Is There A Loophole In The Land Laws. . .

[bkk_mike]

SumitrMan,

In regards to these "spouse owns the land/ I own the house lease agreements"  ...would it be considered trespassing to get to your house over someone else's land under the current law?  Not a huge issue for most houses... but what to do if it's a 300 meter driveway and the inlaws decide to build a closed concrete wall on their land?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not spouse owns the land / I own the house lease.

It's spouse owns the land / I lease the LAND / I built house on land I've leased...

If anyone would be trespassing, it would be the wife, after all you're paying (with the lease) for the use of the land.

[Heng]

Heng:

Obviously it would depend somewhat on the amount of land we are talking about.  However, basically you would have an automatic right of way over the land in question as you cannot stop someone's access to a main throughfare.

Section 1349 Civil and Commercial Code

If a piece of land is surrounded by other pieces of land, which means that it has no access to public ways, the owner may pass over the surrounding land to reach the public way.

....

[para 3]The place and manner of the passage must be so chosen as to meet the needs of the person entitled to the passage and at the same time to cause as little damage as possible to the surrounding land.  The person entitled to passage may, if necessary, construct a road for passage.

Yeah, I remember that from business law (local) class... but I'm a bit uncertain as to how that would play out in reality. Who chooses which piece of privately held land has to have the road constructed over it? And how does one determine whether the "blind land" holder's needs are met? We're building this wall... here, you can use this rope to climb over the wall whenever you need to come and go?

[Dragonman]

Heng:

Obviously it would depend somewhat on the amount of land we are talking about.  However, basically you would have an automatic right of way over the land in question as you cannot stop someone's access to a main throughfare.

Section 1349 Civil and Commercial Code

If a piece of land is surrounded by other pieces of land, which means that it has no access to public ways, the owner may pass over the surrounding land to reach the public way.

....

[para 3]The place and manner of the passage must be so chosen as to meet the needs of the person entitled to the passage and at the same time to cause as little damage as possible to the surrounding land.  The person entitled to passage may, if necessary, construct a road for passage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I remember that from business law (local) class... but I'm a bit uncertain as to how that would play out in reality. Who chooses which piece of privately held land has to have the road constructed over it? And how does one determine whether the "blind land" holder's needs are met? We're building this wall... here, you can use this rope to climb over the wall whenever you need to come and go?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be up to a Court of course to decide what was reasonable. Don't think even a Thai judge would find the rope bit reasonable.

In any event it would be far easier to incorporate a right of way and access agreement in the lease.

[billd766]

... everything's in my wife's name.

I just don't give a monkey's bum.

That makes 2 of us mate - the car (which is in my name) and coffee-maker, that's all I need

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And one more is 3. The pick up is in my name though, throw a few shirts in the back and away I go again......Great stuff.

No worries about what will happen if it all goes tits up, no worries about what will happen if The Thai government has a crack down on Bogus companies, no sleepless nights for me, I like to KNOW just where I stand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And another one is me. I even sold my pickup to my wife and she still owes me the 2 baht that I asked for. If there is no trust then there is no life or love. I have both.

[JimsKnight]

Have your wife buy the land, and lease it to you for a low price (but not ridiculously low, that the courts may rule unreasonable) and then you can pay to build a house on it. You own the building, she owns the land, and you have a 30yr lease that even her family cannot mess with if something happens to her.

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This can lead to the 'owner' of the land having jurisdiction over what development takes place and 'in extreme' cases has resulted in the bulldozers being called in!

Its really annoying seeing these laws being against the falang but the way many in Thai society see the land ownership thing is this:

Why should a bunch of foreigners with big money be able to buy houses, pushing up the cost of living and so forth preventing normal thais from ever having a chance of affording them? The whole reason the laws are so anti-falang is not because they thai laws are out to actively out to get us but to prevent all the housing market from getting saturated by rich millionaires and wealthy folk buying every house in sight! Its the same deal in quite a few SE asian countries. Hence these stop-gaps of thai wives owning the property and dodgy limited companies with shareholders names on the deeds putting off the super-wealthy (and some would say wiser) falangs . It all seems designed to limit the 'falang presence'.

Just look at the price in the UK for property, you need a double income to even afford a mortage in most houses... All eyes turn to Thailand...

Edited June 16, 2005 by JimsKnight

[Heng]

If anything, it only limits the 'presence of falangs who don't trust their spouses.'

[EVO]

All the above are very valid points, but one must look at the flip side of the coin.

In most countries in the world, foreigners are unable to buy land for a number of reasons. I believe (though am not 100% sure) that the reason for this in Thailand is to prevent land 'prospecting'.

I for one am all for this. It stops people from wealthier countries trading land, and pricing the local Thai population out of the ballpark.

Plus, there are ways to own land outright anyway, as many people know.

My commiserations to Tetyim over your apparent string of bad luck. I know there are many others who this kind of thing has happened to. Im sure you will have learned after two times though!!!

[Sumitr Man]

...

I believe (though am not 100% sure) that the reason for this in Thailand is to prevent land 'prospecting'.

