30 Year Land Lease W/ Spouse

[enuff said]

.

Hello All,

Most people are advising my recently married friend (who is in the process of building on land given to his wife by her family) to have a 30 year lease on the land, with his wife as the lessor. That way, if something dreadful were to happen to her, he could continue to live in his retirement dream home as any future owner would be bound to honor the lease.

His wife's brother, who is involved in local government, says that, while a foreigner can't own the land, my friends name CAN be put on the DEED to the house, so a 30 year lease isn't needed. It seems to me he could be forced to sell or move out if he had no right to use the land the house sits on. Couldn't the land owner just put up a big fence? Turn off the water/electric?

Does anyone have experience with this? How can a foreigner protect himself against the sudden death or incapacitation of his spouse resulting in the land ownership changing to a third party? Someone who might want to put in a 1000 rubber trees?

Faithfully yours,

'nuff said

~

[Khun Jean]

His wifes brother is talking about a usefruct. A better solution than the 30 year lease.

BUT, a dream home is probably not a dream home anymore when it is located close to the family.

At that moment they have a lot of means to make you not want to stay anymore, whatever the rights.

[FarangNoi21]

how old does a child have to be before they can own land? can you put land in a trust for a child?

[donx]

how old does a child have to be before they can own land? can you put land in a trust for a child?

As has been discussed in the past in this forum, Thailand doesn't allow trusts. Land can be put in a child's name, but the land can't be sold until the child is of a legal age (18-21?). I don't know if the child has to be at least a certain age but I wouldn't be surprised if a one month old can own land.

If married to a trusted Thai spouse and you have Thai children, I think the best protection against the in-laws would be to get a will to take posession of the land in the case of your spouse's untimely death. Then during the year in which you have to dispose of the property, put the land into your child/children's name(s).

This is just my opinion. Check with past posts and lawyers for more opinions.

[mickba]

His wifes brother is talking about a usefruct. A better solution than the 30 year lease..................................etc

I am a novice at this but.............

I know our sponsors are recommending 'USAFRUCT' but at least some Thai lawyers are laughing at this idea - they say that at best a court would allow you to collect the fruit as defined in Thai law. It may provide a nuisance factor and hinder sale of the land etc but........

I think the wife's brother is correctly referring to the fact that the house can be registered freehold in his own name, but I understand the 30 year lease from his wife/partner is fundamental to this set-up.

However, if the marriage were to end in divorce, a court may put the lease aside as irrelevant between a married couple and award half the assets to each. As I am following this route with my girlfriend, it is one reason why I am not planning to marry her.

Over to the experts.

[donx]

His wifes brother is talking about a usefruct. A better solution than the 30 year lease..................................etc

I am a novice at this but.............

I know our sponsors are recommending 'USAFRUCT' but at least some Thai lawyers are laughing at this idea - they say that at best a court would allow you to collect the fruit as defined in Thai law. It may provide a nuisance factor and hinder sale of the land etc but........

I think the wife's brother is correctly referring to the fact that the house can be registered freehold in his own name, but I understand the 30 year lease from his wife/partner is fundamental to this set-up.

However, if the marriage were to end in divorce, a court may put the lease aside as irrelevant between a married couple and award half the assets to each. As I am following this route with my girlfriend, it is one reason why I am not planning to marry her.

Over to the experts.

I'm no expert so take that into consideration as you read my response. If you end up living with your girfriend in the house that you lease from her for more than a short amount of time, you probably will be considered in a common law marriage with all the same encumberances that a registered marriage would have. I suggest to investigate what constitutes a common law marriage in Thailand before you lease any property from your live-in girlfriend (if that is what she is/will be).

[Smithson]

I would guess that defacto (common law) relationships are not given the same status as in the west, although the court may look at differently when farang are involved, not sure.

A lot of Thais avoid getting marriages registered for fear of problems should they split. If her family gave her the land and they are involved in local government, they may be fairly wealthy and prominent figures in the area, which also has implications.

I've got a business with my wife, we're looking at buying land to live and work. We will try for a loan, which is much easier if she applies rather than through the company. So I'm looking at how I can protect myself, especially in case of her death.

[ThaiLawOnline]

A usufruct contract is often a better option than a lease for a couple farang-thai.

