Burgernev

You really think the original lessee (or anyone else) can pay anything less than such a full and overbloated price for the landowner to register another lease at the land office? The freehold owner would view that as losing money.

Sorry if I've interpreted your point incorrectly, but my examples are about this occuring well before anywhere near approaching the end of the 30 years, ie: tearing up the old lease and issuing a new one maybe 10-15 years into it's period.

I'm suggesting, using the investor buyer example, that a landowner of 25 leasehold plots would accept cash from an investor and sell the land just 10 years into the initial 30 years, rather than wait another 20 years for the full valued amount. They may be too old to use it then, and consider many of them are Thai wives of Farang 'developers'. If they were offered 1M Baht x 25 plots then they walk away with 25M Baht that day and live happy for those next 20 years.

Other example, where a landowner does not want to give up the land cheap and rather 'keep it in the family', they would only be issuing (selling) a new 30 year period 10 years into the 30 years, they are getting cash in early but retaining the land by adding 10 years to it's maturity period.

Burgernev.

Regarding 30+30+30 year leases, the general view is that this will only realistically be the initial 30 year lease, the extensions will only materialise IF the landowner is a generous, kind-hearted type

My belief however is that what will occur in reality, in 'most' cases, is that the lessee and/or their heirs will be able to obtain any lease length periods they want, ie: 30, 40, 50, 90, 100 years etc. How ?, here's some scenarios:

1) Most Thai landowners will not want to wait 30 years to get their hands on the asset. So say after 10 or 15 years into the initial 30 year lease landowner comes to lessee and asks if he fancies popping down the land office the next morning and registering a new 30 year lease (with the same extensions for what it's worth) for say 200k Baht. Lessee waves the lease agreement in front of his face and tells landowner he's got to give the extensions anyway, so why should I ? Landowners then laughs in your face and says because he will be transferring the land to his brother the day before that extension is due. Lessee has option to buy another 10-15 years for 200k or risk getting nothing after initial period.

2) An investment company comes into a development 20 years into the initial lease term and buys all the leased land plots off the landowner for a handsome bundle of cash that is too tempting to turn down as opposed to waiting another 10 years. Investment company writes to all lessee's introducing his company and saying unfortunately your extension agreements with the previous landowner are now void. The letter goes on to say that as we are a kind-hearted company how do you fancy popping down the land office in the morning and receiving a brand new 30 year lease for the modest sum of ................................

3) At some point in the initial 30 year lease period Developer 'A' swaps (transfers) his 20no. land titles with 20 no. land titles from his mate developer 'B', no cash changes hands, but 'some' tax is paid at the Land Office with their friendly official they always deal with. New landowner writes to his new lessee's informing them of .............. you know the rest.

4) As above but it is you the lessee doing the approaching and cash offering for a new 30 year lease, you've heard of too many people that didn't get their extensions.

In above scenarios the lessees initially feel aggrieved, express outrage and threaten to sue their original landowner who sold up, as there was some clause about him not being allowed to sell the land blah blah blah, but apparently he's moved to Buriram or the moon or someplace. After initial outrage lessee sees it's actually not a bad deal after all. Everyone's a winner ....... sort of.

Burgernev

Falling out with my gf is not going to change anything.

Thanks Kata for your reply to my post yesterday, disagree with certain legal interpretations but no gain in going into them all but shares/voting rights aside our companies have nominees who we don't know from Adam, fake meetings with and do not pay dividends too, this would make any leases in the same legal boat.

On the 2 x 30 year lease issue our local land office in Hua Hin, will not register them, they also stoppped the upfront paid land rental fees (developers land sale price in effect) be divided by 3 (ie: 30+30+30) as they are rightly losing out on tax money. IF your 2nd 30 year lease is allowed to go ahead the landowner at the time would be entitled under certain current laws to claim current rental rates applicable at that time in the future, as would the land office tax wise, despite an agreement being signed up to now at todays rental rates, thats my lawyers interpretation, so pinch of salt.

The part I quoted above re: your girlfriend, would IMO, pose the biggest risk of all to me, she has 5 years knowledge, maybe photocopies or whatever, of numerous forged shareholder meeting minutes, non-payment of shareholder dividends (of which now has an additional layer of income due to land lease rental) and god knows whatever info about the structure. Keep her sweet mate, I doubt the fact that she was also guilty to things as a director would come into the thinking of a vengent Thai chick!!

Not trying to be judgemental or hypocritical as I have the Limited Company set-up too.

Good on you for getting the 2 no. leases registered.

Chock Dee, Burgernev

http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/90-ye...con-t11944.html

In there is a true story what happened to a couple and 30-30-30 leasehold and Thai Ltd. Actually every information one needs.

