thaiwanderer

Alternatively the next 30 years are bought by another for the inflated farang freehold price, at the expiry of which it happens again and so on.

You really think the original lessee (or anyone else) can pay anything less than such a full and overbloated price for the landowner to register another lease at the land office? The freehold owner would view that as losing money.

..............they never learn.......................

? you failed to do the deal you wanted and its 'their' fault

Hence my 'despite', in any case be lucky to get as far as that hurdle.

You wouldnt believe some of the leases i v read. The worst ones barely gives you the right to reside in the property for a while. Always local lawyers, and a month later they are seen having dinner with the developers. Some buyers are even made to believe a 90 years lease which cant be registered is better than a 30 years lease registered in land deed. And no tax on the 90 years lease

Yes there are certainly many exceedingly bad contracts about but at the same time there is often reliance on overly complex contracts with little connection to good law or practical reality - sometimes where the legal advisor is being negligent rather than dishonest (not that thats of much comfort).

Some of many examples:-

Beautifully worded lease not deposited at land office at all (shortform standard Thai contract, language barrier and use of powers of attorney) and buyer totally unaware.

Rock solid contracts but with a low capitalised company.

Agreement for foreign jurisdiction in the event of a dispute but then trying and enforce success there for Thai property.

Supposed Thai translation of the contract (despite election for English having precedence) having fundamental differences to the English version.

Distinction between lease and personal contractual rights.

Layering offshore companies etc. to make the structure as sound and immune from investigation as is possible and not thinking for a second that an interested party connected to the seller could ever disclose the entire paper trail to the authorities in order to grab the land. Or that in the event of a dispute the lessor / seller will ever disclose side contracts and payments.

Lease renewals (can suggest any lease renewals but even the 'good ones') with a lessor that later disappears, dies or whose circumstances change.

And even after those and others there are other problems including incorrectly issued land titles (regardless of extensive due dilligence), no liability for error or fraud by government officials, future enforcement of current laws or future change in laws.

As I have said before certainty is not for sale its about appetite for risk and comfort levels which is a personal matter. However many are in the 'ignorance / self delusion is bliss' school. Probably ensures enjoyment of the property whilst have it so not to be discounted either.

Once they have been given the definition of grounds for suspicion of foreign involvement in a company, How are the Land Dept officials expected to know that the foreigners will only break the law once and not go on to do it multiple times and be classed as developers? It is like trying to make the distinction betwdo you expect land department officials to only apply this to foreigners trying to break the law by acting as property developers but not to foreigners trying to break it just by buying just one plot of land?een drug dealers and users that the Thai police seem unable to do.

hints at a VERY good analogy from which i draw an entirely different conclusion!

fractional ownership (not a new concept at all) is meant to be different to timeshare in that the former gives ownership (or rather shared ownership) whereas the latter merely gives the right to use - however depending on the exact structure the difference can well be moot as suggested by Johnnyk

i don't know the structure for Absolute but would imagine its along the lines of shares in a company thats the leasholder and perhaps also shares in a company that is or has a stake in the land owning company or shares in a company that owns (or has stake in the company that owns) condo unit titles- either way supplemented with a contract between the shareholders- of itself no more objectionable than company route individuals use except complicated by the very nature of 'fractional' (i.e. multiplied) ownership

a quick search yielded this article

http://www.fractionallife.com/news_fractio...olute_group.asp

with the beatiful line

Price for fractional ownership starts from just 775,000 Baht for 28 nights usages per year for life*.

................with the footnote being * life in this case is a series of renewable 30-year leases

obviously no need for a repeat of the numerous renewal thread discussions but a very interesting definition of life so why use it at all and why not in the main body of the article? i do wonder

also The Bangla Suites project is located right in Soi Bangla, the most famous tourist area in the heart of Patong, surrounded by a variety of entertainment options.

maybe short time ownership would be a better name? - draw your own parrallels from that

You are stating that the second 30 year lease is accepted (consummated) from the day it is registered at the Land Office by the payment of the deposits and advance rent. That makes the total lease length 60 years, thus clearly illegal under Thai law. Also, what will be the fair market value of the property 30 years in the future? The lessor has the absolute right to ask fair market value, increase the rent, for the property before the beginning of the second 30 year period. Additionally, if the original lessor sells the property or dies, then the second 30 year lease is basically unenforceable. The heirs or new owner are not a party to the original lease(s).

IMO, unless the Civil and Commercial Code and Land Code Act are changed to support a 60 year lease, then this is just a fiction by the real estate sector and won't survive the first Supreme Court case.

