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

[Khun Jean]

Marvo,

I like the supreme court quote. Takes away any doubt.

'Wriggling out of the 30 year old agreement' is exactly what will happen 100% guaranteed. Too much at stake.

Mobi,

Very good reasoning. It is a whole economy. Don't forget about keymoney! That's another one of my 'obsessions'

I have to add that i object against the term 'uneducated' that has been used of few times in this thread.

I think we can all agree that overall people from western countries are more educated than their Thai counterparts. However these Thai counterparts are much more 'streetwise' and have the law on their side.

Instead of 'uneducated' i would rather choose the term 'misinformed' or 'lied to'. Because that is what is actually happening in a lot of cases where lawyers, developers and agents are involved.

People turn to lawyers for correct information and here in Thailand it is not what they are getting. Too many are in one way or another connected with this profitable business.

Just ask a few simple questions and see them squirm.

A good question is "What will happen to my lease when the owner dies?". I guess the answer will be silence.

If you get a truthfull answer (but how do you know when you are seeking information) then you found one of the good ones.

Have to mention it again. The only website sofar i found with correct information is www.samuiforsale.com. READ IT!

Edited February 7, 2008 by Khun Jean

[A_Traveller]

The Supreme Court ruling also includes the term dissolution, which could mean that those relying on a corporate lessor entity could find themselves with a problem, if the entity decided it was in its interests to 'restructure'. The CPB is for many reasons {which owing to board rules may not be discussed herein} a rule unto itself and dealings with it could be said to be almost uniquely placed.

Whilst the OP was not 100% clear, about the key focus, the points made within it, are applicable by and large to both domestic & corporate deals. In fact, since such an agreement has not been tested in the courts, and dissolution is within the judgement, I'd be far more cautions than some entering into such an agreement, CPB excepted.

Regards

/edit last para//

Edited February 7, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Abrak]

I'll risk jumping back into this thread for fear of getting my head bitten off.

Most lawyers are fully aware of the limitations of 30+30 leases and in particular the problem of the transfer of land title. Most lease agreements will have some clause to cover this. Here is an example from a ten year old contract on a residential property.

If the rights to the use and possession of the leased land are transferred, sold or otherwise alienated by or from the Lessor, except where such transfer, sale or alienation is (a) agreed by writing by the lessee or assignee ( due to government policy or new laws, the Lessor shall pay the Lessee or his assignee a penalty in the amount equal to all amounts paid by the Lessee to the Lessor under the Agreement and Options terms, together with any amounts paid by the Lessee for the design and construction of all buildings, structures and improvements located on the Leased Land, plus and interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date the penalty arises, or an amount equal to the market value of the leased land, including all buildings, structures and improvements located on the leased land, whichever is larger.

Death of the Lessor is not an issue in this case (and in most cases) as the Lessor is a company.

By the way I would also agree that anyone who has a 30 year lease and then an option to extend for another 30 years with no agreement on terms - effectively has no option at all. Afterall the land owner can choose his terms and they could clearly be so ridiculous as to be not worth considering.

[A_Traveller]

Hmm. I'm just going, but at first blush, the text above offers no real enforceable protection, since any sale irrespective of lessee agreement would be under statute law, which takes precedence. Secondly, a company as I noted above may restructure or otherwise be determined, {so death is an issue}.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited February 7, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Khun Jean]

I don't like that par tof the contract also. Makes it vulnerable for many interpretations.

I like the overly simplified ones.

Like 'I' lease to 'you' the land for 30 years. 'You' can do whatever you want with it but after 30 years it should be in a comparable condition as it is now. If you build something you can leave it after the lease is finished or remove it. 'I' make that decision when the time is there.

For these 30 years you pay x amount at the moment we sign the contract.

Very clear.

Most lawyers are fully aware of the limitations of 30+30 leases and in particular the problem of the transfer of land title. Most lease agreements will have some clause to cover this.

And that is exactly why it will not be guaranteed. This 'clause' has nothing to do with the lease itself so it is a 'non lease right'.

How can you make somebody pay for structures somebody else designs and builds, and on top of that 10% interest.

In my opinion, not worth the paper it is written on.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Khun Jean

[BL4u]

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.

