Divorce - Wife Is After Foreign Assets.

[David48]

You could spike her guns. Lodge a divorce application in the court here. It is extremely unlikely that Australian courts will procede if it is before another court.

harry well mentioned, be pro-active and get on the front foot.

I pray that this will never happen to me.

I know that it's a pain to ask ... but there are many here ... well me for sure for one that would like to know how this pans out for you.

Now

In 6 months

When the and all is decided.

Good Luck with all you do.

David48

[JustAsking2]

Here's an update.

I spoke to a lawyer in Oz.

Seems that assets in Oz are not protected.

The wife doesn't need to file for divorce in Oz, but could still apply for a share of my assets.

She also doesn't need to travel to Oz to start proceedings.

If I was to suddenly transfer large amounts of money to a trust fund or to other members of my family, then the courts would have power to claw them back. (not sure how they would do that if I moved them internationally).

So, it looks like the best option is to appease the wife for as long as possible, while each month spiriting money away until my Australian assets are close to equal to my Thai assets. At that time any court would favour a she keeps the Thailand stuff and I keep the Oz stuff.

Now to find an offshore account.

[damo]

Nice work,

Can you tell us any more about the advice your lawyer gave you, It sounds like the divorce and the settlement are handled individually in Aus?

how does she go about persuing you for you assets from LOS?

Do tha Australian courts consider foriegn assets?

Curious.

[damo]

Did the Oz courts give you an idea of the maximum time you have after you divorce or when you seperate before she must lodge a claim?

I allways thought here in Oz it was either 1 year or three years of seperation and then she has exceeded the maximum time frame allowed to lodge a claim.

[irlguy1]

Here's an update.

I spoke to a lawyer in Oz.

Seems that assets in Oz are not protected.

The wife doesn't need to file for divorce in Oz, but could still apply for a share of my assets.

She also doesn't need to travel to Oz to start proceedings.

If I was to suddenly transfer large amounts of money to a trust fund or to other members of my family, then the courts would have power to claw them back. (not sure how they would do that if I moved them internationally).

So, it looks like the best option is to appease the wife for as long as possible, while each month spiriting money away until my Australian assets are close to equal to my Thai assets. At that time any court would favour a she keeps the Thailand stuff and I keep the Oz stuff.

Now to find an offshore account.

I hate to be the one to say I told you so but ummmm yea

[Mario2008]

many countries are party to an international treaty about divorce and the splitting of assets. During the divorce proceedings you declare all your assets, inclusing those in other countries. Then the assets (including any debts) gained by both sidesduring the marriage are determined and the case is settled.

Because of the treaty the assets in other countries can normally be liquidated if need be. If both countries are member of the treaty a judge in another country will only check if the right procedure is followed and a few other checks can be made, but you don't have to argue the case again.

Even if there is no treaty, making false statements can be reason for prosecution and you will certainly find that a judge will not be amused. A judge can also confiscate property in Thailand, to compensate for property you have in another country.

If you make a false statement there might not be a time frame in which one must find out about the property. Rather there will be a time frame from the date of discovery of the fraud.

[David48]

Now to find an offshore account.

I have two ... Thailand or the UK ... I'll relieve of the interest while it's in the account and the original capital is yours any time ... a match made in heaven!

[JustAsking2]

Nice work,

Can you tell us any more about the advice your lawyer gave you, It sounds like the divorce and the settlement are handled individually in Aus?

how does she go about persuing you for you assets from LOS?

Do tha Australian courts consider foriegn assets?

Curious.

Yes, divorce and property settlements are 2 different matters in Aus. Defacto relationships can be included in property settlements, so obviously no divorce is even needed in that case.

She would just need to contact a lawyer in Aus to act on her behalf.

Yes, they would consider the foreign assets of both husband and wife.

Did the Oz courts give you an idea of the maximum time you have after you divorce or when you seperate before she must lodge a claim?

I allways thought here in Oz it was either 1 year or three years of separation and then she has exceeded the maximum time frame allowed to lodge a claim.

1 year for a divorce. 2 years from seperation for defactos.

