Falang's wife owning Land

[nkstan]

If the wife owns the land and you decide to build a nice house on this land,what would happen if your wife died before you did,i think there could be a little problem there.

My understanding is that if you have structured things correctly, the law allows you 12 months to dispose of the land (and the house on top) to someone entitled to own the land (ie a Thai).

Do you know if the husband has sole rights without a will,or does the her family inherit part.I have heard of guys having problems with the family after the death of the wife!

[jackspratt]

Not offhand Stan - it is all explained on the site I linked to on page 1.

I read it once when I was looking to give a second opinion to a mate who was buying a house after marrying a Thai lady. As can be expected of a man of my declining age, and inclining senility, I can't remember the details.

[oangh]

The legal process:
Thai wife goes with land seller to Provincial land office.
Thai wife takes Farang husband who brings passport.
Thai wife advises land official she has Farang husband (or they'll see you sitting there and ask)
When land deed (chanote) is processed the land official will ask the Farang husband for his passport to copy the face and visa page. A document will be prepared that essentially says "my Thai wife is buying this land with her money." and also says, "I understand I have no legal right to this land." In other words, it t'ain't my money and it t'ain't my land.
The Chanote is then processed, land taxes paid, and deal is finished..

I read at Udon Property and Lands homepage,that some real estate companies made a document that said the wife
owed you the same amount as the price of the property .
Has anybody in case of divorce or death of TW been to court with that??

[maaka]

this is a section from the website referred to on page one of this thread, about inheritance


A foreign spouse married to a Thai is by law a statutory heir of that Thai spouse ( section Civil and Commercial Code).

Section 93 of the Land Code Act: 'A foreigner who acquires land by inheritance as statutory heir can have an ownership in such land upon a permission of the Minister of Interior. However, the total plots of land shall not be exceeding of those specified in Section 87'.

Section 93 of the Land Code Act is subject to section 86; 'aliens may acquire land by virtue of the provisions of a treaty giving the right to own immovable properties and subject to the provisions of this Code'. The last treaty was terminated in 1970 and there is currently no treaty with any country to allow a foreigner to acquire land as a statutory heir, and there is currently no other legal ground (like a Ministerial Regulation) for the Minister of Interior to allow any foreigner as inheritor under will or as statutory heir.

Under present law any foreigner who acquires land by inheritance will have to transfer the land within a reasonable period (meaning up to 1 year) to a Thai national.

A foreigner who acquires a condominium unit by inheritance either as statutory heir or inheritor under will shall automatically have an ownership in such unit. However, this ownership may not exceed the foreign ownership limit within such a condominium. In this case it is required by law that the unit shall be disposed either by selling or giving to other Thai persons within 1 year from the date of acquisition of such condominium unit. If the foreigner fails to do so, the Director-General of Land Department shall have power to sell it on the foreigner's behalf. "

My words now..I guess it depends on whom the wifes will is made out to, as to if her family can inherit the house and property..I do know of a dude whos wife passed away, and the family have been nice enough to allow him to remain living in the house. it seems 1 year and you have to sell up, but get legal advice, as some websites information is outdated and incorrect

[nkstan]

As I read it,only descendents and spouse have survivor rights,not existing family members!

Another interesting point as I read it,Usfrastruct can be undone by either spouse at any time up to a year after divorce! So it doesn't provide any protection for the married falang!

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!As if you needed my permission?

[KHONDAHM]

If the wife owns the land and you decide to build a nice house on this land,what would happen if your wife died before you did,i think there could be a little problem there.

No worries there. The land goes in wife's name and normal inheritance laws will pass the land on to the kids (assuming there are any and that they are yours or love you just the same). The house goes in hubby's name since you can own any property that sits on the land. If you expire, she gets house through normal inheritance. If she expires, house remains yours. If (forbid) there is a divorce, she keeps land and you both split the house.

[KHONDAHM]

Here's one that I may have to look into myself:

If the wife expires, and assuming the land deed also has your step-child's and mutual child's name on it, could the biological father of the step-child wiggle in and claim or excercise any rights to the land? Who would win in a legal challenge between (essentially) your elder step-child and your mutual child?

Leave adoption option out of equation.

[maaka]

to me it seems clear that no westerner can own land except thru the normal way, ie, the wife pays for it in her name, and it becomes hers..(in some cases you can own land as a business corporation if you have 40million baht to invest in Thailand, or something like that..)

however from what I gather, once the wife passes away, you have one year sell the land..yes I believe the house on the land is yours, but I would question whether the wife was entitled to 50% of the value of the house as your wife..

I would hazard a guess that if the child and the step child names were on the land title, then they both have equal rights as co owners..if thier names were not on the title, when your wife passed away, then I would think that the blood child would inherit the land, over and above the step child..depends on the wording of the will ( wills drawn up outside of thailand must comply to thai law)

now if the step childs name was on the title, and they were under 18yrs (if that the legal age of an adult ) then I would hazard another guess that her guardian could adminsiter or protect her interest in the land, if she was adopted then you would be the guardian, if not then her biological father might wiggle his way in as you put it..however if both childs names are on the title then the other child or legal guardian would also have to prtotect her interests..I dont think say one of the kids could lease out the land, or sell it without the others approval as co owners...

interesting question you have raised..

I am beginning to wonder if it would be best to take a 30yrs lease out with the wife after she/you buy the land and build your house..and that way should things fall apart in the marriage you still hold the lease, and should you pass away the lease transfers to your descendants...

