Heritage or Trustee

Section 1711. The trustee shall be included throughout the person established by the will or by the court order.

Section 1712. The inheritance trust may be established.

(1) by the will.

(2) by the person specified in the will. To be set.

Section 1713. The heirs or interested persons or prosecutors may request the trustee to set up the trustee. In the following cases:

(1) When the inheritance dies. The heirs or the deceased have been lost. Or outside of the territory Or as a minor

(2) When a trustee or heir can not Or unwilling to handle Or have trouble managing. Or in sharing a legacy

(3) When the testamentary wording of the trustee is not enforceable.

Set up the inheritance. If there is a will, then the court will set the will. And if there is no will. The court is set up to benefit the inheritance in accordance with the circumstances and with regard to the intent of the inheritance. Depending on the court.

Section 1714. When a court appoints any person to act as a trustee for a particular purpose. I do not need to make a legacy account. Unless it is necessary for that purpose. Or the court ordered to do.

Section 1715. The testamentary person shall be the person or persons to be designated as an estate manager.

Unless otherwise specified in the will. If there are several legacy managers, but some of those managers can not. Or unwilling to handle And there are still legacy managers. He has the right to manage the inheritance alone. But if there are many legacy managers, it is presumed that. Each of these managers can not handle alone.

Section 1716 of the Court of Appeal The date of hearing or considered hearing the court.

Section 1717 at any time within one year from the date of death. But it must be fifteen days after the death. Heirs or any one of them. Will inform the person who was designated the inheritor by the will of whether to inherit or not.

If the person who has been notified fails to act as the trustee within one month from the date of receipt thereof. He is denied. But the inheritance. It will be done one year after the death of the bride. Unless the court permits.

Section 1718. The following persons are not legally allowed.

(1) who is underage

(2) insane person Or the person ordered by the court to be incompetent.

(3) the person ordered by the court to be bankrupt;

Section 1719. The trustee has the right and duty to perform the necessary functions. To comply with the express or implied warrant of the will. And to manage heritage in general or to share heritage

Section 1720. The trustee is liable to the heir as provided in sections 809 through 812, 819, 823 of this Code mutatis mutandis. And when it concerns a third party, Section 831 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Section 1721. The estate manager has no right to receive royalties. Wills Or the heir, the majority will be set.

Section 1722. The estate manager shall do any act. They have no interest in opposing the inheritance. Unless the will is allowed. Or permission from the court

Section 1723. The estate manager must manage by himself. Except as may be exercised by agents under the express or implied authority of the will. Or by court order Or in circumstances for the benefit of the inheritance.

Section 1724. The heirs are bound to outsiders in the affairs that the trustee has made within the authority of the trustee.

If the trustee has entered into an act with a third party. For any property. Or any other benefit. The outsider gave. I have made a promise to be a personal fortune. Unless heirs will agree.

Section 1725. The trustee shall determine, where appropriate, the interests of the trustee and the trustee. Know the requirements of the will about the stakeholders within a reasonable time.

Section 1726. If the trustee has many The duties of the trustee must be taken into account. Unless there is a will otherwise. If the sound is equal When interested parties request. The court is the referee.

Section 1727. Any interested party may request that the court order the removal of the trustee. Because the inheritance manager did not perform the duties. Or why else? It must be requested before the inheritance is completed.

Even if it is a good position. The inheritance of the inheritance can be justified. But must get permission from the court.

Section 1728. The estate manager must prepare the estate account within fifteen days.

(1) Since the inheritance died. If at that moment the estate manager is aware of the inheritance of his or her will.

(2) From the date of commencement of the trustee's function under section 1726, in the case where the court establishes a trustee;

(3) from the date of receipt of the inheritance by the estate manager.

Section 1729. The estate manager must complete the estate register within one month from the time specified in Section 1728, but this time When the trustee requests before the end of one month The court will allow further extension.

The account must be in front of at least two witnesses. It must be a stakeholder in the estate.

A person who will not testify in accordance with Section 1670 will be a witness in any accounting. Must not be made under the provisions of this Code.

Section 1730. Paragraphs 1563, 1564, paragraphs 1 and 2 and 1565 of this Code shall apply mutatis mutandis. During the heirship with the estate heir, and in court between the trustee and the estate manager.

Section 1731. If the trustee does not prepare the accounts within the time and in the prescribed manner. Or if the account is not satisfactory to the court. Because of serious negligence. Or corruption Or the inability of the inheritor to see. The court will remove the trustee.

Section 1732. The trustee shall manage his duties and report the estate management and inheritance report within one year from the date specified in section 1728, unless the willor. Heirs by lot. Or the court will set aside time.

Section 1733. Release of liability Or other agreements With regard to the statement, the inheritance management account provided for in section 1732 shall be complete only if the account statement is forwarded to the heirs with The document is not less than ten days ago.

The lawsuit regarding the inheritance management. The heir sue more than five years from the end of the estate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2947/2560.

           The petitioner has been appointed as the trustee of A. By court order, the petitioner prosecutes several inheritance cases. The petitioner has not inherited from his successor. It can not manage the inheritance and share the legacy. When the share of A's inheritance is still waiting for the relevant case. A person acting as a trustee must act as a representative of the heirs in order to carry out various acts of inheritance. The inheritance of A. Include inheritance in the inherited company to the heir when a death in accordance with Section 1599 paragraph one is the inheritance of inheritance. The petitioner has the authority and responsibility under the provisions of the law governing the inheritance is another matter that must be considered separately. The inheritance of the inheritance does not allow the claimant as a trustee to act on the inheritance instead of the heir. Especially when there is no share of inheritance. Every successor of A's inheritance is included in the inheritance, which remains in the name of A. The applicant as a trustee would prefer to use the inheritance rights instead of the heirs. The general authority to maintain the interests of the estate. The petitioner, as the trustee, authorizes the attending shareholders to vote and cast their votes. It is in the margin of power of the petitioner. The objection claims that the petitioner has exercised his inheritance rights to the heirs, thereby violating the rights of the heirs. The chairman of the meeting has ruled that the plaintiff's claimant as the trustee of Meeting attendance It does not have the right to vote to reduce shareholder rights. The shares in the legacy of A. There is no voting power, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1182 requires all shareholders have the right to vote at the shareholders' meeting. The resolution of the shareholders' meeting, the disputes that do not provide the proxy of the petitioner as the manager of the inheritance of A. have the right to vote at the meeting. It violates the provisions of the law.

 Judgment of the Supreme Court 1814/2560.

          As a manager of the estate, A. As a court order is therefore a legal representative of the heirs. In the meeting of the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of the defendant company, it is entitled to take part in the general meeting of the defendant company under the general authority of the administrator under Section 1719 and Section 1723 without. Must obtain the consent of the three plaintiffs, heirs. The authority and responsibility of the trustee against the heirs is ensured by the provisions of the law. Does not represent the heir. Because of the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, 6 types of inheritance, apply the provisions of Chapter 3, the use of the representative only. And this is not a legal act that is prohibited under Section 1722 is not void. The first plaintiff was withdrawn the power to act as the defendant company, then the acting director of the company to act on behalf of the defendant company by the resolution of the majority vote of shareholders, even in the private placement will vote. Approved by the resolution. However, it was abstained as a trustee of the estate. In case of an extraordinary meeting of shareholders, the shareholders attending the meeting shall collect the total of not less than one half of the total number of shares, thereby constituting a quorum according to the Articles of Association. The meeting and the resolution of the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of the defendant company.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 432/2560.

            The fact is, listen to that. Disputed land is the legacy of the inheritance. So, when the defendant as the trustee of the estate has requested to issue a certificate of trust (Miss. 3g.) And registered the transfer of land disputes to be. Since 2001, land dispute is not inherited property of the inheritance anymore. The three of them, even the heirs of the estate, have no rights. In disputed land It must have a commitment to outsiders in the affairs that the trustee has made within the jurisdiction as a manager of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1724, paragraph one, and in 2007, the defendant also used the certificate. S. 3a.), The owner of the land. Have you ever been asked to take a detour to land dispute on behalf of the estate. It does not give rise to any rights. Heir of the heir The issue of land for disputed land in the investigation of the defendant as heir of the inheritance is unlawful. When the plaintiff is the last transfer of land disputes, it is the owner of the right to land disputes.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10318/2559.

          The plaintiff sued the applicant for the appointment of a liquidator of the non-registered partnership between the plaintiff and A. did not sue for inheritance as a legal successor, or sued the will of the will. Even with the request for the defendant to take money from the estate of A. to pay the plaintiff. It is just a call for a return of capital and profits calculated from the settlement of the partnership not registered between the plaintiff and A. in the estate of A. only the inheritance or lawsuit that the creditor requested to enforce the claim. Have a succession Defendant will raise the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 to fight the plaintiff did not. Although it is heard that the plaintiff sued the case after the expiration of one year from the date of the death of the plaintiff sued the plaintiff did not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9315/2559.

         A petition to withdraw the petitioner from the trustee's estate and to appoint the petitioner to be the trustee of the deceased petitioner. The petitioner will file an objection or not. And the objection of the petition is not a statement. Not in force. Civil Code Section 177 to be filed within fifteen days and expressly expressly accept or reject the claim of the petitioner. Including reasons for acceptance or rejection. And the Court of First Instance did not require the petitioner to oppose. Both the petitioner and the attorney of the petitioner come to court. Submit an eyewitness account Opposition protesters who testified in the trial. And the Court of First Instance to the witnesses to testify and submit the evidence in the inquiry. It implicitly indicates that the petitioner has objected to the petitioner's objection. The petitioner will not file an objection to the petitioner's objection. But there is no dispute that the court may call witnesses themselves as they see fit. Section 188 (2), it is appropriate that the Court of First Instance hear the evidence of the petitioner for the determination of the objection of the objection. In the case where there is reasonable grounds to return the case to the Court of First Instance to consider the new judgment under Civil Code Section 243 (2), Article 247

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9226/2559.

         The disclosure of the debtor by disclosure. Section 42 is a procedure to consider the business and property of the debtor. The reason for the insolvency The behavior of the debtor whether or not to act. Which is wrong Bankruptcy Act BE 2483 or other laws governing bankruptcy. Defendant must provide the fact. When the defendant is aware that he or she is the descendant of the inheritance of the inheritance and the Civil Court also ordered the appointment of the defendant as a trustee along with other heirs. The defendant is obliged to inform the Official Receiver of the property and property rights of the defendant in the estate, even if there is no division or management and even the defendant will enter into a compromise agreement with other heirs about the management of the estate. The two defendants can not claim that. The defendant is unlikely to inherit the property because when calculating the legacy and debts of the estate. The defendant thinks there are no remaining legacies. The defendant did not inform the defendant so that the defendant testified in the debtor to disclose to the court without notifying that the defendant has the right to receive such property. Both have to answer the question of the official receiver about the property that the defendant. All rights reserved. It is forbidden to disclose any material information about their property to the court. So there is a fault. Bankruptcy Act, 1983, Section 163 (2), and Section 42

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6893/2559.

             The plaintiff is a trustee of the contract with the defendant to the contract with the defendant to identify the beneficiary is a contract for the benefit of outsiders. The fact is that if MPs and Thaksin are dead, whether they die before or after death, they will not be able to benefit from the death. Therefore, it can not be considered that the benefits will be paid under the terms of the policy and does not assume that the money paid to the defendant to pay to. As a beneficiary of the property, the beneficiary can not take advantage of the life insurance contract, so the benefits of the life insurance contract must fall to the heirs of the insured as a legacy of property as a manager. The inheritance of the MP or the heirs will have the right to claim money under the terms of life insurance. Coast. The plaintiff is a trustee of the North. We have no right to sue the defendant to pay under the policy of insurance. Have.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6219/2559.

