Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

@cornishcarlos Which land office have you been going to that does not make you sign said document?

 

@janclaes47 The contact could be worded as such that its not criminalizing myself.

Overall I think that if the land office makes me sign that the money is my wife's -- so why not be smart and just make another contract as well? Between my wife and I? Which simply says that once the house is ever sold, monies will be due from her to me.

 

I am not contradicting anything, just very simple contract that says: wife will owe me money from house proceeds upon eventual sale. I am not stating that the money came from me.  It is very, very simple.


So I would be surprised if this couldn't work or would not be enforceable? It sound almost too simple...

 

But anyone can make a contract between people that is enforceable. No?

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
5 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

 Besides, what is purchased during marriage is owned 50/50 in the case of divorce.

Not if you can prove that the money to purchase the property belonged to the foreigner prior to  the marriage

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Delight said:

Not if you can prove that the money to purchase the property belonged to the foreigner prior to  the marriage

i wonder if this is why they make you sign a document saying it is not your money?

 

  • Like 2
Posted
13 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

 

 

I'm not married so I don't know, but I thought I had read a few times here already that when a Thai is married to a foreign spouse, the foreigner has to sign a document at the land office that states it is not his money.

 

If that is correct, making such a contract would be a good way to criminalize yourself.

I've paid for 3 houses, recorded at LTO in name of Thai son and 1 condo in my name, never ever heard of the foreigner has to sign a document at the land office that states it is not his money.

 

In fact if it's a house the title cannot be in foreigners name and the LTO not remotely interested in where the funds came from. 

 

If it's a condo and ownership is recorded on the chanut in the foreigners name then that Chanut recorded in the name of the foreigner then that foreigner has to prove / lode documentary proof that the money was transported into Thailand, in the foreigners name, for the purpose of buying the condo - that doesn't align at all with 'the foreigner has to sign a document at the land office that states it is not his money'. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
13 hours ago, brianinbangkok said:

I can confirm thats correct.

They make foreigners sign its all her money.

I signed nothing of the sort. I have even kept evidence that it was my money.

Posted

My experience in (pranburi LTO), buying a house with land is that they asked me to sign a declaration that my Thai wife was not acting as a proxy for a foreigner to buy land. 

  • Like 2
Posted
32 minutes ago, scorecard said:

I've paid for 3 houses, recorded at LTO in name of Thai son and 1 condo in my name, never ever heard of the foreigner has to sign a document at the land office that states it is not his money.

 

In fact if it's a house the title cannot be in foreigners name and the LTO not remotely interested in where the funds came from. 

 

If it's a condo and ownership is recorded on the chanut in the foreigners name then that Chanut recorded in the name of the foreigner then that foreigner has to prove / lode documentary proof that the money was transported into Thailand, in the foreigners name, for the purpose of buying the condo - that doesn't align at all with 'the foreigner has to sign a document at the land office that states it is not his money'. 

 

 

A house can be owned by a foreigner it is only the land upon which the house sits upon cannot be owned by a foreigner!

  • Like 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, scorecard said:
14 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

 

 

I'm not married so I don't know, but I thought I had read a few times here already that when a Thai is married to a foreign spouse, the foreigner has to sign a document at the land office that states it is not his money.

 

If that is correct, making such a contract would be a good way to criminalize yourself.

I've paid for 3 houses, recorded at LTO in name of Thai son and 1 condo in my name, never ever heard of the foreigner has to sign a document at the land office that states it is not his money.

I would guess that is because you're not the foreign spouse of your Thai son.

 

Maybe next time read my post before responding

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, shadowmaster1971 said:

A house can be owned by a foreigner it is only the land upon which the house sits upon cannot be owned by a foreigner!

A house can be owned by a foreigner if it is a new build and the building license is issued in the foreigners name.

 

A existing house can not be registered in a foreigners name when it was previously owned

  • Like 1
Posted

Once she knows it's set in stone. There is a switch that changes in her head.

 

Haha joking but uhhh yeah Id never put/or have anything of mine in their name.  Just me though.

 

Good luck

Posted

You can have your name added to the Chanote stating that you are a "sitting tennant", say for 20 years or whatever. That way she cannot sell the house without your signature (within that 20 yrs.).

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

A house can be owned by a foreigner if it is a new build and the building license is issued in the foreigners name.

 

A existing house can not be registered in a foreigners name when it was previously owned

An existing house as far as I am aware can be owned separately and I am not aware of anything that precludes a foreigner from doing this.

 

Posted
11 minutes ago, dotpoom said:

You can have your name added to the Chanote stating that you are a "sitting tennant", say for 20 years or whatever. That way she cannot sell the house without your signature (within that 20 yrs.).

True. Max I believe 30 years. Can not be sold without you signing it over at the Land Office. Just like the bank having a mortgage on the land, can not be sold without mortgage being paid and the bank signing off on it.

8 minutes ago, shadowmaster1971 said:

An existing house as far as I am aware can be owned separately and I am not aware of anything that precludes a foreigner from doing this.

Also True.

 

 

 

Posted
Just now, shadowmaster1971 said:

An existing house as far as I am aware can be owned separately and I am not aware of anything that precludes a foreigner from doing this.

 

Maybe you could post some source for your claims, but I doubt I have to wait for it.

 

First of all, the building doesn't get separately registered at the land office, so the building s always part of the land, unless the house was only build after the land transfer and the building license is in foreign name.

 

Unless the house which has a building license in foreign name is specified in the sales contract as being sold sold separately to another foreigner, it automatically becomes part of the land at the time of transfer and thereby Thai owned

 

If such a transaction is intended, the sale has also to be publicly announced at the Amphur office for 30 days before the land transfer can be done.

 

When a building license is in Thai name it can not change name afterwards

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...