Land/House Ownership Question

[qualtrough]

Situation: I am a farang with Thai citizenship. My wife is Thai. We have two adjacent plots of land. One contains our home, the other has  a smaller guest house. Two different tabian baans for the structures, two different chanotes for the land. 

 

We had wanted to add my name to the tabian baans and chanotes, but were informed by the land  office and another office that there can only be one party listed as the owner on each of those documents. In other words, no joint ownership.  So right now it looks like we will have to decide how to divide up ownership for the land and structures.

 

My primary concern is this. We have been together 30 years, so I am not particularly concerned about the wife doing a runner, but more concerned that at some point one of us in our declining years  could fall prey to a scam such as borrowing on the house or land, or outright selling, or make that kind of decision due to mental illness,  senility/Alzheimers,  etc.

 

What I had hoped for was a  situation in which both parties' agreement would be needed to sign off on any decision to sell or borrow against the land/houses.

 

So my question is: Is there any kind of recognized legal arrangement that would ensure that neither one of us could sell or borrow against our properties and or structures thereon without the other's express permission?

 

Please accept my thanks in advance for any constructive replies.

[KhunLA]

POA ... Power of Attorney, although that would be hard to use if 'wanting permission' from someone who is mentally not right.

 

Usufruct for you, and land office shouldn't transfer property without you signing off.  Or if for 'use & modify', any buyer wouldn't be able to use it, as still under your control.

 

Add a 3rd party lease to it, and it's even more powerful.

[GarryP]

The Land Department is not totally correct. For the Tabian Baan there can only be one person registered as the owner (Chao Baan). However, for Title Deeds (Chanote), it is possible to have more than one owner. For my house in Bangkok, the title deed lists both my wife and me as owners in the title deeds, but in the house registration (Tabien Baan), I am listed as the owner. For our house in Kalasin, we are listed as joint owners on the title deed but my wife is listed as the owner in the house registration.

 

In your case, I do not see any reason why you should be prevented from being listed as joint owners in the Title Deeds (Chanote) for both properties.  For the tabian baan, you could each hold one.   

 

When taking out loans, it is the title deeds (chanote) which are used, not tabian baan. 

[digbeth]

having anything recorded on the back of the chanote like usufruct or superficies is enough to put off any creditors or banks, so you record a usufruct or superficies on each other's plot 

[qualtrough]

11 hours ago, GarryP said:

The Land Department is not totally correct. For the Tabian Baan there can only be one person registered as the owner (Chao Baan). However, for Title Deeds (Chanote), it is possible to have more than one owner. For my house in Bangkok, the title deed lists both my wife and me as owners in the title deeds, but in the house registration (Tabien Baan), I am listed as the owner. For our house in Kalasin, we are listed as joint owners on the title deed but my wife is listed as the owner in the house registration.

 

In your case, I do not see any reason why you should be prevented from being listed as joint owners in the Title Deeds (Chanote) for both properties.  For the tabian baan, you could each hold one.   

 

When taking out loans, it is the title deeds (chanote) which are used, not tabian baan. 

Thank you for your response. Looks like it was a misunderstanding on my part about the chanote issue. Tomorrow I am going to have a yellow book for the newer structure made out to my name, and following that go down to the Land Office to add my name to the two chanotes we have for the properties. I will let everyone know how that goes. 

[bradiston]

You have Thai citizenship? How? Then they won't issue you a yellow tabian baan as it is only for foreigners.

[couchpotato]

39 minutes ago, bradiston said:

You have Thai citizenship? How? Then they won't issue you a yellow tabian baan as it is only for foreigners.

Something not quite right with the OP's story here.

[bradiston]

3 minutes ago, couchpotato said:

Something not quite right with the OP's story here.

Yes, peculiar. If he has Thai citizenship then he's Thai. But, does he speak Thai? Suggest a visit to a Thai lawyer. Or the land office.

[qualtrough]

7 hours ago, couchpotato said:

Something not quite right with the OP's story here.

What's not right? I applied for and received Thai citizenship on the basis of my marriage. Thai ID card and passport. I'm listed as the owner on one of our two blue books.

