11/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion (No. 10484) 2008

Mrs. Pranee Boonswang and group (Plaintiffs), Mr. Noppadol Timpong and group (Defendants)

Re: Inheritance Law; Authorized accusation

Even though the 2nd defendant and C were the co-executers of A, inheritors of A were able to reclaim whole assets from a third person or a debtor. Actually there was no regulation to invalid of his heir’s rights. When A passed away, his properties were become to his inheritors including both plaintiffs as well. Debt which the 1st defendant was lent by A would be transferred to A’s inheritors and both plaintiffs automatically. Therefore, both plaintiffs were able to sue the defendants. Especially the manner of the 2nd defendant who was a warrantor of the 1st defendant conflicted with the bequest related to advantages. So far the 2nd defendant neglected to sue the 1st defendant, and not to pay loan instead of the 1st defendant. Moreover the 2nd defendant cited he or she was not in debt regarding loan contract. If the heir did not have an obligation, who else did? This caused to ruin the bequest.

Both plaintiffs accused that both were the legal heirs of Mr. Euam Boonswang and had right to obtain the bequest. In fact Mr. Euam was dead on June 12, 2537. At the beginning, the 1st defendant borrowed 1,500,000 Baht from Mr. Euam at 1% of prime interest rate. An agreement of returned date was October 28, 2538. Besides the 2nd defendant was the debt warrantor. As long as Mr. Euam was alive, both defendants paid the prime interest regularly. After a while Mr. Euam was dead, both defendants neither compensated the interest nor settled the principal. When the contract was due, both still remained the debtors of Mr. Euam. They have owed principal cost 1,500,000 Baht and prime interest through 7 years. However, both plaintiffs would charge prime interest 5 years only at 7.5% per year. Let say the total prime interest would be 562,500 Baht.

In conclusion, both defendants were compelled to pay at 2,062,500 and prime interest at 7.5% of principal 1,500,000 Baht respectively. The effective date was from filing a case until completing paid up.
           
After that both defendants had pleadings, they requested to dismiss the case. Court of First Instance sentenced that the 1st defendant shall pay off both plaintiffs sent to Mr. Euam Boonswang’s bequest. The total cost was 1,500,000 Baht and charged prime interest at 7.5% per year. The date was counted from September 26, 2540 until whole paid up. Accordingly the 1st defendant used to pay the prime interest at 150,000 Baht at once. This amount of money was able to subtract from the total charged cost. Even if the 1st defendant did not cope with the price, the 2nd defendant would take care of it. In addition, both defendants had to pay the lawyer fee of the plaintiffs at 5,000 Baht as well.
           
Next, both defendants appealed to Appeal Court. Judgment became as similarly as Court of First Instance. In brief, the court fee was cancellation.
           
Then both defendants Dika appealed to Supreme Court. A judge analyzed the truth that both plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant were the offspring of Mr. Euam and Mrs. Pranee Boonswang. The 1st defendant was the 2nd defendant’s husband. On October 28, 2535, the 1st defendant borrowed 1,500,000 Baht from Mr. Euam. He agreed to pay the prime interest at 1% per year and returned all money back on October 28, 2538. Since he received all money, he has paid back the loan partially. Afterwards Mr. Euam died on June 12, 2537, the 2nd defendant and Mr. Chatthong were the co-executor of Mr. Euam. And yet the 1st defendant never paid the interest anymore.
           
Another issue which was analyzed was whether both defendants had authority to prosecute or not. Although the 2nd defendant and Mr.Chatthong were the co-executor of Mr. Euam, they had the right to sue a third person or any debtor. Basically there was no lawsuit to deprive of the heir’s rights. When Mr. Euam died, all his properties would be descended to his lineage and both plaintiffs.  The debt which the 1st defendant borrowed money from Mr. Euam would go to the heirs and both plaintiffs immediately. Especially the act of the 2nd defendant warranting the 1st defendant opposed the bequest related to the benefits. The 2nd defendant ignored to sue the 1st defendant and not to pay loan instead of the 1st defendant. Furthermore the 2nd defendant retorted that she did not get into debt because it did not mention in the contract. If the heir was not authorized to do that, no one else did. It could harm the bequest.  All in all, Dika judgment which both defendants used for reference was incorrect with this case. Supreme Court’s judgment coincided to Appeal Court’s sentence. Dika of the defendants was not reasonable.
           
Further analysis was whether the 1st defendant borrowed money from Mr. Euam or not. The opinion was shown that the 1st defendant signed the contract and got money from Mr. Euam. The 1st defendant quoted he did not owe the loan. Conversely Mr. Euam gave that money to him instead. This later amendment in the contract was prohibition followed the rule of Trial of Civil case at section 94(B). All Appeal Court’s judgment was agreed with the Supreme Court.