JimGant

Nifty info, Dragonman.

Some sort of trust arrangement would certainly seem superior to what we now have. In my case, having the niece (or even the Land Office) as trustee, rather than outright owner, seems a better arrangement, should the wife die before me.

Now, would fiduciary responsiblity of the trustee translate into Thai?

People try in many ways to get around this 30 years, but it is there, and people should live with it, or rent. Everyone should realise that any lawyer fighting a case against a foreigner will immediately bring up that he is trying to circumvent Land Laws by these options or clauses. I personally cannot think of a defence.

I wonder how 30-yearsbecame the norm for leasing land in Thailand? (In the US, leaseholds are for 99 years.) I can't really believe the intent was to eliminate homesteading, and have the farang's white butt move on after a decent 30 year interval. No, it's probably just happenstance, or if thought out at all, it might be to give the landowner the chance to get out of a leasehold within his lifetime. If the latter applies, then a judge could possibly rule in favor of a lessor who's changed his mind since signing a contract about renewal. Or he could just as easily rule -- in the absence of any anti-homesteading intent -- that contracts that don't violate the law should be honored.

Anyway, before any of this gets tested in the courts, the law will again change -- and I bet in favor of the foreigner. In the meantime, building your dream home in Thailand has a definite TIT angle to it.

Alternativly is it possible to for me to lend the wife the money with 50% of the loan to be paid back over the 30 period and the remainder to be paid on expiry of the lease or another 30 years be added

Strictly speaking, no, since you're supposed to attest at the Land Office that it's her money purchasing the land, not yours. So, a loan would not be kosher. And if you gift the money to her, with the understanding that she's to gift it back to you at a later date, it better be true love, 'cause no judge will come to your rescue, particulary since she'll have confirmation from the Land Office that it was her money used for the land.

As far as joint ownership of land in Thailand, I would think so, but don't know for sure. But what you're suggesting sounds a little spooky to me, and could result in a lot of head scratching by a judge........if it ever came to that.

It all boils down to: If you're young enough to sweat NOT being able to renew your lease after 30 years, whatya gonna do?

It seems that Land Offices do NOT consider the 30+30 option as codified law pertinent to real estate. (At least in my case, they wouldn't write such an option into the basic 30-year lease endorsed on my chanote.) But there is nothing to prevent the lessor and lessee from having a separate contract from that endorsed on the chanote, namely, at the end of 30 years (or some shorter period, if desired) the lessor agrees to renew the lease. Such a contract, if constructed properly (i.e., get a GOOD lawyer), would seem to protect the lessee should the lessor try to back-out. But what if, before renewal time, the lessor either dies or sells the property? Hmmmm. Would such a contract stand up in court? Dunno -- hasn't been a test case, as far as I know. But many have said that, if the original lessor is not there at renewal time, there is nothing about the original contract that requires the new lessor to renew.

What can you do? I guess you could write into the contract that, should the lessor sell the land, he's required to renew the lease before the sale is final. Sounds reasonable enough to stand up in court (but who knows). And it would at least give you another 30 years, as the new lessor is required by law to honor the in-place 30-year lease recorded in the Land Office. (And, of course, at this juncture you would try to write a new renewal contract with the new lessor.)

But what if the original lessor dies? Probably tough cookies, as there is nothing in contract law, as I understand it, that could demand that the inheritor of the land be required to renew expiring leases. (So, if your landlord is sickly, hustle him down to the Land Office for a quick cancel/renewal session.)

Anyway, the above applies mainly to situations where the Thai wife is NOT the lessor. I don't have any renewal contract with the wife (but, I suppose, if the marriage was shaky, it could be useful), mainly 'cause I'll be dead by renewal time. But her will has been rewickered to include: I'll inherit the land, should Thai law at the time so allow; I've the option to sell the land; and, should I not sell, I get to pick which of her relatives will take title. And, I guess, we could have included her desires about wanting the relative to renew the lease, blah blah blah, but, as in contracts, don't believe this would be legally binding.

this whole thing is a money making scam by the US Government, which of course makes sense.... why they want to make it so hard for holidaymakes to get into that place I don't know.. but they seem to have managed to turn what they call a security issue into a very lucrative money making scheme.. and money is all that matters to some people..

