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

[thaigene2]

Irene

Another rather naive question...but when one "buys" a house/land via the lease option (e.g. no Thai wife, but maybe a farang couple) in places like Bangkok or the Islands, who's name is on the freehold - does the seller retain the title? (assuming this couple does not want to form a LTD company). THere was some company trying to flog mortgages via leashold a while back where they held the title - they seem to have disappeared

Edited February 24, 2008 by thaigene2

[mickba]

mickba,

Wow! I never wish the whole subject to become personal............................ having these haywire understandings with no basis in law but only of someone having said so.

Sounds a bit personal to me. Anyway, you are making incorrect assumptions but sobeit.

There are arguments about Usufructs but that is off topic. My point is only about the registering of the 30 YearLease, the rights that can be achieved and how they could be enforced.

I think we've flogged that to death but I'd still like a translation of the wording on the Chanote. Surely someone here knows, or maybe I have to pay to find out.

[Irene]

My point is definitely that a 30-year lease period can be ensured easily with least challenges if one has the right understanding of the law and proceeded correctly through advices of a right lawyer. Thai law favours a lessee not a lessor. From my reading of many, I was surprised of the extent of misunderstanding. I therefore thought that it is about time to state the basics in Thai laws. It is well known fact that the protection of possession for the first 30-year is supreme and hardly challengeable. I agree that the adverts in some glossy magazines in London of some property in Samui, Phuket and Pataya were somewhat fraudulent in promising 90 year lease etc. that warrants calling them as a scam. But certainly, it cannot apply to those leases of the first 30 years. However, from the reading of the opinions of others in this forum, one should also consider usufruct as an alternative. That was a thrown-in for readers to consider.

I made no assumptions of any sort but purely state my basic understanding from my experiences in dealing with leasing in all positions as a lessor in respect of private residence and a lessor and a lessee in respect of office space and having also dealt with as a lessee three 30-year leases with one private company, one public company and another one with Crown Property. So, I don't need to make any assumptions or get personal on opinions which are far off mark.

In all that three 30-year leases, I have no need to see the notations on the original title deeds since I am very well protected by the three registered leases as acknowledged as having notated on the title deeds already by the district office as open as a public record with one copy and one copy each with my family and the lessors. Todate, I have never been disturbed to my right of possession and benefits from the lessors But I am certainly at the mercy of the lessors when completed the period.

[Irene]

Irene

Another rather naive question...but when one "buys" a house/land via the lease option (e.g. no Thai wife, but maybe a farang couple) in places like Bangkok or the Islands, who's name is on the freehold - does the seller retain the title? (assuming this couple does not want to form a LTD company). THere was some company trying to flog mortgages via leashold a while back where they held the title - they seem to have disappeared

thaigene2,

No, not naive at all, very sensible. Nice, short and to the point.

First, as a non-Thai couple, you have the full right to lease without requiring any Thai participation. Legally, you are above-board.

Second, if you lease a property for 30 years (assuming the price is based on a leasehold of 30 years-normally equivalent to 75% of the freehold value), the titleship of the property still remains with the lessor and on his title deed, it will be notated as subject to the burden of leasing to you for 30 years. There will be three copies of the lease prepared establishing your right of possession for thirty years plus any promises of renewal. (That promises of renewals have now been established as not certain if the lessor is dishonest). One copy of each shall be given to you and your lessor. Another copy shall be retained by the Land Department as a public record. With that, you are assured on the right of possession for 30 years and if the lessor enters your place without your permission, that can be regarded as trespassing and viewed as a criminal offence. Your uncertainty is with the promised renewal period in which your recourse could with the courts if the lessor has broken his promise.

Third, as to the mortgage of this 30-year lease, it is possible legally. However, bankers and Thais dislike taking the 30-year lease as security. That may be the reasons why the developer disappears since financing is not easily available for this type of expiry assets based on equitable rights.

Finally, titleship as an owner can never go to a lessee since he is only a possessor of the property for a stated period. The ownership will always remain with the lessor.

