30 yrs rental contract, ex-wife mortgaged the house to get money !

[greenchair]

I have a question. 

If they both took a loan for the house that's in her name. Then he got the ufrustuct for 30 years. 

 

Could he stop paying the mortgage and let the property go to her. 

She would then be responsible for the mortgage. 

He would be free to invest in another losing his money property. 

Thoughts please. 

[MaeJoMTB]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I have a question. 

If they both took a loan for the house that's in her name. Then he got the ufrustuct for 30 years. 

 

Could he stop paying the mortgage and let the property go to her. 

She would then be responsible for the mortgage. 

He would be free to invest in another losing his money property. 

Thoughts please. 

There is no mortgage, not possible with urfustruct.

The loan will be from a loan shark of some sort, and if you stop paying they kill you.

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, MaeJoMTB said:

There is no mortgage, not possible with urfustruct.

The loan will be from a loan shark of some sort, and if you stop paying they kill you.

Can't the wife take the loan and then do the struct 

[MaeJoMTB]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Can't the wife take the loan and then do the struct 

No, person giving loan retains Chanote, so you couldn't register the struct.

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, MaeJoMTB said:

No, person giving loan retains Chanote, so you couldn't register the struct.

So all these people renting condos for 30 years pay cash then? ?

[greenchair]

I really just don't understand why anyone would pay 30 years worth of overpriced rent. Why not just rent a really nice place for a few years. 

Same thing 

[isaanbanhou]

10 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I really just don't understand why anyone would pay 30 years worth of overpriced rent. Why not just rent a really nice place for a few years. 

Same thing 

My understanding is land can only be registered to a Thai.   So I buy the land and put it in my wifes name.  I then lease the land for 30 years.  This way I know I have the right to live on the land i bought for 30 years.  If my relationship goes south,  I am not homeless.  

 

As to your question if people who rent condos for thirty years pay cash.  very few condos come with a thirty year lease,

1 year seems far more common.

 

[MaeJoMTB]

10 hours ago, isaanbanhou said:

My understanding is land can only be registered to a Thai.   So I buy the land and put it in my wifes name.  I then lease the land for 30 years.  This way I know I have the right to live on the land i bought for 30 years.  If my relationship goes south,  I am not homeless.  

 

As to your question if people who rent condos for thirty years pay cash.  very few condos come with a thirty year lease,

1 year seems far more common.

 

Contracts between husband and wife are not enforcable in Thai law.

Upon divorce any such contract can be cancelled unilaterally by either party.

[isaanbanhou]

1 minute ago, MaeJoMTB said:

Contracts between husband and wife are not valid in Thai law.

Upon divorce any such contract can be cancelled unilaterally by either party.

 

so one buys the land and puts it in a lawyers name?  company name or father in laws name then?

[greenchair]

Anyway, can't he just walk away and leave her to pay the loans. 

He's going to have to leave in 29 years anyway. 

Might as well get settled somewhere new now. 

Unless he's near death. 

In which case he could wait it out until going to his new home. 

[BEVUP]

21 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

Contracts between husband and wife are not enforcable in Thai law.

Upon divorce any such contract can be cancelled unilaterally by either party.

Now your going to have the Prenup & Contract gangs out again

Remember ! The one's that supposeably  have a binding agreement with the actual  land owner  stating that they can't Mortgage / Sell their own land

[BEVUP]

26 minutes ago, isaanbanhou said:

 

so one buys the land and puts it in a lawyers name?  company name or father in laws name then?

That would make no difference,as Thais still own the land 

You may obtain the major voting rights in a company but I'm sure that could be worked around by a couple of squealing ones

[jackdd]

36 minutes ago, isaanbanhou said:

so one buys the land and puts it in a lawyers name?  company name or father in laws name then?

Imho there are 2 choices for living in a house in Thailand that make sense:

1. Rent a house. Don't like the area anymore or the house is "getting old" and you want a new one? Just move. 

2. Make your wife take a loan to build the house and keep everything on her name. You pay the rates to the bank while you are together.

[MikeyIdea]

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:46 PM, ExpatOilWorker said:

After 29 years and 364 days you can still rent a bulldozer and level the house. Enjoy the countdown to this event. 

Leases normally state that the leasee must clear the land when the lease expires so you just wrote a statement of fact

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 1/28/2018 at 12:21 PM, KKr said:

Usufruct for land and Superficies for a House seem to work well for life, however, one cannot sell the house or land, as the case may be, without the owner's cooperation.

 

The part that I've never seen adequately resolved in these discussions for a farang husband who pays to help his Thai wife buy a house, and then while married executes a usufruct on the property is....

 

What's the validity of a long-term usufruct executed between a farang-Thai married couple when Thai marriage law states that any legal agreement between a husband and wife can be voided unilaterally by either party at any time during the marriage or up to 1 year after any divorce?

 

From past go-rounds on this, such a usufruct would serve as protection for the farang husband in the event the wife were to die prematurely, and ostensibly allow the farang husband to remain in the home, and not get booted out by potentially greedy inlaws / inheritors after the wife has passed.

