ricklev

Price is back to 189 they were happy to tell me.

They provide exactly the level of customer service and support they calculate is most profitable. So I guess it's not incompetence.

Thanks. I've made a booking at Soi 2 Inn. Any other suggetions are welcome!

You could try China Garden soi Lengkee.

Think they have rooms about that rate and if not open already then very soon.

Thanks. Looks good! Unfortunatly the phone number on their webpage isn't working. Maybe they haven't quite opened yet....

I will check out Diana Oasis.

Anyone know of a brand new guesthouse or hotel in the 800 baht price range.

I'm looking for a place which recently finished construction and opened in the last month or so.

I can handle low quality (in fact it seems appropriate in pattaya), but not poorly air conditioned and dirty and low quality and I've rarely found a place in that price range that I wanted to stay in after it's been open for a while.

Many thanks for your help!

How about when you write an email and click to send it and it goes to the True page instead. That's it, you have lost anything you wrote that wasn't saved. No way to get back to Hotmail, Gmail etc. Morons!

Google Dr Dre chinese copy and you can find out the approximate selling prices for the various Chinese copies.

Thanks for the information!

Central Chitlom

Beer Lao Dark 65 baht

Beer Lao 43 baht

How does that compare to Makro?

Bar: Oh My Cod, Soi Rambuttri, near Khao San (actually a restaurant to be precise)

Supermarket: Central Chitlom, main gourmet food shop / supermarket

Central Chidlom!

Could that possible be true....

I will go check right now~

Shoelaces are one of the great mysteries of Thailand. Nobody knows where to buy them. Seriously....

Big C has some cheap ones usually, but anything of quality, simply not sold in Thailand.

Google happy cow Bangkok and all will be well.

"it took quite a bit of work and persuasion from our lawyers in order to convince the Land Department officials of the laws and Court decisions."

Quality lawyering you can be proud of!

I know from personal experience that the Chiang Mai land office has said that they will not allow registration of a lease AND a usufruct on a Chanote under any circumstances.

Wonder if this is true? A Thai stock analyst who works for Kasinkorn Bank financial service who follows Major told me a couple of days ago that Major divested itself of all Cal Wow stock. Seems like something I would have heard about, but he was sure of himself.

Here's the simple answer which works a charm. Go to any cosmetic counter and buy a small mirror encased in plastic. Break and remove plastic and you have a metal mirror. Attach to shower tile using white double sided tape available at 7-11.

Do it myself everywhere I live in Thailand.

"You also need to be aware that on some occasions, officers at land departments may not accept registration of a lease against the land by foreigners."

Good, I must be wrong. I hope Sunbelt comes back and tells me that on "some occasions" land departments HAVE accepted registrations of a "lease against the land by foreigners"......... and perhaps shares specifically which land office they know has done it.

That's what the Sunbelt lawyer is implying right?

I think what happened, probably, is that a few years a ago a farang lawyer saw the Supreme Court decision and devised a legal theory that it meant the usufruct holder had the right to register a lease without the consent of the chanote holder. This was then read, cut and pasted etc. by the various Farang oriented law firms and gradually the idea that it was a theory and not actual fact and experience was lost.

If you google it or look at information provided by the law firms you see that they are just cut and pasting the same couple of articles/information/opinion excerpts and each other.

I'm sure the well intentioned Sunbelt lawyer who responded above is in a difficult position with something like this.

As I wrote above, I could be wrong but I would bet that it has never been done by any of the law offices who say with such assurance that the usufruct holder has the right to register a lease without the consent of the chanote holder. I doubt that it's done for foreigners or for Thai's although I understand the land office transactions are rife with "complexities".

I'm sure they have gone into a land office with the chanote holder, the usufruct holder, and the new lessee and dissolved the usufruct and registered a lease on the chanote, but that is a far different thing.

Well, it will be kind of interesting to see if Sunbelt or Isaan Lawyers (or anyone) posts that they have ACTUALLY registered at the land office a lease granted by a usufruct holder.

I might be wrong, but I sure wouldn't pay for a three year or less unregistered lease without knowing I was wrong. Thai courts have consistently ruled that there must be privity of contract between the parties or the contract is unenforceable. That's why the whole 30 year renewal option fell apart. There is no privity between the chanote holder and the lessee after the death of the usufruct holder. There might an arguement that the chanote holder has granted management rights to the usufruct holder, but this sure isn't a normal interpertation of usufruct law anywhere else, that I'm aware of. Is this settled law in Thailand?

I might be wrong but I wouldn't do a usufruct with the idea that I can get back some of my investment at any time by selling a thirty year lease without knowing that its actually possible and been done. The Supreme Court case as I've read it doesn't address that at all. Therefore it would be useful to know if Sunbelt has actually ever registered a lease for a usufruct holder or if they know of it having been done, except for the case that needed to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be resolved......

The reason I’m doubtful about the land office allowing the registration of a lease by a usufruct holder is because the idea violates the basic rights of the property owner by extending the definition of a usufruct into uncharted areas.

Sunbelt, have you ever actually registered a lease from a usufruct holder to a third party? I bet not! If I'm wrong I apologise but I imagine that the supreme court case addressed enforcement of a Improperly registered lease and not the rights of the usufruct holder to register a lease.

Thanks Mobi, but the usufruct holder has no rights to register a lease with the land office.

And why would the land owner honor a 3 year or less lease after the usufruct holder dies?

I'm not a fan of Sunbelt but I see no legal conflict here.

Normally, the rights of a usufruct holder are extinguished once he or she dies. However, if during his life time he grants a lease and then dies, the lease so granted is legal until it's expiry. I think Sunbelt is thinking of 99% of leases which are for a maximum of 3 years, so if the usufruct holder dies after, say, 1 year of granting the lease, then the lease is still good for the remaining 2 years.

I admit I have never considered the situation where the lease may be for more than 3 years, for as you point out, this would need to be registered at the land office. But in principle, I see no conflict. The usufruct holder issues a lease for (say 10 years) gets it registered at the land office, and then dies. So the lease is still valid until it expires. No different to if the actual owner of a property issues a long lease and then dies. The owner's heirs would have to honour the lease.

I do agree that the usufruct holder may have a problem getting the land office to register such a lease,especially if the usufruct holder is a franag and is in his dotage, but in theory, I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible.

Sunbelt could you please explain your statement: "A usufruct grants the user a lifetime use of the property, even allowing the usufructary the right to lease the property that would remain legal even after his death."

I have never understood how a lease granted by the holder of a usufruct could last after his death beyond 3 years. And, even then, for a lease less than three years, where is the privity of contract between the owner of the property and the lessee?

All leases over three years must be registered by the holder of the chanote, isn't that so? Even if the owner of the land agrees to a lease with a third party, the land office isn't going to allow both a usufruct and lease on the chanote.

Could you clear this up for me....

Thanks!

"A usufruct grants the user a lifetime use of the property, even allowing the usufructary the right to lease the property that would remain legal even after his death."

Sunbelt, I have never understood how a lease granted by the holder of a usufruct could last after his death beyond 3 years.

All leases over three years must be registered by the holder of the chanote, isn't that so? Even if the owner of the land agrees to a lease with a third party, the land office isn't going to allow both a usufruct and lease on the chanote.

And for a lease less than three years, where is the privity of contract between the owner of the property and the lessee?

Could you clear this up for me....

Thanks!

Should be easy to get 18-20 thousand for it if in reasonable condition.