60 Years Leasing

[loverboy44]

Mr Bum,

you can not be the owner of that company. As you might know you can only be a 49% shareholder.

As far as i know 49% is less then 51 %.

I wouldn't sleep so well as one could check if the company is set up only for the purpose of owning land in Thailand.

[katabeachbum]

Mr Bum,

you can not be the owner of that company. As you might know you can only be a 49% shareholder.

As far as i know 49% is less then 51 %.

I wouldn't sleep so well as one could check if the company is set up only for the purpose of owning land in Thailand.

Loverboy

There are several legal ways to own the remaining shares in a thai co ltd, but that would be another thread. Actually I could only own 39% of it when it was registered some years back.

This thread is about how to handle 2 x 30 years lease registering, and why its legal to do so.

I have no need to defend my property ownership, but would like to discuss 2 x 30 years leasing with those interested.

[katabeachbum]

I would think that an illegal company that may or may not be investigate/prosecuted would not be able to issue a legal lease. If the company has a problem, the lease would also have a problem. That little thing mentioned many time, against the spirit/intent of the law probably has sharp teeth. Better you than me. I have an aversion about giving crooked lawyers big fees.

I agree. Illegal or suspicious co ltd have problems in registering in landoffice.

I agree about lawyers too, and havent used any for property for years.

[loverboy44]

Bum, can you read and write Thai?

If you didn't use lawyers for checking land titles and let them approve how do you know if there is a title if even many Thai's don't know in Phuket because of fake papers?

If you lie to yourself it's ok to me.

[katabeachbum]

Bum, can you read and write Thai?

If you didn't use lawyers for checking land titles and let them approve how do you know if there is a title if even many Thai's don't know in Phuket because of fake papers?

If you lie to yourself it's ok to me.

Loverboy,

again this thread is about 2 x 30 years leasing.

There are some fake land deeds around in LOS, and I know how to read them and check them. Lawyers, Kamnan, Chief of Jangwat, landoffice department dividing land and others have taught me. For some years.

If you want to talk about fake land deeds or company structure, start another thread. This thread is about 2 x 30 years leasing

[lioness]

You are stating that the second 30 year lease is accepted (consummated) from the day it is registered at the Land Office by the payment of the deposits and advance rent. That makes the total lease length 60 years, thus clearly illegal under Thai law. Also, what will be the fair market value of the property 30 years in the future? The lessor has the absolute right to ask fair market value, increase the rent, for the property before the beginning of the second 30 year period. Additionally, if the original lessor sells the property or dies, then the second 30 year lease is basically unenforceable. The heirs or new owner are not a party to the original lease(s).

IMO, unless the Civil and Commercial Code and Land Code Act are changed to support a 60 year lease, then this is just a fiction by the real estate sector and won't survive the first Supreme Court case.

One would have a succession clause inserted, example as follows:-

This agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the statutory heirs, legatees, administrators and executors of the estate, custodian, curators, subrogees, receivers, liquidators or statutory representatives of the parties

T

[loverboy44]

http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/90-ye...con-t11944.html

In there is a true story what happened to a couple and 30-30-30 leasehold and Thai Ltd.

Actually every information one needs.

[katabeachbum]

You are stating that the second 30 year lease is accepted (consummated) from the day it is registered at the Land Office by the payment of the deposits and advance rent. That makes the total lease length 60 years, thus clearly illegal under Thai law. Also, what will be the fair market value of the property 30 years in the future? The lessor has the absolute right to ask fair market value, increase the rent, for the property before the beginning of the second 30 year period. Additionally, if the original lessor sells the property or dies, then the second 30 year lease is basically unenforceable. The heirs or new owner are not a party to the original lease(s).

IMO, unless the Civil and Commercial Code and Land Code Act are changed to support a 60 year lease, then this is just a fiction by the real estate sector and won't survive the first Supreme Court case.