Actually, we have enough homegrown hoodlums without the need to import them. Fortunately, when Britain found it necessary to export its criminals a few centuries ago, we had already said adieu to the Crown (but sorry OZ).

By the way, we've seen what British "holidaymakes" can do at a soccer game. No thanks.

or the waitress is really, really cute..

Ahh, we finally cut to the chase -- those bible thumpers were with their wives.

If both parties agree, a lease may be cancelled at any time. A renewal for 30 years may then take place as long as you don't come across one of the Land Offices that make up their own laws. sad.gif Of course you would need to pay the relevant tax again.

The Land Office doesn't care about set-aside contracts between the lessor and lessee. They deal in 30-year contracts implemented by them, collect the applicable fees, and record the 30-year lease on the chanote. If the lessor and lessee want to make a contract that says they'll march into the Land Office in 5 years, cancel the original lease, then implement a new 30-year lease, so be it -- just as per the above quote. And also per the above quote, the Land Office is happy to collect the relevant tax 25 years early.

The problems arise when the lessor and lessee no longer agree on this set-aside contract to renew in 5 years time. Then, the court would have to decide on the validity of this contract -- an outcome I wouldn't care to bet on. But, again, the Land Office is divorced from this set-aside contract. The don't care if the lessor and lessee come into their office to cancel/renew a 30-year lease because of a personal contract -- or because of a court order.

Either a clause or contractual agreement would be illegal, as you are in effect breaking the maximum 30 years allowed by law, by agreeing to what is in effect 35 years.

Again, the Land Office doesn't even consider this personal contract for early renewal. Should the lessor want to renigre, it would then be up to a judge to determine the legality of this personal contract between lessor and lessee. Then, the Land Office wouldn't even know -- or care -- about the judge's decision -- the lessor and lessee either show-up at the Land Office for a cancellation-with-subsequent-renewal -- or they don't.

I'll probably be dead before my 30-year lease expires. But if my wife turns dangerously ill as this lease progresses, we'll probably cancel/renew this lease just in case my 'nice niece' who'll inherit the property forgets about the second 30-year renewal clause (which, like a 5-year renewal clause, is just a personal contract, not enforceable in the eyes of the Land Office, and which would be subject to some judge's decision).

Another question with my situation is - I don't need visa on US pp, but need thai visa for entry on other pp.

I'm intrigued. It would be so much simpler to enter Thailand on your US passport, especially since you indicate you'll be staying less than 30 days. Why, then, do you want to use your non-US passport? I can only guess that your other country doesn't allow dual citizenship and thus when you arrive at this other Asian country, you don't want to answer questions about why your 'other Asian country' passport has no immigration stamps from Thailand..........

another related question i have is .. regarding thai visa. when i get thai visa from consulate in US, they ask for green card or any proof. well.. i now have a US pp, so would they ask me why i want to use my other pp since US pp doesn't need thai visa for 30 days??

They might, but tell them the truth, as Thailand does allow dual passports, so shouldn't really care about your Asian country's preference.

As far as what passport to show leaving the US, I'd say use the US. Yes, some day computer data banks will track everyone's worldwide travels, and if you switch passports after takeoff, this fact will be obvious at the landing country's immigration. But "some day" isn't here yet. And even so, where dual citizenship is allowed, just showing both passports is a valid explanation. And by using the US passport when you leave, you'll (in theory) be logged out of the country -- so when you return, logging in should (in theory) be a normal event (and not a red flag, requiring explaning why you left on your other passport).

If dual passports holder (US and other Asian country) is transiting in BKK (staying a few days in BKK), is passport swapping ok like what other thai dual nationals doing?

In answer to your first question, having two passports is not a problem in Thailand (or US). As many others have posted on this forum, it's best to minimize the flashing of both passports at the same time, since routine immigration clerks don't come up against dual citizenship issues that often. Worst that can happen, tho, is a long run-around while the correct pooyai is found to solve this perplexity -- and maybe you'll miss your flight. But you're doing nothing illegal (in Thailand or the US), so eventually the situation will resolve.

