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

[GuestHouse]

scumbag!

That's no way to talk about a lady selling property that is legally hers to sell.

[mark45y]

scumbag!

That's no way to talk about a lady selling property that is legally hers to sell.

I would agree although I do think it is interesting the number of posters who are morally outraged at this kind of business ethic. I don’t want to count the posts but I wonder how many people believe the action to be morally reprehensible. Of course the majority of people believing something to be morally wrong is not a definitive statement about anything except current morals of ex pats in Thailand posting on Thai Visa. Maybe I should not say morals. Perhaps this is more of an ethical issue.

[Chunky1]

The people who find it morally reprehensible are the same ones buying pirated software at Pantip or bribing policeman with 200 baht or claiming VAT tax refunds on Non-O visas. Calls for ethics are only made on Thai Visa if it will benefit those shouting.

Change the absent farang husband to an absent Thai/Japanese/Chinese/Etc husband and you would see a largely different set of responses.

[PattayaParent]

But you forget that at that point the new owner has overpaid for what is left.

Okay and how does that help one's situation?

It doesn't but I would feel a lot better to know that I'm not the only one losing.

In the big picture, I think you still are. A pile of rubble depreciates to nothing. A piece of land, even with a pile of rubble on it should continue to appreciate until the end of time.

Anyone who thinks that a house can be demolished by someone waving around a few receipts for some bricks is seriously deluded.

[basjke]

^

Why do you want to comment again on something that isn't said?

I said the building license in the name of the foreigner,that is something completely different from waving some receipts.

[Berkshire]

The people who find it morally reprehensible are the same ones buying pirated software at Pantip or bribing policeman with 200 baht or claiming VAT tax refunds on Non-O visas. Calls for ethics are only made on Thai Visa if it will benefit those shouting.

Change the absent farang husband to an absent Thai/Japanese/Chinese/Etc husband and you would see a largely different set of responses.

Keen observations, and probably 100% correct, especially the latter.

[Lumumba]

The kite that got the deal of his life, was on another thread complaining on how two cops literally stole B3500 from him yesterday with threats of impounding his car for speeding and them having seen the wad of cash in his wallet.

So we should keep mute on every reprehensible behaviors because at some point we all are reprehensible bunch?

If you really want to know why some of the replies are so toned, just take another look at the title of the thread and see whether the OP would gladly sleep with your wife in your bedroom with your wedding picture hanging from the ceiling. Just because he can do it do not mean he should or come to TV and boast about it.

I know a fella that convinced a lady to leave her husband only for him to lose his cojones in a prostate battle a few months later. Now guess who still mows the lawn in between them?

[dannyman]

We lived in Thailand from 1979 to 1988, my wife and I now reside in Canada. During my stay in Thailand I learnt over time to be careful of your fellow furlong.

[PattayaParent]

^

Why do you want to comment again on something that isn't said?

I said the building license in the name of the foreigner,that is something completely different from waving some receipts.

I wasn't actually responding to your post, but just to remind you what you did say

"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"

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!

Let's hope the farang,who probably financed the purchase of the land but could not have is name on the chanut,was so clever to have the building license and receipts in his name.This makes him the legal owner of the house and gives him the right to bulldozer it at any given time.

And if you read the post that you quoted (which I'e snipped for clarity) it clearly says that the legal position is "any assets on the land automatically becomes the property of the land owner providing the property title is legitamate" "Only when the land is leased is the assets deemed as seperate."

So even with a buildng permit in a Farang name it wouldn't be proof of ownership unless the land was leased.

And receipts for building materials have nothing to do with ownership of property.

Edited August 3, 2010 by PattayaParent

[basjke]

^

Why do you want to comment again on something that isn't said?

I said the building license in the name of the foreigner,that is something completely different from waving some receipts.

I wasn't actually responding to your post, but just to remind you what you did say

"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"

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!

Let's hope the farang,who probably financed the purchase of the land but could not have is name on the chanut,was so clever to have the building license and receipts in his name.This makes him the legal owner of the house and gives him the right to bulldozer it at any given time.

And if you read the post that you quoted (which I'e snipped for clarity) it clearly says that the legal position is "any assets on the land automatically becomes the property of the land owner providing the property title is legitamate" "Only when the land is leased is the assets deemed as seperate."

So even with a buildng permit in a Farang name it wouldn't be proof of ownership unless the land was leased.

And receipts for building materials have nothing to do with ownership of property.

