Buying A House Through A Company Or 30 Year Lease?

[pattayamichael]

I will be completing on the purchase of a house in December '08 and would really appreciate some advice.

I am fifty years of age (retired and moved to Pattaya two years ago), my wife is Thai and we have been happily married (legally) for five years. We are buying the house we have been renting for the past two years as the location and price are both excellent and I am therefore very comfortable with this decision.

However, despite receiving legal advice and having the different purchase options explained to me - I won't go into great detail as this is quite involved and hopefully anyone responding to this subject will be familier with the relevant proceedures of the following two options;

• Setting up a company and buying the land and house through the company.
  
• Buying the land in my wifes name and registering a thirty year lease in my name.
  

At the risk of sounding very mercenary, I need advice on the following somewhat sensitive subjects - those of you who have been divorced and lost everything will I am sure understand!!!

1. Which purchase option would give me the best security and maximum control of my investment?
   
2. Which option would be considered most attractive to future buyers should we decide to sell at some time in the future, a house with a lease or a company owned house?
   
3. Should the lease option be considered the best way forward then clearly a lease agreement/ contract has to be issued. Any suggestions, recommendations, warnings or general 'Pearls of Wisdom' as to the content of the agreement/contract would be very much appreciated.
   

This is the first time I have ever used this type of service and thank you in anticipation of your help.

[dsfbrit]

pattayamichael, my life is pretty much the same as yours I reckon. I have a Thai wife - married 6 years. I am 54.

I bought a house through the company route 5 years ago for the reasons you stated above. It provides me with the best option if you want to be in control of selling the house.

This is however 'illegal'. If you can sleep at night knowing that at any time the government could decide to enforce the 'grey areas' of the Foreign Business Act - then this is the option for you.

There is a third option, Usufruct. I am looking into this as an option to remove the company from my 'life'.

However, as I don't lose any sleep over the 'illegality' of the company, I may keep the company anyway. Its just that at the moment to make the transfer to a Usufruct, the taxes have been reduced by the government for 1 year. So if I want to make a Usufruct - this is the time to do it.

I am still undecided!

Mind you, with the lease option will you sleep any easier knowing that in 30 years time, when you are 81 years old, you could be kicked out of 'your' home and have nowhere to live.

My advice to you is keep on renting - I know I wish someone had said that to me 5 years ago when I bought this place. I mean - who needs the hassle? You can rent the place and if you don't like the neighbours or you want a change of scenery, you cancel the rental and move elsewhere. Easy

I wish I could make my decision again- thats what I would do - invest the money in the bank and use the interest from the money to pay the rent.

good luck

Edited November 9, 2008 by dsfbrit

[dsfbrit]

Pattayamichael, Just look at the sort of hassle you can get when you buy a house out here. Really, why bother buying the place you are renting. I just wanted a 'quiet' life and this is the sort of thing that can come along !:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Housing-Esta...et-t221441.html

Edited November 9, 2008 by dsfbrit

[tornado40]

dsfbrit - You mention that you would rather leave the money in the bank that you bought the house with - and use the interest to pay the rent

I also purchased a house in Samui for 1.75m baht 5 years ago and although I do not live in it at the moment (only holidays), with interest rates at now 3% that would only give me about 52k baht per year. As the rents are around 20k baht per mth I cannot see how this could work

Maybe more true if you buy at today's prices (next door recently sold for 3.8m baht) at 3% would give 114k baht still only about 9.5k baht per mth though

As I have not invested more than I can walk away from - the company route does ok for now - however, when I retire to the place and if lucky enough to meet a long term girlfriend/wife - would consider a transfer to her name and lease back for 30 years

I'm 50 so could be kicked out at 80 - well, just need to save some money for rent for the last few years

[Khun Jean]

A lease or usufruct with your spouse is weak. A company for owning land and house using nominees is illegal.

In my opinion a usufruct with your wife including someone that is not related to your wife. Like a child from a previous marriage or maybe your brother/sister/friend. As from that moment the contract includes someone that is not directly related to your wife, this will strengthen the contract considerable. Include a clause that will enable you to sublease and you will always have a right to sell this lease.

In this way you can just sell the land and house when the relationships is still good, and if the relationships has gone bad you still have the right to sell a lease. It would be up2you, and that is good.

Above is good when you not intent to leave something behind for children (ones not with your Thai wife).

