Usufruct In Chiangmai

[uptheos]

I have a friend who doesn't mind me sharing this (sorry for all you purests but I will mention Chiang Rai too)

He was living a modest life in Chiangmai, legally married now for 5 years. He had good savings, an oldish but good enough car and rented a nice house for 7,000 Baht a month...life was good.

One year into his marriage the wife starts with the building house scenario and how she'd love to be nearer the family in Chiang Rai. She knows of 4 rai going for a decent price and wouldn't it be better for them in the long run if he built a house rather than pay rent -also maybe they could buy a nice car, after all they were in love, legally married and were going to spent the rest of their lives together....in Shangri-La

He did his sums - a hel_l of a lot of money....basically everything, he would have a little left in the bank and this year he gets his modest UK pension...but that's OK as everything is paid for.

Having done his homework and research - he concludes...aah USUFRUCT I'm safe, no-one can throw me out if things go wrong, my investment is safe. The wife has no objections.

OK now move on a couple of years - all money sunk into house with SUV in drive...trouble is he's not living with the woman he married, he's living with Beelzebub!

I'll keep this short - he wants out but she won't sell.

While he went away for a week everything was removed from the house, including the car (in her name).

So now he's living alone in the sticks, in a house with no furniture, no reliable vehicle and can't move on because all his money is in the house. His life has gone from bliss to hel_l. He's going crazy.

As far as I know he's talked to his wife and her response is a very calm "you have a lease and you can stay there for as long as you want".....she's right he has USUFRUCT.....but soon he'll have a staightjacket too!!

I'm not really sure what the moral of this is...hmm each person can put their own slant on it.

I guess I hear of many guys saying they have usufructs, leases, wills etc etc, and seem very smug.

In a situation as described above what use are they?

Cheers

PS Don't shoot me, I'm not an expert - I'm just telling of something I know.

[wimpy]

Your friend is an idiot.

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Uptheos,

Another sad tale of heartbreak in the Land of Smiles; we think many of us here have lived-out our own "version" of this story, in some form, in our own pilgrimages here from foolishness to wisdom, and then back from wisdom to foolishness. Our heart goes out to your friend, and we sincerely wish he has some good friends in this time who'll help him move on. Social isolation, at a time like this, can be dangerous, we think, depending on the person and how they adapt to being alone, or isolated.

And, yet, it is a universal story, in so many ways : betrayal, loss, the mutation of what seems like love and intimacy into something venal and common : the very life-blood of the (fill in your home country's name here) Lawyers' Perpetual-Employment Act.

We are sure this story will elicit the usual crude and cruel remarks from the mai-mee-jai buffoons and senile ragazzaccio here in abundance (in our humble opinion there being a direct relationship between degree of bitterness and the extent of unhealed wounds).

It would, probably, offer your friend no solace, no comfort, at this time, to hear words like "In the future you will look back on this, and forgive her, and treasure the moments of real intimacy and love you shared. You will come to understand what her life was like, what she suffered, what her family did to her, and what deep forces made the current tragic result almost inevitable, and you will feel compassion" : but let us say those words, here, anyway, in the spirit of what may be possible rather than in the depression of spirit in which all that is salient is what seems not possible.

In my own human's heart there is no doubt that he would, even if he had complete foreknowledge of the final sad outcome, and its great emotional cost, choose consciously to relive what was probably his final attempt to sustain a "relationship" against all odds. That means something !

A paradox : betrayal, loss, suffering, pickles some people into perpetual bitterness; drives others mad; in others it seems to, in the long run, lead to a deep acceptance of self where, in a quietness of mind, you can hear the pure holy echo of love's grace.

sorrowfully, ~o:37;

Edited December 3, 2009 by orang37

[jackr]

I'd say there is a point as if he didn't have one she would have sold it by now and there'd be zero prospect of any possible comeback. It could of course be a lot worse; he could have no house and no pension!

Perhaps he could cozy back up to her, plead for her to come back home, shower it with gifts, etc, and when all is calm, say he'd like to buy a bigger, better place, but of course they need to sell this one first and invest everything in gold as it's going to skyrocket 100% (or whatever she'll absorb), and then simply piss off.

[jackr]

Your friend is an idiot.

Why bother?

[Benjie]

can he not rent it out.

[Mapguy]

Your friend is an idiot.

