I'M About To Buy A Property And The Farang Owner Doesn'T Even Know It'S Being Sold!

[GuestHouse]

I can't help thinking that the moral outrage being expressed here has its roots in the realization that any foreigner who buys a property in the name of his Thai girlfriend/wife could wind up on the receiving end of one of these deals.

Read the LARGE PRINT - If you buy someone else a house in their name - it belongs to them, they can do with it as they wish.

Or are the champions of moral behavior suggesting that once you have given someone a gift you have the right to dictate what they do with it....... perhaps the right to dictate what they do with their own life.

I get that entirely - You buy a woman who is 1/2 or a 1/3rd of your age a house and you get to dictate the rules.

Morals and Ethics my ass.

[Chonburiram]

I can't help thinking that the moral outrage being expressed here has its roots in the realization that any foreigner who buys a property in the name of his Thai girlfriend/wife could wind up on the receiving end of one of these deals.

Read the LARGE PRINT - If you buy someone else a house in their name - it belongs to them, they can do with it as they wish.

Or are the champions of moral behavior suggesting that once you have given someone a gift you have the right to dictate what they do with it....... perhaps the right to dictate what they do with their own life.

I get that entirely - You buy a woman who is 1/2 or a 1/3rd of your age a house and you get to dictate the rules.

Morals and Ethics my ass.

About gifts I was taugth the following:

-If not appropriate, refuse

-If you accept a gift, hold it in honour ( Just for you GH, this means do not sell, destroy or misuse it )

I'm happy to say that my friends brought up in the same sense.

[Valdezugar]

I suppose the OP has to decide which set of values he subscribes to; that which he brings with him or that which he finds where he lives. Would he do this in his own country, with all the facts he has now at his disposal? But he's not in his own country is he? He's in Thai . . . .

[GuestHouse]

I suppose the OP has to decide which set of values he subscribes to; that which he brings with him or that which he finds where he lives. Would he do this in his own country, with all the facts he has now at his disposal? But he's not in his own country is he? He's in Thai . . . .

Would you, or anyone else in their right mind and of their own free will, give a woman a house in your/their own country?

And if you did and she later sold it how would the law in your country treat your claim to want to control her rights to sell what is legally hers?

[GreenSnapper]

Would you, or anyone else in their right mind and of their own free will, give a woman a house in your/their own country?

Millions of men do it. It's called 'divorce' and a huge industry of lawyers, judges perfectly performs the fleecing.

Thailand is harmless compared to the Western world.

[evanson]

Just not fair is it?

But then again neither is life!

Jai yen yen dude, jai yen yen. :jap:

Here we go. Another excuse for your lack of ethics/morals. What next? 'Dog eat dog world, innit?' 'Life' is not an entity unto itself, it's people who make it good/bad/fair/unfair. Geddit?

Again, this is an incredibly stupid/confusing thread OP. First it's titled 'Im about to buy a property ... farang owner doesn't know' ?! And then runs on for page after page assuming the woman is the owner. Well is she. or isn't she? Have you done due diligence and had a qualified lawyer (no, not your equally grasping 'real estate agent'). If it turns out that yet another stupid prick bought a whore a house after a week's whirlwind 'romance', then I agree, som nom na him and again, pointless thread.

Now, pop off to a L.A.W.Y.E.R and come back and tell us all what he found out.

[Loz]

As the sports shoe makers say: Just do it!

[slapout]

I would hesitate to go into any type of business deal with a large portion of the respondents to this topic. I have made one half million dollar purchase of equipment with payment upon delivery to a freight forwarding company via order by E mail/fax and personal phone calls. One such order was with a individual who I had never met. If your word or a handshake are not acceptable it may be that stories/rumors of your past business ventures followed you. Individuals, banks, etc have been screwed over by individuals who sold what was not theirs to sell, inflated values of property to borrow monies, and numerous other shady dealings. The legal profession has made millions off of people like this and thus the price of doing business has sky rocketed. The former PM, in self exile, is a prime example of someone working around the edge of the legal system as well as ignoring acceptable businesses practices. The idea of doing business under suspect conditions, and then walking around looking over your shoulder or paying people to insure your physical safety, does not seem appealing to me.

