thaiwanderer

I know both ways of buying a house are possibly under threat but what do you Guys think is the safer option

Cheers

Buy (at the right price!) a house in your own name on a 30 year lease in your own name

(by all means include an option to renew etc. but do not rely on them and do not factor that in when deciding if the price is right).

Other ownership options (company, thai wife, other nominee etc.) are more expensive due to the false illusion of greater ownership / closer to 'freehold' but are in fact less secure. So you would be paying more for less and have less peace of mind (and breaking the law obviously).

To me Thais seems to have little concept of sexualising children being a bad thing.

Try 'Wonder Gay'.

However, the main point is that they've stood the local mafia down, and there's no way that they are going to 'go for it' against these farang. Lesson learned folks, an element of strength in numbers.

Did they? I must have missed that bit.

I would like to purchase a house with a small land in Phuket with a lease contrat (30 years) with my thai gf. Can i sell the house on freehold during the leasing contract and get all the money of the sale? A property agency told me it's possible to do it if we notify i have this power at the beginning when i buy the house and register the leasing to the land office. If it's not possible what it will happen if me and my gf want to sell the house on freehold? She gonna get all the money? Is it secure for me to sell the house?

If you own the lease why would you think you are entitled to sell the freehold land?

You can own the house but it will be of diminishing and extremely limited value atop a slowly dying lease. There are additional options of usufruct and superficies discussed elseweher in this section but you will probably not find the certainty you want there either.

Why would you expect the land office to register a lease that gives the foreign lessee freehold ownership / right of disposal?

If your (Thai i assume?) girlfriend owns the land and house than she can sell it.

You can attempt to circumvent that as others do by making paper planes of contracts or corporate structures of greater or lesser complexity but to the extent that you have beneficial ownership and control of the land you will equally be in breach of the law should and investigation ever occur. Given you appear to be wishing to protect yourself in the event of things turning sour with your girlfriend this (at the very least) is entirely possible.

It is not up to the Land Department to keep track of or know the percentage of foreign ownership in any condominiums.

It is the responsibility of the Juristic person of the Condo Management to issue a letter that is taken to the Land Department.

The fact that your condo has a lease, then you do not own it. The only way they will give you that information is if the "Thai owner" agrees that you may change the ownership of the condo into your name depending on the percentage of foreign owners.

You will be paying transfer fees again though.

As I understand it from the OP's post (may be incorrect) he is not leasing. He is buying (admittedly paying over a period)?

Update: I had a reply asking why I wanted to know this!!!! it sounds like they have something to hide.

On BEENTHEREDONETHAT's advise I have replied and informed them of my intentions to approach the Land Registry Office, good advise by the way, never thought of that, lets see the response.

I am out the country so cant go to the Land Office for details.

Even if they gave the answer straight away still check with the land office.

You seem a little suspicious as they don't have anything to hide anyway since its a matter of public record and your agreement appears to have been to purchase a Thai quota appartment.

i wonder how it works though if a 'foriegner' unit is sold to a 'thai', does the thai have the right to keep it as a 'foriegner' unit so they can protect the resale possibility to foriegner in future? quik?

Depends on Thai being stupid enough to pay farang price. Even if looking to flip margin narrow.

While I understand the need for keeping foreign land speculators from buying up land through nominees I think that considerations need to be made for those in genuine marriages. Do you think anything can be done regarding this problem so that those in valid marriages can own land with their wives?

The restriction on Thai wives of Foreign husbands holding land having been removed long ago I do not personally see what 'needs to be done'. How a husband and wife in a 'genuine' marriage choose to hold, share or split their assets in accordance with the prevailing and relevant law in their resident contry is entirely up to them. If marriage were to give rise to special real estate benefits that would likely create worse social problems IMHO. Should aliens have greater property rights generally? Regardless of whatever restrictions and checks / balances might be necessary first the reason why they should (if at all) needs to be decided and defined. That aliens might want to have those increased rights is really a non-issue. Whether Thailand should give those rights is entirely a matter for Thailand.

"You'd essentially be suing the building...which is infact yourself, and your fellow co-owners... talk about sh*tting where you eat... What kind of reaction do you think you're going to get when your neighbors find out a good chunk of their monthly service charge is going to legal fees to defend against the lawsuit you've bought against the building?"

The building is a business entity, and can be sued by a co-owner, or by visitor who slips and falls in the lobby. It does not matter. The building has an insurance policy that is paid for by the collective monthly service charge, and the payout will be from the insurance company, not individual co-owners.

