Land Purchase Experience

[SnareBear]

I’ve been hunting for land for 2.5 months now and would like to share my experience. What I have learned might prove useful for others.

My requirements are unusual; a piece of land in the mountains, with no neighbors, quiet and near nature. I plan to build a house there and live three months at a time. It will be my safe haven when I want to get out of the normal hectic life in the city.

I decided early on that I will be very anal about following Thai law. This is very difficult. Just like other business where there is a lot of money to make, the real estate business is normally operating in a gray zone where many arrangements don’t hold up to scrutiny, so at the end you are at the mercy of government law enforcement. It should be noted that nothing is ever “for sure” in Thailand, but at least you can better your odds of a happy life by complying with Thai law.

Thailand has many types of land title deeds. The only ones that should be considered by a foreigner is Nor Sor Si (Chanod), Nor Sor Saam Kor and Nor Sor Saam. Mountain land with the right title type is very hard to find. Normally the government will only grant these titles to land near a community, or when the land is within a farming area. Single isolated plots are virtually impossible to find. However, the countryside is littered with nice land plots of type Sor Por Kor and similar. Those were once handed out to poor people by a local committee, for private use as farm land. It is illegal to sell or lease them, no matter how hard the seller tries to convince you of the opposite, so they are useless to foreigners. Surely these title documents are traded like a normal commodity but that doesn’t make it legal.

There are many scams you could encounter in the land hunting process. Let me describe a few that I have experienced myself.

The far most common scam is when the broker/agent acts as if he is the land owner. Everyone wants in on the land deal; everyone expects to make a ton of money, so you want to cut the chain of people short or the final price will be very high. Every person you meet on the land trip is expecting a cut and it’s not that uncommon with a chain of three people or more. The most I’ve encountered is five, and of course the price was insane. In theory this scam is very easy to counter. You simply ask to see the person’s ID card, and compare with the name on the title deed. In practice people come up with all kinds of excuses to not show their ID card while at the same time trying to convince you that everything is in order. It might be wise to play along, because you might like the land and you can always find the real owner later.

Another very common scam is pretending that the land is Chanod when it isn’t. You ask the owner multiple times if the land really is Chanod and each time they will say it is for sure. At some later point they will admit that right now it is Sor Por Kor, but that you shouldn’t worry about that because two or three months later it be upgraded to Chanod. They will say that you are making a great deal because you will get Chanod land for the price of Sor Por Kor. It is true that the Thai government has an ambition to eventually have most land upgraded to Chanod, but this process is very slow. They upgrade community by community. You can’t know when your community is selected and you can’t know if your land will participate. It might be a “problem land” that can’t be upgraded. And remember: Sor Pro Kor is illegal to buy. One way of calling their bluff is to say “Well, this is great news, why don’t you call me again when the Chanod upgrade is complete and I will pay more for your land”. However, the easiest way to counter this scam is of course to insist on looking at the title document before you go to look at the land. Anyone that refuses to show the title document is obviously a scam artist.

The third scam has to do with mortgages. The seller will tell you that the title has a mortgage and the debt is very high, so there is a minimum amount to just get the title out of the bank. He will even go so far as to collaborate with people in the bank to show inflated debts. You may think this is a very juvenile way of elevating a price, because why should his debts be any of your concern? But in Thai buyer/seller mentality this really comes into play, and there is no way you can buy a land without clearing the owner’s debt and also on top of that giving him some more. He will rather lose the land to the bank than put in some of his own money to clear the debt.

Sometimes the land is already lost to the bank. Be very suspicious when the owner doesn’t show you a copy of the back side of the title document where such things are recorded. At this time he is trying to artificially elevate the price, when it is much easier for you to just buy the land directly from the bank.

The fourth scam is played by your lawyer when he downplays the risk of getting caught in creative land arrangements. As a foreigner you can’t own land in Thailand. It’s against the law. I should mention that I'm single, but even if I had a Thai spouse I wouldn't want them to own the land, it must be in my name. To set up a Thai company for the sole purpose of owning land is also illegal, although lawyers do it all the time. To have a Thai friend act as a nominee to buy the land for you is also illegal, and this is very common too. The only way to set it up legally is to lease the land or have a usufruct contract. Leasing 30 + 30 years is very popular. However the extra +30 years has never been tested by Thai court so we can’t know for sure if it will be granted. A lifetime usufruct looks like the best option in my opinion. This means that you have the right to use the land as if it was your own, and you also get whatever is yielded from this land (farming, etc), and you retain this right for the rest of your life. The downside is that you can’t sell the land, and when you die your family doesn't inherit the usufruct.

