The 30+30(+30) Year Lease (final) Discussion

[Khun Jean]

I can now see your points. But I wonder whether those investors in Phuket, Samui, Hua Hin, Pataya and even Bangkok ever consulted their lawyers prior to entering into the lease contract. Second, whether their first 30 years also subject to challenge of possession.

I see you are in contact most of the time with another 'category' people. Investors are more aware of their options and will research it thoroughly. I am meaning the people like the swedish couple i spoke to recently. He is 54, she 51. They 'bought' a home for their retirement. 90 years was great for them because they could even transfer their lease to their children. It is stated in the contract. They wrote a will. What are the changes the children will ever use the property. I think nill. People like that are taken for a ride by the hundreds, i am afraid it will be even thousands. Most people are not aware of the laws and when they seek advice they get wrong advice. Bothers me a lot.

Am I right to say that at least they have the unencumbranced right of possession for at least 30 years? If they have that rights, they may still think the prices are still cheap (comparing with what they are used to in their own countries) and therefore could not care less about losing of renewal rights.

Yes if you get your monies worth out of the first 30 years, go ahead. The rest is a bonus.

Those investors in Samui and Phuket are mostly high flyers with worldwide contacts and it would be unusual for them not to understand what they have entered into. [/b]

Again 'investors'. Totally different situation.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Khun Jean

[Khun Jean]

Ok maybe I should rephrase my question.....

If you want to buy a house here knowing the risks....

(1) What is the best structure if the house and land is worth under Bt15m?

(2) If the house and land is worth Bt30m or more?

It is not an easy question to answer imho.

I think it is the same for under 15m or 30m or more.

When you do business you just do the calculations and see if it is profitable within a 30 year timeframe.

If it is for personal use:

1) 30 year lease if that satisfies your needs

2) A usufruct seems the best way for longer terms at the moment, but it is not tested and who knows if a lot of foreigners are using this usufruct maybe the law will be changed to exclude foriegners. Me personally am not counting that the law will be changed in our favor, more the opposite.

[donx]

Khun Jean,

You can have this thread pinned at the top of this forum. You can even buy advertising space here at ThaiVisa.com and warn people. The problem is that most of the people who view these forums quickly discover the "truth" about 30+30+30 year leases simply by reading past posts. You wouldn't be able to save the Swedish couple you refer to. If you could, then they already know that their children won't be inheriting anything by now.

The problem is that most of these people that don't know about the limitations of leasing in Thailand never do any research on the subject. How can you educate these folks if they don't do a little research on their own?

I know you are trying to help and perhaps having this thread will help people "googling" for answers on the internet. I hope so and I commend your efforts.

[Khun Jean]

Donx. Thanks!!

I hope more people will know the advantages and risks and tell other people. I noticed talking to people that many at least have a friend or family member living in Thailand or at least visiting often.

Maybe a flyer at the airport could help, or a small brochure with other aspects about Thailand.

I am seriously thinking about that, but my writing skills are not that good.

[Irene]

Khun Jean,

Your concern is mighty noble. However, in my book, my definition of an investor covers wider category of people. It includes anybody who parts his fund from a bank to stocks, property, mutual fund or commodities. Whether he is an educated one or uneducated one, that is not relevant since he is still an investor. I can now see that you are more concerned with the uneducated one.

So, your warning is to those uneducated investors that,

"Fellow,

Don't trust all these adverts of 60 year lease or 90 year lease! Because, the best situation is only a 30-year lease and you have to get the lease registered with the authority otherwise you have a legal period of only 3 years. As to the promise of a renewal period of another 30 years (plus further 30 years), don't take that as certain and can be defrauded by the lessors or developers. Check with your lawyers for any protection, if any."

[Irene]

Donx. Thanks!!

I hope more people will know the advantages and risks and tell other people. I noticed talking to people that many at least have a friend or family member living in Thailand or at least visiting often.

Maybe a flyer at the airport could help, or a small brochure with other aspects about Thailand.

I am seriously thinking about that, but my writing skills are not that good.

There would be a long list and it would not be a small brochure but more likely a thick book like Tolstoy's War and Peace. It could start with the touts at the airport.

[jitagon]

This is all very very simple.

Thai Law states that a thirty year lease may be granted for a period of thirty years.

As has already been stated, the Supreme Court of Thailand, has upheld that any addendum is merely a personal promise by the landowner/lessor, that said Lease could be extended.

