Divorcing Thai Wife

[alyx]

Hey everyone

A friend of mine is about to divorce his thai wife

Nothing ugly (yet) but needs some advice

He has been together with his wife for 7 years , 2 kids, a haouse, a business and a condo

This week he managed to put the title deed in the name of his two children (kind of to secure their future ); he , of course has a 30 yera lease on it

Businesswise no trouble when they split

It remains one condo that he has paid for (the wife had a heavy credit on it when they met, so he cleared it). It was clear to them, at the time, that if it were to be sold, the husband would get 50% (although he had paid for 90/)

The condo is in the married name of his wife. He has the title deed in his possession

Some questions:

1) If she decides to sell, does she need her husband's signature as she bears his name

2) I am pretty sure she needs the original to go to the land department: can she sell without telling anyone (as in without asking her husband for the title deed?)

Thanks for your answers (keeping in mind that it is not turning sour but everyone is pulling the blanket to oneself)

[nidge]

I bought a house when i was married and i paid 100%. It was of course in her name. When we divorced I was legally entitled to half of it's value but not half the value of the land. But remember, just because you are legally entitled to 50%, it does not mean you are actually going to get that much.

[givenall]

I bought a house when i was married and i paid 100%. It was of course in her name. When we divorced I was legally entitled to half of it's value but not half the value of the land. But remember, just because you are legally entitled to 50%, it does not mean you are actually going to get that much.

I hate to say this, but my advice to all farangs: Do what Thai do get married in church or temple but do not get married court of law. It will be much easier when and if you decide to leave her and many do/ and make sure take care of the kids if there are any

[sassienie]

Hey everyone

A friend of mine is about to divorce his thai wife

Nothing ugly (yet) but needs some advice

He has been together with his wife for 7 years , 2 kids, a haouse, a business and a condo

This week he managed to put the title deed in the name of his two children (kind of to secure their future ); he , of course has a 30 yera lease on it

Businesswise no trouble when they split

It remains one condo that he has paid for (the wife had a heavy credit on it when they met, so he cleared it). It was clear to them, at the time, that if it were to be sold, the husband would get 50% (although he had paid for 90/)

The condo is in the married name of his wife. He has the title deed in his possession

Some questions:

1) If she decides to sell, does she need her husband's signature as she bears his name

2) I am pretty sure she needs the original to go to the land department: can she sell without telling anyone (as in without asking her husband for the title deed?)

Thanks for your answers (keeping in mind that it is not turning sour but everyone is pulling the blanket to oneself)

Some questions:

1) If she decides to sell, does she need her husband's signature as she bears his name

answer: No, unless the guy hires a lawyer to warn his wife not to sell it and if the guy and his wife cannot make any mutual agreements, than he has to take the case to the civil court.

2) I am pretty sure she needs the original to go to the land department: can she sell without telling anyone (as in without asking her husband for the title deed?)

answer: Yes: unless the husband takes various actions to protect himself. The husband should first hire a lawyer (a.s.a.p) and have sent a lawyers letter to his wife, stating all what are his assets and create a document for the land office to be attached to the land deeds, forbidding his wife to sell the property until the divorce is resolved.

Thanks for your answers (keeping in mind that it is not turning sour but everyone is pulling the blanket to oneself) I`ve heard this one before.

The husband would be well advised to hire the services of a lawyer, especially as there is property and children involved.

Also note that if the guys business and house were not run and gained by strictly legal means as imposed by Thai law, his Thai wife will take him to the cleaners.

Edited October 16, 2009 by sassienie

[Mario2008]

Regarding the the condo, there is also the problem of proving it is a joint posession. She can claim the money for the condo was a gift.

When property is involved lways visit a lawyer for advise, before the marriage and when you want to end the marriage.

[Maizefarmer]

Lets get this straight: the condo is paid for 100% - its in the wifes name, but long leased (30yrs) to the kids - or, the "purchase" is actualy (because of restrictions on ex-pats owning property/houses) a 30year long lease in the kids names, which you are describing as a "purchase" for lack of better words?

