thaiwanderer

2 years is perhaps a little late to be checking if you have legal title but thats the position the OP is in.

Depending on the circumstances requiring the developer to repair may not at all be unreasonable.

Whilst ownership of the house can be recorded by the land office and is the best option it is not the only option (though the others are lazy - why not regsiter at the land office?). However those that say merely owning the land means there is no problem with ownership of the house and or the legality of it having been built in the first place are incorrect.

Does the OP even have the building permit and or any other documents proving ownership of the house? from what he has said its doubtful.

It appears but is not 100% clear that the OP (his wife, company or whatever) are the registered owners of the land - that he mentions all 400 being the same baan is worrying.

That he was unaware of thh problem at thh time of the purchase, the bank appear to be linked to the developer, there are plainly issues with the whole development, the lawyer he asked does not now want to get involved, unfortunately means its time to pay a decent lawyer to review the whole thing and be prepared for unwelcome news. But better to find out for himself now than be confronted with it later.

Best of luck.

What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

Sorry Thaiwanderer, I have no suggestions. I seem to be the Devil's advocate here.

The law in any country is a very intricate thing. It is also very frustrating.

I had a problem a few years back in the Uk. A dispute over property that I owned. I know from experience that the law has nothing to do with what is right or fair. I won the case, but it very nearly wiped me out. All my savings went into the pockets of lawyers and barristers. I couldn't claim costs because the other party had no money to pay.

At that time I did a lot of research into the law and that is why I can see the possibilities of problems here. The law does not mean what you think that it should mean, it simply means what is written. Until a case is tested in court and a precedent set, nobody will know for sure the full implications of how the law is written. Until a case is tested in court we can only guess at any possible problems.

Understood and (partially) agreed - in Thailand there are no binding precedents iirc.

How such an operation of law in practice would benefit the farang husband so that despite the declaration or gift procedure he retained a claim I don't know.

You said the declaration is NOT a statement that you have no claim on the land (it was this I was confused about rather than the legality or otherwise of making the declaration itself). However as far as i can see it is effectively the same....

If one of these cases ever came to court, the Judge will only be interested in how the law is written, not what people assume is effectively the same.

Note the wording in the following quotes...

.The money that........ shall expend on the purchase of land title ------ is wholly Sin San Tua (personal asset) or the personal property of ---------- and not Sin Som Ros (asset of a couple) or the matrimonial property between husband and wife .

3.2 In the case where a Thai national who has an alien spouse, whether legitimate or illegitimate, applies for permission to accept a gift of land during marriage or cohabitation as husband and wife. If the inquiry reveals that the acceptance of the gift is made with the intention that the land will become the separate property or personal property of the donee without resulting in the alien having co-ownership in the land, the competent official will proceed with the registration of rights and juristic act.

Why did they use this particular wording? Why do they focus on where the money originated from? Why is there no allowance for the foreigner to pay, but state that he will not retain any claim on the land? There is a similar allowance in the gift option.

Hopefully this wording will not cause any problems and never be tested in court or used as a stick by the friendly police.

What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

Loong, you have lost me a bit to be honest.

I am aware of the previous posts in this thread (and others in this section) but re-read to be sure i am not missing anything.

You said the declaration is NOT a statement that you have no claim on the land (it was this I was confused about rather than the legality or otherwise of making the declaration itself). However as far as i can see it is effectively the same as it states the purchase is sin san tua of the wife and so is not part of the division of assets upon divorce (in the normal course of events). What then do you suggest is the surviving claim/s the husband may have on the land?

As regards the gift procedure, sure that may well be a way to ensure you are not making a false statement but that too results in the land being sin san tua.

I am not criticising I am just unsure of how you come by your conclusion.

What happened to the thread about phuketinsider wanting to tap hillary clinton up for a bail out of the phuket property market?

Forgive me if my search skills have let me down but seems to have disappeared. Have seen threads closed in the past but then still viewable.

