Property In Wife's Name With Mortgage

[Tim207]

I have not seen this discussed anywhere. Is there a problem with buying property in wife's name amd me loaning her the money with the property as collateral (a mortgage),then leasing the property from her for 30 years at a nominal rate. The mortgage could have all kinds of provisions that would protect you if the marriage didn't work out. For instance, baloon payment at the end of lease or baloon payment triggered by your cancellation of lease. In this way you could force a sale if you wanted out.

I am more concerned about the inlaws than the wife. If something happened to her I could see the inlaws being a problem. Anybody see a problem with this arangement? Obviously enforcement of the mortgage would take time and trouble but I am looking to protect a fairly substantial investment.

[Dragonman]

I have not seen this discussed anywhere. Is there a problem with buying property in wife's name amd me loaning her the money with the property as collateral (a mortgage),then leasing the property from her for 30 years at a nominal rate. The mortgage could have all kinds of provisions that would protect you if the marriage didn't work out. For instance, baloon payment at the end of lease or baloon payment triggered by your cancellation of lease. In this way you could force a sale if you wanted out.

I am more concerned about the inlaws than the wife. If something happened to her I could see the inlaws being a problem. Anybody see a problem with this arangement? Obviously enforcement of the mortgage would take time and trouble but I am looking to protect a fairly substantial investment.

Problems! You sign a form saying money is solely your wife's. You then have to give the same Land Office a mortgage contract saying "well no, I actually loaned her the money". You then have to provide same Land Office a lease saying " although the money is her's via a loan agreement, she is kindly letting me live there rent free for 30 years, and I am controlling when she can sell". All this together with the fact that lending your wife money is the same as lending yourself money under Thai Law, as all borrowing is " community debt". It all would not be easier to prove breach of Land Code.

[skippybangkok]

Question from another angle. A friend ( ) put a deposit on the house in Mr.s name, and has a 20 year bank loan. I think they will be together for ever, but if they divorced, would the property value be split between both or is it all hers ?

Sure this has been posted tons of time, but not sure where to find.

[scotsman]

I have not seen this discussed anywhere. Is there a problem with buying property in wife's name amd me loaning her the money with the property as collateral (a mortgage),then leasing the property from her for 30 years at a nominal rate. The mortgage could have all kinds of provisions that would protect you if the marriage didn't work out. For instance, baloon payment at the end of lease or baloon payment triggered by your cancellation of lease. In this way you could force a sale if you wanted out.

I am more concerned about the inlaws than the wife. If something happened to her I could see the inlaws being a problem. Anybody see a problem with this arangement? Obviously enforcement of the mortgage would take time and trouble but I am looking to protect a fairly substantial investment.

There are only 2 ways that you can protect yourself with property in your wifes name a 30 year lease or a lifetime usufruct but you have to get a good solicitor to do this for you.

[thaigene2]

all borrowing is " community debt". It all would not be easier to prove breach of Land Code.

I floated a similar question a while back and got a similar answer.

But the one thing I don't get about your argument Dragonman is that if 'all borrowing is community debt' then that would preclude my wife or yours from getting a loan of any kind from anyone including the banks for a home purchase. If it's community debt that must mean I owe it along with my wife..so then the asset becomes a matrimonial communal asset right?

She is not buying it with 'her own money' is she? She is borrowing it with the bank's money..However I would guess that a court would never side with a foreigner anyway..

[Dragonman]

all borrowing is " community debt". It all would not be easier to prove breach of Land Code.

I floated a similar question a while back and got a similar answer.

But the one thing I don't get about your argument Dragonman is that if 'all borrowing is community debt' then that would preclude my wife or yours from getting a loan of any kind from anyone including the banks for a home purchase. If it's community debt that must mean I owe it along with my wife..so then the asset becomes a matrimonial communal asset right?

She is not buying it with 'her own money' is she? She is borrowing it with the bank's money..However I would guess that a court would never side with a foreigner anyway..

