Buying house while married to a Thai - do they control source of funds?

[KhaoYai]

39 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Foreigners are permitted to own houses in their own name

True and one way to go is to own the house - for which I believe a specific Tabien Bahn exists, and obtain a Usufruct on the land.  I wouldn't do one without the other as if you don't have a Usufuct and things went South, your wife could simply evict you and your property from her land.

[KhaoYai]

On 9/4/2021 at 4:14 AM, Thingamabob said:

To all intents and purposes it will be your wife's house and your wife's land. Only proceed if you're comfortable with that. Court cases regarding  this issue can run on forever in Thailand. 

 

 

Interestingly, I seem to remember my lawyer telling me that the requirement to state the funds used to buy a house belong to your wife and you won't make a claim on it, was tested in a court case and found to be illegal.

 

I don't know if case law exists in Thailand, probably not but if it does, there should be no need for cases to run on forever (not that they still won't) as the decision has already been made.

[Delight]

54 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Interestingly, I seem to remember my lawyer telling me that the requirement to state the funds used to buy a house belong to your wife and you won't make a claim on it, was tested in a court case and found to be illegal.

 

I don't know if case law exists in Thailand, probably not but if it does, there should be no need for cases to run on forever (not that they still won't) as the decision has already been made.

 In the UK exists the rule of precedent. I assume that that is the same as your  'case law' reference.

 

For certain precedent does not exist  in Thailand

[Delight]

On 9/2/2021 at 10:09 PM, Myran said:

On a related note: do you think it would be better to keep the money in my bank account or transfer it to my wife's?

 As I understand it the land office(LO) is primarily interested in collecting the transfer fees.

Then they issue the Chanote -to a Thai person only.

 

The current owner of the land will have to be in attendance to verify current ownership.

 

The money to be paid to the actual seller -has nothing to do with the LO.

It is a separate transaction.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies reported and removed. 

[Destiny1990]

How about a condo in your own name for you and ur wife to live in?

[Myran]

5 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

How about a condo in your own name for you and ur wife to live in?

Nah, not interested in living in a condo. I have absolutely no problem buying (paying for) a house in my wive's name. We have been together a very long time and I would trust her with my life.

 

Things can of course turn sour, and if that should happen and I lose the house, that's not the end of the world. It's very much a calculated risk on my part that I have no issue taking.

[Delight]

53 minutes ago, Myran said:

Nah, not interested in living in a condo. I have absolutely no problem buying (paying for) a house in my wive's name. We have been together a very long time and I would trust her with my life.

 

Things can of course turn sour, and if that should happen and I lose the house, that's not the end of the world. It's very much a calculated risk on my part that I have no issue taking.

 You could maybe set up  a company - company that you control.

Then the Thai company buys the house.

Then again -nowadays that approach my not be possible.

If it were possible -then will the company to your wife

[Myran]

10 minutes ago, Delight said:

 You could maybe set up  a company - company that you control.

Then the Thai company buys the house.

Then again -nowadays that approach my not be possible.

If it were possible -then will the company to your wife

Thanks, but I have no interest in trying to own the house. I'm perfectly fine paying for it and putting it in my wive's name. And should we one day part ways, she can have the house with my blessing. 

[KhaoYai]

2 hours ago, Delight said:

 In the UK exists the rule of precedent. I assume that that is the same as your  'case law' reference.

 

For certain precedent does not exist  in Thailand

Case Law/Judicial Precedent - same same.

[Destiny1990]

8 hours ago, Myran said:

Thanks, but I have no interest in trying to own the house. I'm perfectly fine paying for it and putting it in my wive's name. And should we one day part ways, she can have the house with my blessing. 

So simply transfer  your money Into her bank account and let her buy the land &house. ????

[Liverpool Lou]

15 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

True and one way to go is to own the house - for which I believe a specific Tabien Bahn exists, and obtain a Usufruct on the land.  I wouldn't do one without the other as if you don't have a Usufuct and things went South, your wife could simply evict you and your property from her land.

Thanks for confirming that.   I agree, depending on individual choices and circumstances, it may not be the most sensible thing to do do but it's a legal option.

[Liverpool Lou]

16 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

On 9/5/2021 at 9:04 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

 To use your own expression, pure BS!    You're ignoring the fact that foreigners can buy and own houses but not the land that they stand on.   It may not be a good idea but it is permitted.

 

That is what I have always understood to be the legal case, but in the real world, who would be brave enough to continue living in "their" house in a village when the Thai family have made it clear that the farang should get lost?

An individual's choice, clearly but you refer to the foreigner-owned house as "theirs", it is not "theirs" in inverted commas (suggesting that ownership of the house is doubtful) it is their house.

