Buying Land In Thailand

[Thongkorn]

My wife and Myself have been offered a piece of land In Sahmut Prakan, it has a house of sorts on it, they want 600,000baht, It would be a retirement home for the wifes mother,We could build a new house on it in time.The questions is, How do you go about finding if the deal is legitimate, I have heard some real scare stories about people buying land only to find out later that they in fact do not own the land, but have been scammed at best, I know the land would have to be in the wifes name which i do not mind because we have a very secure relationship and there is absolute trust between us .Also its not that expensive anyway, Would going to a Thai layer start to rack the baht up because i am a falang. I would want some garantee about the land also some sort of documentation. any help would be greatfull, the deal would be done in a one cash payment. and thanks in advance for any help.

[MSingh]

How would you do it at home ??

You'd use a Lawyer, a neatruel one if nothing else, one you find yourself, not Mum In Law's best Mate's Husband etc, one you found yourself & were happy with after checking them out YOURSELF.,.

Would a Lawyer " racking up the Baht " mean that you should not use them & go ahead with the deal anyway, potentially losing much, much more than the Lawyers fee's themselves ?? Of course not..

[Hawaiian]

You might ask for a copy of the deed (chanote) and verify with the local land department if it legitimate. If you do decide to buy it is possible to arrange payment at the land office and have the title transferred at the same time.

Suggest using a certified, or cashiers check and not cash. Wife and I did this for a 3,000,000 baht purchase. It also helped that we had a friend who knew the seller. Just be careful and do some due diligence.

If you decide to use an attorney and/or escrow company check them out thoroughly. Good luck.

[Beetlejuice]

My advice is; leave well alone unless you really know what you are doing.

For example, do you know:

The laws of Thailand as regards land purchase by farangs?

How to check if the seller is the bonafide owner?

Are there any loans taken out on the land?

Are there any legal disputes lurking about in the background over the land?

Boundry rights and restrictions?

Who can build and what can be built next to the land and how close?

Your rights if the wife, girlfriend or whatever up front Thai name is used on the deeds decides to kick you off? Or in the case of divorce?

The types of land available, agricultrual, red paper, yellow paper and what it all means?

What you are permitted to build on the land, services available and how much to install services, electric, water and so on?

Is the land located in a residentual or industrial area?

Is the land prone to flooding or subsidence?

Not sure about some or any of these questions? Then I advise that you first carry out some research before jumping into the Thai real estate market, unless you are a gambling man and willing to take a chance if you have the resources to do so.

[craigt3365]

I think this is best in the Real Estate Forum. You will get better replies here.

//Moved//

[guzzi850m2]

How would you do it at home ??

You'd use a Lawyer, a neatruel one if nothing else, one you find yourself, not Mum In Law's best Mate's Husband etc, one you found yourself & were happy with after checking them out YOURSELF.,.

Would a Lawyer " racking up the Baht " mean that you should not use them & go ahead with the deal anyway, potentially losing much, much more than the Lawyers fee's themselves ?? Of course not..

I agree, spend say 10K for a lawyer and let him check it out for you, money well spend.

[sarahsbloke]

Thai lawyer I spoke to wanted 20,000bht to set up a lease and 'superficeries' and arrange all the registrations at the land office, another 1.5% of the sales price would be required as the land office fees. I would own any building outright and have a 30 year lease on the land. The land would be owned by a Thai nominated by me, and I could get it transferred at any time or combined back with the lease in event law changed or sold to a Thai.

I was told it was not a good idea to be married to the land owner .... an in-law would be safer.

Can I just repeat

It is not a good idea to have your wife as the land owner (no matter how much you love and trust her)

Contract law with a wife is different, contracts can be overturned, unlike with someone who isn't a wife.

Edited December 3, 2010 by sarahsbloke

[guzzi850m2]

Thai lawyer I spoke to wanted 20,000bht to set up a lease and 'superficeries' and arrange all the registrations at the land office, another 1.5% of the sales price would be required as the land office fees. I would own any building outright and have a 30 year lease on the land. The land would be owned by a Thai nominated by me, and I could get it transferred at any time or combined back with the lease in event law changed or sold to a Thai.

