Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 7860/2559, the plaintiff and the defendant registered their divorce and entered into a written property settlement attached to the divorce registration. Under the agreement, the defendant agreed to transfer a house and land to the plaintiff, transfer two motor vehicles to the plaintiff, pay an additional THB 3,500,000, assume responsibility for all debts, and take responsibility for the care of their three minor children. The defendant fully complied with all of these terms. The agreement was also signed by an independent witness and the registrar.The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit seeking division of additional marital property worth more than THB 47 million, arguing that the written settlement did not expressly state that the parties waived any further claims to other property.The Supreme Court held that Section 1532 (a) of the Civil and Commercial Code is intended to ensure that the division of property is settled before the parties finally separate. The property settlement attached to the divorce registration therefore constituted both a property division agreement and a compromise agreement under Section 850, under which each party made mutual concessions.Although the agreement did not expressly state that the parties waived all claims to any other property, the evidence established that the negotiations concerning the division of property had been fully concluded. As a result, any claims relating to other property that had effectively been relinquished were immediately extinguished under Section 852.The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim. Since the agreement attached to the divorce registration was legally binding and constituted a final compromise agreement, the plaintiff had no right to bring a further action seeking division of property beyond what had already been agreed.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 269/2531, the plaintiff and the first defendant were legally married and had executed a written divorce agreement under which the disputed land was to be transferred to the plaintiff. However, the parties subsequently failed to register their divorce. The first defendant later transferred the land to the second defendant, who was the plaintiff’s brother-in-law.The plaintiff therefore brought an action seeking revocation of the transfer, alleging that the second defendant had accepted the property in bad faith.The Supreme Court held that, since the divorce had not been registered, it had no legal effect. Consequently, the property division agreement was not yet enforceable, and the disputed land remained marital property. The plaintiff could not claim to be the sole owner of the land.Nevertheless, the plaintiff retained a one-half interest in the marital property and was entitled to bring an action seeking revocation of a transfer made without her consent.As for the second defendant, the Court found that he was a close relative of the first defendant, was aware of the dispute and the parties’ marital status, and nevertheless proceeded to accept the transfer of the land. He was therefore considered to have accepted the transfer in bad faith.The Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the land to be revoked and the ownership to be restored to the first defendant. The judgment establishes the principle that an agreement between spouses concerning the division of property upon divorce becomes effective only when the divorce itself has been legally completed.

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4382/2540 established an important principle concerning rights in property jointly acquired before marriage. In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant lived together as husband and wife before registering their marriage and worked together to earn income, which was used to purchase the disputed land, even though title to the land was registered solely in the defendant’s name.The parties later separated, and the plaintiff sought division of the land on the ground that it had been jointly acquired and that each party was entitled to an equal share.The Supreme Court held that property jointly acquired before marriage constitutes separate property rather than marital property. The fact that the parties later registered their marriage did not convert such property into marital property. Where the property is jointly owned, each party retains rights in accordance with their respective share and may seek division of the property under the law.The Court found that the disputed land had been purchased with money jointly earned by both parties. The plaintiff had also made a written request to the defendant for division of the property, but the defendant refused. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to bring an action seeking division of the land. This judgment establishes that property jointly acquired before marriage is not marital property but may be jointly owned by the parties. Each party is entitled to claim division according to their respective share, even if they subsequently register their marriage.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3961/2535, the plaintiff and the first defendant were legally married. The first defendant later sold a motor vehicle, which was marital property, to the second defendant for THB 50,000 without the plaintiff’s consent. The plaintiff therefore filed an action seeking revocation of the transfer or, alternatively, payment of THB 25,000 as her share of the sale proceeds.The Supreme Court held that, where spouses have not entered into any special agreement concerning their property, their property relations are governed by the statutory provisions relating to property between husband and wife. Section 1533 provides that marital property is to be divided upon divorce, while Section 1534 provides that where one spouse disposes of marital property without the other spouse’s consent, the property is deemed to continue to exist for the purpose of future division.Accordingly, although the first defendant had already sold the motor vehicle, the law treated the vehicle as if it still existed for the purpose of dividing the marital property if and when the parties later divorced. Since the parties had not yet divorced, the plaintiff was not yet entitled to claim her share of the marital property in monetary form.The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the action, establishing the principle that division of marital property may take place only after the marriage has been terminated. Even where marital property has already been disposed of, the law treats that property as continuing to exist for the purpose of division at a later stage.

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4650/2545 involved an important issue concerning the management of marital property while the spouses were still legally married. The plaintiff and the first defendant were legally married and had not entered into a prenuptial agreement concerning their property.The first defendant later sold a motor vehicle, which was marital property, to the second defendant for THB 50,000 without the plaintiff’s consent. The plaintiff therefore filed an action seeking revocation of the transfer or, alternatively, payment of THB 25,000 as her share of the sale proceeds.The Supreme Court held that the property relations between spouses are governed by the provisions concerning property between husband and wife. Under Section 1533 of the Civil and Commercial Code, marital property may be divided only after the spouses have divorced. Section 1534 further provides that where one spouse disposes of marital property without the other spouse’s consent, or disposes of it solely for that spouse’s own benefit, the property is deemed to continue to exist for the purpose of division upon divorce.At the Supreme Court stage, the only remaining claim was the plaintiff’s request for payment of THB 25,000 as her share of the marital property. Since the parties had not yet divorced, the plaintiff was not yet entitled to claim that amount.This judgment establishes the principle that marital property may be divided only after the marriage has been terminated by divorce. Even where one spouse disposes of marital property without the other spouse’s consent, the law treats that property as continuing to exist for the purpose of future division. Accordingly, a spouse cannot claim a monetary share of the marital property while the marriage remains in effect.