One would have a succession clause inserted, example as follows:-

This agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the statutory heirs, legatees, administrators and executors of the estate, custodian, curators, subrogees, receivers, liquidators or statutory representatives of the parties

T

yepp

I v actually seen lease agreements without such clause, which means its canselled if any party dies. Dont know what they where thinking about. Would have been much cheaper with a usufruct.

[katabeachbum]

http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/90-ye...con-t11944.html

In there is a true story what happened to a couple and 30-30-30 leasehold and Thai Ltd.

Actually every information one needs.

yes loverboy.

Its in the Cha Am - Hua Hin section here in TV too, and I think I posted there. Read it, its educating.

Nothing similar to what I do however.

You may want to read up on leasing to learn something

[thaiwanderer]

You are stating that the second 30 year lease is accepted (consummated) from the day it is registered at the Land Office by the payment of the deposits and advance rent. That makes the total lease length 60 years, thus clearly illegal under Thai law. Also, what will be the fair market value of the property 30 years in the future? The lessor has the absolute right to ask fair market value, increase the rent, for the property before the beginning of the second 30 year period. Additionally, if the original lessor sells the property or dies, then the second 30 year lease is basically unenforceable. The heirs or new owner are not a party to the original lease(s).

IMO, unless the Civil and Commercial Code and Land Code Act are changed to support a 60 year lease, then this is just a fiction by the real estate sector and won't survive the first Supreme Court case.

One would have a succession clause inserted, example as follows:-

This agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the statutory heirs, legatees, administrators and executors of the estate, custodian, curators, subrogees, receivers, liquidators or statutory representatives of the parties

T

yepp

I v actually seen lease agreements without such clause, which means its canselled if any party dies. Dont know what they where thinking about. Would have been much cheaper with a usufruct.

such a clause does not mean that every clause in the agreement survives (especially renewals)

[mickba]

.....................................An usufruct for me with a lease for one of my children (or opposit) would also work, but if falling out with someone, an usufruct is only for lifetime. Lifetime can be short. A lease continues after one or both parties are dead.

An usufruct alone seems to dangerous to me. Its like putting a price on ones life...................................

I don't mean to digress but the OP has allowed the Usufruct into the discussion.

My interest in this thread is because I have just exited the Lease situation into the Company situation.

My next Q is whether the Company could grant a Usufruct to myself and whether that would be likely to survive any "problem" with the Company. It seems it would be possible to do it, albeit I would have to pay tax on the value of the Usufruct.

I've also been advised previously that the Usufruct could be granted to more than one person eg. myself and my two daughters, now 21 & 22, thus extending it to their lifetimes i.e. probably more than my lifetime or a 30 year lease.

Might this be another way of skinning the cat and has anyone here done this?

[basjke]

An usufruct in combination with a loan seems ok, but a loan is very expensive to register (10%), except presently (tax brake) if done at day of transfer ownership.

I think you are misinformed regarding the registration cost of a loan.I registered a a loan of 3.000.000 baht in February 2007 and paid a total of 30.055 Baht in taxes.I am sure at that time there was no mention of a tax break.The loan was registered on the same day as the land was transferred but I am not a party in the transfer.I only borrowed money to the buyer of the land and as a guarantee my name is printed on the back of the chanoot and in my possession.

[Burgernev]

http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/90-ye...con-t11944.html

In there is a true story what happened to a couple and 30-30-30 leasehold and Thai Ltd. Actually every information one needs.

All sympathies aside, that is a classic story about someone trying to save a few Baht by not using a proper established law firm from Bangkok, ie: neutral to the area in question, and therefore not having the correct clauses in their initial 30 year lease, and I'm not refering to extensions. And also a story about a buyer who couldn't be ar$ed to bother to spend an hour or so on internet about the realities of the 30+30+30 jobs.

It is a classic story of wrecklessness and how not to invest in property here, I recall the poster went out of their way to confirm same.

Burgernev

Edited June 19, 2009 by Burgernev

[Burgernev]

Falling out with my gf is not going to change anything.

Thanks Kata for your reply to my post yesterday, disagree with certain legal interpretations but no gain in going into them all but shares/voting rights aside our companies have nominees who we don't know from Adam, fake meetings with and do not pay dividends too, this would make any leases in the same legal boat.

