Usufruct denied in Samui

[ukrules]

This is an absolute abuse of the law in order to solicit a bribe.

 

It should be investigated and the officer in charge should go to prison for many years.

 

[GalaxyMan]

14 hours ago, rumak said:

Well, Mr Galaxy.   First let's look at your cute add-on :  

Stupidity should be painful to the stupid, too.

Religion is a form of mass mental illness whereby people try to evade responsibility for their own thoughts/actions and blame someone/thing else.

 

Leaving aside the religion reference.....  I have noticed that people using the word STUPID  here in Thailand are often the ones who are having problems.   And stupid is of course ALWAYS directed at others , for heaven forbid it might be themself.   TO ME  it sounds like your course of action was not well thought out.  FACT:  the "head man"  can in most if not all situations make the decision based on his power.  STUPID ?   well,  If we had a thread asking people to list all the things they find stupid it would set a Guinness world record.   On the other hand,  people taking the time to learn how things work and then dealing with it wisely would be a very short list.

I don't mean this to be a lecture.   Just relating my experience:   The less arrogant I acted when talking to officialdom (anywhere)  the better results i got.  Do I like groveling ?  Hell no !   But I do like getting my way.   If you owned a house and a potential renter came and acted disrespectful to you would you rent to him?   I am sure HE would not think he was being disrespectful.  But you have the power, right?

So,  sorry,  not renting to you.

You are now pretty much assured that you are not on the good side of the head man.  Try to think how you can still get what you want.  And next time you go to an office,  practice that groveling .  Of course you can come back and berate me with how you don't put up with that  sheeet.   And one more thing,

learn Thai as fast as you can if you want any serious input on how things get done. 

 

  2

You speak out of total ignorance. Nobody was anything but polite and respectful to the head man, it was he who was rude, imperious, and dismissive. There was nothing professional about the encounter. Both my GF and the builder were astonished at how they had been treated. I never said a word and he refused to look at me even once.

 

Next time you feel the need to be imperious, check your facts first.

[Oxx]

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

A Usufruct is legal for a maximum of 30 years

 

I believe you're confusing usufruct with lease.  A usufruct can be legal for the lifetime of the usufructee - even if it's over 30 years.

[sometimewoodworker]

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

A Usufruct is legal for a maximum of 30 years and nothing in the Thai land laws states that it is only available for Thai nationals. To be legal, the Usufruct must be recorded on the Chanotte - it holds no water otherwise.

Part 1 wrong

Part 2 and 3 correct 

 

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

A Usufruct has a limited term and conveys only the usage of land for that term.

That is correct 

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

It does not convey ownership, in fact it should contain a date on which the agreement ends and possession returns to the registered owner.

Part 1 correct 

part 2 wrong

 

an Usufruct is not a lease and has different rules. It can be and often is for an indeterminate period. As it is completely legal for it to be for the lifetime of the Usufructee. There is no 30 year rule for an Usufruct however it always finishes on the death of the holder. It cannot be inherited.

 

The one thing the Usufructee can do that survives his/her death is grant a lease of the land

 

[brianthainess]

On 3/27/2019 at 7:41 AM, GalaxyMan said:

but she is a typical Thai who ALWAYS defers to perceived authority without any resistance. Such a cowed people.

Shame my wife wasn't there she is not cowed,she'd have politely yaked yaked him till he caved in. 

[scorecard]

18 hours ago, crazykopite said:

I might be wrong but I was under the impression that in Thai law a lease on a private property can be for 30+30 years if done at the same time and on a commercial property it is 50 +50 . A few years back there were developers selling with 30+30+30 leases on private properties however I have never come across this in any of the regulations.

The thread is about usufruct which is quite different to 30 year leases.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Oxx said:

 

I believe you're confusing usufruct with lease.  A usufruct can be legal for the lifetime of the usufructee - even if it's over 30 years.

Correct. And once the usufruct is recorded on the chanut:

 

- The only person who can remove it is the person mentioned in the usufruct (or a court order of course which would be extremely difficult to obtain).

 

- Until the person mentioned in the usufruct dies or officially instructs that it be removed (cancelled) the land cannot be sold.  

 

 

[rumak]

2 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

You speak out of total ignorance. Nobody was anything but polite and respectful to the head man, it was he who was rude, imperious, and dismissive. There was nothing professional about the encounter. Both my GF and the builder were astonished at how they had been treated. I never said a word and he refused to look at me even once.