As far as me worried about my wife pulling the same thing, never lost a minutes sleep in 20 years of the potential problem and concede the same or worse could happen to most of us.

[Thakkar]

Well if the wife is the legal owner and there is no protection for the farang in the chanote what's the problem. He must have known it's a gift to the wife and he's not getting anything if she decides to sell.

People apply morals as they suit them, regardless of what they claim in internet forums.

Let's put it other way. Your hi-so thai-chinese GF buys you a brand new land rover for x-mas and registers it in your name only. Later you find out she's sleeping with other guys regularly, Would you return the car ?

I'd want to know what kind of car she bought the other guys.

Not a straight forward yes then?........your halo appears to have slipped around your neck....

Just when you think you're out, they drag you back in! (said in Al Pacino voice).

Since you insist, I'll reiterate my case as clearly as I can.

Let me first say that my beef, for lack of a milder, more appropriate term, is not with the OP who has been upfront and clear about the facts (as far as he discerns) surrounding this property and about his tentative course of action. My beef is with those, who, for some strange reason, insist on providing the OP with a myriad of tattered fig leaves he never asked for.

We don't know what the deal is between the man who paid for and the woman in whose name the property is registered (actually this has yet to be established but let's assume it is). The OP knows something's dodgy based on the fact that the woman is eager for a quick sale while the paymaster is away and is discounting to accelerate the sale. The woman claims her man slept around, implying she's entitled to screw him over on account of that. The OP seems skeptical of the woman's purported reason but is not too concerned about that. Clearly the woman knows she's doing something that's not on the up-and-up, hence the apparent subterfuge.

Into this fray, we TV'ers have thrown ourselves!

Now, as is the case in a lot of these situations, the man may have reasonably expected to live blissfully in the house with his woman, in which case it's a sound enough investment as these things go: he gets a happy woman secure in her security and he also gets a roof over his head. Some here seem to just "know" that the house is a completely no-strings-attached gift. Please, how likely is that? Even the woman furtively trying to sell the place behind the man's back doesn't seem to believe it.

The bottom line is that someone is getting hurt here. The choice for the OP is whether to aid and abet in, and, not incidentally, profit from, the hurting. Maybe the man deserves it, maybe he doesn't. It's not for the OP to judge (not that the OP is even going there) or act upon. He's not the relationship police.

I agree that armchair moralizing is a fun and easy sport that all can play. Secure in our internet handles we can all be Gandhi in a superman cape, always doing the right thing. The OP laid out the facts and asked for opinions. I offered my honest opinion, which is that, if it were me, I'd walk away from this clusterfcuk of a deal for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it is simply wrong. If that sounds like a condemnation, it's not; it's just what I would do. Sure, you don't know me. But is it really so hard to envisage that many of us would not want to be involved in such a transaction, be it legal or otherwise? It doesn't matter that 'This is Thailand' —we aren't in Lord of the Rings here!

Would I really, really walk away? Well, now that I've posted this, no doubt The Universe will soon test me in some form or another and on that day, we shall see and then know for sure. What else can I say?

[GuestHouse]

Clearly the woman knows she's doing something that's not on the up-and-up, hence the apparent subterfuge.

She's very much more likely to be following the very Thai habbit of trying to dodge an issue rather than deal with it up front.

The 'reasonable expectations' of the man who bought her the house do not in any sense trump the 'reasonable expectations of the woman he bought it for'.

[GuestHouse]

I would hesitate to go into any type of business deal with a large portion of the respondents to this topic. I have made one half million dollar purchase of equipment with payment upon delivery to a freight forwarding company via order by E mail/fax and personal phone calls. One such order was with a individual who I had never met. If your word or a handshake are not acceptable it may be that stories/rumors of your past business ventures followed you. Individuals, banks, etc have been screwed over by individuals who sold what was not theirs to sell, inflated values of property to borrow monies, and numerous other shady dealings. The legal profession has made millions off of people like this and thus the price of doing business has sky rocketed. The former PM, in self exile, is a prime example of someone working around the edge of the legal system as well as ignoring acceptable businesses practices. The idea of doing business under suspect conditions, and then walking around looking over your shoulder or paying people to insure your physical safety, does not seem appealing to me.