If Thai lawyers are laughing at it, it's because they really don't understand what it means and it's in their LAW.

It has nothing to do with FRUITS, apples and oranges...but FRUCTUS in latin meaning MONEY.

Property in civil law is divided in 3, usus, fructus and abusus.

For some people, a 30 year lease with an option to renew (no guarantee) is a better solution. Transmissible to heirs, etc.

We charge the same price for drafting a lease or a usufruct and register it. So, we don't really care what you chose but want to instruct our clients on all possibilities, options and consequences.

A Thai child can own land at any age. Trust don't exist in Thailand.

People are forgetting superficies, and other ways to protect your interest.

Consult a law firm with Thai lawyers, able to speak English if you want to understand. Compare prices and services. Try to find someone you trust.

Most law firm should give you advice free of charge. You can write to us and I will try to answer your question. We register leases and usufructs almost every week. You can also ask to draft the contract and register it by yourself to save money. Contracts should be bilingual if you want to understand...

I rarely answer on private message. Send me an email so I can confirm your identity. And if you call me, my number is on our website, it's even better. You save time and will get all information in less than 10 minutes.

Sebastian H Brousseau, LLB, BSc,

Lawyer (Quebec, Canada).

For Isaan Lawyers.

[Naam]

It has nothing to do with FRUITS, apples and oranges...but FRUCTUS in latin meaning MONEY.

Sebastian H Brousseau, LLB, BSc,

Lawyer (Quebec, Canada).

For Isaan Lawyers.

i wonder where canadian lawyers are taught latin. perhaps in a protestant sunday school? and is their "opinion" that the latin word "pecunia" means potatoes?

ad perpetuam rei memoriam!

Edited October 26, 2007 by Naam

[LoveDaBlues]

A friend of mine recently bought a piece of property (less than 1 rai) in his wife's name of course. His plans are to build a house soon. At the land office they put his name of the chanote with the right to use the house for 30 years. There was a token fee involved (I think 100 baht). He is legally married (not just a village ceremony).

I *think* if the property is more than one rai the above might not work; however I would check at the land office and not rely on any forum answers. The above is based on my friend's experience and I have seen the chanote with his name on it.

[mickba]

Donx - I know there's no safe way to do this and yes. the 'common law' marriage rights do concern me. I'm thinking that even tho' I might have to pay her off, the Lease should still stand. Of course she could sell the land, but with a Lease registered on it she wouldn't get much for it and anyway I might be in a better position if someone else owned it (then again we might live happily ever after of course) - does anyone have experience/answers re the Thai interpretation of a common law marriage etc?

Sebastion - I have to concur with Naam's comments re your Latin - I am a novice but I've read everything I can find and you do seem to be at odds with every other definition and interpretation of a Usufruct that I could find - here and google everywhere. My English speaking Thai lawyer appeared to know exactly what a Usufruct is and what it's intended for. Given all the other posts on here re Usufructs I'd guess he was right about how successful a method it might prove to be in the case of a dispute reaching the Courts. I don't believe the use of this instrument to circumvent land 'ownership' rules has been tested in Court yet - or do you know different?

Whichever method we use, we have to remember that they don't want us to get round this law. Iit seems to me that a Lease is less of a scam than a Usufruct or the creation of a non trading Company only set up for that very purpose.

Edited October 26, 2007 by mickba

[mickba]

A friend of mine recently bought a piece of property (less than 1 rai) in his wife's name of course. His plans are to build a house soon. At the land office they put his name of the chanote with the right to use the house for 30 years. There was a token fee involved (I think 100 baht). He is legally married (not just a village ceremony).

I *think* if the property is more than one rai the above might not work; however I would check at the land office and not rely on any forum answers. The above is based on my friend's experience and I have seen the chanote with his name on it.

Sorry but I'm confused. Might you mean that there is a Lease and that it's registered at the Land Office and recorded on the Chanote/Deed? If so then that's the route I'm following (apart from the marriage). I'd be amazed if he's got his name on the Chanote as owner - joint or otherwise.