Comments welcome. I hope this is of some use.

[BuaBS]

I like this part the best:

A lifetime usufruct looks like the best option in my opinion. This means that you have the right to use the land as if it was your own, and you also get whatever is yielded from this land (farming, etc), and you retain this right for the rest of your life.

You forget that your life can be short here in LOS.

You can add that as the 5th scam.

[PattayaParent]

Very informative post.

Thanks for the info and taking the time to share your experience.

[yabaaaa]

Good land at the right price and size is hard to find, the mentality also has to be dealt with . 3 times my wife has agreed prices travelled from BKK to Hua Hin ready with bankers cheque to be told on arrival they changed their mind they want more money. All this after them begging us to buy a big piece as they needed the money and were poor etc hahaha Oh well they stayed poor.

[gotlost]

I like this part the best:

A lifetime usufruct looks like the best option in my opinion. This means that you have the right to use the land as if it was your own, and you also get whatever is yielded from this land (farming, etc), and you retain this right for the rest of your life.

You forget that your life can be short here in LOS.

You can add that as the 5th scam.

I understand there is a 6th option Use a usufruct but put the land in a charities name at least you are deeding the property to a worth while cause and not just given it away.

[Bemused]

When you say the Thai Courts haven't looked at the issue of agreements to renew leases after the first 30 years has expired, this is not correct.

The supreme court has already examined this issue. What they found was that rights in these types of contractual agreements fell into two types: lease rights and non-lease rights. The first 30 years is a lease right, and the agreement to give a further term is 'non-lease' right. Non-lease rights are covered by different legislation to lease rights.

The court's determination on this issue suggested the following: agreements to renew a lease after its expiry are not to be considered a part of a lease but a further separate contractual agreement between individuals; it also suggested that these agreements to renew came into conflict with Thai law which says the maximum period of a lease is 30 years.

The judgement is infact quite pragmatic. Lease agreements won't be overturned before the 30 years have expired simply because they contain a renewal clause which is in conflict with Thai law. On the other hand it stops land owners and purchasers getting around Thailand's restrictions on the term of leases.

Anyone who thinks that signing a contract by itself guarantees anything does not understand the basics of contract law. Contracts have to comply with the spirit and the letter of the law, or the Courts will not uphold their validity. This is why the advice of competent legal advisors is crucial whenever you enter into any kind of contract

[SnareBear]

I like this part the best:

A lifetime usufruct looks like the best option in my opinion. This means that you have the right to use the land as if it was your own, and you also get whatever is yielded from this land (farming, etc), and you retain this right for the rest of your life.

You forget that your life can be short here in LOS.

You can add that as the 5th scam.

I understand there is a 6th option Use a usufruct but put the land in a charities name at least you are deeding the property to a worth while cause and not just given it away.

"The right of usufruct can be created for a period of time or for the life of a person or persons." The right of usufruct can't be established for a period exceeding the life of a natural person or persons (it can't be an unborn child)."

http://www.thailandlawonline.com/usufruct_online_info.html

So you could put your name and the name of your children in there. Will have to double check that further with two independent sources though.

[SnareBear]

When you say the Thai Courts haven't looked at the issue of agreements to renew leases after the first 30 years has expired, this is not correct.

The supreme court has already examined this issue. What they found was that rights in these types of contractual agreements fell into two types: lease rights and non-lease rights. The first 30 years is a lease right, and the agreement to give a further term is 'non-lease' right. Non-lease rights are covered by different legislation to lease rights.

The court's determination on this issue suggested the following: agreements to renew a lease after its expiry are not to be considered a part of a lease but a further separate contractual agreement between individuals; it also suggested that these agreements to renew came into conflict with Thai law which says the maximum period of a lease is 30 years.