[Celsius]

Why would

5 minutes ago, qualtrough said:

What's not right? I applied for and received Thai citizenship on the basis of my marriage. Thai ID card and passport. I'm listed as the owner on one of our two blue books.

 

You were definitely correct about Alzheimer's

[qualtrough]

So we went down to the Land Department today. Now the hang up is they're trying to tell us that we need to pay 75,000 baht in some kind of transfer tax due in order to transfer my name onto the Chanotes.

 

Then they said that I could be listed as a kin kep กินเก็บ which would mean I would be able to live there  my entire life and that neither of us could sell or borrow against the property without the permission of the other. And if that is true I would be fine with it. But they expressly said that there could not be two outright owners on the Chanote.

 

And then hush hush they said that they could get around the 75,000 Baht tax due and I could pay a 75 baht fee and 5,000 baht, for, well you know what. I wasn't very comfortable with it because I think it's fishy, but I was thinking well 5,000 baht what the heck. But then when I went out to the car to get the money my wife called and said that was 5,000 for each piece of property so total of 10,000. So I said let's forget about it for the moment until we can sort this out.

 

Questions:

 

1. So is it correct that technically in order to get my name on the Chanote I need to pay some kind of tax on the property value? The property was transferred from my wife's father to her something like 25 years ago. The other property was purchased 10 years ago and is in my wife's name too. I was the one who paid for it.

 

2. Is it true that the only way I can get my name on the chanote is as a kin kep, not as an actual 50/50 co-owner?

 

3. Do I just suck it up and pay the 10,000 and be done with it?

 

Again, please accept my thanks for any assistance with this.

 

 

[qualtrough]

8 hours ago, bradiston said:

Yes, peculiar. If he has Thai citizenship then he's Thai. But, does he speak Thai? Suggest a visit to a Thai lawyer. Or the land office.

Yes I speak, read, and write Thai. I was looking for some advice from someone with experience like GarryP before involving a lawyer.

[qualtrough]

29 minutes ago, Celsius said:

Why would

 

You were definitely correct about Alzheimer's

If you don't have anything useful to contribute why don't you just FO and  stop wasting everyone's time here? Surely there must be other threads that could benefit from your comments?

[bradiston]

51 minutes ago, qualtrough said:

So we went down to the Land Department today. Now the hang up is they're trying to tell us that we need to pay 75,000 baht in some kind of transfer tax due in order to transfer my name onto the Chanotes.

 

Then they said that I could be listed as a kin kep กินเก็บ which would mean I would be able to live there  my entire life and that neither of us could sell or borrow against the property without the permission of the other. And if that is true I would be fine with it. But they expressly said that there could not be two outright owners on the Chanote.

 

And then hush hush they said that they could get around the 75,000 Baht tax due and I could pay a 75 baht fee and 5,000 baht, for, well you know what. I wasn't very comfortable with it because I think it's fishy, but I was thinking well 5,000 baht what the heck. But then when I went out to the car to get the money my wife called and said that was 5,000 for each piece of property so total of 10,000. So I said let's forget about it for the moment until we can sort this out.

 

Questions:

 

1. So is it correct that technically in order to get my name on the Chanote I need to pay some kind of tax on the property value? The property was transferred from my wife's father to her something like 25 years ago. The other property was purchased 10 years ago and is in my wife's name too. I was the one who paid for it.

 

2. Is it true that the only way I can get my name on the chanote is as a kin kep, not as an actual 50/50 co-owner?

 

3. Do I just suck it up and pay the 10,000 and be done with it?

 

Again, please accept my thanks for any assistance with this.

 

 

Kin kep sounds like usufruct. I signed a usufruct agreement with my Thai daughter on a property we have just sold. Or she just sold, rather. I had to sign an understanding releasing all claim in the property in the process. But my name did get entered onto the chanote, but obviously not as an owner of any sort. Entering into the agreement and having it recorded on the chanote didn't cost us anything as I recall.