 

Next time you feel the need to be imperious, check your facts first.

yep, the kind of response i expected.   I read your post carefully.  My post never accused you of doing anything that you just wrote.  SO,  you are stupid.   No matter what you say now, i will not believe you, because a proper response could have been politely telling me that you believe you and your party were respectful....not saying i was totally ignorant.   I do know that some of these officials are very arrogant.

I stand by my assertion that dealing with that type requires one to be very careful not to upset them.

Do i like having to deal with that type?  hell no.   But your answer to my post shows how you react when not happy, so you may think you were totally respectful, but i doubt it..... as i wrote nothing to insult you but you came back with an insult.   Thais, as well as some farangs,  are very keen to pick up on other peoples attitudes and emotions.   They are not as stupid as many here think

[Oxx]

4 minutes ago, scorecard said:

- Until the person mentioned in the usufruct dies or officially instructs that it be removed (cancelled) the land cannot be sold.  

 

I don't believe this to be correct.  The land can be sold, but the usufruct remains intact.

[GalaxyMan]

1 minute ago, rumak said:

but i doubt it.....

Never let reality get in the way of what you want to believe. Have a nice day. ????

[GalaxyMan]

1 minute ago, Oxx said:

 

I don't believe this to be correct.  The land can be sold, but the usufruct remains intact.

That is correct. The real oddity is that the usufructary can give a 30-year lease that remains valid even if the usufructary dies.

[rumak]

1 minute ago, GalaxyMan said:

Never let reality get in the way of what you want to believe. Have a nice day. ????

I have all my usufructs printed on the back of the chanotes.  No problems encountered.  You are having problems.   When i need info i go to the Land office alone and speak with the head man directly.

That is the reality.   But you can choose your reality, and have a nice day as well

[rumak]

5 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

6 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

I don't believe this to be correct.  The land can be sold, but the usufruct remains intact.

That is correct. The real oddity is that the usufructary can give a 30-year lease that remains valid even if the usufructary dies.

The misinformation just keeps on rolling in.    My land office will NOT let land be sold until the usufruct is removed .  We have sold land and this had to be done FIRST.  I wish some of you would speak from experience instead of just posting stuff you get off of websites.    zzzzzzzzzzzz  The land might be able to be sold if the holder of the usufruct agrees and is kept on as the usufruct.  BUT, cannot be sold without usufructs permission.  Not at my land office !

[rumak]

14 minutes ago, Oxx said:

19 minutes ago, scorecard said:

- Until the person mentioned in the usufruct dies or officially instructs that it be removed (cancelled) the land cannot be sold.  

 

I don't believe this to be correct.  The land can be sold, but the usufruct remains intact

Scorecard...... at least you KNOW how it works.   God, i try to help some of the guys but they know better.

Kinda like giving any kind of advice here on TV.       Funny how the ones with problems start calling me names after I tell them how something works here.   well, maybe not so funny

[rumak]

20 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

That is correct. The real oddity is that the usufructary can give a 30-year lease that remains valid even if the usufructary dies.

you better keep editing  GM.....   maybe you will get it right one of the edits.   I answered your post to be of assistance.You were very quick to accuse me of things i did not say.  Maybe even the head man would have not been so rude and dismissive if approached differently.  My reality is that you were not respectful to me.  Could be that was his reality too.   Not yours, of course.  And we all know what it means when an american says   " have a nice day" ,   

[Oxx]

8 minutes ago, rumak said:

19 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

20 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

I don't believe this to be correct.  The land can be sold, but the usufruct remains intact.

That is correct. The real oddity is that the usufructary can give a 30-year lease that remains valid even if the usufructary dies.

The misinformation just keeps on rolling in.    My land office will NOT let land be sold until the usufruct is removed .  We have sold land and this had to be done FIRST.  I wish some of you would speak from experience instead of just posting stuff you get off of websites.    zzzzzzzzzzzz  The land might be able to be sold if the holder of the usufruct agrees and is kept on as the usufruct.  BUT, cannot be sold without usufructs permission.  Not at my land office !

 

Not misinformation.  Absolutely correct.  To quote one law firm:

 

"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."