[JustAsking2]

Now to find an offshore account.

I have two ... Thailand or the UK ... I'll relieve of the interest while it's in the account and the original capital is yours any time ... a match made in heaven!

Thanks for the offer. Please post your full name, account name and account numbers and I'll do the transfer.

[David48]

Nice work,

Can you tell us any more about the advice your lawyer gave you, It sounds like the divorce and the settlement are handled individually in Aus?

how does she go about persuing you for you assets from LOS?

Do tha Australian courts consider foriegn assets?

Curious.

Yes, divorce and property settlements are 2 different matters in Aus. Defacto relationships can be included in property settlements, so obviously no divorce is even needed in that case.

She would just need to contact a lawyer in Aus to act on her behalf.

Yes, they would consider the foreign assets of both husband and wife.

Did the Oz courts give you an idea of the maximum time you have after you divorce or when you seperate before she must lodge a claim?

I allways thought here in Oz it was either 1 year or three years of separation and then she has exceeded the maximum time frame allowed to lodge a claim.

1 year for a divorce. 2 years from seperation for defactos. (My Bolding)

I am surprised with the above information, because to my reasoning of the above statement is implying that a defacto is more enduring then a marriage?

What I not understanding?

[JustAsking2]

I think that you can't be divorced in Aus until you have been separated for at least 1 year.

So in effect both cases are 2 years from separation.

[Mario2008]

1 post giving illegal advise deleted.

[JustAsking2]

Hello,

Just a quick update. I'm still playing the waiting game at the moment.

My wife has been busy trying to organise getting hold of my stuff, while I think trying not to have to let go of any of hers.

I wonder if someone would be kind enough to give a translation of the attached file. I think it is either from or to her lawyer, but couldn't make out from either of the online translation services.

Thank you in advance.

[Carib]

She has her own business, which I paid for.

She owns 2 shop-houses in Pattaya, which I paid for.

She owns another house in the village, which I paid for.

She owns a 10 year old Nissan that I paid for.

She also owns one other house in the village.

Most of her income comes from renting out one of the shop-houses, as well as renting the 2 houses in the village.

Her first ex-husband also gives her 5,000 baht per month for his 2 children and 50,000 baht from me.

Her business generates peanuts, so I think that she will be better off if she moves out to the village and then she can generate more rental income.

Sure her life isn't going to be easier when the 50,000 baht per month disappears, but well that wont be my problem.

If her property was acquired during the official marriage, you are entitled to half of it.

[wellred]

Hope it all works out for you mate. Good luck.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I'm not entirely clear about what the OP is saying...

He very clearly talked about a lot of assets he paid for for his wife in Thailand during their marriage, and under Thai law, they'd be required to divide those evenly upon divorce (although he wouldn't be able to told title to any land on an ongoing basis).

But when he talked about the wife potentially wanting to go after his assets in OZ, as best as I read here, he never clearly indicated whether those OZ assets were ones he acquired before the marriage, or after they were married, or in which category the bulk of them lie.

Under Thai law, whether the assets are in Thailand or in OZ, she'd only be entitled to half of any OZ assets he acquired during their marriage...but would have zero claim on any OZ assets he possessed prior to their marriage.

However, then it begins to get fuzzy about how it would be determined which country's laws would govern the divorce. And if she was able to file first in OZ despite not living there or being there, would that put the case in OZ under OZ laws? Or if he filed first in Thailand, would that put the case under the presumably more favorable Thai laws?

It's giving me a headache....The notion that a foreign national who has never lived in a country and wasn't married there would be able to file for divorce there (without even needing to be physically present to do so) seems a very odd construct.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I presume you were married in Thailand, without a prenuptial agreement. That means that all assets that were acquired DURING he marriage will be divided, unless at the time of divorce an agreement saying otherwise was made.

So if you had 100,000 before the marriage and now have 200,000 you split only 100,000 with the ex, not the full 200,000. Debts are also assets and will also be split, and of course it is not only about your assets but also hers.

Mario, can you clarify something about the division of assets under Thai law.... I can envision two totally different approaches.

