Dao Hua Case Analysis | Should the Debt of the Father Be Repaid by the Son? Should the Heir Assume the Debtor's Debt at the Same Time as Inheriting the Heritage?

Case Summary

Zhang Dage and Zhang Erge are brothers. Zhang Cheng 1 is the legitimate child of Zhang Dage and his wife. Zhang Dage died in 2022, and Zhang Cheng 1 is his legal heir. Zhang Cheng 2 is the legitimate child of Zhang Erge and his former wife. Zhang Erge died in 2019, and Zhang Cheng 2 is his legal heir. In 2016, Zhang Erge borrowed 150,000 yuan from Zhang Dage and issued a promissory note to Zhang Dage on the same day.This promissory note does not specify the interest on the debt or the repayment time.After Zhang Erge's death, there were two properties registered in his name, and Zhang Erge 2 is his legal heir.

After Brother Zhang's death, Zhang Cheng 1 filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting a judgment ordering Zhang Cheng 2 to repay himself 150,000 yuan and interest within the scope of inheriting Brother Zhang's estate. Zhang Cheng 2 argued that he is the son of Brother Zhang, and according to relevant laws and regulations, the son has no obligation to repay the debts owed by the father, and Zhang Cheng 1's claim for relief has exceeded the statute of limitations, with a gap of six years between the date of the loan and the date of the lawsuit.

Dispute focus

One, whether Zhang Erge, as the legal heir of the debtor Zhang Erge, should repay the deceased Zhang Erge's 150,000 yuan debt.

Two, whether Zhang Zhang 1's claim has exceeded the statute of limitations.

Judgment result

The court decides that Zhang Zhang Er, two, shall pay off the debt of 150,000 yuan owed by the deceased Zhang Er Ge to Zhang Zhang Yi within twenty days from the effective date of this judgment.

Dao Hua analysis

In this case, Zhang Erge gave a promissory note to Zhang Dagang in 2016, which can prove the fact that Zhang Erge borrowed money from Zhang Dagang. Article 1161, first paragraph, of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China explicitly stipulates:The heir shall discharge the deceased's taxes and debts that the deceased should have paid according to law within the actual value of the inherited property. Disputes over the settlement of the deceased's debts are ancillary 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 Zhang Erge's inheritance, based on the actual condition of the two properties in Zhang Erge's inheritance and the specific benefits obtained by Zhang Erge 2 after inheriting Zhang Erge's inheritance, it can be inferred that the actual value of the aforementioned two houses in Zhang Erge's inheritance meets 150,000 yuan, therefore, Zhang Erge 2 shall, in accordance with the law, repay the 150,000 yuan debt owed by the deceased Zhang Erge.

Zhang 2 argues that Zhang 1's claim has exceeded the statute of limitations, with a gap of six years between the date of the loan and the date of the lawsuit. The defense that Zhang 1 did not assert his right to claim against Zhang 2 during this period is not valid. This case is a dispute over the settlement of the deceased's debts, not a civil loan dispute, and the basis of the legal relationship for the claims in the two disputes is different. The basis of the claim in a civil loan dispute is the debt arising from the contractual relationship, while the basis of the claim in a dispute over the settlement 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 settlement of the deceased's debts in the trial of this case.The statute of limitations for disputes over the settlement of the deceased's debts should be calculated from the date the creditor knew or should have known of the death of the debtor.In this case, the debtor Zhang Erge and the creditor Zhang Dagang did not agree on the performance period of the debt. For debts without an agreed performance period, the limitation period for litigation shall commence from the date when the claimant asserts the right and the obligor refuses to perform the obligation, but shall not exceed twenty years. Zhang Erge died in 2019, and Zhang 1 filed a lawsuit with the court in 2022. Zhang 1 is asserting the right within the statutory limitation period, which complies with the provisions of the law.