 

It is the second contract (which may be merged into the usufruct agreement) which can prevent sale.  A usufruct on its own does allow the sale of the land.

 

And rather than impugn me suggesting I'm not speaking from experience, try checking your facts first.  I do have a usufruct and went into great details before entering into an agreement, so I am speaking from experience.

[rumak]

5 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

Not misinformation.  Absolutely correct.  To quote one law firm:

 

"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."

 

It is the second contract (which may be merged into the usufruct agreement) which can prevent sale.  A usufruct on its own does allow the sale of the land.

 

And rather than impugn me suggesting I'm not speaking from experience, try checking your facts first.  I do have a usufruct and went into great details before entering into an agreement, so I am speaking from experience.

quoting law firms   hahaha

the only usufruct that has any validity AS FAR AS I"M concerned is the one typed directly onto the Chanote.    If you did any contracts with lawyers then you will have to deal with lawyers,  Plenty of stories from TV members about that !   

My usufructs are typed with my name directly on the Chanote.   Most Land Office dealings are done legit without problems.   Is your usufruct typed on the Chanote?   without seeing it I can not know what it says.  But since you are quoting stuff from lawyers about the law, i do not consider that first hand knowledge.   I have first hand knowledge being the one with the usufruct on the land being sold.  Like I and another have said..... It could NOT be sold without my permission, which involved doing a form AT THE LAND OFFICE  where I agreed to remove my name as usufruct.  The owner of the land could NOT sell the land otherwise.    That is what i consider experience.   If you have not been involved in that particular situation ( land sale with you as usufruct on the Chanote).... then IMO you are not speaking from experience.   All the talk on TV  about my friend did this or my lawyer said this or the law says this... 

Again,  your wife or gf have a chanote with you typed on the back as having a  sitti gep gin ????

 

 

[bojo]

2 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

Part 1 wrong

Part 2 and 3 correct 

 

That is correct 

Part 1 correct 

part 2 wrong

 

an Usufruct is not a lease and has different rules. It can be and often is for an indeterminate period. As it is completely legal for it to be for the lifetime of the Usufructee. There is no 30 year rule for an Usufruct however it always finishes on the death of the holder. It cannot be inherited.

 

The one thing the Usufructee can do that survives his/her death is grant a lease of the land

 

Thank goodness for a well informed post.......

[Enki]

6 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

A Usufruct is legal for a maximum of 30 years and nothing in the Thai land laws states that it is only available for Thai nationals. To be legal, the Usufruct must be recorded on the Chanotte - it holds no water otherwise.

I have the impression you are mixing up a 30 year lease with an usufruct.

[rumak]

49 minutes ago, Enki said:

7 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

A Usufruct is legal for a maximum of 30 years and nothing in the Thai land laws states that it is only available for Thai nationals. To be legal, the Usufruct must be recorded on the Chanotte - it holds no water otherwise.

I have the impression you are mixing up a 30 year lease with an usufruct.

you'd need a good blender to mix things up as much as some on here do.

I also notice an eerie silence as some of the experts try to find cut and pastes to support their mistaken views.     Unfortunately almost all are at the mercy of what their gf or friend or lawyer or google says is the FACTS.    And they are easily frustrated by the difficulty in who says what and why things don't go as wished.    Immig stuff,  land stuff,  relationship advice,  sin sot,  the "law"...........  so many believe that two years here and they got it all down.   Many with 20 years still have problems.   

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

I don't believe this to be correct.  The land can be sold, but the usufruct remains intact.

I just checked again with my lawyer, he says your point is partly correct.

 

The land can be sold with the permission of the person named in the usufruct but that person can also state that they keep their right (through the usufruct) to be domiciled on the same property until either their death or they personally cancel the usufruct.

 

My lawyer also says that this provision is pretty much never used in practice.

 

He said again, in reality usufruct is used by many Thai families to ensure their is a respected elder who ensures that children, aunts etc etc., don't somehow get their hands on the property and sell it against the wishes of other family members who are perhaps being intimidated by the family members who want it sold for their own gain.  But of course all of that related to actual legal usage of usufruct, rather than being a statement of the actual law.

 

 

In my own case, my Thai son trusts his Thai wife and I believe he should trust her.

 

But my son totally / absolutely doesn't trust his wife's elder brother and sister they're very tricky, I would even use the words unethical, immoral, demanding, threatening and tricksters.  And My son's wife is quite frightened of them.

