thaiwanderer

How can you help. Any constructive advice as to my case. Any tips as to applicable thai law and where to find them. Any references to similar cases in the past, if any. Any references to size of compensation. etc, etc, etc.

You don't know the applicable law and regulations so cannot know exactly if and how in breach, and if lacking required protection should that not be the immediate aim rather than 'compensation'.

You also fail to appreciate the neither the juristic person or manager (they are not the same thing) is entirely at arms length from you and the other co-owners.

Have you paid for fire protection and if so how much and for what?

Well maybe I have this completely wrong then. What you seem to be saying is that a woman cannot sell a lease to a foreigner or mabe you mean a wife cannot sell a lease on land to her husband and here I assume that you mean that the funds for purchase are given to the wife / woman or derive from the lease. I don't see that really - what difference who sells a foreigner a lease - if the foreigner only holds the lease and the land is bought by a Thai unreservedly with no come back in law to the foreigner what is the problem - how is that holding the land as a nominee since the foreigner has no right to the land other than his legal purchase of a lease which is allowed in Thai law anyway. I wish this would be clarified properly and clearly but I fear the Thais don;t want to be clear about anything - it leaves more wriggle room and less security for the foreigner - and they are really uptight about giving foreigners any security about anything.

You write merely of 'Thais' as if perhaps all Thais made the decision for the benefit all Thais. Regardless of which Thais are 'uptight' where they are it is not about giving foreigners security or withholding it, rather retaining own overall security first an foremost.

In limited circumstances foreigners are allowed to own land and there is no outright prohibition whatsoever on foreigners owning land. Yes there are laws in Thailand that do not favour non-Thais but do they have to always be viewed as 'anti-foreigner' rather than 'pro-Thai'? The net affect may often be the same but the first (of course not the only) priority in creating laws should usually arise from concern for the country's own citizens or a portion of them at least rather than foreigners.

Given the conflict of laws and practice involving land and marriage it is also not so clear as to say a foreign husband has no claim at all on land owned by his Thai wife.

The lack of clarity and consistency in the law is of course a big issue. The usual refrain of 'nominees are illegal' is incorrect and of no use other than to give a general idea. However feigned ignorance and deliberate efforts to circumvent the law cannot be explained by lack of clarity in the law. The land code refers to 'when it appears any person has acquired land in the place of an alien' and the foreign business act refers to 'aiding and abetting foreigners' and 'holding shares on behalf of foreigners' 'in order for the foreigners to operate the business.....'.

How many foreigners who have invested with a view to protecting their investment and retain use and control of the land (whatever the structure) openly explained the structure to the land office or would be happy to do so?

I can understand a genuine desire for clarity when a husband wishes to gift his wife some land (and despite the guff of an official in the press there is such clarity), but if the husband is then to have a genuine lease on that land I see no real problem in registering that interest. Assuming of course that the husband completes the declaration of no interest upon the wife's purchasing the land and there is then a genuine seperate payment from husband to wife for the lease (the payment for the freehold being a gift with no strings remember). But how many that complain are actually doing this rather than expecting the lease to be given for no payment (payment for the freehold does not count, as that is a gift and a separate transaction) or a small tax payment for the lease (based on a criminal declaration to government officials of the lease payment itself having occured)?

In any country in the world if the declared elements of a transaction are legal are you seriously suggesting there is really no possibility of any undeclared / hidden elements (formal or otherwise and in country or offshore) and that any government should take declarations on face value alone? Try it with your taxman.

Thanks for that Ungabunga, it will take years to happen IF they can aquire planning permission to spoil the view and skyline of Pattaya. here is the link www.thelofts-southshore.com. it makes for interesting reading.

Question: its possible to spoil the view and skyline in Pattaya?

One question springs to mind, how can such a large development be built which will obviously need massive infurstructure changes ie water, electricity, roads?

Answer: Pattaya

AFAIK in my limited understanding Trusts are not recognised by Thai law?

IIRC children can own land and a controller can be appointed to manage it on their behalf (restrictions apply)?

i have never been to thailand

Humbly suggest not to enter a year's lease until say 1 month from arrival when better placed to judge areas, prices and relative merits.

Better yet, you can go to the local Wat where everyone is welcome

Are the muslims? and vice versa?

IIRC there is a catholic church in Patong and another christian church in Bang Tao (unsure of denomination) and also in phuket town - likely a few more aswell.