This is not to be taken as legal advice. it is merely my own simple opinion.

[KHONDAHM]

In our case, I will own the house and have a usufruct for the land. She will own the land with both children on it.

Not sure what you mean by "blood child" since both children are her biological children. I seriously doubt that my daughter's biological father would ever cause any problems (no doubt the family would likely step in and "handle things"), but I am curious about the theoretical legal issues that would arise in a legal challenge which essentially pits the biological father of one child against the biological (and foreign) father of the other child.

[maaka]

by blood child I meant your direct descendant, as opposed to your step child or adopted child..I dont think the battle as you put it, is between the fathers, as they are not named on the land title, the kids are named as co owners, as equal partners..one could not do anything without the others permission, and the fathers are only thier guardians if the kids are underage, and with no right to the land...however the fathers as thier legal guardians would have to act in the childs best interest..

perhaps one father could argue that he must sell his daughers 1/2 share in the land because he as her guardian with her best interests at heart, needs the money to send her to a better school somewheres, to get a better education, or some such thing..or send her somewhere to improve her health, or be closer to family...who knows what the law is, maybe our Isaanlawyer.com advertiser on this website could enlighten you alittle on the matter..

if a will stated the words 'next of kin' then that would be a whole different kettle of fish, as it would extend to fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles..Not really a term one should use , if one is trying to leave something to a pacific person , or persons..thats only my view..

[Astana]

One example would be if you or your spouse died without making a 'Will'.

This would bring to bear, the Civil and Commercial Code rules that your property will be distributed among your heirs. There are two kinds of heirs: by blood and by marriage. 'Blood heirs' are:

1. Children - including adopted children and children who are born under unregistered marriage that are confirmed by the father - and grandchildren.

2. Parents

3. Brothers and sisters of the same parents (whole blood)

4. Half-brothers and -sisters (sharing one parent)

5. Grandparents

6. Uncles and aunts.

Not all can directly inherit, this is just the sequence (not a division of assets) and a lot of this can be avoided by both husband and wife making a 'Will' that is in the interest of both parties blood heir(s). However, if blood heirs do not exist, the surviving spouse receives the entire estate. Unfortunately, there isn't really a good English translation of the Civil and Commercial Code but you could try Somchai Kasitpradit, Civil and Commercial Code: Family, Second printing 2005, Ramkham University Press.

[KHONDAHM]

Ok, I'm giggling a bit here over the interjection of the term "blood heir/child" because it seems those using it are inferring that one of her biological children would be something less than 100% her child. Newsflash: BOTH children are 100% her "blood heir/child" and there is no logical reason I can think of for the law to make any distinction, so let's toss that in the bin as it appears to be confusing some.

The net-net, given the hypothetical where the mother does not leave a will specifying which child gets what (talking about only the land, here), we're potentially left with a scenario where the falang wants to live happily ever after on the land, but the biological father of the falang's step-child may suddenly want to assert and excercise his rights as the surviving biological parent and sell the land.

(Rhetorically) Who would prevail? The falang father who bought the land (acting through his biological child) or the Thai father (acting through his biological child). I'm sure there must be caselaw on the issue. Would be interesting to read the decision.

[Astana]

I guess thats why they call it the 'Civil and Commercial Code'

[KHONDAHM]

I guess thats why they call it the 'Civil and Commercial Code'

Both children would be equally legitimate 100% blood heirs of the mother. Perhaps you can clarify how it would matter?

[Astana]

Probably 50/50, so it would pay for both spouses to have a will so that a dispute would be prempted.

[KHONDAHM]

Probably 50/50, so it would pay for both spouses to have a will so that a dispute would be prempted.

But the hypothetical question is not how to prempt the situation. The hypothetical question is about how it would be resolved were it to occur.

50/50, perhaps. But (rhetorical) would the court consider that the Thai father was absent and in no way contributed to the estate or the child's welfare which was provided entirely by the falang?

[Astana]

Questioned and Answered Judge KhonDahm... But probably not unless the child was legally adopted.

[KHONDAHM]

Questioned and Answered Judge KhonDahm... But probably not unless the child was legally adopted.

Not answered on this board, unfortunately, but I am sure the answer is documented somewhere in Thai caselaw. One of these days I've got to get around to learning Thai well enough to read those texts myself. Perhaps I'll use them as my learning books . Hey, ya neva know...

Cheers!

[Astana]

It won't by case law as everything here is by statute.

[maaka]

I am well aware that in this hypo question of yours that both kids are from the same mother...however you seemed to be writing this blurb of yours as if you were at the center of such a problem, and so I used blood child to refer to YOUR child..

I think the paramount issue any court would look at is the childens future welfare, and well being, .. is it best to stay with the thai father and his extended family , or the farang father and his extended family..one might say the farang as he has money, house, can give good education etc, one might say the thai father because he has the culture, the language, the history etc..maybe the step child is a thai citizen......I think once that issue is sorted, which may come down to each child going with thier respective fathers, ( if adoption has not previously taken place ) then the issue of the land /house ownership would come in second..

yes they could take into account you have cared and raised the child, but you as the father do not own the land, your house sits on..it was the wifes and now her descendants, or those mentioned in her will..the land can never be yours unless the laws change. I would say they would go 50/50 with the kids shares..I think you need to have a good look at your wills, consider the pros and cons of adoption, and get good legal advice if you are in fact in such a problem, rather than just a hypo one.