              When Mon and I died, the heirs did not share the inheritance. Dispute land is a legacy of the Mon and A. So, the MPs will have ownership of the land disputes instead of all heirs. When the defendant is the estate of the MPs, as a representative of all his descendants, and A. As well as the defendant, the first defendant of the estate of the MPA with the House and the trustee of the. A. together with A. the defendant is the sole representative of the heirs in the management of the estate of the Mon and A. have the right and duty to perform the necessary to manage the inheritance in general. Or to share legacy And be liable to the heirs as a representative under Section 1719 and 1720 by the heirs, each of them do not need another representative. As the defendant 1 and A. As the estate's manager, he has arranged his heirs seven times and proposed that all his heirs auction the land dispute. There are no heirs. Then the heir votes with the majority of the eligible person to sell the disputed land to pay the estate's debts and then the remaining money is shared between the heirs. Then the defendant 1, the company and the company to conduct land auction dispute. But when the price is too low. It also procures new buyers. Later, the defendant offered to buy at a higher price. And at the 7th meeting, the heirs have more than half of their inheritance rights. The majority of the votes are to sell the land at the price. On the same day, the heir to the inheritance of the monastery agrees to sell the land disputes in the inheritance of the monastery along with his legacy. Ownership is governed by agreement with the majority of owners. And the majority is not less than half of the estate, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1745, Section 1358, paragraph three, and the defendant and the Bank of Thailand as the estate manager of the management of the need. In order to avoid damage to the estate and all his heirs in accordance with their duties, even if the defendant is 1 and the defendant is not allowed by the court to sell the land dispute in the inheritance of A. in accordance with the terms of the order. The Southern Bangkok Civil defense, but 1 and Matt. Requested permission to land agents three times. And also filed a petition to the court to cancel the prohibition of legal acts in the property of the estate. Legislators have the legal power to share legacies. And it appears that the property of the Mon and A. have a large amount of debt and must pay interest at least 66,000,000 baht per year. If not dispose of land disputes will damage the property will be. Increased debt Hold that the defendant has complied with the court order and acts as a trustee to share the property legally. When the land dispute is the name of a member of the registry of the defendant as the estate manager of the MPA has the rights and obligations in the management of land disputes and the power to register the transfer of land disputes to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2864/2559.

         Were selected to enter the dispute land by entering the state land. The law of land for livelihood, 1968, which is in accordance with the rules. Procedures and conditions as prescribed by law. If the offense is committed, the state will recover it at any time. Dispute land is still a land of the state, not a legacy property of the United States. Although the land dispute is still a state, but W is allowed to enter the property, so have the right to land dispute under Section 1367, which can be used against the people or the general public. And may be in possession of disputed land if fully complied with. Act of 1911 on property land for the purpose of living, Section 11 Rights of the land that is beneficial to the land dispute is similar to the rights over land, which can be transferred and inherited by the land. Section 1410 and Section 1411 of the death. The right to take advantage of land disputes is a property of the House of Welfare under Section 1600 fall to the heirs of the House of Welfare under Section 1599. The house is planted on the land dispute that the builder is allowed to live and benefit. From the state, according to the law. House is not a part of the land dispute under Section 146 of the ownership of the House of Wai on death of the inheritance to heirs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2498/2559.

             The plaintiff sued the estate of the defendant 5 by the defendant 4 as the defendant 4 defendant that the defendant has a lawful son who is a lawyer, the fourth defendant is only the same father and mother and defendant No. 5. Debt resolution The defendant's fourth statement denied that the 4th defendant was not the descendant, or the estate manager or guardian of the defendant's 5th death, or that he did not accept such a statutory position. The court must therefore investigate the matter and issue an order accordingly. Bankruptcy Act, 2483, Section 83 paragraph two, but the Central Bankruptcy Court did not proceed. Considering the plaintiff's testimony. This is the wrong procedure. The Supreme Court should revoke the procedure regarding the defendant to 5 under Section 27 of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 27 paragraph two consists of the Act on the establishment of bankruptcy court and the method of bankruptcy case, 2542, Section 28 (former) and The Central Bankruptcy Court proceeded with a new reconsideration procedure and a new judgment was made only for the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1480/2559.

          Defendant 2 is the daughter of the royal family with her husband's lawful legacy, which has already died. Later inherit the husband and wife with the other three children together with the plaintiff's land title deed 468 Tambon Sanga Yala District of Yala is the property of land title deed No. 7890, which is consecutive to the next. On August 13, 1981, the land was registered for the purpose of death. Inheritance of registration of inheritance of land. The land title deeds No. 468 and No. 113 on the land. The inheritance registered to the second defendant. On September 20, 2002, the estate made a testament to the intent of the property in the will. Land and house number 113 gives the defendant a second possession of the inheritance of the great grandchildren have the right to stay as a father. The sale of this estate to the other defendants and the children of the inheritance, which occurred with the other three plaintiffs, and the first defendant, brother to the estate. On November 12, 2002, the estate was dead. Court of First Instance was the first defendant to the estate on December 25, 2003, the defendant filed a transfer of land title deed No. 7890 to the defendant in accordance with the will. On October 2, 2012, the defendant No. 2 registered the sale of land title deeds. 468 with house number 113 and land title deed number 7890 to the third defendant to the land title deed no. 468 and the building number 113 The inheritance is not owned by the defendant, but the second defendant is not entitled to land title deed no. 468, home number 113, which is another person to do the will to anyone. The testament to the fact that raised the house number 113 to the second defendant who owns the ownership then can not enforce. The land title deed No. 7890, even if the testament to the defendant's second defendant who is the beneficiary of the transfer of property. It does not require any person but the beneficiary to be the recipient of the property to the absolute. The case must be with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1700, paragraph three, that the transfer is not prohibited, so that when the inheritance of the will to take land title deed No. 7890 to the second defendant, then the defendant is the owner of land. I have the right to dispose of, transfer or take any action on the land, the defendant has the right to transfer the land to the third defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to sue. Do not act to revoke the land title deed No. 7890 and No. 113, according to the lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15201/2558.

        The will not be required for any person to inherit. Only the trustee will pay the necessary support to the named person. It does not define the person as a will. It is not clear that it can not be sure that the property to a large number of people, but the mind of the petitioner and the objections of the estate manager. It is void under Section 1706 (2) and (3) and is a law relating to public order. The Supreme Court deems it appropriate to have the power under Section 247 of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 247, and Section 246, under the provisions of Section 142 (5) even if the will is invalid under Section 1706 (2) and (3) In part, the legacy expressed the intention of setting up a trustee. It is not void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14882/2558.

    The defendant as a registered manager transferred the ownership of land disputes, which is the only inheritance of the inheritance of the defendant as a trustee. The inheritance of the inheritance as the successor of the inheritance, including both the plaintiff and the petitioner with both. Even after the defendant as a trustee has registered the transfer of ownership of the land dispute as a defendant as a private. It is considered that the defendant as a person has changed the intention of possession of the land dispute from the possession of the successor to all the people as a private possession. The defendant did not say to his successor that everyone. No intention to inherit the successor to any successor under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1381 so that when the defendant has not proceeded to distribute the estate to all heirs according to the rights of the heirs prescribed by law. Or as heirs agreed. It must be assumed that management of the estate is not completed. The age of five years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two shall not apply. Both the plaintiff and the petitioner filed the two have not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14777/2558.

              The testament to the death of the three children is the girl, boy and girl. The objection is the child of the deceased, which is considered as a legitimate child as a lawful child under Section 1627, which has the status of the death of the deceased under Section 1629 (1), the objection was. No inheritance under section 1608, paragraph two, the objection is not the heirs or stakeholders who have the right to file an objection and request the establishment of the inheritance under Section 1713 and 1727. Greco one

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11216/2558.

         The petitioner requests that the petitioner be the trustee of the three inheritances under Section 4 of the Civil Code. Section 4, paragraph one, states that "the petition for the appointment of the trustee shall be submitted to the court whose estate is domiciled in the court. Dead ", but all three of them have different domicile in accordance with Article 5, which states that" the complaint or request, which may be submitted to two or more courts. Whether it is because of the domicile of the person. Because of the location of the property. Because the place is good. Or because there are many counts. If the merits of the case are related. The plaintiff or the petitioner will present the petition or petition to any court of that instance. "When the fact is that all three properties have inherited property. It is considered that the request for the appointment of the trustees of the three inheritance, the merits of the case related enough to be considered together. The petitioner has the authority to file the petition for the appointment of three trustees of the estate to the same court.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10454/2558.

           The lawsuit brought the case to the defendant is a civil case 4, and the Court of First Instance ordered to include all the cases together, although the court to the court. Act as Heir to Heirs And acted on behalf of other heirs in the compromise agreement with the defendant under Section 851, but when no evidence that the MP was appointed by another heir and the plaintiff to act as a replacement. Section 798 of the compromise agreement with the defendant against the defendant, which is divided between the estate, including land disputes, so it does not bind the plaintiff. Although the agreement between the two parties to the agreement to benefit the plaintiff, a third party under Section 374 and the plaintiff took advantage of the contract. However, there is no law prohibiting the plaintiffs as heirs of the inheritance lawsuit to retrieve property from the unlawful.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9890 - 9891/2558.

          The plaintiff sued the four defendants jointly misappropriated the inheritance of the inheritance by the plaintiff, which is. Heritage Ownership included. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was the plaintiff as a damage to the plaintiff as a joint owner of the property. Even if the plaintiff sued the plaintiff as a manager of the estate, it only states the plaintiff's status. It does not mean that the plaintiff is the injured as a manager of the estate, both in accordance with the record of the plaintiff's investigation class, the plaintiff claimed. Four defendants misappropriated the property of the plaintiff. The details of how the plaintiff's share in each item. And later that the property belongs to the plaintiff. The show that the plaintiff jointly filed a complaint by the damage as a property owner or owner. It's a personal statement. Not as the estate manager of the l. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal that. When listening to the plaintiff as a trustee. The court would like to punish the four defendants by filing a lawsuit without having to own or own the property in the middle. It is not the law that was raised in the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal did not accept such a problem.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9745/2558.

           The two plaintiffs as the estate manager of the House and the Senate sued to return the property dispute, which is 18 plots of land in the possession of the four defendants claimed to be the estate of the two inheritance. The four defendants said that. 8 plots of land dispute defendant 1 was transferred from the two inheritance before the two inheritance will die. The land is not the property of the two inheritances. For the remaining 10 plots of land, the defendant was transferred from the House of Lords, which was the property of the MP and liked to have possession for themselves throughout. Plaintiff sued the case after one year. From the day they both died. The case is terminated. The issue is that. Is the land dispute 8 of the estate of the two inheritance? And as the former estate manager of the transfer of land dispute 10 plots to the defendant 1 like it or not. The Court of First Instance did not rationalize the dispute, but it is clear that the plaintiff's case is terminated under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph one is not like. Both cases, both plaintiffs as the trustee filed a lawsuit to recover the property and requested to withdraw the legal act from the inheritors inherited illegally due to the management of the property has not ended, which has maturity. Especially under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, it may not be the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph one, which is about the prosecution of inheritance between the heirs to adjust. The force

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9704/2558.