 

They believe I am evil - all farang are evil, and they've made it plain they intent to go to the police and demand the police take all my money and give it to them, because this is stated in Thai law (their convenient version of the Thai law). Of course not true.

 

They have mentioned, loudly and strongly that my son's property automatically became the absolute legal property of his wife alone (their sister) on the day son and his wife married. (Their version of the law.)

 

Twice they have comes to son's house with unethical lawyers insisting that my son and his wife sign various documents to sell the house and land and stated in the bogus documents that all proceeds go to the elder brother and sister.

 

Also in the picture my son and his wife have 3 young kids (all well under the age of majority), and my son's strong desire / intent is that the 3 kids jointly inherit all of the property and other assets, cash, vehicles etc.

 

He made a will as above and had further discussions with our trusted family lawyer about other ways to protect his kids. This is where usufruct came into our scenario, our lawyer (in Chiang Mai) suggested that the son record a usufruct on the property in my name which was done, and it specifically mentions (just one point) that the property (as long as I am alive) cannot be sold without my written permission. All deliberate from my son to protect his kids inheritance. 

 

Before the usufruct was completed at the local LTO our lawyer contacted another lawyer in Bkk, an expert on this area of the law, his statement was that the usufruct should specifically mention 'cannot be sold without the written permission of the person named in the usufruct (me), however this lapses on my death)'. Usufruct now recorded, as above, about 3 years ago. 

[rumak]

34 minutes ago, scorecard said:

I just checked again with my lawyer, he says your point is partly correct.

 

The land can be sold with the permission of the person named in the usufruct but that person can also state that they keep their right (through the usufruct) to be domiciled on the same property until either their death or they personally cancel the usufruct.

 

My lawyer also says that this provision is pretty much never used in practice. 

 

the way I read that..... it's the same as saying the land can not be sold without the permission of the usufruct .  ?   or am i missing something.   I would think that the usufruct, and more importantly the Buyer,would need to sign a form at Land office so that usufructs name would still be listed on Chanote as such.  Unless sold within family, i doubt any buyer would like to keep that provision as it really is the usufruct who has the right to use the land 

[scorecard]

4 minutes ago, rumak said:

the way I read that..... it's the same as saying the land can not be sold without the permission of the usufruct .  ?   or am i missing something.   I would think that the usufruct, and more importantly the Buyer,would need to sign a form at Land office so that usufructs name would still be listed on Chanote as such.  Unless sold within family, i doubt any buyer would like to keep that provision as it really is the usufruct who has the right to use the land 

Agree, who would buy land / property which is under control of a stranger? Nobody?

 

But of course if it's all within a family might be different. 

 

 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, rumak said:

quoting law firms   hahaha

the only usufruct that has any validity AS FAR AS I"M concerned is the one typed directly onto the Chanote.    If you did any contracts with lawyers then you will have to deal with lawyers,  Plenty of stories from TV members about that !   

My usufructs are typed with my name directly on the Chanote.   Most Land Office dealings are done legit without problems.   Is your usufruct typed on the Chanote?   without seeing it I can not know what it says.  But since you are quoting stuff from lawyers about the law, i do not consider that first hand knowledge.   I have first hand knowledge being the one with the usufruct on the land being sold.  Like I and another have said..... It could NOT be sold without my permission, which involved doing a form AT THE LAND OFFICE  where I agreed to remove my name as usufruct.  The owner of the land could NOT sell the land otherwise.    That is what i consider experience.   If you have not been involved in that particular situation ( land sale with you as usufruct on the Chanote).... then IMO you are not speaking from experience.   All the talk on TV  about my friend did this or my lawyer said this or the law says this... 

Again,  your wife or gf have a chanote with you typed on the back as having a  sitti gep gin ????

 

 

 

"..."A standard usufruct agreement is provided in Thailand by the local land offices...."

 

Agree, this seems to be from a law firm, the actual Thai law (or law from any country) would definitely not be written like this. This sentence should be in normal font but I can't remove the italique font.

 

 

 

[sometimewoodworker]

to the best of my knowledge the land owner can still sell the land, they are after all the owner.

 

However any sale of the land has no effect on the holder of the Usufruct, it does not change anything for the Usufructee. 