What happened here anyone?

And misinformation from you. Read the document. It is not a statement that you have no claim on the land. It is a statement that the money for the purchase did not come from the foreigner. A statement that the money for the purchase either belonged to the woman before they married or did not come from communal assets.

If it was simply a statement that you have no claim on the land, this thread wouldn't be running still.

Forgive my ignorance but if so how is it not then effectively the same as a bare statement saying farang has no claim?

This has already been covered earlier in this topic.

It is illegal for the wife of a foreigner to buy land using funds supplied by the foreigner.

This document allows the Land office to register the transfer without investigating where the funds originated. Without it, they have to be sure that the funds did not originate from the foreign spouse.

If the foreigner and the Thai wife sign this declaration and the funds DID come from the foreigner, then they have made a false statement.

If the foreign husband wishes to make a gift to the wife, then it is a different procedure. She should then apply to have the transfer allowed as a gift.

As its a declaration of sin san tua I still cannot see how it is NOT signing away any claim on the land (and the separate procedure for 'gifting' it will also make it sin san tua)?

Thanks for the comments, the good, bad and ugly on the posting. Our sites mandate is Phuket property, tourism and hotels so perhaps we got a bit carried away with this one and the comments here are well taken. Given the tourism and property downturn, a slight tickle in the ribs was our intention and the recent spate of 'pop news' left us a bit reeling. Anyway we are now back to our mission in providing quality information on the Phuket market and our intended satirical though ironic posting was perhaps ill advised. Feedback is always a welcome source of insight.

I thought that was your mandate anyway?

And misinformation from you. Read the document. It is not a statement that you have no claim on the land. It is a statement that the money for the purchase did not come from the foreigner. A statement that the money for the purchase either belonged to the woman before they married or did not come from communal assets.

If it was simply a statement that you have no claim on the land, this thread wouldn't be running still.

Forgive my ignorance but if so how is it not then effectively the same as a bare statement saying farang has no claim?

Not sure I'd be parting with 1/4mil - 1/2million pounds for a 30year leasehold.

Yes, and my comment was rejected aswell! Maybe, Gordon has shares in this Newspaper too.

Maybe the newspaper doesn't want the Thaivisa style doom mongers commenting with the usual dribble & nonsense about something they know very little about. The sort of people who only talk down on Phuket because their last holiday involved getting done out of a couple of hundred baht from a tuk tuk driver !

Great article, lets hope we have more of the same from the UK press !

so in your vast experience the article is not absolute fantasy?

Whilst not disagreeing with the general notion that a leasehold condo is of limited use and value I am aware of many assignments (though usually at a loss). For this reason and generally (transaction falls through etc.) I would have thought any farang should ensure they have the correct documentation to allow repatriation of the funds at a later date (and perhaps legal sponsors of the forum could anyhow confirm whether the appropriate documentation would be needed to affect the inward transmission of the funds in teh first place?).

The whole advantage of condos for farangs is freehold ownership - although it is still not entirely akin with freehold ownership they may ordinarliy be used to given the common element of condominiums. To take a leasehold condo defeats the purpose really. Unless the OP (assuming being fully aware of the options and consequences of the various real estate options) wants this particular unit in this development there is no real reason to lease.

As with all leases the fallibility of renewal promises should be highlighted (but that discussion has many threads here already).

For differences in the contracts its not so easy as just viewing this a lease - its a lease of a freehold condo and so this of course throws up the usual concerns of both freehold condo and lease generally as well as the unusual element of them meeting as here. Good legal advice is therefore (particularly) essential here. Merely two suggestions would be that the OP should have the right to vote in place of the owner and who is responsible for maintenance fees. There will be many more considerations.

As regards resale value? Firstly brand new leasehold condos are perhaps the least attractive property option a farang will typically encounter (even though they are typically not offered with a great discount over freehold), resales of such even more so. Its a heavily depreciating asset counting down from 30 years and there is so much better choice available to others you might hope to offload it to.