The judgement is infact quite pragmatic. Lease agreements won't be overturned before the 30 years have expired simply because they contain a renewal clause which is in conflict with Thai law. On the other hand it stops land owners and purchasers getting around Thailand's restrictions on the term of leases.

Anyone who thinks that signing a contract by itself guarantees anything does not understand the basics of contract law. Contracts have to comply with the spirit and the letter of the law, or the Courts will not uphold their validity. This is why the advice of competent legal advisors is crucial whenever you enter into any kind of contract

Good points. Regarding the court procedure on 30 + 30 I havnt heard that before, my lawyer must be misinformed. Will see what more I can dig up on this.

I can see a problem here. Even though the land owner signed a +30 yr separate contract, he can say he was confused at the time and now realizes that it doesnt conform with Thai law so the contract must be void. But of course he will agree to look the other way if the leasee just pays him more money.

Re how contracts must comply with the law, very well said. And not even then can you feel completely at ease, because the owner might feel he want to break the contract and you are simply not up for going though one year of court procedures. It has happened personally to me that a person simply ignores a contract with his name on it and just says "well sue me then". In that case it wasnt worth it.

[johnnyk]

When you say the Thai Courts haven't looked at the issue of agreements to renew leases after the first 30 years has expired, this is not correct.

The supreme court has already examined this issue. What they found was that rights in these types of contractual agreements fell into two types: lease rights and non-lease rights. The first 30 years is a lease right, and the agreement to give a further term is 'non-lease' right. Non-lease rights are covered by different legislation to lease rights.

The court's determination on this issue suggested the following: agreements to renew a lease after its expiry are not to be considered a part of a lease but a further separate contractual agreement between individuals; it also suggested that these agreements to renew came into conflict with Thai law which says the maximum period of a lease is 30 years.

The judgement is infact quite pragmatic. Lease agreements won't be overturned before the 30 years have expired simply because they contain a renewal clause which is in conflict with Thai law. On the other hand it stops land owners and purchasers getting around Thailand's restrictions on the term of leases.

Anyone who thinks that signing a contract by itself guarantees anything does not understand the basics of contract law. Contracts have to comply with the spirit and the letter of the law, or the Courts will not uphold their validity. This is why the advice of competent legal advisors is crucial whenever you enter into any kind of contract

Good points. Regarding the court procedure on 30 + 30 I havnt heard that before, my lawyer must be misinformed. Will see what more I can dig up on this.

I can see a problem here. Even though the land owner signed a +30 yr separate contract, he can say he was confused at the time and now realizes that it doesnt conform with Thai law so the contract must be void. But of course he will agree to look the other way if the leasee just pays him more money.

Re how contracts must comply with the law, very well said. And not even then can you feel completely at ease, because the owner might feel he want to break the contract and you are simply not up for going though one year of court procedures. It has happened personally to me that a person simply ignores a contract with his name on it and just says "well sue me then". In that case it wasnt worth it.

Its all 30 years down the road anyway and a lot can happen in 30 years. Aside from the essential worthlessness of the paper, all that has to happen to ditch the 2nd 30 years is for the lessor to croak or the land to be sold. Finit. End. Kaput. No hab etc etc.

[donx]

The far most common scam is when the broker/agent acts as if he is the land owner. Everyone wants in on the land deal; everyone expects to make a ton of money, so you want to cut the chain of people short or the final price will be very high. Every person you meet on the land trip is expecting a cut and it’s not that uncommon with a chain of three people or more. The most I’ve encountered is five, and of course the price was insane. In theory this scam is very easy to counter. You simply ask to see the person’s ID card, and compare with the name on the title deed. In practice people come up with all kinds of excuses to not show their ID card while at the same time trying to convince you that everything is in order. It might be wise to play along, because you might like the land and you can always find the real owner later.

It has also been my experience that a broker/agent doesn't pretend to be the owner yet still expects to get their cut of the action for guiding a potential buyer to a property. If they are up front about their role and they end up finding out that the buyer bypassed them and directly negotiated with the owner, then trouble is to be expected. Threats on your life or the lives of the seller are likely to occur.

I also wanted to thank you for this informative post. So did you end up finding anything to buy? Do you have a usufruct?