PM me for co-ordinates.

Not at all sure why posters feel the need to flame on this topic?

I am on co owners commitee and am questioning why we have to pay not only managemnt charges, security sharges, cleaning charges but also the salaries of the employees as a separate charge. Is this normal with a large company like Frank Knight for example.

Would you prefer it if the same fee was charged but the details were not broken down?

Our mangement company is small and unheard of but we are looking at cost savings inorder to keep the common charge per sq mtr the same. My condo building is 8 stories with about 40 units in Suk 39 area and is 3 years old. Total charges nearly 2 m baht per year. Is that reasonable for this size of building.

Thanks for help.

It is impossible to assess whether it is fair just on the size, number of units, location and age as that speaks nothing of the quality of the condo that you are seeking to maintain.

There is always going to be a certain amount of 'fat' (greater or lesser) on such charges. Trimming it excessively can be counter productive as it is for maintenance but I appreciate your concern generally.

You will of course be aware that should a dispute arise, even if you have a work permit for other work it will not authorise your activities on the committee?

The contract they have offered me does not state what is not included, only what is.

This is quite normal because if the contractor lists what is not included then you, as the buyer, could argue that everything else is included.

There is nothing in the contract detailing what could happen if the condo is not ready in time. how standard is such a stipulation?

This is something you should not accept. The agreement (it is not a contract) should always have a LD-clause (Liquidated Damages) under which the terms for delay (other than for force majeure) are written.

Furthermore, the agreement should include a Termination for Default clause. One reason for default could be X number of months delay, the contractor becomes bankrupt or start winding-up the company etc.. The consequences, should termination come to effect, must be clearly specified too.

Not sure what you mean by it an agreement rather than a contract?

It is a proposed contract until the offer and terms is accepted by the parties and then executed, is it not? In which case it is currently a proposed-agreement if you are going to use the term agreement, so unsure what distinction you are attempting to make?

As to translations iirc technically the parties can agree any governing language they want whether versions are executed in one, two or many languages. However from a practical point of view if there is no Thai version of the contract a thai court will likely require consider a thai translation prepared for the purposes of the proceedings in the event of a dispute. For most issues this distinction may be of no real importance but imho it is sensible for a farang themselves to have a thai translation version agreed along with the english version at the time of execution (with the contract stating the latter taking precedence). However good it is translation is never de-coding.

I recall it was touted at the time of the most recent condo act amendments that there would now be standard condo contracts but i understand this is not really the case and Sam's use of the phrase 'norms' instead is more accurate.

And always remember just because the parties agree something and it is clearly and explicity stated in their contract that does not at all mean it will be upheld at court (even if the parties do not disagree on that point at all).

Holy Crap I was there! What time did this occur? I arrived about 12:45 and left at almost 4am. Did not see incident, nor did I see any police present.

I never knew there were any night clubs in Cherng Talay. Where is this one? How close to the nearest mosque? I thought these places were to close at 2 am. If they are open up till morning Muslim prayer time there could be some legit opposition.

But what has that got to do with this incident?

Phuket/Patong is becoming more like a time warp every day - back to the "Old West" in good old Texas USA! It only needs an "OK Corral" on one end of the beach to let them just "Shoot it out". Bullet proof glass - great tourist attraction! Save many innocent too. These guys either took advantage of the lack in security along the beach, or just didn't give a toss. There is just no end to the hole the Thais are digging for themselves. These people just didn't care who got in the way, or who could have been hurt. They did not give a toss for the lives of any tourists or locals, who may have caught a stray round. This dispute is an old dispute that the police should have been watching out for. They definatly knew about it. The least they could have done was to warn the guys to keep their dispute AWAY from any crowded area, whether it be tourist or otherwise!! This last wee episode is not even laughable. Frightning in fact!

Ignores the fact that the dispute flared up at the actual location of the dispute.

Yes, I feel bad for the 'other half' halving to offload '........and now they are keen to sell one or the other'.

$1mil a rai for non commercial land in Phuket was breached long ago, away from those that think 'millionaire's mile' means something.

Usual falseness “Something that would be completely incorporated in the landscape .” “I didn’t want to undo what nature had done.” and I see his favourite piece is a lady boys painting.

I wouldn't want to own any land without a land title - too risky .