On the 2 x 30 year lease issue our local land office in Hua Hin, will not register them, they also stoppped the upfront paid land rental fees (developers land sale price in effect) be divided by 3 (ie: 30+30+30) as they are rightly losing out on tax money. IF your 2nd 30 year lease is allowed to go ahead the landowner at the time would be entitled under certain current laws to claim current rental rates applicable at that time in the future, as would the land office tax wise, despite an agreement being signed up to now at todays rental rates, thats my lawyers interpretation, so pinch of salt.

The part I quoted above re: your girlfriend, would IMO, pose the biggest risk of all to me, she has 5 years knowledge, maybe photocopies or whatever, of numerous forged shareholder meeting minutes, non-payment of shareholder dividends (of which now has an additional layer of income due to land lease rental) and god knows whatever info about the structure. Keep her sweet mate, I doubt the fact that she was also guilty to things as a director would come into the thinking of a vengent Thai chick!!

Not trying to be judgemental or hypocritical as I have the Limited Company set-up too.

Good on you for getting the 2 no. leases registered.

Chock Dee, Burgernev

Edited June 19, 2009 by Burgernev

[dsfbrit]

I would think that an illegal company that may or may not be investigate/prosecuted would not be able to issue a legal lease. If the company has a problem, the lease would also have a problem. That little thing mentioned many time, against the spirit/intent of the law probably has sharp teeth. Better you than me. I have an aversion about giving crooked lawyers big fees.

I could not agree more.

I have an 'illegal' company that 'owns' land. I recently reduced the number of shareholders to just 2 Thais - removed all the nominees that were provided by the lawyers and replaced them with Thais I know. So at least I no longer have 5 Thais that the lawyers have provided to hundreds of other companies in Pattaya.

In doing this, I do not make comments that the company is now 'legal' nor better placed to survive a 'crackdown'. If there is ever a crackdown and land removed from foreigners, then I will be on the list for sure. I accept this fact and live with it.

I find it kind of sad that some people go to all these other lengths relating to leases with clever/complicated structures to achieve absolutley nothing.

Sadly Gary A , your constant comments that only ownership of a flat/condo is legal in Thailand should be tattooed on any farang who believe otherwise.

With the recent statements from Thai politician(s), even leasing for 30 years and registering at the land office (Just 30 years, the additional 30 years was never guaranteed) and Usufructing are brought into doubt if they involve a farang and a Thai wife.

I would suggest that we all just hope there never is a 'land grab' or enforcement/crackdown on all this - as I suspect we will all get a nasty shock. Whatever the clever set-ups involve.

Edited June 20, 2009 by dsfbrit

[Mobi]

dsfbrit, good post, I agree 100%

I really don't believe the current government, or indeed the opposition, would take any drastic action in the way of a 'land grab' against farang 'land owners', but who knows what may happen in the future?

Anything is possible.

[katabeachbum]

You are stating that the second 30 year lease is accepted (consummated) from the day it is registered at the Land Office by the payment of the deposits and advance rent. That makes the total lease length 60 years, thus clearly illegal under Thai law. Also, what will be the fair market value of the property 30 years in the future? The lessor has the absolute right to ask fair market value, increase the rent, for the property before the beginning of the second 30 year period. Additionally, if the original lessor sells the property or dies, then the second 30 year lease is basically unenforceable. The heirs or new owner are not a party to the original lease(s).

IMO, unless the Civil and Commercial Code and Land Code Act are changed to support a 60 year lease, then this is just a fiction by the real estate sector and won't survive the first Supreme Court case.

One would have a succession clause inserted, example as follows:-

This agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the statutory heirs, legatees, administrators and executors of the estate, custodian, curators, subrogees, receivers, liquidators or statutory representatives of the parties

T

yepp

I v actually seen lease agreements without such clause, which means its canselled if any party dies. Dont know what they where thinking about. Would have been much cheaper with a usufruct.

such a clause does not mean that every clause in the agreement survives (especially renewals)

Renewal can be a tough one for several reasons. Thats why we want to register and pay 1,1% tax for the next 30 year term now.

