thaiwanderer

I don't understand why anyone would buy a house via a Thai company - using a nominee company to hold land on behalf of a foreigner is illegal in Thailand! Lawyers will always try to circumvent this through legal loopholes, and while a foreigner might never be prosecuted or loose their property is it really a chance worth taking?

A revision to the business law is pending. It would basically count voting rights (shares) when determining whether or not a company is Thai or foreign owned. No more minority shareholders with preferential shares loophole. it will be interesting if and when they find the cojones.

Thought we agreed there was no such real loophole. For the purposes of foreigner's attempts at benefcial use and effective control the current laws are a sufficient prohibition - IF enforced (which is the rub).

The change you mention would make bluffing poor legal advice in this particular area a little harder.

Yes, so what should I expect to get in the way of paperwork?

Whatever you and the seller have agreed.

There are so many variables its like asking us what's in your pocket (and getting annoyed when we point this out).

I think you're missing the point of my question. My lawyer has already checked all those things. I simply want to know what I should expect to receive at closing.

Liability for undisclosed debts?

You are the one who's agreed to buy, your seller who has agreed to sell so how can we know what you've agreed?

Your lawyer should be able to tell you given they've checked everything.

Appears your curiosity is late.

More than a little confused by your question.

Our company only has a standard sale agreement from the Land Office, signed by both parties and showing that the land in its entirety was purchased by us. The judge mentioned that we could perhaps sue the previous owner for a refund on the portion of that land that was given by him to public. But this is not a solution since it's the road with 12m electric poles are what impacts most on the value of the sea-view land.

On re-reading this - was the road and electric poles in situ prior to purchase?

Offenses against the Land Code. The alien who commits the offenses under the Land Code Section 111, due to the acquisition of land illegitimately; shall be subject to punishment with a fine of not exceeding 20,000 Baht or an imprisonment of not exceeding two years or both (That is your risk, like I said already. I doubt that you will spend time in jail. Spoke to 2 people sueing Thais for this, no one was punished)

How can it be sin somros when the foreigner provides the funds ?(strange question because it means the foreigner uses his sin suan tua)

Prison is always a consideration since your case will rely on persuading the Court that you have committed an imprisonable offence.

Admittedly there is some friction between CCC 1472 and 1474 but you are on the wrong end of the presumption where there is doubt in favour of Sin Somros.

Even before that you have to persuade the Court you didn't gift your Sin Suan Tua funds to your wife.

Here an update on the situation and an answer to the question:

Yes it is possible to sue her acting like my nominee. I have to go to the Land Office and tell there, that she aquired the land and houses using my funds and hand over the evidence. The Land Office will hand over the case to the police to investigate the matter. The police will ask her about the whole case and give her time to defend herself ( she has to proof, that the funds to buy the land and the houses are hers). When they finished their investigation they will hand over the whole case to the courts where a judge will make a decision.

I was told that by the Land Office, the man who gives legal advice at the court in Surin and a BKK lawyer, the only downside is that the people who provide the funds are subject to be punished by law as well( Land Code 111), but when the judge rules in your favour you will get everything back and have to sell it in 1 year.

Strangely vague advice. No mention of selling while in prison? No mention of sin somros?

A bank guarantee, or a guarantee from another reliable source, is only as good as the terms and conditions of the guarantee.

Any guarantee is only as good as the success of any appeal to it, which can't be known in advance.

Terms are important but don't make guaranteees effective.

Even if genuine the chanote is only accurate at the moment it was issued.

You shouldn't rely on the version supplied by the developer. Make you own / your lawyer's own enquiries at the land office.

I'm struggling to understand the Judge's apparent legal reasoning (doesn't mean there isn't other $$$ reasoning at play).

IIUC the previous owner indicated an intention for the failed buyer to agree to give access to the third party land, BUT that sale never went through.

The easement appears not to have been registered and other than pre-contract notes on a failed sale there is apparently no other record of it.

The Judge appears not to be saying the third party land needs access over OP's land (along that route or at all) via CCC section 1349 although this eventuality will need to be covered given the steep slope in the alternative route.

Whatever, time to lawyer up.