Ok, what 'othe Asian country' are you from?

Bangkok Bank savings accounts (which are fluid, i.e., you can pay your utilities direct from them, have an ATM card attached, etc) pay about .75% annually. Whether or not 15% tax comes out of this, I don't know, as it doesn't reflect in the passbook. But 15% of nothing is, well, nothing.....

But these accounts are handy and can be linked together with a Bangkok Bank internet banking account, plus to named third party accounts (handy for, say, paying your maid via the Internet when you find yourself out of the country on pay day).

Yeah, it's a shame, at those interest rates, to park 800k (or 400k) to meet Immigration's requirement, even if you begin to draw down immediately after your annual extension of stay renewal. Don't know if Immigration would accept an equivalent amount in a Thai CD or similar account, with daily living needs being accomodated with a much less robust savings account. Can't imagine why they wouldn't accept such a banking package, as it would be easy to show them all the paperwork for your Thai financial package............... Ah, the operative word above is "easy," so probably no can do.

JimGants will never be able to own the property himself but will have to set up a company

Actually, the question was asked from the perspective of having a Thai spouse who would assume title.

Interestingly, tho I asked the question as a perspective buyer of some additional land, the seller aspects appear more complex, at least from the income tax arena: Eg, the wife has dual US/Thai citizenship, and as such, we pay US income tax on our worldwide income -- and the tax treaty with Thailand prevents double taxation. But if we sell our house/land, income taxes will (it appears) have to be paid up front to Thailand. And since our Thai home is our secondary residence, at least right now, we would have to pay the US a tax on any capital gain. (But, yes, we should get credit for taxes paid to Thailand.)

Anyway, hadn't really pondered the income tax angle of owning real estate in Thailand -- but won't lose any sleep over it 'til the time comes.

FWIW....

A nice flowery lease agreement, if it doesn't fly in the face of codified Thai law, may be nice to have. For example, an option to renew for a second 30-year term, might be nice. But as I understand it, this could be challenged in court, since it is not codified -- and not includable on the registered lease in the Land Office (at least it wasn't in our case). And contractually, if it's not registered with the authorities, I'd be somewhat wary.

And it is the registered lease in the Land Office that is key: It's on record; fees paid; in accordance with codified Thai law; written in Thai; and most importantly, you the Farang have your name as the lessee for 30-years (I believe this is actually endorsed on the back of the chanote - but I'm too lazy to go check my copy). Thus, the meat of the deal should (well, TIT....) be sacrosanct, and you're home free for 30 years, regardless of what happens to the original lessor. And if you have, in addition to the Land Office lease, additional contractual agreements written out, this could possibly be of value in court, if needed, at least if the original lessor is still alive.....

For husband and wife (my situation), I doubt anything over and above the Land Office lease is required. Disposition of the land/lease upon death can be taken care of in the wills. But I guess if there's a chance of divorce, a flowery lease that addresses situations more akin to a business deal vice marriage would be appropriate. Just don't bet the farm your interests will be adhered to in court.

When buying land, who customarily pays the transfer fee/tax -- the buyer or seller? Or is this normally negotiated?

Also, what are the current transfer rates?

Thanx.

Question for Sunbelt (the following quote is attributed to you):

What will happen if the Thai person who leases the land to me dies

The lease agreement can be worded that in case the proprietor dies, the heirs will have to

retain the lease and keeping you as the lessee. However this is a matter which will have to be

settled by a jury in court. Our lease agreement is worded in a manner, that should their heirs not

oblige they will be penalized.

It was my (and several others') understanding that the lessee is protected from lessor turnover during the initial 30-year lease contract, ie, the lessor dying, selling, or otherwise disposing of the property will in no way abrogate the contract, which is on-record at the Land Office. Yes, if you have a 30-year renewal clause -- and your original lessor is out of the picture at renewal time -- you now do NOT have codified Thai law protection and just might have to fight it out in court -- regardless of any lease agreement wording.