The 30 year limitation on usufructs, superficies and leases in Thialand is not typical for the Thai legal system. Other civil law systems in Europe have the exact same limitations and these rights are also limited to 30 years. The 30 year limitation is simply within the system of the law and have nothing to with foreigners owning property in Thailand.

[A_Traveller]

Just quickly, most land law here is clearly based on agricultural practice, for example, there's still a statue element which requires that the lessor may not determine a lease before the harvest is collected. The 30 years point is in many jurisdictions, so again it's not a 'Thai thing', though a move to enforcable 90/99 years would benefit many in my opinion.

Regards

[Abrak]

One of the reasons I went with a 30+30+30 contract is that I think the rules might change.

I included a stipulation that if the stated length of a registered lease increased then my lease was automatically increased - say 70 year leases were allowed - my lease became 70+20.

And a stipulation that if foreigners could hold freehold the land was registered as freehold for a nominal fee.

The incremental cost of a house and land with a 30+30+30 lease compared to one with a 30 year lease is only about 10-15% and I think its worth it. But you simply have to accept some risk.

[Khun Jean]

One of the reasons I went with a 30+30+30 contract is that I think the rules might change.

Even if the rules change it would not change a thing.

I included a stipulation that if the stated length of a registered lease increased then my lease was automatically increased - say 70 year leases were allowed - my lease became 70+20.

Not a 'lease right' so you will need the cooperation of the owner. When it is in his interest he wil 'wriggle' out of it. CPB probably excluded.

And a stipulation that if foreigners could hold freehold the land was registered as freehold for a nominal fee.

Again not a 'lease right'. Again need the cooperation of the owner. He will 'wriggle' out of it when the monetary reward is there.

The incremental cost of a house and land with a 30+30+30 lease compared to one with a 30 year lease is only about 10-15% and I think its worth it. But you simply have to accept some risk.

I think better to say, you have all the risk and a very remote chance it will get renewed under reasonable terms.

Just accept it is 30 years, relying on the +30 +30 is not the best strategie and you should prepare for this.

The lawyer who wrote that also could care less. You will have the problems in 20-30 years. He is long gone.

Just a question.

If you owned land and leased it to a foreigner who is a total stranger. You get a good price for 30 years. After 30 years he comes to you for a renewal. You know the land is worth about 50 times more than 30 years ago. Would you accept the same amount of money as 30 years ago with maybe a slight increase or are you going to do anything possible to get out of the 'renewal' and get the full amount.

And just to be in the right perspective about money. Lets say you got 100.000 US dollar now. And in 30 years you have to choice to do the renewal for 110.000 US dollar, or 'wriggle' out of it and get 5 million US dollar. I'll bet you would do anything in your power. I am not ashamed to tell i would try!

Edited February 7, 2008 by Khun Jean

[Abrak]

I think better to say, you have all the risk and a very remote change it will get renewed under reasonable terms.

Just accept it is 30 years, relying on the +30 +30 is not the best strategie and you should prepare for this.

I think you misunderstand how a typical 30+30+30 lease might be structured.

In this case the land in question had a freehold value of about Bt13m.

A 30 year lease would typically cost about 55% or Bt7m.

As it was I paid Bt12m for a 30+30+30. Bt4m for the first 30 years, Bt4m for the second and Bt4m for the third. I have nothing more to pay. Clearly the worst case is that I have paid Bt12m for a Bt7m 30 year lease.

I have subsequently spent Bt24m on buildings.

So in the scheme of things the Bt5m option for the incremental lease looks to me a good bet.

There is relatively little 'wriggle' room in the contract and serious businessmen who renege on contracts tend to have relatively short careers. Mostly I have found you can do decent business deals without resorting to the courts or trying to cheat the legal niceties.

Still if you are right, it wont be the worst investment decision I have made.

[A_Traveller]

^ Given the above, all I would say is that there are business people here who have reneged on agreements with non Thai entities and been seen virtually as 'folk heroes'. The criminal laws for defamation prohibit further discussion. Clearly you have structured your transaction based on a balance of risk and projected benefit, and would, assuming there is a commercial element within the construction, be within a comfort zone if the deal only lasted 30 years. Alternatively. if this is a domestic set-up then you presumably factored in the risk and adjudged it manageable. I respect that, but would still argue that most people entering into such arrangements need to factor on the basis of 30 years assured {as you note yourself} and additional time as possibles.