 

In practise the owner is likely to get a very much lower price if they sell with an Usufruct in place, so that it is uncommon for a sale to take place. But for example transfers within a family can certainly happen within the law.

 

the clause written into the Usufruct prohibiting the sale of the land without the consent of the Usufructee may not be enforceable if challenged in court, it may however discourage anyone trying to force a sale so maybe a useful legal fiction.

 

Also don't forget that what maybe the case in one land office may well not be true in another. This is a principle in Thai offices that the rules are locally interpreted and enforced. 

 

You may sometimes be able to successfully challenge a local ruling by going higher up.

[scorecard]

12 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

to the best of my knowledge the land owner can still sell the land, they are after all the owner.

 

However any sale of the land has no effect on the holder of the Usufruct, it does not change anything for the Usufructee. 

 

In practise the owner is likely to get a very much lower price if they sell with an Usufruct in place, so that it is uncommon for a sale to take place. But for example transfers within a family can certainly happen within the law.

 

the clause written into the Usufruct prohibiting the sale of the land without the consent of the Usufructee may not be enforceable if challenged in court, it may however discourage anyone trying to force a sale so maybe a useful legal fiction.

 

Also don't forget that what maybe the case in one land office may well not be true in another. This is a principle in Thai offices that the rules are locally interpreted and enforced. 

 

You may sometimes be able to successfully challenge a local ruling by going higher up.

to the best of my knowledge the land owner can still sell the land, they are after all the owner.

Not according to the lawyer expert on this subject who advised my son and our local lawyer.

 

However any sale of the land has no effect on the holder of the Usufruct, it does not change anything for the Usufructee. 

 

In practise the owner is likely to get a very much lower price if they sell with an Usufruct in place, so that it is uncommon for a sale to take place. But for example transfers within a family can certainly happen within the law.

 

Could be true, of course. Bottom line is that when an owner puts a usufruct on his/her property they would be well aware of this, so it's their choice. 

 

the clause written into the Usufruct prohibiting the sale of the land without the consent of the Usufructee may not be enforceable if challenged in court, it may however discourage anyone trying to force a sale so maybe a useful legal fiction.

 

Not according to our expert lawyer. His advice is that the law on usufruct is absolute and solid. and has been in place for decades. Again bottom line, don't use an usurfruct if your not happy with it's legal intent.

 

 

[BritManToo]

36 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Agree, who would buy land / property which is under control of a stranger? Nobody?

But of course if it's all within a family might be different. 

It would depend on how good the price was, and what I thought about murder for profit.

[rumak]

58 minutes ago, scorecard said:

1 hour ago, sometimewoodworker said:

to the best of my knowledge the land owner can still sell the land, they are after all the owner.

I give up .   the i believes and to the best of my knowledge guys here have beaten me into submission.

I believe I'll have another jack daniels.     WAITER !    

[sometimewoodworker]

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

to the best of my knowledge the land owner can still sell the land, they are after all the owner.

Not according to the lawyer expert on this subject who advised my son and our local lawyer.

I have heard a different interpretation. I have heard of at least one case where land with an Usufruct has been sold.

 

What maybe the case in one land office may well not be true in another. 

 

TIT your experience of truth is quite often a little different to my experience of truth. They are both true.

 

Do not expect Thailand to be the same as a western country.

 

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

the clause written into the Usufruct prohibiting the sale of the land without the consent of the Usufructee may not be enforceable if challenged in court, it may however discourage anyone trying to force a sale so maybe a useful legal fiction.

 

 Not according to our expert lawyer. His advice is that the law on usufruct is absolute and solid. and has been in place for decades. 

I agree that the Usufruct law has been in place and used for many years.

 

However an Usufruct is a contract and like other contracts can have a variety of clauses written in by experts. This does not make every clause automatically enforceable. The only way to be reasonably sure is if a similar clause had been challenged in court a found to be enforceable or if such a condition is actually written into the law (my understanding is that it isn't)

 

Do please remember that I did say that it may not be, I did not say that it was not enforceable 

 

 

[KhaoYai]

16 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

I believe you're confusing usufruct with lease.  A usufruct can be legal for the lifetime of the usufructee - even if it's over 30 years.

All agreements, including leases and Usufructs now have a maximum term of 30 years - that decision was made by the Thai courts last year.