Below is what I said in post # 222

"In most of the cases building license is in the same name as the owner of the land.In some cases however,as is in my personal one,the building license is issued in foreigner name and a lease of maximum 3 years is made for the land,which doesn't need to be registered at the land office.This unregistered lease can be renewed every 3 years and can not be traced through the chanut or land office.This procedure makes the foreigner the legal owner of the house but the buyer of the land will only find out after the deal is closed and the foreigner shows up with the lease documents and building license in his name. "

No need to get older post which were incomplete digged up over and over again just to make your argument sound correct.

Edited August 3, 2010 by basjke

[PattayaParent]

^So are you now denying that the post I quoted of yours is what you said?

Or are you admitting that it was incorrect?

My argument is that receipts for building materials don't prove ownership of a house. Are you saying that argument is incorrect?

[basjke]

^So are you now denying that the post I quoted of yours is what you said?

Or are you admitting that it was incorrect?

My argument is that receipts for building materials don't prove ownership of a house. Are you saying that argument is incorrect?

I am saying that my earlier post was incomplete,that is a difference from incorrect,and I replied to you directly already in post # 222 in which I completed my previous statement as I knew you were looking for an argument,and 2 posts back I reminded you again of that post.So don't bother to reply anymore if you refuse to read what I wrote.

[Farma]

The chanote I referred to in an earlier post was annotated on the back by the land office when the land title transfer took place. The annotation lists the land size, a basic description of the building and the postal address of the land/building.

Now can someone clarify this for me. I'm using http://bia.serverbox.net/011.html as a guide.

In some cases however,as is in my personal one,the building license is issued in foreigner name and a lease of maximum 3 years is made for the land,which doesn't need to be registered at the land office.

The Thailand legal and business guide link agrees with the above quote.

Now this quote.

This unregistered lease can be renewed every 3 years and can not be traced through the chanut or land office.

The Thailand legal and Business guide says this:-

Leases for more than three years are valid for only three years unless the lease is registered on the Title Deed or the Certificate of Use. Leases for three years with an option to renew may in certain cases be treated as a lease for more than three years and the renewal option may not be valid, unless the lease with the renewal option is registered.

So what is correct?

Edited August 3, 2010 by Farma

[basjke]

The chanote I referred to in an earlier post was annotated on the back by the land office when the land title transfer took place. The annotation lists the land size, a basic description of the building and the postal address of the land/building.

Now can someone clarify this for me. I'm using http://bia.serverbox.net/011.html as a guide.

In some cases however,as is in my personal one,the building license is issued in foreigner name and a lease of maximum 3 years is made for the land,which doesn't need to be registered at the land office.

The Thailand legal and business guide link agrees with the above quote.

Now this quote.

This unregistered lease can be renewed every 3 years and can not be traced through the chanut or land office.

The Thailand legal and Business guide says this:-

Leases for more than three years are valid for only three years unless the lease is registered on the Title Deed or the Certificate of Use. Leases for three years with an option to renew may in certain cases be treated as a lease for more than three years and the renewal option may not be valid, unless the lease with the renewal option is registered.

So what is correct?

In short as it has been explained by a lawyer to me.

Lease more then 3 year of lenght has to be registered at the land office to be valid.Leases 3 years or less don't need to be registered.In my case there is no option included because the lease would need to be registered in that case.The reason why I not registered is because the land owner has a registered mortgage on the title deed with me as beneficiary and it is not possible to register both a mortgage and lease on the same land with the same beneficiary.

[PattayaParent]

^So are you now denying that the post I quoted of yours is what you said?

Or are you admitting that it was incorrect?

My argument is that receipts for building materials don't prove ownership of a house. Are you saying that argument is incorrect?

I am saying that my earlier post was incomplete,that is a difference from incorrect,and I replied to you directly already in post # 222 in which I completed my previous statement as I knew you were looking for an argument,and 2 posts back I reminded you again of that post.So don't bother to reply anymore if you refuse to read what I wrote.

It's reading what you wrote that is the problem as you say one thing and then when it is pointed out that you are wrong (another word for incorrect) you backtrack and say something else and refuse to acknowledge what you previously wrote.

Are you now denying that you said anything about having receipts and having the right to bulldoze the house at any time? And do you accept that that staement is incorrect/wrong/incomplete/total bullsh*t or whatever else you might like to call it?