All sympathies aside, that is a classic story about someone trying to save a few Baht by not using a proper established law firm from Bangkok, ie: neutral to the area in question, and therefore not having the correct clauses in their initial 30 year lease, and I'm not refering to extensions. And also a story about a buyer who couldn't be ar$ed to bother to spend an hour or so on internet about the realities of the 30+30+30 jobs.

It is a classic story of wrecklessness and how not to invest in property here, I recall the poster went out of their way to confirm same.

Burgernev

Thanks You ow me a pound!

I go to land office myself, and pay the taxes myself. The land office collects correctly double tax on 2 x 30 years leases. I'm the owner of the company who lease out the property to myself, my gf is managing director since 5 years. The company is not planning to bring my lease or any other lease to supreme court.

Hi, genuinely hope this is allowed to go ahead at other land offices and become the norm as I have a vested interest. Playing devils advocate and not trying to pick holes in your set-up, more a case of having my doubts answered, can I ask the following:

1) Does the following section from the Civil and Commercial Codes not mean the 2 no. separate 30 year leases do not have a sound legal standing in the event of dispute, irrespective of the Land Office registering them both on the back of the Chanote ? - Section 540: The duration of a hire of immovable property cannot exceed thirty years. If it is made for a longer period, such period shall be reduced to thirty years. The aforesaid period may be renewed, but it must not exceed thirty years from the time of renewal

2) I'm also interested to know the advantages of leasing back to yourself the land your Limited Company already 'owns' and you presumably control via voting rights (as is my set-up). So long as the companies do not get investigated, which doesn't even enter my thinking, then you control the land anyway, should they get investigated and we're ordered to dispose of the land (due to nominee irregularities or whatever), then surely the lease/s will be adjudged irregular and not of legal standing too, and therefore will not be imposed on the new land owner the company disposes the land to ?

3) Also is a Thai Limited Company that has a foreigner controlling it via voting rights allowed to issue a lease to himself, nominee-wise ? Seems to me it falls foul of item 5 of following Ministry of Interior regulation introduced last year:

Subject: Acquisition of land by juristic persons (legal entities) having foreign shareholders - Attention: All provincial governors

Reference: The very urgent letter no. Mor.Thor. 0515/Vor 2530, dated 21st July 2006

Item 5 - In cases where foreign juristic persons take the lease or hold other rights for the long period of time, the investigation will be made about the business objective of the lease if it is the holding of land on behalf of a foreigner or in violation of the Foreign Business Act 1999.

Cheers,

Burgernev

Hmmm I wonder if this is related to the farrangs who bulldoze their houses when their relationships go sour. It will put a stop to a farang claiming half, or any percentage Of the value of the property during settlement.

Although I think all this 'bulldozing' lark is a bit of a farang urban myth, guess there's been the odd exception, isn't this breaking the law and allowing your landowner to sue you for a hefty sum ?

Civil and Commercial Codes:

Section 1310: If a person has, in good faith, constructed a building upon another person's land, the owner of the land becomes the owner of the building, but he must pay the constructor for any increase of value accruing to the land by reason of the building. However, if the owner of the land can show that there was negligence on his part, he may refuse to take the building and require that it be removed by the constructor and the land put in its former condition, unless this cannot be done at reasonable costs, in which case he may require the constructor to buy the whole or part of the land at the market price.

Burgernev

FYI been wracking my brain where I got it from. it was off Isaan Lawyers website, downloadable (if Seb allows that!?).

Anyway its still on there now so take a look. Can't say if that's a universal one or was only used in Isaan Land Office.

Cheers,

BTW, why aren't you/we hanging our hats more on that Ministry letter in 1999 which mentions gifts without any consideration ?

The 'Declaration' form at the land office DOES specifically mention the word 'money'.

After some general details like names and dates it says, quote "we together confirm that the money which Mr./Mrs. ....................... shall expend on the purchase of land title deed no. ................ "

Then there's general details about the property and address, then at bottom of form mentions it, quote "is wholly Sin Suan Tua or the personal property of Mr./mrs. ............... Alone and not Sin Som Ros or the matrimonial property between husband and wife"

I can post jpeg up when on PC next if it helps, but cant do much on this iPhone right now.

Burgernev

Thanks for quick fix Crossy.

Also very relevant is my post #35, read the Ministry of Interior's letter dated March 1999, couldn't be much clearer about being able to gift your spouse land. How much weight that letter carries I wouldn't have a clue.

Burgernev

There is no mentioning in the land code of signing a paper conforming that the land is his / hers.

