Revocation Of Janot Land Title

[Maizefarmer]

I was a bit confused with you original post.

I, too, am confused, but mainly because of lack of specifics.

You said:

1. I (Farang) bought a plot of land in my Thai children's name.
   
2. The land has a "special janot document" (the once who state: cannot be sold for a certain period of time – in our case: cannot be sold for 10 years).
   
3. The seller is the grandfather!! (wife's father)
   
4. (my wife died 5 years ago)
   
5. We made a contract. Seller signed, his wife signed.
   
6. Our lawyer signed.
   
7. I signed (as the legal guardian of the children)
   
8. We paid with check.
   

My comments/questions to the above list (based on being involved in a land dispute and listening to lawyers):

1. You/Thai citizen children bought land.... that should mean the title was tranferred to/registered in your children's names at the land office. If this was done, then title seems to be legally clear.

2. But, you said a janot/chanot exists that says land can not be sold for 10 years, 2 years remaining. My limited knowledge of chanots has them defining the use of the land by a non-owner. And any sale that takes place can not abrogate that usage. I can't imagine a case where the owner of a piece of land would simply, for no outside imposed reason just up and issue a chanot upon himself saying "I can not sell for XX years." So what is the exact wording of the chanot; what was it purpose? When was it executed and by whom? There have to be some other parties involved, some rationale for creating it.

5. You made a contract .....for what? This implies the sale was not registered; the title was not transferred. The father made a written contract to transfer the title to the land to you at the expiration of the "chanot"? If this is the case, #1 did not take place. But you have the contact for an action to take place at the proper time.

8. Can you today produce a paper trail showing you paid for the land at the time the #5 contract was executed?

Given 5 is correct, here is what I suggest.....

1. Review the chanot; get a copy in English and insure you understand exactly what it says. Assuming it predates your contract and that there is nothing in it that abrogates your contract..

2. Go to court and file for protection of the land IAW the contract and showing the paper trail for having already paid. This can be done; a friend has done so on a home that is being contested.

3. If the MIL wants to fight that, my understanding is she would have to file suit and put into escrow the full value of the land and probably the improvements. Plus pay court fees of 100,000 plus and attorney fees. Most likely this will not happen.

4. If she does not do that, then you have no legal battle pending, most likely, and you just execute the contract at the end of 2 more years. By virtue of being granted the protection, the court is saying the contract is legal and binding, monies have been paid, and transfer of the title can take place upon the expiration of the chanot.

I sure hope you post the chanot wording here. It would be most education for me, if not all your avid readers.

I reiterate what Noise has said above - there appears more to this than meets the eye.....

If you wish Raiberg, scan in a copy of the Chanote and send it to me by email - I have sent you a private message with my aol email address. Personally I still feel the restriction on change of titleship has little to do with ultimate legal ownership, and that you (meaning: kids) are the legal owners and that this is all sour grapes on her side - but I'd very much like to see the Chanote.

[Carib]

A bit disappointing that the OP doesn't respond to some postings given in his his topic , even though he has looked at the answers.

Some folks are trying to " think with him" and even put up lengthy postings to try and get some things more clear, or looking at it from another angle.

Did the op give up already??

[hhgz]

"Because the Chanot was stamped "cannot be sold" - but we bought it...."

That seems to settle it: you "bought" the property illegally.

My question: why was it so important to buy this specific piece of property, the one with the deed marked "cannot be sold"?

[Benjie]

I'm guessing the OP has a contract to buy the land and has already paid the money, owns the physical Chanote but that it's still in the dead grandfathers name.

That or the grandfather 'gave' them the land and had it registered in the kids names but was actually paid for it, circumventing the cant sell for 10 years rule.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Benjie

[RaiBerg]

I was a bit confused with you original post.

2. Go to court and file for protection of the land IAW the contract and showing the paper trail for having already paid. This can be done; a friend has done so on a home that is being contested.

Thanks to all for great cooperation. I like the idea: "File for protection" will try it tomorrow and let you know.

[RaiBerg]

A bit disappointing that the OP doesn't respond to some postings given in his his topic , even though he has looked at the answers.

Some folks are trying to " think with him" and even put up lengthy postings to try and get some things more clear, or looking at it from another angle.

Did the op give up already??

Sorry for late reply.... I was all day busy.. just arrived home... NO I DON'T GIVE UP . . .

[RaiBerg]

I was a bit confused with you original post.

I, too, am confused, but mainly because of lack of specifics.