[katabeachbum]

An usufruct in combination with a loan seems ok, but a loan is very expensive to register (10%), except presently (tax brake) if done at day of transfer ownership.

I think you are misinformed regarding the registration cost of a loan.I registered a a loan of 3.000.000 baht in February 2007 and paid a total of 30.055 Baht in taxes.I am sure at that time there was no mention of a tax break.The loan was registered on the same day as the land was transferred but I am not a party in the transfer.I only borrowed money to the buyer of the land and as a guarantee my name is printed on the back of the chanoot and in my possession.

Sorry basjke

Meant to say 1% of the registered loan amount. No tax break at all in 2007, started March 2008.

[katabeachbum]

Falling out with my gf is not going to change anything.

Thanks Kata for your reply to my post yesterday, disagree with certain legal interpretations but no gain in going into them all but shares/voting rights aside our companies have nominees who we don't know from Adam, fake meetings with and do not pay dividends too, this would make any leases in the same legal boat.

On the 2 x 30 year lease issue our local land office in Hua Hin, will not register them, they also stoppped the upfront paid land rental fees (developers land sale price in effect) be divided by 3 (ie: 30+30+30) as they are rightly losing out on tax money. IF your 2nd 30 year lease is allowed to go ahead the landowner at the time would be entitled under certain current laws to claim current rental rates applicable at that time in the future, as would the land office tax wise, despite an agreement being signed up to now at todays rental rates, thats my lawyers interpretation, so pinch of salt.

The part I quoted above re: your girlfriend, would IMO, pose the biggest risk of all to me, she has 5 years knowledge, maybe photocopies or whatever, of numerous forged shareholder meeting minutes, non-payment of shareholder dividends (of which now has an additional layer of income due to land lease rental) and god knows whatever info about the structure. Keep her sweet mate, I doubt the fact that she was also guilty to things as a director would come into the thinking of a vengent Thai chick!!

Not trying to be judgemental or hypocritical as I have the Limited Company set-up too.

Good on you for getting the 2 no. leases registered.

Chock Dee, Burgernev

Hua Hin is difficult, and thats partly what I wanted this thread to be about. Whats a good ownership in different land offices?

I ended up register a 30 year loan on my property in HH. Guess they have matured for a usufrut too by now.

[katabeachbum]

http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/90-ye...con-t11944.html

In there is a true story what happened to a couple and 30-30-30 leasehold and Thai Ltd. Actually every information one needs.

All sympathies aside, that is a classic story about someone trying to save a few Baht by not using a proper established law firm from Bangkok, ie: neutral to the area in question, and therefore not having the correct clauses in their initial 30 year lease, and I'm not refering to extensions. And also a story about a buyer who couldn't be ar$ed to bother to spend an hour or so on internet about the realities of the 30+30+30 jobs.

It is a classic story of wrecklessness and how not to invest in property here, I recall the poster went out of their way to confirm same.

Burgernev

You wouldnt believe some of the leases i v read. The worst ones barely gives you the right to reside in the property for a while. Always local lawyers, and a month later they are seen having dinner with the developers. Some buyers are even made to believe a 90 years lease which cant be registered is better than a 30 years lease registered in land deed. And no tax on the 90 years lease

[thaiwanderer]

You wouldnt believe some of the leases i v read. The worst ones barely gives you the right to reside in the property for a while. Always local lawyers, and a month later they are seen having dinner with the developers. Some buyers are even made to believe a 90 years lease which cant be registered is better than a 30 years lease registered in land deed. And no tax on the 90 years lease

Yes there are certainly many exceedingly bad contracts about but at the same time there is often reliance on overly complex contracts with little connection to good law or practical reality - sometimes where the legal advisor is being negligent rather than dishonest (not that thats of much comfort).

