donx

I have read in this forum that one of the benefits of having permanent residency is that when purchasing a condo, you aren't required to have all the funds coming from outside of Thailand. Your purchase will still be designated as part of the foreign quota. I could be completely wrong about this, so if this is of interest to you, I suggest you research this or get advice from a lawyer.

Is your marriage registered in Thailand? If not, then you don't need to indicate that you are married. For example, my Thai wife has purchased real estate several times since we were married in the US. However, because we haven't registered the marriage in Thailand and she still uses her maiden name on her Thai ID and passport, I haven't been required to provide any consent or sign that document indicating that all the funds come only from my wife. If your marriage is registered in Thailand, that a different situation and I can't comment on whether or not you need spousal consent.

Your post got me to search for "Sor Tor Gor" land title because this is the type of land title that my wife purchased (and sold) many years ago. Interestingly, your website showed the first answer from my Google search: Land document issued by the forest department granting the right to a private person to reside and live in a specific area of land in reserved forest land (public land prohibited for private ownership), a sor.tor.gor gives a personal right (like the right of habitation) and cannot be sold but can be passed on by inheritance. Glad I finally discovered what that type of land title was after all these years.

And you're still interested in buying into this condo development knowing all this? I wouldn't want to have to deal with a JPM/management company like this unless you are getting a significantly reduced price. Even then, do you really want to have scammers running the place?

Because we never registered our US marriage in Thailand and because my wife's Thai ID lists her as single with it showing her maiden name, I never needed to sign anything or appear at the land office every time she purchased real estate in Thailand. I assume those of you required to sign a document stating you lay no claim to the property either have your marriage registered in Thailand or your spouse has changed her last name on official Thai documents. I found it interesting that even when I had to be present and sign my name when my daughters received their Thai IDs, the officials didn't have any issue with my wife keeping her marital status as single.

JensenZ is a username on this forum like Longwood50 is for you. Hopefully you figured this out from JensenZ's latest post.

Have you been quoted a price from the owner?

So you get the land owner to go to the land office and place a usufruct in your name on the chanote. Then a week or so later, the land owner, you, and your son go to the land office for the land owner to sell the land with the usufruct to your son. Do you really think the land office is going to allow this? I'm fairly certain that if the land owner sells the land to your son first and then you request a usufruct, the usufruct would be denied. My guess, and yes this is only a guess, is that the land office won't accept the purchase of land by your son if it is encumbered by a usufruct - any usufruct, not just a usufruct with you as the purchaser's father on it. If the sale is rejected, what recourse does the original seller have now that the usufruct is on the chanote? At that point, they have essentially given their land away to you. Would they trust you to go back to the land office and remove the usufruct at the time the sale is rejected or soon after? Let us know if you are able to complete this transaction.

Neither have I. But in my case, I know why. It's because our marriage has never been registered in Thailand and my wife retains her maiden name on her Thai ID which stipulates that she is single. Therefore, I've never needed to attend any of her property purchase nor have I been asked to sign any documents stating that I have no claim (which I don't) to any of her real estate holdings. However, I have provided the funding for her to make these purchases.

My understanding of Thai law is any contract between spouses can be voided by either party at any time during the marriage and up to one year after a divorce. This doesn't have to be after a divorce and it isn't automatically voided upon a divorce. Thus, I believe that both a rental agreement and a usufruct have the same issue.

Are you suggesting that the foreigner providing the mortgage is also the foreigner leasing the land? Don't know if that would work as someone else stated the mortgage needs to come from a financial institution.

Initially, if I remember correctly, you planned on having a Thai friend purchase the house from your x-wife by "transferring" the mortgage from her to your friend. Since I'm sure you discovered this wasn't going to work and your friend would have to qualify for their own mortgage, I'm guessing that the person buying the house isn't the person you initially hoped would purchase it. I also assume that whoever is buying it now is paying in cash - 500K to you and 2.3mil baht to your x-wife. If all of this is correct, are you planning on renting the house from the new owner or are you planning on moving out? I thought your initial plan was to keep living in the house. Is that still your intention?

Because the hotel answered that there isn't a lift because there are only 2 stories, if I were you, I'd find another hotel. The photo of the place shows, to me, that there are 3 stories and not 2.

That's good to hear. I was going to post that since it was your idea to send a deposit that this is not a scam. If he demanded the deposit, that would be different. My guess is that you will receive the rest on the 17th.

Can you clarify something? Are you saying that both you and your wife are non-Thai? If so, then I can understand why most of the lawyers are suggesting having a Thai company own the property.

Storing durian? Filming porn?

