windosill

My lawyer has just told me this:

"There is one exception, for a lease OR

for a usufruct, when a contract is made between spouses while married,

this contract can be void by the court at the demand of a spouse. (section

1469)

Can be void while married or when you divorce.

But I've never seen one case using this clause. People don't know about

this clause and nobody will tell you because they want you to do business

with you. I will show it to you when we will meet."

So what is the point of having an usufruct or a lease?

Thanks for all your comments, but I am still confused. Is it worth me getting an Usufruct or should I save my 28,000 Baht? If my wife and I were to get divorced, would I be able to keep the house?

Has anyone hard of, or do you have an Usufruct Contract? We've bought a house in my wife's name and I was going to get a 30 year lease on it in my name, but our lawyer has advised against this and said an Usufruct Contract would be better. Details as follows:

"I'm glad that you contacted us and answered the questions I sent you. Why?

Because we believe a lease is NOT the best option for you.

Many law firms in Pattaya are NOT law firms. They are offering services

for a very small fee but it's not professional work. You purchased a house

and it's a major investment for you. So, I would suggest you to hire a

good law firm. On the long term, you probably want something safe and this

is why you are contacting lawyers? Am I right?

If you make a 30 years lease in Thailand, you will be required to pay a

rent to your wife and taxes to the governemnt. We suggest you to make a

USUFRUCT agreement and not a lease with your Thai wife. This can be done

for the rest of your life (not 30 years - you are still very young at

25!), you don't have to pay a rent (contrary to the lease contract) and

you won't have to pay taxes. It's much better.

We can draft you a usufruct contract and register it for 20K. We can't go

lower. Actually, we lowered our fees because your house is only 1 million

and we know that you are a teacher.

A usufruct is better for you and we can help you to do it.

Here's a small description of what is a usufruct:

-------------------------------------------------

The usufruct is a right granted by an owner of land in favor of a

usufructuary whereby the usufructuary has the right to possess, use

and enjoy the benefits of the property. The usufructuary can also have

the right of management of the property.

It is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from

property that belongs to another person, as long as the property is

not damaged. In many legal systems of property, buyers of property may

only purchase the usufruct of the property.

Usufruct originates from civil law, where it is a real right of

limited duration on the property of another. The holder of a usufruct,

known as the usufructuary, has the right to use and enjoy the

property, as well as the right to receive profits from the fruits of

the property. The Latin words usus and fructus refer to the rights of

use and fruit, respectively, and the English word usufruct derives

from these Latin roots. The term fruits should be understood to mean

any replenishable commodity on the property, including (among others)

actual fruits, livestock, and even rental payments derived from the

property.

Usufructuary

A usufructuary is a person or an entity who or that holds property by

usufruct.

How Usufruct Works

A usufruct may be created for your natural life or up to 30 years. You

also can lease the land to a third party which would not end when you

die. Example: You can lease out the property to a third party before

your demise as per the Supreme Court ruling 2297/1998; "the lessor

does not have to be the owner of the property". Therefore the

usufructuary can rent out the land. Although in the event of death of

the usufructuary, within the leased term, only the usufruct will be

terminated but not the lease.

This way, a thirty year lease to a third party can be granted. This

could be passed on to your children or other relative even after death

for as long as the lease was done before the demise. The owner of the

land must bring the chanote to the Land dept, to allow the lease or

transfer of the rights, if it is longer than 3 years.

With the usufruct, you are registered on the title deed. The land can

never be sold or transferred by the owner of the land until the

servitude is terminated It can only be sold provided the buyer

respects usufruct. You can also get a yellow book which is a House

Registration Certificate ( Thor. Ror 13). The usufruct would be

registered with a 1.5% tax of the value of the benefit or 50 Thb if it

were given for free."

I always thought the role of a teacher was to educate.

What you have outlined for a teacher to do is something a parent should be responsible for.

Now that I have Scott 1 firmly upset, I must admit that I have to come down on the side of Mr. Bear and Mr. Boogie. Some of your responses have been barely readable and certainly not grammatically correct. I would have expected better when complaining so vociferously about English Teachers.