Which is it alyx?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Maizefarmer

[jasreeve17]

I think the house is in the kids names Maizefarmer - 30 year lease to the husband - that's how I read it.

The condo is in her name, with an 'informal agreement' to sell it 50 / 50 if and when - you can see what's coming can't you... She owned it before he turned up , but he helped her out by 'paying off some debt'. There is no way that she will not see that property as hers.

As stated above, she'll know the ins and outs of the business, and possibly cause problems there too.

If it gets nasty, he's in trouble ain all areas. Let's hope it stays amicable. Just saying the words 50 / 50 (re the condo) is likely to pisz her off.

I'd agree with the above posters, probably best to get the lawyers in a.s.a.p. I feel his position is weaker than he thinks, judging by the tone of the OP. Good luck.

[RickBradford]

The easiest and least stressful way for you -- sorry, your friend -- to deal with this is simply to walk away from it; no lawyers, no courts, no BS. Chalk it up to experience. If she wants the money that bad,. let her have it -- it ain't gonna make her life any better.

"Never invest more in Thailand that you can afford to walk away from" - a wise TV poster...

[siamiam]

The easiest and least stressful way for you -- sorry, your friend -- to deal with this is simply to walk away from it; no lawyers, no courts, no BS. Chalk it up to experience. If she wants the money that bad,. let her have it -- it ain't gonna make her life any better.

"Never invest more in Thailand that you can afford to walk away from" - a wise TV poster...

I've never been involved in such a situation, but the advice in the above post looks good to me. It sounds like you have already got everything sorted out except for the condo. It also sounds like you agreed from the start that if it were to be sold, you would split it 50/50. I don't know how much money your half stake in the condo would be worth and I guess it would boil down to that. If you need to get a lawyer involved and go through the grief of a drawn out legal process, would the maximum possible payoff to you be worth it? I would probably just ask her to give me my half of the proceeds for 'old times sake' and be prepared to move on happily however it turns out. Good luck.

Edited October 16, 2009 by siamiam

[alyx]

Wowww... Thanks everyone I was not expecting so many answers so swiftly

Jazreeve17 you have read me correctly

Regarding the business the guy is straight and hase been running everything by the book

Of course I don't think he is looking forwrd to get that acquainted to these lawyers and rather have an agreement with his wife. Unfortunately I don't see what would put her in position of respecting it once the condo is sold

But in the present case, I guess it would be beneficial to have a letter issued to the land department forbidding her from selling (but then again once they are divorced nothing can stop her...)

[alyx]

I think I should insist on the fact that she doesn't hold the title deed as it is in her husband's hand

Does that make any difference when she tries to sell?

[Maizefarmer]

I think I should insist on the fact that she doesn't hold the title deed as it is in her husband's hand

Does that make any difference when she tries to sell?

The idea of having it in the kids name carries more merit than may originaly appear......... my (and the wifes' - and she is Thai) assets are secured in a similar way: in the name of a Thai registered company (so thats the Thai part of it), but the company shareholders are an overseas trust.

Here's the important bit (which gives "control") - I am a trustee of the trust - transactions the trust carries out need my consent.

So where do the kids come in? - they are the beneficiares of the trust - my daughter 50% and my son 50%.

How legal is all this? - 100%

Trust law in Thailand is in it's infancy, but the precidents have been set i.e. Thai courts do and will accept asset ownership structured through trusts as lawful and binding if all parties are in agreement For lack of a better way of putting it, you can get these sorts of agreements and "setups", ratified in a Thai court.

The average Thai lawyer (and this is not to say they're no good at their job, its just that its not soemthing many are familiar with, but its slowly slowly becoming more popular - since all the publcity around Thaksin and his asset structures) has little experience with. It needs a lawyer with experience or who is willing to go away and do all the homework.

