what happens to the house in a contested divorce?

[Gary A]

16 hours 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, I can't seem to be able to quote your question which was how many cases have I been involved in. Fortunately I have been involved in none.  I base my opinion on hearing MANY sob stories from guys who were bitter about losing it all. Some bitterly complain about crooked lawyers and courts not enforcing judgments.

 

There are a few who did get half but that was because of their wives having a sense of fair play. They settled amicably. It had nothing to do with the courts. 

[happylarry]

Thank youMikey, nice to be backed up on this.

For all your interests, when someone sues for divorce the procedure goes like this...

your lawyer submits the divorce petition and is then given a date for the first hearing. This is not the main court hearing but a negotiation hearing in which both parties and their respective lawyers sit down with a judge and try to negotiate a settlement of assets and custody (if applicable). Obviously the main players here are the lawyers and the judge acts as a mediator and they all try and negotiate a settlement that is agreeable to all. Only if the judge feels that the couples are never going to agree does he then pass it on and make the appointment for the main court hearing when the judge himself (a different one) will make the decisions.

Also when you submit the petition in the first place you have to pay the court fees up front which is a percentage of the total amount of assets, well if it goes to the main hearing then this figure is gone but if they agree at the negotiation hearing then this figure is refunded, so that is another incentive to come to an agreement in the first place.

The courts actually do all they can to help couples and avoid the hostilities and unlike some people make out they do not favour Thai over Farang but are very fair.

[MikeyIdea]

14 minutes 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.

 

happylarry, I can't seem to be able to quote your question which was how many cases have I been involved in. Fortunately I have been involved in none.  I base my opinion on hearing MANY sob stories from guys who were bitter about losing it all. Some bitterly complain about crooked lawyers and courts not enforcing judgments.

 

There are a few who did get half but that was because of their wives having a sense of fair play. They settled amicably. It had nothing to do with the courts. 

 

I have been down to Central Juvenile & Family Court in Bangkok several times and the opinion of the court officers I have talked to who work there does not match your statement (highlighted in bold above)

 

It is quite common that the Thai lawyer tries to sneak in his opinion of fairness or has his own agenda, yes, Thai lawyers also have "workarounds" to get it the way they want   

 

The court is not your enemy, the key is simply due diligence and evidence

 

[MikeyIdea]

29 minutes ago, happylarry said:

Thank youMikey, nice to be backed up on this.

................

The courts actually do all they can to help couples and avoid the hostilities and unlike some people make out they do not favour Thai over Farang but are very fair.

 

We both see how Thai Family and Juvenile courts work up close. I felt the pain of the people I helped so much that I decided to quit, it simply affected me too much. All the sad stories were down to due diligence, stupidity sometimes, or Thai lawyers not wanting to do their job as well as they could have done for various reasons, especially about not wanting to go against the judges wishes and just advise their client to let the court order and appeal

 

 I am with you to 100%

[GOLDBUGGY]

The facts are that what you bring into your marriage in Thailand, as in property, you are technically allowed to keep after a Divorce. What you purchase after you are married, as in property, you are technically required to split 50-50. Who makes the most money and who pays more for rent and food during the marriage is not taken into consideration, as this is considered a benefit to both parties.  

 

It seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, your wife purchased this house prior to your marriage. It also seems to me she took out a mortgage in her own name, which you helped pay off after you got married. Unless you have some written agreement with your wife that she agrees to give you half of this house for making these payments, I say your chances of winning your case are about equal to a One Legged Man in a Bum Kicking Contest. 

 

If I was in your situation I would try to come to some settlement with my soon to be x-wife. Perhaps you own a newer car together. Tell her she can keep the house and you get the car. At least you can sell that and get some money back.

 

Of course if you do fight this in court, and you win, please come back and tell us all how you did that. If you lose, please don't come back and tell us, as we already have enough people crying here and how they lost there house.      

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 28/8/2559 at 11:07 AM, 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

There is no law in Thailand were if a husband decides to give his wife a gift, she has to give that back after the Divorce. Many husbands give their wives an allowance. By your theory they would now have to give 50% back after a Divorce.

 

Without proof this money was given to his wife to pay off this house, with the expectations and proof he will get half of it, I say his chances are very slim. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 28/8/2559 at 11:26 AM, blackcab said:

 

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.

Excellent Post! Thanks!

[MikeyIdea]

To Goldbuggy's post

 

You are right but you are wrong because you don't understand the intent of Thai Family law. You are absolutely correct that shared costs cannot be shared when divorce, BUT...

 

A husband paying off a house for the wife while married benefits the wife after the divorce with something she didn't have before she married. Proper evidence needed of course

 

Look at the intent of the law and it is easier to understand. This is a Buddhist country, not a Christian one.

