roath

I do feel sorry for you OP and hope things work out. My Mrs and I did it tough when settling back in the west too. We both had second jobs. I was cleaning cinemas and she did home delivery jobs to make ends meet. Been there done that.

It shouldnt be a case of her money or your money. You're married. Spending so much money on a bouse in isaan when you're short of a quid is madness. In a normal balanced relationship you would sit down, work out where the money is going and make compromises if need be. If she isnt willing to do that then shes in it for herself and it's never going to work.

Maybe she ia making the most of her time in the UK by sending money home on the basis that that is where she sees her future i.e. not in the UK. Read into that what you will

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

An update. She is not allowed back in to my parents house as their are really upset that she did even say goodbye to them. The front door locks have been changed today because did not give the front door key back.

I did send her a message this morning on Line to meet up for lunch, she read the message and has not replied. I have had enough of her now with this behavior and may consider informing the Home Office about her current situation as she is legally not allowed to stay in the UK any longer.

All she has to do to secure her stay in the UK is to mention the words "abuse and threats" evidenced by changed door locks!

Much free legal advise is available to to abused and mistreated women who are locked out of their homes.

Bet she will have fun taking you to the cleaners !

That isnt correct mate. you need a lot more than that including police report etc

after she says "he slapped me around" its all over for him, she has him by the short hairs & is about to jump to the first floor. police report ? have you been under a rock the last few years? momma should of locked him out also, :-)

Actually mate, the last couple of years I was practising law including dealing with DV cases involving immigration issues. So I suspect my knowledge of the law is a little better than other rock dwellers...

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

An update. She is not allowed back in to my parents house as their are really upset that she did even say goodbye to them. The front door locks have been changed today because did not give the front door key back.

I did send her a message this morning on Line to meet up for lunch, she read the message and has not replied. I have had enough of her now with this behavior and may consider informing the Home Office about her current situation as she is legally not allowed to stay in the UK any longer.

All she has to do to secure her stay in the UK is to mention the words "abuse and threats" evidenced by changed door locks!

Much free legal advise is available to to abused and mistreated women who are locked out of their homes.

Bet she will have fun taking you to the cleaners !

That isnt correct mate. you need a lot more than that including police report etc

If you were married already when the lease was given you may be mistaken there.

Usufruct is better in those circumstances I believe

DON'T WORRY - YOUR PROTECTED LEASE IS STILL SAVE AND VALID

"It may be true that Phuket courts reclassified a validly secured and duly registered lease into a void transfer of legal ownership. Reportedly this has been done without any reference to the anti-nominee rules of the foreigner laws (Land Code, Foreign Business Act), but just by interpreting the Civil and Commercial Code, which does not differentiate between Thai and foreign persons. The fictitious ownership transfer was not declared void, because the investor was a foreigner, but due to the reason this "ownership transfer by mistake" had not been registered as (hidden) sale. It is currently unclear whether the facts in such cases really justify such reclassification, which would be antipodal to civil law legislation and jurisdiction - and whether the courts arguments have been unbiased described reported. Sometimes the wish seems to be father to the thought. It should be clearly noted that it is the general concept of Thailand's lease legislation that any overstepping of legal limitations is carefully reduced by law to a size and scope which is still legal and valid. If a lease agreement is concluded for 31, 90 or 500 years, it would not be deemed to be void from the beginning. Under Section 540, second sentence CCC its enforceability is just limited to the first thirty years. And it will certainly not be reclassified as a (hidden) sale."

Source: http://linkd.in/1JKQ32W

... AND IT IS NO CASE OF SECTION 155 CCC

It is a serious misinterpretation of Section 155 CCC to base a verdict on that piece of legislation. Section 155 CCC refers to circumstances, where the parties create only the wrong impression, a certain contract has been concluded, but in reality they do not agree on such contract. They do not want the contract to have any legal effect, just a apparent legal effect. [A typical example is the sale of estate by an over indebted debtor to his wife, so that the creditor gets discouraged to start legal actions against the apparent penniless debtor. For such scenario the law rules that the sale is void.] However, in our case the parties of the lease agreement did not at all want to create just the appearance of the lease. They wanted and still want a valid lease agreement. Therefore Section 155 CCC is simply not applicable to such case. Source: http://linkd.in/1JKQ32W

Apart from this hype, each and any agreement can be void if the terms of the contract are not seriously agreed. If the lease contains clauses which could obviously not be enforced under Thai laws (above all a duration of 90 years) then its validity might be denied due to lack of graveness. This is just a general legal concept which should not give reason to trumpet about a general crackdown on secured lease structures. To repair such objected investment structure, the lease agreements has to be adjusted, leaving the protection mechanism untouched.