I beg exception to this. The man is not an idiot, but his wife is smarter in her grasp of legal matters as they intertwine with practical matters than he. And good for her, perhaps! Not to pick sides, but the story relates how the guy was sure he had somehow "protected" himself.

In any case, it is an unfortunate story.

[wimpy]

Your friend is an idiot.

I beg exception to this. The man is not an idiot, but his wife is smarter in her grasp of legal matters as they intertwine with practical matters than he. And good for her, perhaps! Not to pick sides, but the story relates how the guy was sure he had somehow "protected" himself.

In any case, it is an unfortunate story.

Then why did he put his million baht SUV in her name? Idiot.

[Mapguy]

Your friend is an idiot.

I beg exception to this. The man is not an idiot, but his wife is smarter in her grasp of legal matters as they intertwine with practical matters than he. And good for her, perhaps! Not to pick sides, but the story relates how the guy was sure he had somehow "protected" himself.

In any case, it is an unfortunate story.

Then why did he put his million baht SUV in her name? Idiot.

Wimpy, you are a hard case!

[Mapguy]

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Uptheos,

Another sad tale of heartbreak in the Land of Smiles; we think many of us here have lived-out our own "version" of this story, in some form, in our own pilgrimages here from foolishness to wisdom, and then back from wisdom to foolishness. Our heart goes out to your friend, and we sincerely wish he has some good friends in this time who'll help him move on. Social isolation, at a time like this, can be dangerous, we think, depending on the person and how they adapt to being alone, or isolated.

And, yet, it is a universal story, in so many ways : betrayal, loss, the mutation of what seems like love and intimacy into something venal and common : the very life-blood of the (fill in your home country's name here) Lawyers' Perpetual-Employment Act.

We are sure this story will elicit the usual crude and cruel remarks from the mai-mee-jai buffoons and senile ragazzaccio here in abundance (in our humble opinion there being a direct relationship between degree of bitterness and the extent of unhealed wounds).

It would, probably, offer your friend no solace, no comfort, at this time, to hear words like "In the future you will look back on this, and forgive her, and treasure the moments of real intimacy and love you shared. You will come to understand what her life was like, what she suffered, what her family did to her, and what deep forces made the current tragic result almost inevitable, and you will feel compassion" : but let us say those words, here, anyway, in the spirit of what may be possible rather than in the depression of spirit in which all that is salient is what seems not possible.

In my own human's heart there is no doubt that he would, even if he had complete foreknowledge of the final sad outcome, and its great emotional cost, choose consciously to relive what was probably his final attempt to sustain a "relationship" against all odds. That means something !

A paradox : betrayal, loss, suffering, pickles some people into perpetual bitterness; drives others mad; in others it seems to, in the long run, lead to a deep acceptance of self where, in a quietness of mind, you can hear the pure holy echo of love's grace.

sorrowfully, ~o:37;

Are you really a priest?

[orang37]

Are you really a priest?

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Mapguy,

The nothing that is further from the truth is closer than you think.

best, ~o:37;

[Mapguy]

Depends on the church, actually!

[Thakkar]

Are you really a priest?

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Mapguy,

The nothing that is further from the truth is closer than you think.

best, ~o:37;

OMG! You're Alan Greenspan!

[Mapguy]

ZING !!!!!!....

.............. for those of you who are familiar with the life and works of Greenspan. His wife does better! Oh yes, that's Barbara "Waawaa" of considerable American fame (for the masses!). Someone will correct my spelling of her name!

[lannarebirth]

ZING !!!!!!....

.............. for those of you who are familiar with the life and works of Greenspan. His wife does better! Oh yes, that's Barbara "Waawaa" of considerable American fame (for the masses!). Someone will correct my spelling of her name!

Andrea Mitchell

[MILT]

Not unusual here in Thailand. "Blood is thicker than water" in most cases. I would make a guess and say that 1. The guy is a complete asswh*le and the wife was over the relationship. 2. Her family's influence and strategy won over love. 3. This tragedy was in the making from day one.

For myself I can only toot my own horn and have been blessed with a life long friend. 15 years and going strong, Oh did I mention nothing is in my name????

Waiting for the fall out on my last statement

[caf]

Your friend is an idiot.

I beg exception to this. The man is not an idiot, but his wife is smarter in her grasp of legal matters as they intertwine with practical matters than he. And good for her, perhaps! Not to pick sides, but the story relates how the guy was sure he had somehow "protected" himself.

In any case, it is an unfortunate story.

