After The Lease Is Over...

[highdiver]

How can you own only the building, if the land is on a lease, and can be sold any minute by the kids of the owner, if he gives it to them? Just curios.

check out section 1410-1416 of the CCC

horribly wrong yet another superficies advocate

1.the question was for lease and as you know it has a limited time. the superficies itself if done according to the law is limited by time or by life.

2. the superficies when combined with a 30 year lease is limited to 30 years.

3. there many contradictions that one needs to take in a account such as CCC 1403-1409

4.as a rule the owner of the land is also the owner of things that are attached to or form body with the land (Section 139)

Highdiver do you have any legal training or certification?...because, if not, the I can chalk your ignorance, off the wall assertions (and inability to document what you assert...or, as here, failure to make your point, once again about Code you site) up to that. Please let us know because that will help me formulate my response in a way that is, I hope, educational for you and actually informative to the rest of the folks reading the thread.

oh horribly wrong again are we??

[sbk]

May I suggest to joecool that he needs to cool down the rhetoric a bit, there is no need to post in an aggressive and inflammatory manner.

[BigC]

"after 30 years of tare and ware even with the best maintenance most houses in the tropics would be so worn out that you will need to knock them down."

They must build then differently in Singapore then as there are lots of old houses here well over 30 years

British brickies must have been better back then

Did you think that the British built the houses themselves only ??

If you build something right the first time, no reason it will not last past 30 years even in the tropics in my humble opinion

yes if the house is built using good materials then it should last more than 90 years. mayb e need a wack of wack of paint on the house but hardly worth knocking tthemm down because can't be bothered to pain it

Edited July 3, 2008 by BigC

[BigC]

i suppose if u know u r near the time of death u could sign the lease over to your kids or if u r old and make new contract. i am sure these are thing to ask a thai laywer though. just make the contract. get u and your kid to sign and have a clause that should one of the party memeber die then the other memeber will caarrry on the lease.

if the free hold agent doesnot want to sign then he loses how ever million baht and you walk away.

[pothai]

Do you know of any houses that last 30 years???

[Gatorade]

Do you know of any houses that last 30 years???

Yes. Have a look around Nathon or Bhoput. There are also some Chinese shop houses which are well over one hundred years old.

If the house is built using correct materials, is lived in and regularly maintained, (not just an uncared for rental property) there is no arguable reason at all why there should be a "life" on the property. However, I have to say that some of the monstrositys

built here like the white flat roofed buildings overlooking Ban Rak and the airport will hopefully fall apart sooner rather than later.

[Nirvana]

Do you know of any houses that last 30 years???

Yes. Have a look around Nathon or Bhoput. There are also some Chinese shop houses which are well over one hundred years old.

If the house is built using correct materials, is lived in and regularly maintained, (not just an uncared for rental property) there is no arguable reason at all why there should be a "life" on the property. However, I have to say that some of the monstrositys

built here like the white flat roofed buildings overlooking Ban Rak and the airport will hopefully fall apart sooner rather than later.

Whole heartedly agree Gatorade

[highdiver]

Do you know of any houses that last 30 years???

Yes. Have a look around Nathon or Bhoput. There are also some Chinese shop houses which are well over one hundred years old.

If the house is built using correct materials, is lived in and regularly maintained, (not just an uncared for rental property) there is no arguable reason at all why there should be a "life" on the property. However, I have to say that some of the monstrositys

built here like the white flat roofed buildings overlooking Ban Rak and the airport will hopefully fall apart sooner rather than later.

well said!!

i agree with 100%. locals have been building here for years using the right materials.

We can learn from those really old houses of how to use the materials that are easily maintenance and survive time.

it is such a shame to see all those modern concrete monsters that use the wrong materials for this climate.

[joecoolonsamui]

oh horribly wrong again are we??

you do or don't?...what is "we"?...most importantly, WHY wont you back up what you say with law (including S Ct) cases?? I WILL.

Please note that folks, I invite Highdiver to an open forum debate....now, over the coming weeks. However, if the other side calls any assertion into question, that side must cite the source for the basis for the assertion ...source must be verifable...by "anyone"

lets go...I too am getting "bored" like highdiver!

[highdiver]

you do or don't?...what is "we"?...most importantly, WHY wont you back up what you say with law (including S Ct) cases?? I WILL.

Please note that folks, I invite Highdiver to an open forum debate....now, over the coming weeks. However, if the other side calls any assertion into question, that side must cite the source for the basis for the assertion ...source must be verifable...by "anyone"

lets go...I too am getting "bored" like highdiver!

Let the games begin what subject would you like to debate? please go ahead

[loiner100]

I just found out what superficies means:

'outward or visible aspect of a person or thing' or 'External appearance or aspect.

mystifying!

[joecoolonsamui]

Let the games begin what subject would you like to debate? please go ahead

sounds good HD...please, start review my posts here in and start responding to them with citations to public authority (i.e. law, court cases, etc) to support your assetions above. Sorry HD I am not going away...even if it takes me a few days or more to respond as I work. You are dangerous and I will happily spend time re-educating other you have mislead and, if you will let your ego go, teaching you how the law, even in Thailand works. So, your turn HD.