I for one am all for this. It stops people from wealthier countries trading land, and pricing the local Thai population out of the ballpark.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason why I have never accepted this argument is because "land trading/speculating" is a Group 1 prohibited activity under the Foreign Business Act 1999; therefore, foreigners with 2 or more properties would be prohibited from land prospecting by virtue of the probition in the FBA.

I can see an argument where Thais may argue that land prices may go up - limited supply vs. unlimited demand, as against limited supply vs. limited demand; but not foreigners "speculating" in land.

SM

[expatinasia]

If there is a "loophole", it will be to deny you any rights to the property. As another poster put it "buy a condo", to which I'd add "in your name."

Perhaps you should start another discussion thread, something simialr "Has anyone retained permanant ownership of real property following a divorce, or death of spouse?" I'm not sure that you'll get any positive responses.

[Dragonman]

...

I believe (though am not 100% sure) that the reason for this in Thailand is to prevent land 'prospecting'.

I for one am all for this. It stops people from wealthier countries trading land, and pricing the local Thai population out of the ballpark.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason why I have never accepted this argument is because "land trading/speculating" is a Group 1 prohibited activity under the Foreign Business Act 1999; therefore, foreigners with 2 or more properties would be prohibited from land prospecting by virtue of the probition in the FBA.

I can see an argument where Thais may argue that land prices may go up - limited supply vs. unlimited demand, as against limited supply vs. limited demand; but not foreigners "speculating" in land.

SM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whilst personally not liking the property situation in Thailand, one only needs look at the UK property market to see what happens in an area where there is an influx of wealthier people than locals. In fact Local Authorities in some areas of the UK prohibit non locals from acquiring property. Migration from wealthy areas has caused huge distortions in land values.

[mrbojangles]

Plus, there are ways to own land outright anyway, as many people know.

I only know of the "company" one. Are there other ways? I would be grateful to know more

Mr BoJ

[Sumitr Man]

^ become a Thai citizen

[chownah]

I haven't read most of the posts for this topic so forgive me if I'm off base here but my opinion is that whoever has the most money and knows how to spread it around controls the loopholes.

[mrbojangles]

^ become a Thai citizen 

Thanks for stating the obvious one SM !! EVO seemed to be suggesting that there are a few ways of owning land outright

[chownah]

^ become a Thai citizen 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for stating the obvious one SM !! EVO seemed to be suggesting that there are a few ways of owning land outright

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If by owning land outright you mean that your name and no one elses appears on the title....then I think you can not.....if so then I ask the question, "Does anyone at TV own land with their name only on the title? Anyone who is not a THai citizen that is?"....I have never heard anyone say that they owned land in this way....so I'm pretty sure it can't be done...short of becoming a Thai citizen.

[ZOVOX]

The truth is that all these methods employed by farangs to 'own' landed property - i.e leases, company formation etc - has not been tested in a court of law, and if it was, the judge would probably still side with the Thai partner, especially if the company you set-up was created solely for the purposes of buying property. Luckily, my wife's family think i'm a member of the mafia, so are too afraid to touch my two houses i have purchased. So my advice is to buy the house in the wife's name and keep her happy . If you can't keep her happy, be prepared to walk away from it all, so keep a nice a little nest egg for yourself. If all else fails, send the mafia in: there are things in Thailand that are above the law .

[bkk_mike]

Whilst personally not liking the property situation in Thailand, one only needs look at the UK property market to see what happens in an area where there is an influx of wealthier people than locals. In fact Local Authorities in some areas of the UK prohibit non locals from acquiring property. Migration from wealthy areas has  caused huge distortions in land values.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Local Authorities in the UK have no say over who can purchase property in the UK. (unless it's property currently owned by the local authority).

The Local Authorities planning department can say what you can or cannot build, but that's about it. The Local Authority isn't even consulted for a normal purchase of property, so don't know how they could block anything.

[Dragonman]

Whilst personally not liking the property situation in Thailand, one only needs look at the UK property market to see what happens in an area where there is an influx of wealthier people than locals. In fact Local Authorities in some areas of the UK prohibit non locals from acquiring property. Migration from wealthy areas has  caused huge distortions in land values.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Local Authorities in the UK have no say over who can purchase property in the UK. (unless it's property currently owned by the local authority).

The Local Authorities planning department can say what you can or cannot build, but that's about it. The Local Authority isn't even consulted for a normal purchase of property, so don't know how they could block anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have actually dealt with such Authorities in North Wales, ( due to those rich English people buying all the property) all be it in my prevoius life in property law.Any Local Authority can issue a bye law where you have to instruct them of a sale in the same way as planning and building regs.

[TokyoT]

...

I believe (though am not 100% sure) that the reason for this in Thailand is to prevent land 'prospecting'.

I for one am all for this. It stops people from wealthier countries trading land, and pricing the local Thai population out of the ballpark.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason why I have never accepted this argument is because "land trading/speculating" is a Group 1 prohibited activity under the Foreign Business Act 1999; therefore, foreigners with 2 or more properties would be prohibited from land prospecting by virtue of the probition in the FBA.