Then why did he put his million baht SUV in her name? Idiot.

Perhaps he didnt. It has been known for a wife to "ask" the car dealer to issue the tambian rot in her name!!

Anyway if they are married, the car is half his, half hers irrespective of whose name it is in ( so long as bought after a legal marriage at the amphur). The house is more complicated. It is her house and he cannot rent it out. On divorce the proceeds should be 50 50 but it is not that straightforward.

[Thakkar]

Asian women, especially those from relatively poorer backgrounds, rarely marry purely for love. Security is an important consideration. A Chinese friend, a wealthy HK industrialist, once lamented that his daughter was dating someone he didn't approve of. It didn't bother him that the young man was poor, or that he was not highly educated. What bothered him was that the boy had no ambition and no drive, and therefore, no future.

I had a good rapport with his daughter and we talked about the matter. I asked her questions about her boyfriend and from her recounting, we both concluded that he was an aimless layabout. She assured me that she had no intention of marrying him, but for now, he was fun to be with. She couldn't tell her dad this because she didn't want him to think she was a floozie. I talked to her dad and told him not to worry, that his daughter would soon come to her senses.

The fact is the girl was already sensible. She had decided that when she got married, it would be with someone who was educated and driven. He didn't have to be rich, but did have to have the potential to provide their family with reasonable security. This, from the daughter of a wealthy industrialist, someone who has known privilege all her life.

<snip>. This tragedy was in the making from day one.

Probably. The guy must've feared the possibility of betrayal, otherwise why not simply buy the property in the wife's name without the rigmarole of leaseback agreements? After all, they were married and expected to remain married, surely. Perhaps it was his mistrust that riled her. It's a great loss of face when your spouse mistrusts you this way and his mistrust may have precipitated her treachery, the mistrust thus becoming self-fulfilling. Or she was a bitch to begin with, who knows.

The deed is done and moping won't help. If there' no possibility of reconciliation, best to put it behind and move on with what is now necessarily a more frugal life. It isn't a happy situation, but it's not the end of the world.

[wimpy]

Probably. The guy must've feared the possibility of betrayal, otherwise why not simply buy the property in the wife's name without the rigmarole of leaseback agreements? After all, they were married and expected to remain married, surely. Perhaps it was his mistrust that riled her. It's a great loss of face when your spouse mistrusts you this way and his mistrust may have precipitated her treachery, the mistrust thus becoming self-fulfilling. Or she was a bitch to begin with, who knows.

The Usufruct would prevent the "family" from tossing you off the property if the wife was to die.

[caf]

Asian women, especially those from relatively poorer backgrounds, rarely marry purely for love. Security is an important consideration. A Chinese friend, a wealthy HK industrialist, once lamented that his daughter was dating someone he didn't approve of. It didn't bother him that the young man was poor, or that he was not highly educated. What bothered him was that the boy had no ambition and no drive, and therefore, no future.

I had a good rapport with his daughter and we talked about the matter. I asked her questions about her boyfriend and from her recounting, we both concluded that he was an aimless layabout. She assured me that she had no intention of marrying him, but for now, he was fun to be with. She couldn't tell her dad this because she didn't want him to think she was a floozie. I talked to her dad and told him not to worry, that his daughter would soon come to her senses.

The fact is the girl was already sensible. She had decided that when she got married, it would be with someone who was educated and driven. He didn't have to be rich, but did have to have the potential to provide their family with reasonable security. This, from the daughter of a wealthy industrialist, someone who has known privilege all her life.

<snip>. This tragedy was in the making from day one.

Probably. The guy must've feared the possibility of betrayal, otherwise why not simply buy the property in the wife's name without the rigmarole of leaseback agreements? After all, they were married and expected to remain married, surely. Perhaps it was his mistrust that riled her. It's a great loss of face when your spouse mistrusts you this way and his mistrust may have precipitated her treachery, the mistrust thus becoming self-fulfilling. Or she was a bitch to begin with, who knows.

The deed is done and moping won't help. If there' no possibility of reconciliation, best to put it behind and move on with what is now necessarily a more frugal life. It isn't a happy situation, but it's not the end of the world.

No, it isn't the end of the world, I agree.

But he can still salvage 50% of his spend.

You say, "his mistrust may have precipitated her treachery" I am not sure I would have used the word mistrust for his being prudent in obtaining an usufruct. Lawyers often recommend it. It is not a matter of mistrust. However, you seem to accept that she was treacherous as indeed she was; and there is surely no excuse for that.

