Pension And 401k In Thai Divorce

[tomloughney]

HI

I have been retired for 11 years (living in thailand for 11 years also) and receive a Pension and have a 401K. I have had no earned income since 1998. I am getting divorce and I know that pre-existing assets are excluded from the divorce. I have been married for 4 years and I have a house in a company name that I bought 6 years ago so that is excluced from the assets.

When I talk to Thai lawyers they are clear that if I have a house before the marriage it is excluded from the settlement. What becomes not clear is if I have money before the marriage is it excluded from the settlement.

Some examples:

I have a house/condo/car before the marriage it is excluded in the settlement.

I have Money $50,000 in a bank BEFORE THE MARRIAGE is that $50,000 excluded from the marriage?

If I had a house before the marriage, and sell it during the marriage (ie bought house for 5 million, sold for 5 million) is that money excluded?

Now the most important question!

I had my pension and 401K before my marriage so:

All the money I have spent in thailand has either come from my pension or from my 401K (used to buy house and cars and such), are the things I bought with this money included or excluded from the settlement.

I would contend that if I had a pension/401K and that money was existing before the marriage, then anything I bought with that money should also be excluded.

I would expect that if I had a house before that was worth 5 million and sold it after I was married for 6 million then it is possible that the profit could be included in the settlement.

Any help welcome

Tom

[slapout]

What does the wife (soon to be ex) say in the matter? You married the woman, any property etc accumulated during the marriage is half hers. Did you both declare assets prior to marriage? I thought not, Look at life, including marriage and divorce as a learning experience, if it lasted 11 years it would not seem to be a complete waste. At least you get a piece of paper and hopefully a smile on her way out.

[G54]

Either get a good Thai lawyer or one who will present the facts before a Judge and ask his advice on the matter. Then you will know where you stand.

[Harcourt]

"I would contend that if I had a pension/401K and that money was existing before the marriage, then anything I bought with that money should also be excluded."

Your pension is income. No matter that your pension existed before your marriage, it is regular ongoing income: each pension payment, although predicted, does not exist until it is paid, therefore you can't say you had that money before the marriage. You are confusing two things: the fact of the pension and that the pension provides regular income.

What you contend is the same as saying that you had a job before your marriage and therefore anything you bought with your income during the marriage should be excluded from the settlement.

Fact of life...if you bought things with your income during the marriage, then that is marital property.

[tomloughney]

What you contend is the same as saying that you had a job before your marriage and therefore anything you bought with your income during the marriage should be excluded from the settlement.

Fact of life...if you bought things with your income during the marriage, then that is marital property.

Not al all, a job is current earnings that can change for the better or worse and according to the IRS my income from the pension is not considered earned income.

When I divorced in the US the court calculated a net present value for futire pension payments as a net present value and we split that 50/50. I argued that I could not split money I had not yet received but they said it was an existing anuity with a present value.

I also received a statement from my Social Security stating that my pension anuitity had a value, so the US government considers this a lump sum amount of money.

Currently the wife has a house in the village, a single family house in Pattaya, an 2007 honda civie, 800,000 baht in cash, two motorcycles and a laundry shop.

I want to keep my company house, a condo and one of the motorcycles.

She wants in addition the condo and 30,000 a month support until she gets remarried.

That would be a 80% for her and 20% for me split.

We have no kids and she has no kids either.

So how about cash, if I had $50,000 cash in the bank before I married her (can be documented) and now have $50,000 is that money joint property or not?

[Harcourt]

Not al all, a job is current earnings that can change for the better or worse and according to the IRS my income from the pension is not considered earned income.

When I divorced in the US the court calculated a net present value for futire pension payments as a net present value and we split that 50/50. I argued that I could not split money I had not yet received but they said it was an existing anuity with a present value.

I also received a statement from my Social Security stating that my pension anuitity had a value, so the US government considers this a lump sum amount of money.

Currently the wife has a house in the village, a single family house in Pattaya, an 2007 honda civie, 800,000 baht in cash, two motorcycles and a laundry shop.

I want to keep my company house, a condo and one of the motorcycles.

She wants in addition the condo and 30,000 a month support until she gets remarried.

That would be a 80% for her and 20% for me split.

We have no kids and she has no kids either.

So how about cash, if I had $50,000 cash in the bank before I married her (can be documented) and now have $50,000 is that money joint property or not?

Ok, you're probably right. I've heard of celebrities and high executives being fleeced for projected income.

I still think that whatever you bought with your "income" is rightfully marital property except personal stuff like your suits and ties etc.

