Travesty of Law

Scenario: Farang couple, together for mebbe ten years and semi-retired, come to Thailand to retire; the lady uses her savings to buy two houses. They live happily for a few years, and then the guy turns into a wenker. Real solo type, dislikes her friends, her social life, etc. So, the lady decides to go home, with his assurance that he will sell the houses and give her half the cash (she felt sorry for him, as he only collected a state pension).
Couple years later, this lady is scraping to get by in the homeland. She discovers her ex sold one of her houses and has a Thai girlie with her two kids. She comes back, confronts him, gets a lawyer, goes to court with all the papers proving she paid for the properties, the court demands he pay her the money. Great. Two months later, the jerk has paid a few thousand dollars to Somchai to delay the case for over a year, allowing him to spend the house proceeds on a house up north for his chickadee and spend whatever baht he needs for living.
Another sad case, except farang on farang.
It never seems to end. Any recourse you know of, TDers?

^ Nothing legal.

Yes a hit man.

get work.

The foreigners couldn't have bought the houses in the first place, so I'm lost already.

was wondering the same marmers

Possibly the deal where you lease the land but own the propery. It was some while ago...not sure if people are doing that anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

So, the lady decides to go home, with his assurance that he will sell the houses and give her half the cash.....Couple years later, this lady is scraping to get by in the homeland. She discovers her ex sold one of her houses and has a Thai girlie with her two kids.

---

So marriage breaks up, they come to a deal she goes home. A few years later she is jealous? wants him back? pissed off that he hasnt paid the money allegedly owed to her?

Now he has the audacity to fight her in courts with a layer......SO WHAT! he is entitled to a legal defence.

come on Jet, this story is a bit below your usual standards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Possibly the deal where you lease the land but own the propery.

---

Methinks she hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Apart from the question of house land ownership by a farang, I am still confused.

"the court demands he pay her the money" but then you go on to say that the case has been delayed by a year.

They separate, she returns home leaving him to sell the houses on the understanding that he gives her half, then she scrapes by for a couple of years on the offchance that he pays but he doesn't, discovers he's sold one house and living in, so she returns to cane him?

Something not quite right, but either way if she was naive enough to entrust him and hang loose for so long I wouldn't give her much hope in the collection process, especially not in this country, and not with a Thai already in the driving seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

come on Jet, this story is a bit below your usual standards...

---

Oh, here ya go, crybaby.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gifhttps://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gifhttp://67.15.62.77/_gallery/_TN/0006...15-0256_TN.jpg
Yes, obviously they did the 30-year leases. Yes, she put her trust in a guy she had been with for many years. Yes, he ripped her off and ran off with a BG. Yes, the court ordered him to pay her (wanker did not attend court), but it just occurred that he paid a few grand and now some official has postponed the next court date at which he was ordered to appear and settle.
She doesn't want to hire a hitman.

The only way I know for them to have done this is via a company structure. If both the wife and husband were shareholders of the company, and if the husband was a director of the company, it could be a fraud against the company. But it would be a long-shot.

Anyhow, details given are too brief and only lead one to speculate.

^How can you sell a house that you only lease? Who owns the houses?

30-year lease would not work if they were two farangs as they would need a Thai to own the land. That means the owner of the land was either a company or a Thai they trusted. Either way, very foolish.

And Thai courts would not get involved in a divorce between two farangs as they have no jurisdiction, so I don't understand the part about him having to pay her money.

Nick, that's what I don't understand. Any lease over 3 years needs to be registered with the Land Dept. If you then want to sell that house, the lease would still be enforceable against the new owner.

^ Not a divorce issue -- he sold the house she paid for and he absconded with the funds. I know quite a few farang who just open a company with several Thai shareholdrs so they can buy property.

yes, but if the company owned the land then the company, not the person, was the owner of the land. If you then spend the proceeds of the sale you have misappropriated company funds. The only way you could achieve this was to pay out a dividend once you sold the shares. If the woman was also a shareholder, she would have been entitled to this was well.

Which is why none of this makes sense.

And if there was a lease and the house was sold, the lease would still be enforceable.

William - I've never really understood the bit about a farang being able to own a house but not the land it's situated on.

In UK law, this doesn't happen because of that quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit thing I remember from college (whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of the soil).


But it's possible in Thai law, yes? If so, how?

^yes. It always made me wonder - for the same reason. But under Thai law, a house it not a fixture to the land.

I recall having a very long conversation with a few Thai lawyers about 2 years ago on this topic. I think I even wrote about it in the legals. Basically my thinking is that if a house has foundation/cellar, etc., it must be a fixture of the land. Thai law doesn't agree.

The case study we were using as part of our conversation was the WTC in New York following 9/11. Thai lawyers will tell you this shows that a building is not a fixture of the land, whereas I would argue the opposite.