You said:

1. I (Farang) bought a plot of land in my Thai children's name.
   
2. The land has a "special janot document" (the once who state: cannot be sold for a certain period of time – in our case: cannot be sold for 10 years).
   
3. The seller is the grandfather!! (wife's father)
   
4. (my wife died 5 years ago)
   
5. We made a contract. Seller signed, his wife signed.
   
6. Our lawyer signed.
   
7. I signed (as the legal guardian of the children)
   
8. We paid with check.
   

My comments/questions to the above list (based on being involved in a land dispute and listening to lawyers):

1. You/Thai citizen children bought land.... that should mean the title was tranferred to/registered in your children's names at the land office. If this was done, then title seems to be legally clear.

RAIBERG: The land was bought in my Thai kid's name. But the title cannot be registered at the land office yet. (the stamp says: cannot be transfered within 10 years)

2. But, you said a janot/chanot exists that says land can not be sold for 10 years, 2 years remaining. My limited knowledge of chanots has them defining the use of the land by a non-owner. And any sale that takes place can not abrogate that usage. I can't imagine a case where the owner of a piece of land would simply, for no outside imposed reason just up and issue a chanot upon himself saying "I can not sell for XX years." So what is the exact wording of the chanot; what was it purpose? When was it executed and by whom? There have to be some other parties involved, some rationale for creating it.

Raiberg: as I understand the land had before a NorSor3 document - when the Channot was issued it was on the condition that it cannot be transfered for 10 years.

5. You made a contract .....for what? This implies the sale was not registered; the title was not transferred. The father made a written contract to transfer the title to the land to you at the expiration of the "chanot"? If this is the case, #1 did not take place. But you have the contact for an action to take place at the proper time.

Raiberg: Yes, we have a sales contract. And I have proof we paid the sum in full.

8. Can you today produce a paper trail showing you paid for the land at the time the #5 contract was executed?

RaiBerg: YES!

Given 5 is correct, here is what I suggest.....

1. Review the chanot; get a copy in English and insure you understand exactly what it says. Assuming it predates your contract and that there is nothing in it that abrogates your contract..

2. Go to court and file for protection of the land IAW the contract and showing the paper trail for having already paid. This can be done; a friend has done so on a home that is being contested.

3. If the MIL wants to fight that, my understanding is she would have to file suit and put into escrow the full value of the land and probably the improvements. Plus pay court fees of 100,000 plus and attorney fees. Most likely this will not happen.

4. If she does not do that, then you have no legal battle pending, most likely, and you just execute the contract at the end of 2 more years. By virtue of being granted the protection, the court is saying the contract is legal and binding, monies have been paid, and transfer of the title can take place upon the expiration of the chanot.

I sure hope you post the chanot wording here. It would be most education for me, if not all your avid readers.

I reiterate what Noise has said above - there appears more to this than meets the eye.....

If you wish Raiberg, scan in a copy of the Chanote and send it to me by email - I have sent you a private message with my aol email address. Personally I still feel the restriction on change of titleship has little to do with ultimate legal ownership, and that you (meaning: kids) are the legal owners and that this is all sour grapes on her side - but I'd very much like to see the Chanote.

Thanks for your contribution - pls see my comments above in your text

[RaiBerg]

RaiBerg

What does your old lawyer say about all this?

The old lawyer has red ears - he made a professional mistake.

He says the contract can be cancled - but we should receive compensation....

[RaiBerg]

I still feel the restriction on change of titleship has little to do with ultimate legal ownership, and that you (meaning: kids) are the legal owners and that this is all sour grapes on her side - but I'd very much like to see the Chanote.

I have the same feelings - BUT - even our old lawyer said today that the old lady can sue to have the contract terminated.... I guess we will have to ask a professional lawyer in Bangkok - here in the province you never know....

I still have hope for some sort of face saving compromise..... a legal battle - even when won is costly...

What is the lesson?: I have not done my homework. While my wife was alive I did not really check all land documents and I had no testament..... What I have learned: in case the wife dies - son-in-laws have no rights in Thailand (Thai or Farang - - suddenly the smile stops!)

[RaiBerg]

I'm guessing the OP has a contract to buy the land and has already paid the money, owns the physical Chanote but that it's still in the dead grandfathers name.

Correct

[RaiBerg]

"Because the Chanot was stamped "cannot be sold" - but we bought it...."

That seems to settle it: you "bought" the property illegally.