Any debt is shared 50-50, but if she has no money it's obviously going to be all yours. The reason it does not become a matrimonial communal asset is that you sign what is strictly a post-nuptial agreement at the Land office, which in effect, whilst you may be liable for the debt, you never get your hands on the asset.

skippybangkok. I presume an Agreement was signed at the Land Office to say that it's all hers.

There have been cases however of the foreigner being able to prove funds of his were used to build the property, hence the value of the building will come within community property laws.

It is far safer however to just register the building as yours before any divorce case.

[Swelters]

Almost all of the ideas floated here regarding buying land have a fundamental problem: the non-thai investor, usually in a relationship with a Thai, with all the usual cross-cultural uncertainites, wants to invest in Thai land but the Thai law does not permit this. (With some good reason, namely because history suggests that foreign --historically other Asian-- speculators would quickly gain control of a lot of Thai property.)

One solution, rarely mentioned, is to encourage the Thai partner to buy, and borrow the money via a mortgage on the property. Thai banks offer very good terms, 80 plus percent, low initial rates. The non-thai partner can then make up the down payment, say 20 percent, perhaps also taking care of the payments the first couple of years. This reinforces mutual dependency, which is presumably the only rational aim for anyone wanting to share land with their partner. The non-thai partner will have no claim on the property, but the exposure to loss will not be great. It also encourages the thai partner to develop a demonstrable regular income to qualify for the loan.

If the relationship is destined to last, why not? If the relationship is not likely to last, then why consider getting tied up in some kind of tricky land deal in the first place?

[whosyourdaddy]

If you dont have any kids, your wife should have a will that says the house is a marriage asset and it then goes to you. Since you are the executor of the will you have the power to sell it. From there you ahve 90 days to sell the property. IF you have a kid it is much easier and it goes to the kid..

[Dragonman]

If you dont have any kids, your wife should have a will that says the house is a marriage asset and it then goes to you. Since you are the executor of the will you have the power to sell it. From there you ahve 90 days to sell the property. IF you have a kid it is much easier and it goes to the kid..

A few amendments to this post. Doesn't need to be classified marriage asset. You are able to inherit personal property as Statutory Heir. It is up to the Judge if you are declared executor. There is no guarantee under Thai Law. You have minimum 180 days but up to 1 year by practice, subject to approval by Minister of Interior. In theory you may never have to sell, but up to Minister.

[dsfbrit]

I have not seen this discussed anywhere. Is there a problem with buying property in wife's name amd me loaning her the money with the property as collateral (a mortgage),then leasing the property from her for 30 years at a nominal rate. The mortgage could have all kinds of provisions that would protect you if the marriage didn't work out. For instance, baloon payment at the end of lease or baloon payment triggered by your cancellation of lease. In this way you could force a sale if you wanted out.

I am more concerned about the inlaws than the wife. If something happened to her I could see the inlaws being a problem. Anybody see a problem with this arangement? Obviously enforcement of the mortgage would take time and trouble but I am looking to protect a fairly substantial investment.

Tim207, I am by no means an expert, but bought property through the company route several years ago as I had/have similar concerns to you regarding the relatives. Trust the wife but...

Over the last several months I have explored just about every angle on this and I believe that if you (sensibly) decide not to go the illegal company route then like me you will come to the conclusion you have to 'trust' your wife or family to varying degrees.

1. LEASE option - if your wife dies then you have to trust that her family have not encouraged her to change her Will without you knowing. The family connection in Thailand is very strong. My wife has about 30 poor relatives and this number is obviously growing every year.

God the thought of them owning the land and the lease being with them fills me with horror. Yes I know legally I can stay here, but they would NEVER understand the land is solely mine to use - and would be here to visit me/want to live ? a lot. Thats just the way they are.

Tell me seasoned TV contributors - Am I wrong?