[LoveDaBlues]

Donx - I know there's no safe way to do this and yes. the 'common law' marriage rights do concern me. I'm thinking that even tho' I might have to pay her off, the Lease should still stand. Of course she could sell the land, but with a Lease registered on it she wouldn't get much for it and anyway I might be in a better position if someone else owned it (then again we might live happily ever after of course) - does anyone have experience/answers re the Thai interpretation of a common law marriage etc?

Sebastion - I have to concur with Naam's comments re your Latin - I am a novice but I've read everything I can find and you do seem to be at odds with every other definition and interpretation of a Usufruct that I could find - here and google everywhere. My English speaking Thai lawyer appeared to know exactly what a Usufruct is and what it's intended for. Given all the other posts on here re Usufructs I'd guess he was right about how successful a method it might prove to be in the case of a dispute reaching the Courts. I don't believe the use of this instrument to circumvent land 'ownership' rules has been tested in Court yet - or do you know different?

Whichever method we use, we have to remember that they don't want us to get round this law. Iit seems to me that a Lease is less of a scam than a Usufruct or the creation of a non trading Company only set up for that very purpose.

I went the lease route after studying the options.

I don't think there is such a thing as a 'common law' marriage in Thailand. Someone please set me straight if I'm mistaken. I'm legally married to a Thai citizen (not just a village ceremony) with signed/registered docs.

If you have a registered lease you should be okay.

BTW, I got my lease before I married.

FWIW.......I think the smartest thing to do is get a 30 year loan (to build the house) in the wife's name. If thing's go tits-up you can just walk away and consider the payments as rent.

[LoveDaBlues]

A friend of mine recently bought a piece of property (less than 1 rai) in his wife's name of course. His plans are to build a house soon. At the land office they put his name of the chanote with the right to use the house for 30 years. There was a token fee involved (I think 100 baht). He is legally married (not just a village ceremony).

I *think* if the property is more than one rai the above might not work; however I would check at the land office and not rely on any forum answers. The above is based on my friend's experience and I have seen the chanote with his name on it.

Sorry but I'm confused. Might you mean that there is a Lease and that it's registered at the Land Office and recorded on the Chanote/Deed? If so then that's the route I'm following (apart from the marriage). I'd be amazed if he's got his name on the Chanote as owner - joint or otherwise.

Read my post carefully. He has the right to use (right of habitation) the house for 30 years. If his marriage fails he DOES NOT lose this right. Foreigners cannot own land in Thailand; so his name is not listed as owner. He WILL own the house as he is paying to build it and can prove same with receipts, records, etc.

BTW, a lease that is not registered at the Land Office (they don't have to be to be legal) is only enforceable for 3 years.

[donx]

I don't think there is such a thing as a 'common law' marriage in Thailand. Someone please set me straight if I'm mistaken. I'm legally married to a Thai citizen (not just a village ceremony) with signed/registered docs.

My Thai brother-in-law has a common law marriage. He has three kids with his "wife". They never had either a marriage ceremony (not enough sin sod) nor have they registered it, but I do believe that his wife has the rights to half of his assests if they ever split up. I have heard of several other Thais with similar arrangements. Again I do not know for certain that their relationship is legally considered a marriage in the eyes of the Thai courts, so I'd be interested in hearing from one of the lawyers on here about this.

[LoveDaBlues]

I don't think there is such a thing as a 'common law' marriage in Thailand. Someone please set me straight if I'm mistaken. I'm legally married to a Thai citizen (not just a village ceremony) with signed/registered docs.

My Thai brother-in-law has a common law marriage. He has three kids with his "wife". They never had either a marriage ceremony (not enough sin sod) nor have they registered it, but I do believe that his wife has the rights to half of his assests if they ever split up. I have heard of several other Thais with similar arrangements. Again I do not know for certain that their relationship is legally considered a marriage in the eyes of the Thai courts, so I'd be interested in hearing from one of the lawyers on here about this.

As I'm legally married this doesn't apply to me but I'm curious as to how this works. I don't believe your brother-in-law has any legal obligation to give his 'wife' anything; however her relatives might use some 'gentle persuasion' to gain some of the assets.

Anyone out there know the real deal on 'common law' marriage in Thailand?