[highdiver]

sounds good HD...please, start review my posts here in and start responding to them with citations to public authority (i.e. law, court cases, etc) to support your assetions above. Sorry HD I am not going away...even if it takes me a few days or more to respond as I work. You are dangerous and I will happily spend time re-educating other you have mislead and, if you will let your ego go, teaching you how the law, even in Thailand works. So, your turn HD.

lets do start.

its so nice of you to come back after 4 days....

there were 2 issues discussed here so lets do address them.

1.you explaining your position backed by citations to public authority to Superficies is "ownership" of a building allowing the owner full ownership.

2. lets also for the record have your position as to regarding 30 year lease and the ability to renew it.

As for your statement that i am dangerous and missleading....i understand you eagerness to present your self and promote your high intellect.

I will repeat again for the record:

By no means do I consider myself intellectually superior to you. Just

because I am trying to teach you something that is usually innate and comes

easy to those who are clever and intelligent, or at least quick-witted, does

not mean that I presume to think myself your superior, and expect that you

genuflect before me.

awaiting eagerly for your legal wisdom

[joecoolonsamui]

1) Thailand Civil and Commercial Code section 1410 - 1416;

2) Thailand Civil and Commercial Code section 538.

and, your point?? Again, please explain your reasoning for me and anyone reading.

p.s. I WORK and I do not spend my daily time on internet forums...may take me a days or more to respond but I will. so, lets go HD, as Spock would say..."please explain"... generally when given an illogical response.

[Khun Jean]

A background of this 'work ' would also be valuable to be able to give credence to the statements.

Laywer? Real estate agent? Both? Neither?

[highdiver]

1) Thailand Civil and Commercial Code section 1410 - 1416;

2) Thailand Civil and Commercial Code section 538.

and, your point?? Again, please explain your reasoning for me and anyone reading.

p.s. I WORK and I do not spend my daily time on internet forums...may take me a days or more to respond but I will. so, lets go HD, as Spock would say..."please explain"... generally when given an illogical response.

thank you for sharing this "legal position" by posting the items in the law.

As requested please do explain to me and others on this post your point as until this moment apart from siting items and telling me how dangerous and horribly wrong I am... we did not have the pleasure of understanding your point.

what exactly are you siting these items for and what point are you making.

can 30 year lease be extended or not? can 30 year lease with renewal clause be extended or not?

is a lease signed and paid for a valid contract or not? can this contract be enforced in court or not?

can 3 separate dated lease contract each for 30 years be submitted to the land office and registered on the Chanot? are they De facto 3 seperate 30+30 +30 years of lease or not ?

if a the land owner dies and the land is transfered to his heirs, or the land is transfered by land owner to a new land owner (transfaree) the new landowner is obligated to to the lease or not?

if there is a clause in the lease contract that during the term of the lease/leases the owner can not sell or transfer the land is it valid or not?

I claim the all the above is yes.

please do prove me why its wrong.

is superficies an "ownership" or not?

I claim it is not!! as it is limited in time to the superficies term. and the term ownership in this case relates to possession for a term of time.

please do post your position why its wrong.

p.s. I also WORK..

As for logical... i fail to see it...

Edited July 9, 2008 by highdiver

[Mark Wolfe]

Reason for edit: no need to quote the entire text-sbk

Thank god for that. I wish everyone would follow this.

I feel a bit like the guy who asked for the time and was told how to build a watch...

So the people who "buy" land here and build a house -- a grand house, ala Beckam -- will have it taken back at some point in time, either by the lessor or his heirs. However, if I get it, the land owner has to pay for the "improvements" to his land when the lease expires? How could this possibly be carried out in the cases -- and you know there will be some -- of million dollar (that's US dollar) estates? So the fairly well off former coconut farmer who leased the land is expected to pay hundreds of thousands of US dollars at the end of the lease for the gold-plated fixtures and Italian marble floors (etc)?

I would like to hear from some (even one) person who has invested mucho dinero in a palatial estate here knowing that their heirs will get NOTHING and it will all go back to the original lessor.

Most people like to leave a legacy, particularly when it comes to a fine house in a beautiful location overlooking the sea.

[joecoolonsamui]

thank you for sharing this "legal position" by posting the items in the law.

As requested please do explain to me and others on this post your point as until this moment apart from siting items and telling me how dangerous and horribly wrong I am... we did not have the pleasure of understanding your point.

what exactly are you siting these items for and what point are you making.

can 30 year lease be extended or not? can 30 year lease with renewal clause be extended or not?

is a lease signed and paid for a valid contract or not? can this contract be enforced in court or not?

can 3 separate dated lease contract each for 30 years be submitted to the land office and registered on the Chanot? are they De facto 3 seperate 30+30 +30 years of lease or not ?

if a the land owner dies and the land is transfered to his heirs, or the land is transfered by land owner to a new land owner (transfaree) the new landowner is obligated to to the lease or not?

if there is a clause in the lease contract that during the term of the lease/leases the owner can not sell or transfer the land is it valid or not?

I claim the all the above is yes.

please do prove me why its wrong.

is superficies an "ownership" or not?

