Farang Wants Half His House Investment Back From Thai Ex-wife

[wedders]

Scenario (REALLY not mine, but I'm being asked to help out by Thai girl's new French boyfriend 'Alain', a good mate of mine, who's away from Thailand most of the time)...

Farang 'Joe' meets Thai girl. Farang buys house (land and house in her name only from day one).

'Joe' and Thai girl later get married. No kids (she already has a couple, who are living with her when they meet).

'Joe' dumps her, meets someone else presumably. She stays in house with her kids, he has a condo elsewhere (she doesn't know where). Divorce comes through. Since then no contact for some time.

A year later 'Joe' says he wants house sold to get back half of the money it's worth (2 mill). Or he wants her to come up with the cash (1 million baht). He doesn't care which. Threatens legal action. Even (allegedly) breaks in and takes back a load of stuff he'd previously bought (washing machine, tv etc ....)

Now she is starting to get legal letters from ex-husband 'Joe' (they are now divorced). 'Joe's' lawyer says they will definitely take it to court if she doesn't pay up.

Girl is scared, doesn't understand this stuff, can't afford a lawyer, is asking new farang bf 'Alain' for cash to pay for a lawyer (she's asked one lawyer who says he will need 50,000 baht). 'Alain' thinks this is BS and that the ex-husband hasn't got a hope seeing as the house is in her name, it was bought before they were married, and it was him that dumped her and left the family home anyway.

The morality of all this isn't 'Alain's' concern, just the legal aspect. 'Alain' is not bothered about whether 'Joe' is somehow morally entitled to the money or not - in a way he sympathises. He just wants to know whether the ex-husband has got a legal leg to stand on, or whether all this is only bluff, 'Joe' just trying to intimidate her?

(And be charitable - assume that there really is a lawyer saying he needs 50k baht to defend her, and that this isn't some trick to attempt to get cash out of new bf 'Alain' by Thai girl)....

I reckon it's more likely either bluff from 'Joe', or 'Joe' has been conned by his own lawyers into thinking that a Thai court would force a Thai national into selling a house in her sole name to the benefit of a stupid farang who should have known better in the first place. Unless there is some legal precedence for this that says otherwise.

Anyone got any (constructive) ideas on this? Finally, if there is some (legal) justification for this claim under Thai law, 'Alain' would like to know if there is the equivalent of free or nearly legal advice/help in Thailand for Thais with little or no income. He doesn't want to waste money on a court case that's going nowhere. Lawyers are the only guaranteed winners in situations like this, whatever the country.

Edited October 23, 2008 by wedders

[Lefty]

Did the divorce address the house issue? If not and divorce is final I believe she has no reason to worry.

Lefty

[wedders]

Did the divorce address the house issue? If not and divorce is final I believe she has no reason to worry.

Lefty

AFAIK it was just a straightforward divorce, no mention of joint property or whatever.

Apparently 'Joe' is serious about this - a court hearing has been scheduled for early November.

[Crossy]

If the house was bought before they were married, surely it's not joint property and 'Joe' has zero claim.

IMHO it should go to court, she will need a lawyer who knows Thai property and divorce law.

[pianoman]

If the house was bought before they were married, surely it's not joint property and 'Joe' has zero claim.

IMHO it should go to court, she will need a lawyer who knows Thai property and divorce law.

Somewhat the same type of situation last year here in Kalasin... Lawyer told the Farang that because they were not married when purchasing the land & building the house, that he could claim that they were Partners in the Investment, and therefore request that the courts award him a financial settlement.... That case has not come to court as of yet due to the Farang going back to England to sort out his Pension Benefits... If married, the Thai wife is asked to have her Farang Husband sign a statement that the funds are a "Gift" and that he claims no rights to the property what so ever...

Pianoman

[joskydive]

Depends really on how he bought the house. Nowadays, if they can prove it was his money that bought the house and land, his Lawyer can take the matter to the courts.