I was told it was not a good idea to be married to the land owner .... an in-law would be safer.

Can I just repeat

It is not a good idea to have your wife as the land owner (no matter how much you love and trust her)

Contract law with a wife is different, contracts can be overturned, unlike with someone who isn't a wife.

Yes I am going down that track as well. Even though we got kids together I will not risk MY hard earned money. Shit do happen, hope for the best prepare for the worst. If the shit hit the fan, I can either stay in the house for 30 years (or rent it out), or settle for a 50% split.

20K for set it up is properly reasonable, or check a couple of lawyers, but these guys don 't come cheap.

[Khun Jean]

They are not cheap and tell you bullocks.

I would keep moving to another "lawyer" until you find one that actually understands the law instead of doing what is most profitable to them, meaning he will tell you a usufruct or lease with your wife is not advisable. I will be curious what such a lawyer would advice you to do.

Remember they are not accountable for their wrong advice.

In short, no you will not be able to stay 30 years in your house, even if you paid a lawyer 100.000 baht he will not be able to write a contract that will give you that safety. The law will always prevail, no matter what fancy words are written.

Accept that when the relation with your wife is over you will have to move out. The only 'compensation' is 50% of the house, but who is going to buy that without the land it sits on.

edit: This is only the case when you want a usufruct or lease with your spouse and don't go through the trouble of setting up a legitimate and active company. If you want safety "ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TO ADD A THIRD PARTY to the contract. Like your brother, uncle, niece, friend,etc. In that case dissolving a contract will involve a third party and as such it can not be dissolved. ALL contracts between wife and husband have to be dissolved when going into a divorce.

Maybe have a friend that is in the same situation. You can be eachothers "third party". Easy and cost you only 100 baht.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Khun Jean

[donx]

They are not cheap and tell you bullocks.

I would keep moving to another "lawyer" until you find one that actually understands the law instead of doing what is most profitable to them, meaning he will tell you a usufruct or lease with your wife is not advisable. I will be curious what such a lawyer would advice you to do.

Remember they are not accountable for their wrong advice.

In short, no you will not be able to stay 30 years in your house, even if you paid a lawyer 100.000 baht he will not be able to write a contract that will give you that safety. The law will always prevail, no matter what fancy words are written.

Accept that when the relation with your wife is over you will have to move out. The only 'compensation' is 50% of the house, but who is going to buy that without the land it sits on.

edit: This is only the case when you want a usufruct or lease with your spouse and don't go through the trouble of setting up a legitimate and active company. If you want safety "ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TO ADD A THIRD PARTY to the contract. Like your brother, uncle, niece, friend,etc. In that case dissolving a contract will involve a third party and as such it can not be dissolved. ALL contracts between wife and husband have to be dissolved when going into a divorce.

Maybe have a friend that is in the same situation. You can be eachothers "third party". Easy and cost you only 100 baht.

How about a child or children as the third party?

The problem you will have with a friend is this. Suppose you have a usufruct with your friend on a property owned by your spouse. Suppose you have children as well and that your family is living on the property with a nice house. A year later you die. The friend then tells your wife to take her family and things and move out. Since your friend's usufruct is still in effect, he has the right to take complete control of the property leaving your family homeless.

One other point related to your post above. Although a contract between your spouse can be dissolved by either party at any time, I'm not convinced that all contracts between spouses have to be dissolved when going through a divorce. If the ex-wife wants to continue the usufruct after a divorce I believe that this is still allowed and that the usufruct isn't automatically dissolved upon divorce (assume of course that no third party is involved in the usufruct). Of course I could be wrong since I don't know the details of the law regarding a divorce in Thailand.

[Khun Jean]

How about a child or children as the third party?

When the children are from a previous marriage it would be the perfect solution, grandchildren even better. You can even make the usufruct for the duration of their live. Effectively keeping it in the family for at least a generation more.