As for having more than one person on a usufruct, I do believe that it is possible. But this may just change the situation from being a murder to a double homicide. Once both (or all) of you are dead, the land is back in control of the land owner. It only costs 10,000 baht to hire someone to kill someone else. Life is cheep in the Land of Smiles. Land is much more expensive.

[SnareBear]

It has also been my experience that a broker/agent doesn't pretend to be the owner yet still expects to get their cut of the action for guiding a potential buyer to a property. If they are up front about their role and they end up finding out that the buyer bypassed them and directly negotiated with the owner, then trouble is to be expected. Threats on your life or the lives of the seller are likely to occur.

I also wanted to thank you for this informative post. So did you end up finding anything to buy? Do you have a usufruct?

As for having more than one person on a usufruct, I do believe that it is possible. But this may just change the situation from being a murder to a double homicide. Once both (or all) of you are dead, the land is back in control of the land owner. It only costs 10,000 baht to hire someone to kill someone else. Life is cheep in the Land of Smiles. Land is much more expensive.

Thanks Donx.

An honest and fair agent should get their cut for sure. I wouldnt dream of not compensating them. However most people I have dealt with are not really agents, they are just opportunistic locals who happen to know someone who want to sell their land. The see a foreigner come, and suddenly they add 100% to the price and none of that will be shared with the actual owner. Its just silly how greedy they can be. So usually I find out who the owner is and tell the owner to ask for a price that includes the compensation for the "agent".

Yea the double murder is a risk, but I have to stop worrying at some point and ask myself how likely it is to happen.

At this point Im very close to a deal with three adjacent plots of land. It was a very long and frustrating path to reach to the truth about the plots, way too many tricks and lies. I was ready to back out several times, but kept telling myself to hang in there. Now all is in the open, and Im ready to buy/usufruct. But I have zero respect for some of the people involved, will have to bite my tounge when I interact with them in the future since I will be living in their community.

Now starts the trouble with doing everything by the book, since Im anal about following the law. We would have completed this a long time ago if I had been more flexible and accepted a few gray zone deals. For example one plot of land is owned by the bank, and they dont want to do a usufruct with me. Having a person buy the land from the bank and then doing a usufruct with me is illegal, in Thai law that would be using a nominee.

I hope this is solved in a week or two. Will let you know.

[sorensen]

Seem like you have done your homework. Do you mind sharing how much you are paying per rai/square wa and roughly where in Thailand?

[donx]

SnareBear, I know that you said you are single and that even if you were married to a Thai you wouldn't have your wife buy land that you would use, but IMHO having a spouse purchase land that you use is not illegal. Especially if you accept the condition that if the relationship falls apart, you will have no claim to the land. This is how it is with my wife and I. She has several properties, most are agricultural land in her village while one is a piece of land that we plan on building a retirement home several years from now. I accept that if we separate that she hold sole possesion of those properties. We have three children and I'm sure that she will want them to have ownership in the future.

Obviously you are not in the same situation as I am and therefore I agree with you that the best way for you to have reasonable control and use of some land is through the use of a usufruct.

As for the agents asking for their share, the situation I observed was an example of an owner who wanted 800,000 baht/rai. Friends and family would look for a buyer. As you say, the chain of middlemen could reach as many as 5. The case I observed involved 2 or 3 "agents", none of them professionals. Each expected to get somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 baht/rai. So the buyer when found was asked to pay 1,000,000 baht/rai. The buyer (after meeting with the owner) attempted to cut out those that had helped the buyer find the property. When the middlemen didn't hear anything more from the buyer and when the owner claimed that the property was no longer for sale, the middlemen got suspicious and threatened both the owner and the buyer that if they found out a sale occurred without them getting their cut, then they may not be alive very much longer. I don't know the outcome. Both the owner and the buyer claim there was no sale. I don't know if the middlemen went to the land department to confirm their claim. The main difference between my experience and what you experienced is that these local "agents" that I knew were not asking for an outrageous amount of money to find a buyer for the property. Of course 200,000 more per rai is significant, but it actually is not unusual for this type of land to sell for 1,000,000 baht/rai. The local owners don't have access to farang buyers and therefore the price they were asking for was less than what most farang are willing to pay. Having access to foreign buyers is an asset worth paying for.