[BL4u]

mickba,

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.

Not personal Irene but blablabla usufruct. A usufruct is only suitable for people who do not care if the property goes to their Thai girlfriend, friend or spouse after their death.

For what you pay for the property/ usufruct: if you live for another 40 years you would have had a low rent. It is like gambling, if you live long you have a profit, is your life is short it is definitively a gift to the Thai national.

As an investment protection it is a stupid alternative.

[Abrak]

of all the ownership options i think there are many to consider.

I dont think a 30 year lease is attractive.

I think a properly priced long term lease works for sub Bt10m properties. Above that I think you need to set up a Thai registered company.

Renters have also done well here...

[Irene]

BL4u,

I wish you do not call other people's opinion stupid. Do sometimes open your window a bit to receive fresh wind.

If you read some of those who had succeeded in going through the usufruct route, you would not have called their alternatives stupid and it is not as short-sighted as you thought. What they did was to put in the conditions that not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later. Thus the grantee can name his beneficiaries. In addition, I have also seen a usufruct agreement granting the right to the grantee a purchase of Baht 100,000 of the property should the law change allowing a non-Thai to buy a condominium unit. When there was a change, this non-Thai bought the unit for Baht 100,000.

Was that a stupid alternative?

[BL4u]

What they did was to put in the conditions that not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later. Thus the grantee can name his beneficiaries. In addition, I have also seen a usufruct agreement granting the right to the grantee a purchase of Baht 100,000 of the property should the law change allowing a non-Thai to buy a condominium unit. When there was a change, this non-Thai bought the unit for Baht 100,000.

Was that a stupid alternative?

This post is nonsense Irene, comparable to the 30+30+30 lease.

This '50 years right passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later' you mention is made up, maybe by you to sell property. This is something you can absolutely not find in Thai law. I think you do not understand the concept of usufruct.

[Irene]

What they did was to put in the conditions that not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later. Thus the grantee can name his beneficiaries. In addition, I have also seen a usufruct agreement granting the right to the grantee a purchase of Baht 100,000 of the property should the law change allowing a non-Thai to buy a condominium unit. When there was a change, this non-Thai bought the unit for Baht 100,000.

Was that a stupid alternative?

This post is nonsense Irene, comparable to the 30+30+30 lease.

This '50 years right passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later' you mention is made up, maybe by you to sell property. This is something you can absolutely not find in Thai law. I think you do not understand the concept of usufruct.

BL4u,

I am in a position of not having to stoop so low by giving insincere advices via this forum in order to sell my property. The last time I sold my property was in 1970, since then I have never sold my land or houses or condo units. Todate, I have no intention of selling any because I don't need to do so and because of my expectation of high inflationary forces in the next few years.

The idea of having two-prong benefits under usufruct came out of one of the posts of this forum and gave me the idea and confirmed by my lawyer as possible if there is an intention agreed both by the grantor and the grantee. Again you are rude in calling me having no knowledge of the concept of usufruct when thirty years ago I arranged for my friends in Scotland and Singapore to enter usufruct agreements with one condo developer and todate this agreements are still in effect.

You really need to watch your writing in not lowering down the standard of this forum. We are here to learn from each other and not to win or lose on our contentions.

[ThaiLawOnline]

It looks like many people don't understand the concept of usufruct. A usufruct gives you more rights than a lease, with exception of the continuation of the agreement after your death. However, a usufruct can add a lease after, but you might have to pay more taxes. And this lease can continue after the death of the usufructuary.

Why does a usufruct have more rights than a lease? Simply because you act as the owner for the first 2 parts of the property, according to Civil law, the usus and fructus. It is very similar to a lease, but under a lease, there are much more conditions. With a usufruct, you can completely manage the property, receive the benefits from it, and the real owner (nu-proprietaire) doesn't have anything to say. This is why a usufruct worths sometimes more money in civil law countries than the nu-propriete (owner of the 'abusus' the third part of the property in civil law)

I will post a complete text about usufructs tomorrow. How does it work, myths, benefits, etc.

