Section 1490: Which debts are joint debts

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 7631/2552 (2009)

   Where a husband borrows money and his wife signs the loan agreement as a witness, she is taken to have ratified the making of that loan, and the debt is a joint debt of husband and wife under section 1490(4). A creditor of joint debtors may under section 291 sue them all at once for their respective shares, or sue them one at a time until the debt is satisfied in full. It follows that where the creditor sued only the husband in an earlier action and did not join the wife, the wife is not the same party as the defendant in that earlier action, and a later action against her is not a repeat suit. The decision establishes joint liability and the creditor's choice of whom to sue; it does not decide which class of matrimonial property may be taken in execution.

   The husband of the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and the defendant signed the loan agreement as a witness. The Supreme Court held that she had thereby ratified the loan, so that it was a joint debt of husband and wife under section 1490(4), and that as creditor of joint debtors the plaintiff could under section 291 sue them all together for their shares or sue them one at a time until paid in full. In an earlier action the plaintiff had sued the husband alone on the same loan agreement and had not joined the defendant to answer for it with him. The defendant was therefore not the same party as the defendant in that earlier action, and the present action against her was not a repeat suit.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6686/2552 (2009)

   A debt one spouse incurs for their own account alone becomes a joint marital debt under section 1490(4) if the other spouse ratified it, and ratification is established by proof that the other spouse knew of and acquiesced in the borrowing. Once the debt is joint the creditor may enforce against the whole of the Sin Somros, and the other spouse cannot have a half share set aside out of the auction proceeds.

   The wife borrowed from the plaintiff repeatedly and died; the plaintiff obtained judgment against her heirs and seized land held jointly by her and the petitioner husband. He applied under Civil Procedure Code section 287 to have half the auction proceeds set aside, saying he neither knew of nor consented to the loans. The Supreme Court found that evidence unconvincing: on a salary of about 10,000 baht a month he was supporting the family and a son education while his wife was terminally ill with lung cancer, the title deed had been pledged to secure the loans, he himself insisted his wife never took the deed without telling him first, and he admitted meeting the lender twice after the demand letter. It held he knew of and acquiesced in the borrowing, so the debt was a joint marital debt under section 1490(4), the plaintiff could enforce against the whole of the Sin Somros, and no share could be set aside.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.