I look forward to finding out what you end up buying.

[PattayaParent]

For example one plot of land is owned by the bank, and they dont want to do a usufruct with me. Having a person buy the land from the bank and then doing a usufruct with me is illegal, in Thai law that would be using a nominee.

I hope this is solved in a week or two. Will let you know.

Surely that is only a problem if you were to provide the money to purchase the land?

If someone were to use their own money then they would not be a nominee. The inducement could be that you pay more for the usefruct than they pay for the land which is probably valued higher than the bank need to recover the debt anyway.

[Gary A]

At one time a lease looked good to me. After a lot of thought and consideration, I decided that eventually I would get married and would not be able to leave the leased property to my future wife. I ended up with a condo in my name.

Since then, I have married and bought property. It is all in my wife's name and I have signed the document that I have no financial interest in the properties.

What I'm trying to say is to plan for the future. What looks good today may not look so good in a few years.

[SnareBear]

Seem like you have done your homework. Do you mind sharing how much you are paying per rai/square wa and roughly where in Thailand?

1,5 hours from Chiang Mai. Two plots, 4 + 4 Rai of Nor Sor Saam. One is rice paddy one is overgrown unused.

Its a bit complicated because the land borders a national park, and the land department told me that the borders most likely will be heavily adjusted when it is time for upgrade to Chanod, so this is a risky buy. But no one knows if thats next year, or 20 years from now. Im willing to take the risk, as long as the price is fair.

I'd say normal price for non risky Nor Sor Saam rice paddy in that area is around 100,000 B / Rai (confirmed by the local "mayor"). The "agent" initially asked for 150,000 / Rai, same for both plots. When I finally found the owners (bank and private, unrelated), they both wanted 50,000 B / Rai. Ive already paid deposit for both, and the change of ownership is next week.

[SnareBear]

SnareBear, I know that you said you are single and that even if you were married to a Thai you wouldn't have your wife buy land that you would use, but IMHO having a spouse purchase land that you use is not illegal. Especially if you accept the condition that if the relationship falls apart, you will have no claim to the land. This is how it is with my wife and I. She has several properties, most are agricultural land in her village while one is a piece of land that we plan on building a retirement home several years from now. I accept that if we separate that she hold sole possesion of those properties. We have three children and I'm sure that she will want them to have ownership in the future.

Obviously you are not in the same situation as I am and therefore I agree with you that the best way for you to have reasonable control and use of some land is through the use of a usufruct.

As for the agents asking for their share, the situation I observed was an example of an owner who wanted 800,000 baht/rai. Friends and family would look for a buyer. As you say, the chain of middlemen could reach as many as 5. The case I observed involved 2 or 3 "agents", none of them professionals. Each expected to get somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 baht/rai. So the buyer when found was asked to pay 1,000,000 baht/rai. The buyer (after meeting with the owner) attempted to cut out those that had helped the buyer find the property. When the middlemen didn't hear anything more from the buyer and when the owner claimed that the property was no longer for sale, the middlemen got suspicious and threatened both the owner and the buyer that if they found out a sale occurred without them getting their cut, then they may not be alive very much longer. I don't know the outcome. Both the owner and the buyer claim there was no sale. I don't know if the middlemen went to the land department to confirm their claim. The main difference between my experience and what you experienced is that these local "agents" that I knew were not asking for an outrageous amount of money to find a buyer for the property. Of course 200,000 more per rai is significant, but it actually is not unusual for this type of land to sell for 1,000,000 baht/rai. The local owners don't have access to farang buyers and therefore the price they were asking for was less than what most farang are willing to pay. Having access to foreign buyers is an asset worth paying for.

I look forward to finding out what you end up buying.

I think you have very sound reasoning about your situation and the future. Ive already been married, now divorced and I have had a couple of Thai girlfriends. At this point I have serious trust issues, so Im going to pursue this alone. I've always told myself to never get involved in anything with big money in Thailand because of the risks, but now I finally take that step and I hope people will just leave me alone.

