British Retirees Escape Thai Jail After Violent Land Dispute

[paahlman]

13 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Foreigners  CAN NOT own land in Thailand. 

 

Old and tired debate.  The result ends up the same.  Foreigners CAN NOT own land in Thailand. 

True. Leasehold is the option. Investment under the BOI rules or a company that is not owned directly through nominees. However amity treaty was used before for Americans but under the law now that does also not grant ownership as or the law. 

[nerjaron]

2 hours ago, Lopburikid said:

They can only Lease it. 30 years, 30 years, 30 years totalling 90 years. You buy the house on one contract and lease the land on another contract. any other way is not legal.

"any other way is not legal" - surely you are mistaken my friend - my name has been (legally) added  to the chanote on my wife's land by way of the usufruct procedure . . . granted this does not confer ownership but it does give me some degree of security and peace of mind should I wish to remain in Thailand in the unlikely event of my wife's demise . . .

[oslooskar]

Thailand is a breeze and I would not trade living here for any other place. My Thai neighbors are all polite and respectful people and the best neighbors anybody could possibly have. That being said, having lived in San Francisco, I know how upsetting it can be to have neighbors who are loud, obnoxious, and rude. (Note: most rude people in San Francisco are transplants from other parts of the USA and not native Californians.)

[GammaGlobulin]

It has been my long-held and honest belief that most westerners come to countries such as Thailand for the wrong reasons.

 

They seem to come here in some misguided attempt to live in paradise for cut-rate prices.

 

Instead, their only motivation for coming to Asian and SE Asian countries to live should be exclusively due to their love of Asia, and their preference for living in Asian culture, which means, in fact, living in a country based on Chinese culture. Even Japan is primarily steeped in Chinese culture, for example beginning with Tang Dynasty culture.

 

We should come to Thailand, and other SE Asian countries, and East Asian Countries, as a means to learn the history of this part of the world, to learn AT LEAST two different Asian languages, one of which should be Chinese, and another Japanese, and then we can add one more "elective" languages of our choice. Passa Thai would be good for those who intend to living in Thailand, for example.

 

If the primary motivation of westerners is to live in some sort of Sun-Bathed Paradise with Palm Trees and Golf Courses, then do not come here to SE Asia.

Instead, these fools should be going to places like Naples Florida.

 

In Naples Florida, most westerners would find themselves feeling more "at home" and not subject to being immersed in Asian culture.

 

I believe their first choice might be Naples Florida because this small area seems to be more what they are actually looking for...

 

 

 

 

Naples is a FAR CHEAPER place to live than places like Palm Beach.

 

Also, here in Naples, one rarely is required to fight one's neighbors over property disputes.

 

If one is looking for a non-Asian lifestyle, in the sun, with plenty of golf, I would say that Naples, Florida would probably be the best choice, and there are several others.

 

On the other hand, if one's first love is ASIA, as is mine, then Naples just will not do. And, I would never live outside of Asia for just this reason.

 

Very few people in Naples speak Chinese and passa Thai, unfortunately.

Still, there is quite a substantial Chinese population in Florida, most fortunately, but not as many Chinese people as you will find in either China or Thailand.

 

CHOICES are just so important.

Do your research before coming to Asia.

 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, kingstonkid said:

But could they hve owned the building and everything on the land but leased the land on a 30 year lease?  If tht was the case then they would not own the right of way and it would have been open for discussion.

 

My question is, why when this started, if they were in the right, did they not get a lawyer involved to sort it out before it came to blows?  Surely they had a few Thai friends that they could have gone to.

 

They did contact a lawyer at the outset, and stopped further construction for three months, and it was this that caused hostilities to rise.

 

[IsaanT]

1 hour ago, NorthernRyland said:

That's why you see these stupid expensive prices like 7mb for some concrete box with big windows and a pool.

I was in Hua Hin last week, staying at my partner's friends' villa with big windows and a pool.  24M THB.  It was nice but seemed overpriced to me.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, What to do now said:

You move to Thailand , have a dispute with neighbors, get your butt whooped, get fined, almost face jail time, lose your residence.

