"hypothetical" Way For Farang To Aquire Land...

[Tony121]

If I just lease the land (no usufruct) for 30 yr's then build my house I can take my house back but not the land is this correct ?

[ProThaiExpat]

tony121: Not sure what you mean about "taking the house back" at the end of a lease term? Addressing the issue of who owns the house upon termination of the lease, does it stay with the owner of the house or pass to the owner of the land?

If a falang owns the house, built it himself for instance, after leasing the land, can he remove the house from the leased land at the end of the term? Very good question.

If we were to apply the principles used in determining what a "fixture" is, if the fixture is "attached" to the rented dwelling, then it stays with the landlords house. Not necessary to get into the issue of what is "attached". Hypothetically, if the dwelling on the leased land was a mobile home or a manufactured house that was merely set onto wheels, like a caravan, it would clearly not attach to the realty or land and could be removed at the end of the term as it is portable.

A house attached to a foundation by bolts like frame construction in the West, unbolting the sole plates of the house from the foundation and leaving the bolts in place, since they are embedded into the concrete foundation, might well allow removal legally. In Thailand, however, houses are cemented to their foundations and the the vertical concrete pillars that are part of the foundation, so applying the same rationale, a Thai house built like so many are would not be considered as anything else than being affixed to the foundation which is affixed to the land, so it would become the property of the landlord upon termination of the lease, unless a specific provision is made in the lease to do otherwise.

I haven't heard of anyone trying to remove a house from leased land in Thailand before, but who knows?

[beginner]

tony121: Not sure what you mean about "taking the house back" at the end of a lease term? Addressing the issue of who owns the house upon termination of the lease, does it stay with the owner of the house or pass to the owner of the land?

If a falang owns the house, built it himself for instance, after leasing the land, can he remove the house from the leased land at the end of the term? Very good question.

If we were to apply the principles used in determining what a "fixture" is, if the fixture is "attached" to the rented dwelling, then it stays with the landlords house. Not necessary to get into the issue of what is "attached". Hypothetically, if the dwelling on the leased land was a mobile home or a manufactured house that was merely set onto wheels, like a caravan, it would clearly not attach to the realty or land and could be removed at the end of the term as it is portable.

A house attached to a foundation by bolts like frame construction in the West, unbolting the sole plates of the house from the foundation and leaving the bolts in place, since they are embedded into the concrete foundation, might well allow removal legally. In Thailand, however, houses are cemented to their foundations and the the vertical concrete pillars that are part of the foundation, so applying the same rationale, a Thai house built like so many are would not be considered as anything else than being affixed to the foundation which is affixed to the land, so it would become the property of the landlord upon termination of the lease, unless a specific provision is made in the lease to do otherwise.

I haven't heard of anyone trying to remove a house from leased land in Thailand before, but who knows?

Does this fit the bill?

English Guy Bulldozes House, always keep your receipts Rating Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum

Display Modes

Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+ <a href="index.php?showuser=52003">MrJay View Member Profile ipsmenu.register( "post-member-1756358", '', 'popmenubutton-new', 'popmenubutton-new-out' ); 2008-01-12 06:49:10

Post

#1

Member

Group: Members

Posts: 26

Joined: 2007-09-16

From: Manchester-Nongki Buriram-Ko samui

Member No.: 52,003

I went to visit a few friends the other day 10km outside nongki,on a maine road situation highway 24,whilst sat there i saw numerous trucks with rubble,block cement ect keep turning up at a thai house,one of the guys there then tells me you hear what happen there i said no,he tells me the english guy built a 1.5 million baht house finnished only afew weeks ago,him n the misses had a argument,she went back to pattaya,the mother said to him give me 400 thousand baht then you can live there,he got a flat loader in with bulldozer & jcb ect,and flattened it, he had already gone to the police with all receipts and told them what he was doing,they said no problem,mother called police,they said to her your land his house cant stop him,now hes living with his cleaner at the house where the rubble was being dropped.anything like this happened near you,its certainly put fear into a lot of thais in my village and my woman as of late is treating me real good......... i wonder why.......on another good note the same guy tells me not to worry if you lost your receipts,just go back to the shop give the guy a few hundred baht and he will print you some up..........brilliant.....regards jay..

[ProThaiExpat]

Certainly we must assume the English guy in question owned the house and leased the land from wife.

