As for the result of the reconsideration of the case, Luo Rui, the chief judge of the second instance of the case, explained that whether the ex wife of the person to be executed can be added as the person to be executed in the action of execution objection depends on whether the debt involved in the case can be recognized as the joint debt of husband and wife, which requires specific analysis of specific issues. Judicial Interpretation of Marriage Law
 （2） Article 24 stipulates that creditors who claim rights over debts incurred by one of the spouses in their personal name during the marriage relationship shall be treated as joint debts of the spouses. Generally, there are only two exceptions. One is that the husband and wife implement separate property system, and the other is that they explicitly agree with the creditor as personal debt. The reason why the legislation stipulates this is that the husband and wife enjoy the right of family agency, and one party's external debt within the scope of family agency should be regarded as the joint debt of both husband and wife. However, in trial practice, it is more common for one spouse to incur debts due to infringement, such as compensation for injuries or bruises to others, and compensation for infringement of others' reputation rights. Because most of the couples involved in the case did not manage their property separately, and the accident happened suddenly, the creditor could not agree on the nature of the debt in advance, so whether it could be recognized as the joint debt of the couple was often controversial. We can consider whether this kind of tort debt belongs to the joint debt of the husband and wife from two aspects: first, whether the husband and wife have the agreement to raise debt together, and second, whether the debt is used for the husband and wife's common life and business. Specifically, in this case, Aling's compensation for mental damage of 150000 yuan is a tort debt. Although it occurred during the existence of the relationship between Haowei and Ajuan, the debt was caused by Haowei's personal behavior. Ajuan did not agree to raise debt jointly. In addition, when Haowei infringed upon Aling's personality rights, it also damaged Ajuan's legitimate rights and interests as a spouse, making the family broken. Therefore, it should be determined that the compensation for mental damage belongs to Haowei's personal debt, and Haowei's personal property should be liable for compensation.