I hope there is a positive outcome in this.

As another poster said, security is a bigger reason than love in asian marriages so one can understand that this happens here in Thailand. One understands her motivation. The pity is that the guy was initially so trusting in her love that he did not see it. That is where her treachery comes in.

[uptheos]

Lots of good replies - thanks. To those in blissful relationships long may they continue.

I still ask the question, what good is a USUFRUCT? One constructive answer was that relatives can't throw you out if she dies....that's a positive. However, what good is it if you are in the middle of nowhere, in an empty house that of course you don't want to be in now? I suppose it's a bargaining tool if the wife ever wants to sell.

After reading replies, I'd like to ask a question.

Let's assume the wife is being sabai sabai and doesn't want to sell the house. Most Thai's as you know don't want to sell - land and houses are their favourite posessions. Let's assume she's just going to let him live there for as long as he likes - it will cost her nothing as long as utilities are not in her name. (I heard of a case of a foreigner arranging with his friend in England to receive a phone call on an old mobile and the phone was left open for two weeks both ends, which if true is rather neat.)

Now lets say the guy moves away for say 2 years and then returns.

In the house is a family renting or otherwise.

Can he call the police to have them removed, is his USUFRUCT still valid.....does life mean LIFE, regardless of whether you are actually in the house or not?

Can your name be taken off the land paper without your permission?

Another question: If they divorce, can he legally stop the wife entering as she is then not a relative and he is the leaseholder?

I believe whilst they are married he cannot.

[philliphn]

The general and probable best advice is rent don't buy.

[caf]

Lots of good replies - thanks. To those in blissful relationships long may they continue.

I still ask the question, what good is a USUFRUCT? One constructive answer was that relatives can't throw you out if she dies....that's a positive. However, what good is it if you are in the middle of nowhere, in an empty house that of course you don't want to be in now? I suppose it's a bargaining tool if the wife ever wants to sell.

After reading replies, I'd like to ask a question.

Let's assume the wife is being sabai sabai and doesn't want to sell the house. Most Thai's as you know don't want to sell - land and houses are their favourite posessions. Let's assume she's just going to let him live there for as long as he likes - it will cost her nothing as long as utilities are not in her name. (I heard of a case of a foreigner arranging with his friend in England to receive a phone call on an old mobile and the phone was left open for two weeks both ends, which if true is rather neat.)

Now lets say the guy moves away for say 2 years and then returns.

In the house is a family renting or otherwise.

Can he call the police to have them removed, is his USUFRUCT still valid.....does life mean LIFE, regardless of whether you are actually in the house or not?

Can your name be taken off the land paper without your permission?

Another question: If they divorce, can he legally stop the wife entering as she is then not a relative and he is the leaseholder?

I believe whilst they are married he cannot.

Not sure on the last point.

He has the right to stay there because of the usufruct.

But she owns the house and may therefore have taht right under Thai law.

It's not the same I think where for example in the uk an owner has no right of access. TIT

[Thakkar]

Probably. The guy must've feared the possibility of betrayal, otherwise why not simply buy the property in the wife's name without the rigmarole of leaseback agreements? After all, they were married and expected to remain married, surely. Perhaps it was his mistrust that riled her. It's a great loss of face when your spouse mistrusts you this way and his mistrust may have precipitated her treachery, the mistrust thus becoming self-fulfilling. Or she was a bitch to begin with, who knows.

The Usufruct would prevent the "family" from tossing you off the property if the wife was to die.

I hadn't thought of that. Still, I think my point stands.

On the cusp of a new marriage, a morbid concern over the death of the new bride and subsequent grubby grabbiness of her grieving family might be seen as prudential on the part of the jittery new groom. But how would the bride and her family see this? He might consider it shrewd planning. Others could see it as forward planning of a self-centered kind. The seeds of "us" and "him" are planted.

When it comes to property in Thailand, the best advice is rent, don't buy. And if you must buy, make sure the amount involved is something you can walk away from without too much hurt. Otherwise be completely secure in the solidity of the relationship.

It's true that the man still has a chance to get back 50% and of course he should try for that. But even before that, why not try reconciliation? The whole thing might just have begun as a minor kerfuffle that was spiced up and aggravated by family and neighbors each adding their own dash of masala to the mix.

Whatever it is, good luck to the fellow.