1. The court looks at the couple's total worth at the time of the marriage, and their total worth at the time of the divorce, and then the couple split the difference evenly. The difference being the net GAIN in assets since the marriage began.

or 2. The court looks at all the funds/assets that were acquired during the marriage, including his annual income, totals them up, and then the wife gets half. That would mean even if the guy's net worth didn't increase during the marriage, because let's say he spent most of his income during their married year supporting their lifestyle together (rent, food, bills, travel etc), that she'd still then be entitled to half of everything that had come in thru the years, even if it had already been spent by them together on things other than hard/tangible assets.

I'm hoping the answer would be the first method would be used. But I'm afraid it might be the second.

[JustAsking2]

My assets in Oz are about 50% acquired before marriage and 50% during the marriage. The total value is significantly higher than "her" assets that I bought for her.

I am prepared to give over any claim on the properties in Thailand (never invest more than you are prepared to walk away from).

But I'm hopeful that I will retain 100% of the assets in Oz.

It's giving me a headache....The notion that a foreign national who has
never lived in a country and wasn't married there would be able to file
for divorce there (without even needing to be physically present to do
so) seems a very odd construct.

Yes, me too.

Even crazier, is that she doesn't even need to file for divorce. She can file for "separation of assets" without having to file for a divorce.

[JustAsking2]

I presume you were married in Thailand, without a prenuptial agreement. That means that all assets that were acquired DURING he marriage will be divided, unless at the time of divorce an agreement saying otherwise was made.

So if you had 100,000 before the marriage and now have 200,000 you split only 100,000 with the ex, not the full 200,000. Debts are also assets and will also be split, and of course it is not only about your assets but also hers.

Mario, can you clarify something about the division of assets under Thai law.... I can envision two totally different approaches.

1. The court looks at your total worth at the time of the marriage, and your total worth at the time of the divorce, and the couple split the difference evenly. The difference being the net GAIN in assets since the marriage began.

or 2. The court looks at all the funds/assets that were acquired during the marriage, including his annual income, totals them up, and then the wife gets half. That would mean even if the guy's net worth didn't increase during the marriage, because let's say he spent most of his income during their married year supporting their lifestyle together (rent, food, bills, travel etc), that she'd still then be entitled to half of everything that had come in thru the years, even if it had already been spent by them together on things other than hard/tangible assets.

I'm hoping the answer would be the first method would be used. But I'm afraid it might be the second.

Option 2 would be silly.. (but then TiT). It would be seriously double dipping.

[FDog]

I'm no expert in oz divorces but from what I have heard it doesn't matter if you owned assets before the marriage, she will have a right to half of them anyway. Even your superannuation, so be very careful with that.

I also think the only thing the oz courts will consider is how the Thai assets are divided, marry that up with your oz assets and give her the difference.

Oz family courts are brutal so do what you have to do with your oz assets. You don't want to be at the mercy of the the courts in oz. I'll leave it at that.

If I were you I would also cut all finance to her. Make her sell one of her properties to finance the oz lawyer.

Also, do tell how you actually found out about her wanting a divorce, I'm intrigued.

Good luck old son.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Option 2 would be silly.. (but then TiT). It would be seriously double dipping.

So would an OZ divorce that could potentially give her half of everything you have in both countries....even things you acquired long before you ever met your current wife.

It seems like what you'd really want to focus on is finding a way to have the divorce settled under Thai law...and not those in your home country. I'd think there ought to be some way to accomplish that.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

This TV forum has a pinned thread on links to various information on Thai marriage and divorce issues.

