what happens to the house in a contested divorce?

[thaibeachlovers]

Can the trolls please stay off this thread. You know who you are.

 

I know from a previous post that the car ( bought after we married ) has to be sold and the money split between us, but what is the situation with the house? She bought it before we were married, but after we got married I paid it off. Would that be regarded as her own possession even though I put a lot into it, or would it be marriage property?

 

I'd appreciate facts as compared to opinions.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[blackcab]

How did you pay it off? Did you:

 

1. Make bank transfers from your account to the mortgage account?

 

2. Pay the cash into the mortgage account and keep receipts?

 

3. Give your wife the money and she paid it from her account or she deposited the cash into the mortgage account?

 

1 and 2 you have a slim chance. 3 you have no proof and no chance.

[happylarry]

I don't agree BC, if the mortgage was paid after the marriage date then it has to count,  I see where you are coming from but it goes by the date of the marriage not by which of them paid it off, surely, assuming of course that we are talking 50/50 and not about getting all his outlay back.

HL

[blackcab]

3 hours ago, happylarry said:

I don't agree BC, if the mortgage was paid after the marriage date then it has to count,  I see where you are coming from but it goes by the date of the marriage not by which of them paid it off, surely, assuming of course that we are talking 50/50 and not about getting all his outlay back.

HL

 

HL I agree with you, but what can thaibeachlovers actually prove to the Court. That was what I was getting at.

 

He can stand in Court and say what happened, but without proof I don't fancy his chances. I'm not Thai and I'm not a legal expert, I'm just saying it as I see it.

 

I actually wish I could offer advice to the OP that would offer some relief.

[MikeyIdea]

Blackcab is correct. The problem is proving it

 

If you have clear evidence and I really mean evidence that holds up in court, then yes, that part of the house should be split

 

 

[MissAndry]

13 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

HL I agree with you, but what can thaibeachlovers actually prove to the Court. That was what I was getting at.

 

 

From what I've read, she has to prove it was entirely her money, with paper trail, or it gets split 50/50.

[MikeyIdea]

29 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

 

From what I've read, she has to prove it was entirely her money, with paper trail, or it gets split 50/50.

 

It was bought before they marry.... By default it is 100% HER house.

 

The husband should be able to get half of what he has evidence he paid while they were married but that is also not 100% guaranteed  

Edited August 28, 2016 by MikeyIdea

[happylarry]

The house was not bought before they married because it still belonged to the mortgage company, it wasn't "bought" until the mortgage was paid off after the marriage. And any assets acquired after marriage are subject to 50/50 split depending on the judges decision.

it is not too hard to prove a money trail either, if at the same time as the mortgage was repaid there was a withdrawal from the husbands bank account for the same amount or even an international transfer then it is pretty obvious that the money was used for that purpose. The judges aren't stupid and can see that.

HL

[blackcab]

1 hour ago, MissAndry said:

 

From what I've read, she has to prove it was entirely her money, with paper trail, or it gets split 50/50.

 

That's a really good point. With someone that plays by the rules, there is a possibility of getting somewhere with that. 

 

On the other hand it just takes a third party to say they loaned the money to the wife (and maybe they did loan some money) and the OP is back to square one.

[blackcab]

8 minutes ago, happylarry said:

The house was not bought before they married because it still belonged to the mortgage company, it wasn't "bought" until the mortgage was paid off after the marriage. And any assets acquired after marriage are subject to 50/50 split depending on the judges decision.

it is not too hard to prove a money trail either, if at the same time as the mortgage was repaid there was a withdrawal from the husbands bank account for the same amount or even an international transfer then it is pretty obvious that the money was used for that purpose. The judges aren't stupid and can see that.

HL

 

HL that's not quite correct. The house was purchased by the wife the day the transaction happened at the land office (as dated on the chanote). At that time the house became her property.

 

Concurrently a mortgage was secured against the owner's interest in the property.