What I mean by prove is - did he transfer those funds from a foreign bank account to here, expressly to buy the house and land. Banks keep records and when it's that sort of sum of money, they will always ask and note the reason for transferring such and amount of money to a foreign country.

Copies of the transfer of funds can be obtained from the Bank and used in court.

The outcome of this is - as we all know a foreigner cannot own land in this country - the house and land would have to be put up for auction. His funds would be returned to him without profit and if there is anything left over, debts on the house will be paid and she will get the rest. (Sometimes, at auctions the bidding is low so she can't even guarrantee that she will even get any money back.

With regard to Lawyers:-

I don't believe there is a free/nearly legal service here. I have known some Lawyers who, if their customer is poor, sometimes make an arrangement with them, that whatever monetory profit they get as a result of a court order, the Lawyer gets a percentage of that profit.

In the situation that you have described, I would say that this would be a good alternative, as this then gives her Lawyer more determination and incentive to win this case.

[wedders]

Depends really on how he bought the house. Nowadays, if they can prove it was his money that bought the house and land, his Lawyer can take the matter to the courts.

But if they weren't married at the time of the purchase, I'm not sure I see how being able to prove who bought the property would affect the outcome of the court case? After all, isn't it similar to him wanting to get half the value of a car he bought and put in his then girlfriend's name ... or gold jewellery ... or whatever... back after a split? Anything purchased after marriage, that's another matter.

And I suppose you can take all manner of fanciful claims to court, irrespective of the chance of success. The lawyers aren't fussy. (Not that long since a US senator tried to sue God for inflicting pain and suffering on mankind... the judge threw it out, but only because they didn't have an address to subpoena said deity. Senator argued that God had received notice as He was all-knowing, but no joy. He's thinking of an appeal ...)

Edited October 23, 2008 by wedders

[joskydive]

Depends really on how he bought the house. Nowadays, if they can prove it was his money that bought the house and land, his Lawyer can take the matter to the courts.

But if they weren't married at the time of the purchase, I'm not sure I see how being able to prove who bought the property would affect the outcome of the court case? After all, isn't it similar to him wanting to get half the value of a car he bought and put in his then girlfriend's name ... or gold jewellery ... or whatever... back after a split? Yep! Anything purchased after marriage, that's another matter.

It's proving who's money was used because they weren't married at the time! From what you have said, this is the only leverage he has to take her to court.

She could also come into some difficulties for allowing her name to be used as the Purchaser with full knowledge that a foreigner was illegally purchasing land, unless, of course, she has a signed and witnessed contract stating that the house was purchased for her in exchange for taking care of him for xxxx number of years. If that is the case, he has no legal recourse..

And I suppose you can take all manner of fanciful claims to court, irrespective of the chance of success. The lawyers aren't fussy. (Not that long since a US senator tried to sue God for inflicting pain and suffering on mankind... the judge threw it out, but only because they didn't have an address to subpoena said deity. Senator argued that God had received notice as He was all-knowing, but no joy. He's thinking of an appeal ...)

I'd love to see how that appeal goes!

[mdechgan]

The divorce should have been finalized with the house in mind.

It takes two people to sign the divorce papers with two witnesses.

Divorces are mutual, unless by the courts.

Does Joe have legal ground. Yes 100%.

The court and lawyers will argue both of their past. Joe and the girl's. Especially if he can prove that Joe paid for it.

However doesn't matter. Legally Joe is entitled to 50% so is the GF after a divorce. If the divorce doesn't mention anything which is a big boo boo, with many divorces all assets are divided 50/50.

However if their was a prenuptiual agreement then it would be another matter.

If it went to court the court will decide. Chances are it might be split. However the GF can demand compensation for Joe's infidelity so Joe might also be at risk.

Is a lawyer needed? Yes otherwise it will be aone sided legal battle.

In Thailand one can win a court case even if you're wrong. It depends on the lawyers and amount of money.

[wedders]

The divorce should have been finalized with the house in mind.

It takes two people to sign the divorce papers with two witnesses.

