Falang's wife owning Land

by **Astana** » March 15, 2010, 1:43 am

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.

by **KHONDAHM** » March 15, 2010, 6:39 pm

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.

by **Astana** » March 15, 2010, 7:01 pm

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

by **KHONDAHM** » March 15, 2010, 9:20 pm

Astana wrote: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?

by **Astana** » March 15, 2010, 9:37 pm

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

by **KHONDAHM** » March 15, 2010, 9:54 pm

Astana wrote: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?

by **Astana** » March 15, 2010, 10:14 pm

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

by **KHONDAHM** » March 16, 2010, 7:37 am

Astana wrote: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!

by **Astana** » March 16, 2010, 9:40 am

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

by **maaka** » March 17, 2010, 4:17 am

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.

by **parrot** » March 17, 2010, 11:09 am

I think a fatal mistake would be applying any laws that you're familiar with in your home country (US, UK, Australia, etc) and thinking they would apply here. The only good answer that will come to a complicated issue like this would be from a qualified lawyer.

by **KHONDAHM** » March 17, 2010, 3:36 pm

parrot wrote:I think a fatal mistake would be applying any laws that you're familiar with in your home country (US, UK, Australia, etc) and thinking they would apply here. The only good answer that will come to a complicated issue like this would be from a qualified lawyer.

We are on the same page, Parrot. As others may not have noted, I added the "(rhetorical)" precisely because I doubt anyone on this board is qualified or knowledgeable enough to know the answer, but thoughts on the issue are always welcomed.

Maaka, you read too much into what isn't there. The hypothetical was spawned from the direction the thread was evolving. Perhaps I outright hijacked it, but whatever. It is a situation that many on this board could potentially relate to which is why I persued it for discussion. So while writing in 2nd person is appreciated, it is not an accurate presumption.

Hey, even though there is no resolution, it is something to ponder while on the potty.

by **Astana** » March 17, 2010, 3:56 pm

When you find out the answer to your rhetorical question be sure to let us know as I'm sure everyone on the board wants to know.

Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Re: Falang's wife owning Land

Who is online