Chanote Title

[cloudhopper]

Our house is built on land titled by two adjacent chanote parcels. Can we (or rather the land office) combine these into a single chanote?

[quiksilva]

Sure, just inform the land department, they will need to come out and resurvey the parcels before combining the titles (to make sure that there hasn't been any encroachment etc). Obviously there will be a fee involved, and it can take quite a while to get them moving, i.e. 2-3 months so be prepared.

Although I have heard that they can be motivated to do things quicker.

Edited October 10, 2007 by quiksilva

[chownah]

Just wondering why you would want to combine two into one and what is the advantage.

[Mid]

^

my thoughts as well

[quiksilva]

^^ Good point.

I would also like to know the rationale behind this, in fact I just had a Thai buyer back out of the deal because the seller would not combine the chanodes. The seller refused as they did not want to wait.

The buyer felt a single combined title was "cleaner", whatever that means. It didn't have any liens or encumbrances of any sort so where's the problem? Anyway he would not listen to reason and the deal, with him, died (we had someone else anyway).

So any insight you can share on this line of thinking would be very interesting.

Edited October 10, 2007 by quiksilva

[trajan]

^^ Good point.

I would also like to know the rationale behind this, in fact I just had a Thai buyer back out of the deal because the seller would not combine the chanodes. The seller refused as they did not want to wait.

The buyer felt a single combined title was "cleaner", whatever that means. It didn't have any liens or encumbrances of any sort so where's the problem? Anyway he would not listen to reason and the deal, with him, died (we had someone else anyway).

So any insight you can share on this line of thinking would be very interesting.

as long as the plots of land are adjacent/contiguous, it should be fine to have two title deeds.....maybe there were other factors in play?? ambiguous border markers? an intervening pathway? a registered easement or lease on the title deed?

a combined clean single title deed (involving a re-survey of the borders) might clear up the outer borders with no worries about where to put fences, hedges etc. (and put-to-bed the existance of any easements etc) ? .... just because there are existing fences etc. doesnt mean they are properly placed borderwise....

[cloudhopper]

My motivation is that I want to officially record a 30+30 lease from my wife on the land with the land office, because I was told that unless this is done, any lease is legally worthless. I have been told that there is a minimum imputed rent (for a lease) on land of 3000 Baht/mo and that therefore a 60 year lease would be valued at 12X60X3000=2.16 million Baht, and there would be a tax due at the land office upon recording this lease of 1 (or maybe even more) % of this = 21,600 Baht. OK, but since both parcels are vital for access etc. I'm thinking that they're going to thinking 2 parcels=2 opportunities for minimum rent, TAX etc.

I already had a lease drawn up by a lawyer a few years back (now a monk and out of practice), but he negected to inform (me, anyway) that it needed to be recorded at the land office for it to be valid (if that info is indeed true).

So - I welcome all comments as to the validity of any of the above premises, and the advantage, if any, of combining chanotes.

[Khun Jean]

My motivation is that I want to officially record a 30+30 lease from my wife on the land with the land office, because I was told that unless this is done, any lease is legally worthless. I have been told that there is a minimum imputed rent (for a lease) on land of 3000 Baht/mo and that therefore a 60 year lease would be valued at 12X60X3000=2.16 million Baht, and there would be a tax due at the land office upon recording this lease of 1 (or maybe even more) % of this = 21,600 Baht. OK, but since both parcels are vital for access etc. I'm thinking that they're going to thinking 2 parcels=2 opportunities for minimum rent, TAX etc.

I already had a lease drawn up by a lawyer a few years back (now a monk and out of practice), but he negected to inform (me, anyway) that it needed to be recorded at the land office for it to be valid (if that info is indeed true).

So - I welcome all comments as to the validity of any of the above premises, and the advantage, if any, of combining chanotes.

30+30 is out of the question. 30 years will be the max that will be recorded on the land title. As such also the other calculatios are not correct. The 3000 baht per month is new for me, but can be the 'market' value in that area.

2 parcels will be a little higher in costs as you need 2 registrations/contracts. But those are only very minor.

Besides that the only advantage to combine them is the new measurements and new boundary markers.

That he is a monk now is a good thing. (Does that make him not accountable for his deeds? i doubt that.)

I hope he stayes there forever. He might make some reservations for some colleagues. Around 1000 places would be a good start.

Your lease is indeed not valid. Fix this asap.