        The case before the plaintiff, who petitioned to set the petitioner as a heir, was the estate manager of the deceased without a will. The defendant, both of whom objected, objected that both of them were the children of CH. All the objections to both. Request a request And the order that the two of them oppose the trustee's death. The case has disputes that it is appropriate to set the petitioner or the objection of the two as the estate of the deceased. The issue is to determine the completeness of the will, as opposed to the objections of both. In this case, the plaintiff filed for revocation of the testimony of the city council documents made at the Wattana District Office by claiming that the Criminal Code was wrong or was both defendants and fraudsters. While doing the testament, there is no physical and mental health checkup for CHD, aged 92 years, between heart disease and cerebral palsy. The interpreter does not translate the will. The will is void. The issue is that. Is there a reason to revoke the will of a city council document that has been made or not, which must also be considered for the completeness of the will. The issue of the two cases is the same. And is filed under the Civil Code Section 173 paragraph two (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9683 - 9685/2558

          Dispute is a simple testament. Or witness testimony A letter with the date of the year, while the testament, eraser, fill in the channel, the date and age of the deceased, the signature of the deceased and the signature of the professor with the signature of the witness. The dead are under the influence of the two. The deceased person has signed the fingerprint on the testator. The signature of the prof. And W. at the full testimony. The testament to the dispute is not clear statement of death. There is a message saying "testament" at the center of the paper. This means that a document of intent to make a death in any property or work is legally enforceable when the deceased person dies. And it is stated. ".... I ask my daughter to be a trustee to follow my intentions to share the property. The will to divide the property as follows ... "The case is meaningful in that the requirements in the document will affect when the deceased died. The will of the dispute is in accordance with the provisions of Section 1656 of the Civil and Commercial Code and the law. It is not void. The plaintiff was allowed by the deceased to build a 26 room apartment building on the estate of the deceased is the plaintiff's rights over the ground under Section 1410, which is one property that can not. Made by other means. It must be made in writing and registered with the competent authority. Otherwise, the right over the land is not complete and can not be used outside the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1299, paragraph one, when the agreement allows the plaintiff to build a building on the land. It was not written and registered with the authorities. The plaintiff has no legal right to use the defendant 6, who is a third defendant. The owner of the land is entitled to expel the plaintiff from the land based on counterclaim.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8687 - 8688/2558.

             When the defendant died The court order setting the defendant to the trustee has no effect. But the inheritance of the inheritance is not inherited by the inheritors of the heirs. The court allowed the couple to be replaced by the defendant. The will has two witnesses, and there is no law forbidding testimony to testify as fingerprints. When it is not revealed that the testimony of the two are prohibited by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1670. The testament to the signature and fingerprints in front of the DHS when the two sign the certificate at the moment. Will testify in accordance with Section 1665. Will be valid according to the form and complete by the law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8623/2558.

   The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to revoke the transfer of land to the land dispute, the two plots are returned to the property for the benefit of the plaintiff, heir and the estate of the plaintiff's estate, the plaintiff's case is a lawsuit. To remove the suffering may be calculated as money. The land price is based on two disputed land. When the 4th and 5th defendants appealed the judgment, the Court of First Instance demanded the dismissal. The appeals court must pay the court fees as in Table 1 (1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Code. Judgment of the Supreme Court 6308/2558. Judgment requires the four defendants as property managers to share the nine plaintiffs and the three petitioners in accordance with the sentence divided by the judgment. However, when the plaintiff 5 as a collective owner, which is entitled to share in the estate of every plot of the dead, the other does not consent. The division of the four defendants can not be done with the consent of all the owners. The case is a division of property. Not a legal act that the plaintiff will hold a verdict of intention to represent the four defendants in the division of the plaintiff's fifth estate as a creditor under the judgment, therefore, have the right to request the enforcement of the Enforcement Officer to enforce the inheritance. Auction When the plaintiff 5 requested to enforce the case, and the Enforcement Officer has seized all property within ten years from the date of the final judgment under the Civil Procedure Code Section 271, but the enforcement has not been completed. Enforcement Officer shall have the power to execute the case until it is completed. The deadline for the execution of the case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6089/2558.

       Even though the deceased was an alien, he bought the land and the defendant was named to the title. It can be said that the land dispute is not the land of Section 86, but the land dispute is not without any effect at all because the deceased is still entitled to the provisions of Section 94 of the. The land in which the disputed land may be sold is within the time prescribed by the Director-General of the Land Department or the Director-General of the Land Department may dispose of the land. The case must be considered as long as the deceased or Director General of the Land Department has not disposed of the land disputes. Disputed land is still dead. When the dead die Disputed land is the legacy of the deceased. The plaintiff as a trustee has the power to sue the defendant to register the transfer of land dispute to the plaintiff. Section 94, then the money to share with the heirs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5433/2558.

            When the Supreme Court ruled that c. Is the owner of the land dispute, T and the demolition of the building removed from the land disputes. According to the Supreme Court, therefore, the plaintiff as the trustee of c. Use the right to sue the defendant as a satellite of the plaintiff in the case when the plaintiff was bound by the Supreme Court in accordance with Civil Code Section 145 The first paragraph of the plaintiff as the trustee of the c. The defendant sued the defendant, a member of the detention of the land dispute.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3444/2558.

            The case before the Court of Appeal has a judgment. The objection does not accept the inheritance of the deceased as a will. The objection is to be disqualified. It can not be held that the objection is a stakeholder in the estate of the deceased. There is no right to request that the court order the removal of the petitioner from the estate of the deceased. And there is no right to ask the objection to be the estate manager of the deceased or the estate of the deceased with the petitioner. The objection does not have the right to remove the cause of the failure to divide the property into a claim that the petitioner did not act as a trustee or act against the inheritance. The Court of Appeal has ruled on the issue of the case. When the objection does not appeal. Judgment of the Court of Appeal to the end. The binding of the petitioner and the objection, which is a couple in accordance with Civil Code Section 145 paragraph one, the opposition will argue otherwise that the objection is a stakeholder in the estate of the dead again. The petitioner filed a petition to withdraw the petitioner from the estate of the deceased. The objection is to be the estate manager of the deceased or the estate manager of the deceased with the petitioner. By the same token, the neglected person does not act as a trustee by not sharing the estate of the deceased with the opposing party and acting against the inheritance of the deceased. It will be the case in another case. The petitioner's objection is a repeat petition filed under Civil Code Section 148

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2052/2558.

              Even the petitioner has no right to inherit the deceased. At the time of filing the petition, the court ordered the removal of the first objectionant and the second objectionant from the estate of the deceased and appointed the trustee as the trustee of the deceased. one The petitioner is a representative of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1569, which filed the petition, the petitioner did not file as a private, but filed as a representative of the petition on the request, in addition to the claim that the property. The legacy of the deceased person also has the claim that the petitioner is told that the deceased will do all the inheritance of the estate. Therefore, the petitioner's request. Barker is the duty of parents to take care of the benefit. Get the estate of the deceased, according to the real. The petitioner as the user of the power of the subject is a stakeholder under Section 1713, who has the right to petition the court to withdraw the trustee, or ask the petitioner to appoint the trustee of the deceased. have

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2046/2558.

           Civil Code Section 24 is not mandatory for the court to issue a preliminary ruling on legal issues at the request of all partners. If the arbitral tribunal considers that the award is not yours to the parties, the parties seeking the case or the case need further action. The Court of First Instance has the power to exercise discretion and order to await the judgment. In considering the petitioner's first petition in the Court of First Instance. The opposing party is not a partner in the case and the issue of the first instance court judgment is about the rightful candidate to be the trustee. No matter whether the testament is lawful or not. The issue of the latter is appropriate to dismiss the petitioner from the estate or not, according to Section 1727 that when there is a justifiable. The court has the power to withdraw the trustee. When the opposing party requests removal of the claimant from the estate of the deceased, the claimant will be the deceased, but the petitioner shall object to the request of the dissenter, the request of the objection and the objection of the petitioner. It is a plea to bring about a dispute. This is different from the first consideration issue. It can not be considered that the Court of First Instance has reconsidered the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 144.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1776/2558.

         The testimony of the person to the true origin of the land sale contract is why the name of the defendant is the transferee. It is not a proof to enforce the contract between the buyer and the seller. It is not an additional proof, truncated, or altered text in the document. It is not prohibited by the Civil Code Section 94 of the death of the defendant jointly borrow money to buy land with townhouses. Before the marriage registration and help with debt repayment, the bank joined the original partnership. However, the ownership of land with townhouses does not appear to have agreed otherwise. It is the ownership of the death of the defendant in half, so when the land with the townhouse is the property that the defendant died before the marriage. It is a private property of the death to the defendant by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1471 (1) The death of the defendant together with the defendant in the purchase of the first marriage. Land with townhouse to mortgage debt. Then there is a debt payment until the mortgage is registered with the name of the defendant after the marriage. It is only the debt repayment process with the defendant. Can not make land with townhouse, which is a private property of the deceased with the defendant before the marriage must become a sinus. Land with townhouses is a legacy of the dead half.

      There is no legal provision requiring the court to establish a trustee to identify the estate of the deceased. The defendant filed a request without specifying another 5 plots in the estate. It is not considered as an obscure legacy. As a result, the defendant must be disposed of the inheritance of the deceased.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1578/2558.

            According to Section 1562, "Any person who sued his or her own civil case or a criminal case. But when that person or his close relative requests In this case, the plaintiff is the descendant who has the right of inheritance of the sergeant, the death of the lieutenant-general, the father of the plaintiff's father, who died before the deceased. And the right to demand that the defendant, the plaintiff as the plaintiff as the estate of the deceased, arranged the inheritance to the plaintiff's civil rights. But the plaintiff sued the defendant to the penalty under Section 1, Section 352, 353, 354 in order to be the first defendant to the penalty. It is the defendant's request to be liable to the plaintiff in a criminal case. The trustee who is guilty of the offense under the provisions of the law and must be punished by criminal law shall be punished in private. Due to the criminal nature of the lawsuit, the lawsuit does not impose penalties as a trustee, as well as liability as a civilian inheritor. The lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant is a provocation. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued the plaintiff. Section 1562, the plaintiff has no power to sue the defendant. The power of lawsuit is a lawsuit against the defendant. There are no doubts. The Supreme Court has raised its own diagnosis under Section 195 paragraph two of Section 225.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1276/2558.

           The plaintiff has the right of inheritance of the plaintiff since the registration of the plaintiff was adopted by the deceased wife, who is the wife of the law of the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is considered a successor. The son of the law of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1627 when the death before the death of the father. The property is a disputed land, which is private property. The spouse is a heir apparent under the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 1629, paragraph two, and has the right of inheritance of MPs under Section 1635, even if the consent of the defendant is a trustee and not interfere with the estate. But when it does not appear that the intention to waive the inheritance under Section 1612 BC, is still legally entitled to legally abolished the legacy of the death of the estate without sharing the estate. The plaintiff, who is the descendant of the inheritance of the plaintiff as a legal successor son. The right to sue the defendant as a manager of the estate of the land dispute as a legacy of the MP in the fall to the defendant is the estate of the MPA, which is obliged to share the inheritance of the heirs. People, including spouses who were alive while the brigade died. The defendant as the estate transfer manager property dispute three legally converted. The only thing that can be shared is the unlawful inheritance. The defendant did not have ownership of the land. And it is considered that the ownership of the registered land in the land is only the possession of the dispute instead of all other descendants of all. Defendant can not raise the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 to fight the plaintiff, who is entitled to inheritance of the MP in the fall, the plaintiff's case is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 842/2558.

            Section 1649, paragraph one and paragraph two. It is expressly stated that the deceased's estate manager shall have the authority and duty to administer the dead body. Must be a legacy of the deceased has set out. This case appears that the court has set the third plaintiff as the estate manager. Yes, the death of the plaintiff is not 3, so the plaintiff has no authority and responsibility to handle dead bodies. Despite the fact that the third plaintiff handled and spent in the funeral of the third plaintiff has no right to sue the five defendants jointly pay the funeral of the third plaintiff, the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The lawyer who has the right to inheritance is the authority and fall into the duty to manage the funeral of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 433 provides that the offender must pay the cost of theft, including expenses necessary. With the other In determining such damages, the court must consider the traditional and morality of the dead. Not all violators are liable. The absence of sponsorship depends on the status of the deceased and the status of the person entitled to foster care. The Court of First Instance dismissed the three plaintiffs for the third to the fifth defendants, without ordering them to pay the fees. And the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal did not judge the defendants 1 and 2 to claim compensation to the plaintiffs under the three rights of each person. The Supreme Court approves the amendment.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 495/2558.

