Usufruct Voided On Divorce?

[howard ashoul]

What would happend this scenario?

 

I get married, we will buy land (in my wifes name) and then she will die. As her husband I should get that land as a inheritance. But as a farang I can't own that land.

[sometimewoodworker]

5 hours ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

So any usufruct written during a marriage in the land deed is rendered void through a divorce?

 

That is more than a bit of a bummer.

 

There are any number of guys who have "secured" land in this way. 

Some people, who are not lawyers, say that, I have not seen any cases where this has happened.

 

There is at least one law firm that states that an usufruct will survive divorce.

 

Any case one way or the other will be of interest.

[sometimewoodworker]

2 hours ago, howard ashoul said:

What would happend this scenario?

 

I get married, we will buy land (in my wifes name) and then she will die. As her husband I should get that land as a inheritance. But as a farang I can't own that land.

You inherit the land unless there is a will, and have to sell it within a year.

[sometimewoodworker]

3 hours ago, louse1953 said:

The usufruct was signed after marriage,so useless.

While what you say may be theoretically correct, I have not seen any cases where this has happened.

 

There is at least one law firm that states that an usufruct will survive divorce.

 

Any case one way or the other will be of interest.

[GOLDBUGGY]

4 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

 

True

 

read down to agreements between hum and and wife

 

http://www.bia.co.th/033.html

Okay! So after the complete Divorce Laws of Thailand were is it that say a woman can change her mind in a years time about anything she agree to? Do you expect everyone to sift through this, or just take your word on it?

[GOLDBUGGY]

3 hours ago, louse1953 said:

The usufruct was signed after marriage,so useless.

Not useless at all!

 

What is useless is having land you bought in your Girlfriend (or wife's name) and you signed nothing. At least now he is living there and nobody can kick him out. A Court Order can do that, like anywhere else, but I can't see that as useless as he is entitled to half, I call that some form of protection in a country you have no other legal rights in. Getting half is better then nothing at all.

 

I met a nice guy recently who's family owned a big ranch in South Africa (Zamb). They were order to move and got no compensation for that. In that case it was useless. .  

[funandsuninbangkok]

Here is an idea - rent and keep your money offshore. 

Edited April 30, 2017 by funandsuninbangkok

[Delight]

  The law in Thailand states that all assets accrued before marriage are not shared post divorce.

If the money to buy the house came 100%  from you and you have an audit trail of the money flow coming into Thailand  and beyond  to purchasing  the house then assuming that you can satisfy a judge he /she will rule that you own the house.100%.

Then you will be given one year to sell the property.

 

You just need a good lawyer

 

Edited April 30, 2017 by Delight
Added detail

[sometimewoodworker]

4 hours ago, Delight said:

  The law in Thailand states that all assets accrued before marriage are not shared post divorce.

If the money to buy the house came 100%  from you and you have an audit trail of the money flow coming into Thailand  and beyond  to purchasing  the house then assuming that you can satisfy a judge he /she will rule that you own the house.100%.

Then you will be given one year to sell the property.

 

You just need a good lawyer

 

Missing an important point. If you satisfy a judge that the money to buy/ build  the house you will get ownership, but you do not have to sell it ever.

 

I don't know if any judges will give you ownership of the land the house stand on, probably not.

 

AFIK the only way to become the owner of land in Thailand is to inherit from a spouse. That is when you have to sell the land within a year.

 

There is nothing in Thai law to stop you owning a house, you just can't own the land.

Edited April 30, 2017 by sometimewoodworker

[BEVUP]

18 hours ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

So any usufruct written during a marriage in the land deed is rendered void through a divorce?

 

That is more than a bit of a bummer.

 

There are any number of guys who have "secured" land in this way. 

As i said before SECURE WHAT - you just become a squatter as the owner can do what they like with the property

[BEVUP]

18 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I don't think the Divorce Courts in Thailand are really much different than yours back home. If a Husband and Wife buy a house together in your own country, and even if just the Husband works and the Wife stays at home, and the house is in his name only, it is considered joint property of the marriage. In the event of a Divorce there, then the value of there joint assets are split 50/50, including the house.

