Sell rented home how?

[Jason82]

Please give me some advice on how best to "sell" my house.

 

 

13 years ago I rented land from a developer for 30 years and had him build a house for me on that land.

A year later the developer transfered ownership of the land to his friend in order to hide the asset from his divorcing wife.

 

Now I like to "sell" the house and land. I offered the developer 10 % comission and he found a buyer (Thai), who pays THB 2,000,000.

 

How do I best go about the "sale"?

How do we make certain each gets his share?

I read the transfer fee is heavily discounted until christmas; what other taxes are due?

 

Thank you for your help!

[Peterw42]

The land is not yours to sell. If the owner of the land sells the land then he will get the 2,000,000 baht, you wont get anything.

The new owner of the land will have a tennant, you.

The only thing you have to sell is a 17 year lease, if the conditions of the lease allow you to sell it. 

You own a structure on someone else's land, I doubt anyone would pay 2,000,000 baht for a house that they wont have access to in 17 years.

[FritsSikkink]

You have nothing to sell

[stubuzz]

All you have to sell is a 17 year lease to a piece of land with a house on that you built. Get a lawyer and have a contract drawn up to sell the lease. Then give the developer 10%.

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

You have nothing to sell

Not true, he could break the house down as sell it as parts.

 

[northsouthdevide]

A lot of people saying you have nothing to sell. 

I disagree. 

If you have contact with the developer, and you have a chanote for the house, then you put the new owner on the chanote. 

He pays you, and he negotiates a new lease with the developer. 

The price of the lease will probably be shared between you and the developer. 

[Peterw42]

41 minutes ago, northsouthdevide said:

A lot of people saying you have nothing to sell. 

I disagree. 

If you have contact with the developer, and you have a chanote for the house, then you put the new owner on the chanote. 

He pays you, and he negotiates a new lease with the developer. 

The price of the lease will probably be shared between you and the developer. 

A house doesn't have a chanote, its a pile of building materials assembled into a structure, its no different to parking a caravan on someone else's land.

If you read the OP, the developer isnt even the owner of the land.

[KarenBravo]

Why would anyone buy this house with all these issues when it's a buyer's market? Buyers are spoiled for choice.

[jabis]

Oh dear 

[northsouthdevide]

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

a pile of building materials assembled into a structure, its no different to parking a caravan on someone else's land.

If you read the OP, the developer isnt even the owner of the land.

If there's a developer involved, then it's quite possible that there's more than one house on a plot of land. 

The houses can have a chanote, but the land can be communal. 

 

If it's only one house on its own, then I would agree with you, but the op did mention a developer. 

[Grumpy one]

3 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Not true, he could break the house down as sell it as parts.

 

Is there a market here for building rubble

[Jason82]

Thank you for the comments everybody!

 

6 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

The land is not yours to sell.

Exactly, what I am "selling" is my willingness to forgo any rights from the long term rental contract. So my question is how to go about this.

 

 

3 hours ago, northsouthdevide said:

If there's a developer involved, then it's quite possible that there's more than one house on a plot of land. 

The houses can have a chanote, but the land can be communal. 

 

If it's only one house on its own, then I would agree with you, but the op did mention a developer. 

The developer bought a rice field, had it divided into two dozen or so small lots and sold them off individually, building small detached homes on each. I actually rented two lots and I am on the chanote of each one as the tenant.

 

 

6 hours ago, stubuzz said:

All you have to sell is a 17 year lease to a piece of land with a house on that you built. Get a lawyer and have a contract drawn up to sell the lease. Then give the developer 10%.

Eventually there would be no lease on the land. The buyer is Thai and will outright own it.

 

So if I get paid to forfeit my rights from the rental agreement should that happen before the sale from the current owner to new one takes effect or after the sale?

Are this neccessarily seperate transactions or is this done in a single transaction with three parties (four if you count the developer as agent)?

[RichardColeman]

 

1 hour ago, Jason82 said:

Eventually there would be no lease on the land. The buyer is Thai and will outright own it.

I'm confused - you are saying the buyer is Thai (new buyer I presume) that will buy the land and the house from the new land owner (given to him by a dishonest developer and hider of wealth) and the Thai wont have to worry about the lease as they will own the land in the end.