There is a legal difference between "void" and "unenforceable". If a contract is inchoate then it may be unenforceable rather than void which leads to a different effect in law and equity. Likewise a contract may contain illegal clauses which are capable of being struck out but leaving the remainder of the contract valid and enforceable. If the purpose of the contract has an illegal intent then the contract may well be regarded as void ab initio which means it cannot be resusciatated and is basically thrown to the wind with no compensation to the parties. The article is very unclear as to what applies here and there isnt enough detail of the terms of the agreements to establish the possibility of severability. In any event I understand that equitable principles and reliefs are very underdeveloped in Thai law

It depends on the contract because often a contract will have a clause that if one clause is found to be void then it does not invalidate the whole contract and other clauses. If this was in then maybe the buyers have a chance of restitution at appeal.

In common law jurisductions a voided contract in civil law puts the parties in the position they were ab initio i.e. before they entered into the contract. It is not clear from this article whether this applies in this case or whether the contract is treated as if it never existed at all i.e. there is and cannot be restution under thr contract on grounds of illegality althougj even then an innocent party is normally entitled to equitable relief such as misrepresentation. If lawyers were involved then technically they would be liable for negligence. Thats yhe theory (bearing in mind that Thai law is meant to be based on common law) but who knows how it would work out though in reality.

Or the illegal term or clause of the contract is deemed invalid, assumed removed and the contract is interpreted as if the invalid clause or term never existed.

To cancel a contract in full where both parties have agreed, the exchange has taken place and the contract registered by the relevant land title authority is absurd but somewhat typical of decisions made in Thai courts.

The contract requires a clause to such effect otherwise it is an "entire contract" so could only be saved by a court inserting such a clause or by granting equitable relief. All modern contracts drafted by professionals have a severability clause for this reason. However finding someone "professional" here is quite difficult and thats the real crux of thr matter

Quote

"“It is a simple and straightforward legal structure that provides security for the investor. A current ‘Secured’ Lease can be restructured into this better and genuinely secure alternative, before it is too late.

“As always,” he added, “you should engage competent legal and tax counsel in order to implement this mortgage-based security structure successfully.”"

end quote

Any chance the lawyers said that before?

Any chance the lawyers that did the original deal are liable?

Any chance if you did a new "genuinely secure alternative" and a future court rules it bogus the lawyer would be liable? Please find me a lawyer that puts the value of the deal in a bond payable to the customer if it all goes tits up.

I am so sick of this nonsense living here.

Vietnam is looking good.

Vietnam has it's issues not unlike Thailand and corruption is almost as bad!

Corruption is actually much worse in Vietnam which is a one party Communist state so doesnt even have thr pretense of rule of law

It is really quite simple. Foreigners can not buy, own, inherit or even take a mortgage on Thai Land. Any lawyer that offers any "structure" or otherwise is complicit to breaking the law. Nominee in any format or arrangement is also illegal.

There is also this strange phenomenon in Thailand where foreign buyers take their legal advice from a lawyer recommended by the vendor?

Of course there is always the 40 million baht option.

You are incorrect about being able to inherit land. You can but there are restrictions as you need to dispose of it within 6 months. Likewise you can take a mortgage but the Land Office may refuse to register it.

That's right you must dispose of any land you inherit. No a foreigner can not mortgage thai land. A Thai bank can.

Anyone can register a mortgage. Mortgages are not restricted to banks. A mortgage is simply a secured loan over real property (i.e. property which is registered).

Makes somehow sense that this secured 3x30 year leases are on shaky ground, but to say the registered first 30 years are illegal as well is just a patriotic BS interpretation. If it was registered by the Land Office it is legal, if the governement registered something illegal then they should be held responsible and provide a solution.

If the purpose behind the regisration was misdeclared or withheld then the registration wouldnt be effective and the Land Office wouldnt be at fault. This would be the same in any country. I am not standing up for Land Office though (at which I have experienced corruption first hand) but registration per se would not be the end of the matter if other issues are at play.

It is really quite simple. Foreigners can not buy, own, inherit or even take a mortgage on Thai Land. Any lawyer that offers any "structure" or otherwise is complicit to breaking the law. Nominee in any format or arrangement is also illegal.

There is also this strange phenomenon in Thailand where foreign buyers take their legal advice from a lawyer recommended by the vendor?