Regards

[Khun Jean]

Agreed with that.

Abrak, you at least have a better deal than most people i meet. Maybe i attract the more unfortunate i don't know.

Your price for a 30 year lease sound like a good deal, especially if the freehold is worth more.

But , when the freehold is already worth more than the owner received i would say the urge to 'wriggle' is only bigger. In 30 years he probably wondered why he was stupid to sign a contract like that.

Fortunately for him he has the means to get out of it.

When we read the topic title it makes it clear what it is all about.

The 30+30(+30) Year Lease (final) Discussion, Explains why it is NOT guaranteed!

It is not about if someone is comfortable with it or not, that means that someone already knows what the real deal is and goes in with knowledge and assesment of risk. Not so for many others i am afraid.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Khun Jean

[thaigene2]

Worth jumping in once in a while to say "read the above" and hen tell me why you would ever consider a lease in Thailand? Buy a condo, or better still just rent. I have no reason to encourage you one way or the other...do others?

[Abrak]

Worth jumping in once in a while to say "read the above" and hen tell me why you would ever consider a lease in Thailand? Buy a condo, or better still just rent. I have no reason to encourage you one way or the other...do others?

Well some of us - especially Brits - just like to live in our own home. It is a lifestyle choice.

We do have other options which havent really been mentioned much here but that is owning freehold land through companies. I own two houses through that structure. To me it has advantages and disadvantages over the 30+30+30 route (and other structures - say a 30 year lease). On balance I would argue the preferred structured might well depend on the value of your home (as well as your risk profile).

It is a shame we dont really have a local lawyer who can give an opinion of the best structures for owning homes in Thailand on this thread. But to be honest I have consulted lawyers and I have had had many answers.

Renting is certainly the easy option and to be honest noone has got rich investing in Thai property.

[A_Traveller]

but that is owning freehold land through companies

This option of course, is fraught with issues, especially given the possibility of an amended FBA which would remove the 'work-around' {which is legally questionable under the present legislation} using preferential voting rights for control. As noted, people make choices to suit them and their desired lifestyle. As a non-Thai, land investment, and to an associative degree property investment, is not a key wealth driver here.

Regards

[Abrak]

but that is owning freehold land through companies

This option of course, is fraught with issues, especially given the possibility of an amended FBA which would remove the 'work-around' {which is legally questionable under the present legislation} using preferential voting rights for control. As noted, people make choices to suit them and their desired lifestyle.

Ok cant argue with that. Be well informed and understand your own risk profile. Consult a good lawyer.

As a non-Thai, land investment, and to an associative degree property investment, is not a key wealth driver here.

I think this is a much more valid and interesting point than the above imho. Returns are often greatly exaggerated by brokers etc in newspaper articles and magasines that bear next to know relation to reality. Careful investment in Thai property has produced adequate returns but, in reality, you should consider owning a home here more about a lifestyle choice - the ability to choose your own furniture, bathroom, kitchen etc rather than a fantastic investment option.

[Marvo]

but that is owning freehold land through companies

This option of course, is fraught with issues, especially given the possibility of an amended FBA which would remove the 'work-around' {which is legally questionable under the present legislation} using preferential voting rights for control. As noted, people make choices to suit them and their desired lifestyle.

Ok cant argue with that. Be well informed and understand your own risk profile. Consult a good lawyer.

As a non-Thai, land investment, and to an associative degree property investment, is not a key wealth driver here.

I think this is a much more valid and interesting point than the above imho. Returns are often greatly exaggerated by brokers etc in newspaper articles and magasines that bear next to know relation to reality. Careful investment in Thai property has produced adequate returns but, in reality, you should consider owning a home here more about a lifestyle choice - the ability to choose your own furniture, bathroom, kitchen etc rather than a fantastic investment option.