[CDNinKS]

Having tired of all the speculation and misinformation being posted here I contacted a well respected law firm for their advise.

I will only comment on a usufruct as that is my situation, but I suspect that a lease arrangement MAY be similar.

The law firm recommends that when attaching a usufruct to a chanote it is accompanied by a usufruct agreement drafted and registered by a reputable law firm. One (of many) of the standard clauses they incorporate into this agreement is this:

"All improvements carried out on the property shall be at the sole expense of the Usufructuary and shall be deemed to be an asset of the Usufructuary."

So that answers the question of the receipts argument, you would need to prove you paid for the "improvements"

Now, if you do not have a "usufruct agreement" to go along with your land office registered usufruct (my situation) then as they say, it becomes a bit more complicated.

Under Thai law :Normally, a part of something attached to a property, under Thai law, belong to that person owning the main rights (see clause 144 of Thai Civil Code).

However:

to make it more complex, you own possessory rights of the land for your lifetime.

According to the law, you must give it back the same way you took it. So, technically, you COULD destroy the house.

There is also a matter of common property that applies if you are married to the chanote holder. Proof of who built the house with what funds can have an effect on this as well.

So, bottom line is, yes, having as much proof as possible of who built the house (receipts and more) MAY have a bearing on your particular situation.

I should add that the law firm strongly advises that no one should destroy a house on the property in a dispute with out first consulting a reputable law firm.

I regret that I did not have a law firm draw up a usufruct agreement, would have made things a lot simpler in case there is ever a need to contest anything.

Best of luck to all.....

Edited August 6, 2010 by CDNinKS

[Heng]

I should add that the law firm strongly advises that no one should destroy a house on the property in a dispute with out first consulting a reputable law firm.

Whereupon they will charge you 7,000 Baht an hour to advise you again to not destroy the house.

All the while the new owners can still build their hazardous metals recovery and recycling plant around your former home.

[darhut]

I don't care about the legalities of buying this house but if you know this house is being sold out from under someone without their knowledge be prepared to have your dogma run over by your karma and have very good house insurance with fire cover. And if your intending to live there may I suggest getting a couple of rottweiler's.

My guess is that if the husband/ boyfriend finds out that you knew the deal before buying the house he won't see the funny side. I know what I'd do and I'm a pacafist (most of the time).

[ESB7]

You get what you pay for and if something is cheap and too good to be true...it always is. Do you really think if the lady could obtain 25% more as you are so sure can be done even in todays climate, that she would sell to you...get a grip, you are being conned yet are blinded by pure greed,ignorance and arogance.....if you proceed in buying, enjoy your short stay in the property...

[rich1uk]

I was thinking of getting some land and building something for me & my GF

but this thread just put right off

I couldnt cope with this happening to me..I work bloody hard for my money , long hours ect + pay for the kids

I can picture the guy coming back to his house

I think it would finish me off ...

[johnnyk]

She gets the money and you get ??????????????

Maybe a house, maybe not. And maybe a whole lot of trouble.

[kevozman1]

I really hope you get stung is this deal and lose a lot of money and the

Thai skank who is selling her husband's property meets a unfortunate

end at the bottom of the sea. The less people like you guys on this planet

the better.

[Shotime]

I really hope you get stung is this deal and lose a lot of money and the

Thai skank who is selling her husband's property meets a unfortunate

end at the bottom of the sea. The less people like you guys on this planet

the better.

Nice thought.

[Livinginexile]

You get what you pay for and if something is cheap and too good to be true...it always is. Do you really think if the lady could obtain 25% more as you are so sure can be done even in todays climate, that she would sell to you...get a grip, you are being conned yet are blinded by pure greed,ignorance and arogance.....if you proceed in buying, enjoy your short stay in the property...

Wrong!

1) Thai G/F sold cheap because she feared the "cheating/playboy/butterfly" boyfriend would return any day. She had enough and wanted out.

2) She sold more than 25% cheaper than true market price because her initial outlay was ZERO. Therefore she made a profit of 100% of what she got.

3) I was conned? I have a magnificent weekender built to extravigant western stadards (Chanote mind you) for a little more than a song

Please exlain to me how I've been "conned"?

[maccaroni man]

You get what you pay for and if something is cheap and too good to be true...it always is. Do you really think if the lady could obtain 25% more as you are so sure can be done even in todays climate, that she would sell to you...get a grip, you are being conned yet are blinded by pure greed,ignorance and arogance.....if you proceed in buying, enjoy your short stay in the property...