Edited May 3 by bradiston

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, qualtrough said:

What's not right? I applied for and received Thai citizenship on the basis of my marriage. Thai ID card and passport. I'm listed as the owner on one of our two blue books.

I wasn't aware marrying a Thai entitled you to Thai citizenship. But I know of one commentator on this forum who obtained Thai citizenship using a route available in rare circumstances, involving quite a lengthy process of living and working here for at least 3 years I believe, speaking Thai, etc etc.

[qualtrough]

9 minutes ago, bradiston said:

Kin kep sounds like usufruct. I signed a usufruct agreement with my Thai daughter on a property we have just sold. Or she just sold, rather. I had to sign an understanding releasing all claim in the property in the process. But my name did get entered onto the chanote, but obviously not as an owner of any sort. Entering into the agreement and having it recorded on the chanote didn't cost us anything as I recall.

Thank you for your comment. I had the term switched around. It's keb kin เก็บกิน, and you are correct, it apparently does mean usufruct.

 

But I still have two questions: 

 

Why do I need to be listed under a usufruct rather than as a co-owner on the chanote?v is it not possible to have joint ownership?

 

2. Why is there any transfer fee involved (75000 baht), as no money is exchanging hands? Are they really doing me a favor by overlooking that for 10,000 baht, or is that just BS in order to get 10,000 baht?

[oldscool]

As of a few years ago adding a name to a chanote incurred 2 costs: 1. a fee of (I think) 2.75 %, as it is actually a change of ownership rights, even if no money is changing hands 2. A nominal administration fee.

 

This would seem to explain the 2 charges you mention. Having your name on the chanote gives you the protection you are looking for, as GarryP suggests.

 

Usufruct is not relevant to your situation, so I can't explain why the เก็บกิน was raised.

 

An update as you proceed would be interesting, thanks.

[digbeth]

35 minutes ago, oldscool said:

As of a few years ago adding a name to a chanote incurred 2 costs: 1. a fee of (I think) 2.75 %, as it is actually a change of ownership rights, even if no money is changing hands 2. A nominal administration fee.

 

This would seem to explain the 2 charges you mention. Having your name on the chanote gives you the protection you are looking for, as GarryP suggests.

 

Usufruct is not relevant to your situation, so I can't explain why the เก็บกิน was raised.

 

An update as you proceed would be interesting, thanks.

Usufruct was suggested on both his and his wife's Chanote to guard against being absentmindedly giving away the Chanote due to senility he has 1 Chanote, his wife holds the other, if he has his name on the back of wife's Chanote, she can't sell without him agreeing, and vice versa if she is on his Chanote, 

[qualtrough]

1 hour ago, bradiston said:

I wasn't aware marrying a Thai entitled you to Thai citizenship. But I know of one commentator on this forum who obtained Thai citizenship using a route available in rare circumstances, involving quite a lengthy process of living and working here for at least 3 years I believe, speaking Thai, etc etc.

It is actually pretty straightforward. If you're married to a Thai woman for 3 years, have had back-to-back work permits and visas for 3 years, and an income of 40,000 baht/mo, you can apply. Once you meet those requirements it usually takes three to five years for final approval. You can do it yourself without the assistance of any lawyer or other services. No bribes were sought or given. The actual cost in fees is  under 10,000 baht total. It's mostly just an exercise in gathering documents and then undergoing interviews snd waiting.

 

There's a lot of incorrect information about this on the web, but there is a good thread here that has a lot of good information. You can find it under the "Story of My Thai citizenship" thread. 

[JBChiangRai]

I was about to reply and say there is a tax implication, before I read that the Land office wanted to charge you 75,000 tax.

 

Yes, there is a tax implication, because half the Chote is in effect being transferred to a new person, so tax on half the value is correct.

 

Consider the situation where you add your name to the chanote, and a few months later she removes her name from the chanote, you now have the chanote in entirely your name without paying any tax, that is why there is tax to be paid.
.

[qualtrough]

1 hour ago, oldscool said:

As of a few years ago adding a name to a chanote incurred 2 costs: 1. a fee of (I think) 2.75 %, as it is actually a change of ownership rights, even if no money is changing hands 2. A nominal administration fee.