As far as me worried about my wife pulling the same thing, never lost a minutes sleep in 20 years of the potential problem and concede the same or worse could happen to most of us.

Isn't the practice of buying houses in other people's names a means of working around the legal system?

[stuandchris]

There is a saying, if it seems too good to be true then it is. This applies even more in LOS

[way2muchcoffee]

Isn't the practice of buying houses in other people's names a means of working around the legal system?

I would say no. It is not so simple as you make it out to be. Buying a house in the name of your wife or girlfriend is a means of working within the legal system and yet still being able to provide the security for you and your wife of a domicile that is paid for. You can't take it with you, nor can you will it to someone who is not a Thai (actually you can't will it to anyone since it isn't yours by law).

If you've paid for it then it is not unreasonable to expect the wife or girlfriend to ethically deal with you in the event of a break up. It is also not unreasonable to expect others to deal ethically even when there is no law against acting otherwise.

Edited July 12, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[GuestHouse]

If you've paid for it then it is not unreasonable to expect the wife or girlfriend to ethically deal with you in the event of a break up.

Of course there might be a disagreement over exactly what it is you've paid for, but provided brains have not been deposited at the airport there ought to be no disgreement about who owns what and can sell what.

[way2muchcoffee]

If you've paid for it then it is not unreasonable to expect the wife or girlfriend to ethically deal with you in the event of a break up.

Of course there might be a disagreement over exactly what it is you've paid for, but provided brains have not been deposited at the airport there ought to be no disgreement about who owns what and can sell what.

I am discussing ethics, not legality. Nobody can dispute the legal position of the woman. The law is the law.

But are ethics and morals determined by law? Sadly you seem to defending the idea that everything legal is correct and just. Any action that isn't illegal is acceptable. That logic stinks IMO.

Edited July 12, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[CHdiver]

No Problem until the "Boyfriend/Butterfly" turns out to know some extremely unpleasant people to whom legal niceties mean nothing... People who are unrestrained by the rule of law, (which doesn't much care about disputes between farang), and can be hired to commit crimes like arson and even murder for a comparitive pittance... (comparitive to the costs of taking the matter to the courts and hiring expensive lawyers that is).

Legally the purchase might stand up.

Morally it's very dodgy, and reeks of bad karma.

Functionally, you may be digging your own grave.

Be afraid, be very afraid................... not.

Now here we go again the nice legend about the easy way to find People to do dodgy work for you in Thailand. If a Guy was stupid enough to buy land/house in his GF/Wife Name he will most probably not have any knowledge how to find "umpleasant" People doing the dirty work for him.

[Dakhar]

No Problem until the "Boyfriend/Butterfly" turns out to know some extremely unpleasant people to whom legal niceties mean nothing... People who are unrestrained by the rule of law, (which doesn't much care about disputes between farang), and can be hired to commit crimes like arson and even murder for a comparitive pittance... (comparitive to the costs of taking the matter to the courts and hiring expensive lawyers that is).

Legally the purchase might stand up.

Morally it's very dodgy, and reeks of bad karma.

Functionally, you may be digging your own grave.

Be afraid, be very afraid................... not.

Now here we go again the nice legend about the easy way to find People to do dodgy work for you in Thailand. If a Guy was stupid enough to buy land/house in his GF/Wife Name he will most probably not have any knowledge how to find "umpleasant" People doing the dirty work for him.

Oh I would not bank on that logic. Maybe he knows, and she knows he knows the right type of folks to correct a wrong... Maybe that is why she wants a quick sale....

Or maybe he trusted her, becasue he thought she understood clearly of what the ramifications were going to be, if she thought "screwing the go over" would be a hazardous activinity.

What the news papers folks

[GuestHouse]

If you've paid for it then it is not unreasonable to expect the wife or girlfriend to ethically deal with you in the event of a break up.

Of course there might be a disagreement over exactly what it is you've paid for, but provided brains have not been deposited at the airport there ought to be no disgreement about who owns what and can sell what.