 

But in the event of an unhappy separation or even a divorce, the Thai wife would seem to have the ability to unilaterally cancel a usufruct between her and the (ex) husband as long as she did so within a year after any formal divorce.

 

If such a husband-wife usufruct is somehow exempted from that language about voiding husband-wife contracts in Thai marriage law, I've never seen any documentation of that.

 

[jackdd]

7 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The part that I've never seen adequately resolved in these discussions for a farang husband who pays to help his Thai wife buy a house, and then while married executes a usufruct on the property is....

 

What's the validity of a long-term usufruct executed between a farang-Thai married couple when Thai marriage law states that any legal agreement between a husband and wife can be voided unilaterally by either party at any time during the marriage or up to 1 year after any divorce?

 

From past go-rounds on this, such a usufruct would serve as protection for the farang husband in the event the wife were to die prematurely, and ostensibly allow the farang husband to remain in the home, and not get booted out by potentially greedy inlaws / inheritors after the wife has passed.

 

But in the event of an unhappy separation or even a divorce, the Thai wife would seem to have the ability to unilaterally cancel a usufruct between her and the (ex) husband as long as she did so within a year after any formal divorce.

 

If such a husband-wife usufruct is somehow exempted from that language about voiding husband-wife contracts in Thai marriage law, I've never seen any documentation of that.

 

I think everything you said is correct.

[MaeJoMTB]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Imho there are 2 choices for living in a house in Thailand that make sense:

1. Rent a house. Don't like the area anymore or the house is "getting old" and you want a new one? Just move. 

2. Make your wife take a loan to build the house and keep everything on her name. You pay the rates to the bank while you are together.

 

I opted for 2.

BUT no good building a house, gives the wife too many opportunities to profit from inflating build/labour prices.

She purchased from a company that stated the finished house price for every plot they sold, no room for her stealing from me.

[BEVUP]

On 1/27/2018 at 10:02 AM, BEVUP said:

There is no limitation regarding the number and size of the usufruct. It is entirely legal to have several usufructs. There is no requirement to live on the usufructed land.

A standard usufruct agreement is provided in Thailand by the local land offices. Such usufruct can be combined with other contracts between the parties. Such second contract may state that the landowner can not sell, transfer or mortgage the land during the usufruct or that the usufructuary will own all improvements.

Such second contract can even be combined with the usufruct agreement and merged into one mixed agreement. However, such additions won’t and can’t change the scope or character of the usufruct. As a real right, the usufruct is not subject to an individual design or definition by the parties. The additional clauses, even if integrated with registered usufruct agreements, are just contractual obligations or simple promises between the parties which might be depending on the particularities of the case, not bind the legal successor of the owner.

·         Section 1298 CCC: Real rights may be created only by virtue of this Code or other laws.

The real test of the effectiveness of any legal instrument is not how well it appears to have been drawn up but what happens when you try to enforce it. The unhappy event of attempting to enforce an agreement in a Thai civil court may take place years after the instrument was instigated.

·         The usufruct is a real right (“right in rem”), not a contract like a lease contract. Its scope and character are defined by the law, not by any agreement with the owner. The contractual extension and enlargement of the usufruct is just a marketing myth.

For post # 166

[MikeyIdea]

4 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Imho there are 2 choices for living in a house in Thailand that make sense:

1. Rent a house. Don't like the area anymore or the house is "getting old" and you want a new one? Just move. 

2. Make your wife take a loan to build the house and keep everything on her name. You pay the rates to the bank while you are together.

 

I opted for 2.

BUT no good building a house, gives the wife too many opportunities to profit from inflating build/labour prices.

She purchased from a company that stated the finished house price for every plot they sold, no room for her stealing from me.

I bought a smallish house (well, my first wife and I did in her name ) with a lease registered at the land department in Huaykwang attached for 350,000 in 1992 and then lived there happily for 15 years paying 260 baht per month in rent. The land lord asked if I wanted to buy the land for 40,000 baht per tarang waa and the house was already mine so nothing for that of course in 2007 and I did so I paid 40*26K and 10K to the lawyer, seller paid tax of course and we transferred the title deed into my 2 year old daughters name (took 8AM to 2PM :) )   

 

I still live in the same house so I've lived there for 25 years now. 350K + 47k rent for 15 years + attractive price for the land and my daughter owns the land

 

I can't imagine anything that could have been cheaper for me than that lease. Brilliant of my first wife :)

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 minutes ago, BEVUP said:

For post # 166

 

What's the point you're trying to make in quoting all that legalese?

 

The wording of Thai family law re agreements between husbands and wives says "any agreement" may be voided by either party unilaterally -- not just leases or contracts...

 

 

 

[BEVUP]

28 minutes ago, BEVUP said:

Such second contract can even be combined with the usufruct agreement and merged into one mixed agreement. However, such additions won’t and can’t change the scope or character of the usufruct. As a real right, the usufruct is not subject to an individual design or definition by the parties.

