But was this opinion specific to Thailand?
Also, it seems that it may contradict it self? Thus:
“So if one dies the other co-owner should be entitled to full ownership . . . “
vs.
“The other owner must of course be entitled to the other half”
Maybe the problem is with the phrase “should be”!
Is this only a statement of what would be the case in a perfect world?
Or does it have some other, more precise, meaning when used as here?
It seems to me that if this is truly joint ownership of the entire property,
then there will be no halves to consider (or own): and in this case both of these statements are irrelevant!
Does anyone have any hard facts about either the law or examples of what
happens in practice?
Or do you know where/how to find solid facts about this important matter?
Thsnks!