Anything else is merely pie in the Thai sky. It is a fact. Are any other country in the world's laws able to be circumvented, merely because a person, not being a party to such formation and implementation of such law, wishes it so?

Now. If anyone has been able to renew or sell a 30 year lease, please let us know.

[WilliamJarvis]

^agreed. There is one "theory" out there however that is interesting.

If you have a 30 year lease with an option to renew for 30 years, and you pay consideration at the time of entering into the lease to the lessor in return for the lessor granting you the option to renew, then it is no longer "a personal promise", but becomes a legally binding contract.

I have seen a contract written in this way, but in that case the lessor was a corporate entity. That contract also had a provision that it was an event of default under the lease if the lessor sold the property during the initial term of the lease and/or failed to renew the lease. Damages were payable to the lessee in the case of such an event of default (which may not have been enforceable as I was of the opinion they were a penalty, which is subject to the court's approval).

Given that consideration had been paid at the commencement of the contract on the option to renew, the contract stuck in my mind as being one of the most interesting I had read. That said, I would not give anyone a 100% guarantee that it would stand up in a court of law. But then again, I never thought you could do that in Thailand even when you did have a cast iron case (and there's a long list you could cite to back that up - starting with TPI!)

[wolfmanjack]

^agreed. There is one "theory" out there however that is interesting.

If you have a 30 year lease with an option to renew for 30 years, and you pay consideration at the time of entering into the lease to the lessor in return for the lessor granting you the option to renew, then it is no longer "a personal promise", but becomes a legally binding contract.

I have seen a contract written in this way, but in that case the lessor was a corporate entity. That contract also had a provision that it was an event of default under the lease if the lessor sold the property during the initial term of the lease and/or failed to renew the lease. Damages were payable to the lessee in the case of such an event of default (which may not have been enforceable as I was of the opinion they were a penalty, which is subject to the court's approval).

Given that consideration had been paid at the commencement of the contract on the option to renew, the contract stuck in my mind as being one of the most interesting I had read. That said, I would not give anyone a 100% guarantee that it would stand up in a court of law. But then again, I never thought you could do that in Thailand even when you did have a cast iron case (and there's a long list you could cite to back that up - starting with TPI!)

I think that specific performance already taken place on the renewal by making the payment in advance should make the renewal enforceable. This is thailand though so who knows. My question is why not make 3 separate leases instead of options to renew. In the case of it being 1.8 million make each lease for 600K and pay them all in advance. Then specific performance has taken place by both parties. Is there any reason that a lease can not be made that takes affect at a later date ? I have entered into lease that did not start for a few months from the date signed and paid but would the same apply for 30 years later ?

[Khun Jean]

Well i made the step. I registered a domain name (move2th.com). My busy schedule at the moment will not allow me to build it yet, my wife will start the design. I will use the time to collect info as i always do.

If anyone has some input on what is usefull i am all ears.

[WilliamJarvis]

^agreed. There is one "theory" out there however that is interesting.

If you have a 30 year lease with an option to renew for 30 years, and you pay consideration at the time of entering into the lease to the lessor in return for the lessor granting you the option to renew, then it is no longer "a personal promise", but becomes a legally binding contract.

I have seen a contract written in this way, but in that case the lessor was a corporate entity. That contract also had a provision that it was an event of default under the lease if the lessor sold the property during the initial term of the lease and/or failed to renew the lease. Damages were payable to the lessee in the case of such an event of default (which may not have been enforceable as I was of the opinion they were a penalty, which is subject to the court's approval).

Given that consideration had been paid at the commencement of the contract on the option to renew, the contract stuck in my mind as being one of the most interesting I had read. That said, I would not give anyone a 100% guarantee that it would stand up in a court of law. But then again, I never thought you could do that in Thailand even when you did have a cast iron case (and there's a long list you could cite to back that up - starting with TPI!)

I think that specific performance already taken place on the renewal by making the payment in advance should make the renewal enforceable. This is thailand though so who knows. My question is why not make 3 separate leases instead of options to renew. In the case of it being 1.8 million make each lease for 600K and pay them all in advance. Then specific performance has taken place by both parties. Is there any reason that a lease can not be made that takes affect at a later date ? I have entered into lease that did not start for a few months from the date signed and paid but would the same apply for 30 years later ?

The reason why, without going into too much theory, is that Thai law does not, per se, acknowledge the concept of specific performance. I.e., in general, one could say that specific performance is not a legal concept in Thailand

[BL4u]

^agreed. There is one "theory" out there however that is interesting.

