Many people in life adhere to the traditional concept of “fathers' debts should be repaid by sons”, and there are also many indebted parents who, in order to avoid enforcement, deliberately transfer their properties to their children's names. Many people are puzzled: if parents incur debts, can the court seize and enforce the properties under their children's names?

  From a legal perspective, the answer is generally no. Our laws strictly adhere to the relativity of debts, and debts only bind the debtor themselves. Children are not required to assume repayment responsibility for their parents' debts. Normally, properties registered in the children's names are protected by law and will not be arbitrarily enforced by the court.

  However, this does not mean that properties under the children's names are absolutely safe. In judicial practice, the court will penetrate the surface of property registration and investigate the real source of funding and transaction background of the house. If the children are still young, do not have a legitimate and stable income, and the property is purchased entirely by the parents, and the house has always been controlled and used by the parents, even if registered in the children's names, the court is likely to identify it as common property of the family or concealed property of the parents, and enforce a seizure and execution in accordance with the law. If after the parents incur debts, to avoid repayment, they transfer the properties to their children for free or at a low price, this act is considered as malicious transfer of property, and creditors have the right to exercise the right of rescission. The court can determine the transfer to be invalid, restore the property registration, and use it for repayment of debts.

  In addition, there are two special situations that need to be paid attention to. If the children volunteer to provide guarantees for their parents' debts, the properties will naturally bear the corresponding guarantee obligations; if the children inherit their parents' heritage, they also need to repay their parents' debts within the value of the inherited property. Properties legally obtained, with clear funding sources, and without any malicious avoidance of debt situations will be strictly protected by law.

  In summary, the law does not recognize blind “fathers' debts should be repaid by sons”, nor does it tolerate malicious transfer of property. Do not have theFortunate mindset that transferring properties can avoid debts. Only by legally and compliantly disposing of property can one securely protect their rights and interests.