Since no one else has responded, I'll take a stab at answering you based upon what I have read within this forum. So, take my response with a grain of salt. When you say the oldest sister isn't married, I'm assuming she doesn't have any children. However, if she does then her 50% share of the house would be divided equally between all of them. If she doesn't have any children, then her 50% of the house would be split evenly among her living siblings, including your wife. Since you said there are currently 5 living siblings, if the oldest sister dies before any other sibling dies, then each of the surviving siblings would split her 50% ownership of the house evenly. Your wife would then own 62.5% of the house and the other 3 siblings would each own 12.5% of the house. Whether the siblings owning 12.5% of the house could force a sale of the property, I do not know. Ideally, it would be best for the oldest sister to make a will designating who she wants to own her share of the house, which I assume is the sister that is currently living there.

From your posts, it sounds like you are interested in paying for a 30 year lease. Do you intend to pay it to whomever is currently owning the land or do you expect some other Thai to purchase the land and then you obtain a 30 year lease from the new owner? So long as the Thai owner is not a child (person under 20 years of age) and the land has a Chanote, then that Thai person should be able to lease you the land and have the lease registered on the Chanote.

Is this Right of Habitation the same as a Superficies? I’ve read on here about the Superficies but this Right of Habitation is a new term to me.

My wife never changed her name on her Thai ID where she is still listed as "Miss". Her Thai Passport has her maiden name as well, but her US identifications (Social Security, Naturalization Certificate, Drivers License, Passport) all have her last name the same as mine. Our three children all have my last name as well. When my wife travels to Thailand, she brings a copy of our Marriage Certificate to prove her Thai name and her US name are the same. Usually only the airlines need to see this. When she travels, she uses her married name. She only provides her Thai Passport to Thai immigration. Sometime they ask to see the boarding pass and in those cases she also shows the Marriage Certificate. She uses her Thai ID to purchase property in Thailand. I have never been required to sign any documents indicating that all the funds for the purchase are her funds. In my humble opinion, my wife's decision not to change her name on Thai identification documents has been a wise decision. Since we live in the US, there hasn't been a need for us to register our marriage in Thailand. I'm not worried about having all the Thai property in her name and I've never asked to have a usufruct or any other type of request to protect myself even though my wife works as a homemaker taking care of our family and doesn't earn any income. All of my children born in the US have received Thai Birth Certificates and Thai Passports. Their US names are translated into Thai and appear in both Thai and English on these documents. My son is the only one that doesn't have a Thai ID because my wife doesn't want him to face the Thai Military Conscription requirement. He is 22 and after he turns 30, we plan on getting him registered in a Thai house book so that he can receive a Thai ID. At that age, we are told that he won't be required to register for the possibility of service in the Thai Military. Both of my daughters are registered in a Thai house book and have received Thai IDs. Fortunately, I haven't had to worry about purchasing land in my children's names. However, we do plan on having them inherit all the Thai property my wife has purchased over the years. Hopefully there won't be any issues with them receiving these properties in the future regardless of the fact that they are "Wasian" (my daughter's term) and have (mostly) Western sounding names.

Are you unable to obtain a Usufruct? Is that why you are pursuing this Right of Habitation?

When my Father-in-law came to visit us in America, he had never used a microwave in his life. He saw my wife using it to heat up food and thought it was a wonderful appliance. One day, my wife found him feeding my son a bowl of melted ice cream. She asked why it was melted and he said he used the microwave because "it makes food taste better." My son was very upset. Then a year or so later, my wife bought a microwave for her and her family to use while we visited them. The next time we visited she saw that the microwave didn't work. Her sister said that her father put something metal in it and that was that.

Now you do!

I can see your reasoning if they skipped out on the last month. Would you do the same if they skipped out after the first month on a 6 month or one year lease? I'm guessing it would depend upon how likely you are to find another tenant. As for the OP, I understand the reasoning for leaving early based upon the conditions of the place he rented. Perhaps I would have done the same in his situation. Fortunately for me, I haven't had to rent anywhere since the mid-1990. I do remember back in the day in the US of A, I broke my lease and was obligated to pay for the remaining months on the lease unless the rental company was able to find another tenant quickly. Luckily another tenant was found and I was off the hook. Yes, that wasn't Thailand and it was a long time ago. I read on this forum all the time about members not paying the last month's rent and expecting the security deposit to be forfeited.

That document appears to be specifically for the purchase of real estate and doesn't appear to have any relevance in the case of the sale of real estate. By the way, I've never signed such a document in all the years I've been married to my Thai wife. She has purchased five land plots during our marriage. However, she still retains her Thai maiden name on her Thai ID card and Thai passport and our marriage was never registered in Thailand.