If you have a 30 year lease with an option to renew for 30 years, and you pay consideration at the time of entering into the lease to the lessor in return for the lessor granting you the option to renew, then it is no longer "a personal promise", but becomes a legally binding contract.

I have seen a contract written in this way, but in that case the lessor was a corporate entity. That contract also had a provision that it was an event of default under the lease if the lessor sold the property during the initial term of the lease and/or failed to renew the lease. Damages were payable to the lessee in the case of such an event of default (which may not have been enforceable as I was of the opinion they were a penalty, which is subject to the court's approval).

Given that consideration had been paid at the commencement of the contract on the option to renew, the contract stuck in my mind as being one of the most interesting I had read. That said, I would not give anyone a 100% guarantee that it would stand up in a court of law. But then again, I never thought you could do that in Thailand even when you did have a cast iron case (and there's a long list you could cite to back that up - starting with TPI!)

I have also seen leases like that, the land worth 9 m. is divided into 3 X 30 year terms each 3 m. and paid for, and it includes a separate addendum that you paid for lease 2 a 3.

According to Thai law the lease can only be renewed upon its expiration. So with your payments you do not renew your lease, you only pay for possible renewals. You pay for a renewal that is going to happen in 30 years? Right or wrong? You do not have your renewal with the addendum or second lease contract you signed and paid for, you have signed and paid for something that is void from the beginning under LEASE LAW as the lease can not exceed 30 years.

Under CONTRACT LAW you could argue that you have an enforceable right, but even under contract law it is very doubtful if you can enter into an agreement (or as agreed) that is enforceable or starts after 30 years. Maybe you can get your initial payment back for the extra payments without the penalty written in the lease (which is of no value).

And what happens if the lessor you paid to passed away or is dissolved? The new owner can simply ignore your agreements/ payments with the previous owner.

What to do? Do you go back to the max 5 million baht limited liability company from the developer that is dissolved? Can you go after the directors that signed the second lease and addendum? No of course not. Still most of these companies offering 30+30+30 are from the beginning limited liability companies set up to sell the development. You know what that means. Or they have a clause they are allowed to transfer the land without prior permission of the lessee.

It is #### to rely on renewals.

Edited February 6, 2008 by BL4u

[quiksilva]

or could a contract be drawn up for 30 years that is renewed each year to keep it at 30 years ?

For a term to be renewed by definition doesn't it have to expire first?

Thus in this situation the actual enforceable term would only be 1 year.

As for comments on the CPB Irene is correct, in fact you can even get mortgages on long leases on CPB land from SCB (the only exception that I'm aware of).

As for evidence of 30 year leases renewing, it happens all the time. For instance: MBK just renewed theirs for 16 billion Baht, which they paid for in full for the new term (it represented a generous double digit return).

Edited February 6, 2008 by quiksilva

[WilliamJarvis]

^how does that work when under the CCC an "enforceable" term is 3 years and registered? Just interested?

Edited February 6, 2008 by WilliamJarvis

[quiksilva]

An enforceable lease term is up to 3 years, if it is longer than 3 years then it must be registered at the land department.

Lease terms of a shorter duration than 3 years are commonplace in the commercial market. Take the serviced office industry for example, where you can lease office space on a 1 month term if necessary.

[WilliamJarvis]

^yes, I see what you're saying now.

Less than one year - up to 3 years - is enforceable by contract, 3 years or over is enforceable by the CCC - assuming the contract is registered.

But I don't think the CCC says that a contract of less than 3 years is enforceable under the provisions of the CCC? only that it is enforceable in contract law? - or am I wrong on that point?

[Abrak]

There are plenty of instances where 30+30 contracts have been honoured - MBK, Dusithani etc.

To be honest I have not heard of any case where people have entered into these contracts and they have not beeen honoured (although I would admit they could exist).

I would be interested to hear of them....

thanks in advance

[quiksilva]

William yes leases less than 3 years are enforceable under contract law, but much of the same benefits will apply (assuming that the necessary provisions are included within the lease).

[Abrak]

Coming back to the original discussion - 30+30 contracts have been used here for many years amongst the business community. I dont see why they shouldnt be used (if properly structured) in the residential market.

There is nothing in this thread from say a good lawyer that makes think otherwise. (Although there are good reasons for rejecting bad contracts as set out like say the OPs).

I am perfectly open minded I would just like to see the arguments.

Bear in mind that farangs need a way to circumvent the foreign ownership laws. Simply put I would rather own a 30+30 than a 30 year lease (incidentally you cannot buy a 60 year lease even as a Thai, so Thais buy 30+30).