In the end it will all go to a Thai, if that is not a problem go ahead.

Otherwise it would be a calculation if it is better to keep the money in the bank and just rent.

Rent is so cheap in Thailand that in many times it outweighs the problems and uncertainties when you want to own.

Or alternatively if you really want to own without ownership problems buy a condo. (In that case you would need to examine the building very good as maintenance is not always up to standards).

Edited November 9, 2008 by Khun Jean

[pattayamichael]

Many thanks for all your replies.

As you will have gathered from my original post this is the first time I have used this service.

I have just spent a considerable amount of time composing a very detailed response to dsfbrit and this reply was sent long before the last two posts were received.

I cannot understand why my reply has failed to arrive and I am absolutely furious as there is no record of this in my PC. Any ideas where I can find a copy of this post?

Many thanks

[prefabs]

renting v purchase is a no brainer if only financial considerations matter. However, there is sometimes more to it than money.

Purchasing

You can buy in a nice village, then get dfbrit's problems with the village committee. You are stuck.

You can have really nice neighbours who leave and sell their house to people you would rather not live near. Again, you are stuck

You may HAVE to change your mind about Thailand. Things change, pesonal, family, health etc. Stuck again

Renting

Bit more expensive overall, but you can move any time.

You are relatively unexposed to political and other changes which may or not make Thailand your perfect retirement home. Again, you can move any time

[patklang]

As you have ben married a long time my suggestion would be to get a long term partner agreement sorted.stating if you divorce the house is split 50/50.This is what i have done with my house,as i have been living with my gf for 4 years i feel that if we split she desreves half,but nothing else.easy to do and including a will for each then you are secure.

[jitagon]

If you buy a house through a company, you will have it for life (will be able to Will it to your chosen beneficiaries, Thai or farang), and will only have to pay a fraction per year to your Thai accountant, of what you would have to fork out for 'property taxes' etc, in your home country. You can sell it 'freehold' with the company, whensoever you please. No worrying about whether your Thai spouse will sell it over your head, have you bumped off. Not a care as to whether your Landlord (for that is what you will have for the 30 year duration of your LEASE), dies, has not made provision in his/her will to his heirs regarding his duties and encumbrances under any such lease, or, reneges on it (the latter being the least worrisome, but.)

With a 30 year lease, that's exactly what you will have. A Lease Agreement for 30 years. No more, no matter what anyone tells you.

Go for the company. This is not Zimbabwe and the Thai government will never sequestrate. Word.

Edited November 9, 2008 by jitagon

[pattayamichael]

Many thanks for all your input.

I have given up trying to locate a copy of my very long response to dsfbrit (sorry!) - must be lurking somewhere in the bowels of the 'Thai Visa Forum'. Very annoying but in view of the additional posts, many points have since been covered.

From the above comments and the additional views expressed elsewhere, it would certainly appear that renting is the preferred option for the majority of retired expats and I am starting to realise why!!!

With regard to my own circumstances I have already signed contracts, paid a deposit and agreed to complete the purchase and pay the balance in December '08. Fortunately I am very comfortable with this situation as the house is in an excellent location and very reasonably priced.

In view of the negative comments regarding buying the land/house through a company (legality issues) I am finding myself leaning towards the leasing option. Having said this and to confuse me even further, even my own solicitor (Thai) informs me that nearly all of his farang clients have purchased their homes through a company, as supposedly this gives them total control and security??

In my opinion this complete house/land purchase situation is one massive can of worms with both advantages and disadvantages covering all available options. As far as I am concerned there isn't one purchase method which leaves me feeling totally comfortable.

I will be researching all options over the next couple of weeks but at the end of the day I feel sure my decision will be nothing more than an educated guess based on my own personal circumstances!

There are basically only two things I would really appreciate some help and advise on, namely;

1. Has anyone put together a really good contract covering farang interests to accompany a thirty year lease agreement and if so would you be willing to send me a copy - naturally with the names of the relevant parties removed!
   
2. Does anyone know if any of the various methods of purchasing land/houses would make it difficult to resale the property in the future?
   