 

The same holds true in Thailand as well. In your home country and if you had the money, you could buy your x-wife out of this house and keep it for yourself. But the big difference in Thailand is that you are not allowed to own the land your house sits on. I suppose you could still buy her out and keep the house as a Usufruct, but why would anyone want to do that? After the Divorce, why would anyone want to still have a long term commitment with an X-wife? So better to sell it and move on I think.

Not sure what country your from but it certainly wouldnt be Auss

How can you buy her out & keep it as a Usufrut - You cant own the land it would still be your Ex's

 

[BEVUP]

18 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Consider for a moment that instead of a Usufruct signed during the marriage he was able to buy this house and own it. Do you think this makes a pinch of Coo Poo difference when it comes to Divorce Time?

 

Well I have been down that road twice before and I am here to tell you it makes no difference at all. The Matrimonial Assets are split 50/50 no matter who owns it. This is the Divorce Law on many countries. You get half the house and she gets the other half. Same! Same! 

Yes when bought during marriage here not prior & you haven't dealt with Auss where you will lose most if prior or not

[BEVUP]

18 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Of course you are right about this split. Your 30% actually looks pretty good compared to myself and many other guys I know. Most guys I know left with a suitcase and $50 in their wallet after a lifetime of working and earning big money. Plus of course kids to support later as well, and in some case for many years to come.

 

From a Man's point of view, "Marriage Sucks"! But we really don't have many choices left out there to chose from. If I had it all over to do again, and was younger, I never would have gotten married at all in the first place. But then I said that after my first Divorce, and again after my second. So who knows for sure? 

You forgot to mention that you also have to give half your superanuatin as well that you yourself want get till your 65

[BEVUP]

18 hours ago, realviking48 said:

When divorcing in Thailand.. How many farang have got the half of the price of the house-sell?

I heard few stories about the wife put 10 M. price on the house, but it is worth 2 M. baht.

That way she makes sure the house will never be sold.. she can live in the house forever.

If the farang  no wants to move out himself... she has ways to get him out by force..

To right not like any home land & by the time you try & find some government agency here who cares you would of spent your monies due 

[happylarry]

So much conjecture.....lol

The fact is, in the case of a wife granting a usufruct to her husband and then getting divorced. She can ask the court to void the usufruct BUT this does not automatically mean that it will be voided, the court will look at all the circumstances and then make a judgement whether to void or not.

The Thai courts are normally quite fair to farangs so it's not an automatic decision against them.

Also in the case of the wife dying with no will, the husband will get his 50 per cent of the house's value and also 50 per cent of his wife's half as well, meaning he gets 75 per cent of the house' value, the other 25per cent then goes to any children or other relative of his wife. So it could be worse but it's still best to have wills made.

HL

[BEVUP]

1 hour ago, sometimewoodworker said:

Missing an important point. If you satisfy a judge that the money to buy/ build  the house you will get ownership, but you do not have to sell it ever.

 

I don't know if any judges will give you ownership of the land the house stand on, probably not.

 

AFIK the only way to become the owner of land in Thailand is to inherit from a spouse. That is when you have to sell the land within a year.

 

There is nothing in Thai law to stop you owning a house, you just can't own the land.

Agree good lawyer or not because there is a bit of paper around about the size of an A4 that has a couple of words on it like Simro & Samros

[happylarry]

In the case of the husband receiving his half of the house value......whatever the court grants the husband in the divorce the wife will then be given an amount of time (maybe one year?) to pay the amount, by selling or remortgaging or borrowing, and if she has not paid within that time then the husband can then go back to the court and the court can then force the house to be auctioned off for the highest price. 

