Marry a Thai - can she get my assets in UK or australia?

[WonnabeBiker]

I'd like to hear the correct answer to that question as well. As an escrow company in California holds the view that by marrying, a spouse automatically gains equity in her husband's properties in a community property state.

Doubt that if there has been no co-mingling.

[LOWH]

Thank you gentle men. Again this site is very useful and insightful of what's in the head of you guys. Now, me; a Thai girl would know what to do or how to deal when situations like this come up.

Keep on discussing !!!

[vagabondingshane]

Most importantly, in this day and age, why get married? Will the both of you be more in love because of it? Open an account for her and put a bit of money in it to show commitment. If I want to give half my stuff away, I'll pile it in the front yard and set it on fire before I give it to an ex-wife...

[tingtongtourist]

Its my belief if you marry a Thai, best to keep them as far away from your own country as possible..many reasons for this including the fact she wont be able to hit you up for anything if you can dissapear if the worst happens

[cheeryble]

Most importantly, in this day and age, why get married? Will the both of you be more in love because of it?

Also to the point……is "love" a desirable state to be in?

Or is it rather a pathetic thing where you are totally under the control of evolutionary forces and are ruled by nature with an iron hand….so nature gets what it wants…..procreation.

Isn't just about any way of being nobler than this?

[BuffaloRescue]

Pre-Nup's are not legally binding in the UK and yes she can get half your assets in the UK if her lawyer is smart enough.

Don't get married unless she is richer than you. It's probably not her decision anyway, have you discussed it with her Thai boyfriend?

It is possible, but unlikely she would get 50% of UK assets - especially if she does not live there, did not contribute the acquiring of those assets (i.e. you already own them on entering marriage) and you have other obligations (such as ex-wife, children etc with a claim to a percentage). If she is not a British Citizen, likelihood is she will not get a visa to come to the UK to sue for assets anyway, which means an expensive case for her to attempt from far away, with little guarantee of success. Although Pre-Nups are not entirely legally binding in the UK, they have successfully been used as a guidance and as a presumption of state of mind at time of marriage, it is likely a judge would follow the agreement where it seems fair and overrule anything that seems unfair. Very unlikely she would get 50% of pre-owned, overseas assets - it simply is not part of the marital home and estate. Any assets you purchase whilst married are fair game though - including mortgage payments on properties bought before the wedding, but paid throughout the marriage.

//Edit: Odds are that she would believe the pre-nup to be legally binding anyway - her Thai lawyer would probably think so too.

How about inherited assets (inherited after marriage)

[wolfmanjack]

I think you would have to register the marriage with your embassy if she were to have any legal claim. I'm not sure if Australia and UK are the same as US where assets owned prior to the marriage are not considered community property.

While it is true that assets owned before a marriage are not community property in the USA, the increase in value of those assets after marriage is.

You guys do realize that the laws concerning marital assets are not the same in every state don't you?

[wolf5370]

Pre-Nup's are not legally binding in the UK and yes she can get half your assets in the UK if her lawyer is smart enough.

Don't get married unless she is richer than you. It's probably not her decision anyway, have you discussed it with her Thai boyfriend?

It is possible, but unlikely she would get 50% of UK assets - especially if she does not live there, did not contribute the acquiring of those assets (i.e. you already own them on entering marriage) and you have other obligations (such as ex-wife, children etc with a claim to a percentage). If she is not a British Citizen, likelihood is she will not get a visa to come to the UK to sue for assets anyway, which means an expensive case for her to attempt from far away, with little guarantee of success. Although Pre-Nups are not entirely legally binding in the UK, they have successfully been used as a guidance and as a presumption of state of mind at time of marriage, it is likely a judge would follow the agreement where it seems fair and overrule anything that seems unfair. Very unlikely she would get 50% of pre-owned, overseas assets - it simply is not part of the marital home and estate. Any assets you purchase whilst married are fair game though - including mortgage payments on properties bought before the wedding, but paid throughout the marriage.

//Edit: Odds are that she would believe the pre-nup to be legally binding anyway - her Thai lawyer would probably think so too.

How about inherited assets (inherited after marriage)

Generally would be included in the marital estate (and thus co-ownership) - as would anything that is acquired during the marriage. There is room to argue of course - and personal items left (willed) with nominal value (or can be shown to have higher emotional value) could be excluded from the estate.

[BuffaloRescue]

I know devorce/separation law in Australia changed in 2010

Now its more based on what each couple had put into the relationship. So if you were a millionairre and she was a cleaner when you got married shed only be able to claim her contribution to the relationship providing no kids etc.

In the UK its more 50/50 split still

In Thailand and other countries the "weaker" partner might be entitled to MORE (not less) than the stronger partner. Strange.

[hyperdimension]

How about inherited assets (inherited after marriage)

Generally would be included in the marital estate (and thus co-ownership) - as would anything that is acquired during the marriage. There is room to argue of course - and personal items left (willed) with nominal value (or can be shown to have higher emotional value) could be excluded from the estate.