 

So, who pays you ? The new owner wont pay you again - they just paid the land owner, and the land owner wont pay you as you don't own anything. He might bung you a few baht to leave but 2 mill ? Dream on

 

I cannot see a contract written that says they are buying the lease for 17 years and it then automatically changes into full ownership.

 

I'd prepare for nothing coming your way.

 

If you do get anything, I think we'd all love to hear about it, so we can all ask for 100k for an early release on our rentals

 

[KarenBravo]

The lease can be annulled just before the Chanote title is transferred to the new buyer.

Just one visit to the land office will be necessary.

[FritsSikkink]

15 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Not true, he could break the house down as sell it as parts.

 

Had a good laugh but he can't even do that, house is from the owner of the land.

[FritsSikkink]

14 hours ago, northsouthdevide said:

A lot of people saying you have nothing to sell. 

I disagree. 

If you have contact with the developer, and you have a chanote for the house, then you put the new owner on the chanote. 

He pays you, and he negotiates a new lease with the developer. 

The price of the lease will probably be shared between you and the developer. 

The developer doesn't have to sell a new lease.

[FritsSikkink]

8 hours ago, Jason82 said:

Thank you for the comments everybody!

 

Exactly, what I am "selling" is my willingness to forgo any rights from the long term rental contract. So my question is how to go about this.

 

 

The developer bought a rice field, had it divided into two dozen or so small lots and sold them off individually, building small detached homes on each. I actually rented two lots and I am on the chanote of each one as the tenant.

 

 

Eventually there would be no lease on the land. The buyer is Thai and will outright own it.

 

So if I get paid to forfeit my rights from the rental agreement should that happen before the sale from the current owner to new one takes effect or after the sale?

Are this neccessarily seperate transactions or is this done in a single transaction with three parties (four if you count the developer as agent)?

You can only sell your lease when it says that specifically in the contract. Without it, you have nothing to sell.

[jackdd]

Somehow this sounds like a misunderstanding between the parties involved. Why should the owner give the land away for free?

I suspect that they think the owner gets the money from the sale (the developer 10% for finding the buyer), and your benefit is that you can leave the contract.

You think that you get the money from the sale and the owner doesn't want anything.

[Jason82]

Right now the owner of the land cannot use it and gets nothing. 13 years ago I already paid the developer in full for renting 30 years (plus a bunch of options like another period of 30 years, but it is questionable that this is enforceable), so there are no regular payments.

 

I thought what I have is a common concept for "owning" houses in Thailand.

 

The value of the land to the owner is not that high, it is around 200sqm of suburban land in northern Thailand, which he may use when my rent term runs out in 2037 and even then he may have to deal with me or my descendants contesting about the second 30 year term. Also while he is owner he would be liable for taxes if the government should come around to actually demanding them.

 

The house on the land is one I had built and it would fall to the owner if the rent runs out, but he cannot expect that, because I may demolish the house before that happens.

 

The buyer wants to move into the house now, not the razed land in 2037.

 

 

I guess a possible way would be if the buyer buys the land for 200.000 from the owner and I sublet (yes, that is one of the options in my rental contract) to the new owner for the remainder of my term for 1.8 million. Only that appears overly complicated.

[donx]

Seems to me that the Thai buyer could buy the land from the current land owner with the understanding that you are willing to sell your rental right and house to the new land owner. Perhaps these transactions can be performed sequentially at the same time at the land office. 

[soi3eddie]

13 years ago yiou rented "LAND". All you have to sell is 17 years remaing of a 30 year lease on the land. The cost of the house and the lease is irrelevant. All you have is the value of 17 years remaing lease (possibly with extension). The owner of the land may have increased the value by building a house for you. Something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay. Find enough "buyers" and you may get a better price but ultimately the highest offer is all that you will get. Assuming it turns into cash. Good luck and let us know tho outcome. 

[scorecard]

On 7/19/2020 at 10:41 PM, stubuzz said:

All you have to sell is a 17 year lease to a piece of land with a house on that you built. Get a lawyer and have a contract drawn up to sell the lease. Then give the developer 10%.

Sounds like someone allowed themselves to agree to a situation which wasn't in line for a happy ending.

 

However is it perhaps possible that the house (not the land) is recorded as belonging to you, this is possible in Thailand, from my understanding the contract to build the house should state you specifically as one side of the contract, the builder the other side of the contract.