[mickba]

Read my post carefully. He has the right to use (right of habitation) the house for 30 years. If his marriage fails he DOES NOT lose this right. Foreigners cannot own land in Thailand; so his name is not listed as owner. He WILL own the house as he is paying to build it and can prove same with receipts, records, etc.

BTW, a lease that is not registered at the Land Office (they don't have to be to be legal) is only enforceable for 3 years.

That's fine. I did read it carefully and from what you say I did get it mostly right. The chanote is in her name. He has a 30 year lease registered and will presumably register the house freehold in his name. As I said, that's about what I'm doing, apart from the marriage - oh and the Lease is for use of the land to develop as I please, rather than specifically habitation of a house .

Thanks.

[mickba]

................................................................................

.................................................................................

.......................................................

FWIW.......I think the smartest thing to do is get a 30 year loan (to build the house) in the wife's name. If thing's go tits-up you can just walk away and consider the payments as rent.

Sounds good, but I'm not clear how you would get the loan for the house in the wife's name without her having sole title to it and whose income would you use? Probably not applicable to me if I don't marry her.

[LoveDaBlues]

................................................................................

................................................................................

.

.......................................................

FWIW.......I think the smartest thing to do is get a 30 year loan (to build the house) in the wife's name. If thing's go tits-up you can just walk away and consider the payments as rent.

Sounds good, but I'm not clear how you would get the loan for the house in the wife's name without her having sole title to it and whose income would you use? Probably not applicable to me if I don't marry her.

Everyone's situation is usually a bit different. In Issan for instance it's common for a farang to build a house on land owned by his girlfriend or wife. Instead of the farang paying cash I think the safer option is to get a loan in the girlfriend's name. Sure, the farang makes the monthly house note BUT if things go bad in the relationship the farang can just walk away and consider the house payments as rent. Move on with his life as nothing is in his name.

There are many options depending on all the variables of the situation.

For me, the best option is to be sure your partner has a pure heart; and then none of the legalities will ever have to be addressed.

Never invest more than you can afford to walk away from.

[donx]

For me, the best option is to be sure your partner has a pure heart; and then none of the legalities will ever have to be addressed.

Never invest more than you can afford to walk away from.

My sediments exactly! I couldn't agree with you any more.

[mickba]

For me, the best option is to be sure your partner has a pure heart; and then none of the legalities will ever have to be addressed.

Good idea! Now if only there was some sort of test for that, other than time of course. Pure hearts can soon be broken, when money is Number One and Farang can be just as bad as Thai on that score

[ThaiLawOnline]

You want to know what Canadian lawyers study at school? When they are from Quebec, like me, we study civil law. Not Thai civil law. Foreigners can't be lawyers in Thailand. But concepts are similar, copied normally on French law. And it applies perfectly to Thai law on usufruct, wills, obligations, etc.

This is what happens on some forums, people without knowledge hit on others, BS on them, without any reasons and do it anonymously. It doesn't make a strong foreign community and between foreigners, I believe we should help each other.

"Fructus" is fruit in latin...YES. But the meaning here has nothing to do with "apples and oranges". Fruits is used like in the sentence: the "fruits" of your labours. (example from the Cambridge advanced dictionary, in English).

What are the fruits of your labour? It's what you get from your work...it could be money, pride, satisfaction, etc.

Apply that to a usufruct contract. You already have the right to use the land and/or house? What does the "fructus" means? You get the apples from the orchard? Not anymore and I've never seen it applied that way. It means that you can sublease your real right (if the contract allows it)...and what do you get when you sublease? Normally, a rent...money.

In Wikipedia (not a 100% reliable source but I don't want to lose time for a search about something that is OBVIOUS for me) it is written:

"Usufruct originates from civil law, where it is a real right of limited duration on the property of another. The holder of a usufruct, known as the usufructuary, has the right to use and enjoy the property, as well as the right to receive profits from the fruits of the property."

So, what do you think are the profits from the fruits? Profits...

[Khun Jean]

A pity Thailand is not following 'The letter of the law' but more the 'spirit of the law.

Even jurisprudence is not used here. Every decision will be unique.