I asked a question in another thread about inherited assets:

_{Yes, jointly means a marital asset. If you acquire something after marriage which is a personal asset then it obviously is not a marital asset and therefore not divided. Again, it is up to a Judge to decide what is considered marital or personal assets. You can have in a pre-nup that items such as an inheritance from a will is a personal asset and not a marital asset. What you cannot do in Thailand is have something in a pre-nup which is against public policy or good morals.}

Is a house in which the married couple live a "marital asset"? If so, without a prenuptial agreement, would the value of the house be split 50% after divorce, and if so, would that be the same regardless of whether the house was purchased by the husband or was inherited from the Thai wife's parents?

So based on your answer, the husband would be entitled to half of the house. Would that be correct?

[wolf5370]

Generally would be included in the marital estate (and thus co-ownership) - as would anything that is acquired during the marriage. There is room to argue of course - and personal items left (willed) with nominal value (or can be shown to have higher emotional value) could be excluded from the estate.

I asked a question in another thread about inherited assets:

Is a house in which the married couple live a "marital asset"? If so, without a prenuptial agreement, would the value of the house be split 50% after divorce, and if so, would that be the same regardless of whether the house was purchased by the husband or was inherited from the Thai wife's parents?

So based on your answer, the husband would be entitled to half of the house. Would that be correct?

Assuming the house is the marital home (not a vacation home, rental business, etc) then it is not so easy. It depends if the home is needed to shelter the family (especially with respect to children). It also depends on mortgage - was/is it in both names? There is an expectation that both parties brought something to the family home in order for it to be just that - money is only one part of that. Take a scenario where the man works and the women is a housewife/mother and stays at home. The guy pays off the mortgage bit by bit. Is the house his? Well the court would suggest that the wife being at home caring for the family needs is as important - it allowed him to go to work each day and pay for the house. So, it is rarely given solely to the one party on the basis of money paid. If the property was pre-owned (say a family estate that was inherited) then the court may well decide that it stays in the family, but will possibly make up for the difference in some other way - like insisting the owner covers housing expenses for the other party. It is not written in stone - and a judge will take it all under advisement and make an informed decision that appears fair. (Civil/Family) Courts do not like to make people homeless or destitute.

In the scenario above I would surmise that, if the house (although inherited) had been their marital home for a long enough time (most of their marriage and several years at least) and he was likely to stay in Thailand and thus need some accommodation, he may find that the court orders the house to be sold and the proceeds split - this is unlikely should the home also be livelihood (a small holding for example) or the sole home for the mother and children - but even so it's worth may be offset some other way. In reality - he would probably not get a look in on the house here - but may find it is offset as I said.

Note: This is all opinion based on vague scenarios - as always in such matters, see a good lawyer!

[David48]

... In OZ if you stay with a woman and live like man and wife for 2 years then she is considered your common law wife or de facto and can make a claim on your assets.

Sorry bud it's 6 months not 2 years for 50% in OZ

Doc ... the Lawyers seem to disagree with your statement ...

Other jurisdictional requirements for de factos

In addition to meeting the definition of a de facto relationship, a party who makes an application to the Court must also satisfy one of the jurisdictional requirements specified atSection 90SBof the Family Law Act:

• that the period, or the total of the periods, of the de facto relationship is at least 2 years; or

More here

.

[MAJIC]

on your divorce

UK no

Australia yes

on your death

UK yes

Australia yes

In the UK there is a 50/50 split of all assets upon Divorce including Pensions!

Unless Divorce laws have changed in recent years,English law does not recognise Prenuptual agreements!

[MAJIC]

My friend had a prenuptial they were married 2 years as soon as they had a kid it all changed prenuptial goes out the window this is the uk she done him for the house

You are correct, giving birth in the UK invalidates any pre-nup.

But to get access to the British legal system, she needs the right to enter the UK.

A Thai lady who and never travelled to the UK would have no chance.

Stick to American law,i'm sure you know something about it!

[Arkady]

I am not sure about the UK but Australia has the convenient system of treating divorce and division of assets as two separate court cases. The party who hopes to get some of the other party's assets has apply to the court for a division of assets within 12 months of a divorce. That can also be done, if you got divorced overseas, as long as one of the parties is an Oz citizen, living there permanently or intending to make it a permanent home. The Oz courts recognise that foreign courts will either not make rulings regarding assets in foreign countries or make rules they can't enforce. If this is the case, they will accept the case.

The only situation where a foreign court can effectively take Oz assets into account would be an example like this. Say a Thai-Oz couple get divorced in Thailand and the Oz husband had 100 widgets worth of assets that are deemed as congugal property by the Thai court which orders a 50:50 split. All the couple's assets are deemed to be conjugal property subject to division and there are no assets that are deemed personal property of either party not subject to division. 50% of the assets are in Oz and 50% in Thailand. The Thai court decides that the Thai spouse gets 100% of the Thai assets and the Oz spouse get 100% of the Oz assets. In this theoretical case the Oz court might decide that all the Oz property has been fairly assigned to the Oz apouse because the Thai spouse got all the Thai property and not accept the case. But this would be a highly unusual perfect case. Also the Oz court has no concept of conjugal property vs personal property acquired before marriage. So everything is up for grabs there.