2. USUFRUCT- well at least with this option you only have to hope they dont decide to terminate YOU early!!

The above is written slightly 'tongue in cheek', but even though I have drawn up a letter to the solicitor to set up the lease option of land in my wifes name/house in my name - I just cannot send it!!!

If you are old enough to remember the TV programme 'Happy Days' - its a bit like the Fonz trying to say sorry/he was wrong - he just couldn't do it!

Tim207, I repeat I am not an expert - but I am sitting here typing this flipping reply rather than going out to enjoy myself. I have to make a decision what to do about this land thing and its a headache.

If I were lucky enough to be in your position and uncomfortable about putting your trust in the new Thai extended family, then I wouldn't do it.

I would rent for a year (or more) until I felt comfortable or buy a condo - which I can fully own.

Good luck mate with what you decide.

Remember some good advice from TV members

Dont bring any more money into Thailand than you can afford to lose!

[Tim207]

If I were lucky enough to be in your position and uncomfortable about putting your trust in the new Thai extended family, then I wouldn't do it.

I would rent for a year (or more) until I felt comfortable or buy a condo - which I can fully own.

Good luck mate with what you decide.

Remember some good advice from TV members

Dont bring any more money into Thailand than you can afford to lose!

I definitely want to make sure that the inlaws have no chance of gain at my expense. I wouldn't want my wife to be in a position where they would try to pressure her as I am sure they would if there was gain in it for them.

Condo is not something I would consider, I need space around me. I don't like the idea of renting because I would most likely want to make improvements to the property for my comfort/enjoyment. I am not one who moves around a lot, I have only lived in two houses my entire life, so when I find a place I expect it will be long term.

Losing what I invest would be bad but I can live with it. Having my investment taken by the inlaws is not something I could accept. I have some time before I am ready to move to Thailand full time so I hope the situation will improve or at least stabilize before I am ready to purchase. As things stand I will probably end up doing a 30 year lease. I know the mother in law will be dead in 30 years and she is the only one I really wouldn't want to get the property. hel_l, I don't expect to make it that long either anyway.

Good luck with your situation too.

[thaigene2]

Dragonman

I thought 'post-nuptial agreements' were not proved in law here. If this is one of those, then could I draw up my own similar waiver to have the wife sign away any future rights to a condo I own here? In other words, not part of the matrimonial estate? Fair is fair right? Let me gues - 'no'!!

[steveromagnino]

all borrowing is " community debt". It all would not be easier to prove breach of Land Code.

I floated a similar question a while back and got a similar answer.

But the one thing I don't get about your argument Dragonman is that if 'all borrowing is community debt' then that would preclude my wife or yours from getting a loan of any kind from anyone including the banks for a home purchase. If it's community debt that must mean I owe it along with my wife..so then the asset becomes a matrimonial communal asset right?

She is not buying it with 'her own money' is she? She is borrowing it with the bank's money..However I would guess that a court would never side with a foreigner anyway..

Pervading bitterness alert

I think you will find that since the foreigner cannot have any claim over the property, that any property purchased subsequent to marriage must be signed off by the Thai party that they are the sole owner of the property and therefore this would not be a matrimonial asset. In the event of the mortgage, title would pass from the creditor (bank or finance company) to the Thai party after full repayment of the mortgage. I can think of one way that it might end up in foreign hands for a brief period if it was willed to someone; however there is some sort of legal proceeding for this which i am not immediately familar with.

The foreigner in the type of relationship where they must act as a guarantor is essentially paying all the bills without any interest in the property concerned; similar to a parent guaranteeing a mortgage for a child; just because they guarantee it doesn't mean any piece of it is theirs.

In essence the Thai legal approach to handling property is similar to a pre nup, with the Thai party maintaining sole ownership of the property (i.e. land) as if it were not a joint asset.

OP Fact of the matter is as a foreigner you cannot own land; any method you use to get around this will have drawbacks/risks compared to ownership. Balance the risks involved against owning a condo or renting, and I think you may renting for a while makes more sense.

