Can you place an Agreement on Chanuk (shanuk)

[sanuk711]

Try to make it a short story—I have a commercial building 3 stories high. The house next to it would like to buy a strip of my land to build a swimming pool which would take them up to the wall of my building (no windows it’s OK) however my roof line with the guttering will then (3 floors up be over their land (swim pool) by about a meter) They are happy to sign any agreement on that situation---however they won’t live forever. I don’t want to leave problems in the future for wife kids etc. I was wondering if something can be placed on his chanuk referring to an agreement that must be passed on to future buyers of that property.

Yes I have been to the land office 3 times…I thought real estate was on the wane a bit in Issan but honestly you could not get into the door, queuing out into the street, the lowest wait number I got was 79 ---it’s not like being in the bank queue, some of the land transactions inside take over an hour or more to do,people coming back the next day.

I will still have to make it 100% sure—hire a queue waiter for 2 days--but I just wondered if anyone had any similar experience.

[Kwasaki]

Can't help but I would say persevere and you would be right to get conditions added in to save problems in the future.   

If they won't add to chanuk a separate agreement for them to sign could be arranged. 

Can you still maintain the gutter in the future when necessary.?

 

[blackcab]

Technically yes, practically I doubt it.

 

Thai law specifically forbids overhanging structures and also it forbids one party depositing rainwater onto the land of another party from their roof or gutters.

 

The only way around it would be to sell them the land and then register a lease on their chanote. Maximum lease length is 30 years. I seriously doubt, however, they would agree to this.

 

If they did I think you would be storing up problems for the future.

[oracle]

maybe as a right of servitude

 

Civil code section 1387. An immovable property may be subjected to a servitude by virtue of which the owner of such property is bound, for the benefit of another immovable property, to suffer certain act affecting his property or to refrain from exercising certain rights inherent in his ownership. 

 

มาตรา 1387 อสังหาริมทรัพย์อาจต้องตกอยู่ในภารจำยอมอันเห็นเหตุ ให้เจ้าของต้องยอมรับกรรมบางอย่างซึ่งกระทบถึงทรัพย์สินของตนหรือต้องงด เว้นการใช้สิทธิบางอย่างอันมีอยู่ในกรรมสิทธิ์ ทรัพย์สินนั้นเพื่อประโยชน์แก่ อสังหาริมทรัพย์อื่น

[sanuk711]

Thanks for the advice guys.................I guess its a camp outside the land office.

 

On 7/21/2018 at 4:41 PM, blackcab said:

Technically yes, practically I doubt it.

 

On 7/21/2018 at 5:40 PM, oracle said:

maybe as a right of servitude

 

On 7/21/2018 at 12:44 PM, Kwasaki said:

If they won't add to chanuk a separate agreement for them to sign could be arranged.

 

[blackcab]

It can't be a right of superfices as you would not have a physical property located on their land. Overhanging roof space doesn't count.

 

A separate agreement would not be binding on any person they sold the property to in the future. This means any future buyer could require you to remove the portion of your building that overhangs their land. 

[Kwasaki]

5 hours ago, blackcab said:

It can't be a right of superfices as you would not have a physical property located on their land. Overhanging roof space doesn't count.

 

A separate agreement would not be binding on any person they sold the property to in the future. This means any future buyer could require you to remove the portion of your building that overhangs their land. 

Dunno about that you can make them an offer they cannot refuse.  Seriously if contracts cannot be made then best  maybe to keep them 2 M away say . 

[oracle]

4 hours ago, blackcab said:

It can't be a right of servitude as you would not have a physical property located on their land. Overhanging roof space doesn't count.

 

I see what you mean but think you are mistaken a right of servitude with a right of superficies... right of servitude has nothing to with a physical property located on the land, actually on the contrary.

[blackcab]

16 minutes ago, oracle said:

 

I see what you mean but think you are mistaken a right of servitude with a right of superficies... right of servitude has nothing to with a physical property located on the land, actually on the contrary.

 

Apologies, you're quite right. I'll amend it.