I am not sure if the UK does a division of assets separate from a divorce but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. UK courts have certainly shown reluctance to divide up foreign property because they can't enforce the orders which requires another court case in the foreign country. So it follows that they would take cases to divide up UK property following a foreign diviorce.

[harrry]

 

on your divorce

UK no

Australia yes

on your death

UK yes

Australia yes

Unmarried: no and no.

Pretty simple decision.

Not quite true....if you have lived together for 2 years you are considered the same as married in Australia for property settlements on divorce.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I think you would have to register the marriage with your embassy if she were to have any legal claim. I'm not sure if Australia and UK are the same as US where assets owned prior to the marriage are not considered community property.

While it is true that assets owned before a marriage are not community property in the USA, the increase in value of those assets after marriage is.

You guys do realize that the laws concerning marital assets are not the same in every state don't you?

That's where you want to be sure to live in a community property state, which uphold the notion that pre-marital assets held by either party remain separate property in the event of a divorce. Although there can be some legal differences in the exact rules from state to state.

That roughly parallels Thai family law, which has the same notion regarding division of assets.

In the United States there are nine community property states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. While not a community property state, Alaska does allow couples to opt into a community property arrangement; property is separate property unless both parties agree to make it community property through a community property agreement or a community property trust.^[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property

Edited October 4, 2014 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Samuel25241]

WOW, what a lucky catch you must be, already have her divorced and taking half your assets before you're married.... It must be love, love, love. Try at least to pretend to be human and you may get some advice.

Oz

And here you are to welcome us all. Your typical foreigner married in Thailand who inevitably gets completely ****** over because he was worried he wasn't going to be a good "catch". Aww poor baby. [emoji24]

[whatawonderfulday]

WOW, what a lucky catch you must be, already have her divorced and taking half your assets before you're married.... It must be love, love, love. Try at least to pretend to be human and you may get some advice.

Oz

One of the smart ones. After reading the horror stories on here can you blame him?

if HE WAS THAT SMART HE WOULD NOT CONTEMPLATE GETTING MARRIED IN THE FIRST PLACE IF HIS MATERIAL POCCESSIONS ARE OF THAT GREAT CONCERN TO HIM

[lostinisaan]

On 8/1/2014 at 9:10 AM, Toscano said:

Marrying a Thai is a risky business , you need to be very careful , remember in terms of money a bargirl is always a bargirl .

I am lucky married to a school head teacher , with salary of her own , own house and land .

My advice would be don't marry a Thai if you are worried about your assets .

 

 

 

 

   It's all about common sense and all the guys who fell in love with a bargirl and married her are freaking stupid. Especially when you hear stuff like:

 

"But mine is not like that, she really loves me and I was her first customer. But she speaks a great English. From school? Nope, from other foreigners she underwent. 

 

  When you're from Germany, would you marry a prostitute who works at Hamburg's Reeperbahn for 10 years, no matter how sexy she is? Of course not.

 

 

 Same goes for all nationalities on this planet. A man who marries a prostitute who had to pay money for a sexual service in a red light area before must have some mental issues.

 

  Why do so many people believe that Thai prostitutes are so different? Because they don't understand them? 

 

A whore is a whore and a thief is a thief. A dumb guy is a dumb guy and will always be one.

 

   A Thai prostitute who experienced some miles and almost all nations can never be a loving wife. 

 

       No tears after losing all. You should have known it before.

 

 

    A lot of Thai teachers are single. Should anybody be interested ,my very good looking colleague is looking for a foreigner.

 

She's tall, very good looking, has her own house a good income and a good functioning brain.

 

   Should anybody be looking for a real relationship with a very good looking Thai teacher, please page me and I can get you in touch with her. Please no stupid jokes, she's an honest woman. 

 

   She's in her early forties, has long hair and teaches at a primary school. Cheers

 

      

            

 

     

Edited October 25, 2016 by lostinisaan

[lostinisaan]

On 10/24/2015 at 9:09 PM, whatawonderfulday said:

if HE WAS THAT SMART HE WOULD NOT CONTEMPLATE GETTING MARRIED IN THE FIRST PLACE IF HIS MATERIAL POCCESSIONS ARE OF THAT GREAT CONCERN TO HIM

 

 

Have you lost your Caps Lock?

[madmax2]

On 8/1/2014 at 6:20 AM, howzat said:

presume you mean if you fall of your perch before she does as can't believe you are thinking about divorce before marriage.!

You can have two wills. Thai will leaving all your Thai assets to your wife and your home country will leaving all your home country assets to your family or whoever.

That's what i have done, already given my children a substantial amount in money and shares

and also brought plenty of money to Thailand for my wife's future benefit so she never has to worry about money again

No reason for any fights over money and assets i still have i my name and if anyone does they will miss out altogether 

Edited November 20, 2016 by madmax2