As the title says, a mate is in the process of separation and divorce. He currently lives in one of "their" houses and she lives in another.

He does not have a 30 lease on the house nor does he have a yellow book - she is now threatening to evict him.

Just wondering how he stands legally about staying in the house ?

(he paid for both houses I believe)

If the house is in her name she has every right to determine who she allows to live in it.

In the absence of any legal documentation I suspect your "mate" has no right to remain in the house.

If legal advice is required a Lawyer will have to be consulted.

If he paid for the houses I hope he has complete records to back it up. Me thinks he will be moving to Soi 4 for time out.

By law he has 50% ownership if the houses were purchased after they got married. So he does have a legal right to remain in the house.

By law he has 50% ownership if the houses were purchased after they got married. So he does have a legal right to remain in the house.

I think the 50% rule only kicks in after the divorce and a Judge orders an equitable division of assets acquired during the marriage.(unless there is mutual agreement which sounds unlikely in this case) As it would probably prove difficult to live in 50% of a house the Judge would likely order the property sold unless the wife has the ability to pay 50% of the property's value to her ex.

By law he has 50% ownership if the houses were purchased after they got married. So he does have a legal right to remain in the house.

I think the 50% rule only kicks in after the divorce and a Judge orders an equitable division of assets acquired during the marriage.(unless there is mutual agreement which sounds unlikely in this case) As it would probably prove difficult to live in 50% of a house the Judge would likely order the property sold unless the wife has the ability to pay 50% of the property's value to her ex.

The 50% is according to the law. The division of it is determined at the time of divorce.

Your mate needs to see a lawyer straight away, once the proceedings have started the wife will have to wait for a court judgement before she can evict him

But as others have stated a lot of it comes down to when the properties were acquired.

Without a prenuptial agreement whether or not he contributed to the housing costs means nothing when it comes to the division of marital assets. Probably the only time a Thai will "loose" in court against a farang

But remember this community property thing cuts both ways, if the wife has a mortgage on property acquired after the marriage, then the husband is on the hook for his 50% of the debt

As the land itself, as opposed to the house, is likely in the wife's name, maybe she can have him arrested for trespassing in crossing her land to access the house.

As the land itself, as opposed to the house, is likely in the wife's name, maybe she can have him arrested for trespassing in crossing her land to access the house.

Nonsense

He has a legal right by marriage to be on the land if it was purchased after getting married.

As the land itself, as opposed to the house, is likely in the wife's name, maybe she can have him arrested for trespassing in crossing her land to access the house.

Nonsense

He has a legal right by marriage to be on the land if it was purchased after getting married.

From the info in Post #1 the husband has no 30-year lease or usufruct on the property and the land itself would be 100% in the wife's name.

As the land itself, as opposed to the house, is likely in the wife's name, maybe she can have him arrested for trespassing in crossing her land to access the house.

Nonsense

He has a legal right by marriage to be on the land if it was purchased after getting married.

From the info in Post #1 the husband has no 30-year lease or usufruct on the property and the land itself would be 100% in the wife's name.

As written before he has legal rights to 50% of the property. It does not matter if it is in the wife's name.

As the land itself, as opposed to the house, is likely in the wife's name, maybe she can have him arrested for trespassing in crossing her land to access the house.

Nonsense

He has a legal right by marriage to be on the land if it was purchased after getting married.

From the info in Post #1 the husband has no 30-year lease or usufruct on the property and the land itself would be 100% in the wife's name.

As written before he has legal rights to 50% of the property. It does not matter if it is in the wife's name.

Fine -- so when the wife goes to the local police to file charges against her husband for trespassing on land that is 100% in her name, then the local police can explain to the wife that such a charge is nonsense.

As written before he has legal rights to 50% of the property. It does not matter if it is in the wife's name.

Fine -- so when the wife goes to the local police to file charges against her husband for trespassing on land that is 100% in her name, then the local police can explain to the wife that such a charge is nonsense.

She goes the the police station and they ask are you married to him. She answers yes The police say sorry no can do. You can be sure they will have done the same thing when dealing with Thai couples since the law is the same for them.

If the husband paid to have the house built and can prove the he did the house belongs to him and he can tell her to move out, I do not know if he can live in the house, he can do what ever he like to the house even pull it down if he wants to. This has been explained to me by 3 different lawyers because I have the same type of problem

As written before he has legal rights to 50% of the property. It does not matter if it is in the wife's name.

Fine -- so when the wife goes to the local police to file charges against her husband for trespassing on land that is 100% in her name, then the local police can explain to the wife that such a charge is nonsense.

She goes the the police station and they ask are you married to him. She answers yes The police say sorry no can do. You can be sure they will have done the same thing when dealing with Thai couples since the law is the same for them.

The Thai husband would not have signed a document disclaiming any rights to the land which you now say the non-Thai has rights to the land by virtue of marriage:

From Siam-Legal:

Option 3 (For buying Land) : Marrying A Thai

A foreigner can buy land in Thailand if he is married to a Thai however there are limitations as follows:

• As the non-Thai spouse, you need to state that you have no rights over the land; effectively waiving your rights to claim the property.

I have signed the waiver several times. What it actually says is the money used to buy the house is her money. This is fine but conflicts with Thailand community property law. There several cases where when property settlement in a divorce are taken to court, it has been ruled the foriegn husband gets the 50% dictated by Thai law.

TH

Thai divorce law trumps Thai property law. When it comes down to it the property will have to be sold to satisfy a divorce judgement, unless of course if the wife wants to "buy out" the husband's share. Unfortunately the opposite is not available, since the farang husband cannot buyout the wife

If the Thai wife wants to play hardball about having the non-Thai husband evicted from the property prior to any divorce settlement, I would not want to be in his position.

If the Thai wife wants to play hardball about having the non-Thai husband evicted from the property prior to any divorce settlement, I would not want to be in his position.

Part of life is learning how to avoid being put in such situations.

TH

Sounds like the guy in Post #1 is going to have to start learning fast. Personally, I avoid being put in such situations as I am not married and have never purchased any property in my name or anyone else's.

Sounds like the guy in Post #1 is going to have to start learning fast. Personally, I avoid being put in such situations as I am not married and have never purchased any property in my name or anyone else's.

The above is exactly the same as me :-)