My question: why was it so important to buy this specific piece of property, the one with the deed marked "cannot be sold"?

It actually says: "Cannot be transfered" - - why did we buy it???? The land is important for our project.

And.... all Thais do it..... it's a common thing to buy channots like this.... normally nobody dares to trick.. because of the private consequences... my friend said: in Rome do as the Romans do...

[thaiwanderer]

......but never forget you aren't 'Roman'

Fables aside best of luck - i imagine starting point is good legal advice and then practical considerations of village life - shame / face can have a magical affect if played correctly.

[Benjie]

Hows the wife going to get the Chanote transferred into her name then?

[chiangmaibruce]

Are you able to claim any sort of Squatters' rights?

Firstly I think you will be able to make a good case if this ever ends up in court. You mentioned your concern that court cases can be costly but there is a good chance that grannie won't have the b###s to follow through on her threat if you lawyer up and act in a very firm, righteous and determined manner.

You've had some good well-informed advice towards the end of this thread. I just wanted to comment on this squatter's rights angle which ... maybe maybe ... could form a possible second line of defence. If you (= your kids) have been in open possession of the land for ten years, and have been paying land tax on it during that time, then you (= your kids) can claim possession in the court ... ie. you just need to stall the old biddy for another two years.

Refer section 1382 of the Thai Civil & Commercial Code for the specifics and/or see section 6.3 in 'Your Investment Guide to Thailand' (www.burning-bison.com)

Edited March 9, 2010 by chiangmaibruce

[johnnyk]

The money was paid, it has been p*ssed away and the old bat now realizes this.

[loong]

Are you able to claim any sort of Squatters' rights?

Firstly I think you will be able to make a good case if this ever ends up in court. You mentioned your concern that court cases can be costly but there is a good chance that grannie won't have the b###s to follow through on her threat if you lawyer up and act in a very firm, righteous and determined manner.

You've had some good well-informed advice towards the end of this thread. I just wanted to comment on this squatter's rights angle which ... maybe maybe ... could form a possible second line of defence. If you (= your kids) have been in open possession of the land for ten years, and have been paying land tax on it during that time, then you (= your kids) can claim possession in the court ... ie. you just need to stall the old biddy for another two years.

Refer section 1382 of the Thai Civil & Commercial Code for the specifics and/or see section 6.3 in 'Your Investment Guide to Thailand' (www.burning-bison.com)

The OP did state earlier that the land was his Wife's but in her Father's name, this does suggest to me that his Wife had been using this land prior to the assignment of the Chanot, so probably already more than 10 years.

I would thought that the OP's case would definitely be stronger if the Grandparents had NEVER utilised the land and hopefully enable them to settle things without going to court.

[RaiBerg]

Good news - filing for protection is probably possible....

I see the worst problem is finding a professional, experienced AND (!!) trustworthy lawyer.... specially in up-country...

Thanks for the great contribution - - - Greetings to all Raiberg

[RaiBerg]

probably another good news: the old lady seems to have a bad lawyer as well what I heard his advise is expensive - but without much content...

[rgs2001uk]

I still feel the restriction on change of titleship has little to do with ultimate legal ownership, and that you (meaning: kids) are the legal owners and that this is all sour grapes on her side - but I'd very much like to see the Chanote.

I have the same feelings - BUT - even our old lawyer said today that the old lady can sue to have the contract terminated.... I guess we will have to ask a professional lawyer in Bangkok - here in the province you never know....

I still have hope for some sort of face saving compromise..... a legal battle - even when won is costly...

What is the lesson?: I have not done my homework. While my wife was alive I did not really check all land documents and I had no testament..... What I have learned: in case the wife dies - son-in-laws have no rights in Thailand (Thai or Farang - - suddenly the smile stops!)

Your comment regarding the son in law having no rights, isnt strictly true.

If your wife has/had made a will the rights of the son in law are protected.

If not, the property in the wifes name will be distributed according to Thai law.

This doesnt apply only to son in laws, but also to daughter in laws, a few months ago I watched a fiasco unfold in front of my eyes.

The Thai husband died, the husbands family thought they would now inherit the property, with the dead mans sister being the main instigator, issuing threats etc against her sister in law, telling her to move out.

The dead mans wife remained dignified in the whole fiasco and said nothing.

Upshot was, the dead mans wife produced a legal and valid will which covered her right to the property.

Dead mans sister was last seen heading back up highway 2 with her tail between her legs and massive loss of face, plus a legal bill to be paid.