I read a lot of misinformation on Internet about Thai law. People just have to say "it never has been tested" or "You don't know what you are talking about" or "you say that to sell properties or contracts" and that's the end of the conversation!

Well, believe who you want but double check all information before making a decision.

[Irene]

Isaanlawyers,

Well said, thank you!

[BL4u]

It looks like many people don't understand the concept of usufruct. A usufruct gives you more rights than a lease, with exception of the continuation of the agreement after your death. However, a usufruct can add a lease after, but you might have to pay more taxes. And this lease can continue after the death of the usufructuary.

Why does a usufruct have more rights than a lease? Simply because you act as the owner for the first 2 parts of the property, according to Civil law, the usus and fructus. It is very similar to a lease, but under a lease, there are much more conditions. With a usufruct, you can completely manage the property, receive the benefits from it, and the real owner (nu-proprietaire) doesn't have anything to say. This is why a usufruct worths sometimes more money in civil law countries than the nu-propriete (owner of the 'abusus' the third part of the property in civil law)

I will post a complete text about usufructs tomorrow. How does it work, myths, benefits, etc.

I read a lot of misinformation on Internet about Thai law. People just have to say "it never has been tested" or "You don't know what you are talking about" or "you say that to sell properties or contracts" and that's the end of the conversation!

Well, believe who you want but double check all information before making a decision.

If you have a usufruct for life the usufructs ends with your death. As I pointed out this can be 1 year or 40 years. Therefore a usufruct for life as an investment protection it is a stupid alternative. Nothing extends this period as suggested by Irene.

You can as a usufructuary rent out the property to a third person without permission of the owner - however, this means for short term rentals. You are not allowed to register a 3+ to 30 year lease on the title deed. To register a lease in addition to the usufruct you have to make a new deal with the owner (he has to sign) and a deal with a third person who will be the lessee….

What if the owner after a while is not willing to cooperate? You can't force him. It is based on trust he will cooperate. What if you get problems with the lessee? You in fact rented it out to him. Do you receive income or assessed income from the lease, tax liabilities? Building land tax?

I would not like to invest money in property and get involved with this structure. You take away the benefits of a usufruct and create a complicated situation.

If you like to discuss this further start a new topic.

Edited February 25, 2008 by BL4u

[Mobi]

I hold a usufruct on my property, and although I have no intention of ever putting it to the test, I was assured by my lawyer, who is eminent and an expert in this field, that I could grant a 30 year lease on the property and die the next day, and the land owner would have to honour that lease until expiry.

I was also persuaded by the lawyer to take out the usufruct, rather than a 30 year lease (which would have seen me through my lifetime), for all the reasons contained in issanlawyers post.

[Irene]

My comments are in blue:

If you have a usufruct for life the usufructs ends with your death. As I pointed out this can be 1 year or 40 years. Therefore a usufruct for life as an investment protection it is a stupid alternative. Nothing extends this period as suggested by Irene. Rights and benefits under a usufruct can be made with all sorts of conditions inclusive of the rights in naming successors that are agreeable to both grantor and grantee. Once it is registered with the Land Department, the conditions are irrevocable either by the grantor or upon the death of the grantor.

You can as a usufructuary rent out the property to a third person without permission of the owner - however, this means for short term rentals. You are not allowed to register a 3+ to 30 year lease on the title deed. To register a lease in addition to the usufruct you have to make a new deal with the owner (he has to sign) and a deal with a third person who will be the lessee….The benefits under a usufruct are not based on the concept of leasing. If you want to pass on those benefits to others during that valid period, you can do so. Originally, usufruct is used a lot among orchard and farm land in which the fruits of the land are passed by a grantor under a usufruct agreement to a grantee. The grantee has the right to sell that right of reaping the fruits to a third party for a price without requiring any permission from the grantor. Thus, in term of the benefits in inhabitation on a property, the grantee can sell that right of inhabitation for whatever number of years he wishes without being subject to leasing conditions.