Again, WHY go this route in the first place? If it absoultely has to be this unit thats understandable but nonetheless would still politely suggest the OP reconsider.

It seems the government is taking this seriously. Wife was watching Thai news on satellite TGN channel yesterday, and said that they mentioned it there. They said that this is the Thai law and there would be dire consequences for those that didn't sign the Letter of Confirmation. Strange that suddenly all the official channels are so vocal about this law.

So I recon it will be a trip to the Land Office on my next visit to Thailand.

The authorities need not investigate or take action against anyone.

Those farangs not concerned enough to sign away their rights due to the previous false 'proclamations' in farang media are being taken care of by the Thai media.

Is it really the stick or the carrot that will motivate Thai wives to express their concern that their husbands sign away their rights?

Stick for the farang, carrot for the Thai - job done.

Pre-Purchase Pre-Sales agreement in the name of a foreigner: This agreement gives you the rights to live in the property as an owner to it, though such agreement is not officially registered yet, and if written correctly it gives you the right to sell or transfer the rights to this agreement to any third party who can register such property into its name (Thai company, Thai National). This agreement is also binding to hires. You have to be careful though if the seller should decease you have one year time to file your claim against the estate. Also in case the Seller goes bankrupt or the property is frozen through court action or Revenue Department order, you have to file your claim and only get your portion of the total claim against the property by court proceedings.

So like any contract its merely a gateway to litigation?

....................Very important to keep all evidence of Agreement, money transfers etc. to show that the transaction was a legitimate transaction. This agreement can also be done once you already leased or have the rights in another way to some property, but it is not registered with the authorities.

But it can be registered, can't it?

.....................Superficies[/b]: Let me say that you are right, but not always. Sometimes it might be necessary to do more then a superficies agreement, maybe together with a lease, maybe not as it all depends on the needs of the person trying to register a right against a title of land.

..........................................Section 1411. Unless otherwise provided in the act creating it, the right of superficies is transferable and transmissible by way of inheritance.

But that would depend on the right being tied to the life of the land owner or for 30 years (rather than the life of the superficiary)- raising its own problems / taking away the main benefit of superficiaries (what if superficiary lives longer than 30 years or longer than the land owner)?

Thank you for that. There is of course no perfect solution and no one size fits all as you say.

See my comments in red above.

Correct, but as stated before there are other ways to secure the rights on property as there are superficies, usufruct, usage rights and permanent servitude all of which can be for life time an not only 30 years and superficies for example is also possible to sell and/or to pass to your hires. Also a Pre-Purchase/Sales agreement would be binding to hires of both parties.

The benefits you highlight for superficies seem a bit of a mash up to me.

For superficies my understanding is that you can specify its for a period of time (maximum 30 years for residential property), for life of the land owner or life of the superficiary.

If concerned 30 years may not be enough then registering it for your life is an advantage. However that cannot then be passed on to your heirs. Also whilst it can be sold it is much less attractive as it remains tied to the life of the original superficiary (whereas if it was originally for 30 years whatever the remainder the buyer would have certainty).

(Also interested what of significance the pre-purchase / sales agreement adds here?)

The house in question is registered to somebody since a Thor Ror 14 (blue book) has been issued by the local Amphur. Therefore, non-registered ownership cannot be asserted. At this point I'd pay a good real estate lawyer to perform Due Diligence (title search) on the property, including the house.

The 'registered' ownership I was referring to was of the house itself with the land office.

As I said earlier whilst the OP / his company may have paid for the house and land its not at all clear what if any documents he has and what is registered at the land office.

Whilst the OP was concerned about the wife's claims, the blue book and the advice he received they are really false leads and due dilligence (on house and land) as you say is essential. I suspect this will show the OP needs to take some action to tidy up the legalities ready for sale.

Did the developer really say this AND want it to be published:

'So at the Village, Gordon's Thai-based company owns the land on behalf of foreign buyers.'

