Property Sold - Seller Will Not Leave

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

if its classed as a civil matter.

I'm quite certain that trespassing is a criminal matter in Thailand.

 

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

I had a couple move into a house after paying a deposit and 1 months rent in advance. I never saw another penny in rent and they were trashing the place.

Apples and oranges, in OPs case they aren't tenants.

Edited May 16, 2021 by jackdd

[Liverpool Lou]

12 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

15 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

This is not about squatting and, yes, if a seller refuses to leave a property that has been paid for, obviously, he can be removed, legally. 

you are confusing the issue of payment, with the actual move in requirement,

No, I'm not.  Pay for a property, transfer the title and the property's the buyer's to move into whenever the new owner chooses unless some agreement has been reached for the seller to stay.   That, of course, makes no sense, if the seller wants to remain in the property the buyer would delay payment  and title transfer until he could have possession.

[jackdd]

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

they aren't trespassing if the law or the contract is giving them time to move out

If the contract would give them time to move out OP would probably not have made this thread.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

if its classed as a civil matter.

I'm quite certain that trespassing is a criminal matter in Thailand.

It is.

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

SINCE end of te month will come in less than two weeks, my advice to you

is to just wait it out.

there is no legal way to resolve this within two weeks.

maybe you can ask the sellet in a friendly manner to sign a commitment to

leave within two weeks.

it really is not a big deal.

[GrandPapillon]

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I'm not.  Pay for a property, transfer the title and the property's the buyer's to move into whenever the new owner chooses unless some agreement has been reached for the seller to stay.   That, of course, makes no sense, if the seller wants to remain in the property the buyer would delay payment  and title transfer until he could have possession.

you are clearly not used to property sale agreement LOL ????

[GrandPapillon]

18 minutes ago, jackdd said:

If the contract would give them time to move out OP would probably not have made this thread.

the OP probably didn't read the agreement, I am pretty sure that an exit date was mentioned in the agreement

 

did he pay attention? probably not. The good news is if he goes see a lawyer, this is the first thing he is going to look at, and tell him, if he is an honest lawyer ????

[KhaoYai]

47 minutes ago, jackdd said:

I'm quite certain that trespassing is a criminal matter in Thailand.

 

Apples and oranges, in OPs case they aren't tenants.

You normally trespass on land. Trespass of property is divided into various tenures - some legal, some not but even the legal ones may convey some rights. For example, even squatters have rights in some countries.

 

I mentioned tenants as a way of illustrating the fact that sometimes rights are held that people are not aware of.

 

Knowing Thailand though, I would think that property rights are heavily weighted in favour of the owner.

[KhaoYai]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Trespass in Thailand is a criminal offence, not a "civil matter".    Taking possession of a buyer's money and refusing to give the buyer possession of the property paid for is criminal also, it's called fraud. 

That would depend entirely on how the contract (if any) is worded.  Its also not necessarily fraudulent in the eyes of the law.  To prove fraud you have to prove that the intention was there at the beginning.  I totally agree that the behaviour of the seller appears to be disgraceful but in this case, I think the OP would be on very thin ice if he claimed fraud.

 

I would be a little, only a little, surprised if trespass on property in the manner that has taken place is classed as criminal - in most countries this may not be trespass at all though, it would be a civil matter that is covered by the laws on non-performance of a contract. The seller has failed to perform all parts of the contract by giving possession of the property.  Whether its civil or criminal, the law, even in Thailand is a complex animal and what we think is a clear cut case, may not be.

 

Once again, this is quoting English law but it gives an explanation of criminal and civil trespass:

 

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q56.htm

 

Perhaps the most important sententence from that page is:

 

'Trespass is very complex and guidance should be sought from a solicitor where appropriate.'

 

Although I don't know the law in Thailand, I doubt its much different and with good reason - whether someone is trespassing or not can be a very complex matter.

 

If, as in so many cases in Thailand, there is no contract, just a basic sale agreement, it would be fairly easy for the seller to claim that they had a verbal agreement with the buyer that they could stay until the end of the month. There are many other ways in which the seller could defend what they've done and sorting them will take time.

 

What is probably more important in this case is the cost and effort involved in removing someone when they are likley to be gone in 2 weeks anyway.  Its frustrating for the OP but in my opinion the police are the OP's best chance of getting this sorted before the end of the month. If the police can't/won't help, he may be better off waiting it out.

Edited May 16, 2021 by KhaoYai

[newnative]

2 hours ago, josthomz said:

 

Once again, you are mixing up the day when you sign the contract and pay the deposit with the day you pay the rest in full and have the title transferred to you. 

 

The OP stated that he had the title transferred to him, thus it's clear he paid in full and thus it's obvious that the delivery date was already met. 

