Buying A House Through Thai Company -scoff Law?

[mommysboy]

I guess this post is long overdue. I’ve kind of resigned myself to losing the house I bought in Thailand, but would appreciate some well meaning advice and strategies from anyone who might have been in a similar position, feels they may have some definite working understanding of the Thai law, or just wants to help me get off the hook. It’s a touchy subject for me even after all these years so anybody who just wants to carp, or criticise or act maliciously just stay away ?. I'm particularly interested in plan Bs in preparation of loss.

Around 7 years ago, when I was in a disastrous marriage to a Thai I purchased a house in Bangkok under advice to form a limited company with me as the MD, and five other Thai shareholders. The company was set up by a respected Bangkok lawyer and is watertight. I have paid accounting/auditing fees each year. I have a ‘chanoot ti din’ which shows the company name as owner. Attached to this there is a white form with my signature on it and the company stamp, which is like a deed of sale I think. I’ve had the articles checked over by the second lawyer who confirmed all is indeed watertight. As the former in laws had presigned share transfer documents they were taken off the list of shareholders and replaced by new shareholders of my choice. To repeat there is no legal issue with the company, save that I rather suspect they are scoff law and a bit of a scam.

The house was let out by tenancy agreement to the old lady, who used to own it, until she was able to make alternative arrangements. Meanwhile me and the ex were back in Farangland. The marriage went pear shaped as they invariably do and really quite nastily as far as I was concerned. Anyway, in my view I’d really got the smelly end of the stick so I wasn't about to play the generous benefactor. After about 1 year my new lawyer got me a divorce on the grounds of desertion and a few months later I asked the ex in laws, who were now in the house, to move out, to no avail: wouldn’t you know!

So after another few months my lawyer advised court action to evict the squatters as I see it. Well that was about 2 years ago, and 2 adjournments ago. The ex-wife is long since gone, the problem is the orrible old bag of a mother in law who claims it was sin sod, ie, that the property is hers or at least partly so. Now bear in mind the court case is just about right to live in the property, so even if I get through this there is then a battle over ownership I presume.

My feeling is that I am going to lose the case, it’s just a feeling based on my knowledge of Thailand gained over 8 years, the last five of which I’ve lived here continuously. Logic and fact count for little too often.

I wanted to call foul in that the old bag has no evidence and the very idea that there is any case at all was an absurdity. Moreover, that this was about right to live in the property and that only the MD of the company had the right to choose, after all if I have shares in SCB Bank that does not entitle me to occupy one of their offices does it, and even more so if I am no longer a shareholder? Moreover the length of time to hear this minor case is equally absurd, so I suspect foul play. But my lawyer stringently advises against complaint.

He says the delay is normal and loss is impossible and that moreover I will be awarded back rental, and he’s so confident he’s said win or no fee. The phrase ‘mai na cheua’ (absurd) gets spoken to describe the situation. But for me the whole thing is absurd anyway.

At the very least, whatever the outcome, it casts doubt on the limited company route as an acceptable vehicle for property ownership or swift legal remedy.

So really, any constructive thoughts appreciated?

[LennyW]

Regardless of any contracts / laws or whatever, the court process takes a frustratingly long time here, your lawyer is probably right-the outcome will be in your favour, but be prepared for a long haul.

Good luck!

[ballbreaker]

What reasons did your lawyer give for the 2 adjournments?

You need to insist that your lawyer not accept further adjournments.

I have a friend who was in court over money a previous employer refused to pay. His lawyer keep agreeing to adjournments until my friend said no more. Case went to court and my friend won. end of story.

I don't think you have bulldog lawyer which is what you should have hired.

[churchill]

Court cases in Thailand go on and on even if you are in the right they are very!! frustrating - Perhaps you may win but is it possible to negotiate a settlement ? It would save you a lot of grief even though you may not feel that you have a fair deal .

[JohnC]

my personal view is you should see this through on principal as you have nothing to lose but as previosu poster siad you need to get a bit more firm with your lawyer but in a friendly way dont upset them!