It gets a little fuzzy when the children are with the current spouse. I think that is not an option. However they could be owner of the land. Any decision will have to go through court until the child is an adult.

The problem you will have with a friend is this. Suppose you have a usufruct with your friend on a property owned by your spouse. Suppose you have children as well and that your family is living on the property with a nice house. A year later you die. The friend then tells your wife to take her family and things and move out. Since your friend's usufruct is still in effect, he has the right to take complete control of the property leaving your family homeless.

Good point! I think a clause to remove the rights of the friend in the case of death can be included. I have to research that a little further.

One other point related to your post above. Although a contract between your spouse can be dissolved by either party at any time, I'm not convinced that all contracts between spouses have to be dissolved when going through a divorce. If the ex-wife wants to continue the usufruct after a divorce I believe that this is still allowed and that the usufruct isn't automatically dissolved upon divorce (assume of course that no third party is involved in the usufruct). Of course I could be wrong since I don't know the details of the law regarding a divorce in Thailand.

Yes all contracts have to be 'settled'. In case of a usufruct the ownership of the land will be changed to her maiden name and a new usufruct has to be made. If the relationship is still friendly it is quit possible. However this is just a too big risk to take when the money spend on the land is most of your savings. Everyone has to establish if the risk is worth it or not.

[Thongkorn]

Well thanks for the replies , you have certainly given me some food for thought, I would be giving the land and house away so there is no problem about losing anything, I cannot see why my relationship with my wife would end if there is nothing to gain. , but who knows, I have taken on board the information i have been offered on here, as i thought a minefield,Thanks for your time.

[donx]

How about a child or children as the third party?

When the children are from a previous marriage it would be the perfect solution, grandchildren even better. You can even make the usufruct for the duration of their live. Effectively keeping it in the family for at least a generation more.

It gets a little fuzzy when the children are with the current spouse. I think that is not an option. However they could be owner of the land. Any decision will have to go through court until the child is an adult.

Why does it get a little fuzzy when the children are with the current spouse?

Great responses to my other comments. Thanks!

[sarahsbloke]

Well thanks for the replies , you have certainly given me some food for thought, I would be giving the land and house away so there is no problem about losing anything, I cannot see why my relationship with my wife would end if there is nothing to gain. , but who knows, I have taken on board the information i have been offered on here, as i thought a minefield,Thanks for your time.

Some ladies only want a house and land, once they get it the relationship ends.

I'm sure your relationship isn't one of these, but YOU can't tell.

I have met many men who put the house in the wifes name, and then the wife left them, they couldn't tell.

If you don't mind giving your wife a house with no expectation or need to live in it for yourself, and no worry about her leaving you, go ahead.

But why take the chance?

[Hawaiian]

Well thanks for the replies , you have certainly given me some food for thought, I would be giving the land and house away so there is no problem about losing anything, I cannot see why my relationship with my wife would end if there is nothing to gain. , but who knows, I have taken on board the information i have been offered on here, as i thought a minefield,Thanks for your time.

Thongkorn, you have the right attitude. If your wife leaves after the land purchase, then you have only lost 600,000 baht and a woman whose object of affection is material gain and not love. Better to find out sooner than later. Later meaning for her to set you up for the "big one" possibly costing you millions and years of deception. Personally, I believe your generosity will be rewarded with a loyal spouse.

[Khun Jean]

Well thanks for the replies , you have certainly given me some food for thought, I would be giving the land and house away so there is no problem about losing anything, I cannot see why my relationship with my wife would end if there is nothing to gain. , but who knows, I have taken on board the information i have been offered on here, as i thought a minefield,Thanks for your time.

Thongkorn, you have the right attitude. If your wife leaves after the land purchase, then you have only lost 600,000 baht and a woman whose object of affection is material gain and not love. Better to find out sooner than later. Later meaning for her to set you up for the "big one" possibly costing you millions and years of deception. Personally, I believe your generosity will be rewarded with a loyal spouse.