For those reasons there is no 100% guarantee. Something to keep in mind.

in my book this is the order in quarantee and/or my preference:

Quaranteed Method

100% Short term Rent (when i get bored with the place or it chances, i am out of there)

100% 30 year lease (only for a really good location with business potential)

100% 40 Million baht investment to be able to buy 1 Rai (Obviously only for the real investor ) Not for me.

100% Company doing real business and NO nominees (That means shareholders pay from their own money)

Not to much 'mood' to have a Thai business. Prefer to do work in the 'West'

50% Usufruct (originates from farming, mining, not really for owning a house on it, not tested)

30% Land in my wifes name. (with the risk to lose it to a loved one)

30% Land in my kids name. Only reason to buy land for me anyway, to help for the future

10% 30+ year lease (100% the first 30 years after that, start praying)

0% Company using nominees (Illegal from the start)

For my own house/land in the future i will choose Land in wifes/kids name and the house together. A lot of marriages fail so that is why i put down 30% 'guaranteed'. I am willing to take that risk on the feelings i have now. If it goes wrong i will be sad about losing the relationship, not about losing the land because the intention is that it will be for our children anyway, and it will provide security for the ones i cared a long time about.

When money is used for investment it is a totally different story. That would be mostly invested outside Thailand, and equally shared between me and my wife. I am not the only one working and i did not have a big pot of money before getting married.

In the end, it is up to you. Just know about the risks you take. They are very different than in your own country.

[ThaiLawOnline]

Interesting Khun Jean. I normally agree with you.

But there is NO reason why a usufruct would be 50% and a 30 years lease 100%.

Both are contracts. Both are registered. Both are binding.

If you put 100% for a 30 years lease, you should put 100% for a usufruct.

If you put 50% for a 30 years lease, it should be the same for a usufruct.

I am not saying that there is a 100% safe solution.

Actually, when you put 100% safe, there are always issues that nobody can predict.

The law can change, for example...

I would be interested to know why a usufruct would be more dangerous or less safe than a lease?

With respect, everyone can have its own opinion but I sincerely believe that both of them give the same security, with their differences. And I am not saying that for "selling" usufructs or lease agreements. Our office does both of them for the same price. Clients have options and decide.

[mickba]

"Fructus" is fruit in latin...YES.

But the meaning here has nothing to do with "apples and oranges"....................................................etc

Sorry but when the ultimate pedant, a lawyer, comes on here telling us that the meaning of the Latin word 'fructus' is 'money' then he thoroughly deserves the little bit of stick he got (IMO).

Bending that around to 'profits' doesn't work either - that's just your interpretation of a Usufruct.

I think I know what Thai law says about a Usufruct and I'm sure I know what its intended purpose was (no doubt all those displaced farmers in India would have liked one).

The crunch Q remains as to how a Thai Court will interpret it where this instrument has been used for the purpose of circumventing their laws on property ownership rather than its intended purpose. Up to them I think.

I suggest that, like the rest of us, you are only guessing the answer, but some think they will treat it literally. Having read all I can find on the subject my own feeling (in my own circumstaces) is that the 30 year registered Lease (renewable and transferrable) is the safer/better option of those available. We won't know the worth of a Usufruct until it is tested in Court (still no guarantee) whereas a Lease is a bona fide contract and when registered on the Chanote should protect the Lessee in the event that the ownership of the land is transferred.

Some have suggested that somehow attaching a mortgage to the land or house would provide an additional safeguard. I tend to agree but so far I can't work out how to do it. The bank won't accept the Chanote as security with a Lease registered on it (presumably the same would apply with a Usufruct?). I don't think they'll accept the house as security (registered freehold to Farang). The Thai lady therefore has no security to offer for a Mortgage in her name (proof of income also required) and Farang has the same problems I think. If anyone has experience of how this can be achieved (in these circumstances) then I'd be grateful for their advice.

I think Kuhn Jean's summary (above) sums it all up very well.

[mickba]

.............................I would be interested to know why a usufruct would be more dangerous or less safe than a lease?

With respect, everyone can have its own opinion ..............................................

Perhaps I'm repeating myself but my own opinion (and that of my Thai lawyer) is that the Usufruct may be more dangerous because it may be seen as having been deviously misused to circumvent Thai property laws. The Government has made it clear that the use of a non-trading Company to own land is no longer a safe option and I don't imagine that they will approve of the switch to using the Usufruct for other than its intended purpose. They can put both aside if they choose, whereas a Lease is fundamental to Thai business and I don't see why they would have any problem with it when properly written up and registered.