Hope someone can help. Thanks

[dsfbrit]

dsfbrit - You mention that you would rather leave the money in the bank that you bought the house with - and use the interest to pay the rent

I also purchased a house in Samui for 1.75m baht 5 years ago and although I do not live in it at the moment (only holidays), with interest rates at now 3% that would only give me about 52k baht per year. As the rents are around 20k baht per mth I cannot see how this could work

Maybe more true if you buy at today's prices (next door recently sold for 3.8m baht) at 3% would give 114k baht still only about 9.5k baht per mth though

As I have not invested more than I can walk away from - the company route does ok for now - however, when I retire to the place and if lucky enough to meet a long term girlfriend/wife - would consider a transfer to her name and lease back for 30 years

I'm 50 so could be kicked out at 80 - well, just need to save some money for rent for the last few years

Tornado, agreed. With your scenario I would not rent. If I had bought a place in Samui that appears to have a very healthy rental market and good return, I would do the same as you. I am not an expert on this, but I know that my place in Pattaya, which we paid about 5 million Baht for altogether, would only get about 35,000 Baht per month rental IF (a big IF) someone should actually want to rent it.

In your case if you wanted to move to another area for a while, for a change of scene and for something different, you could rent out and go. Not so in my case.

I would say though that 3 percent sounds a bit low on the interest, I currently get an average of over 6 percent. Still I suspect you have your money in a bank that won't go bust

pattaymichael, as you have to decide to buy it using one of the options, I suggest you take a coin and toss it. None of the options here are what you will want (if you think like me that is - and I think you do), they all have a major downside somewhere. The company route is the best if you want a situation where you could change your mind in a few years if the land laws change in our favour. There is a lot of talk about longer leases. If it were for 90 years, then that would make a big difference in my opinion.

By the way, although I am 'rusty' on all this, I believe most farang who do the lease option often put the house in their name (can own the house) and lease the land. There is differing opinions on the usefulness of this as the house is not a lot of use without the land it sits on!

As for losing the reply, that often happens, I always 'copy' the reply before I hit the add reply button.

good luck with what you decide

Edited November 10, 2008 by dsfbrit

[Gary A]

I'd certainly avoid the company route. Besides being illegal, you will have to pay an accountant and file tax returns on a company that does no business. If the government ever decides to enforce the law, it will cost as much to dissolve the company as it did to form it. The lease route from your wife may not be fool proof but it is likely the best way to go. After the thirty years, the house will at least belong to your wife.

[pattayamichael]

Thank you all very much for your replies and views on what is clearly a totally unclear situation to say the least!

Being a first time user of this forum service I now understand why it is so popular as it is a refreshing change to receive genuine unbiased comments and advice i.e. from persons with nothing to gain financially or otherwise.

Some additional information which may be of interest regarding the use of 'Usufruct' method to purchase land which was mentioned in earlier postings. According to my research this method is often described as a 'lifetime' lease. However, unlike a regular lease it cannot be willed or transferred to another party and the benefit dies with you - obviously this is not a problem if you intend to keep the land until you die and are happy to leave everything to your Thai partner when you die.

Should you plan/hope/expect to live longer than thirty years and are happy with the above conditions then this may be more suitable and less expensive than a regular thirty year lease agreement. There may be additional restrictions such as maximum land size but no doubt an experienced lawyer could clarify everything for you. I understand the Thai legal term for 'Usufruct' is "Sit thi gap gin ta lord shee vit" which may help when trying to discuss this with your Thai lawyer!

Not wishing to be 'Mr. Negative' but with my experiences with Thai bureaucracy I would imagine this 'Lifetime' (Usufruct) lease application will be met with blank expressions at the 'Land Registry Office' and you will be issued with a standard thirty year lease regardless! Perhaps I am being unfair and it would be interesting to hear of any success stories using this method.

With regard to my circumstances and imminent purchase I am still undecided as to the best method - you guys are certainly giving me plenty to think about (thanks, that wasn't a criticism!). Unless things suddenly become much clearer I can see myself agreeing with dsfbrit and tossing a coin!

With regard to buying through a company, is it correct that it is advantageous for the company to just own the land, thereby keeping the share capital to a minimum? This would be directed mainly at the prospect of any future tax implications.

I have to confess that company ownership is not my area of expertise and I may have misunderstood the information verbally supplied by a reliable (I hope!!) source. Hopefully someone can clarify the situation for me.