Divorces are mutual, unless by the courts.

I've just discovered that the divorce hasn't actually been finalised. 'Joe' has yet to sign, so they are still legally married. Hmm, wonder if 'Alain' knew that...

Does Joe have legal ground. Yes 100%.

Even if he bought it in her name some time before they actually got married? Sorry to labour that point, but I thought from earlier comments that this was a key problem for his case.

The court and lawyers will argue both of their past. Joe and the girl's. Especially if he can prove that Joe paid for it.

However doesn't matter. Legally Joe is entitled to 50% so is the GF after a divorce. If the divorce doesn't mention anything which is a big boo boo, with many divorces all assets are divided 50/50.

However if their was a prenuptiual agreement then it would be another matter.

No prenuptial.

If it went to court the court will decide. Chances are it might be split. However the GF can demand compensation for Joe's infidelity so Joe might also be at risk.

On that topic, he allegedly hasn't paid her a baht in support over the lengthy period since he left. I don't know whether under Thai law this is a requirement or not.

Is a lawyer needed? Yes otherwise it will be aone sided legal battle.

In Thailand one can win a court case even if you're wrong. It depends on the lawyers and amount of money.

Er yes, I have heard rumours to that effect. Allegedly.

[samuibeachcomber]

surely if you buy somebody something then thats it if they dont want to return it you have n't got a leg to stand on.i WOULD SAY jOE'S GOT BUCKLY and is a stupid sod.

[joskydive]

The divorce should have been finalized with the house in mind.

It takes two people to sign the divorce papers with two witnesses.

Divorces are mutual, unless by the courts.

I've just discovered that the divorce hasn't actually been finalised. 'Joe' has yet to sign, so they are still legally married. Hmm, wonder if 'Alain' knew that...

Does Joe have legal ground. Yes 100%.

Even if he bought it in her name some time before they actually got married? Sorry to labour that point, but I thought from earlier comments that this was a key problem for his case.

The court and lawyers will argue both of their past. Joe and the girl's. Especially if he can prove that Joe paid for it.

However doesn't matter. Legally Joe is entitled to 50% so is the GF after a divorce. If the divorce doesn't mention anything which is a big boo boo, with many divorces all assets are divided 50/50.

However if their was a prenuptiual agreement then it would be another matter.

No prenuptial.

If it went to court the court will decide. Chances are it might be split. However the GF can demand compensation for Joe's infidelity so Joe might also be at risk.

On that topic, he allegedly hasn't paid her a baht in support over the lengthy period since he left. I don't know whether under Thai law this is a requirement or not.

Is a lawyer needed? Yes otherwise it will be aone sided legal battle.

In Thailand one can win a court case even if you're wrong. It depends on the lawyers and amount of money.

Er yes, I have heard rumours to that effect. Allegedly.

Has she signed the papers? If she hasn't she could tell him that she will only sign the papers if he gives her the house and land.

Also, if there was no prenuptual, maybe Joe should be more worried about losing his condo aswell, if he owns it.

[wedders]

Has she signed the papers? If she hasn't she could tell him that she will only sign the papers if he gives her the house and land.

I think she has, unfortunately (for her). Why Joe hasn't signed yet is not known.

Also, if there was no prenuptual, maybe Joe should be more worried about losing his condo aswell, if he owns it.

Good point!

Edited October 23, 2008 by wedders

[joskydive]

Has she signed the papers? If she hasn't she could tell him that she will only sign the papers if he gives her the house and land.

I think she has, unfortunately (for her). Why Joe hasn't signed yet is not known.

Also, if there was no prenuptual, maybe Joe should be more worried about losing his condo aswell, if he owns it.

Good point!

Then maybe the line to take is - I won't sue for loss of face, infidelity, half share of your condo, car and other assets, if you give me the house and land.

[Gary A]

All I can say is that I bought my Thai wife four properties. For each property, I had to sign a paper saying that i had no financial interest in the property. That makes it quite simple. If we ever split up, I walk away. If a farang buys a property in his wife's name he MUST sign that document or the property will not be transferred.