[dsfbrit]

all borrowing is " community debt". It all would not be easier to prove breach of Land Code.

I floated a similar question a while back and got a similar answer.

But the one thing I don't get about your argument Dragonman is that if 'all borrowing is community debt' then that would preclude my wife or yours from getting a loan of any kind from anyone including the banks for a home purchase. If it's community debt that must mean I owe it along with my wife..so then the asset becomes a matrimonial communal asset right?

She is not buying it with 'her own money' is she? She is borrowing it with the bank's money..However I would guess that a court would never side with a foreigner anyway..

Pervading bitterness alert

I think you will find that since the foreigner cannot have any claim over the property, that any property purchased subsequent to marriage must be signed off by the Thai party that they are the sole owner of the property and therefore this would not be a matrimonial asset. In the event of the mortgage, title would pass from the creditor (bank or finance company) to the Thai party after full repayment of the mortgage. I can think of one way that it might end up in foreign hands for a brief period if it was willed to someone; however there is some sort of legal proceeding for this which i am not immediately familar with.

The foreigner in the type of relationship where they must act as a guarantor is essentially paying all the bills without any interest in the property concerned; similar to a parent guaranteeing a mortgage for a child; just because they guarantee it doesn't mean any piece of it is theirs.

In essence the Thai legal approach to handling property is similar to a pre nup, with the Thai party maintaining sole ownership of the property (i.e. land) as if it were not a joint asset.

OP Fact of the matter is as a foreigner you cannot own land; any method you use to get around this will have drawbacks/risks compared to ownership. Balance the risks involved against owning a condo or renting, and I think you may renting for a while makes more sense.

In essence I think you are right - but I am no expert.

I currently have the land/house in the company name and lets say its worth the following:

Land 3,000,000 baht

House 3,000,000 baht

Total 6,000,000 baht

We have a pre-nup thats says on divorce 50/50 so 3,000,000 baht each.

Which I think is fair.

If I convert to the lease / 30 year thing the equation becomes:

She gets the land = 3,000,000 baht PLUS 50 percent communal property = half the house = 1,500,000 baht

SO she would get 4,500,000 baht I would get 1,500,000 baht.

When I decided to retire out here, I wasn't intending to sign up to this sort of situation.

Its the beauty of the 'company' route. I know now it was a mistake - but anything else seems really

a bad idea in the long run???

Am I right with the above assumption about the split of funds ????

[GuestHouse]

My view is that the only reason for a lease is to provide both parties with a benefit in the event of a break-up.

The Farang gets to stay in the property, and the Thai gets an income from the farang in terms of the lease rent.

This also works well if the Thai dies in which case the rent can be paid to the surviving parents/family.

Of course no real rent is paid while ever you are together - although keep a record that rent is paid an make sure your wife pays taxes as if she is receiving rent. (Failure to pay the rent on the lease is reason to revoke the lease - lack of evidence that rent has been paid is a big step to revoking a lease).

With respect to mortgages, I'm of the opinion that money spent on Property in Thailand ought to be surplus, above that which you need for pensions/property/investments back home.

If you are having to borrow money to buy in Thailand then it strikes me the golden rule of "not investing in Thailan that which you can't afford to loose" is being broken.

One caution.

If you are buying a property, where is it going to be?

If its up country in your wife's village, or right along side of your wife's family, then the chances are you will not want to be there anyway if things go sour.

[dsfbrit]

My view is that the only reason for a lease is to provide both parties with a benefit in the event of a break-up.

The Farang gets to stay in the property, and the Thai gets an income from the farang in terms of the lease rent.

This also works well if the Thai dies in which case the rent can be paid to the surviving parents/family.

Of course no real rent is paid while ever you are together - although keep a record that rent is paid an make sure your wife pays taxes as if she is receiving rent. (Failure to pay the rent on the lease is reason to revoke the lease - lack of evidence that rent has been paid is a big step to revoking a lease).