Department of Land website link: http://www.dol.go.th/

Go to 'English Language Information' about half-way down on left hand side, then open item no. 1 which is in English.

Apologies for above can't see to do URL's off this iPhone.

Burgernev

Regards this politicians recent comments:

1.) I'd be a bit concerned if I was married but did not sign form due to different surname. Our local Land Office were not getting married couples with different surnames to sign them, foreigner was under the impression he was better not signing, everyone went away happy. That was the norm, that was also the Land Office officials not following the correct procedure, IMO. Is it too extreme to say the Thai spouse registered this land illegally as it was in contravention of the land code which specifically requires Land Office form signing by Farang??

2.) I'd not give it a second thought if you did sign the declaration that funds were her personal property (unless an actual law change comes out soon).

a.) Politician: "but if the Thai has no money and uses money given to him or her by a foreigner to acquire property, that is against the law."

b.) Ministry of Interior Most urgent letter No.Mor.Thor. 0710/Vor.792 dated March 23, 1999 - Acquisition of Land by Spouses of Aliens

'The procedure for the acquisition of land by Thais having spouses being aliens, either by lawful marriage (with proper registration of marriage) or unlawful marriage (without proper registration of marriage) and children of aliens have been changed to be as follows: Any Thai having an alien spouse may purchase or accept land as a gift with no consideration and register the ownership of such land during marriage under the condition that the spouse must jointly provide a written legal confirmation stating that the entire source of funds for such purchase or gift is solely from the Personal Property (such as defined by Thai laws) of such Thai. Without written confirmation from an alien spouse, the request for such registration must be referred to the Land Department in order to obtain an approval from the Minister.

Confused? You will be.

Burgernev

Fascinating story, elektrified.

It just goes to reinforce my request to keep this thread open, and also the point I made about local land officers interpreting and enforcing the law however they see fit - especially after the anti-farang statements by their lord and master.

Conversely to 'elektrified's' story, I am a Farang developer with Thai wife in Hua Hin. Latest land already registered in wife's name pre that politicians comments. Since his comments I've been twitching a bit as we have not as yet 'cut' the land into it's individual plots.

Wife went in local Land Office yesterday with 'plot cut' paperwork, I didn't go (place scares me more than a dentist's waiting room), the more senior officials who deal with my wife (modest tea money reasons) know me and her very well over last 5 years, she has Western surname, they're on first name terms with wife, they ask how the houses are going etc - bottom line they know full well the score with our set-up.

She gets home, I ask any problems, she says no, they'll be doing it as normal and gave her a date for when the team will be on site to measure out and sink the posts in the ground.

Weird, no ?

Burgernev

Or it can be said that you bought the house with assets you acquired before your marriage, which when proven would exclude the house from the sin somros and you would have 100% rights to it.

Yes, 100% rights to your initial outlay, but wife would be entitled to 50% of any increase of house value, during marriage, over and above that initial outlay.

Same same if you bought over say 100k USD and invested in a business, if at time of divorce that business is worth 300k USD, wife is entitled to 50% of the gain, ie: 50% of the 200k.

Someone correct me if that's wrong please.

Burgernev

Leaving aside Limited Companies and Thai partners, a lot of people lease accepting it will be 30 years as this period is adequate for them and they know as basically a long-term rental it is cheaper than renting, even taking into account the upfront capital expenditure.

Also a lot of people are using Usufruct's these days, these provide lifetime rights to the land and house.

Many people are happy renting but many people that come over would not entertain renting or condo's, I wouldn't.

Whatever you feel comfortable with.

Burgernev.

If that is the case then I think I am correct in saying that you don't own the house - you lease it as per the land.

Not necessarily so! It is likely that the OP signed two contracts, one lease contract for the land, which was registered at the Land Office, and one building contract for the house to be built. If the building permit for the house was registered in the OP's name at Tessaban then he would be the owner of the house.

The building permit can be in anyone's name (yours, wife's, building contractors, developers etc) it doesn't really matter as long as the contract/s state that you will own the house (building) on the land. Then when you register the land lease at the land office you give notice to register the building in your own personal name. There is then a 30 day period where your lawyer (or A.N.Other I guess) has to post a public notice of this intention, after 30 days you return to the land office with the landowner and complete the registration of the building in your name. Tax on a 3M Baht building was 8,500 Baht last week when we done one.

Burgernev

I've tried it, not sure if it's worked.

Yes Avalon have provided the offices for them as they have leased the whole building.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&am...004807&z=18

It's the grey triangular building just to the right of where Soi 23/1 tees off Soi 23. The entrance is that corner point that is virtually touching the Soi 23/1 line.