That said, I think this is a bullshit story.

[wedders]

All I can say is that I bought my Thai wife four properties. For each property, I had to sign a paper saying that i had no financial interest in the property. That makes it quite simple. If we ever split up, I walk away. If a farang buys a property in his wife's name he MUST sign that document or the property will not be transferred.

Maybe there was such a document. I've no idea.

That said, I think this is a bullshit story.

Translation needed - you mean you think it's fabricated, or you just don't like it for some reason?

[wedders]

Then maybe the line to take is - I won't sue for loss of face, infidelity, half share of your condo, car and other assets, if you give me the house and land.

To be honest I find the whole thing head-scratchingly odd - that any farang could be foolish enough to get in that situation in the first place (no prenuptial, buying the house in her name before getting married), and then compound all the problems by a) not jumping at the chance to sign the divorce papers as soon as possible after the separation, b ) not realising that by staying married he leaves himself open to counter-claims against any other property in his name, not forgetting maintenance, as you pointed out, and c) taking his dubious and no doubt costly claim to a Thai court which means any defending lawyer worth his salt is going to start thinking along the lines of counter-suing him.

Edited October 23, 2008 by wedders

[joskydive]

Then maybe the line to take is - I won't sue for loss of face, infidelity, half share of your condo, car and other assets, if you give me the house and land.

To be honest I find the whole thing head-scratchingly odd - that any farang could be foolish enough to get in that situation in the first place (no prenuptial, buying the house in her name before getting married), and then compound all the problems by a) not jumping at the chance to sign the divorce papers as soon as possible after the separation, b ) not realising that by staying married he leaves himself open to counter-claims against any other property in his name, not forgetting maintenance, as you pointed out, and c) taking his dubious and no doubt costly claim to a Thai court which means any defending lawyer worth his salt is going to start thinking along the lines of counter-suing him.

Absolutely! Given the right Lawyer, the Lady could be worth quite a lot!

[Lopburi99]

Depends really on how he bought the house. Nowadays, if they can prove it was his money that bought the house and land, his Lawyer can take the matter to the courts.

But if they weren't married at the time of the purchase, I'm not sure I see how being able to prove who bought the property would affect the outcome of the court case? After all, isn't it similar to him wanting to get half the value of a car he bought and put in his then girlfriend's name ... or gold jewellery ... or whatever... back after a split? Yep! Anything purchased after marriage, that's another matter.

It's proving who's money was used because they weren't married at the time! From what you have said, this is the only leverage he has to take her to court.

She could also come into some difficulties for allowing her name to be used as the Purchaser with full knowledge that a foreigner was illegally purchasing land, unless, of course, she has a signed and witnessed contract stating that the house was purchased for her in exchange for taking care of him for xxxx number of years. If that is the case, he has no legal recourse..

And I suppose you can take all manner of fanciful claims to court, irrespective of the chance of success. The lawyers aren't fussy. (Not that long since a US senator tried to sue God for inflicting pain and suffering on mankind... the judge threw it out, but only because they didn't have an address to subpoena said deity. Senator argued that God had received notice as He was all-knowing, but no joy. He's thinking of an appeal ...)

I'd love to see how that appeal goes!

That senator's name isn't Obama by any chance is it? Sound similar to "the Chosen One's" recently stated "out of fairness" and "spread the wealth around" motives. (Also includes shades of the great Rev. Jeremiah Wright [re: retribution for inflicted pain and suffering])

(Mod, sorry for off-topic post, please delete if you wish)

Edited October 23, 2008 by Lopburi99

[wedders]

And I suppose you can take all manner of fanciful claims to court, irrespective of the chance of success. The lawyers aren't fussy. (Not that long since a US senator tried to sue God for inflicting pain and suffering on mankind... the judge threw it out, but only because they didn't have an address to subpoena said deity. Senator argued that God had received notice as He was all-knowing, but no joy. He's thinking of an appeal ...)