[BL4u]

There are plenty of instances where 30+30 contracts have been honoured - MBK, Dusithani etc.

To be honest I have not heard of any case where people have entered into these contracts and they have not beeen honoured (although I would admit they could exist).

I would be interested to hear of them....

thanks in advance

Abrak or 'Director of a publicly listed Thai company and who has a grandfather who owned 50,000 acres in China and who knows plenty of instances where 30+30 contracts have honoroud' -

Fact is that Thai law has limitations on renewals and lease terms. Are you not simply a property seller selling the possibility of 30+30(+30)? Whishful thinking?

[Mobi]

There are plenty of instances where 30+30 contracts have been honoured - MBK, Dusithani etc.

To be honest I have not heard of any case where people have entered into these contracts and they have not beeen honoured (although I would admit they could exist).

I would be interested to hear of them....

thanks in advance

Abrak or 'Director of a publicly listed Thai company and who has a grandfather who owned 50,000 acres in China and who knows plenty of instances where 30+30 contracts have honoroud' -

Fact is that Thai law has limitations on renewals and lease terms. Are you not simply a property seller selling the possibility of 30+30(+30)? Whishful thinking?

I too am beginning to seriously question your motives.

How on earth can you compare the lease renewal of a major, multi million Baht commercial space in Bangkok by MBK and Dusit Thani with what is going on in the residential housing industry?

It really is apple and pears.

And in any case I recall that there was a great deal of negotiation that took place on the renewal terms, and I have no doubt that if agreement on the new rent had not been reached, they would have been told to vacate, and a new tenant found.

[Abrak]

Very simply...

1) I have no hidden motives....

2) I believe that 30+30 leases have their purposes and have used them and continue to use them.

3) I admit that 'Thai law has limitations on renewals and lease terms' in terms of these leases.

To be honest if you read the title of this thread you would think that anyone who has entered into one of these contracts is a crook and that is plainly ridiculous. I have had the business ethics of the CPB questioned as well as my own and it really is a bit much - I am only trying to point out how business works here.

Incidentally if you deal with CPB it is perfectly possible to arrange a 30+30 deal where the terms are fixed at the beginning of the contract. This is the norm with certain bits of land especially the less desirable. On other properties of course the renewal will depend on negotiation of terms at the end of the contract. But I would say it is the norm when dealing with the CPB at present to negotiate 30+30 contracts with the terms fixed upfront.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Abrak

[A_Traveller]

At the risk of being repetitive here, the land law is very specific, no lease over 30 years is permitted. If the lessee and lessor enter into a separate contract and register this with the Ministry of Commerce, showing both intent, and consideration paid for additional provision of services, in this case a formal agreement to issue a lease at the determination of the initial one, then possibly such an arrangement would be viewed as 'enforceable', assuming the lessor is not a 'man of straw'. However, the focus of this discussion was, and in practicable terms remains the position for individuals protecting their domestic position, rather then grandiloquent schemes involving shopping malls, hotels or commercial enterprises.

For individuals in my opinion, the law is 100% clear, only 30 years would be enforceable under land law. Contractual law might give some recourse, but in a domestic setting or a single dwelling place, such a case might well prove problematic.

Regards

PS Noting the post above I suppose there's an argument that the thread should indicate the parameters being discussed, i.e. domestic property, rather then commercial ventures per se.

PPS I note that the post above has been subsequently edited to reflect transactions with the CPB, {an institution which is rarely subject to scrutiny here} which again reinforces the point herein.

/edit add PPS//

Edited February 6, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Khun Jean]

Yes, the discussion is meant to be for private person who just simply want to buy a house to live in.

That is were the problem lies.

I think i mentioned this about 6-7 times to make that distinction.

Even the commercial leases have to be renegotiated at renewal time. Like going from 10 million baht for a 30 year term to a 1 billion baht for a 30 year term. It sound more like a NEW contract than a renewal in which you would protect yourself for ridiculous rent increases.

But to not cloud the issue more please understand that my motivation for this topic is people who like to have a holiday house, like to live here or buy a house for retirement that preferably would be inheritable for their children. Nobody wants to spend their life savings without some guarantee. Contracts that state that they have right of renewal with no money to be paid is another example of what is happening. Completely unenforcable!

Being plainly lied to is the biggest problem. And they have no way to get their rights. Try suing an ltd (like many developers are). After a few years they are already moving on without a care in the world for their customers. The money is made, business closed. As mentioned, a few of those developers live in rented houses themself. Says enough i think.

