Section 1574: Parental control of child's property

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 533/2552 (2009)

   A compromise settling a minor's claim for compensation concerns property the minor is to acquire, so the person exercising parental power must obtain the court's permission under section 1574(12) before making it. A settlement made without that permission contravenes the section and is void, binding the minor in no way, so the minor's right to sue for compensation is not extinguished.

   When someone commits a tort against a minor so that the minor becomes entitled to compensation, that is property the minor is to acquire, so a compromise of the claim, which the person exercising parental power must make on the minor's behalf, requires the court's permission under section 1574(12). Here Ch., the plaintiff's lawful father, agreed with the defendant on the damages and medical expenses for himself and the plaintiff and undertook to make no further claim, civil or criminal, which settled a dispute in tort and was a compromise. Because he made it alone without the court's permission, it was void and did not bind the plaintiff at all, so the plaintiff's right to sue survived. The loss of sight in his left eye was compensable as damage other than pecuniary loss under section 446 paragraph one, as were the impairment of his health, his disfigurement and his pain.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6595/2539 (1996)

   Where a mother who is both the minor heirs' legal representative and the administrator of the estate sells estate land within the scope of her authority as administrator, after a meeting of heirs has resolved that she should turn it to account and she has distributed the proceeds among the heirs, she acts as administrator and not as legal representative. Section 1574 therefore does not apply and the sale is not void for want of the court's permission.

   Defendant 1 was an heir, the mother and legal representative of three minor heirs, and the administrator of the estate. Before selling the disputed land she called a meeting of the heirs, attending in both capacities, with other heirs and the joined plaintiff's representative present, and the meeting resolved unanimously that the administrator should turn the land to account for the estate; after the sale she divided the proceeds among the heirs according to their shares. The Court held she had sold within the scope of her authority as administrator and not as the minors' legal representative, so section 1574 could not be applied and the sale was not void. Since the land had been agreed to be returned to the estate, it was estate property in the administrator's hands to be divided among the heirs under section 1719, and she had power to sell it without the heirs' consent.

   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.