HL

[BEVUP]

5 minutes ago, happylarry said:

In the case of the husband receiving his half of the house value......whatever the court grants the husband in the divorce the wife will then be given an amount of time (maybe one year?) to pay the amount, by selling or remortgaging or borrowing, and if she has not paid within that time then the husband can then go back to the court and the court can then force the house to be auctioned off for the highest price. 

HL

Yes did read about that before but only good if the property purchased after marriage

[Langsuan Man]

Everyone seems to be forgetting the statement that "married" farang spouses must provide to the Land Office stating that they did not contribute to the cost of the property before a usefruct will be issued 

 

Seems to me that a good lawyer would bring that little piece of evidence to the attention of the court when the "contributions" are being considered 

[happylarry]

The divorce courts have no interest in that statement at all.

It is simply something the land office dreamed up and has no bearing whatsoever except in the land office.

HL

[DILLIGAD]

The divorce courts have no interest in that statement at all.
It is simply something the land office dreamed up and has no bearing whatsoever except in the land office.
HL

Also it hasn't been 'thought up' that long ago, plus in true thai fashion, probably hasn't been done in every province either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Langsuan Man]

1 hour ago, happylarry said:

The divorce courts have no interest in that statement at all.

It is simply something the land office dreamed up and has no bearing whatsoever except in the land office.

HL

Yes,  but it is still evidence, in the farangs own words, that he did not contribute to the purchase of the property and as such would not be disallowed in any court hearing 

[electric]

All the above discussion seems to be centered around the usefullness of a Usufruct that is registered AFTER a couple get married.

 

So .... hypothetical question.

 

A farang and his girlfriend purchase a house, BEFORE they get married. The Chanote is obviously in her maiden name, and she owns the property 100%. A Usufruct for the farang  is registered, and noted on the Chanote, at this same time.

 

Some time maybe months or years later, they get legally married.

 

Domestic bliss reigns supreme, until one day the shit hits the fan and they divorce.

 

Is the Usufruct still valid, given that it was registered before marriage ?

 

[happylarry]

20 minutes ago, electric said:

All the above discussion seems to be centered around the usefullness of a Usufruct that is registered AFTER a couple get married.

 

So .... hypothetical question.

 

A farang and his girlfriend purchase a house, BEFORE they get married. The Chanote is obviously in her maiden name, and she owns the property 100%. A Usufruct for the farang  is registered, and noted on the Chanote, at this same time.

 

Some time maybe months or years later, they get legally married.

 

Domestic bliss reigns supreme, until one day the shit hits the fan and they divorce.

 

Is the Usufruct still valid, given that it was registered before marriage ?

 

Good question.....I'll ask my wife when she gets home from court this evening.

HL

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

Everyone seems to be forgetting the statement that "married" farang spouses must provide to the Land Office stating that they did not contribute to the cost of the property before a usefruct will be issued 

 

Seems to me that a good lawyer would bring that little piece of evidence to the attention of the court when the "contributions" are being considered 

Doesn't matter at all in a Divorce Case. What matters is if the property was purchased during the marriage or before the marriage.

 

If it was purchased during the marriage then it is split 50-50 as it doesn't matter who paid for it.

 

If it was purchase before the marriage then by all accounts she can keep it.

[GOLDBUGGY]

8 hours ago, electric said:

All the above discussion seems to be centered around the usefullness of a Usufruct that is registered AFTER a couple get married.

 

So .... hypothetical question.

 

A farang and his girlfriend purchase a house, BEFORE they get married. The Chanote is obviously in her maiden name, and she owns the property 100%. A Usufruct for the farang  is registered, and noted on the Chanote, at this same time.

 

Some time maybe months or years later, they get legally married.

 

Domestic bliss reigns supreme, until one day the shit hits the fan and they divorce.

 

Is the Usufruct still valid, given that it was registered before marriage ?

 

Hypothetically, and under Contract Law, the Usufruct should still be valid after the Divorce. Only Contracts signed during the marriage with your spouse can be made null and void after a Divorce. Since your Girlfriend owned this house before you got married then it is outside of the realms of the Divorce Court Assets, therefore it would not be taken into consideration.