Some of many examples:-

Beautifully worded lease not deposited at land office at all (shortform standard Thai contract, language barrier and use of powers of attorney) and buyer totally unaware.

Rock solid contracts but with a low capitalised company.

Agreement for foreign jurisdiction in the event of a dispute but then trying and enforce success there for Thai property.

Supposed Thai translation of the contract (despite election for English having precedence) having fundamental differences to the English version.

Distinction between lease and personal contractual rights.

Layering offshore companies etc. to make the structure as sound and immune from investigation as is possible and not thinking for a second that an interested party connected to the seller could ever disclose the entire paper trail to the authorities in order to grab the land. Or that in the event of a dispute the lessor / seller will ever disclose side contracts and payments.

Lease renewals (can suggest any lease renewals but even the 'good ones') with a lessor that later disappears, dies or whose circumstances change.

And even after those and others there are other problems including incorrectly issued land titles (regardless of extensive due dilligence), no liability for error or fraud by government officials, future enforcement of current laws or future change in laws.

As I have said before certainty is not for sale its about appetite for risk and comfort levels which is a personal matter. However many are in the 'ignorance / self delusion is bliss' school. Probably ensures enjoyment of the property whilst have it so not to be discounted either.

[katabeachbum]

Supposed Thai translation of the contract (despite election for English having precedence) having fundamental differences to the English version.

Is there any supreme court ruling on English language precedence for lease reg in land deed? I would doubt so, as the court normally refuses to handle documents in English language.

[thaiwanderer]

Hence my 'despite', in any case be lucky to get as far as that hurdle.

[Burgernev]

Regarding 30+30+30 year leases, the general view is that this will only realistically be the initial 30 year lease, the extensions will only materialise IF the landowner is a generous, kind-hearted type

My belief however is that what will occur in reality, in 'most' cases, is that the lessee and/or their heirs will be able to obtain any lease length periods they want, ie: 30, 40, 50, 90, 100 years etc. How ?, here's some scenarios:

1) Most Thai landowners will not want to wait 30 years to get their hands on the asset. So say after 10 or 15 years into the initial 30 year lease landowner comes to lessee and asks if he fancies popping down the land office the next morning and registering a new 30 year lease (with the same extensions for what it's worth) for say 200k Baht. Lessee waves the lease agreement in front of his face and tells landowner he's got to give the extensions anyway, so why should I ? Landowners then laughs in your face and says because he will be transferring the land to his brother the day before that extension is due. Lessee has option to buy another 10-15 years for 200k or risk getting nothing after initial period.

2) An investment company comes into a development 20 years into the initial lease term and buys all the leased land plots off the landowner for a handsome bundle of cash that is too tempting to turn down as opposed to waiting another 10 years. Investment company writes to all lessee's introducing his company and saying unfortunately your extension agreements with the previous landowner are now void. The letter goes on to say that as we are a kind-hearted company how do you fancy popping down the land office in the morning and receiving a brand new 30 year lease for the modest sum of ................................

3) At some point in the initial 30 year lease period Developer 'A' swaps (transfers) his 20no. land titles with 20 no. land titles from his mate developer 'B', no cash changes hands, but 'some' tax is paid at the Land Office with their friendly official they always deal with. New landowner writes to his new lessee's informing them of .............. you know the rest.

4) As above but it is you the lessee doing the approaching and cash offering for a new 30 year lease, you've heard of too many people that didn't get their extensions.

In above scenarios the lessees initially feel aggrieved, express outrage and threaten to sue their original landowner who sold up, as there was some clause about him not being allowed to sell the land blah blah blah, but apparently he's moved to Buriram or the moon or someplace. After initial outrage lessee sees it's actually not a bad deal after all. Everyone's a winner ....... sort of.

Burgernev

Edited June 20, 2009 by Burgernev

[thaiwanderer]

Alternatively the next 30 years are bought by another for the inflated farang freehold price, at the expiry of which it happens again and so on.

You really think the original lessee (or anyone else) can pay anything less than such a full and overbloated price for the landowner to register another lease at the land office? The freehold owner would view that as losing money.