This situation doesn't contradict the merit of titles since they can only ever at most cover encumberances registered against them.

While it wouldn't have stopped a disingenuous seller failing to declare it and would only be a key to litigation, the sale and purchase contract should have covered this eventuality

- a declaration (and penalty for false declaration) of nothing restricting the new owner's (actually 'rights holder' rather than 'owner' as then NS3G) use and enjoyment of the land etc..

Before then, due dilligence should perhaps have uncovered the declaration and even not, perhaps the need for another's access.

If the declaration has been properly made I suspect an appeal may not be successful since a third party would now be prejudiced by ruling against it.

More work will be necessary to find out the exact nature of the declaration etc..

OP - If you are not going to build a house, then why all the anxiety over a building permit? The existing house apparently does not have one, end of story. A Chanote title deed covers all immovable property, i.e. the land and all things (structures) fixed permanently to the land or forming a body therewith. When your minor son is listed as landowner on the Chanote he is therefore also the owner of the house, with or without a building permit. The court would not allow transfer of the Chanote to your minor son if it was not free and clear of any encumbrances.

THAT'S EXACTLY THE NEWS I WANT TO HEAR:

If this could be done the way you say it than great for all the family and myself

We seem to have got there in the end but I'm intrigued as to why you are now no longer concerned about buying an illegally built house for your child who will then be liable for it.

But what they don't know is what they don't know right, so I could just say I would like to build this house here is the blue prints for it now please I would like permission to build it!!!! it's only four years old.

How do you propose to get a building permit for land that you cannot legally own, or control with long-term land rights. If your minor son owns the land, the court would have to approve any arrangement for you to legally own the house - with or without building permit.

I don't care about the house not being in my name it will go in my boys name if the courts wont put it in my name that's OK and having it in my boys name doesn't worry me one bit.......I can't see him kicking me out of the property that wouldn't be the boy I will educate and have as a son.He will grow up to have family morals and LOVE with no greed to life!

and when I have finished talking to the courts they will see that I'm looking at the best interest for my son not as a greedy man from another country.

I really am looking at this for the future of my son and handing down all my money and any assets I have with him looking after his mother and myself until I'm no longer here on earth.

I think you are entirely missing the point of IO's post.

On your wealth preservation (and roof above your child and or your head preservation) issue, this isn't aided by overpaying for an illegaly built house (which may in the future be ordered removed at your / your son's cost) on land that may not allow any construction in any event.

Compensated by whom and for what?

If condo - typically the co-owners will be responsible for the costs of the demolition and then collectively decide how to proceed - sell the land or rebuild (and how, and together pay for it).

Other collective ownership models will depend on the relevant collective agreements.

But what they don't know is what they don't know right, so I could just say I would like to build this house here is the blue prints for it now please I would like permission to build it!!!! it's only four years old.

Won't work, not least because they aren't blind and stupid.

As long as you only pay an amount equivalent to the value of the land less the costs of removing the building you cannot (at least due to the building permit issue) lose any value for your child.

All buildings require compliance and usually permission though in practice it may be that there is (currently) no enforcement where this house is.

However there might be other reasons why permission wasn't obtained such as no building or no building of this kind, size etc being allowed on that land - so that permission would never be granted and removal might be ordered in the future.

Ownership of the house can be recorded on a chanote but that's a bit cart before horse at the moment.

As regards upgrading the land title there are plenty of threads about that in this section of TV.

@ Thaiwanderer That's why I have made this forum post........I can then have a better understanding on the time scale and how to get round it.

Your comment doesn't help me or any other person who would want to know the ins & outs of this topic.Be constructive and positive in your posts please!

I was being constructive and trying to help but 'getting the go ahead for the building' was confusing, hence my last post - but lets not get into a spat.

Did you read the entire thread I linked above since your 'bobs your uncle' comment suggests you didn't?

I don't know why anyone would want to make their child liable for an illegal building and even if its possible to fully legitimise it (possibly not) it will be far more difficult to do so when the owner is a minor.

If you are unalterably set on this particular land I would suggest efforts to cleanse the building of illegality should take place before you buy (whoever's name the land is going into).

Being entirely constructive - Please re-read the entire thread linked above and re-phrase your question - talk of timescale assumes its possible to do it properly in the first place.

