limitations for the payment of the deceased's debts when hearing this case. The statute of limitations for disputes over the payment of the deceased's debts shall be calculated from the date the creditor knows or should know of the death of the debtor. In this case, there was no agreement on the performance period of the debt between the debtor Second Brother Zhang and the creditor Big Brother Zhang. For debts without an agreed performance period, the statute of limitations shall be calculated from the date the creditor asserts his rights and the obligor refuses to perform his obligations, but shall not exceed twenty years. Second Brother Zhang died in 2019, and Zhang 1 filed a lawsuit with the court in 2022. Zhang 1 asserts his rights within the statutory limitation period, in accordance with the law.