 

I understand very well what you mean, and I agree the wife did not own the property free of encumbrances until the mortgage was fully repaid. However the mortgagor was not the owner of the property. The wife was the owner from the date of purchase.

[happylarry]

Ok BC, I accept that, so it's not the same as having a car on hp for instance where you don't get the log book until the loan has been paid off.

Anyway the paper trail is still the same regardless, if he can match his withdrawal with her final payment. As I said before the judges aren't stupid and unlike what some of our members would like to believe, the justice system does favour justice for all and not just for Thai's.

HL

[blackcab]

Actually the banks normally do keep the chanote. The owner gets a copy. Do they have a right to do this? No, but if you don't agree you won't get the mortgage.

[MikeyIdea]

I have heard the same, banks keep the chanote. But my lawyer also said that the person registered as legal owner on the chanote can go down to the land department and request a new one so how does this work?

[Anthony5]

6 minutes ago, MikeyIdea said:

I have heard the same, banks keep the chanote. But my lawyer also said that the person registered as legal owner on the chanote can go down to the land department and request a new one so how does this work?

 

The mortgagor will be listed on the backside of the chanote, so the owner will not get a new one without the mortgagor confirming that the mortgage has been paid off.

[catman20]

regardless of the out come i dont think you will be rushing into another marriage.

you get what you deserve when you marry a Thai in Thailand.

[NoshowJones]

That's interesting, I am exactly the same, will be watching this topic closely.

[NoshowJones]

On 8/28/2016 at 11:15 AM, blackcab said:

 

That's a really good point. With someone that plays by the rules, there is a possibility of getting somewhere with that. 

 

On the other hand it just takes a third party to say they loaned the money to the wife (and maybe they did loan some money) and the OP is back to square one.

If the third party says he/she loaned the money, and he/she is an average Thai, farmer, shopworker etc, where is he/she going to say 

where they got the money from? To buy an average house could cost upwards of three or four milllion Bt.

[cadle1]

Just walk away you cannot own land so you own the house? this can be a good memory only!!

[jacksam]

Probably mentioned already but on an aside issue is the ability to sell the home. If its out in the sticks somewhere then might be very difficult to find a buyer. 

I would just walk away. Sounds harsh but in reality may be little else op can do. 

[Gary A]

I have been in Thailand for many years and have seen divorces where the court ordered the property sold and the money split. Since the house is in her name, she is responsible for selling the property. Years go by and the property doesn't sell and likely never will. If you ever get anything, it will be up to her. The divorce court has no power of enforcement. You can get a bent lawyer and that lawyer will end up costing you a lot of money and that too will drag out for years until you get tired of paying lawyer fees.

 

I too have added on and remodeled my wife's house. No way would I hire a lawyer to try to protect my financial interests. I have also bought her a couple small farms and farm equipment. If ever we split up, there will be no hassles. I still have a nice condo in the farang ghetto that I bought BEFORE we were married. I would pack up my personal belongings and head for my condo. Losing my wife would hurt much more than losing the property anyways.

[happylarry]

19 minutes ago, Gary A said:

I have been in Thailand for many years and have seen divorces where the court ordered the property sold and the money split. Since the house is in her name, she is responsible for selling the property. Years go by and the property doesn't sell and likely never will. If you ever get anything, it will be up to her. The divorce court has no power of enforcement. You can get a bent lawyer and that lawyer will end up costing you a lot of money and that too will drag out for years until you get tired of paying lawyer fees.

 

I too have added on and remodeled my wife's house. No way would I hire a lawyer to try to protect my financial interests. I have also bought her a couple small farms and farm equipment. If ever we split up, there will be no hassles. I still have a nice condo in the farang ghetto that I bought BEFORE we were married. I would pack up my personal belongings and head for my condo. Losing my wife would hurt much more than losing the property anyways.

The courts can and do order the house be sold by auction if it goes on too long, in which case there is a much better chance of selling to a bargain hunter. What on earth makes you think that the courts have no power of enforcement.