Please seek legal advice from a professional competant lawyer.

[RaiBerg]

I still feel the restriction on change of titleship has little to do with ultimate legal ownership, and that you (meaning: kids) are the legal owners and that this is all sour grapes on her side - but I'd very much like to see the Chanote.

I have the same feelings - BUT - even our old lawyer said today that the old lady can sue to have the contract terminated.... I guess we will have to ask a professional lawyer in Bangkok - here in the province you never know....

I still have hope for some sort of face saving compromise..... a legal battle - even when won is costly...

What is the lesson?: I have not done my homework. While my wife was alive I did not really check all land documents and I had no testament..... What I have learned: in case the wife dies - son-in-laws have no rights in Thailand (Thai or Farang - - suddenly the smile stops!)

Your comment regarding the son in law having no rights, isnt strictly true.

If your wife has/had made a will the rights of the son in law are protected.

If not, the property in the wifes name will be distributed according to Thai law.

This doesnt apply only to son in laws, but also to daughter in laws, a few months ago I watched a fiasco unfold in front of my eyes.

The Thai husband died, the husbands family thought they would now inherit the property, with the dead mans sister being the main instigator, issuing threats etc against her sister in law, telling her to move out.

The dead mans wife remained dignified in the whole fiasco and said nothing.

Upshot was, the dead mans wife produced a legal and valid will which covered her right to the property.

Dead mans sister was last seen heading back up highway 2 with her tail between her legs and massive loss of face, plus a legal bill to be paid.

Please seek legal advice from a professional competant lawyer.

You are correct. Our mistake was: "NO WILL" - - - I have experienced the Thai government, Thai business partners and Thai neighbors were very helpful after the sudden death of my wife.

Just a few members of the family could not resist the temptation to take the chance to take it all.

[steveromagnino]

As i see it, your chanote is likely to be the type of a nor sor 3 gor perhaps, or a nor sor 3 that is designed for a farmer to stop them from doing exactly what has occured here, for the property to be sold.

As any contract based on illegality is difficult to enforce or invalid, there is a strong chance you may have to give the land back as it was sold to you based on that illegality.

Now you could sue the seller for misrepresentation and attempt to circumvent the law. This would be a little tricky as you seem to be a willing party. As it is matrimonial property, you can sue her.

You could also consider to ask for your money back plus interest and threaten to sue, without mention of the bungalows....then remove them and sell them.

I don't like your chances of enforcing the contract as is, because it is entirely based on a illegality; as the former PM learned, just because he bought something in good faith many years ago, these clauses CAN be enforced for the protection and intent of the original chanote.

My strongest recommendation....tail between your legs, be nice and look for a compromise. be strong, fair and NOT argumentative.

There is zero point in trying to make a point of this. Any people when operating on emotion can be very very tough to deal with; you need honey to catch a bear or whatever that expression is.

She's old. She sounds not particularly rich or educated. She may be vindictive. That makes her easy to read, and possible to manipulate.

Use threats and force and anger as a last resort; this is your weakest and last strategy only if all else fails.

I don't know any of the facts here, but from a legal standpoint, you should face up to the fact you've come up with a contract that is possibly illegal, and thus everything would revert to her anyhow and she could also sue you for damage to her property even though she was the seller (mat. prop.). Far fetched yes, but theoretically perhaps.

[RaiBerg]

As i see it, your chanote is likely to be the type of a nor sor 3 gor perhaps, or a nor sor 3 that is designed for a farmer to stop them from doing exactly what has occured here, for the property to be sold.

As any contract based on illegality is difficult to enforce or invalid, there is a strong chance you may have to give the land back as it was sold to you based on that illegality.

Now you could sue the seller for misrepresentation and attempt to circumvent the law. This would be a little tricky as you seem to be a willing party. As it is matrimonial property, you can sue her.

You could also consider to ask for your money back plus interest and threaten to sue, without mention of the bungalows....then remove them and sell them.

I don't like your chances of enforcing the contract as is, because it is entirely based on a illegality; as the former PM learned, just because he bought something in good faith many years ago, these clauses CAN be enforced for the protection and intent of the original chanote.

My strongest recommendation....tail between your legs, be nice and look for a compromise. be strong, fair and NOT argumentative.

There is zero point in trying to make a point of this. Any people when operating on emotion can be very very tough to deal with; you need honey to catch a bear or whatever that expression is.