Wrong!

1) Thai G/F sold cheap because she feared the "cheating/playboy/butterfly" boyfriend would return any day. She had enough and wanted out.

2) She sold more than 25% cheaper than true market price because her initial outlay was ZERO. Therefore she made a profit of 100% of what she got.

3) I was conned? I have a magnificent weekender built to extravigant western stadards (Chanote mind you) for a little more than a song

Please exlain to me how I've been "conned"?

over the years i have purchased a few npl from the auctions but i always made sure that the people losing the property were off it and ok with the bank taking it. i also never purchased anything in the area i live. hence when you say you have a wonderful weekender, imho you have a great opportunity to turn a profit but not a place to relax and if you can not be there to protect it i question how long it will be befroe it goes up in smoke.

[newsite12]

This is a flagrant display of the sort of person you are... You have so much contempt running through your mind for other people. I do believe that you are creating so much bad karma for yourself, that you will burn for eternity.

The mere fact that you are GLOATING, about making cash from the misery of yet another farang who has been ripped off in Thailand.

Just the thought that you are making yourself a vehicle for this to happen. Fills me with disappointment for my fellow man.

I hope you and everyone involved in this caper end up where you deserve to be.... IN THE GUTTER!!!

Edited September 19, 2010 by newsite12

[evanson]

This is a flagrant display of the sort of person you are... You have so much contempt running through your mind for other people. I do believe that you are creating so much bad karma for yourself, that you will burn for eternity.

The mere fact that you are GLOATING, about making cash from the misery of yet another farang who has been ripped off in Thailand.

Just the thought that you are making yourself a vehicle for this to happen. Fills me with disappointment for my fellow man.

I hope you and everyone involved in this caper end up where you deserve to be.... IN THE GUTTER!!!

Here here! <deleted>, and YOU know who you are MICHAEL AND THIP BUTCHER. S'okay mods, they've been formally charged and he's now out on the lam back to his mum in the UK (he's 65, by the way) leaving his wife and bent lawyer to it. What a guy!

[evanson]

over the years i have purchased a few npl from the auctions but i always made sure that the people losing the property were off it and ok with the bank taking it. i also never purchased anything in the area i live. hence when you say you have a wonderful weekender, imho you have a great opportunity to turn a profit but not a place to relax and if you can not be there to protect it i question how long it will be befroe it goes up in smoke.

And exactly how did you 'make sure that the people losing their property 'were off it' and 'okay with the bank taking it'? Bet you don't reply to this post.

Edited September 19, 2010 by evanson

[rick75]

You get what you pay for and if something is cheap and too good to be true...it always is. Do you really think if the lady could obtain 25% more as you are so sure can be done even in todays climate, that she would sell to you...get a grip, you are being conned yet are blinded by pure greed,ignorance and arogance.....if you proceed in buying, enjoy your short stay in the property...

Wrong!

1) Thai G/F sold cheap because she feared the "cheating/playboy/butterfly" boyfriend would return any day. She had enough and wanted out.

2) She sold more than 25% cheaper than true market price because her initial outlay was ZERO. Therefore she made a profit of 100% of what she got.

3) I was conned? I have a magnificent weekender built to extravigant western stadards (Chanote mind you) for a little more than a song

Please exlain to me how I've been "conned"?

Dude, what happened to you to make you such a poor excuse for a human being, the vitriolic response you gave to the poster newsite in another thread was over the top and here you are gloating about what is clearly the act of a dog, karma will come back to harm you in the long run and if it does'nt I hope the previous owner does.

Chok dee i think you will need it

[maccaroni man]

over the years i have purchased a few npl from the auctions but i always made sure that the people losing the property were off it and ok with the bank taking it. i also never purchased anything in the area i live. hence when you say you have a wonderful weekender, imho you have a great opportunity to turn a profit but not a place to relax and if you can not be there to protect it i question how long it will be befroe it goes up in smoke.

And exactly how did you 'make sure that the people losing their property 'were off it' and 'okay with the bank taking it'? Bet you don't reply to this post.

well the npls i purchased at public auction all took about 10yrs to get to the point where i was able to buy them. i went by the land and i asked the neighbors about the previous land owner and about the situation that caused them to default on the loan. I have no problem answering your question and there is no reason to be hostile towards me, after all sooner or later a dead beat has to be called on their bs and imho 10yrs is plenty of time to fish or cut bait.