You've hit my nail squarely on the head there Abrak. You're right, maybe it's a Brit thing. After all, an Englishman's home is his castle, and he wants HIS bathroom, HIS furniture, HIS kitchen. I quite understand all of the people who bang on and on, telling us (in the interests of financial security) to RENT for god's sake, but for many a Brit, renting someone else's castle on a monthly basis doesn't give any peace of mind or enhance quality of life (quality of life being a major influence in the decision to live in Thailand). This is aside from the return on investment issue. The sad reality is that a 30 yr lease is effectively just a long rental contract but for some, a 30 yr agreement (or the idea of a 30+30) is just good enough to let them feel that the place is "their's"

For many, no enjoyment is gained living "financially securely" in an air conditioned box 200ft off the ground. I know that I for one feel uneasy and unable to relax completely in a rented "home" or being isolated in a skyscraper. That's not what I'm destined for. I think it is this part of a person's make up that drives them to seek a more settled (if not perfect) arrangement outside of plain short term rental of someone else's space.

The beetroot tanned farang, with their rosey glasses on, are just waiting for someone (and that someone ends up being a real estate agent) to tell them what they want to hear. They are ripe for the picking and the agents normally generously oblige. Even if the "buyer" does get a little clued up themselves, I'm still suspicious that many a farang will not be able to come to terms with idea of having their dream taken away from them. What I'm clumsily trying to get at is that there are dark forces at work in some of us, driving us to take risks and edge us into denial. Maybe we have to look deep into our childhood experiences to understand why. We have our dream, almost within reach, and we can't bear to have it pulled away. If believing in a 30+30+ or a dubious shell company is suffiecient to realise the dream, "then so be it".

Don't have nightmares and watch out for the bogeyman!

The perfect solution for the farang would-be "castle dweller" does not exist in Thailand. We are just looking for a solution that is compatible with the individual's risk tollerance. It's just that to be able to assess the risk, we need to be given the correct information. See OP!

[Khun Jean]

The beetroot tanned farang, with their rosey glasses on, are just waiting for someone (and that someone ends up being a real estate agent) to tell them what they want to hear. They are ripe for the picking and the agents normally generously oblige. Even if the "buyer" does get a little clued up themselves, I'm still suspicious that many a farang will not be able to come to terms with idea of having their dream taken away from them. What I'm clumsily trying to get at is that there are dark forces at work in some of us, driving us to take risks and edge us into denial. Maybe we have to look deep into our childhood experiences to understand why. We have our dream, almost within reach, and we can't bear to have it pulled away. If believing in a 30+30+ or a dubious shell company is suffiecient to realise the dream, "then so be it".

Don't have nightmares and watch out for the bogeyman!

Infatuation, normaly in another person, in this case a country or place is the state of being completely carried away by unreasoning passion or love.

I see it many times and i am no psychologist, it is that clear.

Large amount of dopamine rushes through their brain. Phenylethalimine also and gives a feeling of bliss.

Neropinephrine, adrenaline and oxytocin. A whole chemical factory at work.

Together these chemicals sometimes override the brain activity that governs logic.

When the chemical flood dries up, the relationship either moves into a loving romantic one or there is disillusionment, and the relationship ends.

So in reality, in the first few times people visit Thailand there is nothing that can be done. :D

Sometimes i think they just escaped prison (especially the ones from the UK, is it that bad over there?), everything Thailand is super great.

After a while though these chemicals not work anymore. Say in about 1-2 years for many a rolercoaster ride.

Then the reality hits. I went through this myself, loved everything, hated everything, etc.. Luckily for me i like to visit many places, otherwise i probably was stuck with a 30+ lease too.

My advice to people new is to rent first. Not for a few weeks. At least a year. The infatuation will slowly go away. Maybe it changes into 'love', good stay here and review your options because after a year you will be so much better in understanding it. Also don't rush. A good deal never comes alone. There is always a good deal later.

Or it changes into 'hate'. Well pack up and leave. The world is a big place with many exiting places. Maybe second time around will be better.

Was that on topic?

[Marvo]

Large amount of dopamine rushes through their brain. Phenylethalimine also and gives a feeling of bliss.

Neropinephrine, adrenaline and oxytocin. A whole chemical factory at work.

I did wonder what was in the coffee that agent gave me

[thaigene2]

I think most of us would like to own our 'own' homes. No argument there.

But you've answered your own question....you can't "own" a home (not a house/land here). You need to end the denial about house/land ownership. It will never be "your" bathroom, kitchen, etc - unless it is in a condo. And Abrak, I think Khun Jean and others have made it pretty clear on several occassions - a lease is only good for 30 years (the 30+ 30+ blah blah) is just hype - not proven in law and the owner is not obliged therefore to carry through on that.