^ So I guess it's a kind of yes and no thing beloved of lawyers around the world. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Scenario: Farang couple, together for mebbe ten years and semi-retired, come to Thailand to retire; the lady uses her savings to buy two houses. They live happily for a few years, and then the guy turns into a wenker. Real solo type, dislikes her friends, her social life, etc. So, the lady decides to go home, with his assurance that he will sell the houses and give her half the cash (she felt sorry for him, as he only collected a state pension).
Couple years later, this lady is scraping to get by in the homeland. She discovers her ex sold one of her houses and has a Thai girlie with her two kids. She comes back, confronts him, gets a lawyer, goes to court with all the papers proving she paid for the properties, the court demands he pay her the money. Great. Two months later, the jerk has paid a few thousand dollars to Somchai to delay the case for over a year, allowing him to spend the house proceeds on a house up north for his chickadee and spend whatever baht he needs for living.
Another sad case, except farang on farang.
It never seems to end. Any recourse you know of, TDers?

---

This sounds like Deja Vu from Chi Town's loser friend.

This person is very stupid.

Avoid her.

^^yes, the joys of different legal systems. Thai law being codified civil law and English law being a mess of common law :)

The other house is not sold, be it a lease hold or a company structure. Does her name appear anywhere on the lease document or title or company shareholder list? In the case of the first house sold, did he commit fraud or theft because some of the proceeds were hers if this was the case above? if so, she should pursue him through the criminal justice system rather than a civil action imo. I doubt he wants to spend time in a Thai jail, which might bring him to the negotiating table.

If not, all she can hope is that he agrees to do something and honours his agreement, which doesn't seem likely. Chasing individual debtors in default is usually a waste of time in the Thai legal system- they normally don't even turn up to the Court hearing, and just ignore the judgement. Then a second judgement is pursued, ordering them to honour the original judgement. They just ignore that too, and by now the money is long gone.

If they had gotten married, it would have all been sorted out in the divorce. As it stands, she was just his girlfriend and she trusted him with two houses.

God I love the legal system in Thailand, it suits the one who has the most money..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

That means the owner of the land was either a company or a Thai they trusted.

---

..and I think therein lies her problem. It seems as though the Thai lady may not be the trustworthy sort, in which case the husband will be surrounded by money-hungry parasites. There was mention of two houses. The best this woman can do is take control of the second house, sell it and cut her losses.

The money from the first one will be disappearing fast.

FWIW the husband may be in for a shock when the money runs out. The BG may well do far worse to the guy than his wife ever could, he is clearly an old man.

Well, her husband sounds a right cnut unless she has twisted the story to get sympathy.

I think I would poo in his bed and call it a day.

^ and ^^. Yep. She is not a loser, just too trustworthy -- I knew her years ago. Her prob was she really trusted the wonk. Then he found a BG, who lavished attention on him and there, two farang will get screwed.
I think the case did go to criminal court as he was ordered to pay or face Hilton time.
Guess she'd have more chance if she was residing in Thailand. They lived common-law overseas, but I guess this is illegal in Thailand.
Anyway, the papers must have been legal if he was able to sell one house and get the baht.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

They lived common-law overseas, but I guess this is illegal in Thailand.

---

Not that I know of, but the legal standing and obligations are much less, specially after 2 years separation without a 'proper' marriage to start with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benbaaa

So I guess it's a kind of yes and no thing beloved of lawyers around the world.

---

Maybe. Possibly... Can't really say either way for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

But under Thai law, a house it not a fixture to the land.

---

I guess that's to do with having wooden houses which can be taken down and moved. Maybe:confused:

[quote=William;508543]^yes. It always made me wonder - for the same reason. But under Thai law, a house it not a fixture to the land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

But under Thai law, a house it not a fixture to the land.

---

I guess that's to do with having wooden houses which can be taken down and moved. Maybe:confused:

---

Exactly ! same in Greece and African countries- had quite a few insurance claims to handle on these lines and they all went pear-shaped due to this line of thought !

Well Jetty said that the houses were on leased land (30 year or some period less). So the house was sold and the lease transferred ('transferred' may be the wrong term, but that is the effect, since the purchaser of the house only gets the balance of the land lease - not a new 30 years). You would expect that Thai law would provide for something similar to a decree by writ or order to freeze the proceeds (and also prevent sale of the other house).

It sounds as though she has not consulted a competent Thai lawyer, which she needs to do. It is pointless her going to an English lawyer, because he will have no idea and merely seek instructions from a Thai lawyer (who may not be the best for the job) and add his padding. The whole thing sounds like a debacle. If she is back in the UK, she needs to get all her documents together and hop onto a plane with the name of a competent Thai lawyer; it is the only way she can have a chance of a positive outcome. Since the court has already made an order against her husband (which was then somehow deferred pending conciliation), it should not be too difficult to get an order to freeze the assets pending the return date. Indeed, the court may be able to actually take de facto custody of any relevant accounts. Who knows? This is why she needs to get her act together to ascertain the actual position and put into place any available mechanisms.

Actually, she's in Thailand now, staying at and trying to sell the other house quickly, and will lose $ on it but at least she'll get the funds for that one. But, she lost big on the other property. Guess we should learn to put liens on property.

^
Why don't you stick an advert on the forum for her ?

^ Good idea, Thet. I'll e-mail her and ask. Thanks.