Destroying the house very early in the lease term seems to be the factual scenario. The question arises is the reliability of the information gained from the police.

Until the matter went to court with the wife/property owner suing for damages to the house, which would have been hers in 30 years, (assuming that is Thai law) we won't know the legality of this factual situation. There also may be family law implications if the house was built during the pendency of the marriage.

[Tony121]

Reading most of the information on lawyer's website's they all say you can own the house freehold but not the land, so if your worried about losing your house you could build or buy a ready made teak house, I think a company called Cvs sells ready made house's these could easily be removed and built somewhere else after the thirty year's ? Because i have only leased the land what do you think ?

[Tony121]

I found this information on www.samuiforsale.com go to there website click on leaseholds then scroll down to building's can be owned by a foreigner.

I don't now how reputable this site is by the way.

[Marvo]

Hi beginner, thanks for your thoughts. I've been through 3 "long term" farang-farang relationships in the west and in the process have learned about myself and human nature and am now at the point where I feel more able to make successful choices base on criteria unrelated to male hormonal responses. I'll check out your literary recommendations though. If you haven't already done so, I can recommend to you to read "The Road Less Travelled" - M Scott Peck who also quotes Gary Chapman's "The 5 Love Languages". These two should be compulsory reading as part of anyone's life education - they'd save no end of grief should people digest them in their formative years (I wish I had).

I'm going to be located not far from a supportive expat community (away from her family) but you are right, it is worth contemplating the exit strategy scenario should a split occur anytime down the line.

Isaanlawyers, I have taken on board and agree with what you say and yes, BL4U and William Jarvis's contributions are very powerful indeed.

I appreciate the sentiment behind "You Can't do Indirectly What you Can't do Directly" relating to "the land code forbids foreigners to own land". I'm not attempting to own a piece of Thailand, I'm just exploring the best way (best suited to me) to gain the most control permissible under Thai law regarding a piece of land and the property on it. When I have this information, I then have to decide if what I'm allowed to do under Thai law is acceptable to me personally (not to anyone else) and will give me the opportunity to fulfill a dream, and at the same time, live my life in a reconcilable way that allows me to sleep at night.

PTE & beginner, I've mused frequently on the scenario of what happens to the "house" at the end of the lease period. Putting provision into the lease at the time of conception, when everyone is agreeable seems the obvious way to go (what is "provisionable" under law, I'm so sure about). The problem surely occurs though when the lease runs out, that you are not legally allowed onto the land where the house is - to either occupy the house or knock it down? Is this where the lifetime usufruct and superficies comes in?

Tony121, I too have been looking at SamuiForSale. If all of their information (and there is a mine of it) is 100% reliable then it should be everyon's bible. Can anyone comment on the reliability and the source of the content?

In relation to poster's ponderings about what nature of (movable) house to build on leased land, it says...

The building(s) on the leased land can be owned freehold by the foreigner (Scj. 301/2538 (1995). As a general rule, the owner of the land becomes the owner of the things fixed to, or forming a body with the land (Section 139 Civil Code).

Civil Code, Section 139: Immovable property denotes land and things fixed permanently to land or forming a body therewith. It includes real rights connected with the land or things fixed to or forming a body with land.

But, with a superficies, one can register ownership of structures on the land...

Civil & Commercial Code, Section 1410: SUPERFICIES: The owner of a piece of land may create a right of superficies in favour of another person by giving him the right to own, upon or under the land, buildings, structures or plantations.

Surely that should cover concrete structure upon the land connected to concrete foundations under the land? I won't be wanting to move a flat-pack teak house in 30 years time, but there again, if a bust up occurs the snail can slither off with his house on his back .

Also: Section 1412: A right of superficies may be created either for a period of time or for life of the owner of the land or the superficiary.

Combine a lifetime Suprficies with a lifetime Usufruct, supported initially by the 30 year lease. Maybe adding a mortgage is do-able in my province?

In trying to confirm PTE's post:

I just don't see how one can contend that a loan to a Thai person to buy land in his own name in which a lease is given back to the benefactor/falang would be considerered void because the Thai person would somehow be converted into an agent of the falang by the process, since there are no indices of control between the falang and the Thai to establish an essential element of agency.