I'd love to see how that appeal goes!

That senator's name isn't Obama by any chance is it? Sound similar to "the Chosen One's" recently stated "out of fairness" and "spread the wealth around" motives. (Also includes shades of the great Rev. Jeremiah Wright [re: inflicted pain and suffering])

(Mod, sorry for off-topic, please delete if you wish)

No - it was Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, certainly not Obama. I don't think such a court case would go down too well with American voters right now, given that the great majority are staunch Christians! (There's an article on it on the BBC news website if you do a search).

[Lopburi99]

And I suppose you can take all manner of fanciful claims to court, irrespective of the chance of success. The lawyers aren't fussy. (Not that long since a US senator tried to sue God for inflicting pain and suffering on mankind... the judge threw it out, but only because they didn't have an address to subpoena said deity. Senator argued that God had received notice as He was all-knowing, but no joy. He's thinking of an appeal ...)

I'd love to see how that appeal goes!

That senator's name isn't Obama by any chance is it? Sound similar to "the Chosen One's" recently stated "out of fairness" and "spread the wealth around" motives. (Also includes shades of the great Rev. Jeremiah Wright [re: retribution for inflicted pain and suffering])

(Mod, sorry for off-topic post, please delete if you wish)

No - it was Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, certainly not Obama. I don't think such a court case would go down too well with American voters right now, given that the great majority are staunch Christians! (There's an article on it on the BBC news website if you do a search).

Sorry, I was just joking, but thanks for identifying Chambers and the BBC link. Defies reason why anyone would start such a lawsuit.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Lopburi99

[torrenova]

Though not quite the same this case reminds me of a dispute over a vehicle which was in the Thai girl's name but it was the westerner who made the monthly payments. The girl claimed that it was hers but she could not prove where she got the money to make the payments and the guy could, to some degree and it was decided that it was his vehicle and was only in her name because he could not get finance. She had to relinquish the vehicle.

Now we all know the guy cannot own the land though he can own the house that sits on it. I suspect though that there has been no separation in this case. I think we mostly know about assets before marriage being retained and assets purchased after marriage being split. However, I don't think I have come across this identical situation before.

Simply, I think he would be fobbed off with the pre marriage purchase as being hers. I take Gary's point about him having to say it was a gift but that was recognising that he was providing the finance. In this case, with the information we have, it would seem to me that either he put the money in her account and she bought the house or he paid from his account, all prior to marriage.

I think he has a significant claim. I also think he has been somewhat generous to want only 50% though it appears he has not been very accommodating in finding a solution. If the house is valued at Bt2m, then she will have no problem raising Bt1m from a reputable bank at normal rates. Over 20 years this would represent a repayment of about Bt7,800 per month. Source : http://www.bangkokbank.com/Bangkok+Bank/Pe...lan+Options.htm

My advice to her would be to find the Bt1m and get him to pay for lawyers to write up the requisite paperwork. If she has to get lawyers then they will eat up too much that she will be potentially worse off and destitute if he is awarded 100% of the property.

I think that more information is needed such as the details of whether he has signed any waiver of rights as per Gary's post above. If he has not, then I think she is liable to return him something and perhaps all.

[mdechgan]

Though not quite the same this case reminds me of a dispute over a vehicle which was in the Thai girl's name but it was the westerner who made the monthly payments. The girl claimed that it was hers but she could not prove where she got the money to make the payments and the guy could, to some degree and it was decided that it was his vehicle and was only in her name because he could not get finance. She had to relinquish the vehicle.

Now we all know the guy cannot own the land though he can own the house that sits on it. I suspect though that there has been no separation in this case. I think we mostly know about assets before marriage being retained and assets purchased after marriage being split. However, I don't think I have come across this identical situation before.

Simply, I think he would be fobbed off with the pre marriage purchase as being hers. I take Gary's point about him having to say it was a gift but that was recognising that he was providing the finance. In this case, with the information we have, it would seem to me that either he put the money in her account and she bought the house or he paid from his account, all prior to marriage.