If you really want to 'own' something then buy a condo - and hope the visa rules don't keep changing..(a different issue)

[ThaiLawOnline]

Sorry, I didn't have time to read all threads. So I can't comment most of your messages and answers.

But I just read quickly that "usufructs" haven't been tested yet.

This is not the full reality. There are judicial decisions about usufructs. It is just difficult for us to read them as they are in Thai. One from the Supreme Court says that an unregistered usufruct in Thailand is NON-VALID. I've read other rules this week from the land department about giving the rights of usufruct to children. We were interested to try this option for a client. But you will normally need a Court decision to do it and it sounds difficult. Another decision from the supreme Court says that if you make a lease while having a usufruct, and die, the lease is still valid even if the usufruct contract ends. There are decisions about usufructs...

[Naam]

My advice to people new is to rent first. Not for a few weeks. At least a year. The infatuation will slowly go away.

Was that on topic?

that is your personal view which others should accept as far as you are concerned. i (we) don't accept it because we are not willing to live in some freaking condo being exposed 24 hours 7 days a week to the noise and various problems the other tenants produce

[Khun Jean]

My advice to people new is to rent first. Not for a few weeks. At least a year. The infatuation will slowly go away.

Was that on topic?

that is your personal view which others should accept as far as you are concerned. i (we) don't accept it because we are not willing to live in some freaking condo being exposed 24 hours 7 days a week to the noise and various problems the other tenants produce

Huh, who is talking about a condo?

My advice and i am not going to shoot somebody if they don't followed it is rent first in the area you like.

Use the time to get a feel for the market and the area. And if it is to your liking buy something if that is your goal.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Talking about leases, isn't it required to pay 12.5% tax on the annual lease money and isn't this normally passed on to the lessee??

[quiksilva]

Yes 12.5% is payable on rent, often this is passed on to the lessee, but not in every case. Actually according to the law it should be the lessor who pays this fee.

This also happens to be the reason why a lease agreement is in fact made up of several agreements lease, service and sometimes even furniture hire because only VAT @7% is payable on the latter two.

[Naam]

My advice to people new is to rent first. Not for a few weeks. At least a year. The infatuation will slowly go away.

Was that on topic?

that is your personal view which others should accept as far as you are concerned. i (we) don't accept it because we are not willing to live in some freaking condo being exposed 24 hours 7 days a week to the noise and various problems the other tenants produce

Huh, who is talking about a condo?

My advice and i am not going to shoot somebody if they don't followed it is rent first in the area you like.

Use the time to get a feel for the market and the area. And if it is to your liking buy something if that is your goal.

soory KhunJ ean, my mistake

[mickba]

A point that is overlooked or not known by some of us (OK me for one) is that the Lease registration at the Land Office and recording on the Chanote is a very simple notation that such an agreement has been entered into by the named parties.

In the event of the death of one of the parties or any other need to resort to the many and various clauses we have cleverly(?) included in the Lease itself, we would be reliant on that document in the Civil Courts if the Lessor or heir/s did not choose to comply e.g. sub-leasing more than 3 years, t/f of Lease to others incl children, renewal [haha] etc. etc..

Therefore it is important that the Lease is properly prepared by a Lawyer and signed/witnessed by both parties. It is of course essential to register that a Lease has been agreed at the Land Office, but it's imperative that you do both. Sorry if that sounds obvious, but I get the impression that some people are only doing the latter. As someone has said, it's a good idea if you can get/keep the Chanote and your copy of the Lease Agreement and put them in a very very safe place (must do that soon).

Of course I know this still isn't 'safe', but some of us cannot accept the limitations of rented accommodation (of whichever type) and seek the satisfaction of creating one's 'own' home (yes i know this is still effectively renting but....). How expensive that luxury will prove to be cannot be known at the outset, but we should all accept that the Lease route will result in a cost and the property will go to the Lessor/heirs in due course - likely MAXIMUM 30 years. That's how leases are meant to work.

Up2u - for those who choose to do it then each must choose between Lease/Usufruct/Company - none of them are perfect because we're trying to do something that the Thais don't want us to do and they're quite good at stopping us.

Any corrections welcome in the interests of others.

Now off to see if the bars are really closed.

Edited February 23, 2008 by mickba

[Irene]

Wow! I thought I knew the law on leases quite well. My understanding is very simple.