Just my opinion of course.

I still go with Kuhn Jean's assessment, albeit accepting your point that nothing is 100% safe.

[ThaiLawOnline]

My Thai lawyerS (not one, many) completely disagree. (That's usual, yes ).

Everytime someone doesn't know about a subject the usual answer is "It hasn't been tested by Court".

Nobody told me HOW a usufruct is more dangerous than a lease?

MAYBE the court will interpret differently! Maybe you are also wrong... These are suppositions.

I saw many post telling HOW pity it was that Thailand was following the spirit of the law and not the law itself. If you could understand what is a REAL RIGHT under civil law, you would understand it's POWERFUL. That's in all civil law countries. A mortgage is a real right, attached to a thing. It's one of the safest protection to guarantee being paid back. I am right? So, people trust mortgage but not usufruct?

To say that X is 30% safe and Y is 50% safe is to me, completely subjective.

And surely not a legal advice.

Yesterday, I met 2 clients. I was with a Thai barrister at law, with a master degree. One client was advise to do a lease, because he has foreign children, is quite old, etc. And the other was advise to make a usufruct contract.

To know if it's better to lease, or buy, depends on each countries laws and economic situation. Because you can't buy land in Thailand, it looks like leasing is the ONLY solution.

Usufruct could have similarities with emphyteutic lease (not sure of the spelling) and this is in many civil law countries. I found it unusual and strange that some foreigners here seem to know a lot about the INTENTION of the Thai civil law when it was created... They seem to know more than Thai themselves on Thai history.

Some Thai lawyers don't even know this section of the Thai civil code (usufruct). Ask them about taxes on usufruct? If we can do it on all title deeds? If we can build a factory on it? If the house build on the land belongs to the owner of the land or the usufructuary? Why do most thai lawyers don't know? Because Thai people can own land and they don't need this kind of agreement.

The way it is explained here looks like foreigners are STEALING Thailand by making usufruct. Read about it... A usufruct can provide benefits to both parties. The only thing that I read about usufruct agreement in Thailand is the Thai civil code and ONE article writting by a Law firm. I won't write anymore on this forum about usufruct. Everytime, it's a mess. People who think they know everything write whetever they want, under anonymous nicknames.

Actually, to say that Thai law will probably change about usufruct soon because foreigners are using it is an affirmation based on NO FACT. I respect Khun Jean but you are speculating on that without any proof or facts. It could be the same for leases.

About the latin word FRUCTUS, maybe mickaba can explain us how property is divided in civil law?

Of course, he can find it on Internet with a google search. But it will be difficult to explain the differences between movable and immovable rights in Thailand? About property rights and personal rights, about different kinds of possessions? Do you know that leasehold were mainly for agricultural purposes in the 18-19 centuries? When I read these comments about usufruct to say that a leasehold is better, it makes me smile.

And many aspects like commercial uses, taxes, subleasing rights are never talked about.

People can agree on everything by contract, except what is illegal. That's the basic.

[Khun Jean]

The list i made is my personal assesment after a lot of reading, asking questions.

I only use the written law as facts, the rest is rumour. Fact is foreigners are using any means to circumvent the principal law of foreigners can not own land.

That 'spirit' is shown in the maximum period of a lease being 30 years. It is short enough to take advantage of what it brings to Thailand in the ways of upgrading land and putting money in the pockets of Thai people. It gives the oppertunity to ask highly increased prices for an extension, money AGAIN in the pockets of Thai people. A usufruct costs what? 100 baht? How much tax?

MY feeling is not based on facts, but what is? As long as it is not fact i can not give it a 100% guaranteed.

The 'spirit' is shown again in foreign ownership of companies. 49% that is it. (Americans have some luck here).

The 'spirit' is shown for a third time in the visa laws. So for me that 'spirit' of the law is crystal clear.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Khun Jean

[mickba]

My Thai lawyerS (not one, many) completely disagree............................etc

You seem to be a little over sensitive Sir. You have said that everyone is entitled to an opinion but then you seem to have a problem with anyone who doen't accept yours.