Quoting all this mainly retains to this clause for the people who think they have the right to say whether or not the Chanote holder can Mortgage/Sell the Chanote with out their permission

 

& yes I know if you do Agreements married couples they can be voided 

[KKr]

3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The part that I've never seen adequately resolved in these discussions for a farang husband who pays to help his Thai wife buy a house, and then while married executes a usufruct on the property is....

 

What's the validity of a long-term usufruct executed between a farang-Thai married couple when Thai marriage law states that any legal agreement between a husband and wife can be voided unilaterally by either party at any time during the marriage or up to 1 year after any divorce?

 

From past go-rounds on this, such a usufruct would serve as protection for the farang husband in the event the wife were to die prematurely, and ostensibly allow the farang husband to remain in the home, and not get booted out by potentially greedy inlaws / inheritors after the wife has passed.

 

But in the event of an unhappy separation or even a divorce, the Thai wife would seem to have the ability to unilaterally cancel a usufruct between her and the (ex) husband as long as she did so within a year after any formal divorce.

 

If such a husband-wife usufruct is somehow exempted from that language about voiding husband-wife contracts in Thai marriage law, I've never seen any documentation of that.

 

As I was informed, a superficies / usufruct prior to marriage remains valid in case of a divorce. (in analogy, like a Chanote-title on a Condo remains the private property of the person named as long as it was bought and delivered before marriage.)
However, a gift between husband and wife (which a superficies / usufruct could possibly be argued to be) can be reversed in case of a divorce.
So it seems important to document that the land / house was a gift during marriage and hence the real property should be allocated to the person who paid for it. For a good wording, I'd consult a lawyer.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

7 minutes ago, KKr said:

As I was informed, a superficies / usufruct prior to marriage remains valid in case of a divorce. (in analogy, like a Chanote-title on a Condo remains the private property of the person named as long as it was bought and delivered before marriage.)
However, a gift between husband and wife (which a superficies / usufruct could possibly be argued to be) can be reversed in case of a divorce.
So it seems important to document that the land / house was a gift during marriage and hence the real property should be allocated to the person who paid for it. For a good wording, I'd consult a lawyer.

 

Yes, the point being, if you're going to do a usufruct for owned property in hopes of protecting yourself against a marriage or wife gone bad, do it BEFORE you get married. Because once you're married, executing a usufruct then may not provide the protection being sought.

 

And just to be clear, before getting married means before registering your marriage at the local amphur or khet office. The village ceremonial weddings have no legal standing and are irrelevant for this issue.

 

[Wake Up]

7 hours ago, MaeJoMTB said:

Contracts between husband and wife are not enforcable in Thai law.

Upon divorce any such contract can be cancelled unilaterally by either party.

Exactly so that is why the lease must be done while you are not married to her. 

[BEVUP]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Yes, the point being, if you're going to do a usufruct for owned property in hopes of protecting yourself against a marriage or wife gone bad, do it BEFORE you get married. Because once you're married, executing a usufruct then may not provide the protection being sought.

 

And just to be clear, before getting married means before registering your marriage at the local amphur or khet office. The village ceremonial weddings have no legal standing and are irrelevant for this issue.

 

& also not forgetting that the owner still has the right to sell or mortgage the property even if the Usufrut was put on prior to marriage irrelevant of any contractural agreement between 2 parties as it will not affect your Usufrut (contracts cannot over rule Usufrut laws ) if passed on to new owner

[oracle]

you cannot lease from your spouse when married, check https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/492364-legendary-british-farmer-joe-loses-water-tight-30-year-lease-in-thailand/. He is not a loser but someone acting in good faith, he probably used a lawyer and lost everything, don't do it!

 

[BEVUP]

8 hours ago, oracle said:

you cannot lease from your spouse when married, check https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/492364-legendary-british-farmer-joe-loses-water-tight-30-year-lease-in-thailand/. He is not a loser but someone acting in good faith, he probably used a lawyer and lost everything, don't do it!

 

Why fight for another lease 

But was he aware of the extra 300,000 + 12,000 p/mth

I would of let her have it as he wont own it in the end

On the above figures he could of rented a room/condo

In the end she would of blown the or have 22 Rai & a house paid from the other land  & sweet f all else 

[Khun Jean]

On 2/1/2018 at 3:55 PM, Wake Up said:

Exactly so that is why the lease must be done while you are not married to her. 

As i have been saying for at least 10 years, this is the best way. The next best thing is to include a 'third party'. Maybe a child, brother, sister, friend (you can return the service by being his 3rd party).

Then a usufruct or lease can not be dissolved as it violates the 'provided that the right of third parties acting in good faith are not affected".

 

It is not that complicated. Lawyers, agents, brokers (well 99.9% of them) make things complicated, illegal and costly. Just read the law, use what is available and be done with it.

[JohnnyBKK]

The lease was done 2 or 3 yrs after the divorce.

[BEVUP]

1 hour ago, JohnnyBKK said:

The lease was done 2 or 3 yrs after the divorce.

Well that's ok then 

But as a side note - Now I need people to correct me if I'm wrong !

 

I am suspecting there are more terms in a Lease (under the provided law ) that would be available to terminate such a Lease, then a Usufrut, as it is more of a Commercial agreement