[Myran]

4 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

So simply transfer  your money Into her bank account and let her buy the land &house. ????

Yeah, I was contemplating that, but I'm unsure if they'll just accept that they money is hers and refrain from asking me to prove the money comes from overseas.

[Destiny1990]

2 hours ago, Myran said:

Yeah, I was contemplating that, but I'm unsure if they'll just accept that they money is hers and refrain from asking me to prove the money comes from overseas.

The money doesn’t need to come from overseas for a house purchase and certainly not if a thai buys it. So since you don’t mind loosing the property after a divorce  send the money to her account and let her buy the house solely in her name. She will not have to prove anything. 

[Myran]

1 hour ago, Destiny1990 said:

The money doesn’t need to come from overseas for a house purchase and certainly not if a thai buys it. So since you don’t mind loosing the property after a divorce  send the money to her account and let her buy the house solely in her name. She will not have to prove anything. 

It doesn't seem to be anything a government entity requires, but rather the developer of the property we've been looking at. Others have said that it might have something to do with combating money laundering. But I've only heard it from one developer, so it might just be them being overly cautious. If they demand too much, we'll just pick something else.

[ThomasThBKK]

On 9/6/2021 at 3:47 AM, Gottfrid said:

It is not at all generally permitted. That is entirely up to the local land office. It will also be a very complicated work regarding papers and separations of land and house. Most of the offices will say a blank no. That built upon the laws for owning a condo. In that case the building must have no more than 49% foreign ownership and you will still not own the land the condo stands on, right? How do you then think it would be generally permitted to own a complete building that stands on a piece of land that you do not own?

This is just something you have read about, and the fact is that it is not very common. Only a few have managed to get through with a deal like that. So, the BS and delusion still remains in your firm ownership.

Rubbish.

 

It's totally normal to register a Superficies in a foreigners name before the house book gets issued.

 

"Complicated work" - lol no, just gets registered on the chanote.

"built on laws for condo blabla" - lol no, has absolutely nothing to do with that. Thai property law is based on german law and a bunch of other european stuff where such concepts are normal. 

Condominium laws came into effect way after...

 

So much wrong information in here.... Thailands biggest problem is prolly expats spreading all this non sense... 

 

 

https://thailawonline.com/images/thaicivilcode/book 4 title 1-8 thai civil and commercial code .pdf

 

Section 1410 and onwards...

 

[ThomasThBKK]

18 minutes ago, Myran said:

It doesn't seem to be anything a government entity requires, but rather the developer of the property we've been looking at. Others have said that it might have something to do with combating money laundering. But I've only heard it from one developer, so it might just be them being overly cautious. If they demand too much, we'll just pick something else.

It's just standard anti money laundering stuff every bank and business has to do.

 

Report transactions over 2 mio THB to central bank etc.

 

It's totally normal, in europe the limit is 10k EUR per transaction imho. 

[KhaoYai]

15 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

How do you then think it would be generally permitted to own a complete building that stands on a piece of land that you do not own?

I can't comment on whether a Land Office will or won't accept foreign ownership of a building only as I've never tried it and like many other sectors of Thai officialdom, there will no doubt be Land Offices that make their own laws up and refuse to register such an agreement (Is it Phuket that won't register Usufructs to foreigners anyone?)

 

However, in relation to your specific sentence above - its a relatively common thing in Europe, especially in leasehold situations.  Admittely in this respect 'leasehold' applies mainy to appartments but not exculsively. I own an entire building in England, leasehold.  I don't own the freehold or the land the building sits on. At the end of the 125 year lease(or prior to it), I can either renew it or walk away.

 

Yes, there are differences in Thailand and in this case, ownership of the 'bricks and mortar' is not leasehold but in terms of a legal concept, its much the same - you don't have to own the land to own the buildings on it. You would however, have to have some agreement in place that allowed those buildings to remain on the land - at least if you had half a brain you would.

 

Most well written Usufructs leave the holder able to enjoy full use of the land and to profit from it.  They also allow buildings to be constructed.

 

Land law is a complicated beast in many countries and in legal terms, I actually have more stability with a 125 year lease that I would if I owned the freehold - technically.  In the UK, If people took the time to read their deeds fully they would find that they have actually only 'bought' their house 'in perpetuity. Some may take 'perpetuity' to mean forever but in UK law its actually defined as being 80 years. However, each time a property changes hands, the 80 years is reset. If you bought very young and owned the house for 80 years you would not find that you've suddenly lost your land though - nothing actually happens.

 

The real owner of most, it not all land in the UK is the crown. Technically you never actually own it.