With respect to mortgages, I'm of the opinion that money spent on Property in Thailand ought to be surplus, above that which you need for pensions/property/investments back home.

If you are having to borrow money to buy in Thailand then it strikes me the golden rule of "not investing in Thailan that which you can't afford to loose" is being broken.

One caution.

If you are buying a property, where is it going to be?

If its up country in your wife's village, or right along side of your wife's family, then the chances are you will not want to be there anyway if things go sour.

No no no please - no - are you saying that if I change to do the 'land in her name/lease thing' and we divorce and I continue to live here - I have to pay rent?

Even if I dont want to live here I guess I have no option, but to stay - its up to the (then) x-wife and her family as the lease is binding?

Please tell me I am wrong!

Maybe the lease would have a 'get out of jail' option on divorce???

[steveromagnino]

I currently have the land/house in the company name and lets say its worth the following:

Land 3,000,000 baht

House 3,000,000 baht

Total 6,000,000 baht

We have a pre-nup thats says on divorce 50/50 so 3,000,000 baht each.

Which I think is fair.

If I convert to the lease / 30 year thing the equation becomes:

She gets the land = 3,000,000 baht PLUS 50 percent communal property = half the house = 1,500,000 baht

SO she would get 4,500,000 baht I would get 1,500,000 baht.

When I decided to retire out here, I wasn't intending to sign up to this sort of situation.

Its the beauty of the 'company' route. I know now it was a mistake - but anything else seems really

a bad idea in the long run???

Am I right with the above assumption about the split of funds ????

Would seem to me your logic is right; the pre nup I assume is also that she owns 51% or thereabouts of the company hence your 3m each split?

If it could be shown that the company is a sham, then you may be having problems as a director; to make the company more legit you might been to engage in some business activity requiring the property your company owns.

If you do the conversion to lease/sole ownership, then you may need to have the valuations of house and land signed off, otherwise the improvements are often valued at less than the land; remember that houses depreciate (land hopefully is the reverse).

If you have surplus assets, then division of those may leave you in an equal position either way.

Guesthouse's post is correct; his point is there will be a lease payment; either annual or lump sum however you want to structure. Annual will probably work out cheaper from a TVM calculation. Without a lease payment, then the lease may appear to be non existant. All this is on paper only, the reality is you aren't actually going to pay, although if there is a divorce... you may have to. From that amount, your wife better be paying tax on it. If ex wife, you better have proof of the payments.

The lease would be that your wife owns the property outright, and leases it to you for 30 years at a fairly cheap rate, with some rights of extension (but the leasor can pretty easily block an extension if they wanted, so assume 30 years).

On top of that, the inconvenience of living in the middle of someone else's neighbourhood could be problematic if there is a divorce. Even though my family is owning land upcountry I could not last more than a few days living up there, how someone would do it with everyone in a village hating them I don't know, but then again a fair few of the farang in the area fall into that category (probably unknowingly). To each their own.

[GuestHouse]

No no no please - no - are you saying that if I change to do the 'land in her name/lease thing' and we divorce and I continue to live here - I have to pay rent?

Yes, a lease has a rental charge.

When you register the lease, you pay a tax on the full rental charge at the land office and your wife, or who ever is leasing the land to you, pays tax in the rental income for the period of the lease.

The benefit of a lease, from my point of view, is that it gives both parties security. So if you break up, you stay in the land, and your wife has an income to live on/rent elsewhere.

[dsfbrit]

I currently have the land/house in the company name and lets say its worth the following:

Land 3,000,000 baht

House 3,000,000 baht

Total 6,000,000 baht

We have a pre-nup thats says on divorce 50/50 so 3,000,000 baht each.

Which I think is fair.