           The land and house disputes. The dead bought and built after the second and the second defendant married. The death penalty must be divided between husband and wife before death. The defendant's second half as soon as death. The second half of the estate is the property of the land and the property belonging to the defendant, not a property as inheritance. As a manager of the inheritance, it is not authorized to register the inheritance and registered the sale to the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff is claiming good faith and compensation. But it does not appear that the defendant 2 conspire with or negligently serious negligence, defendant 2 will be protected and have the right to land and their disputes. The registration of the sale is not binding on the defendant, the second part of the estate and property dispute, which is the inheritance will fall to the heirs, the defendant is a second and a third part equally the land registration and land dispute is transferred. The sole and the sale to the plaintiff. It is an act in the power of the management of the inheritance if the 1st defendant as the heir apparent. It was not right and it was damaged. The plaintiff has the right to sue the plaintiff for the purchase of land and houses on the property of the estate, without appearing that the plaintiff dishonest. I like and bound the defendant to the first and second paragraph of Section 1724 of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1724, paragraph one, when the sale of land and houses in the estate, like and without redeeming the sale. The ownership of the land and the house is part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of the land and the dispute with the defendant, with two equal parts, the second defendant prevented the plaintiff, who owns the property, to use the property dispute. It is a violation of the plaintiff, the defendant, 1 to 3 to 5, which resides in the land and the dispute disrupted the plaintiff's use of property dispute. It is a violation of the plaintiff as well.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 19759/2557.

      Disputed land is land with evidence of title deed. Act of sale between the defendant 1 and 2 to register with the competent. The fact is that. Before the registration of the defendant's 2 defendants to see the land dispute is found that the defendant's land 2 to see the land dispute several times, and asked the villagers near the land dispute has been confirmed that the land dispute is the defendant. 1 on the day of registration of the defendant. The land official said that the defendant can do a lawful sale of land dispute to the defendant when the two defendants sold the first defendant to go to the defendant 2 and get money from the defendant, the second defendant must be the second defendant. Outside of the registration of the purchase of land disputes from the defendant in good faith in the case with the exception of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1300 of the defendant. Transfer than the defendant, the transfer can not be revoked, the sale of goods between the defendant and the first defendant, the first defendant as the estate of the dead in accordance with the court order as a legal representative of the defendant. 1 As a trustee, the trustee registers the inheritance of the deceased person as his or her heirs. It is done according to the general authority of the trustee. Do not need the consent of the heirs, and this act is not against the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code 1719 and 1722, the defendant has the power to do. Although the defendant as the estate of the deceased. Not transfer registered land to other heirs of the deceased. The three plaintiffs and plaintiffs together as well. The plaintiff and the plaintiff both jointly damaged. It is between the defendants 1 as the estate of the deceased with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs together to both defend the two.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 18196/2557.

          The petitioner is the estate's director, who issues money for the mutual benefit of the estate. It is a privilege over the property of the property held by the Enforcement Officer for auction. Enforcement of such property will not affect the rights of the petitioner under Section 287 Civil Code, but the petitioner will be entitled to use when the law enforcement, the property is sold at auction or sold by other means. The money paid to the plaintiff as a creditor mortgagee. The preferred of the petitioner does not appear in the register as follows: the petitioner can request to enforce his rights before the Enforcement Officer will pay the creditor according to the judgment of Civil Code Section 318 to 321

Judgment of the Supreme Court 17502/2557.

            When the plaintiff sued the defendant as a personal transferee of inheritance and as the estate of the MPA claim that the defendant did not like the inheritance to request the court to revoke the transfer of the law and the defendant transferred the estate, which is the property of the property. A lawsuit for inheritance from one heir. It is a legacy. Defendant has the right to life under Section 1754 up the plaintiff. When the facts appear. The plaintiff and all children of K. never followed the management of the estate of the MP and the plaintiff brought the case to sue on June 30, 2008 for 22 years since the death and almost 20 years since. Date of transfer of land to the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff in the property of the age of the Civil Section 1754 paragraph at the end of the plaintiff has no right to sue for the revocation of the law on the transfer of land to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16836/2557.

         The right to own the property under the lease is the inheritance of the heirs. When the defendant is a descendant of the inheritors of the deceased. And have access to the property by paying rent. It can be considered that the defendant has the right to lease the contract without the need to hire a new contract as a direct contract with the plaintiff. The defendant to pay the car for the death of the plaintiff within a year, the debt to the creditors under Section 193/14 (3) cause the age of interruptions. The age of maturity is ten years. From the date the defendant did not pay the lease to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16430/2557.

            His death on April 7, 1981, but no inheritance and inheritance. The age of prosecution of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733 and Section 1754 has not begun to count and the defendant as a trustee of inheritance inheritance as a successor to the defendant has not changed the nature of the retention. The four plaintiffs and K. Do not intend to replace the longer. Defendant can not claim possession, according to Section 1381 and Section 1384.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15972/2557.

           To pay compensation for the case of death or loss of employees, which is legally required to pay monthly, is due for 8 years under the Act of Compensation, BE 2537, Section 18 (4). The compensation will be paid in full in one time or for another period under Section 24, even if the person who has the right under Section 20 (2) In time The full amount of the defendant. However, when the defendant considers it appropriate to pay compensation for not more than one half of the right to receive the compensation under Section 18 (4) one time in full. The first half of the defendant's compensation amount is an agreement between the defendant and the payer for compensation under Section 24, resulting in the replacement of the remaining half. The only way to do this is to get paid for the first four years, even though it appears later that your claim for compensation has ended because you died before the deadline. Pay the remaining half. If the right to receive compensation under Section 18 (4) is right, the right to receive compensation under Section 18 (4) shall be entitled. The person who is entitled under Section 20 does not inherit the heirs under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1600 of the plaintiff, who is not a child and the manager of the estate, but not a person entitled under Section 20 is not entitled to claim. May The attention will be paid to the remaining half of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15308/2557.

               The original court case. Request for inheritance The Court of First Instance ruled that the will made all legacy property to the petitioner and appointed the petitioner as the trustee. The petitioner is a stakeholder in the property of the Royal Thai Navy when RAW died and there was a problem in the management of the estate. The fact is that the first objection to this lawsuit was that the same parents and the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff and the sibling is the same father and mother of the inheritance, divorce, husband and childless before the death of the son of the son of the son of the royal family and the plaintiff. The successor to the 3rd in the successor of the inheritance of the ruler and the plaintiff is the same. When the Court of First Instance ruled in the said case, that the Issuer made all the inheritance property to the petitioner and set the petitioner who is the defendant in this case as the estate manager. It is a decision that the will is legally enforceable. Is not a false testament or a fraud. The plaintiff sued the defendant is another case by claiming that R. no intention to make legacy to the defendant. But the defendant with the deceit. This is the case in the Court of First Instance decision. The reconsideration process under Civil Code Section 144

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14174/2557.

            The plaintiff sued the lawsuit between the defendant and the defendant by the defendant is the main complaint. The plaintiff is the lawful child of A. and the land dispute is the property of the parents of the plaintiff when the plaintiff's father died. Dispute land is an inheritance to the plaintiff as a legal successor of A. The mother of the plaintiff. Land registration and conversion to the defendant by affection. The plaintiff did not know. Defendant to fight that the plaintiff is not the lawful child of A. and A. have no power to sue and the plaintiff's case has expired inheritance. The case has a dispute. The plaintiff is a lawful child of A. and a heir is eligible for inheritance in the land disputes only A. The legacy of inheritance falls under the legacy of inheritance, which prohibits the prosecution of inheritance. After one year But when the inheritance dies. Or ever since the heirs knew or should know the death of the inheritance under Section 1754 paragraph one, and also in the provisions of Section 1754, paragraph four of the Act. "However, Claims as provided in the preceding paragraph shall not be imposed after the expiration of ten years. But when the bridegroom died, "although the lawsuit does not appear that a. However, according to the indictment, a. Died before March 15, 1974, A. filed a petition for land disputes. When counting to the date of filing, April 5, 2007, ten years after the death. The plaintiff's case is due to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph four, even if the defendant is not the heirs or inheritors of the A, but the transferor of the land disputes to the defendant is a spouse who is the heirs of the A. Section 1635 of the defendant is a person who would like to exercise the rights of the heirs of the age of up to fight the plaintiff under Section 1755.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13706/2557.

          The plaintiff and the defendant made a memorandum on the management of the inheritance of the heirs of the family that the defendant alone will be liable for the existing liabilities with the bank. The descendants consent to the land and buildings to the ownership of the defendant. And to the motorcycle business Co., Ltd. with all the existing debt on such business, the defendant is solely responsible. The business of the defendant. The agreement is a sharing of inheritance and debt to settle one of the existing disputes, with each other waiving the same. It is a compromise agreement under Section 850 when the defendant completed the debt to the bank. The defendant shall have the right to land according to the memorandum. The plaintiff's original complaint is that. The plaintiff as the successor of the monk asked to share the inheritance of the defendant as the estate manager of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sold the land title deed No. 39247, which is the inheritance of the e. To outsiders at the price of 1,113,900 baht and has shared some of the heirs, except for the defendant with some heirs have not received a share. The defendant filed a lawsuit to divide the property to the plaintiff and the successor of each of the defendants in the same amount of the defendant's claim to the plaintiff's share of the estate is a title deed no. 39247, the plaintiff sold and said in the lawsuit. I have not divided the defendant. The defendant filed a lawsuit to share the same property that the plaintiff said in the original. It is a counterclaim against the original lawsuit. I would like to finish the same case. Defendant must not be separated into a separate case under Civil Code Section 177 paragraph three.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13705/2557.

         As the estate manager of the registration of the transfer of land dispute as their own personal. It does not appear that R. announced his descendants all that no intention to take possession of the property instead of the successor to the private ownership as a sole owner. It is considered that the possession of land dispute as a legacy of the successor of the other heirs and representatives of the heirs to share the estate until the death. When the defendant 1 to 4 possession of the land dispute, then from the r. It must be considered defendants 1 to 4, occupying the land dispute, instead of the heirs of the same fate, and the land of another conversion does not appear to have been shared. Heir Show that the inheritance of FR must also be shared with the heirs. The inheritance management of the FR has not finished. Age prohibits the heirs filed within five years. Since the management of the estate has not begun, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, so the plaintiff as a land dispute will have the right to track down the land disputes to bring to the heirs. The plaintiff's case is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12093/2557.

                Even the plaintiff sued the defendant as the trustee of the two inheritance. But the defendant did not explicitly stated that. Plaintiff's case is terminated because of a lawsuit regarding the inheritance. To be filed within five years from the management of the end of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, the defendant stated in the statement that the plaintiff sued more than ten years. So it's over. Hold the age that the defendant is claiming. Age of inheritance under Section 1754 has no issue. The plaintiff's case is about the management of inheritance under Section 1733, paragraph two, even if the defendant jointly. The plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the management of the inheritance. But the defendant and the defendant did not share a common interest in the merits of the case. I do not know that the defendant raised the age of inheritance to fight with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 59, the Court of Appeal 2 ruled that the plaintiff's case is out of respect for the management of the inheritance. It is a non-issue. Unlawful It is not raised that is already in the appeal. Even the plaintiff does not petition this. But the problem is a public peace problem. The Supreme Court has the power to lift the decision under Section 142 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11902/2557.

