6/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 188 (No. 6193) 2008
Mrs. Prapai Tanonkaew vs. Mr. Kitipoom Phetyoi

Re: Community Property; Debt of Husband and Wife

The plaintiff filed an action stating that land title deed number 36231 was community property of the plaintiff and the first defendant as husband and wife. The fact that the first defendant entered into a loan agreement with the second defendant, stipulating in the agreement that the title deed to land considered Thailand community property was given to the second defendant as security in the event of default in the first defendant’s debt payment without the plaintiff’s consent, was in conflict with the plaintiff’s rights.

It adversely affected the plaintiff and the juristic act is unlawful because the signature in the space of the borrower is not the signature of the first defendant, but is a falsified signature. The loan agreement is therefore a falsified document. The plaintiff requests the court to revoke the loan agreement between the first and the second defendant.

The trial court examined the statement of claim and ruled that “the juristic act for loaning money between the first defendant and the second defendant, even though it may be incomplete, is an issue between the two defendants and does not involve the marital property of the plaintiff because the juristic act does not involve management of community property. The plaintiff is not standing to sue in regard to the juristic act and his rights are not in dispute. The case is dismissed. Court fees to be waived.

The plaintiff appealed.

The District 2 Appeals Court affirmed the judgement. Court fees for the Appeals Court to be waived.

The plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court ruled that “the plaintiff claimed that the juristic act of borrowing money between the defendants involves management of the community property of the plaintiff which must be managed jointly under section 1476 of the Civil and Commercial Code. It is acknowledged that section 1476 stipulates that the husband and wife must jointly manage their community property or must receive consent from the other party in the following circumstances:

(4) Providing money loans

The provisions of this section intend that the lending of money loans be a juristic act in which consent must be received from the other party in the management of community property. The fact that the first defendant borrowed money from the second defendant is an issue of borrowing money, and not lending money. Therefore, it does not qualify under section 1476.

In his appeal the plaintiff claimed further that land title deed number 36231 was an important document in a previous legal action in which the court notified the plaintiff to submit the original document to the court for execution, and if the plaintiff submits the title deed based on the said legal action to the court as ordered, this will be damaging to the plaintiff and in conflict with the plaintiff’s rights and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to file a lawsuit.

It is deemed that, in the execution of the previous legal action, if the plaintiff had not been in debt together with the first defendant, the execution would not have affected the plaintiff’s rights because the second defendant is entitled to enforce the execution on the portion of the first defendant’s community property only, without affecting the portion of the plaintiff’s community property.

This action is not in conflict with the plaintiff’s rights, and consequently the plaintiff has no right to sue. The judgement of the two lower courts is appropriate and the Supreme Court concurs. The plaintiff’s appeal has no basis.”