One final question/observation/thought...........Ignoring the possible legal issues surrounding the purchase of land using a company and assuming the laws remain unchanged regarding lease terms i.e. thirty years maximum, what do you think is the best method of home/land ownership to attract buyers should I want or need to sell at some time in the future? I would hate to buy the wrong way now, only to find that this method will seriously deter any future buyers. I appreciate this could be considered a bit of a 'crystal ball' type question but I would still be interested in the general views of anyone interested in this topic.

Thanks again for all your help.

[dsfbrit]

I'd certainly avoid the company route. Besides being illegal, you will have to pay an accountant and file tax returns on a company that does no business. If the government ever decides to enforce the law, it will cost as much to dissolve the company as it did to form it. The lease route from your wife may not be fool proof but it is likely the best way to go. After the thirty years, the house will at least belong to your wife.

or her and her new husband Just kidding GaryA. I don't like any of the options. I think you have said before its best to buy a condo in your own name or rent? I agree. Pattayamichael has committed to buying this house so he has to choose from, in my opinion, options that are equally bad.

The company route, as dodgy as it is, is still is not that bad compared to the alternatives. I think all options are unacceptable and should be avoided.

I am keeping the company for the time being. I have had Sunbelt do some initial work for me to change to a Usufruct. As I got involved in the 'nitty gritty' of all this, I have turned much 'colder' on the idea.

[dsfbrit]

PattayaMichael, in answer to your latest post. The Usufruct is definitely recognised at Pattaya Land Registry. I was in the process of setting up a Usufruct through Sunbelt lawyers (sponsors of this forum). I just contacted them as I did not want to use my lawyers here in Pattaya as they knew nothing about Usufructs.

If you email Sunbelt from their advert they will give you the latest info on this. Free of charge I expect, if you just ask for the advice.

Mine was slightly more complicated as it involved shutting down the company after transferring the land etc...

For me, the total cost (as there are no/massively reduced transfer taxes for a year) is 70000 Baht. That included closing down the company etc... the Usufruct set up itself was much much less, about 20,000 Baht maybe. It may have been less, I can look up the emails if Sunbelt wont help you. It wasn't very much anyway.

Sunbelt have offices in Pattaya, but they dont deal with Usufructs etc... in Pattaya, you need to contact the Bangkok Office.

I have since gone 'cold' on the Usufruct. I dont like it!

As for the company route, I am not an expert on this, but when I looked at removing the land only from the company some time ago, I was told I could not do that. I was also told that if you want the land in the company then you have to have the house as well. This could be wrong though - I tend to forget this sort of thing over time!

Having been around Thailand for a few years now and read quite a few posts on the subject of selling a house and land in Pattaya, I still have no real idea the best way/setup to sell a house!!! I think a house with a lease of 90 years (not 30+30+30 - thats just another scheme waiting to unravel) would be a good option if it ever comes along. Until then the house in the company name is the best of a bad lot if you want the flexibility to do what YOU want in the future. However, as you already know, this is 'illegal'

Good luck

Edited November 10, 2008 by dsfbrit

[pattayamichael]

dsfbrit Many thanks for the information.

Just decided I definitely need a break from the joys of 'land buying in Thailand' - off out for some good food and a few beers.

Perhaps a change of conversation will cheer me up - I suppose I can always discuss financial investments and exchange rates over dinner.................now where did I see that tall building to jump off!!!!!

Ain't it great to be so relaxed and living in the 'Land of Smiles'!

Keep smiling.

[monkfish]

What ever you do Do not buy in a company name.

You can own the house in your name 100% and lease the land.

As the house is on the land who ever owns the building has the right to lease the land even after the 30 years.

i.e. you could even leave the house to a foreign relative in a testament and they could sell the house with leasing rights.

Go see a lawyer and they will advise how.

[dsfbrit]

dsfbrit Many thanks for the information.

Just decided I definitely need a break from the joys of 'land buying in Thailand' - off out for some good food and a few beers.

Perhaps a change of conversation will cheer me up - I suppose I can always discuss financial investments and exchange rates over dinner.................now where did I see that tall building to jump off!!!!!

Ain't it great to be so relaxed and living in the 'Land of Smiles'!

Keep smiling.

Good idea.

I really love living in this house and I love my garden. Even though I say would rent and not buy, I am not sure that is the case. The pleasure I get from 'owning' this place is immense. My frustration is that what I bought into is not 'what was written on the can'. Quite simply, I did not expect any hassle regarding the Foreign Business Act etc.. I was fed false information by people and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

You at least will make your decision based on the truth. So whatever you decide you will feel much more comfortable with it I am sure.