Well it's not your decision to make is it? Once the OP is in possession of all the facts he will undoutedly decide for himself.

Some areas of Thailand are predominently Bor Bor Tor 5 as the land was predominently Army land. hundreds of thousands of homes have been built on this type of land with no problems.

well heres a slight update what weve found out so far,he has been farming the land himself now for about 15 yrs,and the land has been passed down from his mother who has owned?used the land for approx 70 yrs+no problams,but there still saying no paperwork?not sure about that but thats tha answer were getting,they only get the yearly tax bill that the land dept issue after they have come out and taken measurement.also the land was approx 5 rai about ten year ago 2 rai sold and thai houses built,no problam these people went to the local umper and the tabien baan book issued,and the electric water supply was applied for no probs.also if we was to buy this land the top guy in the village,has said he has to issue a proper contract of sale and puchase i spose we keep a copy and he the seller keep a copy.also what it turns out is that the wholevillage and all the surrounding villages and land is in the same situation no definite land title,even the father in law and he has ALOT of land.have spocken to father in law about the whole situation and he say the local land department dont want to help on the land title thing?

By all means carry out full due dilligence but if all village the same, father in law has a lot of land etc then why not? Its only a 330,000thb gift from you to her (though that may or may not be a fair price for the particular land).

Thank you for the replies.

Kplesq:

Unfortunately not in Kansas. Extrapolation of foreign laws or experience tends to lead to disappointment.

Stgrhe:

The idea is that the Lessee is essential to the lease so his/her death automatically ends the lease, in which case any clauses are void. Also if the clause offends the law it is void from the outset.

Andrisdg:

Am aware of that and that is one of the methods to get round the problem – but by the same principle – once last co-lessee dies does the lease?

Much of American law is based on English law, as is Thai property law. e.g. 30-year lease. Entirely a modern concept. What do you base your analysis on? Thai law? I suggest you consult with a Thai lawyer, then. It seems to me, however, that you are, as they say, too clever by half. Good luck.

I was half jokingly pointing out a common trap.

This is a Thai forum, Thai real estate section and the thread concerns Thai leases.

My very very amateur analysis is of Thai law - but even I would not suggest to a Thai supreme court judge that he consider English or American law in the first instance when considering a Thai lease.

Its a matter of general interest to me and 'consult a lawyer' is the sensible answer for all threads in this section (though 2 lawyers tend not to agree) - but that really would rule out much discussion here.

It personally does not affect me as I have freehold but thank you for your comments.

Thank you for the replies.

Kplesq:

Unfortunately not in Kansas. Extrapolation of foreign laws or experience tends to lead to disappointment.

Stgrhe:

The idea is that the Lessee is essential to the lease so his/her death automatically ends the lease, in which case any clauses are void. Also if the clause offends the law it is void from the outset.

Andrisdg:

Am aware of that and that is one of the methods to get round the problem – but by the same principle – once last co-lessee dies does the lease?

Does a lease die with the lessee?

I have attempted to search for previous discussions on this but have not found anything particularly focused (excuse me if I have missed something in amongst the numerous threads concerning lease renewals, usufructs etc.).

There was a recent article in the Bangkok Post followed up by Phuket Post concerning the situation whereby the lessee dies during the lease and whether the lessee's heir/s can continue with the lease to the expiry of the currently registered term (this is not about renewals).

Essentially the Bangkok Post article suggests that the (entire) lease dies with the death of the Lessee.

The Phuket Post article included comments by certain foreign lawyers who concede its a grey area (i.e. who knows?).

Barring any discussion of the various ways around this (which themselves are grey areas or have their own 'issues' and have been frequently discussed) I was interested what if anything other posters knew about this, as often we discuss ways for farangs to secure the beneficial use and effective control of real estate with (as far as I can see) no significant mention of this issue.

Also by analogy (without any research so far on my part) does the same apply with the death of the lessor? (I suspect the case for that may not be as strong but....).

So, I am interested in other posters views on:-

1. does the lease automatically die with the death of the lessee?

2. does the lease automatically die with the death of the lessor?

3. are people getting ahead of themselves discussing renewals and the like when the first term is perhaps not so secure?

Do you mean Monthon “Palad Rambo” Chartsuwan, Aongart Chanachanmongkol or Maj Gen Intarat Yodbangtoey?

Whoever you mean, afaik nothing of any significance has happened.