One would have a succession clause inserted, example as follows:-

This agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the statutory heirs, legatees, administrators and executors of the estate, custodian, curators, subrogees, receivers, liquidators or statutory representatives of the parties

T

yepp

I v actually seen lease agreements without such clause, which means its canselled if any party dies. Dont know what they where thinking about. Would have been much cheaper with a usufruct.

such a clause does not mean that every clause in the agreement survives (especially renewals)

The whole reason for this post has obviously escaped you, the law is now saying that any land purchased by the wife of a falang, will be made to sell said land unless she can prove that she had sufficient money of her own prior to the purchase other wise it will be deemed that she is really a nominee for her husband/partner.

the 'law' is not saying that whatsoever

obviously not a surprise - but Baan Thai Layan (advertsied prices) start at 4.5million - hardly 'high end'?

I understand the dependence on low level corruption, and the difference with the higher level of 'business benefits' that are prevalent in commercial transactions. However, the two sided aspect of leading a life here is in either accepting discrimination as a foreigner, or choosing to comment/protest. Hence the initiation of topics such as this. Not sure what you mean by corruption being of 'no good inherent value'. (see your comment about dependence on low level corruption as an example)

Maybe an explanation of the benefits of 'being a farang' would also add to the debate (i am not fully conversant with all of those benefits but there is a vast gap between the socio economic advantages most farangs will have typically benefitted from from an early age as compared to most Thais, equality and social mobilty are alien luxuries to most Thais whilst Farangs typically appeal to them as fundamental rights. )

(and don't get me wrong on this, I live here because I choose to, and being critical of certain aspects of life does not necessarily mean criticism of Thai people or their culture, as I don't believe for one minute that the practices of 'farang' directed corruption as exists in Phuket, is as prevalent throughout the rest of the Kingdom - though we all know of other 'hotspots'). We are merely easier prey, which is borne through our naivety and ignorance (and being willing to believe in the honesty of others in many cases).

When I talk about 'fair share', I'm referring to the purchases made (legitimate), fees paid, shops visited, and all the expenditure which adds to the local economy.

(These are merely purchases aren't they? Yes it contributes to commerce but not really a charitable donation or taxation is it? You are paying for goods and services. In any event you talked of 'more than' fair share also?

Phuket is increasingly (at least in my mind) dependent upon the resident 'farang' to sustain businesses (supermarkets, tradesmen, the whole service sector), as this population provides the core turnover for the average small local business. The tourist market is a bonus.

Dependence upon tourists and or longer stay aliens in its current form, things change and evolve, doesn't mean all Thais must bend over for every Farang because you want to spend a few baht. Would Phuket in its current form survive if all stopped coming tommorow? of course not the businesses that serve the current numbers are there because of the current numbers it doesn't mean 'Phuket' is dependent or would die. And I never get the catergorical imperative argument that if Thais do not do such and such for a particular farang that all farangs will stop coming tommorow. There is a balance between welcoming alien money and bending to their every whim. In any case, I can understand the sense in not (overtly and vicously) biting the hand that feeds but how many farangs genuinely get ripped off continually and face open hostility (that they understand) all of the time?

I have to question your last comment:

'discrimination' of itself is not objectionable (unless perhaps you are on the receiving end or sympathise with those who are) and blatant discrimination is far more honest afterall

Is that seriously what you believe? There is nothing wrong with discrimination? (Yes I do genuinely believe that, 'discrimination' is not a negative thing - it can be positive or negative depending on the reasons for it and its effect - all too often the lazy call things 'discriminatory' as if that alone justifies or explains their objection to it.

In too many instances, we farang ('We'?) are on the receiving end of it, and the difficulty lies in understanding why, other than an ill judged opinion that we are stupid and accepting of whatever is put in front of us. (Given the ratios as long as ENOUGH farangs accept it it doesn't matter if ALL do not)

For me, ultimately it comes down to personal honesty on the part of individuals who have the means or opportunity to exact personal gain from believing customers, and the value they place on their own personal reputations. Those that have integrity will find it hard, but survive. Those who don't may gain in the short term, but ultimately will fail big time. (Many have predicted Thailand's efforts at preserving its sovereignty and self determination as best it can will ultimately collapse for a long long time) Only my opinion, like everyone else's in this forum of course.

(I too subscribe to the emotivist theory of internet forums - boo / hooray!)

At its heart other than not liking it what is really so wrong with dual pricing (rather than being personally objectionable)?

I think you also need to understand the inherent system of corruption in this country, and realise that sometimes the premium that you're paying is not actually going towards the upkeep of national parks, ferries etc, but is sustaining individuals in their expectation of 'side benefits'.

you make it sound that money obtained through corruption, scams and rip offs is never depended upon (as if its only ever a bonus / a bit extra etc.)- unfortunately there is great and complicated dependence upon these

sure, a corrupt system is regrettable but where it exists it is not always the case that its proceeds are of no good inherent value

i fail to see how you can studiously avoid sullying your hands by supporting such a system in paying a dual price or whatever and with a straight face believe you are somehow removed from the corrupt system - you may not pay a bribe or whatever but that does not mean you do not benefit from corruption

as to 'equality' a farang making such comparisons without factoring in all the benefits of being a farang in the first place performs a greater intellectual charade

and particularly residents who already contribute more than their fair share to the local economy

I am interested how exactly you assess the 'fair share' - percentage of income and or assets? is it just a monetary figure? should aliens be required to contribute more?