 

If building the house is documented the right way (historically), then perhaps it's possible for you to sell the house but on the basis that it must be moved to a new location? 

[Yellowtail]

How does 17 year lease on a house not have value?

 

 

[steven100]

On 7/19/2020 at 8:28 PM, northsouthdevide said:

A lot of people saying you have nothing to sell. 

I disagree. 

If you have contact with the developer, and you have a chanote for the house, then you put the new owner on the chanote. 

He pays you, and he negotiates a new lease with the developer. 

The price of the lease will probably be shared between you and the developer. 

houses don't acquire Chanote's ....  land acquires Chanote's.

you cannot own land in Thailand,  you have a lease for 30 yrs as a tennant.

you cannot get anything as you don't own anything accept the structure with a lease.

[steven100]

On 7/20/2020 at 10:53 PM, Jason82 said:

sublet (yes, that is one of the options in my rental contract) to the new owner for the remainder of my term for 1.8 million. Only that appears overly complicated.

i doubt the buyer would even consider this ...   he'd be crazy if he did.  imo

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, steven100 said:

i doubt the buyer would even consider this ...   he'd be crazy if he did.  imo

 

Why would the land buyer be crazy to buy the house that occupies, and will continue to occupy their property for the next 17 years?

 

I think one would be crazy to buy property that one could do nothing with for 17 years. The property changing owners does not void the homeowner's lease. 

[steven100]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Why would the land buyer be crazy to buy the house that occupies, and will continue to occupy their property for the next 17 years?

 

I think one would be crazy to buy property that one could do nothing with for 17 years. The property changing owners does not void the homeowner's lease. 

The buyer does want to move into the house now, but he certainly isn't going to pay the OP for any lease I wouldn't think.  There appears to be bad communication and understanding by all parties ( not surprizing ) 

If I were the OP I would first get a lawyer then have all parties sit down at the table and discuss so that they all end up on the same page.  

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, steven100 said:

The buyer does want to move into the house now, but he certainly isn't going to pay the OP for any lease I wouldn't think.  There appears to be bad communication and understanding by all parties ( not surprizing ) 

If I were the OP I would first get a lawyer then have all parties sit down at the table and discuss so that they all end up on the same page.  

 

The OP just wants to sell his paid-up lease. Why would the land buyer that wants to move into the house not want to buy it? 

 

While conferring with an attorney is probably a good idea, I imagine it is a common issue and can all be done at the land office if all the parties are present. 

 

My FIL sold out the last few years of his 30-year shop-house lease when the new owners wanted to demo the building. 

[Peterw42]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How does 17 year lease on a house not have value?

 

 

Yes it has an inherent value if the lease is transferable but even then value is not easy to liquidate.

There is a good chance the lease isn't transferable, a standard clause otherwise the land owner has no control over future tenants.

OP mentions (2-3 times) selling the cancellation of the lease, a payment to forgo the lease. I would presume that means the OP knows he cant sell/transfer the lease, otherwise he would be talking in terms of selling/transferring the lease.

At best the OP would get a minimal payment to forgo the lease so the buyer gets an unencumbered property.

OP is talking in terms of he will realise the 2,000,000 baht land value and be paying a small commission.

 

I dare say that if the property is encumbered in any way, then there is no buyer. Who in there right mind would buy a property that cant be accessed for 17 years and produces no rent.

 

[Yellowtail]

13 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

I dare say that if the property is encumbered in any way, then there is no buyer. Who in there right mind would buy a property that cant be accessed for 17 years and produces no rent.

 

 

Which is what gives the lease value. If it's a nice up-country home in a tract of homes, the home itself could very well be worth much more than the property. The current and/or future land owner can do nothing with it without the termination of the lease, unless they want to wait 17 years. 

 

The current land owner could sell the property, but could get little for it given the 17 year lease.

 

If the home & land is a good buy at B2M, it is conceivable  that the land owner would be happy with B200K, as it is significantly better than nothing, and the future owner would be happy to pay a total of B2M for land and home.

 

To the current lease holder the value would be much greater were the lease transferable. Given the circumstances, to the current and future owner, the value of the lease is the same be it transferable or not, yes?