[chownah]

Cloudhopper,

From everything I have heard you can only get a 30 year lease and any attempt you make to guarantee additional time is ultimately legally impossible as written right into the laws...evidentally the renewal is always subject to the owners whim. I don't think the land office will write up a 30 plus 30 lease but even if they do if push comes to shove you will not get the second 30 years....from what I have heard although I have no direct experience of this. Have you checked out the possibility of usufruct.....this is like a lifetime lease....seems like what you are looking for anyway....look around this forum and you'll find much discussion of usufruct. There's an active discussion going on right now infact.

Seems like you have got a good reason to check into combining the chanotes...could possibly save you some baht. Another angle: If one of the parcels is only needed for access then perhaps you could have an easement written on the access parcel that gives the right to maintain and use an access road to the other parcel. This is how it would be done in the US but I don't know if this can be done in Thailand...seems like it should be posssible...but it might cost the same as combining the two chanotes which seems like a more bullet proof option so long as its not expensive.

Also, 3,000 baht as an assumed minimum for rent of land seems too high....you can rent land with a house cheaper than that....could it actually be 3,000 baht per year? which is probably close to the cost of renting one rai of agricultural land for one year....I think but am not sure on the rental of ag. land but from the economics of renting land this seems like it would be about right....3,000 baht per month for one rai is absolutely way way too high for sure...although maybe this could be what they assume for the land WITH the house(although still seems high to me for a minimum)...but if you built the house (and even if you didn't) you can legally own the house (an agreement with the wife that the house is yours should suffice) so there would be no need to get a lease on a house you already own...and if you own the house and lease the land then you should be set....bottom line is that if the lease is land only (because you own the house already) then 3,000 baht per month is exorbitant and 3,000 baht per year is probably what is the deal....in my opinion but I very well could be wrong.

Chownah

[Khun Jean]

At the most 50% of the house can be yours, this also only when it can be sold or one of you has the cash to give to the other.

The 50% is because thiis is aquired/build during the marriage.

I don't think you have a problem with that as you did marry to her. Just consider that if you are preparing for bad times, you do it the right way.

Leasing from you wife is also questionable, although it seems legal. Paying rent to your wife? Sound strange doesn't it.

A usefruct seems the better way. But this is ultimately also untested.

Another cosideration is, would you WANT to stay in the house when things go bad. There is a good possibility you want to move far and away. (Family close by?)

At the end, you should be able to walk away from it without any serious financial pain.

It sounds like a worst case scenario, but it is one that occurs frequently.

[thaigene2]

It's why most of us rent.

But if you could buy a condo in your own name, or get a mortage for a condo in your own name with only ten % down...then why not? I'd like that.

Problem is the thai central bank is worried that the marriage won't last that long and the wifey won't be able to make the 90% payments if/when you split. Thus the problem of securing a 'conventional' mortgage. I have it on good authority that you can now arrange 8 year terms - at higher rates. (But the Thai banks have even less confidence in your union that Khun Jean). That's why you shouldn't even CONSIDER a land purchase, and only think about a condo if you are sure you can afford it AND you are sure you can LIVE HERE. (Remember, you now need to prove you have 40k Baht per month coming into the country to get your yearly visa approved - otherwise it's 'f-off' - up to you whetehr you take the mia farang with you - Thailand could care less cause she has no 'connections')

This sums it up pretty well (though maybe not your exact circumstances..)

[cloudhopper]

Thanks for all the good info - never heard of usufruct but will check it out. I heard the 3k figure from a friend doing a lease in Pattaya, so indeed the real estate values don't compare with MHS! I'm quite happily married and the "lease" I already have explicitly states that I own the house - my only motivation is that if Mrs. Hopper gets run over by a bus, I would prefer that I have some legal standing with whoever can legally inherit her land (since I can't).

Obviously the thing to do is try and find a real lawyer who is familiar with this area and go from there. I will post my experience...

[thaigene2]

Thanks for all the good info - never heard of usufruct but will check it out. I heard the 3k figure from a friend doing a lease in Pattaya, so indeed the real estate values don't compare with MHS! I'm quite happily married and the "lease" I already have explicitly states that I own the house - my only motivation is that if Mrs. Hopper gets run over by a bus, I would prefer that I have some legal standing with whoever can legally inherit her land (since I can't).

Obviously the thing to do is try and find a real lawyer who is familiar with this area and go from there. I will post my experience...

Yes consult a lawyer for sure. My understanding is that you catually can inherit the land if spelled out in her Will. Apparently you then have one year to divest of it. As far as I can figure the usufruct is a the best way forward though the lease may be more practicle for you. Good luck.