First, if you rent an immovable property for a period of three years or under, no registration with the Land Department is necessary. You are well protected with your right of possession unchallengeable for the stated period so long as you have a written contract covering that period. Change of ownership of the property or death of the lessor does not affect your right of possession pursuant to the Thai Civil and Commercial Code and the right and duties of the lessor shall be passed on to the new owner. (Sub-lease is subject to the agreement with the lessor and prior approval is necessary).

Second, if the rental period is more than three years, to be effective, your lease agreement has to be registered with the Land Department and the concept as stated above of protection of the lessee's right and duties and sub-leases still remain unchanged. If the lease is not registered with the Land Department, then the period of 30 years would be reduced to a valid period of 3 years only.

Finally, from all the threads of this forum under this topic, the uncertainty is in respect of the lessor being your legal wife which could make the lease invalid because wife and husband is considered as one person. The way out is simply not to register the marriage. Another uncertainty is the effectiveness of a renewal clause which is not unchallengeable like the first period of possession and considered as a pure promise. The only right the lessee has is to take that lessor to court to enforce the promise or if the lessor is death then one can try to enforce on his successor.

I am really puzzled by all the comments which have made this simple matter as so complicated.

[mickba]

Wow! I thought I knew the law on leases quite well. My understanding is very simple..............

OK so perhaps I rambled a bit towards the end but, with respect, you're not helping much by going off topic a little re 3 year leases and wives etc (IMO).

My point remains that some think that they are registering the Lease Agreement as signed/witnessed with the Land Office and I was trying to warn others that it is not the case.

As you eventually concur, you would have to go to the Civil Courts to remedy any matter within the Lease Agreement. It is indeed a simple point (if you know it) but not many think the whole 30 YEAR LEASE "SCAM" (OP) is so simple.

If you are an expert then fine, but most of us gain knowledge from others' posts. You suggest that one should not register the marriage. I'm not sure how good that advice is but the staus of a Lease between marrieds in the event of divorce is generally well known and has been mentioned many times before - i.e. if entered into before marriage then it will be put aside (after is probably not a safe bet either) - I would not want to rely on "not registering it" in a subsequent Court case and anyway, she can register it herself if she wants and probably will/has.

You don't sound like a lawyer re the last point and I think that the idea that the law on 30 YEAR LEASES is "simple" for the average person is a little dangerous to say the least.

I was trying to be helpful to others re my own experiences and I'm sure I'm not the only "civilian" who thought they were registering the Lease Agreement as signed.

I don't suppose you have an accurate translation of the wording added to the Chanote by the Land Office re the Lease? I think it may say something I won't like.

[Irene]

mickba,

Wow! I never wish the whole subject to become personal. I wrote because I thought that this whole subject has been misunderstood a lot. Since you questioned my credibility, I can assure you that I have been in the leasing business for more than 30 years and I have a few in-house lawyers working for me.

Believe me, my summary of the leasing law was made to help others in this forum who has been confused by bar talks, hearsays etc. My summary is a basic understanding of the Thai leasing laws. From there, you can then understand of an opportunity of picking this alternative or recognise the risks and ways to avoid this conflict of husband and wife contractual relationship. I am not interested in anyone as a person but only interested in learning others' viewpoints and contributing somethings when warranted for good standing of this forum.

As to the husband and wife relationship, it is possible to avoid that challenge by good planning. You can enter the leasing agreement before your marriage. It is at the time of the contractual relationship that counts and not thereafter. As to the choice between leasing, usufruct and a nominee company, I have come to the conclusion that usufruct is the best after reading the viewpoints and experiences of a few in this forum. (When I first started to read this topic, I thought leasing was the best until someone wrote that he did the usufruct with least cost. Through my assistant, I made an enquiry and was immensely surprised when the officials were even helpful to bring out a standard usufruct agreement for the public to use).

In summary, you can get an unchallengeable situation under the lease for a maximum period of thirty years. But why go for leasing, when usufruct offers you a chance of a lifetime "ownership" with least cost. The worse is via a company route which is unnecessarily confusing and more expensive in starting and maintaining its existence and forever against good sense.

With the above basis of understanding, you could talk with your lawyers with more senses than having these haywire understandings with no basis in law but only of someone having said so.