The second point to keep in mind is that it took us close on a year to get it all set up (and this is going back now to the late 1980's - maybe a lot easier now, I don;t know). There was a lot of paperwork to do, lots of doc's that needed to be signed/counter signed/witnessed ect ect .... and not inconsiderable cost at the time. ... and a year later there was a whole bunch of things that had to be corrected and rewritten.

Collectively one has to ask themselves if its worth all the time/effort and cost involved, and I guess thats all about what the assets consist of, their value, the family, how far ahead is one wanting to plan for, what if you want to undo it all later .. and whatever else you may consider important.

In summary, short of a pre-nuptial agreement (I had never heard of such things in the 1980's) it was the best way the wife and I could think of to secure & protect everything we had for the children, in case something was to happen to either or both of us before the kids were old enough to be "adults". So - no, the primary motive in our case was not against the background of possible divorce or dispute between ourselves down the line, and in that respect we have been very lucky, because a trust is a trust is a trust i.e. once something goes into trust it can be very difficult getting it out.

Structered and setup properly they are secure holding entities for assets and are recognised in Thai law. - and it's legal for a foreigner to be a trustee (thats the important bit).

[a2396]

So, how much did you blow on this deal?

[noise]

Edited October 17, 2009 by noise

[Kitsch22]

I think I should insist on the fact that she doesn't hold the title deed as it is in her husband's hand

Does that make any difference when she tries to sell?

The idea of having it in the kids name carries more merit than may originaly appear......... my (and the wifes' - and she is Thai) assets are secured in a similar way: in the name of a Thai registered company (so thats the Thai part of it), but the company shareholders are an overseas trust.

Here's the important bit (which gives "control") - I am a trustee of the trust - transactions the trust carries out need my consent.

So where do the kids come in? - they are the beneficiares of the trust - my daughter 50% and my son 50%.

How legal is all this? - 100%

Trust law in Thailand is in it's infancy, but the precidents have been set i.e. Thai courts do and will accept asset ownership structured through trusts as lawful and binding if all parties are in agreement For lack of a better way of putting it, you can get these sorts of agreements and "setups", ratified in a Thai court.

The average Thai lawyer (and this is not to say they're no good at their job, its just that its not soemthing many are familiar with, but its slowly slowly becoming more popular - since all the publcity around Thaksin and his asset structures) has little experience with. It needs a lawyer with experience or who is willing to go away and do all the homework.

The second point to keep in mind is that it took us close on a year to get it all set up (and this is going back now to the late 1980's - maybe a lot easier now, I don;t know). There was a lot of paperwork to do, lots of doc's that needed to be signed/counter signed/witnessed ect ect .... and not inconsiderable cost at the time. ... and a year later there was a whole bunch of things that had to be corrected and rewritten.

Collectively one has to ask themselves if its worth all the time/effort and cost involved, and I guess thats all about what the assets consist of, their value, the family, how far ahead is one wanting to plan for, what if you want to undo it all later .. and whatever else you may consider important.

In summary, short of a pre-nuptial agreement (I had never heard of such things in the 1980's) it was the best way the wife and I could think of to secure & protect everything we had for the children, in case something was to happen to either or both of us before the kids were old enough to be "adults". So - no, the primary motive in our case was not against the background of possible divorce or dispute between ourselves down the line, and in that respect we have been very lucky, because a trust is a trust is a trust i.e. once something goes into trust it can be very difficult getting it out.

Structered and setup properly they are secure holding entities for assets and are recognised in Thai law. - and it's legal for a foreigner to be a trustee (thats the important bit).

Are you saying that section 1686 of the Civil Code has been repealed or amended? [That section essentially declares that trusts are void and of no effect under Thai law]

[loong]

Are you saying that section 1686 of the Civil Code has been repealed or amended? [That section essentially declares that trusts are void and of no effect under Thai law]

I am also confused by this, I understood that there was no possibility of setting up a trust in Thailand.

As for a foreign trust being the shareholders of a Thai company - I would have thought that the foreign trust's holding would be limited to 49% in line with Thai law, with 51% Thai shareholders.