In my (and a few others i know) experience, generosity is often leading to be taken advantage of and a weaker relationship especially when the 'well' dries up a little and the word 'no' is mentioned a few times **.

Relationships that went through some hardships seems to be a lot stronger. I know mine did.

In a country where security is of the utmost importance, unlike in western countries where there is a large safety net, relationships are placed 2nd. Just be aware of this as with westerners this is hard to understand. No one can judge somebodies relationships, especially the ones in it unfortunately. The best lies are told to yourself.

edit:

** This often starts with family needs. Like illness or other hardships.So it is not always from taking advantage by the wife. Her obligations to the family are strong and will become yours when married. Contracts setup to protect yourself are very good in these cases.

edit2:

It just occured to me that illness in the family is actually the biggest danger to your own security. I have a nephew that had an accident on his motorcy. Both legs broken on many places. Furtunately he had good health insurance because he was with the military. If he did not then i would have paid for the hospital bills. They were almost 120.000 baht. Few days in a coma and in ICU and then 4 operations.

Imaging if that happens to your wifes family members. Are you going to say no?

I will start to look for how to get health insurance for family members. It will be a win/win situation. Hopefully the amounts are reasonable.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Khun Jean

[Khun Jean]

How about a child or children as the third party?

When the children are from a previous marriage it would be the perfect solution, grandchildren even better. You can even make the usufruct for the duration of their live. Effectively keeping it in the family for at least a generation more.

It gets a little fuzzy when the children are with the current spouse. I think that is not an option. However they could be owner of the land. Any decision will have to go through court until the child is an adult.

Why does it get a little fuzzy when the children are with the current spouse?

Great responses to my other comments. Thanks!

I meant i do not have 100% certainty that a usufruct can included children from the landowner (Thai spouse).

[Hawaiian]

Khun Jean, I do not disagree with you about the well running dry. Fortunately my wife usually listens to my advice when difficult family decisions have to be made. Granted Thai logic is difficult to overcome and sometimes we have heated discussions. She has been good to my mother and I to her mother. While my Mom is financially independent, her bedridden mother

needs help. We are not wealthy, but help when we can. Her family also kicks in their share.

Thankfully my wife's cousin has a medical background and skillfully manages my mother-in-law's expenses. Hopefully the situation does not arrive where we will be taken advantage of.

[manhattan55]

They are not cheap and tell you bullocks.

I would keep moving to another "lawyer" until you find one that actually understands the law instead of doing what is most profitable to them, meaning he will tell you a usufruct or lease with your wife is not advisable. I will be curious what such a lawyer would advice you to do.

Remember they are not accountable for their wrong advice.

In short, no you will not be able to stay 30 years in your house, even if you paid a lawyer 100.000 baht he will not be able to write a contract that will give you that safety. The law will always prevail, no matter what fancy words are written.

Accept that when the relation with your wife is over you will have to move out. The only 'compensation' is 50% of the house, but who is going to buy that without the land it sits on.

edit: This is only the case when you want a usufruct or lease with your spouse and don't go through the trouble of setting up a legitimate and active company. If you want safety "ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TO ADD A THIRD PARTY to the contract. Like your brother, uncle, niece, friend,etc. In that case dissolving a contract will involve a third party and as such it can not be dissolved. ALL contracts between wife and husband have to be dissolved when going into a divorce.

Maybe have a friend that is in the same situation. You can be eachothers "third party". Easy and cost you only 100 baht.

How about a child or children as the third party?

The problem you will have with a friend is this. Suppose you have a usufruct with your friend on a property owned by your spouse. Suppose you have children as well and that your family is living on the property with a nice house. A year later you die. The friend then tells your wife to take her family and things and move out. Since your friend's usufruct is still in effect, he has the right to take complete control of the property leaving your family homeless.