At least this is how the Land Office explained it to us.

Comments?

Thanks, Joop.

Oh, have you also checked-out Gassan Lake City GC? It looks like almost all the holes have water on them. And with my recent 'doublecross' problem, this GC looks like hel_l. Bad as it looks?

Anybody have first-hand knowledge of the new Highlands Golf Course, which supposedly was to open in December?

Also, about how far past the turnoff for the CM-Lamphun GC on route 1317 is the Highlands?

Thanx.

At what decibel level will MooBan loudspeakers self-destruct? And how can we hasten this desirable result?

I think we can guess from which side of the pond you originate!

That obvious, huh?

Yeah, the term 'goldfish' is kinda weird for finger snacks. But these cheese-flavored wonders are addictive, at least to me, as are the Cheese Curls -- which, I believe, the ones in Rimping come from Oz. However, for some reason I've run out of these -- and pizza-flavored Goldfish too.

So, off to Rimping..........

What's the chance of Agila, etc succesfullypreventing the use of their signal? I'd hate to buy the dish, only to find out that I then had to then pay a UBC-like monthly fee.............

Also, how long can the cable run be from the dish to the TV?

Thanx.

My only complaint is the Meat department. Unless you are purchasing Beef or Shrimp, you are better off going anywhere else in town.

Have to say I have been happy with the beef selection, particularly the Australian tenderloin (at the new Rimping, at least). I hope they'll get some US beef one of these days, tho', now that the mad cow embargo has been lifted.

I even saw the other day a frozen Kobe beef steak -- about the size of a small pork chop -- priced at over 1000 bt!! I wonder if anyone has bought it yet.....?

Yeah, Rimping's Cheese Curls, pizza-flavored Goldfish snacks, Heinz dill pickles, and boxed California wine complete the civilization of Chiang Mai.

Used the new parking lot at the airport recently... Is this insane or what.. There's like a half-meter drop from the terminal level down to the parking lot level. No separation, no fence, railings, steps, anything.

Agreed. With my arthritic back, I find I have to walk quite a bit north to where the cliff becomes more a curb in order to enter the parking lot. Haven't figured out if this was a design flaw -- or the builder couldn't read the plan(?).

But, the added parking spaces seems to have helped matters -- at least I haven't seen much double-parking lately (although, maybe I just haven't been there during a peak period.....).

A 30-year lease should be an even higher priority than a will. Relatively easy to do -- and not too costly. When accomplished -- and registered with the land office -- you'll legally be entitled to stay on your land (at least for 30 years) regardless of who the future land owner/lessor becomes.

And the wife's will should say something like: 'I leave land and house to my husband. If Thai law will not allow this, husband has option to sell land and house; otherwise ownership should transfer to a person of my husband's choosing.' (You've got a year to then figure out which person you'd like as your new landlord -- maybe your new girlfriend )

You'd want the diesel, obviously.

Actually, in the interest of 'quietness,' I had thought gasoline. But I would certainly be interested in your diesel reasoning.........

Anybody know if there is still a waiting time for Toyota Fortuners in CM?

If so, about how long -- and what's the variation between models (e.g., gas vs diesel)?

Thanx.

And love your music, George.

Have been getting my books from Gecko's for years -- and always enjoy your 'folk' selections playing in the background (at least at your main store).

Wish you had those CDs available for sale.....................

about the direct, non-stop flights having to divert for fuel.

"Direct" flights, in airline parlance, mean your flight number doesn't change, but you can expect to make at least one stop enroute -- and an aircraft change might also occur.

"Non-stop" is just that -- the equipment and crew rest criteria say you'll only have one takeoff and one landing -- and this is what should happen 98% of the time. BUT, your advertised 'non-stop' flight might become a 'direct' flight should unusual headwinds, etc. dictate a fuel/crew stop. Fine with me in such a situation -- if the situation is, indeed, out-of-ordinary (ie, the 'non-stop' is the usual rule, and not the exception). But I'm sure some faulty advertising along these lines has occured, just as the airlines haven't gone out of their way to define "direct flights" to the novice traveling public.