Partner wants to put house in my name

[lufc74]

My partner wants to put my name as owning her house, but isn't doing any thing with the land title, such as a lease.

Are there any advantages of owning the house, but not leasing the land.

What would my rights be if we ever split up, regarding using the house.

Thanks in advance.

 

[BEVUP]

& the reason being you may own the house outright & will never own the land or have a say in it 

In the end it doesn't matter as the wife can do anything she likes with the land because that is all they are interested in IE: Mortgage, Sell ect 

Best of with a Usufrut as this shall give you occupancy for 30 yrs

& make sure their is a clause so you can lease to another party

& don't worry some loan shark will take it on, but the good thing is they can,t palm it off 

I've experienced it all

 

[steve187]

21 minutes ago, BEVUP said:

& the reason being you may own the house outright & will never own the land or have a say in it 

In the end it doesn't matter as the wife can do anything she likes with the land because that is all they are interested in IE: Mortgage, Sell ect 

Best of with a Usufrut as this shall give you occupancy for 30 yrs

& make sure their is a clause so you can lease to another party

& don't worry some loan shark will take it on, but the good thing is they can,t palm it off 

I've experienced it all

 

bitter

[ikwiljou]

If it's a wooden house than at least you could move the house if things go wrong. We have moved houses within Thailand.

 

[sometimewoodworker]

On 07/10/2017 at 10:19 PM, BEVUP said:

& the reason being you may own the house outright & will never own the land or have a say in it 

In the end it doesn't matter as the wife can do anything she likes with the land because that is all they are interested in IE: Mortgage, Sell ect 

Best of with a Usufrut as this shall give you occupancy for 30 yrs

& make sure their is a clause so you can lease to another party

& don't worry some loan shark will take it on, but the good thing is they can,t palm it off 

I've experienced it all

 

Usufructs are often lifetime, no 30 year limit,

leases can not be longer than 30 years.

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, sometimewoodworker said:

Usufructs are often lifetime, no 30 year limit,

leases can not be longer than 30 years.

 

 

I understand that Usufructs are always for life - unless specified otherwise.

[BEVUP]

On 10/7/2017 at 8:41 PM, steve187 said:

bitter

& passing on experience ,but if you read post 4 he wont have a problem, as Ikwiljou has also passed on his/her  experience

[JPFIT]

Having been through this myself put the  house in your name the land in hers but do a usufruct.  If I had not done this she would have sold the land and I would have probably lost my house and I was married.  At least with a usufruct in place she can not sell the land without your consent.  I have been divorced three times and the last one to a Thai cost me 60 K, so better to be safe than sorry.  Good luck

[BEVUP]

5 minutes ago, JPFIT said:

Having been through this myself put the  house in your name the land in hers but do a usufruct.  If I had not done this she would have sold the land and I would have probably lost my house and I was married.  At least with a usufruct in place she can not sell the land without your consent.  I have been divorced three times and the last one to a Thai cost me 60 K, so better to be safe than sorry.  Good luck

Sorry to say but the Usufrut only gives you the right to occupy the land 

It does not give you any legal saying (needing your consent ) for the owner of such land to Sell , or Mortgage such land

I personally think what is mentioned by needing your consent is to Remove the Usufrut so there is absolutely no problem in selling the land.

But believe me there is nothing stopping the land owner mortgaging or ect for a family if the other party is willing to take it on with you still being lodged as the Usufrutee 

 

[4MyEgo]

27 minutes ago, BEVUP said:

Sorry to say but the Usufrut only gives you the right to occupy the land 

It does not give you any legal saying (needing your consent ) for the owner of such land to Sell , or Mortgage such land

I personally think what is mentioned by needing your consent is to Remove the Usufrut so there is absolutely no problem in selling the land.

But believe me there is nothing stopping the land owner mortgaging or ect for a family if the other party is willing to take it on with you still being lodged as the Usufrutee 

 

No doubt he would have secure tenure on the house, however the value of the land would be effected in that part of the land has a "protected tenant" if I can use those words.

 

Back in Australia, if there was a protected tenant in the house you were buying, mainly post world war 2, the value had to be discounted considerably because you could not evict the tenant, or raise their rental amount, and in some cases, the tenant could, if they had kids, pass on that protected tenancy to the kid/s, worthless, unless you were prepared to use a heavy to threaten them to leave or else, which would be cruel and against the law. 

[Minnehaha]

2 hours ago, ikwiljou said:

If it's a wooden house than at least you could move the house if things go wrong. We have moved houses within Thailand.

