Claim Against Legally Owned Land

[Tippaporn]

This is a new one on me but I'll try and keep it succinct.

 

My wife inherited 9 rai from her grandfather 13 years or so ago.  Land is located in Huai Mek, Kalasin province.  I'll dispense with the personal history as I doubt it has much bearing but the short of it is that her grandfather allowed another family to farm about 3 of the 9 rai.  When the inheritance kicked in my wife continued to allow this family to farm the 3 rai.  She caught wind a few weeks ago that this family is now laying claim to the land on the grounds that they've been farming it for however long.  Though my wife possesses the deed and has paid the yearly tax throughout her ownership there appears to be a Thai law which allows for such nonsensical (in my opinion) claims to be legally valid.  On top of that they may be legally entitled to claim more than the 3 rai they've been farming.

 

Is anyone familiar with this peculiar law, or has anyone had experience with a similar situation?  To be honest, I'm not even sure how to go about researching this.  Any help/advice would be much appreciated, including advice on legal avenues.

[blackcab]

If the family have been farming the land for more than 10 years then they have a claim to the land. Section 1382 of the Civil and Commercial Code states:

 

Section 1382. Open Ownership of Property

 

Where a person has, for an uninterrupted period of ten years in case of an immovable, or five years in case of a movable, peacefully and openly possessed a property belonging to another, with the intention to be its owner, he acquires the ownership of it.

 

This is why it is extremely important to get a signed lease from any tenant farmers, even if the rent charged is nominal. The lease proves that a commercial contract was in place, so a Section 1382 claim cannot be made.

 

Your wife needs to go and discuss this with the Land Office and listen to their advice.

[Tippaporn]

Well, sounds like she is likely screwed then.  Unless valid contingencies exist.  Which is why I'd be interested in a lawyers opinion.  A lawyer who is specifically knowledgeable regarding this law.

 

My wife went to the Land Office two weeks ago (we reside in Bangkok) and she is currently in Huai Mek to deal with this situation.  In fact, she had an official survey performed this very afternoon.  From talking with her just now she appears to be willing to throw in the towel.  My western taught values regarding land ownership feel incredibly assaulted by this and I'd be willing to fight.  But, ultimately TIT and I do understand that the fantastical can indeed substitute for reality here.

 

Would you be able to provide me with a link to the law you've quoted, blackcab?  Many thanks for your response.

 

BTW, my wife was not familiar with this law.  Had she been aware of it she would most definitely would of had a lease prepared long ago.  All these years she felt that she was doing them a favour.  Nice kick in the arse for having a generous heart.

[holy cow cm]

I have heard about this and there is another law that looks at unused property as abandoned. If they paid rent directly to your grandfathers bank, your bank there is a commitment. There is also the point she paid the land taxes so the property was not abandoned. If the other property has laid unused then worry on they may try to claim that too.

 

There was some sort of thing recent years back that the homesteader people had lied and said they paid the taxes but that was proven wrong and they lost their rights to claim the property. I think in Chiang Mai. 10 years seems to be the magic number but has to be proven. Can they prove it with documents?

 

Section 6 On and from the enforcement date of the Announcement of the Revolutionary Council, any land rights holder according to the Title Deed or the Utilization Certificate abandons the land or leaves the said land as to become a waste land for a longer period than:

(1) ten consecutive yea rs for the land with Title Deed;
(2) five consecutive yea rs for the land with the Utilization Certificate, Such person is deemed to intentionally renounce his/her rights in a specific portion of land that is abandoned or left to become a waste land. After the Director-General files a statement of claims with the Court and the Court orders the revocation of the document of rights in such land, it shall become the domain public of State and be executed further by this code

[Good Lord]

https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-civil-code-part-3.html

[xylophone]

18 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

abandons the land or leaves the said land as to become a waste land for a longer period than:

I'm not a lawyer, but you might have some leeway here (above)............

 

If your wife/family has attended to some/part of that land with regards to maintenance (mowing, shrub removal, fencing et cetera) or if she indeed has visited the land and spoken with those people laying the claim, then it could be argued that this land was not abandoned in the true sense of the word.

 

I certainly wouldn't give up now, and for the record this law exists in other countries as well, which is why I posted the paragraph above, and I always thought that this applied to a piece of land that had lain vacant for a period of 10 years, without any action or visitation by the owner.

 

Good luck.

[Odysseus123]

44 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, sounds like she is likely screwed then.  Unless valid contingencies exist.  Which is why I'd be interested in a lawyers opinion.  A lawyer who is specifically knowledgeable regarding this law.