Have a nice beer and enjoy the house when its finally yours. Hey, whatever you decide you will have a great retirement ahead of you and, if you are like me, all this stuff will just be a niggly problem that you think about now and then. Its no big deal at all and you will only think about it when something big happens in the news relating to house/land ownership that suddenly becomes an issue again.

That isn't that often and after a few days of panic and chats on this forum, the government changes its mind again and it just fades away and life goes on as before.

Edited November 10, 2008 by dsfbrit

[pattayamichael]

I have been giving this subject a great deal of thought and I was wondering if there is in fact another option worth considering?

Namely, would it be possible for my wife to buy land by taking out a mortgage?

Assuming the answer to this is yes, then is there any reason why the mortgage provider could not be me?

Unless I am missing something painfully obvious then surely until the mortgage is repaid the land cannot be sold, thereby giving me total control/security.

Clearly the correct documentation and contracts would have to be raised by a solicitor, but I wouldn't have thought this would be too difficult to put together.

Would be interested to know if anyone has ever investigated this option and if so, what was the outcome?

Many thanks.

[Khun Jean]

Your total control ends when her new boyfriend pays the mortgage.

Read my post again, i really think a usufruct with a third party is the right choice for you.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Khun Jean

[dsfbrit]

Your total control ends when her new boyfriend pays the mortgage.

Read my post again, i really think a usufruct with a third party is the right choice for you.

Sad but true.

Usufruct is the best if you dont want a company and want to live in the house all your life not just 30 years. I cannot really see any advantage of the 30 year lease over the Usufruct?

Its what I was going to set up if I did not want the company.

Pattayamichael, get that coin out and toss it!!!

[nikster]

This is only hearsay, and seeing the responses here I think it's probably not possible. But I wonder why.

Can't you set up a contract that gives you both unlimited use rights _and_ the right to sell the property before the lease expires?

Sort of like financing a car - the bank actually owns the car, but it's yours for all other intents and purposes, and you have the right to sell it to someone else. Can't the same be done with property (without the loan)? Then you could keep the thing for 30 years, and if things turn bad before the lease expires, you can sell it. Or make another lease contract for another X years.

[johnnyk]

This is only hearsay, and seeing the responses here I think it's probably not possible. But I wonder why.

Can't you set up a contract that gives you both unlimited use rights _and_ the right to sell the property before the lease expires?

Sort of like financing a car - the bank actually owns the car, but it's yours for all other intents and purposes, and you have the right to sell it to someone else. For less than you paid for it.

Can't the same be done with property (without the loan)? Then you could keep the thing for 30 years, and if things turn bad before the lease expires, you can sell it. Or make another lease contract for another X years.

Yes, the right to sell can be written into the lease, no pompem.

BUT,

1) the lease is for 30 years at a time

2) you have the right to sell a DIMINISHING ASSET, worth a few baht less each passing day

3) even if both lessor and lessee are still around after 30 years the new lease will be more expensive

4) the landlord could sell the land at any time and the new owner is under NO obligation to renew your lease

(and the new owner could be his bro-in-law just to keep the land in the family).

[basjke]

Some time ago when I bought some land I went to a lawyer who specializes in real estate contracts.He told me the safest way is to have a mortgage on the land which can be registered at the land office so the wife can never sell without your authorisation because your name will be added on the back of the title deed.This mortgage can be legally transferred to your heirs which you can see as an additional life insurance.Additional you can take leases of 3 years at the time as these don't need to be registered.By Thai law you can not register both mortgage and lease on the same title deed.When things should turn bad some time in the future you can always fault her on the loan and force to sell the property to pay you back.Make sure the mortgage is higher then the value of the property.

The lawyer told me that if you take the route of registering a 30 year lease,when things turn sour you will have a reason to die.

[pattayamichael]

Some time ago when I bought some land I went to a lawyer who specializes in real estate contracts.He told me the safest way is to have a mortgage on the land which can be registered at the land office so the wife can never sell without your authorisation because your name will be added on the back of the title deed.This mortgage can be legally transferred to your heirs which you can see as an additional life insurance.Additional you can take leases of 3 years at the time as these don't need to be registered.By Thai law you can not register both mortgage and lease on the same title deed.When things should turn bad some time in the future you can always fault her on the loan and force to sell the property to pay you back.Make sure the mortgage is higher then the value of the property.