 

LIKE !

[jgarbo]

2 hours ago, ikwiljou said:

If it's a wooden house than at least you could move the house if things go wrong. We have moved houses within Thailand.

 

Not if the wife denies access to the property. That's trespass.

[catman20]

just another Thai scam all this land nonsense. its all geared up here to benefit the Thais

[KBsinter]

8 minutes ago, catman20 said:

just another Thai scam all this land nonsense. its all geared up here to benefit the Thais

"The law is the law"always to a Thais benefit,...............lol

[HerbalEd]

2 hours ago, JPFIT said:

Having been through this myself put the  house in your name the land in hers but do a usufruct.  If I had not done this she would have sold the land and I would have probably lost my house and I was married.  At least with a usufruct in place she can not sell the land without your consent.  I have been divorced three times and the last one to a Thai cost me 60 K, so better to be safe than sorry.  Good luck

Congratulations for it costing only 60K. I assume 60K baht, but ever $60K would be cheap.

[sead]

Why does she want to put the house in your name??

Is it paid of or does she want you to sign and pay the rest in so saying that this way you get the house? 

Does she need money for something and this is her way to show you she trusts you.

Whatever reason you can write usufruct, rental agreement , lease land agreement etc etc.

None benefits you!

If you seperate you will still have to finish the loan/repairs etc while she stays in the house. If you seperate you will have the right to50% bla bla but if transfered into your name you have to sell your part of house within xx months as foreigner. No1 wants to buy you part of the house since the land is in her name yada yada. All her family will move in after an eventual seperation and you will first then see how hostile her family can be. You wont dare sleep 1 night. 

So again we miss some more info. 

 

And all missinformation and grammatical errors are a gift from me to you!

[BEVUP]

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

No doubt he would have secure tenure on the house, however the value of the land would be effected in that part of the land has a "protected tenant" if I can use those words.

 

Back in Australia, if there was a protected tenant in the house you were buying, mainly post world war 2, the value had to be discounted considerably because you could not evict the tenant, or raise their rental amount, and in some cases, the tenant could, if they had kids, pass on that protected tenancy to the kid/s, worthless, unless you were prepared to use a heavy to threaten them to leave or else, which would be cruel and against the law. 

Yes know all that as I have a Usufrut on a 3 mill house in a village just sitting empty owned by a loan shark

[sometimewoodworker]

3 hours ago, BEVUP said:

Sorry to say but the Usufrut only gives you the right to occupy the land 

It does not give you any legal saying (needing your consent ) for the owner of such land to Sell , or Mortgage such land

I personally think what is mentioned by needing your consent is to Remove the Usufrut so there is absolutely no problem in selling the land.

But believe me there is nothing stopping the land owner mortgaging or ect for a family if the other party is willing to take it on with you still being lodged as the Usufrutee 

 

True that the land can be sold with an Usufruct on it, IF and it's a big if, anyone is willing to buy it.

 

However it can not be mortgaged with any reputable bank or finance company. They will not offer any kind of loan with an Usufruct on the land as they would have to wait for the end of the term of the Usufruct before they easily sell the land to recover the loan.

[BEVUP]

1 hour ago, sead said:

Why does she want to put the house in your name??

Is it paid of or does she want you to sign and pay the rest in so saying that this way you get the house? 

Does she need money for something and this is her way to show you she trusts you.

Whatever reason you can write usufruct, rental agreement , lease land agreement etc etc.

None benefits you!

If you seperate you will still have to finish the loan/repairs etc while she stays in the house. If you seperate you will have the right to50% bla bla but if transfered into your name you have to sell your part of house within xx months as foreigner. No1 wants to buy you part of the house since the land is in her name yada yada. All her family will move in after an eventual seperation and you will first then see how hostile her family can be. You wont dare sleep 1 night. 

So again we miss some more info. 

 

And all missinformation and grammatical errors are a gift from me to you!

How true as TIT but not to forget that others have had success in such unfortunate circumstances 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

I think we all agree that a foreigner cannot own land in Thailand, and consequently cannot own a house unless it is on a development that has condominium status and is within the permitted 49% farang ownership rule. In your case, without knowing all the details, I believe that the only secure way for you to have the house in your name, is to also have the land in your name on a lease, usually  30 years, although I believe another poster said this can be longer (I have no knowledge of that) …… what is crucial here though, is that she has the Chanote (freehold document) to both the house, and more critically, the land, and that they are not in the possession of a bank, or any other third party that she has given them to as security on numerous loans …. personally I would stick with the status quo, but if you want to go ahead, a good English speaking solicitor is a must. I know a very good one in Hua Hin, but I don't know where you are located ….. the very best of luck to you  

[sometimewoodworker]

4 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I understand that Usufructs are always for life - unless specified otherwise.