 

This would seem to explain the 2 charges you mention. Having your name on the chanote gives you the protection you are looking for, as GarryP suggests.

 

Usufruct is not relevant to your situation, so I can't explain why the เก็บกิน was raised.

 

An update as you proceed would be interesting, thanks.

Thank for your help!

 

Here's some clarification to the best of our understanding.

 

If I want to have my name on both Chanotes right now it would cost 75000 in the fees you mention.

 

They also said if I wait 5 years this would be reduced to 35,000.

 

OK, fair enough.

 

But then they suggested the usufruct, but stated that would cost 10,000 baht under the table. This would mean the chanote holder (wife) could not sell or borrow against the properties without my consent as they explained it to me.

 

So, now what I am not clear about is why adding a usufruct would require a  10,000 baht "fee"? My name isn't being added as a co-owner, rather basically as a tenant with usufruct rights. 

 

As this juncture I am thinking I will just pay the 75000 in fees and get added as the joint tenant and be done with it.

 

Thanks to any others who have had any positive suggestions/comments. Or those to come.

Edited May 3 by qualtrough

[Arkady]

I jointly own a house and land and two plots of raw land jointly with my wife. When Srettha became PM Chuvit publicised a case where he alleged that Srettha's company, Sansiri, had aided tax evasion when buying a high value piece of land that was owned jointly by a group of about 12 people. 

 

All the land I own jointly was previously owned solely by my wife and my name was added to the chanotes after I became a citizen. There was definitely tax to pay, as it was considered a transfer of half the value of the land. Theoretically there is a special low rate rate for transfers to direct family and we had called to the Land Office ahead to confirm this for the first transaction.  But a nasty wrinkle awaited us at the Land Office. We were told that, in order to benefit from the reduced tax rate, I would have to be able to show that I was already a Thai citizen when the land was acquired which I was not.  I thought this sounded like a scam or xenophobia but exactly the same thing happened with the other two pieces of land in another province.

 

The tax on transfer of land goes down after 5 years because you don't have to pay specific business tax on land you have held for more than 5 years.

 

I had a usufruct on our house before I became a citizen.  I paid a lawyer a few thousand to organize it but didn't have to pay a bribe at the Land Office. There was a small fee. I assume the bribe is because they have the right to refuse usufructs, particularly if they can say they were concerned someone would be taken advantage of and sign their rights over under duress for very small financial benefit. This is very common when foreigners buy land in the wife's name and want a usufruct.  Land officers may be refuse, specially in places like Pattaya where they see it every day.  They may still view you as a foreign in that context.  As so often in the Thai bureaucracy, vague laws and regulations combined with excessive discretion allowed to officials creates perfect conditions for corruption.  Unfortunately I don't think there is much you could do about it because they do have the discretion.

[GarryP]

1 hour ago, oldscool said:

As of a few years ago adding a name to a chanote incurred 2 costs: 1. a fee of (I think) 2.75 %, as it is actually a change of ownership rights, even if no money is changing hands 2. A nominal administration fee.

 

This would seem to explain the 2 charges you mention. Having your name on the chanote gives you the protection you are looking for, as GarryP suggests.

 

Usufruct is not relevant to your situation, so I can't explain why the เก็บกิน was raised.

 

An update as you proceed would be interesting, thanks.

Usufruct does seem strange in this instance. I think perhaps there has been some misunderstanding at the Land Office. When my wife and I bought our house in Bangkok, registration was very straightforward, probably because there were many more foreign born Thai citizens buying property in Bangkok. However, when we bought some land in Kalasin, it was a bit different. The official handling the queue in the local Land Office initially could not get her head around the fact that I, a farang, could also be a Thai citizen and own land. She was quite confused and initially was not prepared to give the the requisite queue number, so I pointed out that I had already shown her my Thai ID card and that I could actually own land (I did not get uppity about it though). She then got up and went to consult with her boss who thought it was all quite amusing. He gave me a nice smile and told her that she was holding evidence that I could own land and to get my queue number sorted. From then on, it was all good.