As for anonymity, that's just the way the site is run. I have nothing to gain or lose through anonymity, whereas perhaps someone who uses their company logo has. I can appreciate that you need to defend the use of the Usufruct as you have been "selling" them and perhaps you're right and perhaps you're wrong. People come on here to read everything they can about the various issues before deciding what their own best guess is. Some of the posts are useful and some are not.

To answer the points you raise:-

"Everytime someone doesn't know about a subject the usual answer is "It hasn't been tested by Court"."

- can't see what's wrong with that except that I suspect you mean "understand" rather than "know".

"Nobody told me HOW a usufruct is more dangerous than a lease? "

- I made one suggestion - I'm guessing the Thai government won't like it any more than the "company" method.

"MAYBE the court will interpret differently! Maybe you are also wrong... These are suppositions."

- we are, of course, agreed on that one.

"If you could understand what is a REAL RIGHT under civil law................. A mortgage is a real right, attached to a thing. It's one of the safest protection to guarantee being paid back........... I am right? So, people trust mortgage but not usufruct?"

- I agree with all that but don't get your point. As I have said before, if I could find a way of attaching a mortgage in the circumstances most of us seem to be in then I would do so. Oh and please don't make assumptions about what we are capable of understanding. I appreciate that English is not your mother tongue, but it sounds rude.

"To say that X is 30% safe and Y is 50% safe is to me, completely subjective. And surely not a legal advice."

- of course and the writer qualified that at the beginning. It is just his own assessment (which I think is quite good) and the use of % is just convenient.

"To know if it's better to lease, or buy, depends on each countries laws and economic situation. Because you can't buy land in Thailand, it looks like leasing is the ONLY solution."

- agreed.

"I found it unusual and strange that some foreigners here seem to know a lot about the INTENTION of the Thai civil law when it was created... They seem to know more than Thai themselves on Thai history."

- depends which Farang and which Thai you speak/listen to surely?

"The way it is explained here looks like foreigners are STEALING Thailand by making usufruct."

- and if the government or Courts see it like that then some people may have a problem in the future.

"Read about it..... The only thing that I read about ......land is the Thai civil code and ONE article writting by a Law firm."

- there's quite a bit more than that if you look, but I know you don't want to waste your time researching something you already "know" about.

"I won't write anymore on this forum about usufruct............"

- up to you. It's a forum not a lecture theatre and it's up to any member whether they contribute. As I said at the beginning, I think you're being a little over sensitive.

"Actually, to say that Thai law will probably change about usufruct soon because foreigners are using it is an affirmation based on NO FACT. I respect Khun Jean but you are speculating on that without any proof or facts. It could be the same for leases."

- we are all guilty of that (speculating) but the reasons why each might happen are different (see previous).

"About the latin word FRUCTUS, maybe mickaba can explain us how property is divided in civil law?......."

- I absolutely do not understand the connection between the criticism and your question/challenge. The point was a very simple one. You wrongly defined the Latin word "Fructus" and, given that Lawyers are one of the professions that uses the language, you rightly (IMO) got a bit of stick for it.

"When I read these comments about usufruct to say that a leasehold is better, it makes me smile."

- not sure why, but I'm glad there's a smile in there somewhere. I would like to emphasise that I come on here to learn, but sometimes the way to do that is to present one's own thoughts and ideas if only to get them sniped at or perhaps shot down. Isn't that how a Forum is supposed to work?

"People can agree on everything by contract, except what is illegal. That's the basic."

- excellent! So let's just hope that the use of the Usufruct to circumvent Thai property laws re ownership is never seen in the same light as the setting up of companies to achieve a similar end.

[Old Man River]

If married to a trusted Thai spouse and you have Thai children, I think the best protection against the in-laws would be to get a will to take posession of the land in the case of your spouse's untimely death. Then during the year in which you have to dispose of the property, put the land into your child/children's name(s).

Donx, if your intention is to put the land in your child's name should your wife proceed you in death, why not have the wife put the child as her direct beneficiary for the land in her will? This is what my attorney advised me to do. If you wish to put a lease or usufruct on the land, now is the time to do it.