[mickba]

Yes there are certainly many exceedingly bad contracts about but at the same time there is often reliance on overly complex contracts with little connection to good law or practical reality - sometimes where the legal advisor is being negligent rather than dishonest (not that thats of much comfort).

Some of many examples:-

Beautifully worded lease not deposited at land office at all (shortform standard Thai contract, language barrier and use of powers of attorney) and buyer totally unaware.................................................................................

................................................

.............

You have provided quite a list, the one above being the one I fell for (lawyer dishonest at lessor's request, not negligent).

I was also warned (true or not?) that there is a procedure for the lessor to remove the lease, possibly without the lessee's knowledge.

They can make a declaration that the lessee is no longer in occupation eg. they've gone back to farangland and make a deposit with the Finance Department at the Land Office of 10% (?) of the registered value of the Lease i.e. not the value of the land/house so this could be only 100k for a land/house value of 10mn or whatever.

After a period of 3 months (?) the Lease will be revoked if farang has not made himself known. I presume this would require possession of the Chanote by the lessor (so make sure you keep it) but I don't know how difficult it would be to get a new one. No efforts will be made to check whether farang is still in residence (he may be sleeping peacefully by the side of the lessor) and, if and when the lessee "wakes up", all they can recover from the situation is the deposit made at the Land Office. Presumably, after a while, the lessor can even recover that.

If someone can verify or clarify or even declare this to be rubbish then please do so. I haven't heard of it happening, but it's yet another scary scenario for the lease option. If it's not true then I'll request that my post is removed. My intention is not to add fuel to the fire.

I'm out of the lease situation into the company one and, for the time being, feel a little more comfortable, although that had a lot to do with my lessor perhaps.

Another Q occurs to me - if the above is true, is the same option available for the removal of a Usufruct? I can see why this procedure might be required in genuine circumstances where farang has gone "home" or "expired". They're not going to leave the land/house unoccupied for the remainder of the lease, which could be 20+ years are they?

[unforgiven]

As a few weeks ago it is now possible to register 60 years lease in property land deed.

In Phuket you first have to register 30 years lease until 2039 at 1,1% tax. Next day register 30 years lease until 2069 at 1,1% tax. Anyone with other experience in other land offices?

Is there any way I can get land and leave it to my half thai children without involving the wife or her family.

[Burgernev]

You really think the original lessee (or anyone else) can pay anything less than such a full and overbloated price for the landowner to register another lease at the land office? The freehold owner would view that as losing money.

Sorry if I've interpreted your point incorrectly, but my examples are about this occuring well before anywhere near approaching the end of the 30 years, ie: tearing up the old lease and issuing a new one maybe 10-15 years into it's period.

I'm suggesting, using the investor buyer example, that a landowner of 25 leasehold plots would accept cash from an investor and sell the land just 10 years into the initial 30 years, rather than wait another 20 years for the full valued amount. They may be too old to use it then, and consider many of them are Thai wives of Farang 'developers'. If they were offered 1M Baht x 25 plots then they walk away with 25M Baht that day and live happy for those next 20 years.

Other example, where a landowner does not want to give up the land cheap and rather 'keep it in the family', they would only be issuing (selling) a new 30 year period 10 years into the 30 years, they are getting cash in early but retaining the land by adding 10 years to it's maturity period.

Burgernev.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Burgernev

[thaiwanderer]

You really think the original lessee (or anyone else) can pay anything less than such a full and overbloated price for the landowner to register another lease at the land office? The freehold owner would view that as losing money.

Sorry if I've interpreted your point incorrectly, but my examples are about this occuring well before anywhere near approaching the end of the 30 years, ie: tearing up the old lease and issuing a new one maybe 10-15 years into it's period.

I'm suggesting, using the investor buyer example, that a landowner of 25 leasehold plots would accept cash from an investor and sell the land just 10 years into the initial 30 years, rather than wait another 20 years for the full valued amount. They may be too old to use it then, and consider many of them are Thai wives of Farang 'developers'. If they were offered 1M Baht x 25 plots then they walk away with 25M Baht that day and live happy for those next 20 years.