I'm coming from the angle of another country, of course....pensions and divorce settlements would be different.

Sounds like she's got quite alot.

Recent tradition has seen Family Courts in various countries recognise that domestic duties are a contribution to the partnership. The old argument of "I was the bread-winner, I paid for the house and I paid for everything." no longer holds...and neither should it.

However, many courts have taken this stance and forgotten that if one of the partnership contributed nothing, not even domestic duties, the argument for her/him to claim half is not nearly as strong. Half is the benchmark now, rightly or wrongly (often rightly).

In your situation....She has it good...Especially if she has an agreement that you will pay maintenance until she gets married....it's an open ended clause: She could shack up with someone but not marry....and if she tells her new man the situation, I'm sure he would be very happy to remain getting nuptial benefits without tying the knot with her....you're on the hook supporting him too.

Something to look into.

[rgs2001uk]

Personally I would rather stay married and pay nothing.

30,000 baht per month for the rest of her life, dream on.

I would say nothing, act dumb and in the meantime quietly start getting whatever cash I had out of Thailand, transfer it back to your home country, or open an account in some place like Singapore or Hong Kong with a bank such as HSBC.

Sounds like the gravy train is about to pull out and she is trying to take you for as much as she can, box clever and make sure to stay 2 steps ahead.

I would sign nothing, repeat sign nothing that could be used against you at a later date.

Do what a Thai would do feign ignorance, say you dont understand, play for time, string it out as long as you need to to cover your ass.

At no time let her get an inkling of what you are up to, its not as if you are leaving her poverty stricken or without an income.

[tominchaam]

With due respect the relationship you have had with your TW is not known to this forum I think a divorce settlement should take both parts interest into consideration. I see people run away from their responsibilities too often and my respect to them is zero.

Divorces are normally tricky as the willingness to understand the other part can be low or does not exist. In those cases a good man is likely to protect his own interest as well as making sure his TW get what can be seen as a fair deal. If the TW direct or indirectly is trying to misuse her position the only advice I find is likely to work is to protect as much as possible and get it out of the hands of the TW as well as Thai authorities.

Any farang with properties registered with Land Office can and should make sure these properties are specified when the marriage is registered at the local Ampuh. With the document then given to you a registration at the Land Office can be made as well. I did so many years ago but regret to have forgotten about all the details.

[F1fanatic]

With due respect the relationship you have had with your TW is not known to this forum I think a divorce settlement should take both parts interest into consideration. I see people run away from their responsibilities too often and my respect to them is zero.

Divorces are normally tricky as the willingness to understand the other part can be low or does not exist. In those cases a good man is likely to protect his own interest as well as making sure his TW get what can be seen as a fair deal. If the TW direct or indirectly is trying to misuse her position the only advice I find is likely to work is to protect as much as possible and get it out of the hands of the TW as well as Thai authorities.

Any farang with properties registered with Land Office can and should make sure these properties are specified when the marriage is registered at the local Ampuh. With the document then given to you a registration at the Land Office can be made as well. I did so many years ago but regret to have forgotten about all the details.

Please enlighten me.

The poster is 61, all the assets in the marriage came from his past, presumably his wife has never worked to contribute financially to the marriage (i.e. she has been living off his money for 4 years), they have no children so she has not contributed by looking after their children.

What would be a fair deal that means the poster is not "running away from his responsibilities"?

Having said that, he did marry her and will have to pay the financial penalty.

A lawyer will sort out his legal position financially.

[damian5000]

Just move to the Philippines and never come back. fuc_k giving her half of ANY of your shit.

[tomloughney]

Thanks for the input, it is a difficult situation.

The Thai law is clear on the split, it is difficult to define the assets.

For example I built the wife a house in the village on some land she said she owned.

I never saw the chanute deed but had no reason to doubt that the land was hers or her mom's to be given to her.

Her lawyer says she does not have this house as I can not produce the Chanute deed. I would not be able to find it in the land office in the province without a lot of help.

So it is up to me to prove the assets that she has and I guess the same will apply to me. There is a lack records here regarding who owns what.

[Bakeman]

EASY FIX MATE

First let me say that this is a fine example of why a prenuptial agreement is important to all of you guys that havent jumped in yet.

THE FIX

Look mate, you dont need the advice of all of us part-time internet lawyers. You need a real lawyer for these questions. You are talking about your life here and only a lawyer can research the court precidence on past judgements. Before you lose some real money I would again suggest that you spend a fair amount with a REAL lawyer and fix this quick.

GOOD LUCK