Authority of an Estate Administrator to Sell Inherited Property and Distribute the Sale Proceeds Among Heirs

The administration and distribution of an estate can become complicated when multiple heirs have different expectations regarding the disposal of inherited property. Disagreements may arise over the appropriate sale price, the extent of an estate administrator’s authority, and whether the administrator may proceed with a sale without obtaining the consent of every heir.

In the recent Thai Supreme Court Judgment No. 9091/2025, the Supreme Court considered the scope of an estate administrator’s authority to sell inherited land and distribute the proceeds among the heirs under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code (CCC).

The case concerned an estate administrator who sold inherited land for THB 2.2 million, despite an earlier meeting of the heirs having agreed that the property should initially be advertised for sale at a minimum price of THB 3.2 million.

One of the heirs subsequently claimed that the estate administrator had acted negligently and caused financial damage by selling the property below the agreed price.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the sale was an act necessary for the administration and distribution of the estate. The administrator was therefore not liable for damages in the circumstances of the case.

This judgment provides important guidance on the authority and responsibilities of estate administrators, particularly where inherited property is to be sold and the proceeds distributed among the heirs.

Background of the Case

The deceased passed away on 7 January 2009, leaving six statutory heirs. The Court subsequently appointed the defendant as the estate administrator.

On 12 June 2021, the heirs, including the plaintiffs and the defendant, held a meeting to discuss the administration and distribution of the estate.

One of the resolutions concerned a plot of inherited land measuring 80 square wah, registered under Utilisation Certificate No. 6620.

The heirs agreed that:

• The land would be advertised for sale at a minimum price of THB 3.2 million.
• The advertised price would remain effective for six months.
• If the property could not be sold within that period, the sale price would be reconsidered at a subsequent meeting.
• If a prospective purchaser made an offer after the property had been advertised, the estate administrator would contact the heirs or their representatives by telephone.

On 28 December 2021, the defendant, acting as estate administrator, sold the land to a purchaser for THB 2.2 million.

The defendant subsequently distributed the sale proceeds among the heirs, including THB 365,250 to each of the two plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs then commenced proceedings seeking payment of THB 166,666 each, together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum, alleging that the defendant had negligently sold the inherited property below the price agreed upon at the heirs’ meeting.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeal for Region 8 affirmed that decision.

The first plaintiff subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issue

Whether the estate administrator acted negligently and caused damage to the estate or the first plaintiff by selling the inherited land for THB 2.2 million, which was below the minimum advertised price of THB 3.2 million agreed upon at the heirs’ meeting.

The Decision

1. Authority to Sell Inherited Property

The Thai Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) provides for the partition of an estate among heirs through the distribution of the inherited property itself or through a sale of the property followed by distribution of the proceeds.

In this case, the Supreme Court examined the minutes of the heirs’ meeting dated 12 June 2021.

The Court considered that the meeting minutes recorded discussions and agreements between the heirs and the estate administrator concerning the administration and distribution of the deceased’s estate.

Importantly, the heirs had agreed that the inherited land would be sold and that the proceeds would subsequently be distributed among them.

The Court distinguished between two different methods of estate partition i.e., partition in kind and partition by sale.

The Court found that the agreement recorded in the meeting minutes contemplated the second method.

Accordingly, the sale of the land was not a change in the agreed purpose of the estate distribution. Rather, it was the method of partition that the heirs had already agreed to adopt.

The Supreme Court held that the defendant, as estate administrator, had the authority to sell the land and distribute the proceeds among the heirs under the CCC.

Legal Significance

This ruling clarifies that an estate administrator may have the authority to sell inherited property where the agreed method of estate partition is to convert the property into cash and distribute the proceeds among the heirs.

The sale of inherited property is not necessarily an act beyond the administrator’s authority merely because the property itself is not transferred directly to individual heirs.

The key consideration is whether the sale is consistent with the purpose and method of estate distribution agreed upon by the heirs.

2. Selling Inherited Property Below the Previously Agreed Advertised Price

Another important issue was whether the defendant acted negligently by selling the property for THB 2.2 million rather than the minimum advertised price of THB 3.2 million.

The first plaintiff argued that he had never consented to the sale at the lower price.

However, the Supreme Court examined the terms of the meeting minutes and the circumstances surrounding the transaction.

The meeting minutes did not impose an absolute prohibition on selling the land below THB 3.2 million.

Instead, the heirs had agreed that if a prospective purchaser made an offer after the property was advertised, the defendant would contact the heirs or their representatives by telephone.

Before completing the sale, the defendant contacted the majority of the heirs by telephone and informed them of the proposed sale and the offered price.

The majority of the heirs agreed to proceed with the transaction at THB 2.2 million.

The Court also considered the following circumstances:

• Two heirs had provided written consent to the sale.
• The defendant, acting both in her capacity as an heir and as the legal guardian of another heir who had been declared legally incompetent, considered the offered price appropriate.
• The sale price of THB 2.2 million was substantially higher than the official appraised value of the land.
• Following completion of the sale, the defendant distributed the proceeds among the heirs, including the first plaintiff.

Although there was no evidence establishing that the first plaintiff had personally consented to the sale at THB 2.2 million, the Court found that the defendant had followed the procedure agreed upon at the heirs’ meeting.

The Court concluded that the sale constituted an act necessary for the administration and distribution of the estate and had not caused damage to the estate or the first plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant was not liable to the first plaintiff for damages.