The house is already been built on this land but they didn't do the right steps or channels I think like not getting any building permit and going to register the house to the land department. something in the lines of this anyway would this be a problem to sort out?

There was a thread recently about lack of building permit http://www.thaivisa....ng-a-house-but/

Thanks that link did give some interesting feedback and tells me all I have to do before I buy the land with the property on it is to take the original blue prints of the house to the land department and apply for a building permit BOB'S YOUR UNCLE.....!

Does anybody know how long would something like applying for a building permit take and getting the go ahead for building?

? Thought it was already (illegally) built?

The house is already been built on this land but they didn't do the right steps or channels I think like not getting any building permit and going to register the house to the land department. something in the lines of this anyway would this be a problem to sort out?

There was a thread recently about lack of building permit http://www.thaivisa....ng-a-house-but/

Cheaper and more effective to merely gift the money?

Thanks all for your response.

Of course I would not say anything to the immigration. But perhaps other people would do this for me ;-) In all my years in Thailand I have seen some bar owners getting problems when just talking to customers or removing an ashtray. There is a lot of competition and it is easy to find the wrong friends. So I would like to be on the safe side.

Perhaps the only way to go is really the written permission from the labor department.

And if I understand it from the link from trajan correctly I will have to make tax filings.

http://bic.thaiembassy.sg/node/86

Sure you could skip all this and hope the best. But this is not my approach.

Has anyone here seen Labor Dept. actually give such written permission? It's very rare that any government dept. officially writes what you "can" do ... they're much more concerned about what you "can't" do. Government officials are always paranoid about making unilateral decisions and esp. putting that in writing ... and that's worldwide and not just Thailand.

Well, a work permit is framed positively but I take your point.

I had to laugh at the word 'loophole'!

There is no loophole, only wrong interpretations of a very clear rule and intention.

Me too.

It is a loophole in the same way a thief who hasn't been caught yet has also 'discovered' one (and both have potential jail time ).

I hope he doesn't actually believe that / is merely regurgitating poor legal advice received.

Anyhow confusing a mechanism to just register an interest at the land office with something that moving forward could resist even a half hearted investigation is a mistake.

Assessing the likelihood of ever being scrutinised is an entirely different matter than how a structure might then hold up (or not) to any scrutiny.

Unfortunately the two are often conflated in this forum without some posters realising.

But isn't it an irrelevance to you anyway since you did it the 'correct' way?

Or would discussion of that involve ripping apart your alleged legal structure?

Which is it - legal and immune or illegal but there'll never be a problem anyway?

Reminds me of the scene in Shawshank Redemption where Timothy Bottoms tells the warden that he is just being obtuse

It called a loophole and they are all over the place to be taken advantage of

Just looking for some honesty.

I imagine (or rather hope) you aren't so silly as to actually believe your own posts above about it all being above board.

Lack of enforcement is not a loophole.

I have no criticism for such structures of themselves, its only when people pretend they're something they aren't.

If scrutinised - renting out even a single unit could well be work, even just signing the lease in country (or taking a phone call, meeting a prospective tenant, arranging inspection / repair etc, anything really)

Work permits aren't generic so even if had one it wouldn't cover it (unless specifically refering to these activities and this unit is managed or whatever by the employing company - in which case the foreigner isn't doing the work as owner which sort of defeats the object of self management at any level).

Of course, all depends on scrutiny.

OT but of some related interest, the Land Code's definition of Land includes swamps, marshes, waterways and lakes.

If this was going to happen, we would have already heard about it, after a few decades and tens of thousands of transactions.

We have many people writing about being ripped off in many endeavors, including real estate, but we do not have anyone writing about being ripped off-or knowing of someone being ripped off by owning property through the company route.

+1

But isn't it an irrelevance to you anyway since you did it the 'correct' way?

Or would discussion of that involve ripping apart your alleged legal structure?

Which is it - legal and immune or illegal but there'll never be a problem anyway?

Have seen some horrific contracts prepared on behalf of reputable developers by internationally very well regarded law firms.

I don't disagree with the OP's view since he doesn't see the need - his time and money.