I think he has a significant claim. I also think he has been somewhat generous to want only 50% though it appears he has not been very accommodating in finding a solution. If the house is valued at Bt2m, then she will have no problem raising Bt1m from a reputable bank at normal rates. Over 20 years this would represent a repayment of about Bt7,800 per month. Source : http://www.bangkokbank.com/Bangkok+Bank/Pe...lan+Options.htm

My advice to her would be to find the Bt1m and get him to pay for lawyers to write up the requisite paperwork. If she has to get lawyers then they will eat up too much that she will be potentially worse off and destitute if he is awarded 100% of the property.

I think that more information is needed such as the details of whether he has signed any waiver of rights as per Gary's post above. If he has not, then I think she is liable to return him something and perhaps all.

Settling for 1M for a house is a deal. Better than having to buy another for 2M.

However if she does decide to settle make sure all the paperwork is agreed upon and correct.

Better yet make sure the deal is on the divorce papers, to make it ironclad.

[Gary A]

All I can say is that I bought my Thai wife four properties. For each property, I had to sign a paper saying that i had no financial interest in the property. That makes it quite simple. If we ever split up, I walk away. If a farang buys a property in his wife's name he MUST sign that document or the property will not be transferred.

Maybe there was such a document. I've no idea.

That said, I think this is a bullshit story.

Translation needed - you mean you think it's fabricated, or you just don't like it for some reason?

I don't think Joe has a leg to stand on and that he is simply blowing smoke. The only way he will get anything is if the lady involved has conscience pangs and that is NOT likely when it comes down to money.

[AlKing]

In Thailand one can win a court case even if you're wrong. It depends on the lawyers and amount of money.

Sound to me like Thaksin & Sonthi stuff.

[mdechgan]

In Thailand one can win a court case even if you're wrong. It depends on the lawyers and amount of money.

Sound to me like Thaksin & Sonthi stuff.

I've seen so many cases where the honest and legally correct parties where shafted.

Usually its the lawyers that make the closed doors negotiations and settle quickly to get their fees, etc. Sometimes the other party bribes the other team's lawyers without the client's knowledge. This is a fact. Let's says lawyers fees are 50,000. The other side can offer 100,000 to either throw the case or force a settlement. For a farang a 100,000 investment for a 2M baht home is not much.

Thaksin and Sonthi were products of the system.

It's the same in the U.S. where the lawyers say this and that then it becomes almost impossible to disprove a story or statement.

[brahmburgers]

If Joe has broken in to the house and taken things ....plus made threats - then he could be a potential threat (physically and otherwise) to the new boyfriend and possibly also to the wife he's separated from.

I think the posters who mention the possibility of the wife buying the remaining half interest in the house from Joe, and such fair-minded things, aren't familiar with what really goes on in Thailand. Whether or not it goes to court, Joe doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Even if he can show that he paid the money (which I'm sure he did), a Thai person's name on the chanod (title) trumps anything Joe can do, whether legal or not.

If Joe wants to get increasingly edgy about it, he may get an uninvited visit from the ex-wife's male relatives, and that could be painful. Thais don't fight fair, and they sure don't like to give something back which they think is theirs.

[Lopburi99]

Thais don't fight fair, and they sure don't like to give something back which they think is theirs.

Very true. When I divorced my first Thai wife, her return of my mother's crystal and china was specific in our divorce papers. She didn't object, believing her father would never allow me to take them from her (our ) house. Without going into detail, I eventually succeeded in retrieving the items (in person) from her father but it was "eventful" shall we say. Wow!

[thaibkk]

a variant of sick buffalo story

[eggomaniac]

Girl is scared, doesn't understand this stuff, can't afford a lawyer, is asking new farang bf 'Alain' for cash to pay for a lawyer (she's asked one lawyer who says he will need 50,000 baht).

My mother is sick or my dad needs a truck for the farm used to work just fine. Now it's I they need money to get a lawyer or lose the house. ROFL