'discrimination' of itself is not objectionable (unless perhaps you are on the receiving end or sympathise with those who are) and blatant discrimination is far more honest afterall

Although the British had planned to invade Phuket during WWII - which might have been interesting for those moaning about national park fees.

India, China, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore....didnt really want it old boy

not sure i understand you or perhaps that you do not understand why they had planned it and why they did not go through with it

Junkceylon is the name the British gave Phuket when they were empire building.

I believe that is incorrect.

Its suggetsed that Chinese records use that name as early as 317AD and perhaps Cladius Ptolemy used it in 157AD. I am sceptical about that but in any case the name was well established long before Britain's involvement or interest in the island.

As a matter of interest relating to British involvement Francis Light had suggested Phuket or Penang for a british trading post and eventually Penang was chosen and possession taken in 1786. Often it is suggested that he warned Phuket of a burmese invasion ('as he was passing') giving rise to the Heroines fable. This fable of course ignores / glosses over Light's decade long presence on the island and numerous other invasions by the Burmese (before and after this).

However the activities of the British in Phuket were in any case quite late even compared to other europeans (amongst other things Phuket having a French Governor 100 years previously).

Although the British had planned to invade Phuket during WWII - which might have been interesting for those moaning about national park fees.

its almost like its a foreign country!!!!

At what point does someone not become a guest and get treated as a local

In Thailand?

Never.

the step between being a guest and being accepted is very short, but the gap between alien and guest is very wide

I am an American girl engaged to a Thai man, living in Bangkok. I am employed so I have a non-Immigrant B Visa, so all is well with me staying in the country.

There has been recent drama in the news about land, and I am a bit confused.

1. My fiance and I are planning to build a home. The land is already owned by his family. I know that you cannot buy land unless you are a Thai citizen, but what about the house on top of the land? Can I co-own or have my name on the house?

Yes you can own the house but I would wait till married before investing in a house.

2. If we were to get divorced, would I get part of the house? (I am definitely going to be contributing into the funds to build the house) Would it make a difference to get the loan for the house while we are still engaged or should we be married? I've heard that if my name is not on the house and we were to get the loan for the house in just my fiance's name, if we got divorced, I would not get anything b/c the house was built after marriage- regardless if I helped pay or not.

Marital assets are split 50/50 if obtained after marriage.

3. If we want to buy more land in the future- I know that currently Thai law prohibits expats to buy- however, they are now not allowing Thai spouses to buy land either?? I do not understand how could they take away his right, as he is a Thai citizen?

Thai's can purchase land but must be done with own money not money from foreign spouse.

4. If we have kids later- how will that complicate all this?

?

Advice? Help!!

your first two answers rub a little against each other

your third answer is incorrect

i would imagine most bulldozing farangs are not necessarily asserting a legal right

IIRC Larry Cunningham of phuketonerealestate is / was Austrailia's Honourary Consul to Phuket - perhaps contact him? If he personally can't do it imagine he might know who can.

Thanks for all the info. All this being said, does anyone know which police department I should visit? Tourist or "local police"?

contact the tourist police in the first instance

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Tourist-Poli...rs-t231734.html

(as others have suggested I too am a little confused as to what purpose the bank feel a Thai police report will serve but if they ask for it so be it - all the more reason to contact tourist police first rather than trying to explain to Thai officer yourself that you want to report a crime to them (?) of someone defrauding the card in another country)

Hi I probably should have given more detail.

I know about the rules regarding house/land purchase and am ok with that, If and when we buy I would intend to get married 1st as i belive this would give me claim to half the house if we split correct? This I would be happy with.

So I will be financing the purchase but will be in my Thai wifes name.

If as you say I have to show transfer of the money into Thailand then surley the idea is a non starter?

oh dear

more research required for you i think

yes you must buy now (but don't expect big discount as supply has dried up) before prices again skyrocket!!!!!!

usual phuket real estate for farang - alchemy and gambling for the sun stroked - sure there is value to be had but most learn the rules by losing their money - nevermind always the next plane load

However, criminal penalties also apply to the foreigner and the Thai considered a nominee.[/i] [/font][/left]

Since I am in the planning phase for a house on land we have bought with my money 2 years ago - I think this really needs to be checked out by a layer - and if I should have the slightest doubt or smell a problem in the future - a certain builder in Chiang-Mai and Architect will be very dissapointed when we cancel our plans.

We are already very dissapointed after reading the news a few days ago!

it is of course prudent to consider all information and measuring it against your appetite for risk but if this is your reaction to such minor scare stories and rumours notwithstanding the chasm between actual relevant law and reality, unfortunately you are likely to be 'disappointed' continually

the first mistake is for a farang to ever go to the land office - the validity of the land officials actions thereon is neither here nor there

depends on the lawyer of course!

assuming the relative importance of getting it right and whether that lawyer will its not unreasonable