Does Land Office Always Question Marriage Status When Selling Property?

[PMK]

When a Thai goes to sell property, say a married woman who has not changed her last name, how does the land office know if it is common property with a spouse or not? Do they always ask? If not, and the sale goes through without spousal approval, is that a criminal act on the part of the seller?

[trogers]

It can only be common property with a spouse when so declared at the time of buying, when the spouse also had to counter sign the transfer documents.

[gotlost]

Some land offices will ask others will not.

[InterestedObserver]

If we are talking about land here, a foreigner cannot be listed as a co-owner on the title document (Chanote) along with his Thai wife so the question has no relevance at the land office.The actual splitting of common marital property is for the courts to decide, not the land office.

Edited June 30, 2010 by InterestedObserver

[PattayaParent]

Women don't have to get approval of their spouses to be able to do what they want these days.

That way of thinking went out with the Victorians.

[caf]

Women don't have to get approval of their spouses to be able to do what they want these days.

That way of thinking went out with the Victorians.

But it's her property anyway.

[trogers]

Women don't have to get approval of their spouses to be able to do what they want these days.

That way of thinking went out with the Victorians.

But it's her property anyway.

Not true with real properties. Remember Thaksin's signing of documents in his wife's acquisition of land in Ratchada area?

Once a spouse has to sign the transfer document during purchasing, the spouse's consent is also required during a subsequent sales, unless the seller shows prove of a divorce or death of the spouse.

[caf]

Thaksin is Thai

His wife is Thai

Your response is hardly appropriate to the op

[trogers]

Thaksin is Thai

His wife is Thai

Your response is hardly appropriate to the op

Rules apply in the same way to Thai women with foreign husbands. And that is the reason, a Thai woman buying land has to get her foreign husband to sign a declaration to the Land office that he has no direct interest over the acquisition, and that she is acquiring it with her own money. Thus, such an acquisition is not common property.

[caf]

Thaksin is Thai

His wife is Thai

Your response is hardly appropriate to the op

Rules apply in the same way to Thai women with foreign husbands. And that is the reason, a Thai woman buying land has to get her foreign husband to sign a declaration to the Land office that he has no direct interest over the acquisition, and that she is acquiring it with her own money. Thus, such an acquisition is not common property.

EXACTLY. But that was not what you implied. Though you seem to be changing your stance. The fact remains it is HER property. So your reply to the op is misleading to say the least. Your raising the issue of Taksin is mischievious and irrelevant to the op.

The house may be protected if there is an appropriate lease or supeficie in place. But the land is not in question, however youn try to wrap it up, It is HERS

[caf]

If we are talking about land here, a foreigner cannot be listed as a co-owner on the title document (Chanote) along with his Thai wife so the question has no relevance at the land office.The actual splitting of common marital property is for the courts to decide, not the land office.

Absolutely correct. The land though is not splittable. It is hers. She may agree to a split, for example on divorce but by way of a cash settlement. The farang can have no interest in land.

[trogers]

Thaksin is Thai

His wife is Thai

Your response is hardly appropriate to the op

Rules apply in the same way to Thai women with foreign husbands. And that is the reason, a Thai woman buying land has to get her foreign husband to sign a declaration to the Land office that he has no direct interest over the acquisition, and that she is acquiring it with her own money. Thus, such an acquisition is not common property.

EXACTLY. But that was not what you implied. Though you seem to be changing your stance. The fact remains it is HER property. So your reply to the op is misleading to say the least. Your raising the issue of Taksin is mischievious and irrelevant to the op.

The house may be protected if there is an appropriate lease or supeficie in place. But the land is not in question, however youn try to wrap it up, It is HERS

What was given as an example is land where a foreign husband can have no interest. But should it be a condo, a Thai wife will still need her husband's (foreign or local) approving signature for the title transfer to her name only.