.........or the builder built it for you (construction contract)

Hence my previous post questioning whether the OP's company can easily establish ownership of the house to a prospective buyer (he's in a rush to sell).

If not will take at least more than 30 days and as he doesn't know what documents he signed he may have granted wife a 3 year lease.

If you are having a house built for yourself, make sure that you get your name on the building permit. A construction contract between you and the builder is exactly that, it won't prove ownership in the future. Only the building permit or a sales agreement will do that. If the land is owned by a company, then you should secure a 30 year lease and then get the building permit in your name.

Yes, was merely adding an extra document that may be involved. Building Permit together with sale and purchase / construction contract is important but is not of itself registration of ownership of the house.

For the OP as the blue book was in the name of the builder imagine (but may well be wrong) the building permit was too. Given his reliance on his wife and inability to read Thai quite possible ownership of the house (regardless of the name on the building permit) has not been registered to his company (and he doesn't know what he signed anyway). The OP says his company owns the house but not at all clear its ownership of the house is registered (and he might of paid for the house but are all the documents even establishing 'non-registered' ownership in order?).

As stated earlier he wishes to sell and a prospective buyer may well be put off if he hasn't already got everything in order to show ownership of the land and house.

Given wife attempting to be difficult he should take legal advice and ensure everything solid as it can be.

.........or the builder built it for you (construction contract)

Hence my previous post questioning whether the OP's company can easily establish ownership of the house to a prospective buyer (he's in a rush to sell).

If not will take at least more than 30 days and as he doesn't know what documents he signed he may have granted wife a 3 year lease.

Not far fetched at all. I just used exactly this as a bl00dy big stick to focus some pretty dull minds. Stated that this would be the case, I would declare I own the land through the nominee illegally and the wife cannot prove where she got the money from . . . thus it would go back to the crown, the title deed revoked.

I offered TOTAL DESTRUCTION.

That or the title goes in daughters name and I get usufruct. I continue supporting things here, kid goes to good school, gets a good education, the best start in life and daughter ends up with everything. Doors still open to the wife should she wish to return and live as friends.

Big carrot, even bigger stick.

Good negotiation. But if the dull minds had thought about it they would have seen big stick for you also if you had pushed the revenge angle - imprisonable criminal offence by you and wife, though perhaps into far fetched areas then.

As the OP is in a hurry to sell can he easily establish to a prospective buyer that he actually owns the house?

Chanote for the land alone does not.

Has ownership of the house been registered at the land office?

If not, isn't the blue book required (along with a number of other documents) as part of the registration process (which includes a 30 day public notice inviting objections to the house being registered in the OP's company's name)?

Is the building permit in the OP's company's name?

Is there an appropriately detailed construction contract or house sale and purchase contract (or suffcient such clauses included in the land sale and purchase contract)?

IMHO the blue book being in the wife's name does not necessarily denote her ownership or ensure the house cannot be registered to the OP's company but it is certainly a stumbling block (particularly if in a hurry to sell) and registered ownership of the land alone (with the a blue book in the name of an aggrieved wife) is unlikely to be attractive to a buyer.

(edit - also who knows what the OP signed - maybe a 3year lease / right of habitation ?

….mmmm…I don't think I mentioned your kind and informed self specifically, but seeing as you decided to put your head above the parapet, despite being hopelessly uniformed about how finacial systems work, I do thank you for your little gem of:

"6% is as correct as can be and do you not understand that a share of GDP can remain the same even when numbers fall?"

Best laugh I've had this afternoon…

Well I just took it that I must be one of the mutts as I referenced 6% and you then criticised it. You must have been talking about some other mutts then? I am very slow like that, also slow on economics.

Anyway, if I interpret you correctly shrinking tourist numbers over the last 2 years* cannot result in tourism's share of GDP remaining the same. Without going into so much detail that it all goes over my head could you please correct me in disagreeing with this. I am always looking to learn, thanks, and it seems from your reaction that I must be making a fundamental error.