What if the owner after a while is not willing to cooperate? You can't force him. It is based on trust he will cooperate. What if you get problems with the lessee? You in fact rented it out to him. Do you receive income or assessed income from the lease, tax liabilities? Building land tax? No, not so. See the above comments.

I would not like to invest money in property and get involved with this structure. You take away the benefits of a usufruct and create a complicated situation. Complications? Not so.

If you like to discuss this further start a new topic.

[LivinLOS]

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.

100% agreement.. The powers that be benefit from this, it encourages systems like key money and the same old feudalist mentality of landownership and serfdom and will be very tough to change IMO.

I think the only thing that would change it would be the total overhaul allowing anyone to own land and I simply do not see that on any realistic time horizon.

[johnnyk]

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.

100% agreement.. The powers that be benefit from this, it encourages systems like key money and the same old feudalist mentality of landownership and serfdom and will be very tough to change IMO.

I think the only thing that would change it would be the total overhaul allowing anyone to own land and I simply do not see that on any realistic time horizon.

In a nutshell, it allows a Thai landowner to lease his property for money up front AND still retain ultimate ownership.

Its called "having your cake and eating it, too", something the Thais mastered long ago.

[LivinLOS]

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?

Some of us (myself definitely) are not suitable to live in high density / communual living spaces. I personally keep odd hours, have odd sleep patterns, like to listen to music at volume, or watch a home theatre with a big sub booming away in the middle of the night.. Thats to say nothing of my white ass skinny dipping in my pool.

I think its better for everyones sanity I dont try to live in a condo community.

[LivinLOS]

BL4u,

I wish you do not call other people's opinion stupid. Do sometimes open your window a bit to receive fresh wind.

If you read some of those who had succeeded in going through the usufruct route, you would not have called their alternatives stupid and it is not as short-sighted as you thought. What they did was to put in the conditions that not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later. Thus the grantee can name his beneficiaries. In addition, I have also seen a usufruct agreement granting the right to the grantee a purchase of Baht 100,000 of the property should the law change allowing a non-Thai to buy a condominium unit. When there was a change, this non-Thai bought the unit for Baht 100,000.

Was that a stupid alternative?

Sorry.. But are not both of these clauses bogus and in no way enforceable.. I was lead to understand that a usufruct could not survive beyond the lifetime of the owner, how can it then be lifetime + 50 for someone else ?? EDIT :: I could see how a lease could do this but it would have to be done and drawn up, registered and taxes paid prior to your demise.. This means you need to know the exact time of your death to secure an addtional 30 years ?? Plus theres the taxes issues.

That was my understanding under Thai law.

Edited February 25, 2008 by LivinLOS

[LivinLOS]

This has been an interesting thread but nothing I have read here changes my mind that theres no good solutions. In fact currently I would still prefer the company ownership route even with its risks for anything in real money terms (20mil up).. Below that its an affordable loss and 30 year use may be enough..

However I often hear owners (leasee / usufruct holders) talking about the 'first purchase option' or other terminology for a right to puchase at a fixed price in the future, including in the last month of a 30 year lease.

In my mind this would require the future co-operation of the lease holder, which in turn may not be the person your agreeing the intial deal with, and as such i would have to assume is pretty shaky ground no ?? I am guessing that the future purchase option is not a 'lease right' that can be secured legally ??

[mickba]

............In all that three 30-year leases, I have no need to see the notations on the original title deeds since I am very well protected by the three registered leases as acknowledged as having notated on the title deeds already by the district office as open as a public record ...................

Am I allowed to be surprised that you haven't seen the notations on the Chanote and, therefore, don't know what they say? Unless anyone can tell me then I remain concerned and I'll have to find out. What if it says e.g. that the Lease expires upon the death of either named party? Then we have to try to enforce the Agreement re heirs etc.. and meanwhile the Chanote may be clear? Could be hard work? I must have got it wrong right? So if I've got it wrong someone please correct me.