 

Buddhist:

What is the intent of Juvenile law? It is there to protect the child. What is the intent of Family law. It is there to be fair to BOTH parties of the family. This is the essence of how Thai Juvenile and Family law is implemented

 

Christian:

The intent of how Juvenile law was implemented in Christian countries until recently was to protect the child from the bad father, hence the heavy bias toward mothers. The intent of how Family law still is implemented in a strongly Christian country like America is clear. A husband should pay the ex-wife but even a rich wife should not pay even a poor husband. The intent is to benefit "the weaker sex". 

 

Islam:

We all know how Christians look down on Islam because of it implements favouritism the wrong way. Islam is so wrong, it favours men in front of women instead of the other way around

 

Can someone please provide me with a better explanation of the intent of how Juvenile law is implemented in Christian countries (was until recently in some countries). I have tried for years and I can't seem to formulate an explanation that doesn't make Christians ashamed

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Thanks for all the replies- far more than I was expecting, and only two that didn't answer the question. That's doing well.

 

I gave the money to her, but she signed for it, and I specified in writing what it was for, so that would satisfy the proof required. However, I hold to the belief that a farang will likely never win, so I doubt I'd go to the extent of hiring a lawyer, as I consider that would be yet more money gone for nothing.

 

At the moment it is an amicable parting, but if she tries to do me for more than agreed, I want to know what my rights are if it goes to court.

 

Thanks again.

[Gary A]

Every time my wife buys a property, I am required to sign a document saying that I have no financial interest in the property. I think that is proof that the property belongs to her.

[happylarry]

1 hour ago, Gary A said:

Every time my wife buys a property, I am required to sign a document saying that I have no financial interest in the property. I think that is proof that the property belongs to her.

Jeez Gary, do you really believe that mate.

So if the husband had the new car in his name then it's nothing to do with her then.

Rubbish, it's the value of whatever has been accrued during the marriage that is looked at. I guess when someone has this anti Thai establishment thing in their heads then it doesn't matter what anyone tells them, it won't change their mind but what is unfortunate is that they try to taint others minds the same way.

HL

[MikeyIdea]

10 hours ago, Gary A said:

Every time my wife buys a property, I am required to sign a document saying that I have no financial interest in the property. I think that is proof that the property belongs to her.

 

Actually no. I have been standing in front of the judges in Family court interpreting in a divorce proceeding when the wife came with that paper and can confirm that the judges do not consider that document important. Feelings are more important in Thai courts so if the wind is against the farang in court, then the judges try to use it to push a more favourable mutual agreement for the wife but that is all.

 

I have seen that paper ignored totally in court

 

[Gary A]

I have signed MANY of those no financial interest documents and would never have an interest in challenging them. At first I balked at signing that document but unless I signed, the chanote would not be transferred. I have still not seen any farang who has received his half from the sale of a property, have you? I have talked to guys who were promised a settlement by a lawyer and it never happened. All they got was a large bill from the lawyer. Try to tell the lawyer that you will pay him from what you get from the sale. The lawyer will not accept that. He will insist on payment up front. Why is that?

[MikeyIdea]

16 minutes ago, Gary A said:

I have signed MANY of those no financial interest documents and would never have an interest in challenging them. At first I balked at signing that document but unless I signed, the chanote would not be transferred. I have still not seen any farang who has received his half from the sale of a property, have you? I have talked to guys who were promised a settlement by a lawyer and it never happened. All they got was a large bill from the lawyer. Try to tell the lawyer that you will pay him from what you get from the sale. The lawyer will not accept that. He will insist on payment up front. Why is that?

 

Yes

 

[theguyfromanotherforum]

On 8/28/2016 at 11:07 AM, 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

 

Sorry, but I think this is completely wrong.

[jacksam]

All this ping pong about forced sale of house......

News flash, a house can only be sold if there is a buyer. A fire sale of pattaya condo is one thing. A house in the boon docks of bum****, Issan is another.

Didn't notice if the OP mentioned where house is, but if the latter then just walk away. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 2:59 PM, jacksam said:

All this ping pong about forced sale of house......

News flash, a house can only be sold if there is a buyer. A fire sale of pattaya condo is one thing. A house in the boon docks of bum****, Issan is another.

Didn't notice if the OP mentioned where house is, but if the latter then just walk away. 

I wasn't asking because of the money, I was asking because if I had a claim over the house, I could use that as leverage if she tried to make me give her half of all the money I have left. She would be unlikely to pursue a court case against me if she faced losing her house.

In the event, she gave me the quicky divorce without a further claim against me, so it didn't come to a messy negotiation, though when I started this thread I thought it might.

 

So, as they say, all's well that ends well, or at least without any kicking and screaming.

 

Therefore, far as my part on this thread is concerned .

'Thanks to all those that contributed.