 

My wife went to the Land Office two weeks ago (we reside in Bangkok) and she is currently in Huai Mek to deal with this situation.  In fact, she had an official survey performed this very afternoon.  From talking with her just now she appears to be willing to throw in the towel.  My western taught values regarding land ownership feel incredibly assaulted by this and I'd be willing to fight.  But, ultimately TIT and I do understand that the fantastical can indeed substitute for reality here.

 

Would you be able to provide me with a link to the law you've quoted, blackcab?  Many thanks for your response.

 

BTW, my wife was not familiar with this law.  Had she been aware of it she would most definitely would of had a lease prepared long ago.  All these years she felt that she was doing them a favour.  Nice kick in the arse for having a generous heart.

Yesw=..my wife explained this somewhat convoluted law some years ago-pertaining to members of a distant "uncles" family..I could not make head nor tails of it so I put it down to squatter's rights.

 

When the Thai fight for land they are astonishingly feral...the myth of their wonderful extended families lasts for less then a day.

[kannot]

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice kick in the arse for having a generous heart.

welcome to the land of greed

[Tippaporn]

Thanks for the replies all and for the link, Good Lord.

 

I just spoke with my wife and she tells me these people are coming to our house to speak with her.  I let her know in no uncertain terms to not make any decision until we investigate what avenues are open to us.

 

I can understand the principle of abandoned land but such was not the case with my wife's land.  Granted she has not utilized the land for any purpose but that should not be mistaken to be the equivalent of abandonment.  She has paid the yearly taxes which evidences the fact also that she has not abandoned it.

 

If anyone has a genuine recommendation for a lawyer I would greatly appreciate a PM.

 

Thanks,

 

Tip

[Tippaporn]

30 minutes ago, kannot said:

welcome to the land of greed

Unfortunately greed is not endemic to Thailand.  It's worldwide.  Always has been.  

[Tippaporn]

Interesting that this family offered 10,000 baht for 2 rai "up" as compensation.  The fact that they offered her anything indicates to me that their case may not be rock solid.  If it were then why offer anything?  I would seriously doubt that it's an offer from their "heart."

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

I have heard about this and there is another law that looks at unused property as abandoned. If they paid rent directly to your grandfathers bank, your bank there is a commitment. There is also the point she paid the land taxes so the property was not abandoned. If the other property has laid unused then worry on they may try to claim that too.

 

There was some sort of thing recent years back that the homesteader people had lied and said they paid the taxes but that was proven wrong and they lost their rights to claim the property. I think in Chiang Mai. 10 years seems to be the magic number but has to be proven. Can they prove it with documents?

 

Section 6 On and from the enforcement date of the Announcement of the Revolutionary Council, any land rights holder according to the Title Deed or the Utilization Certificate abandons the land or leaves the said land as to become a waste land for a longer period than:

(1) ten consecutive yea rs for the land with Title Deed;
(2) five consecutive yea rs for the land with the Utilization Certificate, Such person is deemed to intentionally renounce his/her rights in a specific portion of land that is abandoned or left to become a waste land. After the Director-General files a statement of claims with the Court and the Court orders the revocation of the document of rights in such land, it shall become the domain public of State and be executed further by this code

holy cow cm, can you provide me with a link to the Section 6 which you've quoted?  I'd like to learn more about what the precise legal definition of abandonment is.

 

I doubt that this family can prove that they've "possessed" the land consecutively for 10+ years with documents.  What, exactly, the courts would accept as proof I do not yet know.  That's another point I'll have to research.

 

Despite any education I may be able to give myself I believe I will still need to retain a lawyer.  But educating myself would at least be a preventative measure against retaining possible Dewey, Cheatem & Howe type lawyers.

[BritManToo]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Is anyone familiar with this peculiar law, or has anyone had experience with a similar situation? 

Yep, if you use land for 10 years without paying rent, you can claim it as yours.

Your only possible get out is the land tax payments.

[moe666]

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

holy cow cm, can you provide me with a link to the Section 6 which you've quoted?  I'd like to learn more about what the precise legal definition of abandonment is.

 

I doubt that this family can prove that they've "possessed" the land consecutively for 10+ years with documents.  What, exactly, the courts would accept as proof I do not yet know.  That's another point I'll have to research.

 

Despite any education I may be able to give myself I believe I will still need to retain a lawyer.  But educating myself would at least be a preventative measure against retaining possible Dewey, Cheatem & Howe type lawyers.

Stop screwing around get alawyer, you will have to do this eventually

[thaiguzzi]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

and has paid the yearly tax throughout her ownership

This.

I understand it, that this means it is her land at the land office AND the local ag tax office.

My missus is very strict & punctual on paying ALL the land taxes on ALL her various ag land plots.

Also go visit the local village headman.

Good luck.

 

 

[ThomasThBKK]

Yeah reallly get a lawyer now and don't meet them without one. 