I've read many posts and the way most are written (incl yours above) it sounds to the layman as though the Lease Agreement which has been carefully prepared and signed/witnessed will itself be registered at the Land Office.

Having gone through this process, I was left with the impression that the Land Office were not in the least interested in the Lease Agreement detail other than to record on their database and on the Chanote that such a 30 Year Lease has been agreed between the named parties.

So, have I misunderstood what happened i.e. did they in fact take a photocopy of the Lease Agreement for their files? I think not.

Please can someone tell me what their notation actually says.

[Irene]

That is mighty kind of you to share your insights especially the revelation of the eminent expert. There are too many who love to bury this concept just because they do not yet understand the niceties of its principle. Not that there will be a lot who will change their mind but at least for those newcomers, please do consider the issues objectively and consult those lawyers who are conversant and experienced with the practices.

I was previously pro-leasing until having read some of the threads, then I realised that I was wrong in relying on the lease since a usufruct gives those non-Thais better protection. One great thing about reading this forum is learning from and sharing your knowledge with others and never to be concerned with winning or losing your belief and always prepared to change your stance.

[mickba]

That is mighty kind of you to share your insights especially the revelation of the eminent expert. ........................

Irene

I'm confused. Was this a response to my post?

I can follow the sense of what you say (I think) but cannot find any answers to my Qs so do I assume not?

Mick

[Irene]

mickba,

My comments are in bold type:

Am I allowed to be surprised that you haven't seen the notations on the Chanote and, therefore, don't know what they say? I don't need to see what is notated because I can guess that there is a notation of the existence of the owner of the title deed as a lessor and you as a lessee concluded under an official lease agreement dated..... for a tenacy period of 30 years commencing as from.....The idea is to warn the public that this Chanote is subject to a burden of a 30 year lease, any buyer of this title deed shall be subject to this burden. I don't need to care whether it is notated or not. The failure of the government official in his duty does not affect my right of possession since I rely on the official lease agreement signed by the owner of the land as a lessor and I as a lessee. That agreement has been certified by a senior official that that Chanote is subject to the lease agreement, registered with the land office and legally binding on the lessor and the lessee. It is the same if the land has been mortgaged with a bank, that fact would be stated on the Chanote.

Unless anyone can tell me then I remain concerned and I'll have to find out. You can go to the land department in the district of that land to search for a copy of that Chanote and see the notation. You may need a lawyer or a secretary to help you to contact an official.What if it says e.g. that the Lease expires upon the death of either named party? Then we have to try to enforce the Agreement re heirs etc.. and meanwhile the Chanote may be clear? Could be hard work?The failure of the official to notate what should have been notated on the Chanote does not affect your right of possession since you are relying on the official lease agreement and not the lessor's title deed. I must have got it wrong right? So if I've got it wrong someone please correct me. You are not wrong but ultra-cautious on matters that should not be of your concern. Any wrongs arisen therefrom could cause the official and the land department having to pay damages to an afflicted party who erroneously bought the land without realising the burden of 30 year lease. Your right is still not affected because of your official lease agreement.

I've read many posts and the way most are written (incl yours above) it sounds to the layman as though the Lease Agreement which has been carefully prepared and signed/witnessed will itself be registered at the Land Office. This is attached to the official lease agreement and stated under Clause 3 as the agreement dated.....as attached thereto shall be regarded as an integral part of this official agreement.

Having gone through this process, I was left with the impression that the Land Office were not in the least interested in the Lease Agreement detail other than to record on their database and on the Chanote that such a 30 Year Lease has been agreed between the named parties. Your impression is correct. They should not care less of how you two agree on the terms of the agreement. All they are concerned with are the period of lease, parties involved, location, title deed numbers and rental just for the sake of filling in on the official form correctly. Their duty is like a company registration office with leases of all over Thailand with a period of over 3 years period being in their hands and can be referred to by the public.