Of course there is always the 40 million baht option.

You are incorrect about being able to inherit land. You can but there are restrictions as you need to dispose of it within 6 months. Likewise you can take a mortgage but the Land Office may refuse to register it.

So the only way to have a 30 year lease you must have a mortgage involved. I wonder who is going to be drinking heavily tonight.

Good thing i just rent .

The land office may refuse to register a mortgage given from a foreigner to a Thai on the grounds that it could be a device for the Thai to act as nominee.

It depends on the contract because often a contract will have a clause that if one clause is found to be void then it does not invalidate the whole contract and other clauses. If this was in then maybe the buyers have a chance of restitution at appeal.

In common law jurisductions a voided contract in civil law puts the parties in the position they were ab initio i.e. before they entered into the contract. It is not clear from this article whether this applies in this case or whether the contract is treated as if it never existed at all i.e. there is and cannot be restution under thr contract on grounds of illegality althougj even then an innocent party is normally entitled to equitable relief such as misrepresentation. If lawyers were involved then technically they would be liable for negligence. Thats yhe theory (bearing in mind that Thai law is meant to be based on common law) but who knows how it would work out though in reality.

The fact is: If ED visa is required not more than for 6 months the students must attend the class 4 times per week and 2 hrs each time. For a 1 year ED visa it's 5 days per week and 2 hrs each time. If Immigration officers come to check and the students are not in class the visa will be canceled.

Asking for the reason the Pattaya Immigration told us, they only want the people applying for ED visa who are REALLY interested in studying and not using the ED visa as a possibility to stay in Thailand in a cheap way. In the past, most of the ED visa students didn't study at all, they said.

As a result of this new law the ED visa fee must increase according to the higher amount of teaching hours (about 70,000 Baht per year) plus the new fees (5,000 Baht) every 3 months to pay at the Immigration. I'm sure that not many people can afford that.

It might end up cheaper studying on a tourist visa even with visa runs taken into account which is mad really

You can download the forms you need from the internet...pop along to your local (to your place of resifence in UK) family court and file the forms there. If you have both signed the forms and no kids are involved it can be very straightforward to do.

deleted post

An ED visa IS a "proper" visa. I have one and am studying at Chiang Mai University.. is that "proper" enough? :-)

ouch raw nerve hurting is it ??

just gets boring people banging on about getting a "proper" visa.....my mum used to tell me that if yiu don't have anything worthwhile to say then just keep quiet...a lot of people on this forum obviously didnt get the same advice (or just ignored their mums)!!

People can abuse any form of visa, which is a different issue...and a topic flogged to within an inch of its life elsewhere

In BKK the Red Cross wouldnt accept blood from me on the grounds of having lived in UK in the Eighties because of fears about mad cow disease

If you have window film at the permitted levels of tint do they ask for certificate (i.e. how do they check if say 60% rather than 50%)

I obtained an ED visa from Vientiane several weeks ago with no issues as to hours that I was aware of. My course is 3 hours twice a week (i.e. 6 hours a week)

Until a Thai drivers license can serve as a proof of where you live, like it does in other countries, why bother to make it smart, if those who issue it are not very smart in the first place

What are the cops going to do, slide it through a portable scanner to issue you a receipt for your on the spot traffic fine payment

Another hair brained idea, to let another contract, to another connected vendor, to fleece the Thai taxpayer once again

Maybe you should check the back of your licence....your address is printed there (in Thai), which will be the address that you had registered at the time that you applied for your licence (which is no different to any other country, although I appreciate that the circumstances for foreigners is somewhat different in that proof of address is usually a certificate of residence from Immigration, which can be based on nothing more than a hotel receipt). Saying that, both my bank and my Embassy (UK) have so far accepted this as proof of address and/or residency.

The new card also has some pretty pictures on the reverse making clear graphically what forms of transport you are licensed for

My friend has an old style Thai licence which is just typed onto card. Similar to ID cards in Myanmar which are very easy to forge and have very little information on them. It is unlikely that they would be accepted by any Western country as valid ID whereas the new "smart" licence is compliant with most international standards and is bilingual, plastic and has a magnetic strip on the reverse (and probably why it is called a smart card). the old card is valid indefinately though which is why so many hold onto them

Immigration will be able to check your details at the airport even with a new (emergency) passport so do be prepared to deal with overstay issue (i.e. have enough cash with you to pay fine)

Got mine back within 3 weeks which seems to be about the case currently based on comments from other posters