Giving up inheritance, do you still have to "pay the debts of the father with the son's assets"? Not necessarily.

“Parents’ debts are paid by their children” is considered “traditional,” but does it comply with legal regulations? Recently, Yixing Court heard a case involving a dispute over a commercial housing sales contract. The court ordered the heirs to repay the housing payment while also reserving a certain inheritance share for minor children.

In September 2019, Yu Li purchased a property from the Lao Xu couple for 603,600 yuan. A year and a half later, he sold the property to Tian Hua. After payment, Tian Hua discovered that the house had already been seized by the court and was in the enforcement stage. She sued the court, demanding Yu Li return the purchase money and pay damages. The court supported Tian Hua’s claim.

After returning the payment to Tian Hua, Yu Li filed a lawsuit against the Lao Xu couple, requesting the cancellation of the purchase contract and the return of 603,600 yuan. During the proceedings, Yu Li learned that Lao Xu had died of illness in January 2024. His mother had passed away in 2013. Yu Li then requested Lao Xu’s wife, father, and three children to jointly bear the responsibility for repaying the debt within the scope of their inheritance.

The court found that Lao Xu purchased the house from an outsider, Lao Lin, but had not transferred ownership to avoid paying transfer taxes. Later, due to a debt dispute involving the original owner, the house was seized by the court.

During the case, Lao Xu’s father, wife, and son all waived their inheritance rights. Lao Xu’s wife stated she had no income and relied on Lao Xu’s father’s retirement pension for living expenses.

The court held that when Lao Xu and his wife signed the house sale agreement, the house was indeed under seizure, and the contract’s purpose could not be fulfilled. Therefore, Yu Li had the right to rescind the contract. Although the house was seized due to a debt involving Lao Lin, as the sellers, Lao Xu and his wife should bear responsibility. This debt was a joint debt of the couple, and Lao Xu’s wife also had to refund the purchase money. After bearing the breach of contract liability, the heirs could also claim breach damages from the original homeowner.

Additionally, since Lao Xu’s other two children are minors, according to the Civil Code, when dividing inheritance, taxes and debts legally owed by the deceased must be paid first. However, necessary inheritance should be reserved for heirs lacking labor ability and sources of income. Considering Lao Xu’s wife’s lack of income, and to maximize the interests of minors, the court decided to reserve a certain inheritance share for the two children as a living guarantee until they reach adulthood.

Ultimately, the court ordered the cancellation of the purchase contract between Yu Li and Lao Xu, with Lao Xu’s wife returning 603,600 yuan. It also reserved 160,000 yuan per minor child (calculated at 1,000 yuan/month until adulthood) as living expenses, and the two children to return the remaining inheritance within Lao Xu’s estate for the house payment.

The presiding judge stated, “‘Parents’ debts are paid by their children’ is not absolute. According to the Civil Code, heirs who choose to inherit must settle the deceased’s taxes and debts within the value of the inheritance. If heirs explicitly waive inheritance, they are not responsible for debt repayment.”

The case’s uniqueness lies in involving minor heirs. The Civil Code clearly states that when dividing inheritance, taxes and debts must be paid first, and necessary inheritance should be reserved for heirs lacking labor ability and income, reflecting the law’s priority in protecting vulnerable groups’ right to survival.

In this case, the judge fully considered Lao Xu’s wife’s lack of fixed income and the family’s reliance on Lao Xu’s father’s pension. Upholding the principle of “supporting the elderly and raising children,” the court reserved a necessary inheritance share for the minor children within Lao Xu’s estate as their pre-adulthood living guarantee. This not only legally protected creditors’ rights but also demonstrated the law’s care and protection for minors.

“Debt must be repaid” is a basic moral principle, but “parents’ debts are paid by their children” does not conform to current laws. Parents and children are separate civil legal entities. According to the principle of relativity of contracts, the party responsible for repayment is the debtor. The death of the debtor does not mean the debt “disappears.” Article 1161 of the Civil Code stipulates that after the debtor’s death, heirs shall bear the responsibility for settling the debtor’s taxes and debts within the actual value of the inheritance. Those who waive inheritance are not responsible for debt repayment.

Moreover, “parents’ debts are paid by their children” is a limited liability, not unlimited. Heirs only bear repayment obligations within the actual value of the inheritance; debts exceeding the inheritance’s value are not their responsibility. If heirs voluntarily repay debts beyond the inheritance’s worth, the law does not interfere. This is an autonomous right of the heirs. However, after repayment, heirs cannot request a refund based on the principle of limited inheritance.

(All names in the text are pseudonyms.)

Correspondent: Yan Wenqi, Wang Jiaqí Yangtze Evening Post/Ziniu News Reporter: Zhang Jianbo

Proofreader: Zhu Yaping