I see your point, but surely (and assuming this is a freehold condo) the Juristic Person woudl have to make a statement that the property is free of debt and leins? I could be wrong, but the JP should have highlited this prior to enabling transfer at the Land Dept.

I don't think so because:

Its not a debt or lien secured on the condo - it relates to it and does not affect the owners freedom to sell (which is what the land office is interested to know from the CJP).

The CJP may not even know about the lease and anyway is not there to protect the lessee.

The lessee can in no way block or expect to be any part of the negotiations for sale (even if it was a 30 year lease which does not appear to be the case here).

The buyer should make their own enquiries with the land office generally including existence of registered leases and make other enquiries outside the land office for unregistered leases - and even then that's a matter for them with the buyer.

So, namoo, 24 hours after your post, the problem was settled. All you had to do was speak with the new landlord. Why didn't you do that initially, rather than getting upset?

Actually, I am very glad that namoo started this topic. It has been confirmed to me that leases are tranferred and enforced even when a sale of the property occurs. It has been my understanding in the past that such is also the case with a 30 year lease.

That is correct as it is regulated by the same law, Hire of Property under the Civil and Commercial Code. There is thus no specific law for a lease in Thailand.

http://www.samuiforsale.com/Civil_Code_tex...sh_II.html#Hire

However please remember the distinction between lease rights and personal rights.

The new owner / lessor is not obliged to honour all the lessor obligations contained in the lease.

The thirty year lease is not extinguished by the lessor selling or otherwise transferring (including dying and others inheriting) BUT for example the obligation to renew that lease is not passed on to the new owner.

The lessee may have a theoretical case against the original lessee but even if successful in establishing that the old lessee doesn't own the subject land and hence no performance of the renewal (for example) can be ordered.

I find this interesting, Re the 30 year lease,. So if a falang purchases a property in the name of his Thai partner and then contracts a thirty year lease in his name from the partner, the purchase price being the rental payment upfront (very common as we all know) Can the partner sell the property without the permission of the falang ? I always understood in was in writing on the back Chanote.

I find this interesting, Re the 30 year lease,. So if a falang purchases a property in the name of his Thai partner and then contracts a thirty year lease in his name from the partner, the purchase price being the rental payment upfront (very common as we all know) Can the partner sell the property without the permission of the falang ? I always understood in was in writing on the back Chanote.

Not sure exactly what your asking.

Why would the farang's permission be needed? They are only the lessee afterall.

I find this interesting, Re the 30 year lease,. So if a falang purchases a property in the name of his Thai partner and then contracts a thirty year lease in his name from the partner, the purchase price being the rental payment upfront (very common as we all know) Can the partner sell the property without the permission of the falang ? I always understood in was in writing on the back Chanote.

Not sure exactly what your asking.

Why would the farang's permission be needed? They are only the lessee afterall.

Yes, the partner can sell the property, but who would want to buy it? The lease would still be enforced. I suppose if the lease is getting close to the end of the 30 years someone might be interested and willing to wait a few years. The farang still gets 30 years of use in any event. If 30 years isn't enough then don't do a lease - do a usufruct for the duration of the farang's lifetime instead.

I find this interesting, Re the 30 year lease,. So if a falang purchases a property in the name of his Thai partner and then contracts a thirty year lease in his name from the partner, the purchase price being the rental payment upfront (very common as we all know) Can the partner sell the property without the permission of the falang ? I always understood in was in writing on the back Chanote.

Not sure exactly what your asking.

Why would the farang's permission be needed? They are only the lessee afterall.

So there would be no facility in Law for the lease arrangement to be entered on the Chanote, ensuring his permission for the sale, thats what I am asking

I find this interesting, Re the 30 year lease,. So if a falang purchases a property in the name of his Thai partner and then contracts a thirty year lease in his name from the partner, the purchase price being the rental payment upfront (very common as we all know) Can the partner sell the property without the permission of the falang ? I always understood in was in writing on the back Chanote.

Not sure exactly what your asking.

Why would the farang's permission be needed? They are only the lessee afterall.

Yes, the partner can sell the property, but who would want to buy it? The lease would still be enforced. I suppose if the lease is getting close to the end of the 30 years someone might be interested and willing to wait a few years. The farang still gets 30 years of use in any event. If 30 years isn't enough then don't do a lease - do a usufruct for the duration of the farang's lifetime instead.

Yes thats clear Thank You