If I convert to the lease / 30 year thing the equation becomes:

She gets the land = 3,000,000 baht PLUS 50 percent communal property = half the house = 1,500,000 baht

SO she would get 4,500,000 baht I would get 1,500,000 baht.

When I decided to retire out here, I wasn't intending to sign up to this sort of situation.

Its the beauty of the 'company' route. I know now it was a mistake - but anything else seems really

a bad idea in the long run???

Am I right with the above assumption about the split of funds ????

Would seem to me your logic is right; the pre nup I assume is also that she owns 51% or thereabouts of the company hence your 3m each split?

If it could be shown that the company is a sham, then you may be having problems as a director; to make the company more legit you might been to engage in some business activity requiring the property your company owns.

If you do the conversion to lease/sole ownership, then you may need to have the valuations of house and land signed off, otherwise the improvements are often valued at less than the land; remember that houses depreciate (land hopefully is the reverse).

If you have surplus assets, then division of those may leave you in an equal position either way.

Guesthouse's post is correct; his point is there will be a lease payment; either annual or lump sum however you want to structure. Annual will probably work out cheaper from a TVM calculation. Without a lease payment, then the lease may appear to be non existant. All this is on paper only, the reality is you aren't actually going to pay, although if there is a divorce... you may have to. From that amount, your wife better be paying tax on it. If ex wife, you better have proof of the payments.

The lease would be that your wife owns the property outright, and leases it to you for 30 years at a fairly cheap rate, with some rights of extension (but the leasor can pretty easily block an extension if they wanted, so assume 30 years).

On top of that, the inconvenience of living in the middle of someone else's neighbourhood could be problematic if there is a divorce. Even though my family is owning land upcountry I could not last more than a few days living up there, how someone would do it with everyone in a village hating them I don't know, but then again a fair few of the farang in the area fall into that category (probably unknowingly). To each their own.

Thanks for the feedback and advice.

Yes agreed on the family location - luckily we dont live near the family.

To be fair to them they are not a bad lot.

I have just seen what some of them get like when they are enticed by a bit of greed/free money. An experience I may bore this forum with one day - maybe not!

The pre-nup simply states we split all assets in Thailand 50/50.

The purpose of the pre-nup wasn't really to protect the assests in Thailand, but those in the UK.

So the limit is 50 percent of assets in Thailand only.

I have a controllong interest in the company at the moment, My wife has, I believe, around 20 percent.

The point is I would simply sell everything if we divorced and give her half.

The thing is I KNOW I would do this, regardless of any bits of paper. In fact if it did not amount to at least 3 Million Baht on todays money I would 'top it up' to that. fairs fair etc...

However, I have doubts the feeling would be reciprocated if we divorced - I suspect the family would prevent it.

Its yet another disadvantage (yet another thing) to movingto to the 'wife has land/lease thing'.

More and more the option of waiting to see what the government may do to us 'land owners' doesn't seem to have so many disadvantages compared to this lease option -in the long run -as I thought. ???

Edited October 24, 2006 by dsfbrit

[dsfbrit]

No no no please - no - are you saying that if I change to do the 'land in her name/lease thing' and we divorce and I continue to live here - I have to pay rent?

Yes, a lease has a rental charge.

When you register the lease, you pay a tax on the full rental charge at the land office and your wife, or who ever is leasing the land to you, pays tax in the rental income for the period of the lease.

The benefit of a lease, from my point of view, is that it gives both parties security. So if you break up, you stay in the land, and your wife has an income to live on/rent elsewhere.

Thanks for the reply.

I decided before I moved to the lease thing from the company method I would not do so before I understand ALL the advantages and disadvantages of the lease approach.

I have been at this for 3 weeks now and still learning.

You have today provided me with yet another thing to consider.

Is it possible to write the lease so that on divorce everything has to be sold? I respect your view that this is security - for you it is - fair enough. For me though it would be hel_l - like death by a thousand cuts!

Having a connection with the x-wife and family for the rest of my life - oh no !!!