Should / may have insurance perhaps, but remember the reason he wants to sue in the first place.

Frankly, it's just another Thai move accommodating their innate insularity.

They are just so shortsighted and incoherent.

If they were that keen to attract foreign residents of worth they could easily adopt the Malaysian initiative and offer retirees or otherwise with demonstrable funds and income the opportunity to buy a property above a given price without encumbrance. But they won't and for the simple reason that they can't bear not to have their cake and it too.

And that's a criticism?

during which u have freehold right with land

- Leasehold is not Freehold.

that u can make money from that with little headache,

Is that with the blue or red pill?

such as to sell the leasing rights.

- A diminishing asset and Lessor's co-operation required for full registration which will likely required for any satisfaction of new lessee, let alone full satisfaction.

Buying land is generally not advisable for small businesses. because even you can use your 51% "Thai-owned" company (through methods, such as, set up a Thailand-based company here and use it to hold shares in the company that will legally become Thai-owned as a result) to buy the land, you will have complexity with task to report every year and to meet some requirements. it is considered not worthwhile especially for small businesses.

- And if lease only a business need not attend to any regular official paperwork in your opinion?

in most cases, and straight way, it is advisable for foreigner to lease land.

Whilst I am not necessarily disagreeing with the general notion that it may be advisable for some foreigners to lease land (or indeed some thai companies), you seem to be overlooking the fact that the OP is looking to run a business in any event (not just to own land) and further as such will not then be an alien entity (or at least the hope is not appear to be an alien).

because by law, u can legally (free from any complexity each year),

- As the OP is looking to run a business this is not really an advantage.

lease land for 30 years,

-As commercial, 50 years is possible.

and extendable afterward.

- Are you SURE?

Agree with you to a certain degree.

IMO, common decency would require to first try and solve any problem with the owner/manager/whoever at the restaurant. If that does not work: sure, the internet is one way to warn people away if it was that bad. The problem is of course that normally the complaint on the internet is very one sided, and even if an owner/manager gets to react, the harm is done already. And in my experience, the bad impression that such a 'review' gives, is quite often not justified.

Same with good reviews and advertising though?

For those who enjoy poor mouthing restaurant owners why not have the courtsey to speak your complaints in person and give the owner a chance to fix your problem. Bad manners has those who complain on the forum but never bring the complaint direct to the restaurant owner. Many restaurant owners are generally on duty from 08:00 until 22:00 to welcome any constructive comments you might have or to correct a situation quickly.

There are also many restaurants that are allowed to be run by people who could care less about their customers and these should be dealt with.

Of course the owner should be approached first but the difficulty I find is that typically the farang 'owner' of a business is not the real registered owner, what then?

I abhor bad manners but equally dislike illegal company structures.

As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) the OP is not asking if its legal as such, rather asking if its 'less illegal' or of less interest to the authorities than an effectively non-trading company structure used to merely own land. It is, but.....

Weighted voting rights and the like alone may well be legal on a letter of the law interpretation but issues of nominees (widely drafted and undefined prohibition) and the general prohibition on ownership of land in place of / on behalf of an alien can only be entirely avoided where your Thai partners are genuine (and not just greater or lesser appearance of being genuine), so the claimed 'legality' of weighted votes is paper thin. The real test for certainty is the extent that an alien is the beneficial owner and has effective control of the company and or land.

There is a myriad of ways to avoid raising too much suspiscion and or survive a non-thorough investigation and the OP is heading down the right track for that but (unless I am misunderstanding) lets not confuse that with having an entirely legal structure with genuine Thai partners.

The real test is not setting up the passable structure and succeeding in the business, its keeping hold of the business if and when its successful.

Firstly, I want to make it absolutely clear that this posting is not meant to be inflammatory or seen to seek revenge for the current attitudes to foreigners and land in Thailand. I am just getting so curious as to what Thais think when the boot is on the other foot.

So, I've used Britain as my example, but it could be most other countries in the "west" that this refers to.

There are many Thais who read ThaiVisa.com, and I'd love to know what you feel about your fellow countrymen buying houses and land in my own country. Should we allow you to do this?

If we should, then why do you feel under threat if foreigners simply want to do the same here?

Why should Thais, and also Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Chinese, Turks, Italians and French be allowed to buy property to run their restaurants from?