Can anyone tell me if section 798 is relevant or does the transaction refered to in 798 not refer to the "transaction" between the GF buying the land and the seller of the land? If the GF has no written appointment as agent for the land purchase and issue of subsequent lease, she is not my agent, or have I missed the point?

Thailand Civil & Commercial Code:

Section 797. Agency is a contract whereby a person, called the agent, has authority to act for another person, called the principal, and agrees so to act. - Agency may be express or implied.

Section 798. If a transaction is by law required to be made in writing, the appointment of an agent for such transaction must also be made in writing.

Now what else can I think of....?

Edited January 26, 2008 by Marvo

[ThaiLawOnline]

I had a previous discussion with another foreign lawyer working in Thailand. (yes, I know, foreign lawyers are forbidden to practice law in Thailand!). This person, with a vast experience in Thailand, was in the opinion that the best protection available when you buy land and want to build a house is <superficies> combined with a <lease>. The argument was quite convincing. Superficies gives you the ownership of what is ON the land, while the lease gives you at least a 30 years protection on the land. His argument was based on the fact that the owner(s) of the land could face a case based on UNDUE ENRICHMENT in some situations. That was the argument: if there is a problem, I can get back some money using this theory because I will have raised the value of the land.

I won't go into details about "undue enrichment". It is a concept in civil law, also included in the Thai commercial and civil code, where a party can get back some money from making someone else richer in some situations.

What a good lawyer should do, is trying to explain you all options. If there are risks involved, you should know them and you take the final decision. Each case is different and it makes it very difficult to explain all aspect. Inheritance, taxes, money invested, your asset and many other factors should be examined, including some personal data (age, children, relationship, intentions, etc.).

[beginner]

Hi beginner, If you haven't already done so, I can recommend to you to read "The Road Less Travelled" - M Scott Peck who also quotes Gary Chapman's "The 5 Love Languages". These two should be compulsory reading as part of anyone's life education - they'd save no end of grief should people digest them in their formative years (I wish I had).

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes I have read The Road Less Travelled. It is very good, excellent even. Parts though are not easy to accept....rather like the many books on Thai/Farang relationships.

In the end, each one is unique and one writers experience doesn't always apply elsewhere.

The legal discussions are very interesting in an academic sort of way. But we live in Thailand with its own patterns of behaviour. The law is frequently ignored and contractual obligations ignored. One case that springs to mind involved leaseholders on the forecourt of a hotel here in Pattaya who were evicted by a group of heavies including a gun waving Naval officer when the ownership of the hotel changed. Their valid paid up leases were 'terminated' in a particularly Thai manner.

Another involved a condo owner nearby who constantly harrassed the condo building's management because of its failure to hold meetings etc etc. After he got a lawyer to make legal threats he was visited by two tough looking ladyboys armed with bats who spoke to him sternly and asked him to desist from his undesirable bahaviour. He was not harmed but thoroughly frightened. After a week hiding in his condo, too upset even to go shopping, he moved out and sold it at a low price.

[Tony121]

Are you sure ? people leasing hotel rooms ! tough looking ladyboy's

[beginner]

Are you sure ? people leasing hotel rooms ! tough looking ladyboy's

It wasn't hotel rooms that were at issue but using the forecourt for trading and a bar.

Ladyboys don't all look like this you know.

Have a walk down Pattaya Beach Road sometime, preferably not after 1am and if drunk.

Some make a living out of trading drugs and mugging and pickpocketing.

Some others are sweet wonderful people that make living in Pattaya such a treat!

Transsexual Class 1 suspected drug dealer arrested by Pattaya Police.

On Saturday Night, Pattaya Police Undercover Officers conducted an operation in front of the TN Apartments in Soi Gopai, South Pattaya. The target was a suspected drug dealer, Khun Sooparom aged 33. He was driving a bronze BMW which was also seized and taken into evidence. The operation netted 8.2g of Crystal Methamphetamine known in Thailand as "Ya Ice" contained in 7 bags. Khun Sooparom is now facing serious class 1 drugs charges which carry a lengthy custodial sentence if convicted of the crime in court.

This ladyboy will be about 60 yrs old when she gets out of jail unless the King or Queen pardons her along the line. 30 YEARS of jail as a ladyboy in Thailand.

Edited January 27, 2008 by beginner