They did not get jail time, neither did they lose their residence.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

Why did it cost him the price of a Hua Hin villa in court fees?

That was not reported to be the case, the legal fees were not disclosed.

[Captain Flack]

Post breaking forum rules have been removed.

 

Reminder rule 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles  may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW.

If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, 300sd said:

The "elderly" couple were also charged and did not plead guilty so they had to go through a prolonged court case that cost them dearly.

What was the extent of their expenses that you categorise as "costing them dearly"?  Has that been reported?

[Dogmatix]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

30+30+30 would be illegal and probably invalidate your original 30 year lease.

 

Options to renew a 30 year lease are perfectly legal. The problem with them is that the Land Code only allows a lease of a maximum of 30 years to  be recorded on the title deed and only leases that are on the title deed can be enforced by a court.  That doesn't mean you can't sue the land owner for reneging on the options to renew but you cannot get a court order for the new lease to be recorded on the title deed and to evict anyone installed in the property by the land owner after the first lease has expired.  But the owner could get a court order to evict you, once the first lease has expired. You could sue for financial damages though which would require an assessment of the financial damage incurred through the owner's refusal to agreed to a renewed lease at whatever price was in your agreement which may have been zero or a token amount, since all is paid upfront.  That would mean suing for the cost of leasing another property for another 30 years.

 

Other problems would be:

 

1)  If the owner was a company, it might have gone bust or been dissolved 30 years after the original lease was signed. Even if still in existence, it might not have enough assets to pay the compensation ordered by the court and the process of enforcing seizures and auctioning seized assets is long and painful, even if you got a favorable court ruling. 

 

2) The original owner, if an individual, may be dead and his or her heirs will not be bound by the option to renew agreement because they were not the parties who signed it.

 

3)  The original owner, whether a company or an individual may have sold or otherwise reassigned the land.  In this case the new owners are not bound by the option agreement.  You can only sue the party that signed the agreement, if they still exist. 

 

So basically these options to renew, while perfectly legal, are not worth the paper they are written on and are a complete and utter con by developers, agents and lawyers.

[NorthernRyland]

57 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

I was in Hua Hin last week, staying at my partner's friends' villa with big windows and a pool.  24M THB.  It was nice but seemed overpriced to me.

I've seen 24mb projects  in Chiang Mai too. I wouldn't even want one if I could afford it. I don't know what the buyers are thinking but they must be loaded and looking to drop some money as quick as possible.

[NorthernRyland]

52 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That was not reported to be the case, the legal fees were not disclosed.

They said he had to sell in order to cover the legal fees so make of that what you will. 

[No Forwarding Address]

3 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

Why did it cost him the price of a Hua Hin villa in court fees? Did the property dispute ever get resolved?

 

Since when do people get in a fight and it turns in to a massive court battle costing millions of baht? Usually both sides are required to pay compensation and it's ended there.

 

None of this story makes any sense.

 

 

Any idea where this paradise condo villa is, I’d like to avoid it al all costs - I was looking at Hua Hin/Cha Am for relocation…….Peace

 

[stoutfella]

Justice works in mysterious ways.

[Gaccha]

4 hours ago, Mark Hopkins said:

Lawyers in Thailand aren't cheap. 

 

They are extremely cheap compared with English lawyers. 

 

It's a very simple legal case and would not require much work on the part of the lawyer.

[DaRoadrunner]

Does not matter what legal rights a Farang has. If the Thais want to beat you up and take what is yours then they will do it. Welcome to the land of smiles.

[BexMan]

In one of the various reports, I believe the elderly British couple were reported as saying their neighbours only suffered minor injuries from a "friend" of theirs. I am wondering if this is referring to a later incident where a "friend" subsequently got involved.

 

Pretty typical conflicting reports with some saying a Thai beat up the elderly couple and others saying it was a Brit.