The cost on the soul of living in a gated community is always far higher.

Whatever happened to........james nixon?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Canadian-Con...-A-t252387.html

In light of all the recent changes and restrictions on nominees etc.I was wondering if there is actually a legal way for a Farang to buy (and actually own) land/house in Thailand?

If there is, are there any restrictions and what is/are the safest option?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Cheers

Nothing has changed.

Farangs can perfectly legally buy (and own!) land but the restrictions are such that in 99.9% of cases it will not apply and even were it does it is of little added value anyway (and is probably less worthwhile than even the loosest ownership structure).

The real options are never entirely safe. There are numerous threads in this section on them. However everyone is not entirely informed and or honest (including lawyers), the law is always subject to unknown future enforcement and or change and people's risk appetites and wealth differ.

I read the report and even for a Phuket faramg 'publication' it must have been a very slow news day to warrant any mention.

Whilst it is common practice to declare a lesser amount, it is tax avoidance pure and simple.

To infer its something the Thai seller did alone due to (being most kind) the buyer's negligence or without the buyer's active participation is disingenuous. That the buyer is now apparently threatening legal action is pitiful.

If the buyer really wants to make things right he would need to persuade the seller to register the correct amount at the land office, ensure the correct amount of tax is paid and advise the home country tax authorities exactly what he has done and how rectified.

Whether the buyer will face any problems in persuading the seller to co-operate or persuading the home and Thai authorities it was all an honest mistake is entirely another matter.

There is of course the additional problem that he will possibly face uncomfortable questions about his company structure and corporate purpose.

Unfortunately I cannot avoid concluding the buyer only has himself to blame for at the very least not anticipating this at the outset and ensuring he was not involved in a criminal enterprise, although it appears he may have been comfortable doing that anyway depending on his company's structure.

Some good advice on this thread it seems - be wise and know which ones they are.

I would just add :

1) Ownership of property in Thailand devolves to whoever paid the money - as you did, and can prove with records of money transfers etc - this helps you.

I disagree with #1 entirely and not just for the issues raised in #2-4!

Why do you disagree with number #1? Be interested to know what I've missed.

Not going to hijack the thread and worry about #2-4.

Thanks.

Because paying does not at all equate to ownership.

As an example, the OP's company owns the land (maybe). He doesn't own it. He has benefiical and effective ownership only insofar as he is able to control the company and avoid any investigation as to the method of the company's landholding. Should a dispute without or within the company occur as to control and or ownership of the land occur proving that 'he' (personally) paid for the land does not at all strengthen his personal claim on the land. Indeed it weakens any control or beneficial use he may have via the company as it demonstrates it is a sham. There might (but all bets are off at that stage) then be a forced sale (resulting in little or no value being retained) and he can be found guilty of an imprisonable offence.

This is of course based on the method of ownerhsip ever being disputed, tested or investigated. Decide for yourself on the likelihood of that but when we are talking of ownership structures and the like if the possibility of a dispute or investigation is entirely discounted then farangs may aswell just illegally squat on land.

Once you choose to circumvent the law you are only really building paper houses with contracts of varying thickness. Some are better than others but never forget they are still made of paper.

The porsche club thing is a smokescreen. Remember the army are in town for asean!

"That's the last thing he needs to do, get the Land Department involved."

Evidently you don't keep up with recent news, and explaining this to you would be a waste of both our times.

I'll take the bait, what's this recent news?

I would like to hear too as I do not recall the land office suddenly becoming sympathetic to farangs using sham companies to own land.

Some good advice on this thread it seems - be wise and know which ones they are.

I would just add :

1) Ownership of property in Thailand devolves to whoever paid the money - as you did, and can prove with records of money transfers etc - this helps you.

2) You should try several lawyers and choose the one that suits you best. Be warned that what they say to you, and what they agree to the other party behind your back - or even to your face if you don't speak Thai - may not always be the same thing. You really must get a decent lawyer, this is imperative.

3) Judges are all powerful. So whatever you do, don't challenge him. And don't expect your lawyers to.

4) Be Thai. Jai yen yen. But be cunning.

All this advice applies no matter how simple or difficult the situation may be. It's based on my personal experience with the very difficult, but very well placed, girlfriend of my late father.

Good luck.

I disagree with #1 entirely and not just for the issues raised in #2-4!