Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1257/2538: In this case, the Petitioner, who was the legitimate child of the deceased, requested the Court to appoint themself as the administrator of the estate, since the deceased had passed away without leaving a will and possessed estate assets including a house, bank deposits, land, and other assets yet to be found. Subsequently, the Objector, who was the wife of the deceased, requested to be appointed as the sole administrator of the estate, claiming that she lived in close proximity to the deceased and was aware of the locations of the estate assets and the intentions of the deceased.The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of an administrator of an estate must be considered from suitability based on the circumstances, not merely living in close proximity to the decedent. The Petitioner did not possess any legal prohibitions. The fact that the Objector was aware of information regarding the assets or the wishes of the deceased was not a sufficient reason to allow the Objector to be the sole administrator of the estate. Allowing the Petitioner and the Objector to jointly administer the estate would naturally be more beneficial to the heirs and the estate. As for the dispute regarding the land and house claiming they were not the estate assets of the deceased, the Court found that it was an issue beyond the scope of the request, because this case only contained the issue of which person was suitable to be the administrator of the estate, not a determination of whether any particular asset constituted part of the estate or not.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appointing the Petitioner and the Objector as joint administrators of the estate, finding that joint administration can protect the benefits of the heirs and the estate better than granting sole power to either one party alone.

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3681/2567In this case, the plaintiff and the deceased lived together as husband and wife and jointly purchased land with a house situated on it. However, ownership was registered in the name of the defendant, who was the deceased’s younger sibling, to hold on their behalf because the deceased was a Malaysian national and had not yet acquired Thai nationality. In addition, a certain amount of money remaining from the purchase of the property was held by the defendant. The deceased subsequently died, and the court appointed the plaintiff and another sibling of the deceased as joint estate administrators. The plaintiff therefore filed an action seeking the return of the deceased’s interest in the land, the house, and the disputed funds to the estate. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had no authority to bring the action because the plaintiff was merely one of the joint estate administrators and had not commenced the action together with the other administrator.The Supreme Court ruled that, where there are several estate administrators, the law provides that decisions concerning the administration of the estate shall be made by a majority. However, the law does not require every estate administrator to sign or jointly perform every act at the same time. By their nature, certain acts of estate administration do not require all administrators to act simultaneously, such as commencing or defending legal proceedings, preparing an inventory of estate assets, or recovering property for the estate.In this case, although the other estate administrator was not formally joined as a co-plaintiff, that administrator had appointed a lawyer and an authorized representative to act in connection with the administration of the estate. The representative participated in a meeting with the plaintiff in their capacities as estate administrators, and a resolution was passed to commence proceedings against the defendant for the recovery of the property. This constituted joint administration of the estate by majority decision.Accordingly, the plaintiff, in the capacity of a joint estate administrator, had authority to bring the action for the recovery of the deceased’s interest in the land, the house, and the disputed funds from the defendant, so that the assets could be returned to the estate and distributed among the lawful heirs.This judgment establishes the principle that, where several estate administrators have been appointed, it is not always necessary for all of them to sign or jointly commence legal proceedings. Where there is a resolution or consent supported by a majority of the estate administrators, one administrator has authority to bring an action to recover property for inclusion in the estate.

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2628/2567In this case, the plaintiff and the deceased lived together as husband and wife without registering their marriage. The deceased subsequently died, and the court appointed the plaintiff and the deceased’s younger sister as joint estate administrators. The disputed property consisted of funds in bank accounts, investment units, a condominium unit, and land, all of which were registered in the defendant’s name or held by the defendant on behalf of the deceased.The plaintiff filed an action seeking the return of the property and requested that the defendant repay the funds and register the transfer of ownership of the condominium unit and the land to the plaintiff and the deceased’s estate. The defendant argued that the plaintiff lacked authority to bring the action as estate administrator because several estate administrators had been appointed, but the plaintiff had not commenced the action jointly with the other administrator.The Supreme Court ruled that, where several estate administrators have been appointed, decisions concerning the administration of the estate are governed by majority vote under Section 1726 of the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the law does not require all estate administrators to jointly sign or jointly perform every act. By the nature of estate administration, certain acts cannot or need not be carried out by all administrators simultaneously, including commencing or defending legal proceedings, tracing estate property, and receiving payment of debts on behalf of the estate.In this case, the facts showed that a meeting of the estate administrators was held to consider the recovery of the deceased’s property from those holding it, and the meeting resolved to commence legal proceedings for the return of the property. In addition, the other estate administrator appointed a representative to attend the meeting, knew of the proceedings, and raised no objection. These circumstances demonstrated that the other joint estate administrator knew of and consented to the plaintiff bringing the action to collect the deceased’s property for inclusion in the estate.Accordingly, the plaintiff’s action seeking the return of the deceased’s funds, investment units, condominium unit, and interest in the land from the defendant constituted estate administration carried out with majority approval. The plaintiff therefore had authority to bring the action.This judgment establishes the principle that joint estate administrators are not always required to jointly sign or jointly commence legal proceedings. Where there is a resolution, approval, or other circumstance demonstrating that another estate administrator knew of and consented to the proceedings, the action is regarded as estate administration undertaken by majority decision in accordance with the law. One estate administrator therefore has authority to bring an action to recover property for inclusion in the estate.