The lawyer told me that if you take the route of registering a 30 year lease,when things turn sour you will have a reason to die.

Many thanks for the information basjke. You have managed to confirm that my thoughts/suggestions in post no.19 regarding a mortgage are indeed possible and perhaps quite a good idea!

My only concern would be regarding the comments from khun jean and dfsbrit (many thanks for your continued input guys, much appreciated) as follows;

• "Your total control ends when her new boyfriend pays the mortgage". (khun jean)
  
• "Sad but true". (dsfbrit)
  

Is there any way to overcome this risk?

[thaiwanderer]

Regarding the mortgage idea, can that not be voided by operation of section 1469 of the civil & commercial code?(as an agreement made between husband and wife)

In any case, whether married or not how do you register such a mortgage whilst at the same time confirming to the official that you have no interest in the land?

[pattayamichael]

Many thanks to everyone for all their help and advice regarding this topic.

And now the million dollar question;

Due to recent world events in the financial industry and the subsequent affect on exchange rates my potential house/land purchase has just increased by nearly one million baht. Unfortunately, this now makes a really good deal not quite so attractive.

My original plan was (funds permitting) to demolish the existing single story house (still in good order but a little old and definitely not my style/taste) and rebuild a nice two story house. This plan was based primarily on the excellent plot and location.

Probably impossible for you to comment without knowing more about the property and area, but in view of all the negative feedback regarding buying land I am now seriously reviewing the following options;

1. Pull out of the purchase and lose £6,500.00 deposit and continue renting?
   
2. Continue with the purchase and pay £15,000.00 extra due to exchange rate fluctuations. Since the purchase price was agreed and budgeted for, the sterling exchange rate has dropped by 22%!
   
3. Unfortunately no flexibility as the contract clearly states "Balance to be paid in December".
   

Should anyone have access to a crystal ball and can offer some advice regarding exchange rates (Sterling) for December please reply urgently!!!!!!!

Any other views/ideas would also be appreciated.

[basjke]

Some time ago when I bought some land I went to a lawyer who specializes in real estate contracts.He told me the safest way is to have a mortgage on the land which can be registered at the land office so the wife can never sell without your authorisation because your name will be added on the back of the title deed.This mortgage can be legally transferred to your heirs which you can see as an additional life insurance.Additional you can take leases of 3 years at the time as these don't need to be registered.By Thai law you can not register both mortgage and lease on the same title deed.When things should turn bad some time in the future you can always fault her on the loan and force to sell the property to pay you back.Make sure the mortgage is higher then the value of the property.

The lawyer told me that if you take the route of registering a 30 year lease,when things turn sour you will have a reason to die.

Many thanks for the information basjke. You have managed to confirm that my thoughts/suggestions in post no.19 regarding a mortgage are indeed possible and perhaps quite a good idea!

My only concern would be regarding the comments from khun jean and dfsbrit (many thanks for your continued input guys, much appreciated) as follows;

• "Your total control ends when her new boyfriend pays the mortgage". (khun jean)
  
• "Sad but true". (dsfbrit)
  

Is there any way to overcome this risk?

If that happens you should not have a problem because you get back your money.That is the reason why should make the mortgage higher then the value of the land with house.

[basjke]

Regarding the mortgage idea, can that not be voided by operation of section 1469 of the civil & commercial code?(as an agreement made between husband and wife)

In any case, whether married or not how do you register such a mortgage whilst at the same time confirming to the official that you have no interest in the land?

Actually we call it a mortgage here but in fact does the wife just makes a loan with you and gives the title deed in guarantee for the loan.Nowhere is stated that the money is used to buy the land.

[dsfbrit]

should not have a problem because you get back your money.That is the reason why should make the mortgage higher then the value of the land with house.

basjke, I am not an expert in this area of Thai law, so I will bow to your knowledge relating to this method. Pattayamichael may be able to get his money back, but I am not sure that it would be that simple.

I have read all kinds of ideas on TV forum over the past couple of years relating to ways to 'own' land. They all have their pros and cons. I have not seen one that really gives you the 'peace of mind' we are all looking for. I mean of course to own the land/house legally as we could in the UK. It does not exist over here. So any other method is a poor alternative in my opinion.

Edited November 14, 2008 by dsfbrit