How Long Will It Take Before A Building You "give Up On" Gets Squatted?

[mattias33]

Here´s a question for you guys.

Let´s say i borrow money from investors and maybe even Thai banks. Buy prime property on the island, open restaurants in prime location where nothing stays empty for long, and then split the country. Maybe never come back. I´m using coco story as a example to show what i mean, nothing else. I beg everybody to please leave further comments on coco, Alan or Bruce out of this thread as it will get the thread closed quickly. Please.

I´m just curious what will happen with for instans a good location restaurantbuilding, i perfect condition, if owners never come back. Will it stay empty forever or is there something in the thailaw that eventually gives the rights to use it to somebody else? Or will it simply be squatted? Question goes for property aswell. What happens with the unfinished developments that "owners" fled before its halfdone? How long will unfinished projects stand around and wait until somebody else step in and take over?

Where is the Thailaw on this matter? There´s another thread about samuis future, and i didnt want to highjack that one so i opened this, but point being i kind of see a chans where Samui 10 years from now is an island filled with these unfinished projects that nobody can tuch. Prime location, downtown chaweng restaurants, areas where everybody want to rent, nice buildings standing empty because the owners gave up or ran out of finance. Surerly there must be some limits were the Thai´s just say "screw this, take the land back and use it"? Or is there not?

I know (take sloaneys as ex.) if you have a lease or rental contract and split town, the minuite your rent is up the owner just move on. But if i buy a few buildings that everybody wants, and let them be empty, and skip town. How many years would they legaly have to wait around for me? And how long would they do it in real life?

Just curious.

[2008bangkok]

I would think that as this is thailand if you owned the land then it would stay empty..

[SamuiRes]

As I understand it Thailand has the same legal prinicle of "prescriptive rights" as the UK, except here it is 10 years not 12 years.

Essentialy if you occupy land or buildings as a "squatter" and no action is taken against you, then after ten years here you can legally claim title. However, at any time within that period a legal challenge can be mounted by the actual owners if they so wish.

[dwoon]

I believe the bank which provided the finance/ mortagage will take it back & hog it off, to cover back as much of the outstanding loan as possible.

The amount still outstanding after such a procedure will be written off as bad debts after unsuccessful attempts to recover it from the borrower.

Here´s a question for you guys.

Let´s say i borrow money from investors and maybe even Thai banks. Buy prime property on the island, open restaurants in prime location where nothing stays empty for long, and then split the country. Maybe never come back. I´m using coco story as a example to show what i mean, nothing else. I beg everybody to please leave further comments on coco, Alan or Bruce out of this thread as it will get the thread closed quickly. Please.

I´m just curious what will happen with for instans a good location restaurantbuilding, i perfect condition, if owners never come back. Will it stay empty forever or is there something in the thailaw that eventually gives the rights to use it to somebody else? Or will it simply be squatted? Question goes for property aswell. What happens with the unfinished developments that "owners" fled before its halfdone? How long will unfinished projects stand around and wait until somebody else step in and take over?

Where is the Thailaw on this matter? There´s another thread about samuis future, and i didnt want to highjack that one so i opened this, but point being i kind of see a chans where Samui 10 years from now is an island filled with these unfinished projects that nobody can tuch. Prime location, downtown chaweng restaurants, areas where everybody want to rent, nice buildings standing empty because the owners gave up or ran out of finance. Surerly there must be some limits were the Thai´s just say "screw this, take the land back and use it"? Or is there not?

I know (take sloaneys as ex.) if you have a lease or rental contract and split town, the minuite your rent is up the owner just move on. But if i buy a few buildings that everybody wants, and let them be empty, and skip town. How many years would they legaly have to wait around for me? And how long would they do it in real life?

Just curious.

[mattias33]

Lets spice up the question by saying, no bankloans.

A rich guy comes over and buy 10 shops on chaweng beachroad, pay cash and then leave samui to never come back. Sooner or later they´ll have to start using those shops.....

Once again i have to bring up the only example i know, for now, coco. Lets assume the restaurant is paid for. When will that ever be used again? In case those owners don´t come back ever.

And the question on property, infact many of them without bankloans, investers paid for houses that never got built, developers ran out of money, but managed to pay the land before. And maybe build one or two houses. Bank is not involved and the land has a leagal owner allthough he will never come back or develop it further.

Interesting thought on the topic "future of Samui" isn´t it?

[goldfish]

Also take into account that the electric and water are cut off fairly fast, is it possible for a squatter to re-connect? Suspect it cannot be done. By the way, a couple of the coco properties are squatted. I presume without amenities

[SamuiRes]

Lets spice up the question by saying, no bankloans.

A rich guy comes over and buy 10 shops on chaweng beachroad, pay cash and then leave samui to never come back. Sooner or later they´ll have to start using those shops.....

Once again i have to bring up the only example i know, for now, coco. Lets assume the restaurant is paid for. When will that ever be used again? In case those owners don´t come back ever.

And the question on property, infact many of them without bankloans, investers paid for houses that never got built, developers ran out of money, but managed to pay the land before. And maybe build one or two houses. Bank is not involved and the land has a leagal owner allthough he will never come back or develop it further.

Interesting thought on the topic "future of Samui" isn´t it?

So we are talking about a foreigner investing and leaving with no intention of returning.

Firstly forget leasehold as the land owner will eventually regain possession either through default on the lease or lapse of time.

As for a Freehold purchase then a foreigner can only do this through a Thai Company which will have Thai shareholders, possibly nominees, possibly not. The property is an asset of the Company and I would surmise that the Thai shareholders in whatever capacity would be able to apply to the Courts, if necessary, to dispose of the assets and take any capital less debts for themselves. If the debts exceed the asset value, then the Company could be put into receivership and whatever is recovered through the sale of the asset divided out in proportion.

[thaierless]

Lets spice up the question by saying, no bankloans.

A rich guy comes over and buy 10 shops on chaweng beachroad, pay cash and then leave samui to never come back. Sooner or later they´ll have to start using those shops.....

Once again i have to bring up the only example i know, for now, coco. Lets assume the restaurant is paid for. When will that ever be used again? In case those owners don´t come back ever.

And the question on property, infact many of them without bankloans, investers paid for houses that never got built, developers ran out of money, but managed to pay the land before. And maybe build one or two houses. Bank is not involved and the land has a leagal owner allthough he will never come back or develop it further.

Interesting thought on the topic "future of Samui" isn´t it?

As I understand Coco was leasing...landlord kicked them out for missing rent for many months. So, no squatter issue there...just a "no one want to lease there right now...or maybe for the coming economic depression years" issue there

[Mark Wolfe]

An anonymous, ballsy Thai will step in and "rent" it to some knum-knuts foreigner for a bar or restaurant or some such thing...the foreigner will never know who actually "owns" the property and when the house of cards falls, the ballsy Thai will be long gone and that much richer.

What foreigner could gainsay a Thai on whether the Thai actually owned the place he was renting to you?

[koheesti]

When I saw Coco about 3 months ago I first wondered why more Thais (Burmese, whatever) didn't leave their rickety shacks and take up residence in one of the many places there. Even the ones that aren't finished are still better than the places many of them live.