 

Another way of looking at this is to say you first got this Usufruct from your Girlfriend's Father. You may or may not have even know this Girlfriend at that time of signing. But as time passes you end up marrying his daughter. Then suddenly he passes on and her being his sole survivor ends up inheriting this property from her Father.

 

Would it be fare now to say that just because you ended up being married to the new property owner, and even when you did not sign your Usufruct with her, that she has a right to cancel your Usufruct after the Divorce? I think not! You also have no rights to this property as it was an inheritance, so again outside of the realms in a Divorce Court.

 

When it comes to Divorce nothing is written stone. Even when you have a Prenuptial Agreement. But under these condition I would think you would have a good case to keep this Usufruct Valid.   .

[GOLDBUGGY]

12 hours ago, BEVUP said:

Not sure what country your from but it certainly wouldnt be Auss

How can you buy her out & keep it as a Usufrut - You cant own the land it would still be your Ex's

 

Of course you could buy her out in Australia to.

 

Consider you matrimonial home is valued at $300,000 AU. Your X-Wife's 50% comes to $150,000 AU. You decide you want to keep this house for all the blood, sweat, and tears you put into it to fix it up. Your X-Wife wants no part of it and just wants to move back home. There is nothing stopping you from taking out a Mortgage for say $150,000 AU and giving it to your X-Wife as part of her Divorce Settlement. Even in Australia.

 

In Thailand you could make some kind of agreement with your X-Wife that you will give her some money (say 5,000 Baht) every month if she doesn't force the sale on this house right away. Or a lump sum. So that you can still live in this house.

 

She stands to lose nothing with this deal as she still will have 50% Ownership if the house gets sold years down the road, and also all of the property if you kick the bucket in the mean time. I don't recommend this, but all I am saying is that it is possible to work out some deal with her. What deal you make, if any, is up-to-you.  

[happylarry]

10 hours ago, electric said:

All the above discussion seems to be centered around the usefullness of a Usufruct that is registered AFTER a couple get married.

 

So .... hypothetical question.

 

A farang and his girlfriend purchase a house, BEFORE they get married. The Chanote is obviously in her maiden name, and she owns the property 100%. A Usufruct for the farang  is registered, and noted on the Chanote, at this same time.

 

Some time maybe months or years later, they get legally married.

 

Domestic bliss reigns supreme, until one day the shit hits the fan and they divorce.

 

Is the Usufruct still valid, given that it was registered before marriage ?

 

Ok, I've asked my wife and yes she would not be able to ask the court to void the usufruct.....however......although the house was bought before the marriage if she was representing the husband then she would prepare a case showing that the money for the purchase came from the husband and they had been co-habitating for so many years and were living as man and wife when the house was purchased and therefore claiming his fifty per cent of the value. The courts are known to have accepted these cases so it's definitely worth having a go at. But if you were to do this then you would need to forego the usufruct as you could not claim on the house with the usufruct in place.

HL

[JJJIIIMMM]

OP here - FYI Guys - we bought the land before we were married, and we then got married, then got the usufruct, then built the house

 

Land and house were all bought with my money

 

thanks all for contributing to this thread.   there have been many great points raised.  I am going to see a lawyer this week, i just want to be as best prepared as i can before i do.

 

I think the collective knowledge on here, is often better than what one would receive in a lawyers office

 

 

[chickenrunCM]

On 30.4.2017 at 0:36 PM, 12DrinkMore said:

 

So any usufruct written during a marriage in the land deed is rendered void through a divorce?

 

That is more than a bit of a bummer.

 

There are any number of guys who have "secured" land in this way. 

bullshit, a usefruct has nothing to do with a marriage. It is still valied and nobody would buy the house when a 3. party has the usefruct on it. It´s the best way to keep your rights on land, when you a foreigner