I am discussing ethics, not legality. Nobody can dispute the legal position of the woman. The law is the law.

But are ethics and morals determined by law? Sadly you seem to defending the idea that everything legal is correct and just. Any action that isn't illegal is acceptable. That logic stinks IMO.

No I'm saying if a person owns a house they have the right to sell it.

There might be a very good case to argue that the person selling acts immorally or unethically in selling the house under the feet of the person who gave it to her. But to transfer that immorality and lack of ethics to the person buying the house is simple hogwash.

The measure of a right to sell one’s own property has to be based on Ownership – The sentimental or emotional attachments others might have to the property cannot possibly have a bearing. If they did then every buyer of every property would wind up duty bound to check out the whole history of how the seller came by the property and if they have permission to sell from ex partners/spouses.

You can imagine where that would take us.

We’d have the bitter acrimony of broken relationships dragged into the land office.

Far better to stick to the law as it stands – If you own the property you can sell it.

If you don’t want someone to sell ‘your house’ – Don’t give it to them in the first place.

And yes I hear your argument that what is legally may not be morally right - but of course having attempted to circumvent the land laws that might just be an argument of convenience.

[Valdezugar]

I suppose the OP has to decide which set of values he subscribes to; that which he brings with him or that which he finds where he lives. Would he do this in his own country, with all the facts he has now at his disposal? But he's not in his own country is he? He's in Thai . . . .

Would you, or anyone else in their right mind and of their own free will, give a woman a house in your/their own country?

And if you did and she later sold it how would the law in your country treat your claim to want to control her rights to sell what is legally hers?

Dude, history has shown that wars have been started over the love of a woman. Men do all kinds of wonderful things to show their love. I'm not criticising the OP; just wondering out loud about some of us who love Thailand so much we live here and then we complain about all the things we experience here. Forgetting that half those wrong things are what make Thailand what it is.

The OP is married here and has lived here for some time now; he knows the risks.

BTW; if it's legal it still doesn't make it ethical and moral. Chok dee LivingInExile. Where there's money to be made somebody's bleeding; fundamental profit theory.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Valdezugar

[prefabs]

Cannot but help thinking the OP is an idiot in more than one way.He knows the property is going to be subject to probable legal action, or even worse, where some kind of private action which will maybe result in injury or worse can happen. Think "vendetta" What kind of responsible lawyer would advise you to go ahead and purchase a property under these conditions?I also think he is an idiot for maybe going ahead based on the silly girl's own statements. Remember she has a timeline for a quick sale. Why would that be? Maybe becasue she knows the date the man is coming back?? Not too sure that the BF owuld walk away from his house and money, so fireworks may ensue.

[Shotime]

Everybody hold up a second. The OP is consulting with a lawyer, and I'd be interested to see how it turns out.

As far as moral or ethics are concerned, I'd like to, also, quote Pacino from Scarface. " You know what another word for Capitalism is? fuc_k you."

Also from The Godfather. "After all, we're not communists."

Da business.

[Livinginexile]

You are taking this topic awefully personally evanson.

If you had bothered to read the whole thread you would have seen;

"We had no idea a Farang was involved untill we inspected the property and when I asked where he was she said she hadn't heard from him for 6 months.

She "claims" the chanote is in her name but we didn't see it.

If we do decide to go ahead I will get our lawyer to go over it with a fine tooth comb."

And...

"My lawyer advised me today that any assets on the land automatically becomes the property of the land owner providing the property title is legitamate. The contract would stipulate "house&land". Any claims by someone with a bunch of receipts in his hands would need to be with the seller, NOT THE BUYER!

Only when the land is leased is the assets deemed as seperate.

This rubbish about the house is seperate to the land title is just that...rubbish. The seller signs a contract for "house&land"

Can you imagine if this was true?

Every land&house ownership transfer in Thailand would be subject to the previous owner making claims for the "house"!

We will go ahead with the purchase when my lawyer has concluded due diligence."

It so happens the seller produced the chanote today and my lawyer has confirmed that the house and land title is squeaky clean.

Even my lawyer said that if I did not buy it he certainly would!