According to the Hotline Newspaper (admin edit if not allowed to mention), they are only there for 8 months then moving again.

Burgernev

I wish that was true. The fact is that the Swedish krona has dropped 29.8% against the Thai baht since July 2008 based on today's a'vista rate.

Yes, take your point Stgrhe but my post was referring to year on year for last month, last time I dealt with the currency, which showed a 16% drop.

Your figures are comparing against a particular spike in the rate last July of about 5.6/5.7, something it has not been at for about 3 years.

Burgernev

Re the materials side of things, between 18 months and 6 months ago the price of steel, transport and many materials skyrocketed as commodities and oil went through the roof. If retail prices are not going back down now, then someone in the trade is making a huge pile are they not? Also I guess in Thailand there is not much room for labour costs to drop much.

That's right Marvo, the builders merchants did not drop their prices back down, if they did at all it was a negligable token gesture that was not noticeable.

At the same times as the oil increase the building contractors wanted increases, partly for materials, partly for fuel as their labour maybe be coming and going from, say Buriram. Much of the labour may be 'camped' here but are not from the immediate area and still have to travel back and forth to see family etc.

As we all know Thais will not drop their prices back down. Also land prices are still rising in some areas, not even standing still.

Burgernev

The market is very very slow for obvious reasons.

Talking about small developers, ie: upto 30 no. house projects, there are sales, mainly wealthy cash-rich Scandanavians, whose currencies have not been hit too hard over the past year, the other buyers are expats working in the Mid-East, China, Singapore and Hong Kong and again are cash-rich due to their jobs, many get paid in Dollars too so not affected by Sterling crash.

But they are few and far between compared with before, the developers that established themselves here 4-5 years ago and went through the boom period will not be too affected, also many, like ourselves, have a backlog of upto a year of construction works where many buyers bought off-plan but did not want to complete for a year or more.

Some of the late arrival developers are suffering and there may be bargains to be picked up there or sadly they may be falsed to stop work and have half-build developments until it picks up again in a few years time.

Re-sales where owners are forced to sell for whatever reason will also see bargains , unless you're sending Sterling over, as you can get a 30% discount on a house now and still be 5% down due to the crap rate.

We're looking at land at the moment and Thais will not drop 1 Baht, they do not understand or care less about global recession (why should they they're in no rush to sell), so when things recover in a few years prices will not go down much, building materials and labour costs are not dropping and fixed, only scope for price drops is what developers will cut from their margins.

Honest opinion, take it or leave it

Burgernev

See item no. 2:

http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/en/base.php?page=90days

Sandwash is a thin skin usually laid on a concrete base. If it cracks or crumbles it is usually due to movement of the base i.e to thin or laid over improperly consolidated soil.

If you use it on a driveway then make sure that the base is stable and the slab is thick enough and reinforced to resist movement.

Agree Peter, if sandwash done properly you may get some minor hairline cracks, if a major and long crack you'll probably find its the concrete under that has cracked and has split the sandwash.

Cheers,

Nice 3 bed bungalow with garden, off-street parking etc near'ish to town 15-20k should be ok.

Ditto with private pool 24-30k approx.

Good Luck

PS: Ignore the 'bog' thing, he's a known troll, banned from the local forum a number of times. Has a personal problem with the local real estate people.

Truth as a whole, nothing is selling.

Reason's;

World economy, Thai political situation, Foriegner's cannot buy land so can now only lease.

There are some sales still happening but very few and far between due to world economy and exchange rate. Don't believe much is down to land ownership as half the customers that come are not even aware of limited companies, leases, 30+30+30's, they just don't seem to have done any homework on it, and just go with what the lawyer advises. Obviously some dont even come to an agent due to this, but then they never would have when it was booming.

The buyers you see lately are ex-pat workers in mid-east, HK and Singapore and elderly wealthy Skandi's who all seem to have cash and do not need to re-mortgage back home etc. They are looking to pick up bargains (as is norm in depressed market) but they are 20-25% down straight away due to exchange rate. Many want to do deals on the exchange rate, developer take risk, they take risk by deferring building much later in the hope the rates improve their way.

Forcast: Many sites will be left half-built (the developers without proper funds behind them), many developers and agents will close up, many people with cash will be looking to pick up their land etc ready for when it all starts off again. Positive may be that it eliminates some of those that do not really have the set-up/backing to be involved in handling peoples life saving etc.

That's how I honestly see it, am involved but honest views.

Burgernev

Houses are NOT sellsing in HH right now and probably forever

Fresh Inn Hotel

http://www.hotelsguidethailand.com/home/<deleted>...n&code=3318