Thai Cabinet might reportedly reject Interior Ministry’s foreign land ownership proposal

[nigelforbes]

5 minutes ago, Gknrd said:

I just reread the laws regarding land ownership in Thailand, from condo's on.  Have you read the laws?  Even the condo laws are absolutely horrible. Best of luck to anyone here who goes this route.

Yup, aren't they great! Although condo rules are OK, they are at least manageable. And if you know how to do it, buying a house here using superficies or ufustruct is also pretty safe. 

[jacko45k]

On 11/8/2022 at 8:49 AM, crazykopite said:

The U.K. should repossess all the Thai owned land and properties  

You should stop bringing the UK into the discussion, you only make the Thai authorities look good!

[Gknrd]

On 11/8/2022 at 9:51 AM, nigelforbes said:

In each of your examples the real estate element is still owned by Thai people, albeit there is a distant indirect link to a foreigner. Thai companies require a majority of Thai shareholders, women who live with foreigners and have never worked are still Thais, and so on. That's very different from a foreigners' name appearing on the chanotte.

You need to re read the laws, The woman needs to prove she has the funds not provided by the foreigner., then the foreigner has to sign a paper stating the facts and that he will have no rights what so ever to the property.  An easy paper trail to follow.  Shareholders???? I have known many who use this. They hire a lawyer and their secretary, or some relative  is the share holder. 

I think the Thai government needs to crack down on this illegal activity and it would benefit the foreigner in the long run. A few hundred thousand would loose their homes and land but it would insure all others would not be suckered into this here.

Not only that but the Thai's would be able to repurchase the land. Instead of foreigners.

 

Condo's, what a joke that is. You can buy with strict requirements. Then it is against the law to will it or give it you a relative. You have to go threw the process all over again and the relative has to buy it with the same strict requirements. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Gknrd

[nigelforbes]

3 minutes ago, Gknrd said:

You need to re read the laws, The woman needs to prove she has the funds not provided by the foreigner., then the foreigner has to sign a paper stating the facts and that he will have no rights what so ever to the property.  And easy paper trail to follow.  Shareholders???? I have known many who use this. They hire a lawyer and their secretary, or some relative  is the share holder. 

I think the Thai government needs to crack down on this illegal activity and it would benefit the foreigner in the long run. A few hundred thousand would loose their homes and land but it would insure all others would not be suckered into this here.

Not in the case of husband and wife because the funds used to buy the house are considered joint funds and this has been borne out in divorce courts. And whilst the scenario you set out is true in some Amphurs (not all), signing a paper stating the foreigner has no claim to the house is meaningless since the laws of usufruct and superficies circumvent this. True, a foreigner who gives an unrelated female funds to buy a house, has no claim to the property, why would they. As for shareholders, it is illegal in Thailand to establish a company for the sole intention of owning a single dwelling.

[Gknrd]

24 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

Not in the case of husband and wife because the funds used to buy the house are considered joint funds and this has been borne out in divorce courts. And whilst the scenario you set out is true in some Amphurs (not all), signing a paper stating the foreigner has no claim to the house is meaningless since the laws of usufruct and superficies circumvent this. True, a foreigner who gives an unrelated female funds to buy a house, has no claim to the property, why would they. As for shareholders, it is illegal in Thailand to establish a company for the sole intention of owning a single dwelling.

Interesting I am going to go back and re read the laws again.  My interpritation was that even if married it did not matter what so ever. The funds had to be from the wife. And the husband had to sign papers to the effect he has no legal right to the porperty.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Gknrd

[nigelforbes]

8 minutes ago, Gknrd said:

Interesting I am going to go back and re read the laws again.  My interpritation was that even if married it did not matter what so ever. The funds had to be from the wife.

If the Amphur/Land Office doesn't specifically inquire on this point and many don't care, ours doesn't, the money used to buy the house is considered to be joint funds, unless one person wants to make a case that they aren't. If they are, divorce requires that assets acquired during marriage are split 50/50 and this is the practice. I do know of one case where a farang married to a Thai successfully argued the case that the funds used to buy the house were his and he proved that they came into Thailand from overseas. The judge in that case awarded him the house which he had to sell within a certain time frame. But trying to come up with a blanket rule that applies the same way everywhere in the country is fraught with difficulty. This is Thailand and rules vary from province to province, amphur to amphur, district to district and even court to court. 

[nigelforbes]

16 minutes ago, Gknrd said:

Interesting I am going to go back and re read the laws again.  My interpritation was that even if married it did not matter what so ever. The funds had to be from the wife. And the husband had to sign papers to the effect he has no legal right to the porperty.

When I bought my house twenty years ago my wife and I were not married at the time, because we weren't, that meant I could take out an usufruct which allowed me to live in the house until I die. (married people can't do that) Subsequently we got married and the usufruct remains in place. My mindset when I bought the house was that I may never again see the money I invested in the property but I didn't care. In a very worst case scenario I have the legal right to live in the house forever and to say who else can live here, that's really all I need.  If something should happen to my wife god forbid, we've agreed that her niece will become the owner and my usufruct will remain.

[kuma]

16 hours ago, nigelforbes said:

Yup, aren't they great! Although condo rules are OK, they are at least manageable. And if you know how to do it, buying a house here using superficies or ufustruct is also pretty safe. 

Shhhh ????

[still kicking]

On 11/7/2022 at 6:24 PM, PJPom said:

To be absolutely honest I don’t blame them, keep Thailand for the Thai’s.

Australia has been sold off to overseas investors and certain areas have become exclusively “ foreign “ inhabited, not an ideal situation, extremely divisive.

<deleted>