Other example, where a landowner does not want to give up the land cheap and rather 'keep it in the family', they would only be issuing (selling) a new 30 year period 10 years into the 30 years, they are getting cash in early but retaining the land by adding 10 years to it's maturity period.

Burgernev.

Obviously it all depends on the owners circumstances and greed / need for cash in the present.

They would have to be pretty desperate to sell for 1m THB.

All being equal I personally see no reason to sell to an existing lessee for anything less than 100% of the full freehold 'farang' price (they have paid for a 30 year lease, now they want the freehold thats 2 totally different transactions and my prices have no memory- no reason for a discount at all). I would perhaps discount it a little as getting the money now, but no where near the amount the lessee might think they are entitled to. They want the land. Its mine and though its (loosely ) tied up for say another 20 years unless i am desperate for the money now its not attractive at all.

As to the other example - sure issue a new lease but again not at a heavy discount and not even at a straight percentage of say 10 extra years so 1/3 of the 30 year price - as its the likely the latter years of the lessees life that are the more worrying for them at this end (hence the desire to extend it and sleep sound).

[ThaiLawOnline]

I was asked to look at the topic and try to answer.

First, we already checked with the land department. All land departments can have their own specific rules and it's always better to refer in BKK for the best information. This is EXACTLY what we were told:

"you may register it that way (2 leases, 30 years each, one after each other). But it's decretion of each office, they will investigate your intention and check if you are trying to avoid the law or not. It is

difficult for officer to register for anyone."

Now, I asked 3 Thai lawyers, and they all told me: It's limited to 30 years in the law. So, I told them, yes, but for ONE lease. Why not 2 different lease? What forbids it? 2 of them told me there was a supreme Court decision but were not able to find it. So, I made a small research. (I'm limited in time and ressources!)

First, I would say this is not according to the spirit of the CCCT. If it was possible, why not a third 30 years the next day. And fourth 30 years the 4th day for a total of 120 years? It's obviously to do indirectly what you can do directly. (see the bold statement above, AVOIDING THE LAW). And even if they are accepted by the land department for 60 years, we are not aware if these have been tested in Court. Yes, that's the common sentence to say "We don't really know"!

But there is this decision that seems to say that it can't be done:

Supreme Court judgment 4013/2533: Plaintiff and associate have made a land lease agreement with the Defendant for a period of 2 years beginning on March 31, B.E.2521 to March 30, B.E.2523. On March 21, B.E.2522, the defendant made another land lease agreement with plaintiff and associate for another 4 years beginning on April 1, B.E.2524 onward. According to the circumstance of the case seen that while plaintiff and associate made another lease for 4 years, the existing term of lease still valid for another 1 year until expiry. It is seen that both parties had made a new agreement to extend the lease term from the original agreement in order to avoid to made a lease agreement and register to competent authority according to section 538 of civil and commercial code. The extension of 4 years agreement is not valid.

The first lease was 2 years. Fine. After one year, a new one of 4 years... but not even 2 years or 3 years were considered valid. Completely void the 4 years. Because they tried to avoid the law, avoid to register and pay taxes.

There are arguments a fortiori, stating that the second lease IS registered in our example and that it's possible to make a lease before it starts. And arguments a contrario, when the law states a maximum of 30 years, can the same parties makes 2 of 30 years that will be the same as a 30 years to avoid the limit of 60 years in the law?

If you want to do this, I would change the name of the parties in the second lease. Example Owner + foreign husband in the first lease. Owner + foreign wife in second lease. These are 2 separate contracts without the same parties. And a clause for inheritance and heirs in the lease and in the Will.

S.

PS: I'm not saying that it's valid or invalid. I just put a big question mark on that. But if you want a lease for 60 years, you register one for 30 years and make a letter of intention to renew it for another 30 years the next years, binding the heirs. This has retroactive value under the civil code and according to my knowledge, IT IS ENFORCABLE in Court.