            Amendments to the claims, arguments, or arguments proposed to the court first. The objection must be filed before the date of publication. Or at least seven days before the date of the hearing. Unless there is a reasonable ground that can not be filed before. It is about the peace of the people or a minor error or a minor mistake. According to Civil Code Section 179 (3) and 180 cases are not classified. If the objection is filed, the objection will be filed. As part of the objection, it must be filed before the date of the hearing on October 6, 2009 not less than 7 days, but the respondent filed the complaint on October 9, 2009, it passed the time required by law. The objection alleges that the new testament was discovered in March 2009, if the objection was to change the testament to the objection, the new testament could be applied for a change. The objection has just been filed after the results of the verification of the signature of the m. And the witnesses are finished. I can not hear that there are justified and not the case in the matter of public order. Minor bug fix or minor bug. The court of first instance raised the petition for the amendment of the objection of the objection.

      Even the objections will have the request to order the petitioner's petition and the order set the objection to the estate manager of the M without asking to be the estate manager of the m with the petitioner. However, if the court considers that the appointment of the person who opposes the estate is another, it will be beneficial to manage the inheritance. The court has the power to discretion appoint a joint trustee.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11631/2557.

            Defendant 2 is a trustee of the California Court of Appeals. United States The inheritance of the deceased in the United States. Even later, the Court of First Instance will order the plaintiff and the defendant to be the estate of the deceased together in Thailand. The amount of $ 2,800,000 that the six defendants received due to sharing the estate of the deceased in foreign countries. that Not the money that the six defendants have the liability to pay the dead while the dead are dead. It is not debt owed to the property inherited by the estate manager or heir to the estate under Section 1736, paragraph two, but if the inheritance of the deceased to the six defendants and share. And then each occupied as a section under Section 1599, paragraph one and 1750, paragraph one of the creditors of the estate will use the right to claim debt before or after sharing. It's a legacy we can all do. But when the inheritance. A creditor may call one of his heirs pay no more than the inheritance he has received. In such cases. Any successor who pays debts to the creditors of the inheritance exceeds the portion he or she must take to repay the debt. The descendant has the right to recruit other heirs under Section 1738, paragraph two, so that Bank A. Bank or any of the estate will claim to pay off the money that the six defendants have inherited the inheritance. It is the right of the creditors of the estate to claim any six or all of the defendants. However, as long as the lender of inheritance has not been paid, the heirs who have inherited the inheritance will claim that the inheritance management has been completed as a lien against the inheritance debtors, not only and still be liable to the lender of inheritance only. Inheritance inherited by the heirs under sections 1601 and 1738, paragraph two.

   When it does not appear that the plaintiff has paid the debt to any creditors of the estate to how much. The plaintiff as the descendant of the deceased has no power to sue for recourse to the money that the six defendants or other heirs have the share of such property under Section 1738, paragraph two.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11628/2557.

           Defendant 1 as the estate manager is obliged to divide the estate to the four plaintiffs, but the defendant, but the defendant divided the land to the second and third defendants, without dividing the land to the plaintiff, the four defendants are wrong. In the management of legacy Without the consent of the heirs, all four plaintiffs are not binding. When the 1st defendant as the estate manager has not shared the inheritance to all the heirs according to the rights of the heirs as required by law, the management of the estate is not completed. The defendant 2 and 3 transferred the land dispute from the defendant, so the defendant is the second and third defendants dispossessed land dispute. The four plaintiffs have the right to claim land divided by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1748, paragraph one, may not apply the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph to be applicable. This will only be enforced when the management of the estate is completed.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9554 - 9555/2557.

              This case, the plaintiff sued the defendant is the owner of the estate of the dead. The two defendants together with the defendant, the heirs of the deceased, pay the check payable to the deceased to sign the payment of the share of debt to the plaintiff. I did not describe the defendant as the second heir to the inheritance of the deceased. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is the mother of the dead. While the deceased was alive, no wife and son were legal. Only one defendant, who is the sole heir to the defendant, is the only possessor of the estate of the deceased. I can not hear that the second defendant is the heir of the deceased. The plaintiff, which is a creditor, will claim the debt from the deceased. Considered by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1734 stipulates that the landlords will like, but will receive payment of property in the estate only and Section 1737 that the landlord will enforce claims to any heir. But if there is an inheritor. The creditor called in the case. The law gives creditors the right to demand a heir or trustee. When the second defendant is not the heir or estate manager of the deceased. The plaintiff has no power to sue the second defendant to pay the check payable to the plaintiff to share the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 21793/2013.

        The plaintiff is a property manager of the husband. The civil court has ordered the establishment of a legacy of inheritance. Will have to collect the inheritance to share between the heirs. The estate died on November 9, 1974. The Civil Court ordered the establishment of a legacy on April 9, 2518 by the plaintiff's request to the court that the plaintiff wishes to set up the estate as soon as possible to inherit the estate. Sold between the heirs of the sale of land only in Section 4134 of the deed of the defendant on July 25, 2518 defendants 2 and 3 confirmed that before the agreement. For this land. Take the first plaintiff to defendant's counsel that the two brothers in the land. I believe that the plaintiff knows about the sale of land between the first and second defendants. The sale of land only in Section C of land title deeds No. 4134 is made publicly available. Honestly and remunerated by trading at a price of 500,000 baht, equal to the price stated in the order of the Civil Court while the President of the estate and two witnesses in the contract. In the end of the contract of sale of land only in accordance with the document. 2 Ps. Also provides the words as recorded. As P. As a manager of the estate, it is necessary to sell this land to bring money to the heirs. It is true that the sale is in good faith, without fraud, and has no vested interest in the antitrust of the property. The property of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and the minor to the second defendant land dispute is a legacy of CH. So it falls under the authority of the PAD to be distributed to his heirs. Section 1719 and 1736, paragraph two is not about the use of authority to act as a legal representative of the minor to ask for a permit under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1574. Any act of transfer of land only. heritage During the year, as the trustee of CH. And the defendant, the second lawful effect.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9497/2552.

        The second testament of the deceased is written. "The person I did not name in this testament. I do not wish to inherit any of them, "but in addition to the inheritance land as specified in the will, there are other legacies outside the will. In the testament, there is no text to specify the sale of other properties not specified in the will and not specify the heir who was cut off to inherit clear in accordance with the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1608, paragraph two, so it is not possible that those who do not benefit from the testamentary, including those who are petitioned, are excluded from inheritance. In the testamentary version. The petitioner is still a stakeholder in the estate of the deceased and has the right to file a petition for the removal of the second objection from the estate's successor. The legal issues that the petitioner raised in the petition. Judgment of the Supreme Court 8045/2544. Addressing the second objection as the estate manager, according to the will of the deceased, means that the second objection has the right to manage the estate of the deceased only specified in the testament. The second objection, and the duty to manage the estate beyond the testament, or not specified in the testament, is not in any way is not raised in the Court of First Instance. And the Court of Appeal is another matter. The issue in this case is only whether the second objection is appropriate to the successor of the inheritance. No matter whether the second objection will deal with inheritance not mentioned in the testament. The Supreme Court has prohibited the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 249, paragraph one, but the claimant's arguments in this regard allude to the decision of the Supreme Court in the same case, which may mislead the damage. The verdict of the Supreme Court. This is a problem of public order, so even if the petitioner does not raise this issue, say in the lower court. The Supreme Court justified it. Judgment of the Supreme Court 8045/2544. Judge sets the second objection to the inheritance of the deceased of the death of the dead. It is defined as the rights and obligations under the law that the second objection is an inheritance by the court order. Section 1711 has the right and duty to do the necessary to comply with a clear or implicit statement of will and to manage the inheritance. To share the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1719 does not restrict the second objection as a manager of the inheritance and the right to manage the inheritance only as specified in the will. But let's have the power to manage the inheritance in general. This means that all the inheritance of the deceased is available, whether stated in the will or not. So the Supreme Court argues that. The second objection, which is the inheritance of the Supreme Court in 8045/2544, has no power to manage the legacy outside the will or not specified in the will. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the deviation, claiming that it is self-beneficial to inherit the estate in respect of other property that the deceased is not specified in the will. In the case of the petitioner in this case. The petitioner only asked the court to order the removal of the second objection from the estate of the deceased. Even though the petitioner is appealing and appealing, the petitioner asks the petitioner to be the trustee of the deceased person, but the court can not have the order or judgment to appoint the petitioner as the deceased's estate manager. Because of the prohibition of the Civil Code Section 142 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2220/2552.

        The land dispute is a Sin Somros between the MPs and defendants 1 when MPs died without doing testament. As part of the MPs, one of the defendant's successors is the trustee of MPs. According to the court order, he is the legal representative of the heirs to manage the inheritance. For the benefit of the heirs and heirs. Without the consent of the heirs. Because the authority and responsibility of the trustee to the successor by the chapter. Act of Law The provisions of Law no. 6 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of law.

       The first defendant as a trustee transferred some of the inheritance of private property to themselves. As a spouse's legal successor to MPs and to the second defendant, who is the estate of T., the heirs of another MP, this action is not antagonistic to the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 1722

     The first defendant as the estate of the MPs do not transfer land disputes to other heirs of the MPs, including the five plaintiffs, it is between the defendants as the estate manager of the MPs and plaintiffs. That would be the same. Thus, the defendant as the estate of the transfer of land disputes to the second defendant as a successor of T estate of the MPs, so it is in accordance with the authority of the estate must be done. Self-employment under Section 1719 and Section 1723

      The fact is that the land has been disputed with the building, which is the property of the MP alone since the death. The other heirs, including the five plaintiffs, did not share the property. In this case, there is no legal support for the property to be replaced by another heir. It is not required by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1748, the plaintiff filed the case for more than one year, thus expiring under Section 1754, paragraph one.

    When the right of inheritance to T.T. from October 6, 2529, which is one year from the death of the brigade to the death of the defendant 2 to 6 as the heirs of the right to inherit. Both the defendant is a trustee of the two defendants that the defendants 2 to 6 who would like to use the rights of another heir to raise the age of one year to fight the plaintiffs under Section 1755.

    The defendant filed a petition as a trustee and sought to separate the estate legacy. From the other heirs of MPs including the 1st defendant to the right to claim legacy. It is a filing to change the registration document to complete the right to property only. It is for the benefit of another heir, who has the right to file a lawsuit against the estate. Legitimacy by the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1839/2551.

        Defendant 2 is the estate of the deceased, together with the defendant in accordance with the order of the court has the power to file a lawsuit and counterclaim under Section 1736 paragraph two, but the defendant filed a second and. Filed as a trustee of the deceased only one without a defendant in conjunction with Article 1726, the defendant 2 alone has no power to file a statement of defense and counterclaim.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1840/2551.

The Old Person Aid Office is not a juristic person. But under the management of the provincial administration, the deceased will make the will to the guardianship of the elderly people f the inheritance of the deceased. The appointment of a natural person as the guardian of the shelter to be. The inheritance is not the appointment of a home. F. Later filed a petition with the court to set the petitioner as the deceased estate manager. But the appointment of the applicant is absolutely not. Because the objections were objectionable. In case of failure of the inheritance of the deceased person The objections also raised the objection to the estate manager. The Court of First Instance shall order the suspension of the inquiry and order the petitioner's petition. But the petitioner's request against the objections. And the order follow the case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4824/2551.

The succession of one heirs to inherit the inheritance management is considered a lawsuit against the other heirs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5722/2551.

The complainant and the dissenter do not dispute about the right to claim property. The inheritance of the dead in any way. Just dispute that. The petitioner or the objection should be the trustee of the deceased. The advantage of the objections in this case is that it will be the manager of the estate. Dead or not It's not about getting a share in the legacy of the deceased. The petitioner's petition for temporary cessation of legalization and forbidding To do any legal act on the property is not about the interests of the opposition. Available in the lawsuit The court must order the protection order during the consideration process. Or to enforce the verdict as prescribed in Civil Code Section 264

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1854/2551.