[uptheos]

Lots of good replies - thanks. To those in blissful relationships long may they continue.

I still ask the question, what good is a USUFRUCT? One constructive answer was that relatives can't throw you out if she dies....that's a positive. However, what good is it if you are in the middle of nowhere, in an empty house that of course you don't want to be in now? I suppose it's a bargaining tool if the wife ever wants to sell.

After reading replies, I'd like to ask a question.

Let's assume the wife is being sabai sabai and doesn't want to sell the house. Most Thai's as you know don't want to sell - land and houses are their favourite posessions. Let's assume she's just going to let him live there for as long as he likes - it will cost her nothing as long as utilities are not in her name. (I heard of a case of a foreigner arranging with his friend in England to receive a phone call on an old mobile and the phone was left open for two weeks both ends, which if true is rather neat.)

Now lets say the guy moves away for say 2 years and then returns.

In the house is a family renting or otherwise.

Can he call the police to have them removed, is his USUFRUCT still valid.....does life mean LIFE, regardless of whether you are actually in the house or not?

Can your name be taken off the land paper without your permission?

Another question: If they divorce, can he legally stop the wife entering as she is then not a relative and he is the leaseholder?

I believe whilst they are married he cannot.

Not sure on the last point.

He has the right to stay there because of the usufruct.

But she owns the house and may therefore have taht right under Thai law.

It's not the same I think where for example in the uk an owner has no right of access. TIT

This is interesting. Own the house or not, once they are divorced she is nothing to him. She is the same as any other person giving a lease on a house....and I would imagine she has no right of entry whilst the house is leased out. I bet he could legally change the locks (or add padlocks).

[uptheos]

Probably. The guy must've feared the possibility of betrayal, otherwise why not simply buy the property in the wife's name without the rigmarole of leaseback agreements? After all, they were married and expected to remain married, surely. Perhaps it was his mistrust that riled her. It's a great loss of face when your spouse mistrusts you this way and his mistrust may have precipitated her treachery, the mistrust thus becoming self-fulfilling. Or she was a bitch to begin with, who knows.

The Usufruct would prevent the "family" from tossing you off the property if the wife was to die.

I hadn't thought of that. Still, I think my point stands.

On the cusp of a new marriage, a morbid concern over the death of the new bride and subsequent grubby grabbiness of her grieving family might be seen as prudential on the part of the jittery new groom. But how would the bride and her family see this? He might consider it shrewd planning. Others could see it as forward planning of a self-centered kind. The seeds of "us" and "him" are planted.

When it comes to property in Thailand, the best advice is rent, don't buy. And if you must buy, make sure the amount involved is something you can walk away from without too much hurt. Otherwise be completely secure in the solidity of the relationship.

It's true that the man still has a chance to get back 50% and of course he should try for that. But even before that, why not try reconciliation? The whole thing might just have begun as a minor kerfuffle that was spiced up and aggravated by family and neighbors each adding their own dash of masala to the mix.

Whatever it is, good luck to the fellow.

Yep...couldn't agree more!

[LomSak27]

Having done his homework and research - he concludes...aah USUFRUCT I'm safe, no-one can throw me out if things go wrong, my investment is safe. The wife has no objections.

I have spent many long hours (and many beers) listening to expats explain all this to me in glowing details. They usually act like they want a pat on the back, suitably chuffed they are. They never listen seriously to my advice, or, more to the point, advice from others at the same bar who are far wiser than me. More often than not they end like your friend.

You can lead an expat to water, but ...

[elektrified]

Always rent. It's the only safe way here.

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Uptheos,

If your friend has financial resources, you can PM me, and I can recommend a Farang lawyer in Bangkok I know personally, and who has "major connections." While you could certainly count on his being willing to talk to your client about the situation briefly at no charge, you can count on your friend having to pay a major retainer up front if the attorney starts "legally acting for" your client. And the process is going to be risky.

best, ~o:37;

[uptheos]

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Uptheos,

If your friend has financial resources, you can PM me, and I can recommend a Farang lawyer in Bangkok I know personally, and who has "major connections." While you could certainly count on his being willing to talk to your client about the situation briefly at no charge, you can count on your friend having to pay a major retainer up front if the attorney starts "legally acting for" your client. And the process is going to be risky.

best, ~o:37;

Thanks very much for the offer, I will put it to him.

Would you be able to ball park how much you would consider 'a major retainer' might be? If not, no problem.

Cheers