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.

Yep...couldn't agree more!

Actually I strongly disagree with that. You need to eliminate the last sentence. It was that your friend was "completely secure in the solidity of the relationship" that got him in trouble in the first place.

Otherwise you are correct. Rent, don't buy. Or only invest a small portion of your assets so that if you lose everything it won't have a substantial effect on your lifestyle.

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.

Yep...couldn't agree more!

Actually I strongly disagree with that. You need to eliminate the last sentence. It was that your friend was "completely secure in the solidity of the relationship" that got him in trouble in the first place.

Otherwise you are correct. Rent, don't buy. Or only invest a small portion of your assets so that if you lose everything it won't have a substantial effect on your lifestyle.

Good point!

He was sure she was sent from heaven and to be honest they were both such a 'lovely' couple.

She wasn't a bar girl - actually quite educated and I suppose some people are able to make clever plans even if they take years to come to fruition.

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).

"and I would imagine she has no right of entry whilst the house is leased out."

as i said, not sure; and the law is not the same as in the uk anyway. and whatever the law is it does not always pan out that way in practice. a judge could well say, " she owns it, married or not" and there is no law of precedent in thailand so judges have quite wide discretion. be careful

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).

"and I would imagine she has no right of entry whilst the house is leased out."

as i said, not sure; and the law is not the same as in the uk anyway. and whatever the law is it does not always pan out that way in practice. a judge could well say, " she owns it, married or not" and there is no law of precedent in thailand so judges have quite wide discretion. be careful

Yes, you could be right I wouldn't think too many lawyers/judges would be able to quote xxx versus yyy 1996 lol. If Thai law is based on case law, could be a problem.