(*but you are not relying on statistics for that since you do not trust them)

Healthy scepticism for statistics is sensible but to dismiss them out of hand is a little foolish.

6% is as correct as can be and do you not understand that a share of GDP can remain the same even when numbers fall?

No where did I suggest 6% was not for the entire country and i stated Phuket's economy as it currently stands would not survive if (a very big if) all tourists stopped coming. So what?

Phuket has a very long history of contributing the most out of any province outside the capital, long predating tourism.

Phuket can more than support Phuket people whatever happens and has done more than its fair share in supporting others.

A farang does not represent all farangs so don't expect to be valued as if you are.

You are not as important as a farm girl tells you.

Thai postman (not even courier apparently - lucky it made it to Phuket) uses his 'initiative' (i use the phrase loosely) and its not what the OP wants.

Am sure mia farang conveniently smoothed the edges on his dealings with Thais before when written authority from the OP would have been needed to avoid being '3rd world'.

Why did he have her number in the first place?

I often find myself wondering when or even if Phuket will turn into a SER like Hong Kong or Singapore.

Most of the Thai's on the island aren't even from Phuket, but they act like farangs are the reason for all the bad things.

I am so sick of being blamed. Had I been the one in the Airport, being accused of stealing a Wallet, I would have thrown

a typical, loud, obnoxious, American FIT. As loud as I could, I would begin a verbal tyraide that would involve all passers by.

In all fairness, they should have been made to just pay the cost of the wallet, not 8000 quid. All they did was let their accusers

know that they can get away with it again.

I wish all farangs could just leave Phuket. How long would it take before the whole island economy collapsed. I wish that could happen

to prove only a point.

Thailand doesn't have a big GDP. What do they do besides tourism? I am embarrassed for this beautiful island. And I am fed up with

all the outright hustling, and scamming going on.

Amanda76 had her RRover broken into by 2 thai thugs. One of her dogs caught one of the thugs, cornered him, and tore his hoody sweatshirt... The Police

tried to get her to pay for damages caused by the dog and said she would go to jail if she didn't. Needless to say she made a phone call

and the cops left very quickly with the Thugs.

Can you beleive this crap???

todd

Been discussed many times - all tourists won't act en masse but even if they did yes phukets economy as it currently stands would not survive and all the non-phuket thais would leave but tourism is 6% of GDP - so your sense of superiority is misplaced let alone based on the 'worth' of all the others and not just you.

And you seem to think phuket never had a sizeable 'economy' before tourists arrived?

Stamp your feet all you want - you will only look like burrowes.

SER status would actually result in most farangs being priced off the island. Can imagine your moaning then.

I have a question with regards to the new regulations with regards to buying land via a company in Thailand.

According to the land registry dept, for the last 3 years, the Thai partner in the company has to show that the money for buying the land has come from them, and that the company is not just a front for a foreigner buying land.

My wife is the director of the company and has a business of her own which she can say the funds to buy the land came from, so that is not an issue.

In reality however, I am paying for the land.

My question is this.

Given these new regulations are in place, is there now any legal recourse for the foreigner who actually bought the land to have any legal protection. In the past, the 90 year lease / or document which gave the foreigner a legal right to remain on the land until they died was there. Is this any longer the case seeing as now the Thai partner has "proof" in effect that they funded the purchase of the land from the outset?

If you are hoping there may be any real protection for your 'investment' forget it.

You are gifting the money and covering the tracks of that gift.

You can buy as much land as you want without it meaning you own any.

If the land is being held by the company for you - you, your wife and the other officers of the company are committing a criminal offence.

Ludicrous to appeal to legal protections when circumventing the law.

That does not mean you cannot do it without any problems but if you want 'certainty' perhaps you should spell out your proposed ownership structure to the land office and see what they have to say.

Lots? maybe.

Smelly money? definitely.