Government acts to protect foreign spouses property rights

[Super Joe]

Been at the land office a couple of times last week and one of them where the missus was registering a loan on a piece of land, and I had to go sign to say I give my consent, which we thought a bit odd. Basically the upshot is that due to a number of recent complaints by foreigners in the Pattaya area the government has instructed every land office that whenever a Thai wife tries to register anything at the land office (sale, transfer, mortgage, loan with private individual etc) that their farang husband needs to attend to sign off on it.

I asked a few questions and the official, who we've know 7 years and usually seems to give accurate info, said the following:
1) Applies to all property where land registered to wife after marriage, ie: even where no 'declaration that funds are all Thais' sign-off was done.
2) If wife says husband back in home country/ran off with pool cleaning boy/can't locate him then land office needs a court doc or similar.
3) If wife says we're divorced now needs a divorce cert/court paper.
4) Said this was a regulation all the time but never really enforced all the time by all officials or all land offices. Maybe if husband there anyway they would get him sign.

This reinforces the cases where something's gone wrong and a judge has generally ruled for a 50/50 split in the usual instance where the funds were payed 100% by farang, but the ownership was registered 100% with the Thai. Apparently under the CCC laws a judge can not accept the land office 'declaration that funds are all Thais' sign-off form. I've read they can adjudge differently to 50/50 where there's more involved, adultery, violence, abuse etc.

Seems the authorities have got tired of upstart wives selling up behind a husband's back, the bad publicity it brings, or just purely that it wastes police/court's time & money (latter added for the bitters to cling to). Whatever the reason though it's a positive move on several fronts.


SJ

[poosmate]

I recently had to sign such a 'consent' for the transfer of some land. I questioned how I could consent to something I had already signed as having no rights over.
Got no real answer.
This consent has to be given by Thai spouses but does not apply in law to foreigners unless the sign off form is not legal.
I recon it is being wrongly and unlawfully applied. How can a foreigner prevent a Thai owner (wife) from selling their land if a foreigner (husband) has declared the land was purchased by his wife with her money.
This means total control over your wife's land so future leases from spouses will be unnecessary.
The courts could always disregard this consent form as well if they see fit

[ste860]

if this is true it can only be a good thing,to help protect the farang from getting conned

[Super Joe]

I recently had to sign such a 'consent' for the transfer of some land. I questioned how I could consent to something I had already signed as having no rights over.
Got no real answer.
This consent has to be given by Thai spouses but does not apply in law to foreigners unless the sign off form is not legal.
I recon it is being wrongly and unlawfully applied. How can a foreigner prevent a Thai owner (wife) from selling their land if a foreigner (husband) has declared the land was purchased by his wife with her money.

I think you do still have rights over despite what you sign, judges certainly decide you have when they award 50/50 splits. There's laws in place that say contracts/agreements (even where you freely agreed to it) are not valid where they are deemed to unreasonably (however that's measured) favour one person over another. I'm assuming the land office declaration does not have sufficient 'legal standing' to overrule your legal rights, and/or 'real property' rights under the Civil and Commercial Codes (law of the land).

And the sign-off declaration is specifically for land, if subsequently a house is built on it which the foreigner can have a stake in, then I can see why this makes sense.

SJ

[poosmate]

agreements (even where you freely agreed to it) are not valid where they are deemed to unreasonably (however that's measured) favour one person over another.

Cannot understand how then the land office insists that such an agreement has to be signed to allow a sale.

Refuse to sign declaration of no interest when purchasing no sale.
Refuse to sign consent ( suggesting interest) when selling no sale.

TIT

[Spitfire]

Oddly, I too, am being asked to sign this 'waiver' of property rights next week at the SCB over the fact that it all belongs to the Mrs, despite it being obvious that I'm the major financial contributor.

Then, bizarrely, I'm expected to pay insurance that will pay off the loan in the event of one or the other of us dying and the surviving member will own it, me with a yellow book I guess......strange really.

[Super Joe]

This consent has to be given by Thai spouses but does not apply in law to foreigners unless the sign off form is not legal.

How can a foreigner prevent a Thai owner (wife) from selling their land if a foreigner (husband) has declared the land was purchased by his wife with her money.

Yes I think you hit the nail on the head with your first part, that I've made bold, that the initial sign-off declaration stating that all the purchase funds were the wife's pre-marriage is not a legal document. The majority of the time it was a false declaration and can easily be shown as such with financial records. Presumably that's why judges seem to award 50/50 splits the majority of the time as a foreigner would show the court that he paid, the declaration is then void and the Thai spouse is entitled to half the property seeing as it is now 'common marital assets'. It says somewhere in the land code that just because a land official has registered land to 'x', this does not mean it will not be revoked if information comes to light that it was done under false pretences.

Requiring a foreigner's sign-off to be able to sell is obviously unfair on the few cases where it really was all the Thai spouses funds, but doubt they care too much about that. My impression is it's just an butt-covering exercise by the Land Office to get farang's to sign-off on the funds initially, according to that 2006 directive that was issued to all the land offices they are not obligated to investigate the source of the Thais funds unless they believe she is a nominee for a foreigner suspected of doing business in real estate, ie: someone buying large land plots. As to why they now want a sign-off for Thai to sell, they told my wife it was because of farang's complaints, so I wonder if there's been a few cases where the court has ruled in a 50/50 share, so the shocked Thai who thought she was going to win suddenely rushes off to sell, and it's all a bit embarrassing as the judge has just awarded half the proceeds to the foreigner. Then the foreigner threatens to sue the land office boss!? So from a butt-covering point of view it's perfect, from a logical point of view... it's errr, Thailand

Oddly, I too, am being asked to sign this 'waiver' of property rights next week at the SCB over the fact that it all belongs to the Mrs, despite it being obvious that I'm the major financial contributor.

Then, bizarrely, I'm expected to pay insurance that will pay off the loan in the event of one or the other of us dying and the surviving member will own it, me with a yellow book I guess......strange really.

You can be your good lady's 'guarantor' if you like, then when she runs of with the house and refuses to pay the mortgage... you can pay it for her. Now there's an offer you can't refuse Spit

Are they really hammering you with the insurance, they did my missus, they made her pay 15 years up front and then the last 15 years of the 30 year term are 'free'.


SJ

[Spitfire]

Luckily, we didn't need a guarantor......for some reason.

However, despite the unlikeliness of the situation, if it ever ended up like that SJ, then I reckon I'm getting off lightly......just losing a 1.7 million house, which wouldn't be fully paid for for the next 15 years.

I'm just a young whipper-snapper so can easily move on.

Price of freedom is always high, I guess, but maybe it would be in some folks eye's a cheap exit......reckon it'd be an apartment opposite the Dynasty on Soi Nana after than one.....well, at least for a few months. Got to try at least once in my life to do the right thing.