Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 2497/2009, the plaintiff and the defendant registered their marriage and initially stated that they did not wish to make any record concerning their property. After the marriage registration had already been completed, however, they made an additional record stating that the defendant agreed to transfer land to the plaintiff, and ownership of the land was subsequently registered in the plaintiff’s name.When divorce proceedings later arose, the defendant sought to revoke the agreement. The Supreme Court held that the marriage became legally effective upon the completion of the initial marriage registration. Accordingly, the additional record made afterward, even though it was executed on the same day, did not constitute a prenuptial agreement under Section 1466 of the Civil and Commercial Code.Instead, the agreement was regarded as a property agreement between husband and wife under Section 1469. Under that provision, either spouse may cancel such an agreement during the marriage or within one year from the date the marriage is terminated.The defendant’s counterclaim seeking cancellation of the agreement therefore constituted a valid exercise of the right to cancel the agreement. As a result, the defendant was entitled to recover the land together with the structures situated on it.This judgment confirms that a prenuptial agreement must be made and recorded at the same time as the marriage registration. If the agreement is made only after the marriage has already been validly registered, even on the same day, it is treated as an agreement between spouses rather than a prenuptial agreement and may therefore be cancelled subject to the conditions prescribed by law.

Interesting Article
The Supreme Court held that, since the petitioner’s father had transferred the land and house to the petitioner before the marriage was registered, the property constituted property owned before marriage and was therefore separate property under Section 1471(1) of the Civil and Commercial Code.Although the petitioner and the defendant were already living together as husband and wife at the time the property was received, and although the defendant had continuously lived on and made use of the land and house together with the petitioner, those circumstances did not make the defendant a co-owner of the property. Such possession and use arose from their cohabitation as husband and wife and did not amount to possession of the property for the defendant’s own benefit as an owner.Under Section 1474, marital property must be property acquired during the marriage. The law does not provide that property owned before marriage automatically changes its legal status and becomes marital property after the marriage.Accordingly, property acquired before marriage remains separate property, even if the other spouse also lives in or makes use of it. Creditors of the other spouse therefore cannot seize such separate property where the owner of the property has not also been sued as a defendant.

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff was the lawful wife of the first defendant. She alleged that her husband had transferred marital funds from his bank account to the second defendant as a gift in an amount totaling more than THB 1.4 million, without her knowledge or consent. The transfers were not gifts that were reasonable in light of the family’s circumstances, nor were they made for charitable or social purposes or in fulfillment of a moral duty.The Supreme Court held that the management of marital property in this manner, without the consent of the other spouse, entitled the non-consenting spouse to bring an action seeking revocation of the gift under Section 1480 of the Civil and Commercial Code.However, the legal transaction remained valid until the court rendered a judgment revoking it. Accordingly, interest began to accrue from the date on which the court ordered the revocation, rather than from the date on which the money was transferred.This judgment confirms that one spouse may not freely give marital property to another person without the consent of the other spouse. Where such consent has not been given, the other spouse is entitled to ask the court to revoke the transaction.