Were there different laws 20 years ago?

[TheGoodDoctor]

You are a very good friend to research all these sticky details for your friend about your friend's divorce. This forum sure is jammed to the brim with experience.

[alyx]

You are a very good friend to research all these sticky details for your friend about your friend's divorce. This forum sure is jammed to the brim with experience.

Nope

I just happen to know him (for a while of course) but people tend to call me when they have a problem as I am a good listener. I have called him my friend because it sounded better than calling him "a person I know" and he is a nice guy

The second reason I have posted here is also because he doesn't speak any other language than his mother tongue which, you have understood, is not English

I agree, thanking everyone for their help and concern, I didn't expect so much interest in it

[TheGoodDoctor]

Cool. Yes, this forum really does have alot of posters with alot of experience. Pretty cool to be able to get answers on almost anything Thai related.

[Arkady]

Some questions:

1) If she decides to sell, does she need her husband's signature as she bears his name

2) I am pretty sure she needs the original to go to the land department: can she sell without telling anyone (as in without asking her husband for the title deed?)

Please ask him to consult a lawyer but my read would be:

1) She would only need spousal consent to sell the condo, if she had spousal consent to buy it. Since she bought the condo before she met him, she shoudn't need spousal consent to sell it.

2) She will need a title deed to sell the land but she can get a duplicate issued by the Land Dept with a police report to say that she lost it and a modest under the table payment. Some foreign banks were cheated in this way after the 1997 financial crisis by Thai borrowers who had pledged their land as collateral but the foreign banks had not bothered to get a proper mortgage registered which would have had to have been done by a Thai bank for a fee, since the foreign bank couldn't foreclose on the land. By the time the foreign banks started to get their act together the land was already sold and they were left with the useless original title deeds.

Since your friend doesn't seem to have registered his loan to his wife as a mortgage on the title deed, he is not automatically entitled to repayment when she sells the condo. I think he would have to produce evidence of the loan in court. Without a loan agreement this would be difficult. Evidence of remittance from overseas and the payment trial of the money from him to his wife and the repayment to the original lender might help. Furthermore, there seems no automatic entitlement to even 50% of the condo because she bought it before her marriage and it is therefore not considered as part of the conjugal assets to be divided up on divorce. Even with a loan agreement the wife could probably argue that the husband acquired the money he lent her after they were married and therefore it was conjugal property and he is only entitled to half of it back.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Arkady

[Maizefarmer]

I think I should insist on the fact that she doesn't hold the title deed as it is in her husband's hand

Does that make any difference when she tries to sell?

The idea of having it in the kids name carries more merit than may originaly appear......... my (and the wifes' - and she is Thai) assets are secured in a similar way: in the name of a Thai registered company (so thats the Thai part of it), but the company shareholders are an overseas trust.

Here's the important bit (which gives "control") - I am a trustee of the trust - transactions the trust carries out need my consent.

So where do the kids come in? - they are the beneficiares of the trust - my daughter 50% and my son 50%.

How legal is all this? - 100%

Trust law in Thailand is in it's infancy, but the precidents have been set i.e. Thai courts do and will accept asset ownership structured through trusts as lawful and binding if all parties are in agreement For lack of a better way of putting it, you can get these sorts of agreements and "setups", ratified in a Thai court.

The average Thai lawyer (and this is not to say they're no good at their job, its just that its not soemthing many are familiar with, but its slowly slowly becoming more popular - since all the publcity around Thaksin and his asset structures) has little experience with. It needs a lawyer with experience or who is willing to go away and do all the homework.

The second point to keep in mind is that it took us close on a year to get it all set up (and this is going back now to the late 1980's - maybe a lot easier now, I don;t know). There was a lot of paperwork to do, lots of doc's that needed to be signed/counter signed/witnessed ect ect .... and not inconsiderable cost at the time. ... and a year later there was a whole bunch of things that had to be corrected and rewritten.