I can see an argument where Thais may argue that land prices may go up - limited supply vs. unlimited demand, as against limited supply vs. limited demand; but not foreigners "speculating" in land.

SM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In addition to the above - what would be so unreasonable in allowing a Farang that is married to a Thai national for a specific period of time (say at least 3 years) to own land. Then in case of divorce allow a specific period of time (say 1 year) for the Farang to sell the land. Even if including a limit of a single piece of land.

[Dragonman]

...

I believe (though am not 100% sure) that the reason for this in Thailand is to prevent land 'prospecting'.

I for one am all for this. It stops people from wealthier countries trading land, and pricing the local Thai population out of the ballpark.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason why I have never accepted this argument is because "land trading/speculating" is a Group 1 prohibited activity under the Foreign Business Act 1999; therefore, foreigners with 2 or more properties would be prohibited from land prospecting by virtue of the probition in the FBA.

I can see an argument where Thais may argue that land prices may go up - limited supply vs. unlimited demand, as against limited supply vs. limited demand; but not foreigners "speculating" in land.

SM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In addition to the above - what would be so unreasonable in allowing a Farang that is married to a Thai national for a specific period of time (say at least 3 years) to own land. Then in case of divorce allow a specific period of time (say 1 year) for the Farang to sell the land. Even if including a limit of a single piece of land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Much too simple. You are stopping my fellow legal professionals making millions of baht out of leases and crazy companies.

[TokyoT]

...

I believe (though am not 100% sure) that the reason for this in Thailand is to prevent land 'prospecting'.

I for one am all for this. It stops people from wealthier countries trading land, and pricing the local Thai population out of the ballpark.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason why I have never accepted this argument is because "land trading/speculating" is a Group 1 prohibited activity under the Foreign Business Act 1999; therefore, foreigners with 2 or more properties would be prohibited from land prospecting by virtue of the probition in the FBA.

I can see an argument where Thais may argue that land prices may go up - limited supply vs. unlimited demand, as against limited supply vs. limited demand; but not foreigners "speculating" in land.

SM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In addition to the above - what would be so unreasonable in allowing a Farang that is married to a Thai national for a specific period of time (say at least 3 years) to own land. Then in case of divorce allow a specific period of time (say 1 year) for the Farang to sell the land. Even if including a limit of a single piece of land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Much too simple. You are stopping my fellow legal professionals making millions of baht out of leases and crazy companies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess KISS and TiT can not coexist?

[kenk3z]

The way the laws and political attitudes are set up in Thailand - essentially, the cost of a divorce is whatever you have invested in the wife's name (as far as land and house).

Maybe you have a 2-M Baht house in Issarn? Well, that's your divorce payment. No alimony and no child support required as far as I know.

Still cheaper to divorce than many female-dominated countries.

So, when you buy a house for the wife in Thailand, consider that as your divorce payment in advance.

kenk3z

[Neeranam]

Why not buy a house in your home country and one in Thailand. Get the one in your home country in your name and the one in Thailand in her name.

Get some legal thing written up that says she has no right to the house, ever.

Make sure that they are equal value.

or

Let your wife pay for the Thai house out of her earnings or savings, while you pay for the other one.

[TokyoT]

Why not buy a house in your home country and one in Thailand. Get the one in your home country in your name and the one in Thailand in her name.

Get some legal thing written up that says she has no right to the house, ever.

Make sure that they are equal value.

or

Let your wife pay for the Thai house out of her earnings or savings, while you pay for the other one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good solution in a perfect world. Problems for me are as follows:

1) Equal value house in Thailand vs equal value house in US does not equal living conditions. Can not get anything close in the US to what I can get in Thailand for the same amount.

2) My wife has little to no money in savings and she chooses to give most of what she has to her family rather than add to savings – no problem for me.

For others I think you would find that they do not have the financial recourses to purchase homes in both locations. So may be in a position where they have cut things close on the financial end of things for early retirement or such and the loss of the home in Thailand may place them in a difficult position. So they can afford the risk associated with buying property that they may loose all right to.

I really like the comments from Kenk3z – think of the house as the complete settlement for the wife in a divorce. Good point of view.

The exception being that I would never walk away from my responsibilities to any children in our relationship and therefore while there may not be any formal mandated child support there would certainly be some form a regular money transfers should the child (children) end up staying with the mother and not living with me.

My basic problem is not really related to financial loss. It is more about a lack of respect in current Thai law – for equality in a relationship. My statements to my wife are along the lines of the following – “If Thailand wanted us to buy a house for our family in Thailand they should show me enough respect to allow me to claim partial ownership for the house. Show me a level of respect for taking responsibility for supporting my family.” So even though I love and trust my wife I feel slighted by the government of Thailand and therefore will not purchase land or housing due to current laws.

Currently I am an expat and my “housing” is supplied by my company, so not a major issue in my current situation. But if the legal standing was different in Thailand I would probably purchase land and build a house in my wife’s home town. We could stay there when visiting and lock in a place to live in retirement in Thailand (still quite a ways in the future).