[GuestHouse]

I'm sure a lawyer might argue that a lease is in itself a marital asset and therefore subject to sharing (or not) up divorce.

[thaigene2]

A couple of quick points (my two-bits worth)..

Guesthouse - I think the opposite actually makes your point about not investing in thailand 'any more than you can afford to lose.' That's exactly the reason to try to get local financing - so you don't blow all your available cash on a house/condo purchase - only part of it. Use the Thai bank's money instead - if everything works out all you've done is paid some interest. If everything falls apart like marriage or some other reason you no longer want to stay - you walk away. Still ose, but not so much. I reckon that is once reason the banks are reluctant to lend to foreigners (though they blame it on fears of currency speculators trying to snap up thai baht when times are unstable).

Steve- my point to Dragonman was that if, for example my wife had a home loan (without my backing) and she defaulted, it appeared he was saying that the banks would come after all our joint assets to get their money back - seems unfair to me - since I don't have a stake in the property by law, why should I lose out? The second point/question was if the Land Registry can force a POST-nuptial - Dragonman was suggesting that the waiver is effectively a post-nup - then would a similar post-nup drawn up by my lawyer deny my wife any part of 'my' condo in Thailand in a divorce?

On the lease issue - I wasn't aware rent had to be paid either. If that's the case, maybe the usufruct is the way to go? Is there any rent involved there?

[scotsman]

I am just about to get my usufruct soon for our property and there is no rent to pay but if you want to find out all the information about this ask sunbelt. asia. There is a tax to pay but it comes down to what land office your property is with on how much that will be.

[GuestHouse]

If you are buying with a mortgage you'll pay substantially more, perhaps multiples of the actual property price.

So that's the equivelent of buy more than one house and giving all the money over the cost of the first house to the bank, and still being in the position that when all is paid up, its not your house.

[steveromagnino]

Steve- my point to Dragonman was that if, for example my wife had a home loan (without my backing) and she defaulted, it appeared he was saying that the banks would come after all our joint assets to get their money back - seems unfair to me - since I don't have a stake in the property by law, why should I lose out? The second point/question was if the Land Registry can force a POST-nuptial - Dragonman was suggesting that the waiver is effectively a post-nup - then would a similar post-nup drawn up by my lawyer deny my wife any part of 'my' condo in Thailand in a divorce?

My guess is they can only come after you in the event you jointly signed the mortgage; otherwise her property and therefore.....her problem. However, in general matrimonial property law means that all debts and assets are shared during the course of the marriage; therefore I can see that theoretically if you did not do the paperwork correctly, that they could come after both husband and wife. Now in many cases with the type of women many foreign men marry, they may end up having to act as a guarantor as well on paper; so it is an immediate SOOL situation.

In the case of signing specific exclusion to matrimonial property for the property transaction in its entirety, perhaps any potential liability could be avoided; I am not sure that you can sign away this responsibility if the transaction was post marriage - interesting - might have to ask one the 'useless inept hopeless Thai men' that younghusband alluded to in another thread, as despite being so useless strangely I find Thai men to particularly helpful most of the time.

If you have a pre nup on the condo, then no reason why you wouldn't keep it; otherwise becomes matrimonial property if acquired during the course of the relationship and therefore subject to equal shares.

Didn't study matrimonial law, so the extent of my understanding is not that great; I am curious about the issue of avoiding responsibility for the debt of the house though; my guess is you can contract it away but would require specific documentation from the creditor (bank) that the equivalent of the typical Matrimonial Property laws did not apply. Otherwise, they could chase you up as it would be in their eyes joint debt.

[dsfbrit]

Sorry if I am taking this off topic - but I have been checking out the costs to move from the company thing to wife owns land thing.

The quote I have had for the work:

- Move land to wife

- Move house to me

- Shut down company

- Land tax (6 per cent) - around 90000 baht

- Wifes Will

- Modify pre-nup ( if can)

Is between 150000 and 200000 baht.