Collectively one has to ask themselves if its worth all the time/effort and cost involved, and I guess thats all about what the assets consist of, their value, the family, how far ahead is one wanting to plan for, what if you want to undo it all later .. and whatever else you may consider important.

In summary, short of a pre-nuptial agreement (I had never heard of such things in the 1980's) it was the best way the wife and I could think of to secure & protect everything we had for the children, in case something was to happen to either or both of us before the kids were old enough to be "adults". So - no, the primary motive in our case was not against the background of possible divorce or dispute between ourselves down the line, and in that respect we have been very lucky, because a trust is a trust is a trust i.e. once something goes into trust it can be very difficult getting it out.

Structered and setup properly they are secure holding entities for assets and are recognised in Thai law. - and it's legal for a foreigner to be a trustee (thats the important bit).

Are you saying that section 1686 of the Civil Code has been repealed or amended? [That section essentially declares that trusts are void and of no effect under Thai law]

Nope it hasn't - its one matter quoting a rule/regulation - it's another matter understanding it in its proper/correct context (!?) You have very boldly quoted the law, but I'm not sure you understand what constitutes a "trust" in Thai law and the concepts in Thai law that determine legal ownership and beneficial ownership. It is complicated, it needs specialist advise and wording is all important when drawing up these arrangements, otherwise, yes - you may well find your doc's are not worth the paper they are written on.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Maizefarmer

[Sisaketmike]

Hey everyone

A friend of mine is about to divorce his thai wife

Nothing ugly (yet) but needs some advice

He has been together with his wife for 7 years , 2 kids, a haouse, a business and a condo

This week he managed to put the title deed in the name of his two children (kind of to secure their future ); he , of course has a 30 yera lease on it

Businesswise no trouble when they split

It remains one condo that he has paid for (the wife had a heavy credit on it when they met, so he cleared it). It was clear to them, at the time, that if it were to be sold, the husband would get 50% (although he had paid for 90/)

The condo is in the married name of his wife. He has the title deed in his possession

Some questions:

1) If she decides to sell, does she need her husband's signature as she bears his name

2) I am pretty sure she needs the original to go to the land department: can she sell without telling anyone (as in without asking her husband for the title deed?)

Thanks for your answers (keeping in mind that it is not turning sour but everyone is pulling the blanket to oneself)

I guess the guy is you......

[alyx]

Read all the posts and you will eventually know

Furthermore would you please explain to me why you would think that and....above all....why should I hide behind a so-called friend of mine since I am already ANONYMOUS ?

It is such an unimportant matter (I mean it is not like I would be asking advice about escaping Justice after commiting a crime, is it?) that I really don't see why I would do that

I am sorry but I am just puzzled by your stand or maybe you are writing in a state (sorry I am just assuming, well a bit like you did)

But back to the topic....

[alyx]

I am not sure about the signing/ buying part of the condo:

During a conversation last week he mentionned that some years ago his wife went to the Land department on her own (presumably for the condo we are talking about) and she had to call him to sign some papers

I will clear that matter with him (understand the situation: the guy doesn't speak English apart from extremly basic sentences, not a word of Thai)

In any case he wants to go to the land department on Wednesday (this is why I have been enquiring since Wednesday)

[alyx]

I meant next Wednesay and posting since last Wedenesday

Btw Sisaketmike if you really want evidence I am not "the" guy let me know and I will direct you on a thread which will prove you I am not

[Maizefarmer]

Hey guys ... the " a friend of mine wants to this or that ...or whatever" is used quite a bit on Thai Visa - who cares who it is actually wanting to know - what do any of use actually care who the end user is, or what their motive is ...... why should we concern ourselves. All it does is send the topic down another route ... doesn't add much to the OP's question one way or the other.