Legal Significance

The judgment demonstrates that an estate administrator’s compliance with the agreed procedures for consulting the heirs may be an important factor when determining whether a sale of inherited property was properly conducted.

A previously agreed advertised price does not necessarily mean that the property can never be sold at a lower price.

Where the heirs have expressly agreed that further offers may be communicated to them for consideration, the estate administrator may act in accordance with that arrangement.

However, this decision should not be interpreted as establishing that an estate administrator may freely disregard a sale price agreed upon by the heirs or proceed with a below-market transaction without proper consideration.

The Court’s decision was based on the specific meeting resolution, the administrator’s communication with the majority of the heirs, the circumstances of the sale, and the absence of established damage to the estate or the plaintiff.

3. The Estate Administrator’s Duty to Protect the Interests of the Heirs

An estate administrator is responsible for administering the deceased’s estate and carrying out the necessary acts to preserve, manage, and distribute inherited assets in accordance with the law.

This responsibility requires the administrator to act in the interests of the estate and its beneficiaries.

In the present case, the Supreme Court considered whether the defendant’s decision to sell the land at a price lower than the initially advertised amount constituted negligence.

The Court did not assess the transaction solely by comparing the two prices. Instead, the Court examined the overall circumstances, including:

• The heirs’ agreement to sell the land and distribute the proceeds;
• The procedure agreed upon for communicating subsequent purchase offers;
• The defendant’s consultation with the majority of the heirs;
• The relationship between the sale price and the official appraised value; and
• The subsequent distribution of the sale proceeds among the heirs.

The Court concluded that the defendant’s actions were necessary for the administration and distribution of the estate and did not cause damage to the estate or the first plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant was not required to compensate the first plaintiff.

Legal Significance

This decision highlights the importance of assessing an estate administrator’s conduct in its entirety rather than treating a difference between the advertised price and the actual sale price as automatic evidence of negligence.

The administrator’s authority, compliance with the heirs’ agreement, the circumstances of the transaction, and the existence of actual damage are all relevant considerations.

Practical Implications for Heirs and Estate Administrators

Supreme Court Judgment No. 9091/2025 provides several important practical lessons for individuals involved in inheritance matters in Thailand.

Heirs should clearly agree on the method of estate partition

When inherited property is to be sold rather than physically divided, the meeting minutes should expressly record that the property will be sold and that the proceeds will be distributed among the heirs.

The scope of the estate administrator’s authority should be clearly documented

Heirs should specify whether the administrator may negotiate with prospective purchasers, accept offers below the initial advertised price, and proceed with a sale after consulting the other heirs.

Communication with the heirs is important

Where the heirs have agreed that subsequent offers must be communicated to them, the estate administrator should comply with that procedure and retain evidence of the communication and responses received.

Proper documentation helps reduce the risk of future disputes

Written consents, meeting minutes, valuation reports, sale and purchase agreements, payment records, and evidence of distribution should be retained as part of the estate administration records.

Conclusion

Supreme Court Judgment No. 9091/2025 clarifies the authority of an estate administrator to sell inherited property under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code.

The Supreme Court recognised that where the heirs have agreed to sell inherited property and distribute the proceeds among themselves, the estate administrator may undertake the sale as part of the estate distribution process.

The Court further held that the administrator was not liable for damages merely because the property was sold below the initially advertised price, where the administrator had contacted the majority of the heirs in accordance with the meeting resolution, the majority approved the proposed transaction, and the sale did not cause damage to the estate or the first plaintiff.

For heirs and estate administrators in Thailand, this judgment serves as an important reminder that clear agreements, proper consultation, transparent transactions, and accurate financial records are essential to effective estate administration.

How Skyinterlegal Can Assist

Inheritance matters involving the sale of inherited property and the distribution of estate proceeds can give rise to disputes among heirs, particularly where there are disagreements over property valuations, sale prices, or the authority of the estate administrator.

At Skyinterlegal, we assist Thai and international clients with inheritance and estate administration matters in Thailand, including legal disputes involving estate administrators, heirs, and inherited assets.

Our legal services include:

• Estate Administration: Advising and assisting clients with applications for appointment as estate administrators and the administration of inherited assets under Thai law.
• Sale of Inherited Property: Advising on the legal requirements and procedures for selling inherited land, houses, condominiums, and other estate assets.
• Disputes Among Heirs: Representing heirs in disputes concerning the distribution of inherited property, sale proceeds, and the exercise of rights under Thai inheritance law.
• Estate Administrator Responsibilities: Advising estate administrators on their legal authority, duties, and potential liability when managing and disposing of estate assets.
• Inheritance Litigation: Representing clients in court proceedings involving alleged mismanagement, negligence, or improper distribution of estate property.
• Estate Planning and Legal Documentation: Assisting with the preparation of agreements, meeting minutes, consents, and other legal documents to help prevent future inheritance disputes.

We understand that inheritance disputes can involve valuable family assets and complex relationships between beneficiaries. Our approach focuses on protecting our clients’ legal rights while providing practical and commercially appropriate solutions.

Need legal assistance with an inheritance dispute or the sale of inherited property in Thailand?

Contact Skyinterlegal to discuss your circumstances and obtain legal guidance on the appropriate steps under Thai law.

We welcome enquiries from Thai and international clients seeking legal assistance with inheritance, estate administration, and property-related disputes in Thailand.