 

What you call delivery date, is essentially the day in which the buyer agrees to pay the rest and the seller agrees to transfer the title. 

 

After having bought and sold several condos here in Bangkok, I would think I know how it is done. 

    We might need to give up on this poster.  We keep telling him over and over how it's done and he's just not getting it.  

[BestB]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

You are comparing apples with oranges here. In your case they were tenants, you gave them permission to stay in the property.

OP never gave them permission to stay. As I said, it's as if I walk into your house and refuse to leave.

You do not seem to understand and I assume it’s due to having very little knowledge or understanding or dealings in Thailand .

Seller is not there illegally , not only there is a grace period of 15 days but most likely also says so in the sales contract . But being internet and armchair expert is not exactly néw on thai visa 

[BestB]

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, he did buy it and it is only reasonable for the buyer to have possession of it the day the seller has possession of his money!

 

The seller didn't "ask for two weeks", he announced that he wasn't leaving for two weeks, after he had received the OP's money.

You were there? You know what seller said ? You read sales contract? Perhaps you an expert in thai law snd like to quote it ?

[KhaoYai]

Its pretty pointless to argue these points without sight of the contract - if one exists. A contract may or may not exist - it may or may not state the date when possession will be given. If indeed a contract does exist and it does require possession on completion - all the seller is guilty of at this stage is breach of contract by way of non performance.

[BestB]

8 hours ago, josthomz said:

 

You mind showing a snapshot of any contract where it says the seller has a grace period in which he can continue living in the property after the buyer has paid in full and the title has been transferred to the buyer? 

 

Telling everyone they are internet and armchair experts is very easy; even more so when you offer no proof except your own word. Which as you yourself say, nothing more than a ThaiVisa armchair expert. 

 

If you're so sure go ahead and show us that clause in a purchase contract. Shut us up!

I will show you standard agreement when it comes to eviction , you may need to pay some one to translate it for you and then you might have some idea before telling someone to shut up.when you utterly oblivious to local laws or customs 

 

is that a deal? 

[itsari]

15 hours ago, Janner1 said:

And the power sockets in one I bought so I asked the solicitor to write and ask if he wanted the wiring, didn’t get an answer.

Irresponsible tight <deleted> 

[itsari]

19 hours ago, clivebaxter said:

Friend bought a house in the UK in the 80's, sellers had even dug the lawn up and taken it with them!

Seems i got of light , forgive the pun

[itsari]

On 5/16/2021 at 7:10 AM, 1FinickyOne said:

You can probably relax now... those light bulbs would have probably burned out anyway, long ago... and i bet there are places nearby to find new ones to replace them... 

Just beginning to get over it . But it does teach you how people can be . 

[1FinickyOne]

1 minute ago, itsari said:

Just beginning to get over it . But it does teach you how people can be . 

Yes. Agreed. Last time I was in USA i was tasked w/cleaning out my deceased parent's home. A buyer had been found and we were in contract stage... the buyer stopped by while I was cleaning the place out - he saw a key and stole it... after I returned to Thailand and before closing, he kept going into the house - he told them that I had given him the key and permission - when this was refuted and the realtor insisted he not go in until after closing... he still kept going in and being caught by alerted neighbors... 

 

seems people can be real jerks... 

[newnative]

8 hours ago, josthomz said:

 

You mind showing a snapshot of any contract where it says the seller has a grace period in which he can continue living in the property after the buyer has paid in full and the title has been transferred to the buyer? 

 

Telling everyone they are internet and armchair experts is very easy; even more so when you offer no proof except your own word. Which as you yourself say, nothing more than a ThaiVisa armchair expert. 

 

If you're so sure go ahead and show us that clause in a purchase contract. Shut us up!

     Thank you!  Having bought many condos in Thailand, I have never heard anything more ridiculous--or dangerous to the buyer--than a '15 day grace period'.  The whole idea is nuts--as it would be for any product bought and sold.

    On another thread, Pedro01 is waiting to take possession of a 4 million baht car he has contracted to buy.  On the date of the turnover of the car to him, he will likely make a final payment after inspecting the car, take possession of the car title and keys, and drive away.  The car seller will NOT have the right to say on that day that "I wrecked my car yesterday and I'm going to keep your 4MB car that you just bought and now own and I'm going to drive it myself for 2 weeks until I can buy another car.  Or, it might be a little longer than 2 weeks.  Who knows.  I have trouble making up my mind.  Hopefully, I won't be in another wreck!  Toodles."  

    Whether you're buying a car or a condo, when you make the final payment and receive the keys and the title, the car or the condo is now yours and the seller normally has absolutely no rights to the product he no longer owns unless something has been specifically written into the sales contract both parties signed.