So, have I misunderstood what happened i.e. did they in fact take a photocopy of the Lease Agreement for their files? I think not. There are three copies of this private lease agreement stated in details, one of each attached to the official lease agreement that is for keeping of the lessor, lessee and the land registration office. They are officially stamped as being referred thereto and officially stated as forming an integral part of the official lease. The officials do not need to be concerned with how the lease is written since their legal job is like a post box receiving the registration of leases of over three years period. (Leases of over three years are not valid if they are not registered with land department). Any disputes on the lease do not involve the land department except for the land department to confirm the copies as filed with them previously.

Please can someone tell me what their notation actually says.The notation would be the existence of the burden of the lease related to the relevant title deed.

I hope I have been of help.

[Irene]

That is mighty kind of you to share your insights especially the revelation of the eminent expert. ........................

Irene

I'm confused. Was this a response to my post?

I can follow the sense of what you say (I think) but cannot find any answers to my Qs so do I assume not?

Mick

mickba,

No.

I just wrote my response to your post a few minutes ago, see below:

mickba,

My comments are in bold type:

Am I allowed to be surprised that you haven't seen the notations on the Chanote and, therefore, don't know what they say? I don't need to see what is notated because I can guess that there is a notation of the existence of the owner of the title deed as a lessor and you as a lessee concluded under an official lease agreement dated..... for a tenacy period of 30 years commencing as from.....The idea is to warn the public that this Chanote is subject to a burden of a 30 year lease, any buyer of this title deed shall be subject to this burden. I don't need to care whether it is notated or not. The failure of the government official in his duty does not affect my right of possession since I rely on the official lease agreement signed by the owner of the land as a lessor and I as a lessee. That agreement has been certified by a senior official that that Chanote is subject to the lease agreement, registered with the land office and legally binding on the lessor and the lessee. It is the same if the land has been mortgaged with a bank, that fact would be stated on the Chanote.

Unless anyone can tell me then I remain concerned and I'll have to find out. You can go to the land department in the district of that land to search for a copy of that Chanote and see the notation. You may need a lawyer or a secretary to help you to contact an official.What if it says e.g. that the Lease expires upon the death of either named party? Then we have to try to enforce the Agreement re heirs etc.. and meanwhile the Chanote may be clear? Could be hard work?The failure of the official to notate what should have been notated on the Chanote does not affect your right of possession since you are relying on the official lease agreement and not the lessor's title deed. I must have got it wrong right? So if I've got it wrong someone please correct me. You are not wrong but ultra-cautious on matters that should not be of your concern. Any wrongs arisen therefrom could cause the official and the land department having to pay damages to an afflicted party who erroneously bought the land without realising the burden of 30 year lease. Your right is still not affected because of your official lease agreement.

I've read many posts and the way most are written (incl yours above) it sounds to the layman as though the Lease Agreement which has been carefully prepared and signed/witnessed will itself be registered at the Land Office. This is attached to the official lease agreement and stated under Clause 3 as the agreement dated.....as attached thereto shall be regarded as an integral part of this official agreement.

Having gone through this process, I was left with the impression that the Land Office were not in the least interested in the Lease Agreement detail other than to record on their database and on the Chanote that such a 30 Year Lease has been agreed between the named parties. Your impression is correct. They should not care less of how you two agree on the terms of the agreement. All they are concerned with are the period of lease, parties involved, location, title deed numbers and rental just for the sake of filling in on the official form correctly. Their duty is like a company registration office with leases of all over Thailand with a period of over 3 years period being in their hands and can be referred to by the public.

So, have I misunderstood what happened i.e. did they in fact take a photocopy of the Lease Agreement for their files? I think not. There are three copies of this private lease agreement stated in details, one of each attached to the official lease agreement that is for keeping of the lessor, lessee and the land registration office. They are officially stamped as being referred thereto and officially stated as forming an integral part of the official lease. The officials do not need to be concerned with how the lease is written since their legal job is like a post box receiving the registration of leases of over three years period. (Leases of over three years are not valid if they are not registered with land department). Any disputes on the lease do not involve the land department except for the land department to confirm the copies as filed with them previously.