[thaigene2]

just give yourselves peace of mind. YOU CANNOT OWN LAND HERE. So FORGET IT. Stop trying to beat the system with some whacky 30+30 nonesense. You are paying 30 years RENT UP FRONT - that's all you're doing - so WHY DO THAT?????

Rent a place normally (year-to-year lease), it's VERY CHEAP TO DO THAT HERE - There are many, many, Thai middle-class families (esp in Bangkok north-central) who have 'lost' their influence for whatever reasons over the years (e.g. the Admiral or General dies, no benefactors and no proteges to suck up to them or whatever - nam jai gets nothing in return) - BUT their descendants still have the land and houses he acquired and THEY NEED the rental income. So they WILL rent to you for fair value....Then you can be happy in the knowledge that your money is tucked away comfortably - and safely - somewhere else.

Let the Thais fight this out among themselves - it will shake out one day (sooner than later I reckon - heads down!). Meantime, don't beat yourself up over it. Mai pen rai.. Jai Yen.

[Irene]

^how does that work when under the CCC an "enforceable" term is 3 years and registered? Just interested?

A private contract without official registration can be legally effective within a period of 3 years only. If it is agreed by both parties for a period of more than 3 years without official registration then the effective period would be 3 years. so to have an effective period of the first period of 30 years, then you need to register with the authority.

[Irene]

As a long time reader and sometimes poster, "user" of land owned by my wife i find it amazing how many times this "30+30+30 years lease" is mentioned.

Even more amazing is that people seem to get these leases. If you are wel informed you will NEVER do this as it is not guaranteed.

My intention for this thread (Thread is a big word, this post should be enough) is to

END this SCAM!

So please don't try to defend this "30+30+30 years lease", you will only make a fool of yourself. On second thought, yes defend it, then at least we know you are talking BS and all the rest you say can be ignored.

First things first, the lease itself:

Be sure the land title is "Nor Sor Sam", "Nor Sor Sam Gor" or "Chanote". All other lower titles can not register a lease.

Make sure you register the lease! Otherwise it is only enforceable for a maximum of 3 years.

If the land is sold to a new owner the lease is transfered with all the rights for the one who leases. (There is a catch!)

So far so good.

Time for some negatives.

We have to make a distinction between "real lease rights" and "non lease rights".

NEGATIVE NUMBER 1.

--------------------------

A renewal clause is a "non lease right"!

This means that when the land is sold to another this renewal "right" is lost.

An example to make it more clear for the people who are doubtfull.

You lease land for 30 years and make an extra clause for a renewal. In this clause you might mention the new lease amount, up to you.

After about 20 years the owner dies. The land is now his daughters. His daughter at the end of your lease decides that it is in her best interest to not renew your lease and request you to please remove all buildings and other items within one month.

Oke another example where the owner not dies, just to be fair. First make sure the owner you lease it from is healthy and will probably live for at least 30 years.

After 30 years minus 1 week the owner starts to think about this stupid lease he signed. His land was very difficult to sell all this time it was occupied. This 'farang with his new girlfriend' that visited last week was really interested in the land. He offered 50 million cash. How to get rid of this 'renewal'. Better call a lawyer. This lawyer says, "no problem, just transfer the land to your daughter". Ah yes. The owner can sleep good again and dreams of his 50 million in the bank, and a mercedes in front of his new house.

There are so many possible scenarios to get out of this renewal right i think that the 2 easiest are enough.

NEGATIVE NUMBER 2!

-------------------------

You HAVE TO PAY RENT!

This means the money you paid when you signed this lease is for 30 years! Remember that is the maximum!

After 30 years if you are able to get a renewal you will HAVE TO PAY AGAIN!. And be sure it is a lot more than the first time. Count on at least 3 times as much, but prepare for 10 times or even 50 times.

The good thing is you will not have to worry about this "negative number 2", "negative number 1" takes care of that.

But just to make it clear it is not only a negative when it is renewal time.

If you GIVE the money to buy the land to your girl/boy friend or wife/husband so you can have a lease, you also HAVE TO pay rent.

And it should be at least the amount the landoffice valuates it for. So pay the fees, and the tax. But also to be fair, this si probably not a very high amount, but it should be calculated before you decide to buy the land.

There are more negatives, but would you decide to get this lease construction after reading the first 2!