[Kitsch22]

In summary, short of a pre-nuptial agreement (I had never heard of such things in the 1980's) it was the best way the wife and I could think of to secure & protect everything we had for the children, in case something was to happen to either or both of us before the kids were old enough to be "adults". So - no, the primary motive in our case was not against the background of possible divorce or dispute between ourselves down the line, and in that respect we have been very lucky, because a trust is a trust is a trust i.e. once something goes into trust it can be very difficult getting it out.

Structered and setup properly they are secure holding entities for assets and are recognised in Thai law. - and it's legal for a foreigner to be a trustee (thats the important bit).

Are you saying that section 1686 of the Civil Code has been repealed or amended? [That section essentially declares that trusts are void and of no effect under Thai law]

Nope it hasn't - its one matter quoting a rule/regulation - it's another matter understanding it in its proper/correct context (!?) You have very boldly quoted the law, but I'm not sure you understand what constitutes a "trust" in Thai law and the concepts in Thai law that determine legal ownership and beneficial ownership. It is complicated, it needs specialist advise and wording is all important when drawing up these arrangements, otherwise, yes - you may well find your doc's are not worth the paper they are written on.

I guess you must be right. Your definition: "A trust is a trust is a trust" is plainly right (according to the Bellman's theorem).

What I am struggling to understand is the part of section 1686 which you think can be circumvented: "Trust created whether directly or indirectly by will or by any juristic act producing effect during lifetime or after death shall have no effect whatever."

[alyx]

UPDATE

Thanks to all of you in general (for your comments) and to one Thai visa member in general I seem to be on the right track to solve my friend's problem

Last week I was given a contact number of a Thai lawyer but my friend wanted to wait a bit to go to the land department today Wednesday and ask some questions. Yesterday I urged him to meet with the lawyer asap. This morning at 8 AM we all met, all documents in hands and the lawyer was able to reassure him telling him that, in his situation, it was possible to stop in wife from selling.

We will go to the land department some time next week in order to officialise this

Thanks again to everyone and thanks to the one who introduced me to his lawyer friend

I will keep you posted about the official outcome as soon as it is settled

[alyx]

Sorry

I meant one Thai visa member in particular

[alyx]

Hey everyone

Thanks again to all of you who helped in this matter

just to keep you up to date, I remind you the facts (some of them have changed as some details were not given to me accuratly)

A guy married to a Thai who wants to divorce him

1)A house (from where they used to run a business: he has stopped all activities in order to avoid any surprises):

a) They agreed, a couple of weeks ago, to put this house in the name of their 2 kids: meaning that the parents, individually or together, do not have the right to sell it before the last kid turns 20 (in 1 years)

The husband/father has a secured stay of 30 years (I know some of us will argue there is no such thing as a secured deal)

2) A condo: which he actually bought in her name (because the quota -foreigners/Thais- was reached) a month before their marriage (that was the surprise of the day when we went to the land department) Luckily all evidences pointed support his side of the story and he actually had to sign all the documents of transfer of money as wall as documents related to the purchase.

He was holding the Chanote: what wasn't known at the time is that the wife had approached the Land Department to declare that the tiltle deed had been lost and asked for a new one to be issued and (that is the most important part) declared, by writing, the condo belonged to her and her only (actually if she had done that at the moment of the purchase she would have secured the title and noone could have done anything about it)

When we arrived the New Chanote was in the last phase of signature (normal delay for checking and processing the documents) meaning that once in the hands of the wife she could have sold the condo without anyone's consent. A court order would, then, have been necessary to set the record straight (well not sure that would heve helped)

At that point it was a bit tricky and the situation was a bit on the hold until the lawyer stressed the fact that they had two kids: once the birth certificates produced there was no more obstacles: the New (not yet signed) Chanote has been cancelled, a mention that the father has a right on the property recorded on the Chanote, the Chanote given back to the father

Now the guy can sleep a bit without fearing to be kicked out, and the furture of the kids will not be (too much) affected by the actions of either parents

Thanks again to everyone and especially to the well advised lawyer, whom number I was given by one of the Thai Visa members

If you need to contact her feel free to PM me

Take care and for this nice ending (I hope) story