Good points about the agents. In all fairness I think the agents owe ME money for all the double play and dragging out the situation forever. That being said, of course I understand that they must get a cut no matter how misleading and greedy they have been, just to settle peace in the community.

When I finally found the owner of one of the plots I didnt even negotiate the price. The owner told me that he asked the agent to sell his land for 200,000 B, and that he would compensate him for it. I just accepted that price and double checked again that the agent indeed would be compensated by him. In this case I dont feel that the agent is entitled any more compensation since he obviously cheated both me and the owner when asking for 440,000 B. Would he have shared the extra profit with the owner? Of course not.

For the second land plot, it is now seized by the bank, so the previous owner has no rights to it. He cant even be considered an agent since we found the plot though the land department. He tried to swindle me out of 600,000 B, the bank wants 200,000 B. He gets nothing. He will be very upset, of course. Dont know how to handle him at this point. Morally I feel Im right, but that might not mean much to him.

Yea, prices are very low, but this is land no one wants. Very low value to Thais, only valuable to foreigners like me who want to stay in the jungle.

Deposit is paid for both, and the transfer will be end of next week. Polishing up the usufruct contract right now. I have a few additions, and if they pass the lawyer's scrutiny I will tell you later what they are.

[SnareBear]

Surely that is only a problem if you were to provide the money to purchase the land?

If someone were to use their own money then they would not be a nominee. The inducement could be that you pay more for the usefruct than they pay for the land which is probably valued higher than the bank need to recover the debt anyway.

To buy land using a nominee is illegal. There are many ways they can prove that you are using a nominee. The most obvious is if the money comes from you, or was put in their account from you, or even if the source of the money is unclear. But the example you give is also illegal, because you were the one coming up with the idea of having a person buy the land for your benefit. Doesnt matter if that person does it as a business opportunity. The crucial point is: who came up with the idea?

Of course your example is fairly safe, because if you are summoned to court you can always lie about the origin of the idea: The buyer bought the land without you in mind, and then suddenly you found him and wanted to do a usufruct.

But in my case, I want to be able to go to court and tell the truth, and still have the law on my side. Ive been to court already two times, so Ive seen what poor liers most people are, so they would likely blow it in court. Also, I dont want anyone having leverage over me. Just count the number of people who knows about the arrangement, including the buyer, and thats the number of people you have to keep happy so no one goes to the police in a vindictive state to throw you off your land. Who knows how friendly these people are 10 years later.

[SnareBear]

To clarify: I will do usufruct in my name for one plot of 4 Rai. I will build a home on this plot.

The other 4 Rai plot will be unrelated to me, no lease/usufruct. My friend agreed to buy it as a favour, just to keep other people from moving in near my house. I want to stay alone with no neighbors, thats the whole purpose of me moving there.

[thaihome]

I think there is a paradox in the OP’s entire effort he is ignoring. On one hand he says he wants to be completely legal but on the other he says he wants to own, or at least completely control the land. The entire point of Thailand’s ban on foreign land ownership is to prevent foreigners from owning or controlling land. Any route he chooses is going against the intent of the law and therefore is attempting to circumvent it. IMHO, he is not going to find a 100% legal way to accomplish his goal as it is inherently illegal.

TH

[dumball]

Finaly , some-one with a grain of HARD FACT on ownership/control of Thai land , for all the posturing , double checking , finding what YOU want to own , the bitter fact remains THAILAND IS FOR THAI ONLY . You can never feel completely safe in your little piece of heaven , should a Thai want you out , you are out .

[Damaz6052]

Finaly , some-one with a grain of HARD FACT on ownership/control of Thai land , for all the posturing , double checking , finding what YOU want to own , the bitter fact remains THAILAND IS FOR THAI ONLY . You can never feel completely safe in your little piece of heaven , should a Thai want you out , you are out .

How about Cambodia are there similar legal issues when buying land?

[dumball]

Finaly , some-one with a grain of HARD FACT on ownership/control of Thai land , for all the posturing , double checking , finding what YOU want to own , the bitter fact remains THAILAND IS FOR THAI ONLY . You can never feel completely safe in your little piece of heaven , should a Thai want you out , you are out .

How about Cambodia are there similar legal issues when buying land?