Then you misunderstand.

An Usufruct is a contract.

It is for the length of time specified in the contract.

The time has to be specified, there is no default length of time.

the Usufruct itself will terminate on the death of the holder if it comes before the end of the contract.

 

There is a possibility that the holder of an Usufruct can grant a lease on the property and that any such lease will not terminate on the death of the Usufructee but at the end of the lease period.

As a lease longer than 3 years has to be registered with the land office it is quite possible that they will not permit a long lease given by an Usufructee.

[Foozool]

I don't know anything abot OP life, but I guess she just want to get his trust. I hope for good. Otherwise

[sometimewoodworker]

8 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I think we all agree that a foreigner cannot own land in Thailand, and consequently cannot own a house unless it is on a development that has condominium status and is within the permitted 49% farang ownership rule. In your case, without knowing all the details, I believe that the only secure way for you to have the house in your name, is to also have the land in your name on a lease, usually  30 years, although I believe another poster said this can be longer (I have no knowledge of that) …… what is crucial here though, is that she has the Chanote (freehold document) to both the house, and more critically, the land, and that they are not in the possession of a bank, or any other third party that she has given them to as security on numerous loans …. personally I would stick with the status quo, but if you want to go ahead, a good English speaking solicitor is a must. I know a very good one in Hua Hin, but I don't know where you are located ….. the very best of luck to you  

You are clearly mistaken.

True that a foreigner can't be the registered owner of land.

Completely incorrect that they can't own the house on the land. They can, many do. Completely legal.

 

No lease can be longer that 30 years

[Jip99]

6 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

Then you misunderstand.

An Usufruct is a contract.

It is for the length of time specified in the contract.

The time has to be specified, there is no default length of time.

the Usufruct itself will terminate on the death of the holder if it comes before the end of the contract.

 

There is a possibility that the holder of an Usufruct can grant a lease on the property and that any such lease will not terminate on the death of the Usufructee but at the end of the lease period.

As a lease longer than 3 years has to be registered with the land office it is quite possible that they will not permit a long lease given by an Usufructee.

 

 

Mine is for my lifetime...... seems pointless to have any other term in  'domestic' arrangement.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

1 minute ago, sometimewoodworker said:

You are clearly mistaken.

True that a foreigner can't be the registered owner of land.

Completely incorrect that they can't own the house on the land.

Okay ..... I bow to your superior knowledge, it was just my understanding. So, are you saying that a foreigner can have the Chanote to a house without owning the land ..... which we all agree is not possible 

[4MyEgo]

59 minutes ago, BEVUP said:

Yes know all that as I have a Usufrut on a 3 mill house in a village just sitting empty owned by a loan shark

SO you mean the loan shark owns the land, but not the house.

[sometimewoodworker]

Just now, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Okay ..... I bow to your superior knowledge, it was just my understanding. So, are you saying that a foreigner can have the Chanote to a house without owning the land ..... which we all agree is not possible 

No I am not.

 

A Chanote is a document of land ownership (Nor Sor 4 Jor) that can not be registered to a non Thai. It has nothing to do with what is on the land

 

Ownership of a house is totally separate from ownership of the land it is sitting on, and yes anyone can own that. It is not a Chanote document.

 

Of course it is usual for the house and land to have the same owner.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

Just now, sometimewoodworker said:

No I am not.

 

A Chanote is a document of land ownership (Nor Sor 4 Jor) that can not be registered to a non Thai. It has nothing to do with what is on the land

 

Ownership of a house is totally separate from ownership of the land it is sitting on, and yes anyone can own that. It is not a Chanote document.

 

Of course it is usual for the house and land to have the same owner.

A Chanote is not solely a document of land ownership ..... I own 2 Condos in Cha-am and I have a registered Chanote, in my name for both of them, as do many friends here, so you are clearly mistaken 

[BEVUP]

14 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

SO you mean the loan shark owns the land, but not the house.

owns the lot

[sfokevin]

5 hours ago, ikwiljou said:

If it's a wooden house than at least you could move the house if things go wrong. We have moved houses within Thailand.

 

Yeah... Mai Ben Rai...