We are meeting at the land office tomorrow morning to exchange contracts.

The housing market is no different than any other market be it stock, commodities or even fruit and veg. The dynamics are exactly the same.

You win some and you lose some.

[rocketmanbkk]

You are taking this topic awefully personally evanson.

If you had bothered to read the whole thread you would have seen;

"We had no idea a Farang was involved untill we inspected the property and when I asked where he was she said she hadn't heard from him for 6 months.

She "claims" the chanote is in her name but we didn't see it.

If we do decide to go ahead I will get our lawyer to go over it with a fine tooth comb."

And...

"My lawyer advised me today that any assets on the land automatically becomes the property of the land owner providing the property title is legitamate. The contract would stipulate "house&land". Any claims by someone with a bunch of receipts in his hands would need to be with the seller, NOT THE BUYER!

Only when the land is leased is the assets deemed as seperate.

This rubbish about the house is seperate to the land title is just that...rubbish. The seller signs a contract for "house&land"

Can you imagine if this was true?

Every land&house ownership transfer in Thailand would be subject to the previous owner making claims for the "house"!

We will go ahead with the purchase when my lawyer has concluded due diligence."

It so happens the seller produced the chanote today and my lawyer has confirmed that the house and land title is squeaky clean.

Even my lawyer said that if I did not buy it he certainly would!

We are meeting at the land office tomorrow morning to exchange contracts.

The housing market is no different than any other market be it stock, commodities or even fruit and veg. The dynamics are exactly the same.

You win some and you lose some.

Did you buy the property and did it go through? Or are 'we'' still talking about it.

As they say 'talk is cheap, money buys houses'.

[Livinginexile]

You are taking this topic awefully personally evanson.

If you had bothered to read the whole thread you would have seen;

"We had no idea a Farang was involved untill we inspected the property and when I asked where he was she said she hadn't heard from him for 6 months.

She "claims" the chanote is in her name but we didn't see it.

If we do decide to go ahead I will get our lawyer to go over it with a fine tooth comb."

And...

"My lawyer advised me today that any assets on the land automatically becomes the property of the land owner providing the property title is legitamate. The contract would stipulate "house&land". Any claims by someone with a bunch of receipts in his hands would need to be with the seller, NOT THE BUYER!

Only when the land is leased is the assets deemed as seperate.

This rubbish about the house is seperate to the land title is just that...rubbish. The seller signs a contract for "house&land"

Can you imagine if this was true?

Every land&house ownership transfer in Thailand would be subject to the previous owner making claims for the "house"!

We will go ahead with the purchase when my lawyer has concluded due diligence."

It so happens the seller produced the chanote today and my lawyer has confirmed that the house and land title is squeaky clean.

Even my lawyer said that if I did not buy it he certainly would!

We are meeting at the land office tomorrow morning to exchange contracts.

The housing market is no different than any other market be it stock, commodities or even fruit and veg. The dynamics are exactly the same.

You win some and you lose some.

Did you buy the property and did it go through? Or are 'we'' still talking about it.

As they say 'talk is cheap, money buys houses'.

It so happens the seller produced the chanote today and my lawyer has confirmed that the house and land title is squeaky clean.

Even my lawyer said that if I did not buy it he certainly would!

We are meeting at the land office tomorrow morning to exchange contracts.

The housing market is no different than any other market be it stock, commodities or even fruit and veg. The dynamics are exactly the same.

You win some and you lose some.

[Chunky1]

Can you give some more details about the house: realistic market value vs what you paid. Do you know what the farang bloke paid for it?

Just out of morbid curiosity.

[IanForbes]

Now, let me put a slightly different view point to this topic. Everyone has to be responsible for their own actions and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions. If I had been so stupid as to give a Thai woman a house and property, with the understanding that I would return to live in it with her, and returned to find she sold it, then I would have to accept the consequences of my own, stupid actions. However, if I were to go a little bit crazy and do something illegal and nasty to anyone on the property that I had paid for, then the new owner would also have to accept the consequences of taking advantage of someone when they weren't around to defend themselves.