When those restaurants are successful (you just go and see some of the rich restaurateurs in Manchester / Newcastle Chinatowns), should they be stopped from buying big houses in posh areas of their cities?

Look forward to reading about how you all feel.

Should? You / they DO. Self determination.

And is a Thai legally purchasing property in Britain worse than a non-Thai illegally purchasing property in Thailand? Or just worse to your frustrated self?

Governor pushing major road building agenda. Large hole appears on busy route which plans would provide an alternative to. Hmmmmmmm.........

Interesting articles, as one size rarely fits all.

Whilst the thread relates to 'what happens to the lease when you die' your own use and enjoyment of the land cannot be entirely discounted, if it were to avoid the problem just give the lease or better yet the money to your kids and not benefit yourself at all.

Whilst statistically having the lease in an offspring's name might be a better bet for enjoying the property for the remainder of your life and preserving the investment somewhat for them there is also a risk that the perhaps more immediate concern (of having a home in your own old age) could be endangered by their death or a family dispute. Of course there is no entirely attractive and risk free option.

IMHO the use of an offshore company would provide a more workable solution both for your own use and inheritance issues.

Presumably Section 541 applies only to the life of natural persons, if it aplied to the 'life' of a company then the golden key would have been found.

But using an offshore company as the lessee with the freehold (and the power to ensure lease renewals) held by an appropriate Thai company would IMHO offer the best protection in most situations.

Don't let them or the wife have the paper. They can't borrow on something if they do not have the chanote.

If you mean purely the physical paperwork that is incorrect.

but the question will remain undecided until it is finally decided by the highest court.

and even then remain undecided, unfortunately?

Talk of loopholes etc. may be premature as water can be land, so to speak.

“Land” means the general land, including mountains, brooks, swamps, canals, ponds, riverside villages, waterway, lakes, islands, and shore land. (land code section 1)

Water not so covered would be dealt with by far more difficult laws i imagine.

IMHO based on what you say the proposal does not OFFEND Thai law in as much as it has very little to do with Thailand other than the subject land being located in Thailand but therein lies the problem.

If as appears the transaction and sub-lease is entirely offshore and not registered in Thailand you have no protection in Thai law.

The Austrailian contract can of course be litigated in Austrailia if set up correctly but even if the Austrailian company has assets in Austrailia in the event of a dispute would you be interested in going against any of their Austrailian assets since its the use and or value of the Thai land that you would presumably wish to chase?

I am not at all sure whether an Austrailian court judgement would have any bearing on land in Thailand (i dounbt it) and even if it did the Austrailian company may well have lost / transferred its interest in the land before any such enforcement - so may just be a hollow and expensive victory then.

There may of course be tax and enforcement advantages to having offshore agreements in addition to a registered interest in the land (as lessee / sub-lessee) but I do not see how these offer any real advantage (and in fact see real weakness) without your having an appropriate interest in the Thai land registered correctly in Thailand.

Why exactly would you not want to register the sub-lease in Thailand (or even better have the lease cancelled and a new lease with the freeholder)?

(Note: I am referencing the beach scavengers and scooter touts, not the legitimate real estate people.)

Why differentiate?

'legitimate real estate agents' tout renewable leases amongst other things. Is that not dishonest in the same way? Or does an air con office and a truck make them more trustworthy than a chancer on a scooter?

With respect, whilst the colours and types of land document are interesting unless you (or an agent you trust) have obtained the official copies and thoroughly investigated their history today they are of little use in assessing the land to which they may relate.

We (my Thai wife and "Nu") would sign an agreement that he is selling 1 rai to us, complete with survey of the newly divided land. He would then pay the land owner the total amount for 2.5 rai in cash from our proceeds and his own. The land owner would sign off on the title to "Nu". My wife and "Nu" would then go to the orbitor to officially divide the land and get a new chinote to show the two parcels of land and its respected owners.

As per Malcominthemiddle caution needed here and a mere agreement on its own will not adequately protect your 1rai cash. Your wife and Nu should both be registered as owners of the whole 2.5rai (with perhaps provision for the 1 / 1.5rai shares) upon transfer of the funds to the seller. Good legal advice required here and a decent agreement but most importantly your wife's interest must be registered from the outset. Otherwise the danger is that for whatever reason Nu buys the 2.5rai and your wife never gets any land and loses your money.

As others said its essentially never your land whatever happens.

Other matters to consider is a thorough investigation of the title (ownership history, zoning, possible uses) aswell as whether subdividion is even possible (it is not always).