The offender is an illegitimate son that was approved by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1627, but the effect of such legislation only to be considered a child as a legitimate son is entitled to inherit the father. This has resulted in the unlawful father being a legitimate father. The inheritance of a child as a heir in accordance with Section 1629. No objection, the father is dead, is not the heir or the interest in the estate of the deceased has no right to refuse or request the court to set himself as the trustee of the person. The problem is that the law will be raised to adjust the case already. The case is not required by Section 4 to determine the case in accordance with local custom. Or a comparable law. Or diagnosed according to general law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1128/2551.

Although the court ordered the plaintiffs to be the estate of the MPs together, but it does not mean that the actions of many inheritors under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1726. The trustee must jointly do or join. Sign in every act. The plaintiff signed a letter of credit as the creditor and the sole trustee, the second plaintiff, who is another trustee, consents, it must be considered a deal. Legacy In addition, the debt book is not a debt contract. The books that the debtor made by accepting that they are actually debtors. Creditors need to find a partner as well. When the letter of credit is a letter that the defendant made 2 by accepting that he owes a loan to the estate, although the plaintiff as the estate of the MP will not sign or sign it. The receipt of the debt was fully legal and applicable to the two defendants who accept the debt.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1840/2551.

In this case, the deceased will make a will by identifying the applicant as a trustee. But the inheritance will be determined by the will. The objection was that the deceased did not do. The signature of the testator is not the signature of the deceased. So, there is a problem in the management of the inheritance of the dead, so the claimant who inherited the inheritance of the deceased. So it is possible to file a request to the court to set up a trustee under Section 1713, Section two.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1397 - 1399/2551.

As a heir apparent in the same fatherhood under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1629 (4), unless the law does not require that. The same father must be the lawful son of the same father. To interpret that law, the same brother must be the lawful son of the same father. The same father and mother can only be obtained when the marriage between the father and the mother ends. This is an interpretation that makes law enforcement narrower than the legal provisions of the law. And not the purpose of the provisions that give the heirship as a relative. The closest closest is in the order of inheritance and cut off the relative. In the next to no right to the estate of the deceased under Section 1630, both the brothers are together have the provisions of the right to duty. For example, if a father and son are lawful, then the same father and son must be considered when the first and the deceased have the same father, even the deceased. Unlawful child The father considered the petitioner 1 and the deceased as the same father, the first petitioner is a descendant of the prosecutor under Section 1629 (4) when the deceased has no heir in another order higher than the petitioner. 1st, the 1st applicant has the right to inherit the deceased. The objection is only the son of the monk, the uncle of the dead by the heirs of the prosecutor in Section 1629 (6), when the first candidate, who is the 4th inferior heir. So, there is no right of inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1630, paragraph one, so that the opposition has no right to property, so the three petitioners have the right to request the court to set the claimant to be the administrator. Of the caller death The objection has no such right under Section 1713.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 850/2008

The stakeholder who requests to be a trustee under Section 1713 does not need to be a stakeholder in the estate of the deceased as a direct descendant. If the heir has the right to inherit death, before inheriting the inheritance. The successor of the heirs is a stakeholder in the estate of the deceased. Request a legacy.

I'm the father of the prof. The inheritance of Prof. will be descended from the successor of Prof., including MPs, but died before the sharing of the property. The inheritance of the Prof. fall is the inheritance of the successor of the MPs, including the father of the father died later. This inheritance will be handed over to the heirs of the petitioner who is the successor of the heirs. The lawful child of the estate shall be the owner of the ownership of the estate, which is the property of the professor. The petitioner has the right to request that the petitioner be the trustee of the prof.

The petitioner requests that the petitioner be the estate's trustee, and the petitioner alleges that due to a disruption in the management or sharing of inheritance with the title holder, The court ordered the death. As a result, there is no manager of the estate and the management of the estate is not finished. When the petitioner has the right to request the management of the inheritance property of the estate, then there is no need to request the management of the estate of the MPs and the same land again.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 339/2551.

Living at A. and the defendant is a person entitled to use both the plaintiff's plaintiff's estate when the two defendants dismantled the house, which is already a house. Resident rights are down. There is no house to be entitled under Section 1402 and Section 1408 of the two defendants planted house instead of the. Permanent death without the consent of the plaintiff, the two find a cause. No new land and the land of the disputed land belongs to the owner of the land. Disputes under Section 144, both of which are planted in the property of others in bad faith under Section 1311, the plaintiff sued the two defendants evicted from the land disputes and house enough. Both plaintiffs as the estate manager of the wishing to keep the house under Section 1311 so that when the two defendants have no rights in land disputes and houses. Both plaintiffs as inheritance managers, as required by Section 1719 and Section 1736 paragraph two, have the power to sue the two defendants without notice.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4116/2550.

The four plaintiffs sued the defendant, the estate's manager, according to the court order, claiming that the defendant handled the inheritance by legacy accounting and legacy division. It is a case of inheritance management. The age requirement of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, when the inheritance of the defendant must be distributed to heirs and management of the inheritance has not ended, so it does not start counting the law. And by reason of the defendant's inheritance, he is liable to the heirs under Section 1720 in the manner of representation as provided in Section 809 to 812, 819 and Section 823 of the defendant possession of land, which has half a legacy. Hold it as a replacement for the heirs. The defendant will raise the age according to Section 1754 to fight his heir.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1625/2550.

Opponent 1 did not register the marriage with the second protester, the mother of the deceased. And I do not live with my husband husband before the enforcement of Civil and Commercial Code 5, which is enforced. The use of the provisions of Part 5 of the Civil and Commercial Code BE 2477, the first objection to the father is unlawful of the dead. Although the deceased is an illegitimate child, the first objection has already been certified by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1627, but the effect of the law is only to be considered dead person who is the deceased. Just like a legitimate child is entitled to inherit the father. This has resulted in the unlawful father being a legitimate father. The inheritance of the child as a heir in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1629, when the first objection is not the heirs or stakeholders in the estate of the deceased. There is no right to object or request the court to set himself as the estate manager of the deceased and can not argue that the will is a false or ineffective testament.

The petitioner filed a petition to set the petitioner as the trustee of T. According to the testament, the second objection filed. The will of the claimant is a false will because the signature in the box. The will is not the signature of the deceased and does not comply with the law. It is not enforceable. The second objection that the deceased do the testament while not conscious. The second objection was not raised as a matter of controversy. It is a petition that has not been raised in the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. It is not a problem with public order. Prohibition of petition The Supreme Court does not recognize

The will of the deceased is required to set the singer as a trustee and the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1713, at the end, the court has set the petitioner as the trustee of the deceased. Even if the second objection is the mother and heir of the deceased, there is no reason for the objection to be the trustee.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1099/2550.

The testament to the land disputes and all other property to the applicant as a testament to the document, R. 4, which is the son of a road that was cut to inherit the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1608, paragraph two. I do not have the right to file a petition to the court to set up a trustee under Section 1713, but when the court ordered the property manager of the road. It is obligatory to perform. The share of the estate to the petitioner, who is the recipient. The will as provided in Section 1719, and will do any act, which has a stake in the antidote to the property and the petitioner that he is a user. As a trustee of the property and as the user of the governing power of the petitioner to transfer the land dispute, which is the inheritance of the road, which is handed over to the petitioner as his own. I do not share the inheritance inheritance inheritance, but it is legal acts to have an interest in opposing the inheritance of the road, which is prohibited by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1722. Void under Section 150 and the business of the benefit of the administrator of the contrary to the interests of the minor. Not allowed by the court to void according to Section 1575 is considered as not having a legal transfer. The ownership of land dispute as well as the building is still the legacy of the road, which is the owner of the original owner will not belong to the ownership of the land without the ownership of land disputes and buildings, then no right to mortgage. To any of the plaintiff is the mortgage of the land and buildings from the House of Commons will not result in the plaintiff has the right to mortgage. Although the plaintiff is claiming that the mortgage in good faith, the plaintiff has the right to follow. No mortgage law The mortgage is not binding on the landlord, the real estate dispute.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 661/2550.

There are two resident monks, two monks, the temple and the objection of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 38 shall be regarded as one of the domicile of the person. It must be considered a temple of another Buddhist monk. When the monk had inherited property and had trouble managing the inheritance. The petitioner as a public prosecutor shall have the right to request the court. The court of the inheritance is domiciled in the court at the time of death. According to the Civil Code Section 4, the first paragraph to appoint a trustee under Section 1713

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6827/2549.

The objections to the deceased will be in my husband's spouse's usual openly normal husband's wife. The opposition also supported the real estate business of the deceased by agreeing to be a guarantor as the debtor together with the deceased to pay outstanding tax debt. As the guarantor of the joint debt. The objection has the right to recourse from the estate of the deceased for money and interest and for any loss or damage. Because the guarantee. The objection is therefore a person who must be harmed by the rights and duties of the creditors. Division of inheritance of the dead. It is considered to be a stakeholder to petition the court to set up a manager. The legacy of the death under Section 1713, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2214/2549.

The case before the objection has filed a petition to the Court of First Instance. Ask the objection to the estate of the deceased and the Court of First Instance has the final order to appoint the objection to the estate. The petitioner filed another petition requesting the petitioner to be the manager of the deceased. The opposition objected to the request to set the objections to the trustee. The objections of the objections to the petition filed with them. Prohibited by the applicant to the same subject again under Section 173 paragraph two of Section 173 (1), the petitioner's request. When this legacy is finally ordered, set the inheritance manager. The petitioner has no power to file a request to set up the trustee. As a result of the removal of the objection from the deceased's estate, this is not the case. The petitioner would like to request the revocation of the objections of the deceased's estate manager. Judgment of the lower court, both of which set up the same trustee, is not the same.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1523/2549.

Law on the establishment of inheritance in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1713, paragraph two, that the establishment of the inheritance. If there is a will, then the court will set the will. And if there is no will, then the court set up for the benefit of the inheritance. This is the case with the intention of the inheritance, as the case may be. When it is said that the singer, the eldest of the dead rarely contact with the dead. And not to participate in the charity of the dead. The singer has been living with his grandmother since he was young and has been married since 1966. The singer has a relatively distant relationship with the deceased. To make the claimant an estate manager should not be the intention of the deceased's inheritance, the petitioner acknowledges that the deceased heir has two different views. The singer is aggressive and unreliable. It is believed that if the singer is appointed as the estate of the deceased. The inheritance management is not smooth and does not follow the intentions of the inheritance. The one-on-one opposition to the deceased's estate manager should be more appropriate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 36/2549.

While the petitioner and the deceased entered into a land sale agreement. The land is not subject to land transfer to another person within ten years under Section 31 of the land and still within the time limit for the transfer. The land sale contract is a juristic act with the purpose. Prohibited manifest by the law is void under Section 150 no matter how long the petitioner. I do not have custody. And even if the deceased agrees to transfer the land to the petitioner at the end of the time the transfer is not possible. The applicant is not a creditor of the deceased who will be forced to transfer the land. The conversion to the petitioner. It can not be held that the petitioner is an interested party in order to petition the petitioner. Is the estate of the dead?

Judgment of the Supreme Court 30/2549.

Although during the Supreme Court's consideration The petitioner and the opposing party agree that the petitioner agrees that the petitioner is the estate manager of the deceased person. However, the agreement was only agreed upon in the case. Because there are issues that the court must consider the facts in the phrase, and then determine the rights and qualifications of the person who will be the legal administrator before. The Supreme Court can not be judged according to a compromise agreement.