[/quote

Not that I am aware of , I purchased a property with my Cambodian wife and both our names are on the title searched as secure by the village police who deal with these matters . When we decided to wall in the property , they came and deleneated it for us , we finished up with about 50% more than we were told we were buying , they have all of the records that count . No hoops , no loops , no snares , they were happy the property went to her as her family had the smallest lot in the village , why do you think I moved from Thailand after 7 years of BS ? Enough was enough , all I wanted was a peacefull life .

[thaihome]

Finaly , some-one with a grain of HARD FACT on ownership/control of Thai land , for all the posturing , double checking , finding what YOU want to own , the bitter fact remains THAILAND IS FOR THAI ONLY . You can never feel completely safe in your little piece of heaven , should a Thai want you out , you are out .

How about Cambodia are there similar legal issues when buying land?

[/quote

Not that I am aware of , I purchased a property with my Cambodian wife and both our names are on the title searched as secure by the village police who deal with these matters . When we decided to wall in the property , they came and deleneated it for us , we finished up with about 50% more than we were told we were buying , they have all of the records that count . No hoops , no loops , no snares , they were happy the property went to her as her family had the smallest lot in the village , why do you think I moved from Thailand after 7 years of BS ? Enough was enough , all I wanted was a peacefull life .

Actually, my research shows that Cambodia foreign land ownership laws are similar to Thailand’s, and the constitution explicitly forbids foreign ownership. I do believe they are now allowed to buy condos and can own buildings.

To me, it shows how unstable Cambodia is in that your local police, who you say is in charge of land registration (scary thought in itself) allowed your name on the deed.

I hope you enjoy your peaceful life.

TH

[dumball]

Living in Thailand you think there is any difference in the stability of local police ? Thai immigration officers in various districts and offices make up or get rules changed on a whim , and what about police in general who make the laws of the road up as they go just to line their own pockets ?

Research as such does little to no good in either country to a certain point , if you are accepted by the local populace you are in , if not , you are out , but with my limited experience in both countries(Save others pointing that out) , I have read and been told by thousands that is the case in Thailand more so than here .

I am happy with my life because NO ONE gives me any agravation , in fact quite the opposite is true , I do however give myself a little agro , but then , I am English and we tend to be that way , somewhat like Canadians where I lived for over 40 years .

[SnareBear]

I think there is a paradox in the OP's entire effort he is ignoring. On one hand he says he wants to be completely legal but on the other he says he wants to own, or at least completely control the land. The entire point of Thailand's ban on foreign land ownership is to prevent foreigners from owning or controlling land. Any route he chooses is going against the intent of the law and therefore is attempting to circumvent it. IMHO, he is not going to find a 100% legal way to accomplish his goal as it is inherently illegal.

TH

Ive been in this country for four years now. I know there is no such thing as a "sure thing" in Thailand. I could lose all my investments at any time. Im willing to take the risk. But I want to make an effort to make the odds in my favour. Complying with Thai law is the first step. Making sure no one has any grudges aginst me is also important. So is paying fees and being a stand up person in the community. If they still want me out, they will kick me out for sure, there is not much I can do. Im just trying to give them less reasons to. BTW, this community is all Thai, not a single foreigner around. Ill be the first.

I think you are mistaken when it comes to Thai law. Owership is prohibited, yes. But for a Usufruct, there is no difference between whether the usufructee is Thai or foreigner. The usufructee will still control the land.

[SnareBear]

Finaly , some-one with a grain of HARD FACT on ownership/control of Thai land , for all the posturing , double checking , finding what YOU want to own , the bitter fact remains THAILAND IS FOR THAI ONLY . You can never feel completely safe in your little piece of heaven , should a Thai want you out , you are out .

Its not like that. The spirit of the law clearly shows that Thais dont want foreigners to come and buy their land, I'll give you that. The foreigners have tried to use loopholes like the use of nominees. Now they try to stop that, rightfully so.

But still there is nothing that prevents you from coming here and leasing land. Thats completely normal, and even encouraged since its a good way to make good money for locals. Usufruct/superficies contracts are just a variant of a lease.

Sure, I will never feel completely safe, but thats just a trade off for all the good things about this country.