 

However, I do not know about the fees for being added as a joint owner post purchase of the land, as when my wife and I did it we were both registered as joint owners at the same time, i.e. upon purchase.  

[qualtrough]

21 minutes ago, Arkady said:

I jointly own a house and land and two plots of raw land jointly with my wife. When Srettha became PM Chuvit publicised a case where he alleged that Srettha's company, Sansiri, had aided tax evasion when buying a high value piece of land that was owned jointly by a group of about 12 people. 

 

All the land I own jointly was previously owned solely by my wife and my name was added to the chanotes after I became a citizen. There was definitely tax to pay, as it was considered a transfer of half the value of the land. Theoretically there is a special low rate rate for transfers to direct family and we had called to the Land Office ahead to confirm this for the first transaction.  But a nasty wrinkle awaited us at the Land Office. We were told that, in order to benefit from the reduced tax rate, I would have to be able to show that I was already a Thai citizen when the land was acquired which I was not.  I thought this sounded like a scam or xenophobia but exactly the same thing happened with the other two pieces of land in another province.

 

The tax on transfer of land goes down after 5 years because you don't have to pay specific business tax on land you have held for more than 5 years.

 

I had a usufruct on our house before I became a citizen.  I paid a lawyer a few thousand to organize it but didn't have to pay a bribe at the Land Office. There was a small fee. I assume the bribe is because they have the right to refuse usufructs, particularly if they can say they were concerned someone would be taken advantage of and sign their rights over under duress for very small financial benefit. This is very common when foreigners buy land in the wife's name and want a usufruct.  Land officers may be refuse, specially in places like Pattaya where they see it every day.  They may still view you as a foreign in that context.  As so often in the Thai bureaucracy, vague laws and regulations combined with excessive discretion allowed to officials creates perfect conditions for corruption.  Unfortunately I don't think there is much you could do about it because they do have the discretion.

Very helpful, thanks. I think this explains what is going on, and your explanation of why 10,000 was being asked makes perfect sense.

 

Pretty sure I will just bite the bullet and tell them to proceed with the expensive option 🙂

[qualtrough]

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I was about to reply and say there is a tax implication, before I read that the Land office wanted to charge you 75,000 tax.

 

Yes, there is a tax implication, because half the Chote is in effect being transferred to a new person, so tax on half the value is correct.

 

Consider the situation where you add your name to the chanote, and a few months later she removes her name from the chanote, you now have the chanote in entirely your name without paying any tax, that is why there is tax to be paid.
.

Makes sense, thanks.

[oldscool]

Before you pay any fee, I’d ask for an explanation of how it’s calculated, and obviously get an official receipt for any payment.

I’ll add that: regulations do change; language problems do exist even between native Thais, never mind naturalised Thais, regarding land regulations, which can be quite obscure; naturalised Thais are not frequent visitors to the land office, and the average official is not likely to be aware of any specific variations in the regulations for naturalized Thais – if indeed there are any; and no two cases are necessarily the same.

Regarding usufruct, there’s no reason why a native or naturalised Thai shouldn’t use it – it’s standard in many countries – if it actually provides the level of security you are looking for.

And last but not least, having conferred with my other half, I’m advised that adding a name to an existing chanote (ie not transferring ownership, but extending it) should not require any fee other than the nominal administration fee – the 2.75% which I referred to earlier was for a different situation. If that’s the case then I can’t explain either of the charges you referred to.

If you and your wife are not fully up to speed with all of this, I’d really recommend taking someone with you who is - getting refunds from government departments can be excruciatingly slow!

[qualtrough]

6 hours ago, oldscool said:

Before you pay any fee, I’d ask for an explanation of how it’s calculated, and obviously get an official receipt for any payment.

 

I’ll add that: regulations do change; language problems do exist even between native Thais, never mind naturalised Thais, regarding land regulations, which can be quite obscure; naturalised Thais are not frequent visitors to the land office, and the average official is not likely to be aware of any specific variations in the regulations for naturalized Thais – if indeed there are any; and no two cases are necessarily the same.