Spelling mistakes are never really irrelevant anywhere. They are signs of a misspent youth.

Chuckd, I also used to be a teacher at BEST and agree with what Scott1 has to say. Please take a look at the following website with regards to Every Child Matters: http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/

I think strategically you made a mistake in applying for the visit visa following the settlement refusal: you should have fought the settlement corner.

Having said that, how on Earth they could refuse a settlement visa on the basis of a perceived lack of funds and then grant a visit visa, is beyond anyone's ken.

Scouse.

Thanks Scouse. We are currently appealing the decision - it's another story. We needed to come back to the UK quickly after the refusal of the Settlement Visa due to my work commitments. My wife's 6 month visa was almost up and so we thought the 2 year visitor visa was our next best option as I didn't want to be apart from my wife and young son.

We registered the Appeal with the AIT at the end of March and we didn't hear anything for 2 months, so I contacted the Embassy in Bangkok who informed me that they had not been sent the paperwork by the AIT. I then contacted AIT who insisted they had sent it in mid April. I have just been informed by the Embassy in Bangkok that they now have the paperwork and the appeal is being looked at and they have to reply to the AIT by 6th September. It's all been taking too long, as my wife has to leave the country in September and at the advise of our MP we have decided to go back to Thailand and reapply. Funds are running low now after shelling out for flights again and my wife needs to get the Settlment Visa so that she can work - I hope it gets sorted this time otherwise it will be a never ending circle.

How pointless would it be to send her back only to come straight back again! Surely that alone would show how much of a farce this hole thing is.

I'm having problems too. I was working in Thailand for 20 months and during this time I met my wife and we had our son. I was teaching and only earning £450 a month which I didn't mind when it was just me and the Mrs, but once our son was born this was not enough as I wanted to return to the UK about once a year with my family and flights would have been 3 or 4 months wages. Anyway, to cut a long story short, we were planning on coming back to the UK last Xmas with the newborn baby for a 3 week holiday and my wife had a 6 month visa accepted. Just before Xmas I was offered a job in the UK that was too good to turn down at that moment in time, so I contacted the Embassy and asked them what to do about my wife's visa. Their advise was to go to the UK on the 6 month Visitor Visa and return after 6 months and apply for a settlement visa. I took this advise and we landed in the UK late last year. We decided to go back to Thailand as a family over Easter this year in order to apply for a Settlement Visa. However, we put in all the paperwork and the Visa was refused even though we had been living there for almost 6 months and not claimed a penny off the state and I was working full-time earning £24K per year. The Entry Clearance Office wasn't "satisfied that you and any dependants will be maintained adequately without recourse to public funds or employment." This wound me up because my wife's only dependant is our son who is a UK citizen. Having been refused the Settlement Visa (36,000 Baht) we then applied less than a week later for a 2 Year Visitor Visa (18,000 Baht) which was accepted! This is not great because my wife can not work on this visa and has to go back to Thailand every 6 motnhs. Total cost of the trip for flights, visas and spending money was £3000!

We are going back again at the start of September to apply for the Settlement Visa again as my wife wants to work part-time in out local Thai restaurant as we are going to be struggling for cash purely due to the amount we are spending on visa application in Thailand! It's pathetic that a young family can't stay together, I am 25 and my wife is 22 and our son is coming up to 1 and UK Immigration are making it hard for us to be together!

I think Garden International School/R.E.P.S. is one of the best in the area. Attached are the foreign teachers listed in the current curriculum.

Does anyone have the website address for Garden International School? The one that I have (http://www.gisthailand.net) links to a travel website.

Was he wearing a crash helmet?

Yes

I don't know if the photo is just a mock-up but if it is a real one of the accident, then the message to everybody should be, WEAR A HELMET.

Hi Steve - Just to let you know, Matt was wearing a helmet, but it was removed before the photo was taken.

1. I do not see any sign of the helmet he should have been wearig

2. Accident victims are normally taken to the public hospital in Naklua, where more serious injuries are referred to the provincial hospital in Chonburi

3. He would never have been turned away from a private hospital in the US because he could not pay the bill.

An eye-witness to the incident has confirmed that Matt was wearing a helmet.