Please can someone tell me what their notation actually says.The notation would be the existence of the burden of the lease related to the relevant title deed.

I hope I have been of help.

[mickba]

mickba,

My comments are in bold type:

Am I allowed ...................................................I hope I have been of help.

Irene

Thank you for taking so much time to reply. Yes, it was very helpful. You have given me some reassurance and also some things to check

You actually sound quite confident about your leases, so I wonder why you have turned to Usufructs. Have you added Usufructs to the Chanotes in addition to your Leases or is that for future 'acquisitions'?

Thanks

Mick

[Irene]

Irene

Thank you for taking so much time to reply. Yes, it was very helpful. You have given me some reassurance and also some things to check

You actually sound quite confident about your leases, so I wonder why you have turned to Usufructs. Have you added Usufructs to the Chanotes in addition to your Leases or is that for future 'acquisitions'?

Thanks

Mick

Mick,

No, you cannot add usufructs to the Chanotes in addition to leasing terms. You have to chose the route of either usufruct or leasing. However in the usufruct, you have more room to agree with your grantor whatever you and she are in agreement with.

Personally, I have no interest on this issue of "ownership" via wife's "ownership" route. I have only an emotional interest in disliking Thai wife and her family taking advantages of caucasians because of imperfection of Thai laws. I felt sad to see some expats turn into paupers. I also felt sad reading all those misguided information on this forum which has been written by those self-appointed lawyers who use their instincts and a long yarn of their talks as a basis of advices. They seem to be addicted to their beliefs and thought to the extent of calling others names of all sorts if the advices are at variance with theirs. They also accused those good advices as given for self-interest either accusing them as an estate agent or even calling them stupid. This sector of opinion has precluded many good intentioned people with legal knowledge in contributing.

I got involved in 30-year lease because I have no choice since the prime property in that prime area, Rajdamri and Rajprasong, was offered by the owners as leasing only. I have no fear of my right of possession for 30 years and know that the renewal clauses are no guarantee and are at the mercy of the landowners. I know that Thai laws do not favour landowners but favour tenants. Furthermore, I am doubly comfortable because of the reputation of these landowners.

As to usufruct, I got involved about 30 years ago when I arranged for my friends from Singapore and Scotland to "buy" condominium units, (at that time, non-Thais cannot buy condos). I forgot all about this route until having a chance to read one opinion in this forum. Then, out of curiosity, I asked my assistants to find out whether the land officials would take this route kindly even though it is a perfect route for those with Thai wives. To my surprise, the officials were friendly and even gave a standard form of usufruct for us to fill in all the conditions you like.

If I have to start the issue from day one, I would not marry a Thai until I have this usufruct arranged and concluded together with a signed mortgage loan given by me. (This should also be pre-planned for leasing route). Thereafter, I would marry her. The idea is to show that the legal arrangement made at the time when she is single is not challengeable and made at her free will. Between the two choices, I certainly pick the usufruct route because it involves the officials in recognising a real legal standing of the terms and conditions as stated in the agreement and registered with the Land Department per the requirement of the laws for public viewing. Once it is accepted and registered, the terms and conditions as stated therein would be difficult to challenge.

In the case of leasing, the role of the Land Department is similar to the role a Notary Public in UK, much like a postbox, showing the details as having registered on such date. It has no interest on the agreement between the two parties. Hence, I believe the usufruct is a gem for those expats.

[BL4u]

I also felt sad reading all those misguided information on this forum which has been written by those self-appointed lawyers who use their instincts and a long yarn of their talks as a basis of advices. They seem to be addicted to their beliefs and thought to the extent of calling others names of all sorts if the advices are at variance with theirs. They also accused those good advices as given for self-interest either accusing them as an estate agent or even calling them stupid.

This is you Irene! The obvious misinformation you as a self appointed Thai legal expert give in this thread only:

'You can put in a usufruct the conditions that it is not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later'

This is beyond usufruct and is the same argument why 30+30 leases is guaranteed.