I claim it is not!! as it is limited in time to the superficies term. and the term ownership in this case relates to possession for a term of time.

please do post your position why its wrong.

Hem...well how about we start with you can sell it for one AND thereby take advantage of MASSIVE tax advantages on resale and most like very significant tax advantages during the house ownership...that is just for one...I will get to the rest of your gibberish above (all of it, I promise) soon.

p.s. you "fail to see" quite a bit Spock...you should refrain from advising others on matters that involve their assests here, if you, as seem to claim actually care about others.

[highdiver]

thank you for sharing this "legal position" by posting the items in the law.

As requested please do explain to me and others on this post your point as until this moment apart from siting items and telling me how dangerous and horribly wrong I am... we did not have the pleasure of understanding your point.

what exactly are you siting these items for and what point are you making.

can 30 year lease be extended or not? can 30 year lease with renewal clause be extended or not?

is a lease signed and paid for a valid contract or not? can this contract be enforced in court or not?

can 3 separate dated lease contract each for 30 years be submitted to the land office and registered on the Chanot? are they De facto 3 seperate 30+30 +30 years of lease or not ?

if a the land owner dies and the land is transfered to his heirs, or the land is transfered by land owner to a new land owner (transfaree) the new landowner is obligated to to the lease or not?

if there is a clause in the lease contract that during the term of the lease/leases the owner can not sell or transfer the land is it valid or not?

I claim the all the above is yes.

please do prove me why its wrong.

is superficies an "ownership" or not?

I claim it is not!! as it is limited in time to the superficies term. and the term ownership in this case relates to possession for a term of time.

please do post your position why its wrong.

Hem...well how about we start with you can sell it for one AND thereby take advantage of MASSIVE tax advantages on resale and most like very significant tax advantages during the house ownership...that is just for one...I will get to the rest of your gibberish above (all of it, I promise) soon.

p.s. you "fail to see" quite a bit Spock...you should refrain from advising others on matters that involve their assests here, if you, as seem to claim actually care about others.

1. you did not reply to my post with a well defined legal opinion with citations to public authority (i.e. law, court cases, etc) to support your assertions above.

you have asked me debate the issues above and i Agreed.

you have asked me to to state my positions and i did very clearly.

in fact until this moment and for the past week you have not replied to anything apart from "trying" to insult me.

2. are you a tax expert as well

3. as for advising others . I have posted over the past 3 years many posts that encourage readers that the debates in this forum are no substitute for a consultation with a lawyer. a proper lawyer!!! i mhave also poste many links to the law so readers may read the law and understand it.

in my post above there is no advise or recommendation apart from stating my position on the subjects discussed.

until this moment I have not really seen any advise or legal opinion from you. apart from siting SCT cases and items in the law with a great flare weather relevant or not you have not formulated any legal opinion on any of the subjects above... unless "horribly wrong" is considered a legal opinion.

4. please try and tone done your rhetorics if you wish to continue this debate. while I do like a good debate, exchange ideas and opinions and even argue.. I find your remarks patronizing, arrogant. and dismissive. if you wish to debate then please do so in the manor that will benefit the debate by addressing the issues.

[Nirvana]

p.s. you "fail to see" quite a bit Spock...you should refrain from advising others on matters that involve their assests here, if you, as seem to claim actually care about others.

1. you did not reply to my post with a well defined legal opinion with citations to public authority (i.e. law, court cases, etc) to support your assertions above.

you have asked me debate the issues above and i Agreed.

you have asked me to to state my positions and i did very clearly.

in fact until this moment and for the past week you have not replied to anything apart from "trying" to insult me.

Joecoolinsamui.

Interested to see your detailed reply as per point 1. Some of us are interested in this debate without the additional unncessary baiting.

Pls do inform us.

[stevehaigh]

i wonder if the OP has learned anything from this beside TV posters can be real a-holes.

i believe the first 30 years of the lease is safe even in the event that the land ownership changes hands because the lease should specify that, and the lease is registered on the title.

beyond 30 years is questionable because thai law limits leases to 30 years so anything that implies a longer lease such as a civil contract will be in violation of thai law. also, its easy for the land owner to transfer to another party who probably will not accept the conditions of someone else's agreement.

i'm sure there will be plenty of people ready to "aggressively" correct me if i'm wrong.

Edited July 10, 2008 by stevehaigh

[Khun Jean]

Stevehaigh, i will aggressively SUPPORT your post.

[Mark Wolfe]

i wonder if the OP has learned anything from this beside TV posters can be real a-holes.

I don't mind an online donnybrook, even if I haven't a clue what is being debated.

My gist was regarding (the truth or falsehood of) returning property after the lease is over. So if I spend 500,000 US dollars on a house and whatnot on land I leased, after the lease is up the owner has to "buy" the fixtures back from me? Even if it is worth half the original amount, are you saying that the Thai dude will have to pony up a quarter of a million bucks to retake his own property and MY house? Given the economies of scale, I doubt that many Thai lessors could afford to pay that sort of money, or even something a fraction of that.

And here is a relevant question: when were the first leases made here on Samui, approximately? Are there situations currently that will come up (the lease will expire) soon? Or in the next decade?