It's not a lot unlike messing around with someone else's woman... married or not. Some guys are the unsuspecting recipients of a jilted man's anger. The murder files are full of just such cases. The OJ Simpson case was one such high profile example.

[GuestHouse]

Good news Livinginexile - Nice to hear someone getting a bargain.

I'm only surprised that the board find this so shocking - Almost any Farang Thai relationship which includes the Farang buying a house for the Thai winds up putting the Thai in posession of an asset way way beyond what they could afford for themselves.

With no welfare, often little education or employment prospects and the added burden of family to support no Thai person in their right mind would hang on to a property when the Farang who paid for it has flown the nest.

And while here on TV we frequently get to read the sorry tales of Farangs who have been ripped off, Thai language forums equally as often carry reports of the treatment Thai women receive at the hands of their Farang husbands, b/fs.

If a Thai woman wants to sell her property then she has the right to do so - She might very well have legitimate and very morally defendable reason for doing so, not least to release capital to take care of family responsibilities of the type most foreigners cannot imagine.

People here wringing their hands with ethical and moral angst, a thin veil for their realization that they could become the victim.

If you do not want someone else to sell your property - Don't give it to them. Period.

[GuestHouse]

Ianforbes.

Your references to a violent reaction are understandable.

They are right of of the box of tricks we all employ when situations occur that are way beyound our control.

If a thief broke into my house..... I'd......

If someone hurt my family .... I'd....

If I caught my wife with another man.... I'd.....

If some bougt my house of my Thai wife/girlfriend..... I'd....

But do take note.

Non of these 'I'd....'s have any impact on preventing that which you fear from occuring.

[Beardog]

I would be a little concerned that the Farang has left for good & not just away in England making money & doesn't have a clue his gal is selling the house because it is in her name.

I do not trust the lawyers up here & have used them to purchase property.They tend to set up all deals with the Thai persons interest first. And when there is a buck involved the lawyer would do anything to make the money on the deal- the reason lawyers have an unscrupulous reputation of being crooks.

The main thing I would be concerned about is if the Farang got burned on the house & came back for vengeance & lost his life savings(being foolish or not) is the $100,000 or whatever the amount is worth possibly dying for. For another 60,000 baht he could own a firearm & possibly rectify the situation. not that this will happen but it sure as hel_l could. Is it worth possibly dying for? Many good deals to be had without a shadow of doubt being cast. On the other hand it might be real. I would inquire the whereabouts of the farang & clear with him, that this story is true & have blessings- but that is just me.I have always felt better & made sure my entire life that my business transactions were 100% legit & safe so I never have to worry about what may happen later. My life does not require that I possibly cause pain & aggravation to the parties involved.I have walked away from a couple deals that seemed too good to be true & would do it again that way as I am not too keen on the possibility of getting shot for getting a good deal. People get shot in the U.S. over this type of deal & in LOS I think it would be more likely to happen before the man jumped from a high rise taking you out beforehand.

[tartempion]

Would you, or anyone else in their right mind and of their own free will, give a woman a house in your/their own country?

And if you did and she later sold it how would the law in your country treat your claim to want to control her rights to sell what is legally hers?

Irrelevant question, TIT and you know that.

Besides more than a few in farangland have given their GF/mistress/mia nois houses/cars/diamond necklaces.

Many have lost millions in bad investments on the stock market also.

I also bought a house simply in the name of the GF, a calculated risk.

Bought land in her name, far from the maddening crowd as I hate living in towns of any size, on 1 rai of land because many Thai houses are built on a handkerchief of 200sqm (no thank you) and I do not want to maintain a garden of 2+ rais and after having visited almost every province i selected where to build that house, built that house to my liking also.

Next the investment: 2.5 mil (50K euro), living here 10 years now, thus investment 20K B/m.

If i get to live here an other 10 years monthly cost will be 10K/month

What do you get in this country for 10K/month?

Do you know price of land in my home county (small village 20kms from main town) is approx 250K euro for 1600sqm equivalent to 1 rai?

I also own a house in my home village, plan B you know.

So am I in my right mind or not?

Note some of us living here have done some thinking and risk assessment before deciding to spend some of our time on Earth in this xenophobic country where they like to see our money but not our face.