'In term of the benefits in inhabitation on a property, the grantee can sell that right of inhabitation for whatever number of years he wishes without being subject to leasing conditions'

What you can transfer will always be limited by the term of the usufruct and a cannot exceed 30 years, unless it is for life then it is for life (this could be short). You cannot extend the usufruct beyond the 30 year term or your life. What you are probably trying to say is that you can rent out the property under usufruct to a third party. In this case the lease can continue after your death. However, any lease of the property under usufruct for more than 3 to max 30 years must be registered to be enforceable and this is not a right you have as the usufructuary. You have to make a separate deal with the land owner and this is something you can't rely on.

Your remarks about Singaporean law or Scottisch law compared with Thai law: what is possible under Singaporean law or Scottish law does not mean it is possible under Thai law.

Do not be so self-confident about your knowledge, its made up by you, from other law systems, what you read on this forum or what you heard in your bar.

[Irene]

I also felt sad reading all those misguided information on this forum which has been written by those self-appointed lawyers who use their instincts and a long yarn of their talks as a basis of advices. They seem to be addicted to their beliefs and thought to the extent of calling others names of all sorts if the advices are at variance with theirs. They also accused those good advices as given for self-interest either accusing them as an estate agent or even calling them stupid.

This is you Irene! The obvious misinformation you as a self appointed Thai legal expert give in this thread only:

'You can put in a usufruct the conditions that it is not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later'

This is beyond usufruct and is the same argument why 30+30 leases is guaranteed.

'In term of the benefits in inhabitation on a property, the grantee can sell that right of inhabitation for whatever number of years he wishes without being subject to leasing conditions'

What you can transfer will always be limited by the term of the usufruct and a cannot exceed 30 years, unless it is for life then it is for life (this could be short). You cannot extend the usufruct beyond the 30 year term or your life. What you are probably trying to say is that you can rent out the property under usufruct to a third party. In this case the lease can continue after your death. However, any lease of the property under usufruct for more than 3 to max 30 years must be registered to be enforceable and this is not a right you have as the usufructuary. You have to make a separate deal with the land owner and this is something you can't rely on.

Your remarks about Singaporean law or Scottisch law compared with Thai law: what is possible under Singaporean law or Scottish law does not mean it is possible under Thai law.

Do not be so self-confident about your knowledge, its made up by you, from other law systems, what you read on this forum or what you heard in your bar.

BL4u,

Wow! This is getting to be personal. I do not go to any bar and have normal home life in Thailand. I did not quote or refer to Singapore law or Scottish law but refer to my Singapore friend and Scottish friend to whom I helped them a few decades ago to acquire condos when the laws disallowed foreigners to buy condos.

I leave your opinion and my opinion for others to judge and would not stoop down to have a slanging match with you.

[WilliamJarvis]

I disagree with Irene and IsaanLawyers on one important aspect.

Usufruct is a land right, not a property right. Hence the possible need to enter into some form of lease agreement for the property itself. Moreover, and correct me if I am wrong, it used to be the case that you could not make any alterations to the land that was the subject of a usufruct without the owner of the land's consent. Alternatively, you need to return the land to the state it was in prior to your possession. Which is, essentially, what usufruct is - a possessionary right.

As such, it has always been my view that someone with deep enough pockets could challenge a number of the usufruct schemes that have been put in place. Because one can register something at the Land Department does not necessarily make it enforceable in a court of law.

In short, there are many ways to register a "right" over land in Thailand. But with each of them comes a degree of uncertainty. So, yes, do it. But don't make it a 'bet the bank' deal.

[LivinLOS]

Interesting point.. Imagine..

I am a usufruct holder.. I want to give a 30 year land lease.. Can I go, without the land owners assistance or permission, and register a lease on my own to a 3rd party ?? Even if the Thai expressly does not want it to happen ??

I have a gut feeling that says even though I have the right of use, I would have a hard time in the land office telling Somchai the land office worker to process my lease and record it onto the land title thats not in my name, doubly so when the land owner is telling him not to ?? This can be legally forced ??