On February 27, 2024, the People’s Courts Case Library was officially opened to the public. As of now, it has included over 5,000 cases. The People’s Courts Case Library is an authoritative and unified platform for retrieving similar cases, established by the Supreme People’s Court of China. It includes guiding cases issued by the Supreme Court and cases deemed by the Supreme Court to have demonstration value for the trial of similar cases. The case of Wu v. Gao (No.: 2024-17-5-101-005) is among those included.
This case involves a labor remuneration dispute. The Jining High-Tech Industrial Development District Court of Shandong ruled on March 25, 2022, that Gao must pay Wu labor service fee of RMB 8,500 within ten days from the effective date of the judgment. However, after the case entered the enforcement phase, it reached an impasse: Ga had no executable assets under his name, and he actively evaded court enforcement by refusing phone calls and avoiding court personnel, among other methods.
When all efforts seemed exhausted, the Jining Court decided to investigate the marital community property under the name of Gao’s spouse, Zhang. It was discovered that Zhang’s bank account contained deposits exceeding over RMB 170,000. The court subsequently froze a portion of the bank deposits under Zhang’s name.
Zhang filed an objection with the court, arguing that the court could only freeze the personal property of the enforcement debtor Gao, and that the deposit of approximately RMB 170,000 was their joint business income rather than Gao’s personal property. The court clarified to Zhang that it had the authority to freeze the portion of the marital community property attributable to the enforcement debtor in accordance with the law. After the court’s explanation, Zhang raised no objection to the freezing measure. Subsequently, the Jining Court issued an enforcement ruling stating that “enforcement has been completed, and the case is concluded.”
In enforcing this case, the court primarily relied on Article 12(1) and (2) of the Regulations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Sealing, Seizing and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by People’s Court, which stipulate:
“For property jointly owned by the enforcement debtor and other persons, the court may seal, seize, or freeze such property and shall promptly notify the co-owners. If the co-owners agree to partition the jointly owned property and the partition is recognized by the creditor, the court may affirm its validity. The effect of the sealing, seizing, or freezing shall extend to the portion of the property to which the enforcement debtor is entitled after the partition. With respect to the sealing, seizing, or freezing of the portions of the property to which other co-owners are entitled, the court shall issue a ruling to lift such measures.”
The deposits in the bank account under Zhang’s name constituted income derived from the joint business operations during her marriage with Gao. According to Article 1062 of the Civil Code, such income qualifies as marital community property. Consequently, the court was empowered to freeze the portion of the funds in Zhang’s bank account attributable to Gao.
Following the court’s clarification, Zhang raised no objection to the freezing of her account and consented to the deduction of a portion of the deposits to fulfill the monetary obligation imposed on the enforcement debtor Gao by the effective judicial document. This acquiescence and agreement were deemed tantamount to a partition of the property, thereby authorizing the court to directly execute against the relevant assets.
The key principle underscored by this case is that when no executable assets are held in the enforcement debtor’s own name, the court will conduct thorough investigations into whether the debtor holds jointly owned property with others, such as marital community property shared with a spouse. If such jointly owned property exists, the court is authorized to seal, seize, or freeze it. Following an agreed partition of the property, the court may enforce the monetary obligation specified in the effective judicial document against the portion allocated to the enforcement debtor. The court further emphasized that any co-owner other than the enforcement debtor who claims exclusive ownership of the jointly held property bears the obligation of proving such assertion.
This case also highlights the implications for marital property when one spouse becomes subject to debt enforcement proceedings. It simultaneously serves as a warning to the public that marriage is not a “safe harbor” for debt isolation. Once one spouse becomes a judgment debtor, the jointly held property under the other spouse’s name may also face the risk of investigation and control. Although the non-debtor spouse has the right to raise an objection, they bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the assets belong to them individually rather than constituting marital community property. This objectively encourages both spouses to treat marital property management and debt risks more prudently, thereby strengthening the awareness of shared responsibility within the marriage.
Comments