If you are satisfied with a 30 year lease, go for it. It is as secure as it gets. But there are also negatives with this scenario. These are not 'risks' that you have with the law. But to not be to negatieve lets call them warnings.

WARNING NUMBER 1!

-------------------------

You get fed up with the place. Consider your money gone. (The case when you not happily married but just lease from stranger (developer))

WARNING NUMBER 2!

-------------------------

The relationships is not what it used to be. You decide for a divorce. You leased the land so you dont need to go. But first pay the ex-partner 50% of the value of the house.

WARNING NUMBER 3!

--------------------------------

'she is NOT different!' (Oke just joking!!!)

WARNING NUMBER 4-1000!

-------------------------------

Read everything on this website. (And that is not a joke!!)

A good law reference is www.samuiforsale.com. Required reading!

As some other poster mentioned and asked. Yes it is the 'BIBLE on LANDOWNERSHIP for foreigners'.

There is some hope, saty tuned for another topic soon.

What do you think? Should this be pinned?

Abrak,I also concur with your analysis right through. The problem is with the question posed with pre-determined condemnation of all leases of 30 years are bad and fraudulent. What he meant was for warnings to all buyers (especially uneducated ones) of the leases, who rely on an advert of 60 or 90 years, need to watch out that only 30 years period is cast iron, (if officially registered with the authority) and the second 30 years are fluid and cannot be relied on with confidence.

Khun Jean, am I right in my reading?

[Khun Jean]

Yes indeed!

In hindsight it was better to include the type of people that are targeted with these leases. Unfortunately the edit function works only a short time.

I guess i was assuming this forum was targeted at the same people i meant because many topics seem about this 'land ownership' subject. Every few weeks a new topic about the same subject comes up. My thought was to at least make clear 'once and for all' what the real deal is.

[Marvo]

There's a lot of repetition in this thread which as such, I don't necessarily think is a bad thing. Some people (no names ) seem to still be having trouble grasping the "uncertaities" involved in the "+30" aspect of a lease aggreement drawn up by the "clever" agents.

So, everybody repeat after me......

....Renewal options are personal to the signatories of the lease agreement and do not transfer with the ownership of the property hired. The Supreme Court clearly distinguishes real lease rights from non-lease rights in the lease. Only real lease rights and obligations transfer and follow the freehold title of the land (Section 569) and will be binding upon the new owner. The additional contractual or non-lease rights in the lease agreement are enforceable only against the original land owner. If the land is transferred during the lease term the new owner has the full right to reject the non-lease rights in the lease agreement, even though included in the lease registered at the Land Department.

Non-lease rights go outside the nature or essence of lease, irrespective if these are written in the lease agreement.

The common used renewal clause in a lease is a contractual non-lease right and NOT a real lease right:

Supreme Court Judgment 6763/ 1998; 'In case the lessor promises in the lease agreement to extend or renew the lease term, but has sold the leased land before the lessee was entitled to accept, the contractual rights are not binding upon the new owner and only lease rights that are 'real lease rights' will transfer to the new owner'. (The same applies in the event of dissolution, bankruptcy or death of the lessor)

Without the "certainty" (maybe the wording should be "with only a 0.000001% probability") of the land being in the hands of the original owner at the end of the 1st 30 yrs, any agreements with (now previous) owner (which are non-lease rights) are just worthless pieces of paper.

Anyone who thinks that they are getting more that 30 years of "security" from such clever "professionally, well crafted and draughted" clauses in their leases need to be under no illusion. With that 1 million baht, one rai of land, you have been sitting on for 30 years now worth in excess of 50 million baht to the owner if you are off his land..... I think EVERY original owner is going to hand the land on in order to wriggle out of any 30 year old agreement. Even if you are allowed to stay by the new owner, what do you think the lease payment for another 30 years will be on a 50 million baht piece of land?

I commend Khun Jean and all the other knowledgable bods on this thread who are sticking with publicising this issue, like little terriers who won't let go of their object of obsession. Couldn't resist joining the party.

[Mobi]

It dawned on me the other day why the 30 year max lease law is unlikely ever to be changed.

It has little to do with farangs wanting long leases on houses they buy or build, and everything to do with Thai owners of land who currently benefit from the 30 year rule. This covers everything from private dwellings to multi-billion Baht commercial plots of land . Everything is leased for a maximum of 30 years and can be renewed or re- let at an increased rent on expiry. The whole economics of the leased property sector in Thailand functions on this premise, and any change in the law would undoubtedly upset many land owning dignitaries who would stand to lose money.

So it ain't gonna happen folks.