30 Year Lease And Renewl

[Rango]

Hi gang.

As has been mentioned here many times over the whole 30+30+30 thing is a bunch of monkey business and doesn't hold much water.

My question is, has anyone actually owned a property for the 30 years and then been burned by the land-owner? Has a case of this nature made its way through the Thai court system yet? When was the law written? 10 years ago? 20? 50?

I am really interested in hearing stories from people who are in year 29 on their lease contracts.

Happy New Year

[Khun Jean]

It doesn't have to go through court as the law is so easy. 30 years Max. any other clauses to make this longer will be ignored.

In fact you can write a lease for 999 years but in law it will still be maximum 30 years. Probably the whole contract can be voided because it has no legal base.

See other topic of very large companies like stores and hotels have to renegotiate their leases. It comes down to who offers the best price, and if the original one who has a lot of wealth built up in a building/location/name they can be squeezed for a lot of money as it is probably more expensive or not even viable to start over on a new location.

Now imagine a landowner leases out a piece of land and asks the price what normaly would have been a sale price upfront. You pay 1 million and 30 years later you have to renegotiate. You can have a clause that gives you a 0.00000000000000000001% advantage but that works only if the original owner agress with that. naming prices is not valid so a new price and term has to be neegotiated. The owner will see your multi million baht house and starts calculation. 10 million for the house, maybe 20 million for the land and why 30 years because that long and maybe i would like to live in the house a few years later so lets make it 3 years.

The new contract you negotiate can be 3 years (no registration /tax for the owner). 5 million upfront and 100,000 baht per month or 3 million in advance. 3 years later you have to renegotiate again.

interested?

Edited January 1, 2009 by Khun Jean

[Rango]

It doesn't have to go through court as the law is so easy. 30 years Max. any other clauses to make this longer will be ignored.

In fact you can write a lease for 999 years but in law it will still be maximum 30 years. Probably the whole contract can be voided because it has no legal base.

See other topic of very large companies like stores and hotels have to renegotiate their leases. It comes down to who offers the best price, and if the original one who has a lot of wealth built up in a building/location/name they can be squeezed for a lot of money as it is probably more expensive or not even viable to start over on a new location.

Now imagine a landowner leases out a piece of land and asks the price what normaly would have been a sale price upfront. You pay 1 million and 30 years later you have to renegotiate. You can have a clause that gives you a 0.00000000000000000001% advantage but that works only if the original owner agress with that. naming prices is not valid so a new price and term has to be neegotiated. The owner will see your multi million baht house and starts calculation. 10 million for the house, maybe 20 million for the land and why 30 years because that long and maybe i would like to live in the house a few years later so lets make it 3 years.

The new contract you negotiate can be 3 years (no registration /tax for the owner). 5 million upfront and 100,000 baht per month or 3 million in advance. 3 years later you have to renegotiate again.

interested?

at age 60-65 sure, why not....but at age 35, not so much

[mickba]

As Khun Jean says, it almost certainly won't happen.

To know whether there is an answer to the OP, we need to know from which year were 30 year leases permitted i.e. how old is the oldest. Who can tell us?

At 60 and in the first year, renewal doesn't bother me too much, albeit I have that clause in the agreement.

What is occupying my mind (and I can't for the life of me think why I didn't realise before) is that 30 year leases (and Usufructs too) contravene Rule No.1 in Thailand (according to some) i.e. never be worth more dead than alive.

Since either is likely to end with the death of the lessee/beneficiary, the owner has an option to "terminate" that I stupidly hadn't foreseen.

[simon43]

On Mickba's comment, what wording can one put in a new usufruct or land-lease contract to avoid one being 'terminated' early and your newly-built house being legally claimed by the landowner when he/she legally reclaims this land?

(I am currently negotiating to rent a piece of land and I wonder how I can avoid the very rare (I hope!) scenario where I build a nice house on the land and then get assassinated....)

Simon

Edited January 2, 2009 by simon43

[Khun Jean]

add another person to the lease/usufruct who lives in another country. If you have relatives preferably younger that is the easiest way to add another layer of protection.

[mickba]

add another person to the lease/usufruct who lives in another country. If you have relatives preferably younger that is the easiest way to add another layer of protection.

This is another one that I missed. If I had the chance to change things it would be to a Usufruct with one or more of my daughters included.

However, although that would make things difficult for the owner in the event of the main beneficiary's (my) demise, one has to consider how that would pan out if the young relative had no intention of coming to Thailand to live. They may be able to come here and set things up with an agent to rent it out on short (up to 3 year) lets, but in reality I can't help feeling that the property would fall back into the hands of the owner one way or another.

I can't imagine my 21yo daughter would be keen to come out here to do battle with the Witch Queen if papa had just been terminated.

I know legally there would clearly be and options, but she wouldn't be able to sell it so I imagine she'd walk away. If you have Thai offspring elsewhere that might work.

It might be a way to make the "termination" option less attractive, but the practicalities for a young relative back home would probably make it irrelevant.

No, I confess if I had my time again I simply wouldn't do it whichever way. It's a lovely house in a lovely location, but it can all become a bit meaningless (or dangerous). If you're in a r'ship that you really believe will last, then maybe, but then I did for a couple of years. I haven't walked (or been carried) away yet, but it's difficult to see a painless solution.

The obvious one would be if we could agree to sell it (and find a buyer) but, as she says, I only have a lease which ends when I'm dead (or gone) and that won't be too long (?) and then it's hers anyway. Meanwhile, it's a stalemate and a mess. I haven't built the wall or put aircon' in etc etc, plus we still owe the builder 150k, but I don't feel inclines to spend another baht, esp' at today's exchange rate.

Things can change very quickly sometimes.

Good luck.

[eddiemonster]

Mickba

Is starting a company and transferring the freehold into that a non-starter (ie freeholder won't agree)?