 

Also record the meeting with them to have some proof for a civil case eventually.. 

[The Man Who Sold the World]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

If anyone has a genuine recommendation for a lawyer I would greatly appreciate a PM.

 

PM sent

[blackcab]

A few things to point out:

 

Firstly, the law quoted in post 4 is Section 6, Chapter 1 of the Land Code Act B.E. 2497 (as amended). Section 6 is about the State taking back land from individuals, not individuals claiming land from each other. Section 6, Chapter 1 is not relevant here.

 

Secondly, you have to understand that this process will take some time, and it is not guaranteed on the side of the current possessor.

 

Thirdly, while your wife has the undisputed ownership of the land, I would suggest she encumbers it.

 

She could register a life usufruct to you or a relative she trusts. The usufruct can be cancelled by the Court, but it will take quite a lot of time and money from the possessor.

 

Another option would be to register a mortgage on the land. The Court might not be keen to revoke the security of a third party lender and put the lender at a severe disadvantage.

 

Even more dastardly would be to gift the land to a young child - for example, you wife's grandchild. It is very difficult to take land from a minor. Only a Court can authorise it, after considering the best interests of the child.

 

There are a few items for you to think about.

[holy cow cm]

On 3/4/2019 at 8:44 PM, Tippaporn said:

holy cow cm, can you provide me with a link to the Section 6 which you've quoted?  I'd like to learn more about what the precise legal definition of abandonment is.

 

I doubt that this family can prove that they've "possessed" the land consecutively for 10+ years with documents.  What, exactly, the courts would accept as proof I do not yet know.  That's another point I'll have to research.

 

Despite any education I may be able to give myself I believe I will still need to retain a lawyer.  But educating myself would at least be a preventative measure against retaining possible Dewey, Cheatem & Howe type lawyers.

 

Land Code Promulgating Act, B.E. 2497 (1954)

[inThailand]

In Isaan its very common to do business without paper, ie in this case a lease. Many work someone else's land and pays the owner in rice. 

 

My point here is, the lack of a lease I doubt will necessary mean they acquire the land. 

 

A local Thai attorney must have dealt with these kind of land grabs before. 

[LukKrueng]

On 3/4/2019 at 5:35 PM, blackcab said:

If the family have been farming the land for more than 10 years then they have a claim to the land. Section 1382 of the Civil and Commercial Code states:

 

Section 1382. Open Ownership of Property

 

Where a person has, for an uninterrupted period of ten years in case of an immovable, or five years in case of a movable, peacefully and openly possessed a property belonging to another, with the intention to be its owner, he acquires the ownership of it.

 

This is why it is extremely important to get a signed lease from any tenant farmers, even if the rent charged is nominal. The lease proves that a commercial contract was in place, so a Section 1382 claim cannot be made.

 

Your wife needs to go and discuss this with the Land Office and listen to their advice.

back when I was studying for my BBA we learnt about this law at the business law subject. As far as I recall, the squatters had to actuality live on the land for ten years WITHOUT the knowledge/consent of the landlord. The law was explained to be against the too rich people who can't keep track of their land.... So if you can prove that you knew and actually gave consent to the neighbours to farm the land, they can't use this law to claim it for themselves

[Jeffrey346]

I'm a bit confused...

1 What tax are you guys talking about? My wife has quit a bit of land and to the best of my knowledge there are no yearly tax payments.

2  If your wife has undisputed ownership that was acquired and registered 3 years ago, squatters rules do not apply. 

From what I understand, these people who are farming the land must live on the land as well without the owners knowledge.

Your wife giving  them permission to farm disqualifies them from claiming squatters rights.

I don't see how a court can rule for these farmers. 

[loong]

It seems absolutely absurd to me that these people would think that they have a valid claim for the land. Your wife was aware and had given permission for them to farm the land. That is not the same as them farming an abandoned plot of land.

I would be amazed if any court anywhere would uphold such a claim.

[zlodnick]

I find this interesting as we have a similar situation.

 

We've had a 3 rai plot of land for over 20 years, bought as an investment. About 10 years ago, the phu yai baan told us there was a law that if we just left the land, without using it, the government could confiscate it. 

I planted a few shade trees and about 20 bananas and the wife has a little vegetable garden there. We haven't heard any more, so I guess everyone's satisfied.

[digbeth]

The actual concept of the law here is 'Adverse Possession' 

 

From the landowner's point, if she has made contact with them since her father's death, agreeing to let them continue to farm on and visited them since then, try to find evidence or witnesses. Receipt of the land tax paid at Or. Bor. Tor. also helps immensely. 

 

It is unlikely that they can win adverse possession, and now that they are no longer amicable, you might as well file to evict them, usually you will have to offer moving expense too.