     And, once again, yes, it is possible for the seller to remain in a sold property for a certain period after the sale.  I don't think anyone is denying that this can be done--certainly not me.   But, it must be negotiated and agreed to BEFORE the sale that the condo or home seller can remain in the property for a specified period.  Both parties must be in agreement with this and, for the protection of both parties, but mostly the buyer, the terms of what is essentially a rental agreement must be spelled out in detail in writing either in the sales contract or a rent back contract addendum to the sales contract.  

     

[jackdd]

9 hours ago, BestB said:

You do not seem to understand and I assume it’s due to having very little knowledge or understanding or dealings in Thailand .

Seller is not there illegally , not only there is a grace period of 15 days but most likely also says so in the sales contract . But being internet and armchair expert is not exactly néw on thai visa 

Stop making stuff up Mr. armchair expert.

[BestB]

55 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Stop making stuff up Mr. armchair expert.

Remind me where you learned thai laws or gained your experience ?

[BestB]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

     Thank you!  Having bought many condos in Thailand, I have never heard anything more ridiculous--or dangerous to the buyer--than a '15 day grace period'.  The whole idea is nuts--as it would be for any product bought and sold.

    On another thread, Pedro01 is waiting to take possession of a 4 million baht car he has contracted to buy.  On the date of the turnover of the car to him, he will likely make a final payment after inspecting the car, take possession of the car title and keys, and drive away.  The car seller will NOT have the right to say on that day that "I wrecked my car yesterday and I'm going to keep your 4MB car that you just bought and now own and I'm going to drive it myself for 2 weeks until I can buy another car.  Or, it might be a little longer than 2 weeks.  Who knows.  I have trouble making up my mind.  Hopefully, I won't be in another wreck!  Toodles."  

    Whether you're buying a car or a condo, when you make the final payment and receive the keys and the title, the car or the condo is now yours and the seller normally has absolutely no rights to the product he no longer owns unless something has been specifically written into the sales contract both parties signed.

     And, once again, yes, it is possible for the seller to remain in a sold property for a certain period after the sale.  I don't think anyone is denying that this can be done--certainly not me.   But, it must be negotiated and agreed to BEFORE the sale that the condo or home seller can remain in the property for a specified period.  Both parties must be in agreement with this and, for the protection of both parties, but mostly the buyer, the terms of what is essentially a rental agreement must be spelled out in detail in writing either in the sales contract or a rent back contract addendum to the sales contract.  

     

What planet do you reside on? Any purchase from a real business even like Big C has 7 day no questions asked return policy. 15 day grace period applies when you ask someone to leave or cancel their contract.

 

buyer bought property with someone living in it. Seller or tenant is irrelevant.

 

seller asked for 15 days to vacate , may not be what buyer wanted or expected but most certainly not illegal or enforceable prior to 15 days

[jackdd]

43 minutes ago, BestB said:

Any purchase from a real business even like Big C has 7 day no questions asked return policy.

Big C return policy <-> Buying a house

Apples <-> Oranges

 

43 minutes ago, BestB said:

buyer bought property with someone living in it. Seller or tenant is irrelevant.

No, it's not, completely different situation. Apples and Oranges, you know?

 

I'm still waiting excitedly for you to show us some standard house purchase contracts which (according to you) all include some grace period for the seller to vacate the property after ownership and money transfer have been finalized.

Edited May 17, 2021 by jackdd

[newnative]

43 minutes ago, BestB said:

What planet do you reside on? Any purchase from a real business even like Big C has 7 day no questions asked return policy. 15 day grace period applies when you ask someone to leave or cancel their contract.

 

buyer bought property with someone living in it. Seller or tenant is irrelevant.

 

seller asked for 15 days to vacate , may not be what buyer wanted or expected but most certainly not illegal or enforceable prior to 15 days

     That would be Planet Reality.  If I followed your misconceptions I would be in Cuckooland.   It all comes down to the written contract.  In Reality,  Big C may, indeed, have a 7 day return policy.  If it does, I think I can guarantee there is a written contract somewhere that spells out in detail the conditions of the return policy and what it covers for it, the seller, and the customer, the buyer. 

     As I said in my previous post, seller and buyer can agree in writing that the seller can remain for a certain period.  However, it is not an automatic right with no conditions.  There needs to be a rent back contract addendum or the specific rental details in the sales contract.  As a buyer you simply have to protect yourself.   I would guess with Big C there are conditions spelled out in detail--as there should be in a sales contract rent back.  How long is the rental period?  Who pays utilities and management fees?  What is the security deposit?  How many people will be living there?  What insurance applies--buyer's or seller's--in case the seller accidently burns the place down?  More importantly, is there even insurance currently in place?  