[thaiwanderer]

Obviously not your main cause of action but as an 'in the alternative' if their defence is it was sinsot can that not be attacked on the basis that your ex-wife deserted you and any sinsot is therefore repayable or at least in this case void?

anyway, good luck

[mommysboy]

Thanks to ballbreaker, Churchill, John C, and thaiwanderer.

The main message I'm receiving from posters is that this is a long drawn out process, but that that

this does not mean that justice will not prevail.

My lawyer has a well proven track record, he's come good for me and others. I think he's got 'ring craft'.

I'm livid. And to be honest would like to launch a complaint against the court who I feel have not acted in an appropriate manner and in an acceptable time frame. But you know? what chance?

The initial adjournment was to allow for mediation, which it seems is standard procedure. But I didn't think there was any cause for negotiation, as she has no claim to the property. As far as I'm aware the ex-wife isn't even party to this claim and has deserted her family too, sad to say. it's not so much very different from someone just sitting in your house or office and claiming it is theirs - as I said 'absurd' comes up time and time again but the thing I'm most worried about is that the court should even entertain such a notion.

it's not a good sign is it?

The second adjournment is because the old bag wants to testify b4 the court and hopefully perjure herself, this has meant a 10 month delay.

I've been assured that there are no more delays.

I don't think it's a matter of the lawyer not being determined so much as mis-interpretation by the court in my view.

I want to launch a complaint full stop - win or lose.

I'm also approaching the initial lawyer with a complaint about advice given regarding my legal rights, it seems she may have wrongly advised me.

In the event that I do win, I will be pushing for immediate enforcement of the initial claim. My lawyer has advised that a criminal complaint against the old bag may be possible, and that we'll be pushing for bankruptcy as soon as any default in the sizable damages occurs. This is not far fetched as the main family home is just a couple of streets away.

But you know TIT. Apply no logic.

[mommysboy]

Curious how no legal bod has come forward!!!!

I do worry that this company law thing is a bit of a scoff law.

Anybody actually fought a case from within one?

[quiksilva]

I'm not a legal bod by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that the case which is being tried is not the legality of your firm, rather the fact that you are trying to evict what is effectively a squatter.

Squatters rights in Thailand are actually quite strong so the process could in fact be quite drawn out, and even if you win, which it seems is quite probable, actually getting her to physically move out may prove more difficult.

You may remember that one time Bangkok Governor candidate and massage parlour tycoon Chuwit had to resort to using the boys in green and their bulldozers to rid himself of unwanted tenants on his land at Sukhumvit Soi 10 a few years back.

Legal cases are notoriously slow in Thailand. That's just a fact of life, but justice does prevail, even for farangs. You need the courts on your side, if I was in you shoes I wouldn't get into the business of filing complaints until I had achieved my primary objectives.

[mommysboy]

I'm not a legal bod by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that the case which is being tried is not the legality of your firm, rather the fact that you are trying to evict what is effectively a squatter.

Squatters rights in Thailand are actually quite strong so the process could in fact be quite drawn out, and even if you win, which it seems is quite probable, actually getting her to physically move out may prove more difficult.

You may remember that one time Bangkok Governor candidate and massage parlour tycoon Chuwit had to resort to using the boys in green and their bulldozers to rid himself of unwanted tenants on his land at Sukhumvit Soi 10 a few years back.

Legal cases are notoriously slow in Thailand. That's just a fact of life, but justice does prevail, even for farangs. You need the courts on your side, if I was in you shoes I wouldn't get into the business of filing complaints until I had achieved my primary objectives.

Thanks for your views and advice. It a sounds quite sensible.

Taking a bull dozer and SWAT team to the old mo-in law, what a cheering image!!!

[mommysboy]

I'm happy to report that the challenge was effectively dropped at the last moment, and a sale agreed with ex mother in law, whereupon a significant sum of money was paid, with a further sum to be paid soon. The agreement was done with the backing of the court, with protection for all parties. The company papers must have been scrutinised at some point I think as some shareholdings had to be transferred to lawyers, so I think on balance the company method stands good in a Thai court of law.

Beware the wheels are very, very slow in Thailand.