 

Regarding usufruct, there’s no reason why a native or naturalised Thai shouldn’t use it – it’s standard in many countries – if it actually provides the level of security you are looking for.

 

And last but not least, having conferred with my other half, I’m advised that adding a name to an existing chanote (ie not transferring ownership, but extending it) should not require any fee other than the nominal administration fee – the 2.75% which I referred to earlier was for a different situation. If that’s the case then I can’t explain either of the charges you referred to.

 

If you and your wife are not fully up to speed with all of this, I’d really recommend taking someone with you who is - getting refunds from government departments can be excruciatingly slow!

 

Thanks for your reply. I definitely will ask for a calculation, e.g. how are they basing the valuation.

 

Regarding the usufruct, I believe they wanted 75 baht for the fee, and the rest to pad their own nest. Hard to challenge decision-making officials on things like this, because if I tell them "No, we will only pay the fee" they can come back with something along the lines of "We are not going to give you a usufruct because you are obviously using it to avoid paying the transfer fee". Or any number of reasons. Conversations like that can go back and forth until the end of time. Sadly that is the way it works here much of the time.

 

To recap, it looks like the choices are to either pay what they ask for the usufruct, or pay the transfer fee after agreeing on how that assessment is determined.

 

I keep vacillating between choice 1 and 2, but will probably go for paying the transfer fee as long as it is within reason of the legit rate due.

 

 

[GarryP]

31 minutes ago, qualtrough said:

Thanks for your reply. I definitely will ask for a calculation, e.g. how are they basing the valuation.

 

Regarding the usufruct, I believe they wanted 75 baht for the fee, and the rest to pad their own nest. Hard to challenge decision-making officials on things like this, because if I tell them "No, we will only pay the fee" they can come back with something along the lines of "We are not going to give you a usufruct because you are obviously using it to avoid paying the transfer fee". Or any number of reasons. Conversations like that can go back and forth until the end of time. Sadly that is the way it works here much of the time.

 

To recap, it looks like the choices are to either pay what they ask for the usufruct, or pay the transfer fee after agreeing on how that assessment is determined.

 

I keep vacillating between choice 1 and 2, but will probably go for paying the transfer fee as long as it is within reason of the legit rate due.

 

 

The Land Office is notoriously corrupt. Not that many years ago, it was ranked as the most corrupt Thai government agency. Probably still is. 

 

On a related note, I am quite a few years older than my wife so am considering having my name removed from our title deeds. May make things easier for her when I kick the bucket (hopefully not anytime soon).

[qualtrough]

On 5/4/2024 at 1:14 PM, GarryP said:

The Land Office is notoriously corrupt. Not that many years ago, it was ranked as the most corrupt Thai government agency. Probably still is. 

 

On a related note, I am quite a few years older than my wife so am considering having my name removed from our title deeds. May make things easier for her when I kick the bucket (hopefully not anytime soon).

Same situation, bit of an age difference. But we have a will that stipulates that everything goes to the surviving spouse, and then to the children when both of us have shuffled off this mortal coil. That was  drawn up by Tilleke & Gibbin, so I am assuming they knew what they were doing.

[Arkady]

On 5/4/2024 at 1:14 PM, GarryP said:

The Land Office is notoriously corrupt. Not that many years ago, it was ranked as the most corrupt Thai government agency. Probably still is. 

 

On a related note, I am quite a few years older than my wife so am considering having my name removed from our title deeds. May make things easier for her when I kick the bucket (hopefully not anytime soon).

 

I think the Land Dept has hot competition from the Customs Dept for the prize for the most corrupt government dept.  Some years ago a friend sold his Sathorn condo and the Land officer offered a special service of reducing the transfer tax payable which was over 400k.  They had prepared the cash and he took 100k for himself and wiped off the tax liability. He said he could offer this because he had noticed that the buyer and seller knew each other.  Imagine the amount of tax revenue lost in a year like this. It might be more difficult now that the Land Dept allows electronic transfers to pay the transfer taxes but while there's a will, there's a way

 

It would make things a bit easier but I don't think it is too difficult to transfer property for inheritances and there is a reduced rate of tax.