The petitioner is the wife of the deceased is an interest under Section 1713, the first paragraph has the right to apply for the estate of the deceased. And the petitioner is qualified to be a legal administrator. There is a disruption in the management of the estate of the deceased. Together with the petitioner and the opposing party, the petitioner shall be the sole trustee of the deceased person. Should see the singer as the estate of the deceased.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 603/2549.

Although the plaintiffs' estate sharing agreement is forbidden to prosecute. There is no evidence in the signature of the party that is liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1750, paragraph two, but the plaintiffs both filed a lawsuit against the estate of the two plots. Defendant is exercising the right of the plaintiff to inherit the property, which is entitled to inherit from the defendant as the defendant is the estate of the plaintiff, both plaintiffs are the legitimate heirs of the inheritance is entitled to. Divide the inheritance with other heirs in both land plots of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1629, Section 1725, Section 1357.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3381/2549.

Article 2 of the testament requires the ownership of the two plots of land to be transferred to the will. Only the beneficiaries will benefit from the land. The foundation, which is the case where the inheritor will testify after the will. The inheritance of the will. And the inheritance is already beneficial. This requirement is not invalid under Section 1706 (3)

The text in clause 3 states that cash is provided to MPs and petitioners. From the above statement, the petitioner and the MPs are the only caretakers. They can not claim the ownership of such cash for the petitioner and MPA and do not expressly declare that such petition is made to any person. The requirements of testament to Article 3 is void under Section 1706 (2) (3)

When the requirements of Article 3 are legally invalidated, the inheritance will be handed over to the heirs under Section 1699, the petitioner is not the heir of the estate. The objections of the three are the heirs of the inheritance should be the objection of both. The third is a legacy estate trust, which is deposited at a bank with a legacy estate. Unilaterally

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6473/2548.

Section 1727, paragraph one, one of the interested parties will request the court to withdraw the trustee. Because the neglected estate manager did not do the job. Or why else? But as the objection raised, claiming that the property was not your property. Legacy, but the objections. It is not legal grounds to request the court to withdraw the petitioner from being. Inheritance

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3568/2548.

The estate manager of the transfer of land disputes, which is a property to the first defendant, who is not a descendant who died without compensation and dishonesty, then the defendant is registered transfer to the second defendant by the plaintiff's successor. The deceased has the power to sue the transfer of the act as Section 1300.

Defendant 1 and 2 are not the heirs of the deceased, so it may not be applicable to Section 1754 of this case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2671/2548.

The defendant, who is a joint trustee, entered into a compromise agreement in court. Share estate legacy and the defendant withdraw from being a trustee. The court will judge by then. When it appears that the plaintiff did not give consent, neither signed the contract. The plaintiff is not bound by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 145. In both cases, the defendant and the defendant misconstrued the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1719, so the plaintiff as a legal successor, stakeholders and rights. Inheritance Sue filed the estate to the defendant was able to get under Section 1745, Section 1363.

Section 1613 provides that the inheritance. Renunciation to do so only partially or to do without the condition or the time limit, to allow the defendant to divide the property to the defendant so that the defendant is free of inheritance and will not interfere with other legacy property. It is prohibited by law. So I do not know how to take a legacy.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3039/2548.

The petitioner requests that the petitioner be named as the trustee. Opposition petitioners object that the petitioner is inappropriate. Ask the objection to the estate of the deceased. The petitioner and the oppositor are the stakeholders who will be entitled to file a petition. Is the inheritance and reasonable to set up a trustee? The applicant is not the real co-owner of the estate, which is the property of the estate. Is a matter of

Both the petitioner and the petitioner are not the children of the deceased. The dead are not registered. The petitioner and the objectioner are not the decedents of the deceased. However, because the petitioner has the title of holding the dead in the land, the petitioner. As a stakeholder under Section 1713, it is possible to file an application for establishment as a trustee. Have a stake in the estate of the deceased. There is no right to oppose the establishment of a trustee. I do not have the right to ask for a legacy. Where it does not appear that the petitioner is a person prohibited from inheritance under Section 1718, the lower court both has an order appointing the petitioner as the estate of the deceased under Section 1713. The right and duty to administer the inheritance only in section The ownership of the. I like the land.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2733/2548.

The dead have no children and wife. The parents of the deceased passed away, and the legacy of the deceased fell. The same father and mother with the dead, including the LLP under Section 1629 (3), when the deceased later without sharing the inheritance will be received. The successor, however, appears to have passed away before the inheritance of the plaintiff will be given to the petitioner and f. The successor of the inheritance under Section 1639, the petitioner has a vested interest in the estate. And when Notes failure to manage the estate. The petitioner is entitled to request an estate manager under Section 1713 (2)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 851/2547.

Section 1719 states that "the trustee has the right and the duty to perform the necessary to comply with the word. Make clear or implied will. And to manage the inheritance in general or to share the inheritance, "provided that the trustee is obliged to collect the inheritance. To share with his heirs when the inheritance is owned in a land dispute. Both plaintiffs as the estate manager of the MPs have the right to sue for land disputes to inherit the land. To share to his successor.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9295/2547.

As the owner of the estate, I made a legal transfer of the inheritance of two disputed land. Not a heir Even in return for private money repayment mortgage redemption instead of inheritance. It is a general heritage management. There is no power to act because it is antagonistic to the inheritance. When the deceased did not do the will and allowed without permission from the court, thus violating the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1722 will be void. Both land disputes are still inherited property of the deceased.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9217/2547.

Section 1716 stipulates that the duties of the trustee of the court set out from the date of hearing or considered hearing the court order, and Section 1728 (2) provided that the estate manager must set up a tribunal account. Inheritance within 15 days from the date of commencement of the inheritance function under Section 1716, when the facts are known. From the date the Court of First Instance ordered the petitioner and the objection to the manager. The legacy of the deceased together. There is, however, a claimant who earns a legacy account and contacts the opposing party. Even if the objections are reasonable enough in the crash. Especially if you do not go to the appointment to jointly account the estate of the deceased. Because of the trip to the tour that was purchased before. But when the objections are obsolete. It will be a good day for the party. Yes, it is the obligation of the single party. It is an obligation to work together to complete the mission. In addition, when considering the fact that when the petitioner has made the account. Legitimacy of the dead, the Court of First Instance. The objection to the request to copy, but the only object. Not the legacy of the dead If it is the property of the objection and testify that the estate of the deceased. In the possession of the petitioner. The answer to the question asked by the complainant that the objections are not involved. The business of the deceased has since 1998, and the objections are 80 years old. In 2004, if it continues to be a joint-estate manager. The inheritance management will continue to be problematic and not be settled as it should reasonably be. Removed the objection of the estate of the deceased with the petitioner under Section 1727, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4027/2545.

The authority of the deceased person's estate is British and is governed by the estate. The English court's order will be in accordance with the law of any country. Act on the conflict of law But according to the Act does not mention the power of the trustee. Any law required. Therefore, it is necessary to apply the general rules of international law department of the case under Article 3 of the said Act. According to the general rules. The applicable law may be the nationality or the law of domicile. When the plaintiff is a British citizen and domiciled in England, so whether the law of nationality or the law of domicile. The law that applies to the case is the law of England. Use of foreign law is mandatory in this case, it is the plaintiff's duty to give evidence. See how foreign law is defined. When the plaintiff did not attest to the court, it is clear that the law of England. Act like that. In this case, the law in Thailand is required under Section 8 of the Act on the Interference of Laws. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1715 is about how many people are inheritors of the will. If some inheritors are unable or unwilling to handle There is also a leftover inheritance manager who has the right to manage the inheritance alone, but the plaintiff is a trustee. Section 1715 can not be enforced when the monk died of a legacy. The plaintiff alone will prosecute this case alone, without asking the court to order. Allowing yourself as a trustee alone is a violation of the plaintiff's order. No power to sue the defendant. The power of lawsuit is a problem of law relating to public order. There is no party to any petition. The Supreme Court has raised its own discretion. Code of Civil Procedure Code Section 142 (5), Section 246 and Section 247, and the Bankruptcy Act Section 153

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1443/2544.

Defendant 1, the estate manager of the contract to sell the land disputes to the plaintiff. Without the consent of another estate manager. It is not a law that has been approved by the majority of the law. Section 1726 of the Civil and Commercial Code does not oblige the inheritance under Section 1724. Subsequent consent b. Do not make the act is not a complete legal act, the plaintiff has no right to ask the defendant 1 and B. The contract is to be traded when the defendant 2 and 3 contracted to purchase land disputes from the defendant at 1 and later for a fee. And then registered. It is not done by knowing that it is a way for the plaintiffs. The plaintiff has no right to sue for the revocation of the transaction between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 and 3 under Section 237.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7448/2544.

Although the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1728 and Section 1729 require the applicant to complete the estate account within the time limit. The law states The format of the account must be in accordance with Section 1729, but the petitioner was appointed as a trustee of the property is not the only property that has not been managed only two items, the land only two plots and the applicant has. Already I will not follow the law. The estate of the petitioner must be managed only two items and no hassle for management, so that the petitioner does not prepare a legacy account in the form and within the time required by law. Section 1729 is not enough to assume that the petitioner does not account the property, which is not ignored. Perform duties as a trustee. The case is not enough to remove the petitioner from being a trustee.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5710/2544.

The plaintiff sued the inheritance is not suing the defendant liable for the duties performed. Go as a legacy manager It is a legacy case, not a case of inheritance.

The fact remains that there are 3 other legacy plots that the defendant as a trustee has not managed to divide. Heritage management is still in the process of management. When the defendant is a trustee, he is the representative of the heirs. The representative shall apply mutatis mutandis under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1720 that the defendant possesses the inheritance during the management of the inheritance can be considered as possession. The successor to Section 1745, Section 1368, the three plaintiffs who are descendants prefer to file for inheritance from the defendant, even through. Termination under Section 1754 under Section 1748.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2789/2543.

The taxpayer's liability is limited to that of a limited partnership, as a managing partner of that limited partnership under the Code. Civil and Commercial Section 1077 (2) and 1087, when the death The liability in debt, tax, and so on to the heirs under Section 1599 and 1600. And when the estate creditors have not yet received the debt, so the inheritance is still considered. In the course of management, the trustee would like to do any necessary management in accordance with Section 1736, where the defendant made a record of repayment of outstanding taxes, taxes and duties as a heir and as his successor. Managing Partner, Partnership To carry out any administrative action necessary to pay the taxes owed by the estate.

After the first 9 months, the defendant as the trustee of the debt repayment to repay another debt. The defendant made a second record of debt repayment both as a heir and a judge. As the estate manager The defendant made the record to request repayment of tax debt. Remainder as has been recorded in the first repayment agreement. The plaintiff is a creditor of the estate will enforce claims to the defendant as a heir. Article 1737

Although the defendant will make a record of repayment without dispute. However, the liability of the defendant as the heir of the inheritance of the heirs shall not be liable to exceed the inheritance of their inheritance under Section 1601. In addition, the defendant as a trustee is not liable under Section 1724 with this problem. The law of public order, although not raised, and ruling in the tax court. Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Pick up the diagnosis itself.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1217/2543.

Legitimacy The court has a set of mandates that have the power and duty to do the necessary things. To comply with express or implied orders of will and to manage the inheritance. General or to share legacy And it is the responsibility of the trustee to manage themselves. I can not do it. Except in the case of exceptions, the trustee shall provide the agent with the authority. Provided explicitly Or implicitly in will Or by court order In the case of inheritance, the estate manager has a court order. Yes, the agent of the heirs. The authority and responsibility of the trustee against the heirs is ensured by the provisions of the law. Therefore, it is the legal representative of the heirs to administer the inheritance for the benefit. Heirs and heirs The heir has the power to order the trustee to do only the manager. The inheritance shall be liable to the heirs by the law mutatis mutandis, to apply certain provisions of the representative nature and the heirs shall be in control of the inheritance management of the inheritance. In the power of will and law. It also has the power to ask the court to remove the neglected estate manager does not comply with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1729,1731,1726,1732 and 1727 paragraph two is the case where the law provides for the court to supervise the estate manager. duty As prescribed by law So how to manage the inheritance, which is the authority of the inheritor to do it himself. And the court has no power to enforce the trustee's compliance with the resolution of the meeting.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5141/2543.