[Thingamabob]

Best if us oldies calm down, and take the heat out of a confrontation. Not sure if that would have worked in this case given that the Byrns were apparently dealing with a thug.

[bkk6060]

18 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Why would they have to stay back home. 

 

Plenty of other more friendly retirement destinations to go to. 

 

Thailand is not the be all and end all. 

Did you comprehend the article about how they are looking forward to getting back home and why?

 

But, I am sure you are right after a 77 year old man and his wife get the crap kicked out of them in a foreign country they will search the world for another place to live.  Jeez.

[wensiensheng]

22 hours ago, Gaccha said:

Let's be clear:

 

You cannot sell what you don't own. 

 

There was clearly no risk of prison, as anyone could see from reading about their case. 

 

The legal fees won't have cost much. 

 

Their campaign to get diplomats and politicians involved had no effect on the verdict.

It says they sold the villa. They can own that. Perhaps you are referring to the land that the villa sits on and that they presumably leased for 30 years.

[pacovl46]

18 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Foreigners  CAN NOT own land in Thailand. 

 

Old and tired debate.  The result ends up the same.  Foreigners CAN NOT own land in Thailand. 

Of course you can own land in Thailand, but for that you have to invest a specific amount of money into a government fund first for 5 years and then you can buy half a rai. 

[pacovl46]

4 hours ago, paahlman said:

True. Leasehold is the option. Investment under the BOI rules or a company that is not owned directly through nominees. However amity treaty was used before for Americans but under the law now that does also not grant ownership as or the law. 

It’s not true. You can own land, but for that you have to invest a specific amount into a government fund for 5 years and then you’re allowed to buy half a rai.

[wozzlegummich]

Can't see how this outcome enhances the reputation of THAILAND as a tourist destination. I thought that was sacrosanct.

Unless this is just another case of farang refusing to pay upfront to make it go away.

[medina21]

7 hours ago, Lopburikid said:

They can only Lease it. 30 years, 30 years, 30 years totalling 90 years. You buy the house on one contract and lease the land on another contract. any other way is not legal.

You are buying a 30 year lease. You are NOT buying a 90 year as the judgement in a recent case has made abundantly clear. Owning the structure of a house without ownership of the land it sits on is akin to buying the body of a car but not the chassis. It is insane. Also, paying a 'freehold' price for a 30 year lease is insane. Too many people are lulled by blue skies and 'friendly' agents into signing contracts without doing serious due diligence through the office of a serious and independent lawyer.

[khunPer]

23 hours ago, Gaccha said:

Let's be clear:

 

You cannot sell what you don't own. 

A foreigner can surely own a villa in Thailand – no problem...👍– but a foreigner cannot own the land under the villa if not entering on "investment visa". However, land can easily be rented...

[GroveHillWanderer]

3 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

They said he had to sell in order to cover the legal fees so make of that what you will. 

Some of the reports seem to suggest that, but in The Sun article that seems to be the original source of the story it sounds more like they were selling because they no longer felt safe there.

 

Quote

"[We are] selling our dream retirement home – for our own safety. We can’t be at risk of attack again."

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33737639/brit-couple-retired-thailand-beaten-neighbours-prison/

[Kinok Farang]

This is truly sickening.

The bully boy who did this to an old man needs flogging.

He turned this couples retirement plans into a horror show and on top of everything they got so disillusioned with Thailand they feel like they have to go back to spend the rest of their lives in the UK.

He might as well have killed them.

[rough diamond]

3 hours ago, DaRoadrunner said:

Does not matter what legal rights a Farang has. If the Thais want to beat you up and take what is yours then they will do it. Welcome to the land of smiles.

Not just Thais.

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, Kinok Farang said:

This is truly sickening.

The bully boy who did this to an old man needs flogging.

He turned this couples retirement plans into a horror show and on top of everything they got so disillusioned with Thailand they feel like they have to go back to spend the rest of their lives in the UK.

He might as well have killed them.

 

Judging from the video, I am not so sure that this was not actually his intent.