Buying property in my Thais sons name

[Kenny202]

Been living here 6 years. Initially moved over to live with a woman. had a child. Usual horror story and we have been separated 3 years (not legally married) and my son has basically grown up with me. Sees his mother every 6 months to a year for usually an hour or so. He is now 5 years old. I have a registered court paper saying I am the legal father.

 

I plan to live here long term and would like to buy us a house but I don't want to give her an incentive to take my son back nor do I want to hand her a property on a silver platter.

I am not sure of this but have heard you can buy property in your child's name, and no one, including myself could sell it until the child is 19yo. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

That being the case would it be possible to buy a property in my sons name and at the same time attach a Usefruct in my name (30 year lease)? Or would his mothers permission be required to do this?

 

Is there any other way I could buy a property for us in his name where we are completely protected from her? She even got a sniff of easy money she would be sniffing around like a blood hound

 

 

[bwpage3]

1. There is no law to limit the age of the owner of the land. So technically, your son could be the owner of the land. However, the land departments have a lot of discretion to accept or not accept transactions. Because your son is only 5 years old. Might be a grease the palm kind of thing with no guarantees.

2. However, once a child is the owner of the land, a child can NOT lease it to anyone EXCEPT with the authorization of the Court. You will find these limitations about real estate and children at clause 1574 of the Thai Commercial and Civil Code. Yours is 1574 (1).

[baansgr]

I looked at this a few years ago. I didn't proceed as was informed by a lawyer, that the Mother and her family could turn up anytime and stay at the property without being able to take any action to get rid of them. You may wanna check and take into consideration if this is still correct and applies to your situation.