    A previous poster relayed a bad real estate experience and ended his post with: "Seems people can be real jerks."  Yes, they can.  You hope they won't be but you never know.  The best you can do is have a good written sales contract to start with, that both parties have agreed to and signed, which lays out everything in detail and leaves no important questions and details unaddressed. 

[xylophone]

I believe that BestB may be confused between the sale and purchase agreement for the property and the "cooling off" period which can apply to contracts when agreeing to purchase the likes of insurance, endowment policies et cetera.

Whilst there can be a cooling off period in the above-mentioned instances, there is no such ruling applied to private transactions between individuals as far as I am aware.

[Liverpool Lou]

14 hours ago, BestB said:

17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, he did buy it and it is only reasonable for the buyer to have possession of it the day the seller has possession of his money!

 

The seller didn't "ask for two weeks", he announced that he wasn't leaving for two weeks, after he had received the OP's money.

You were there? You know what seller said ? You read sales contract? Perhaps you an expert in thai law snd like to quote it ?

No, I wasn't there, neither were you or any other poster but I am able to read and interpret the OP accurately.   For instance, clearly, there was nothing in the contract allowing the ex-owner to stay, if there was, it's reasonable to assume that the OP would have mentioned it or not started the thread.   

 

I may be an expert in the law, I may not be but you'll never know that from me because it's irrelevant to my being able to read what the OP has stated.

 

What makes you think that I should be the only one to quote the laws, am I the only person expressing my opinion and stating some facts?   Why haven't you demanded that every post has a qualifying link/quote attached to it?   Including yours.

[Liverpool Lou]

15 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Once again, this is quoting English law but it gives an explanation of criminal and civil trespass:

 

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q56.htm

Completely irrelevant in Thailand, no explanation of English law is required here!.

[newnative]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

I believe that BestB may be confused between the sale and purchase agreement for the property and the "cooling off" period which can apply to contracts when agreeing to purchase the likes of insurance, endowment policies et cetera.

Whilst there can be a cooling off period in the above-mentioned instances, there is no such ruling applied to private transactions between individuals as far as I am aware.

   Correct.  And his Big C 7 day return policy doesn't apply, either.  I checked, by the way, and the Big C return policy has a number of exceptions of what cannot be returned spelled out in detail in writing.  So, Big C is protecting itself with a written contract spelling everything out in detail.   Just as a  property buyer should.

[KhaoYai]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Completely irrelevant in Thailand, no explanation of English law is required here!.

Really?  Thai law is based on European law - mainly French I'm told but many laws are similar throughout Europe. I have constantly said I don't know the law in Thailand and I make no claims.  If you are so sure that the law in Thailand regards trespass as a criminal offence, perhaps you'd like to post your source?

 

In any case, I repeat, I very much doubt that in this case the seller would be regarded as trespassing - they may have simply failed to fully perform their side of the contract and that is almost certainly a civil matter.

 

Without sight of the contract - the best anyone can do is offer an opinion.

Edited May 17, 2021 by KhaoYai

[BestB]

6 hours ago, newnative said:

     That would be Planet Reality.  If I followed your misconceptions I would be in Cuckooland.   It all comes down to the written contract.  In Reality,  Big C may, indeed, have a 7 day return policy.  If it does, I think I can guarantee there is a written contract somewhere that spells out in detail the conditions of the return policy and what it covers for it, the seller, and the customer, the buyer. 

     As I said in my previous post, seller and buyer can agree in writing that the seller can remain for a certain period.  However, it is not an automatic right with no conditions.  There needs to be a rent back contract addendum or the specific rental details in the sales contract.  As a buyer you simply have to protect yourself.   I would guess with Big C there are conditions spelled out in detail--as there should be in a sales contract rent back.  How long is the rental period?  Who pays utilities and management fees?  What is the security deposit?  How many people will be living there?  What insurance applies--buyer's or seller's--in case the seller accidently burns the place down?  More importantly, is there even insurance currently in place?  

    A previous poster relayed a bad real estate experience and ended his post with: "Seems people can be real jerks."  Yes, they can.  You hope they won't be but you never know.  The best you can do is have a good written sales contract to start with, that both parties have agreed to and signed, which lays out everything in detail and leaves no important questions and details unaddressed. 

Could not be bothered to read entire drivel but you have read thai sales contract right ? All of it in thai right ? Quote for me section 11 and then write more drivel of what it should be or how it is .

 

and no there is no contract between you and big c, it’s simply a policy which you denied existed few posts before. And for you to even mention it makes me wonder if you know what big c is Or where thailand is located.