One of the linked articles from Thai Law Online discusses how the division of property is handled in Thailand in cases where the husband and wife are of mixed nationalities, and which person's home country laws apply to different things, as follows:

Marriage with a Foreigner. In case that husband and wife have different nationalities, the assets of wife shall be governed by the law of the husband’s nationality except property according to Conflict of Law ,section 22 designate that if there is no prenuptial agreement, the relationship between husband and wife shall be governed by nationality law. If husband and wife have different nationalities, all common property shall governed by the law of husband’s nationality. However, the immovable property shall comply with the law where the property is situated; such as house and land. For example; Thai wife has a dispute over the land with a foreign husband, Thai law shall govern. In case of termination of marriage by divorce, Thai law designates that assets shall be divided equally.

http://thailawonline.com/en/family/divorce-in-thailand/separation-of-assets.html

It seems to be saying that in a mixed marriage couple, the division of most common property would be handled under the laws of the husband's country. But for buildings or land in Thailand, if common property, those would be handled under Thai law.

[candypants]

I

I can't see how an Australian court would have due restriction over this.

i think it has to do with the statue of limitations.

but it may just be a finger of speech

[Mario2008]

I presume you were married in Thailand, without a prenuptial agreement. That means that all assets that were acquired DURING he marriage will be divided, unless at the time of divorce an agreement saying otherwise was made.

So if you had 100,000 before the marriage and now have 200,000 you split only 100,000 with the ex, not the full 200,000. Debts are also assets and will also be split, and of course it is not only about your assets but also hers.

Mario, can you clarify something about the division of assets under Thai law.... I can envision two totally different approaches.

1. The court looks at the couple's total worth at the time of the marriage, and their total worth at the time of the divorce, and then the couple split the difference evenly. The difference being the net GAIN in assets since the marriage began.

or 2. The court looks at all the funds/assets that were acquired during the marriage, including his annual income, totals them up, and then the wife gets half. That would mean even if the guy's net worth didn't increase during the marriage, because let's say he spent most of his income during their married year supporting their lifestyle together (rent, food, bills, travel etc), that she'd still then be entitled to half of everything that had come in thru the years, even if it had already been spent by them together on things other than hard/tangible assets.

I'm hoping the answer would be the first method would be used. But I'm afraid it might be the second.

As far as i know it is option 1. (During the marriage you already have to support eachother and you can enjoy the fruits of each others assets, like living in the house owned by your spouse and driving the car. Also your asstes will always vary from time to time. So you look at what both had on the day of marriage and what one had on the day of divorce).

But I'm not 100% sure how they do it in Thailand. There are of course also things that don't fall under the communal property.

[JustAsking2]

If I were you I would also cut all finance to her. Make her sell one of her properties to finance the oz lawyer.

Also, do tell how you actually found out about her wanting a divorce, I'm intrigued.

Yes, I have now cut off her finance.

I turned on the home computer and there was an email to her in Thai, but the from address made me curious to run the text through an online translator.

[JustAsking2]

http://thailawonline.com/en/family/divorce-in-thailand/separation-of-assets.html

This link just seems to hang. I'll try again later.

[JustAsking2]

If you have never lived in Australia as man and wife, she will have no access to Australian courts.

A handy little rule I found out a few years ago.

A handy little rule that you can now dump with the garbage.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

http://thailawonline.com/en/family/divorce-in-thailand/separation-of-assets.html

This link just seems to hang. I'll try again later.

Works fine for me...trying it again now.

[expatdreamer]

I can vouch for the "Oz courts are brutal" statement that someone else posted, so best of luck.

But given it seems from this thread it has been confirmed that Oz law for divorce can come into effect even if the parties have never lived in Oz, it does beg the question of "What about de-facto law"

Here in Oz, if you live together after a couple of years, you are legally recognised as defacto and upon separation, a property settlement can be sought through the courts similar to as if the couple were married. Worst case outcome is you have to hand over half your assets after living together for say 3-5 years.

So I am very curious as to the following scenario. Oz expat male lives with a Thai national female for a few years together in Thailand only (not Oz), and then separate. I would think that if the Thai female has the resources, she could potentially come after you in the Oz courts for a defacto property settlement. Meanwhile the Oz expat thinks he has been safe all along with his assets in Oz because defacto law is not recognised in Thailand. Anyone got any definitive information on this scenario and whether Oz defacto law could come into play?

Again best of luck to the OP.

[TommoPhysicist]

It doesn't matter what Thai law says ....... Cos Oz won't give her a go if she didn't live there.