The inheritance must be managed by the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 1723. The plaintiff must be finally sentenced to imprisonment. They can not manage their inheritance. The reason for the imprisonment is due to the misuse of property of others. As a property manager, there are circumstances that are not appropriate. Heritage

According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1722 prohibits the court to set up a legacy and do any legal acts, which they have an interest in opposing the inheritance legacy of their own. Does not mean The law allows the estate to be set up as a trustee.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2475/2543.

Even the land where the requestor manages the inheritance will be the property that the deceased has before the marriage. A personal death of the dead. The petitioner is the lawful spouse of the deceased, the petitioner is a legitimate heir under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1629, paragraph two petitioner is entitled to request to set the petitioner as a trustee under Section 1713 and under the Chapter. The law restricts only the interested parties to the request, not when the requestor has been disqualified. The person who is entitled to inherit is a stakeholder in the estate of the deceased.

The court ruled that The petitioner has no right to request that the trustee be established without a true statement of whether it is appropriate to appoint the petitioner as the trustee. The petitioner specifically appeals the litigant directly to the Supreme Court, with the court's permission. First class under the Civil Procedure Code Section 223 bis in the legal problem that the petitioner has the right to request the estate manager. And to set the petitioner as a trustee when the evidence in the statement is sufficient. Judgment The Supreme Court should consider the facts without going back to the Court of First Instance. New Judgment

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2526/2543.

Land transactions between the petitioner and the deceased. The dead will have to register the transfer of ownership to the petitioner after the title deed. It is only a contract to trade. If the repayment under the contract to buy land is not possible. The land of the deceased who later deeded to be prohibited from transfer within 10 years under the land, causing the deceased to leave the debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 219, first paragraph, do not have to register the transfer of land to the person. cry But the deceased is entitled to receive compensation for the land price does not comply with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 372 first paragraph, the deceased must return the price of land to the petitioner. When the dead is not refunded. It can be considered that the petitioner is a creditor. And have the right to ask the court to set up the inheritance manager of the land in accordance with the Civil Code Section 1713

The petitioner is the creditor of the stakeholder in the estate of the deceased. And in case of necessity And with the petitioner is not a crazy person. Never been ordered by the court to be quasi-incompetent. Or is bankrupt before No one objected. Should be appointed as the estate of the deceased.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 263/2543.

The dead are the aunts of the petitioner and the first objection. 1 is the sister of the same mother and father. The second objection is the child of the first objection. The abuser resides with the first objection and supports the second objection. The second objection is still a child when the objection is second. The second protester raised the dead all the way to death with old age. The dead have no spouse and their parents have passed away. The deceased voluntarily made his will. And the testament is a complete testament. When the petitioner is not a testator But both of them opposed the inheritance of the inheritance. The applicant is not a descendant and a stakeholder. There is no reason to call the governor.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6804/2542.

The cost of registration of the transfer of ownership of the estate must be used. The actual payout is the legal expense. It can be deducted from the property. Even the registration of land transfer may be subject to miscellaneous charges and fees. The other two defendants claimed, but there is no evidence that. It is true and it is legally required. The plaintiff has not objected to the two defendants can not bring such expenses deducted from the estate. For pensioners, the estate is governed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1721. The estate manager is not entitled to receive a pension from the property, unless the will or The descendants by a large number will be determined. When the inheritance was not made and the heirs did not consent to the defendant. Deduct cost Heritage can not deduct expenses. But for the funeral management, which included in the merit making hall of the school. Because funeral management is a necessity, it must be handled according to the customary cost. The inheritance manager will deduct from the inheritance before the legal heirs to share. The heirs in the same line with the plaintiff will accept any amount of inheritance. The specificity of each heir. When the plaintiff did not inherit. The right of the plaintiff to have to comply with the law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 551/2542.

The three plaintiffs are the estate of the plaintiff as a plaintiff sued the defendant and the defendant to get out of the market dispute. Judge finally the three plaintiffs won the case and was later enforced. It does not appear that plaintiffs 1 and 2 can not or are unwilling to handle. The case is many inheritors. Each of the three plaintiffs can not be managed alone. The actions of the trustee must be considered by the majority, so when the plaintiffs 1 and 2 plaintiff's objection to the plaintiff's request to refrain from enforcing the case under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1726, the plaintiff may not. Act alone

Judgment of the Supreme Court 802/2542.

Even the person who opposes the redemption of the land is inherited from the bank. But when the objection does not deliver the land certificate. The inheritance of the petitioner, the manager of the petitioners can not handle. The inheritance to the heir. The objection to the redemption of land. The bank does not claim to deliver the certificate. The petitioner can not divide the inheritance to the heirs because of the reason. It is not the fault of the singer. In addition, the objections are inherited. The petitioner is the mother who opposes and is the wife of the inheritance and all parties know well. What are the legacies? The petitioner does not prepare a legacy account is not enough that the petitioner intended to conceal the inheritance, the petitioner does not call a heir apparent that heirs of some of the inheritance. Some of them are located in the provinces, so it is difficult to convene them. The petitioner did not convene the congregation because of such reasons, it is not enough to hear that the petitioner ignored. Do not act And even if the petitioner does not make a legacy account under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1728 and 1729, but Section 1731 will give the court the power to consider whether. Is there any justification to withdraw the trustee? According to such circumstances, there is no reason to order the withdrawal of the petitioner. Heritage

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8073/2542.

When the land is requested, the applicant is the trustee, not the property of the trustee. The claim is that the legacy of the deceased. The applicant can not claim that there is a problem in the management of the estate of the person. Death even after the deceased. The land official refuses to change the title in the deed from the deceased to the petitioner. The petitioner has no right to petition the petitioner to be the estate's deceased person.

The objection of the opposing party requesting the objection to be the estate manager of the deceased. The land is at the request of the deceased and the inheritance is the objection. And the singer is not the heir of the deceased. No interest in inheritance. But the objection does not claim. There are no objections to the management of the estate of the deceased. Requesting the objection to be the estate manager of the deceased as well.

Singers and opponents argue that. Which party has the right to land on a request to set up a trustee? When a party considers that he or she has been disputed by the other party I like to present my case, demanding land from the parties directly disputed. There is no dispute over the need to set up an estate manager because it is not beneficial to the estate. The case of the petitioner and the objection is not required by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1713 (1) (2) to apply to the court to set up a manager. This is according to the Code. Article 55: This issue of public order. The court raised its own diagnosis.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7719/2542.

The petitioner, who was the estate's deceased, ordered the court to divide the estate. The death order of the dead. All the heirs, including the dissenter, agree. The legacy of the petitioner is legal. When other heirs, including those who have objected, have registered to inherit their inheritance, and no other inheritance property is to be distributed to the heirs. Management of the inheritance will end. The inheritance manager is responsible for all of his rights as a trustee. The objection can not be asked to withdraw the petitioner from the trustee even though the objections are still not applicable to the registration of the estate. It is for the benefit of their land under the agreement.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5130/2541.

The petitioner filed a petition that. After this trial, the petitioner found that the sisters had the same father and mother as the deceased and had three surviving children. These three persons were the heirs of the inheritance instead of the inheritance. Of the deceased First, the objections. The opposition is not a stakeholder in the estate of the deceased. When it is not raised that is already in the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court will not be diagnosed. Even if the petitioner does not specify in the petition to set the estate manager's death An objection is the heir of the deceased can not be regarded as a heir or conceal the inheritance. The applicant does not specify that the land along the building is the property of the deceased. In that application. When there is no provision of law that requires a court order to set manager. The inheritance must specify all the estate of the deceased and upon request to the court. As a manager of the deceased's estate, the petitioner simply states that the petitioner requests a withdrawal from the Savings Bank. The bank notifies the applicant and notifies the petitioner of the petition. Let the court set the claimant as a trustee. The claimant can not withdraw the money deposited with the bank. Saving is an excuse that the petitioner must file a petition to the court to set the petitioner. Manage the inheritance of the deceased only. The petitioner stated that in addition to the deposit in the savings bank. The dead have no other legacy anymore. And if the court set the petitioner is the estate of the deceased. The petitioner is legally obliged to complete the estate account within a month and share the inheritance to the heir within one year from the date of commencement of the function of the trustee. With buildings As the estate of the deceased in the request to the court set up the estate of the deceased, it is not an obscure property. With the building This will cause the singer to be eliminated. Not to inherit as provided in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1605. There is no reason to order the withdrawal of the petitioner. As a legacy of the deceased.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6557/2541.

Section 66 and 67, a juristic person shall have the same rights and duties as a natural person, except such rights and duties shall not be within the power or duty. The purpose of this is as stated in the law. Regulations or instruments The condition is to be available only to individuals. The right and duty of the trustee is not a right and a duty. It should be possible only for individuals. And the person who is prohibited from inheritance under Section 1718 will apply to the juristic person as long as it is not contrary to the condition of the legal entity. Therefore, when there is no law prohibiting the juristic person to be a manager. With the petitioner is a testamentary. In addition, the founding instrument of the petitioner is stated in Article 5 that the foundation may acquire assets in the following manner: B. Property which has been transferred to a will or other juristic act without obligation to the Foundation to be liable for any liabilities ... Set up a petitioner for this trustee. It is within the boundaries of authority and does not conflict with the objectives set forth in Regulations or instruments establishing foundations of the petitioner.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 985/2535.

The testament to the majority of the objections to the objections and the appointment of Lieutenant Colonel, and Mrs. Son, who petitioned the trustee, the objection to the lawyer to inform the lieutenant women and Is there a way to get a legacy manager? Both of them have received the letter and refused to accept the inheritance within 1 month from the date of receipt. Both men refused to accept the estate's death. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1717 is not appropriate to establish a manager .... the legacy of the deceased.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2170/2538.

When the trustee has not yet transferred the inheritance to the heir according to the will. The inheritance management is not completed, even after the will. The trustee still has the duty to manage as necessary to ensure The order of the will is determined by the heirs of the estate. The will to inform and receive the transfer of the estate of the recipient of the property. Wills under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1719, which is not a deal. The inheritance of the estate of the will.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5022/2533.

The appointment of the trustee. The court shall exercise its discretion, taking into account the suitability of the inheritance. Even though there is no objection to the petitioner. And the petitioner is not a person prohibited in the management of inheritance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1718, but when the fact that the petitioner is not honest in maintaining the results. Property in the property to the heir of the inheritance. It is not appropriate to appoint a petitioner as a petitioner.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1410/2529.

A. and the defendant. He is the heir of the inheritance. The first wife of the defendant is the child as the estate manager. Inheritance and other inheritors are not inherited. Actions against the inheritance. The estate manager does not make a legacy account filed with the court. The inheritance of the inheritance can not be ended. The court did not appear to have removed the trustee's inheritance authority to manage the inheritance. Still exists When the trustee has transferred all inheritance to the heirs of the inheritance. Already on October 29, 1975, the management of the estate has ended since the day. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the estate management on June 4, 2524. Over 5 years since the estate management completed the claim of the plaintiff was terminated. Section 1733 The plaintiff's indictment does not clearly show that the estate is good for the defendant. Any action that can be considered as a fault of the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 172 or any other act considered to be a loss of age. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 192 is not the same in the Court of First Instance. This is the age of the lawsuit, not the law of peace. People's Supreme Court will not be diagnosed.

Posted in: