Ask here about the pleasures and pitfalls of buying, selling or renting property and real estate in Hua Hin. Building, design and construction topics welcome. Commercial or promotional posts for real estate companies or private properties are forbidden.
HHTel wrote:
No, the law is quite clear on that glc as you know. Doesn't matter who's name it's in or who paid for it, the community property laws state that the assets are 50-50 on divorce...... The same as the UK and most countries in the west.
Only AFTER wedlock I presume?
I was told anything prior to marriage is not part of a divorce settlement. Please correct me if I'm wrong
RICHARD OF LOXLEY
It’s none of my business what people say and think of me. I am what I am and do what I do. I expect nothing and accept everything. It makes life so much easier.
HHTel wrote:No, the law is quite clear on that glc as you know. Doesn't matter who's name it's in or who paid for it, the community property laws state that the assets are 50-50 on divorce...... The same as the UK and most countries in the west.
I'm not so sure that would apply if a property has been bought through deception. You might not end up with a house to split 50/50!
But on saying that. This was the view of just one Court in Phuket, even if the higher Court agrees with them, its not as if the authorities haven't been aware of the various, let's call them 'ruses', for many years. From time to time it gets reported that there's going to be a crackdown and by and large, that has never happened and I really think the junta have got bigger fish to fry at the moment - like dissidents!
Not sure what you mean 'by deception'. The law is quite clear. Any assets bought by either party within a marriage is classed as 'Sin Som Ros' (community property) and is split equally regardless of whose name it's in. If a judge ruled otherwise, then that judge is going against the law and can be taken to task on that. Even the document signed at the land office stating that the property was bought using your partner's money which she had before marriage is not acceptable in court and is a document for the land office only!
Believe me. I've been through it all. I am now the proud owner of 50% of my house and land , by court order. The order is lodged with the land office and neither party can sell without the other's signature.
That's fair enough HHTel, the point I was making is that should the courts view be upheld and should the authorities decide to take action on the courts decision, then the initial purchase might be deemed null and void if using a nominee, lease etc and therefore there might not be any assets to split, just a loss to share!
caller wrote:I am now the proud owner of 50% of my house and land , by court order. The order is lodged with the land office and neither party can sell without the other's signature.
I would not be so proud to be the owner of 50% of a house (and land ???), all the more so if I had to pay 100 % of it and still unable to sell it without someone else's signature...
The court order says that when it's sold, (that is land and house) the sale is split 50-50 with my ex-wife. Technically, I suppose I don't own it but it cannot be sold without my approval. (the order is lodged with the land office) In court, the judge ordered her off the property in order for me and the kids to move in!
So neither of us can sell without the other's approval. So as far as ownership goes, we both have the same rights over it.
It is not always as clear cut as "Thai law says 50:50 so that's what you'll get". You need a seriously good lawyer (better than your opponents), and a non corruptible judge - the farang doesn't always get his half, I've seen it go both ways.
However I think we're moving off the topic here which is the validity of property leases in Thailand for foreigners, not marital property and divorces (which has been discussed countless times already).
Who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived or he who has stayed securely on shore and merely existed? - Hunter S Thompson
caller wrote:I am now the proud owner of 50% of my house and land , by court order. The order is lodged with the land office and neither party can sell without the other's signature.
I would not be so proud to be the owner of 50% of a house (and land ???), all the more so if I had to pay 100 % of it and still unable to sell it without someone else's signature...
Sorry Gerard, but I didn't say what you have quoted me as saying. I appreciate it's just an error quoting a post, but just thought I would clarify that! I'm just a lodger in my gf's house.
caller wrote:I am now the proud owner of 50% of my house and land , by court order. The order is lodged with the land office and neither party can sell without the other's signature.
I would not be so proud to be the owner of 50% of a house (and land ???), all the more so if I had to pay 100 % of it and still unable to sell it without someone else's signature...
Sorry Gerard, but I didn't say what you have quoted me as saying. I appreciate it's just an error quoting a post, but just thought I would clarify that! I'm just a lodger in my gf's house.
Sorry, Caller, I wanted to quote HHtel, of course.
And I could be just a lodger in my gf's house as you if everything was OK and everybody happy.
ATB
I've got kids and as long as the property(ies) will end up with them, I don't really care. (I did get Thai citizenship for them). I can't take it with me and I'm on the really wrong side of fifty....
I think there has been increasing pressure by the Thai elite and generalissimos to get rid of foreign owned businesses and the foreigner influence in Thailand.
I think there has been increasing pressure by the Thai elite and generalissimos to get rid of foreign owned businesses and the foreigner influence in Thailand.
HHTel wrote:
No, the law is quite clear on that glc as you know. Doesn't matter who's name it's in or who paid for it, the community property laws state that the assets are 50-50 on divorce...... The same as the UK and most countries in the west.
Only AFTER wedlock I presume?
I was told anything prior to marriage is not part of a divorce settlement. Please correct me if I'm wrong
That is how it is in the U.S. AFTER the Marriage starts! It can be a big difference. Many don't understand this.
"Religion is What Keeps the Poor from Murdering the Rich" -- Napoleon Bonaparte