She's old. She sounds not particularly rich or educated. She may be vindictive. That makes her easy to read, and possible to manipulate.

Use threats and force and anger as a last resort; this is your weakest and last strategy only if all else fails.

I don't know any of the facts here, but from a legal standpoint, you should face up to the fact you've come up with a contract that is possibly illegal, and thus everything would revert to her anyhow and she could also sue you for damage to her property even though she was the seller (mat. prop.). Far fetched yes, but theoretically perhaps.

Thanks for the good tips..... YES "Jai Yen Yen".... I have a better picture now...the legal point of view is more hopeful now....

but the old lady has some ill advise... (good to know) - - but how the court will decide????????

or ??? I hope she will calm down .... trust we can clear all without court....

Edited March 10, 2010 by RaiBerg

[getgoin]

The registered sale of the property never happened. When the government issued the real paper to the dad you took out a contract for a future sale through an attorney. All very nice but unenforceable.

The grandmother wants the land back but more than likely not for herself. She may be under pressure form other siblings or she may be looking at a bigger sale in 2 years when she can legally sell it as the heir to her husband's land.

Option A, I said it before and I will say it again that you have to buy her off. This is the only thing that she will understand and the easiest and probably cheapest way to go. Set her up with a comfortable monthly allowance, buy her a new television and a few things and forget the lawyers. You will soon become the favorite son-in-law. Start tonight.

Option B is to take some cash from her, bulldoze down the bungalows and move on.

Option C is fight it out in court and eventually lose.

Edited March 10, 2010 by getgoin

[robinhill]

Sounds to me that the "chanote" is not a proper title deed, but no more than a Nor Sor 3 or less, and thereby a 'land claim' type deed. In respect of such deeds your wife and children's occupation and use of the land provide you with a strong claim to it in this respect, and perhaps also by way of inheritance.

Your buy/sell contract, or whatever paper you have in relation to the sale, was not registered at the land office, and the name on the deed is still that of the wife's father. Without a will, by way of inheritance this would pass to the surviving spouse (grandmother). But you may be able to argue that the payment for the land by your wife to her father was in respect to this land being transferred to her / her children in the event of his death, since the land "can not be sold", but can be transferred by way of inheritance. The grandmother could argue that if this were the case then the grandfather should have made a will to such effect, but to say this ignores the payment for the land.

It is clear that an agreement was reached and honoured by the land owner (grandfather), and that the grandmother is attempting to steal back the land on a technicality by claiming that the agreement was illegal.

There is no doubt as to the justice in this case, but judges usually apply the law, and not always justice, because more than anything they have a tendency to cover their backside in this respect.

If you try to keep this land by way of enforcing the "illegal" buy/sell contract, you may, therefore, fail.

However, if you try to keep this land by way of possession and usage of the land, and possession of the deed, claiming that the grandfather transferred the land to your wife/children, then you may fair better.

I think your success / failure in this case depends somewhat on...

1. The initial agreement, its wording, and whether the land was promised to, transferred to, or sold to and purchased by your wife (on behalf of her children?).

2. Possession and usage of the land.

You have possession of the land, and, presumably of the grandfather's deed to the land (do not let the grandmother see nor gain possession of this document). You can also demonstrate usage of the land.... the longer the better.

- Do not vacate the land and allow the grandmother the opportunity to gain possession of it.

- Even if the grandmother somehow obtains a deed to the land in her name, still do not vacate the land, continue to possess, dwell and make use of the land, thereby continuing to enforce your children's claim to the land, and also preventing the grandmother from selling it.

- Do not allow the grandmother to use the land in any way, to grow crops for example. In fact, it might be an idea to "farm" the land yourself (or have your children grow something on the land). I suspect that the more use you/your children make of the land, the stronger your/their claim to it.

The grandmother may claim that the original deed has been lost in order to obtain another one in her name. You should engage a lawyer to represent you in this matter and affirm to the land office that you hold the deed on behalf of your children and that it is not lost, and that it yours/your children's by way transfer from the grandfather.

