KimDidMeGood Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 They want our money ..but not us .. I want your money too :content: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Take a number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldFun Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 TH, Some very valid points made I believe especially noting that no land or property have ever been confiscated which of course doesn't proof it could not happen in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simie Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 They want our money ..but not us .. Just what I've said for years, they'd love it if they could still get farang money without the inconvenience of us all turning up at the airport or living in Thailand. Back to the original topic. The real problem I see here and people I would sympathise for would be those paying for a house in their wifes name. Others who set up these fake companies to buy themselves a house I have a lot less sympathy for as this has been going on for years and its a load of nonsense, people trying to circumvent Thai law for their own purposes and the rug could be pulled out from under them at any time the Thai's wanted. Why the f... do people want to do this when renting is generally far cheaper in Thailand than buying. Why not just keep your property/investments in your home country and rent in Thailand? I'm not talking here about expats such as several well known members here who have bought condos in Bangkok many years ago but more the many folks who have bought houses in tourist areas and actually think they own them. I think many people have been sold a fairy tale by property agents etc but I would find it hard to sympathise if it all went wrong as they should have looked into the law a lot deeper themselves, I certainly would if I was going to make that sort of investment? Simie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 The legal problem with it all is that they are rewriting the rules of marriage. When married, assets are commingled, so it is not "her" money or "his" money, but "their" money -- that's pretty much the whole point of marriage. As KS alluded, if they want to play that game, it has HUGE implications on 100s of other laws, and certainly could impact laws/marriage recognition in other countries. Cheers, SD PS -- I believe ThaiHome is correct; I did have a rider on the chanote (put in place by my ex- when we were married) that stated I was a co-owner, but I had to liquidate the land if we were divorced or she died. I have heard nothing that this has changed (tho' the OP did make it sound as such). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimDidMeGood Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 The legal problem with it all is that they are rewriting the rules of marriage. When married, assets are commingled, so it is not "her" money or "his" money, but "their" money -- that's pretty much the whole point of marriage. As KS alluded, if they want to play that game, it has HUGE implications on 100s of other laws, and certainly could impact laws/marriage recognition in other countries. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I still say the guy was only addressing the nominee issue and not a Thai wife buying in her name with the husband signing the statement it is her money. Having to sign the statement has been in effect for many years, so there is no â??re-writing the rulesâ? at this point. I believe it is Mekong that got his share of the common assets after divorce, despite signing the statement. I think people are making way too much out of this. He is just saying what has been said many times in the past few years since they went after the nominee scheme. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 What you say makes a lot more sense. Just either the reporter/translator did a poor job or the spokesman is an idiot. Either or both could easily be the case. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I believe it is Mekong that got his share of the common assets after divorce, despite signing the statement. TH Mine was an apartment (Legaly Registered in My Name with Foreign House Book) not a House / Land so no Chanote involved and no statement signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Ok, my misunderstanding. So if you do sign the statement and get divorced, that property is probably outside community property. I do know that if she dies and you are the legal heir, you have a year to sell it, unless it is a condo which you can legally own. I know that in some community property states some assets are also outside community. The one I know from experience is an inheritance, even if received after marriage. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.