Mind you I wouldn't have to pay the 15000 baht for annual accounts so it could be argued it pays for itself in about 10 years!

And a Merry XMAS to me then!!!

[Dragonman]

Steve- my point to Dragonman was that if, for example my wife had a home loan (without my backing) and she defaulted, it appeared he was saying that the banks would come after all our joint assets to get their money back - seems unfair to me - since I don't have a stake in the property by law, why should I lose out? The second point/question was if the Land Registry can force a POST-nuptial - Dragonman was suggesting that the waiver is effectively a post-nup - then would a similar post-nup drawn up by my lawyer deny my wife any part of 'my' condo in Thailand in a divorce?

My guess is they can only come after you in the event you jointly signed the mortgage; otherwise her property and therefore.....her problem. However, in general matrimonial property law means that all debts and assets are shared during the course of the marriage; therefore I can see that theoretically if you did not do the paperwork correctly, that they could come after both husband and wife. Now in many cases with the type of women many foreign men marry, they may end up having to act as a guarantor as well on paper; so it is an immediate SOOL situation.

In the case of signing specific exclusion to matrimonial property for the property transaction in its entirety, perhaps any potential liability could be avoided; I am not sure that you can sign away this responsibility if the transaction was post marriage - interesting - might have to ask one the 'useless inept hopeless Thai men' that younghusband alluded to in another thread, as despite being so useless strangely I find Thai men to particularly helpful most of the time.

If you have a pre nup on the condo, then no reason why you wouldn't keep it; otherwise becomes matrimonial property if acquired during the course of the relationship and therefore subject to equal shares.

Didn't study matrimonial law, so the extent of my understanding is not that great; I am curious about the issue of avoiding responsibility for the debt of the house though; my guess is you can contract it away but would require specific documentation from the creditor (bank) that the equivalent of the typical Matrimonial Property laws did not apply. Otherwise, they could chase you up as it would be in their eyes joint debt.

Many points here are interesting. With regards to to property being her's and hence the debts incurred thereon I have been involved in 3 such cases ( won 2 lost 1 ), not in Thailand of course. Principle I argued. Income from the house and to the contra, debts, are community property! My scenario, specifially personal:- I, say, paid 300,000 pounds into a pension plan prior to marriage. Hence speculatively my monthly pension is outside community property, same as the house and land in Thailand. All income I receive from this pension is now also outside community property, and also anything bought from this income. Hence everything in my wife's home, and also my car, is outside community property. However my wife earns 40,000 baht a month and when she buys anything it is community property.

On 2 occasions Judge saw my point. If income and debt within the marriage is "ring fenced" the scenarios are endless. So only the asset and not income and debt was established as community assets. If the loan was used to pay off gambling debts different case.

thaigene. With regard to the "post nuptial", the Land Office requirement is by Statute ( Constitutional Court) and hence they can take it out of the rights of us mere mortals. I believe the over-riding of one law with another is ill advised, but the Judges advising the Constitutional Court thought differently. Don't let me start on recent developments regarding strange Judge's decisions, I haven't got the time.

dsfbrit. Modifying pre nup is establishing a post nup it would seem in Thai Law. Interesting if any lawyer feels this can now be done in Thailand.

[thaigene2]

Yes, I'd like to at least 'think' that anything prior to marriage is not communal property...in other words, I hope, the clock on communal property begins on the day you sign the registry. What you had before is yours and what you acquire after is joint. But who knows..TIT

[Rhys]

Just prepare accept.. you're going to eat it..

[sinam]

Marriage is all about sharing. If you don't like to share then you shoudn't get married. I really mean that and sharing isn't always 50/50. I've heard that if both of you try to not to be bean counters and you try to give 60% on everyting then things usually end out 50/50 and you have marital bliss. For Thailand maybe you should look at starting with giving 70% or 80% just to be on the safe side :-)

SiNam