Perhaps you should attempt the following :

You could attempt, via your lawyer, to reach an amicable out of court settlement whereby, your lawyer meets with the grandmother (without prior notice and her lawyer present) and certifies that you/your children have a strong legal and possessory claim to the land citing relevant sections of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, and that under no circumstances whatsoever can now be forced to vacate the land, therefore she will never be able to sell it to anyone else with vacant possession. She should also be informed that if she pursues this matter, she is unlikely to win anyway, and in any case it will be a lengthy and expensive court battle, and that the very most she could hope to gain from it all is the land in her name, but not in her possession, since having resided on the land for so long your children have the right to remain there. Your lawyer should tell her that if any other lawyer informs her of anything to the contrary then they are misleading her and trying to manipulate her in order to get the legal business, and suggest to her that to prove this she should ask her lawyer to work on a "no win, no fee" basis. Her lawyer is unlikely to do this and so this will serve to reinforce her doubts and fears and mistrust of her own lawyer, and lead her to the conclusion that your lawyer is correct.

Your lawyer should next suggest that you do not wish to see her out of pocket by a fruitless court battle that you know she can not win, and in order not to cause family conflict, and to save her and yourself any further legal expense, as a gesture of good will, you will offer her a one chance only deal, and agree to pay a "good will" fixed sum, or a monthly sum over a period of fixed time, which equates to proportion of the sum which you might otherwise spend on legal fees yourself (say between 20,000 - 60,000 or whatever you think she might be tempted to grab), in exchange for the grandmother renouncing any and all claims to the land, and confirming that it belongs to your children by way of inheritance from the grandfather. The lawyer should have a promisary note prepared to the effect of the above, and take along with him another person so as to have two witnesses to this legal document.

This document will not make any reference to the "illegal" buy/sell agreement, but will effectively transfer any claim that the grandmother might have by way of inheritance of the land to your children.

Having your lawyer suggest/demonstrate that there is no way that she can ever get vacant possession of the land under Thai law will dash her hopes of making money from it, then offering her a tempting once only fruitful way out for her cooperation which will save you the legal expense of taking this matter to court will make you seem like a reasonable person who is not inconsiderate of her needs.

[harrry]

If your wife died without a will you are her heir if you were married to her. The parents are not statuatory heirs.

When her father died if he did not have a will your grandchildren had a claim equal to the claim of your wife.

I cannot understand your mentions of farang having no rights.

I would scare her to death by getting a lawyer to claim on the grandfathers estate on behalf of the grandchildren....after all it is by law their inheritance.

Edited March 11, 2010 by harrry

[alfieconn]

mistake

Edited March 11, 2010 by alfieconn

[stgrhe]

Sounds to me that the "chanote" is not a proper title deed, but no more than a Nor Sor 3 or less,..

Not necessarily so, the land could for instance have been a Sor Kor 1 and upgraded to a chanote tii din with a restriction of sale for ten years. This is the restriction the land office put on such land when being upgraded.

As far as titles like Nor Sor Sam and Nor Sor Sam Ghor are concerned these title types are more or less equal Chanotes but they have been surveyed manually. Their title documents have green garudas whereas chanotes are red. It is the title documents wearing black garudas one should take extra care with.

[RaiBerg]

<br />If your wife died without a will you are her heir if you were married to her. The parents are not statuatory heirs.<br />When her father died if he did not have a will your grandchildren had a claim equal to the claim of your wife.<br />I cannot understand your mentions of farang having no rights.<br /><br />I would scare her to death by getting a lawyer to claim on the grandfathers estate on behalf of the grandchildren....after all it is by law their inheritance.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

If find this a good hint.... in fact - my children did receive no inheritance from grandfather's death . . . the family blocked it... first we did not care.... but having second thoughts.... how much would be their share according to Thai law??

[rgs2001uk]

<br />If your wife died without a will you are her heir if you were married to her. The parents are not statuatory heirs.<br />When her father died if he did not have a will your grandchildren had a claim equal to the claim of your wife.<br />I cannot understand your mentions of farang having no rights.<br /><br />I would scare her to death by getting a lawyer to claim on the grandfathers estate on behalf of the grandchildren....after all it is by law their inheritance.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

If find this a good hint.... in fact - my children did receive no inheritance from grandfather's death . . . the family blocked it... first we did not care.... but having second thoughts.... how much would be their share according to Thai law??

Start reading on page 34 here,

http://www.thailawonline.com/images/thaici...l%20code%20.pdf

Good luck.

[hhgz]

I "word problems" in school. Whether the problem was related to English or math, the student needed to sift through all of the provided information, and decide what was needed to properly solve the problem. I've read through the OP's explanations several times, and then...an epiphany. In this entire scenario of ownership-switcharoo, title diversion, and smoke and mirrors...he's the only non-blood relative involved and, surprise, he's left holding an empty wallet.