You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 15, 2011

The Importance of Drawing Up Your Will

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

When Khun Nong’s father passed away from a heart attack, it was a very emotional time. After several days of funeral rites, family members returned to their homes abroad, and Khun Nong was on her own and emotionally exhausted. Nevertheless, it was time to start settling the estate.

Khun Nong’s father had always promised her she would one day inherit his business and all that he owned. Unfortunately, she soon learned her father had not made a will. This resulted in an outcome she was not expecting—one far different from what her father wanted for her. Ultimately, a sizeable portion of the inheritance went to others.

Khun Nong’s story illustrates an issue we encounter frequently. We are often asked by clients—Thai and non-Thai alike—whether it is really necessary to make a will. While no one likes to think about death, most people do want a say in how their estate is managed after they pass away.

When a person dies, his or her estate is handed down to the heirs. They are either legatees (people to whom you make gifts in your will) or statutory heirs (people who receive your estate in accordance with the law if you die without a will).

For example, if you are survived by your descendants, spouse and parents, and you did not have a will, your estate will be divided equally among each of your descendants (per stirpes), your spouse and each of your parents. (The spouse’s interest in the community property is a separate issue.) If you are not survived by any of the above, the law provides a list of other heirs, in rank order, who will inherit proportionately. Statutory inheritance can be very complicated.

Rather than relying on statutory inheritance, we have found clients prefer to make a specific plan for their assets. They may be motivated by a desire to make certain gifts to certain people, or to disinherit others. Some may have children with special needs and want to ensure they will be provided. Others may want to leave everything to a charity. As such, we always recommend making a will.

To make a will, one must be at least 15 years old and of sound mind. Thai law stipulates wills may only be made in accordance with forms prescribed by statute. Anything that does not meet this requirement is not a will. Thai law authorises five specific forms of will—written, holographic, public, secret, and oral.

Most clients make written wills, as it is the most practical method. To be valid, a written will must be typed or handwritten, clearly state the date at the time of making, and be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses. The two witnesses must also sign to certify the signature of the testator.

Witnesses must be at least 20 years of age and not adjudged incompetent. Those with certain special needs such as the blind, deaf or mute may not witness wills.

It is important to remember legatees cannot be witnesses. For example, if you are leaving a gift to your spouse, your spouse cannot witness your will.

When planning an estate, a particularly important decision is to choose the executor(s). The executor will be responsible for settling the estate and carrying out the testator’s wishes. An executor must be at least 20 years old, of sound mind, and not adjudged bankrupt by the court. Importantly, an executor can be a legatee under a will, and this is often what people plan, particularly those who are married or in other committed relationships.

If you have children, it is very important to give some thought to their living arrangements in case both parents pass away. Many people are also concerned about children inheriting significant sums before they know how to properly manage money. You can designate a custodian of property to manage a child’s inheritance until a certain age.

When clients seek our help with estate planning, we normally start with many questions. It is important to compile a list of assets and each person who will be designated to receive gifts under the will. Some people want to leave certain items to certain people such as a treasured necklace for a daughter or an heirloom watch for a son.

Once we have gathered all the information, we begin preparing the will. After finalising it, we host the signing at our office and can even provide witnesses. Once the will is ready, it is important to store it in a safe place and let the executor(s) know how to access it.

When the end finally comes, a probate action is required to appoint an executor or administrator to settle the estate. Following appointment, the executor or administrator will be given a court order, which he or she can use to sell property, close bank accounts, and wind down business in the course of settling the decedent’s estate and distributing property to the decedent’s heirs.

It is never fun to think about death. However, a bit of planning can save loved ones a lot of trouble with business at a time when they will want to focus on family.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
April 11, 2024
Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any
April 4, 2024
On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].