HL

[SOTIRIOS]

...unless you have proof of payment...you are done for...

 

...from my personal experience...be lucky to receive 5%.....

 

...and don't expect 'your lawyer' to help you........!!!

 

...don't believe me...wait and see....

 

 

[Gary A]

29 minutes ago, happylarry said:

The courts can and do order the house be sold by auction if it goes on too long, in which case there is a much better chance of selling to a bargain hunter. What on earth makes you think that the courts have no power of enforcement.

HL

 

Have you ever seen, not heard, of a Thai civil court that forced a sale of a home so the ex-husband could get his share? The only ones I know of, the husband eventually gave up after trying the criminal court route.

[happylarry]

My wife is an interpreter and translator and is involved in these cases almost on a weekly basis. I do not make up the things I write on here, I ask her opinions first and always try to be as accurate as possible to help others. So how many cases have you been involved in Gary.

Also as well as working with the lawyers in her present role she is now doing a law degree hopefully to become a lawyer in her own right.

Anyway I have asked her again and no it does not happen very often at all but the point is it can be done in order to enforce the courts judgement, the husband or wife who is owed the money has to apply to the court again if nothing is forthcoming in a set period and then the court will enforce it. You cant just turn round and say the court has no power of enforcement mate, of course they have its all part of the legal system.

 

HL

[Toscano]

My guess is that your chance of recovering money spent on the house are slim !  You would need to have documentation of all the payments made .

[louse1953]

4 hours ago, cadle1 said:

Just walk away you cannot own land so you own the house? this can be a good memory only!!

No way jose.That is what the weak do.Go through the court process,you might be surprised.

[MikeyIdea]

22 hours ago, Anthony5 said:

 

The mortgagor will be listed on the backside of the chanote, so the owner will not get a new one without the mortgagor confirming that the mortgage has been paid off.

 

I have a Thai friend who borrowed money by relatives and guarantee was to be put at the back of the Chanote. Anyone (except a minor) can be put there, same surname and all. I wonder how this is enforced and I cannot imagine the land office trying to contact relatives

[Kwasaki]

OP l'm sorry about your situation.

l know of only two divorced couples in Thailand in both cases they sat down together and settled it between themselves before going to court and finalizing the agreement.

l have no idea about how things go when there is disagreement between parting couples, 

hope things go well anyway.

[MikeyIdea]

13 hours ago, Gary A said:

 

Have you ever seen, not heard, of a Thai civil court that forced a sale of a home so the ex-husband could get his share? The only ones I know of, the husband eventually gave up after trying the criminal court route.

 

People don't normally get to go into other families divorce proceedings to see...

 

I have been in court and I chatted with the court officer in charge during lunch and I wondered about actual enforcement. She quickly answered that enforcement takes time but court will do what needs to be done in her experience. People are often suing for not getting out their share actually. One rule that most Thai lawyers don't know is that it must be done within one year of original court order regardless of case is pending Appeals or Supreme Court

 

It can even go as far as an arrest warrant. The case is slightly different - The same court officer told me that her court, Family court in Pathum Thani even issued an arrest warrant for a Thai ex girl friend of a western man. The man had bought a house for his girl friend and they signed a 30 year lease agreement at the land office. She refused to vacate when they separated and the westerner sued. It took several court appearances of course but the court eventually had enough and issued an arrest warrant that the police of course acted on. Case Closed  

[MikeyIdea]

16 hours ago, possum1931 said:

That's interesting, I am exactly the same, will be watching this topic closely.

 

It's all about evidence. Thai courts allow more wiggle room depending on how the feelings lay. In a court case without complications, then it's quite easy to get compensation with proper evidence of course. If the other part comes with police reports of abuse etc (which legally doesn't mean anything really) then court can very well refuse regardless of evidence and instead push for a mutual agreement favouring the abused party. Appeals court will set things right if proper evidence exists

 

You should demand to do the actual transfers yourself, that's the best evidence there is