One other point related to your post above. Although a contract between your spouse can be dissolved by either party at any time, I'm not convinced that all contracts between spouses have to be dissolved when going through a divorce. If the ex-wife wants to continue the usufruct after a divorce I believe that this is still allowed and that the usufruct isn't automatically dissolved upon divorce (assume of course that no third party is involved in the usufruct). Of course I could be wrong since I don't know the details of the law regarding a divorce in Thailand.

This is not quite correct. The usufructuary, i.e. the user of the land (for example the OP) can lease out the land (up to 30 years) to a third party (for example to his wife and/or to his children) and this second agreement will not end when the usufructuary dies. This way the usufructuary can pass on his rights to his wife and/or children; however, as the tenor of the lease would be in excess of 3 years it would have to be registered at the land department and taxes would have to be paid.

[eurasianthai]

Buying land in Thailand is reasonably safe for Thai people.

As for foreigners, they can not buy land in Thailand, so it is safe also.

Not to buy any.

[Khun Jean]

This is not quite correct. The usufructuary, i.e. the user of the land (for example the OP) can lease out the land (up to 30 years) to a third party (for example to his wife and/or to his children) and this second agreement will not end when the usufructuary dies. This way the usufructuary can pass on his rights to his wife and/or children; however, as the tenor of the lease would be in excess of 3 years it would have to be registered at the land department and taxes would have to be paid.

The 'problem' with that is that the owner has the land paper in his/her posession. Without cooperation a lease will never be registered. The landowner has to go to the land office to agree on the spot that a lease can be given to a third party, (even when it is written in a contract!). Bringeing a lawyer can help a bit, but it is not a 100% sure thing.

Any extra clauses in a usufruct contract are personal (not real rights), so the owner just transfers the land to a family member or even sells it with the usufruct on it and all those clauses are void. (This is one of the reason why 30+ year lease contracts not work).

[manhattan55]

This is not quite correct. The usufructuary, i.e. the user of the land (for example the OP) can lease out the land (up to 30 years) to a third party (for example to his wife and/or to his children) and this second agreement will not end when the usufructuary dies. This way the usufructuary can pass on his rights to his wife and/or children; however, as the tenor of the lease would be in excess of 3 years it would have to be registered at the land department and taxes would have to be paid.

The 'problem' with that is that the owner has the land paper in his/her posession. Without cooperation a lease will never be registered. The landowner has to go to the land office to agree on the spot that a lease can be given to a third party, (even when it is written in a contract!). Bringeing a lawyer can help a bit, but it is not a 100% sure thing.

Any extra clauses in a usufruct contract are personal (not real rights), so the owner just transfers the land to a family member or even sells it with the usufruct on it and all those clauses are void. (This is one of the reason why 30+ year lease contracts not work).

I was assuming that the land owner is a friendly party, as was suggested by you and others in this thread. I apologize if I misunderstood this. Also, based on my research into these issues, there was a Thai Supreme Court decision in 1998 that was interpreted by the legal community as meaning that a usufructuary could lease out the land to another party and that this second agreement would not end upon the death of the usufructuary. So it looks like, if properly structured, you could have very good legal protection of possession and use of the property for many years. But I am not a lawyer and it would certainly make sense for the OP to engage one, should he want to put some asset protection in place. These things are complicated.

[Khun Jean]

This is not quite correct. The usufructuary, i.e. the user of the land (for example the OP) can lease out the land (up to 30 years) to a third party (for example to his wife and/or to his children) and this second agreement will not end when the usufructuary dies. This way the usufructuary can pass on his rights to his wife and/or children; however, as the tenor of the lease would be in excess of 3 years it would have to be registered at the land department and taxes would have to be paid.

The 'problem' with that is that the owner has the land paper in his/her posession. Without cooperation a lease will never be registered. The landowner has to go to the land office to agree on the spot that a lease can be given to a third party, (even when it is written in a contract!). Bringeing a lawyer can help a bit, but it is not a 100% sure thing.

Any extra clauses in a usufruct contract are personal (not real rights), so the owner just transfers the land to a family member or even sells it with the usufruct on it and all those clauses are void. (This is one of the reason why 30+ year lease contracts not work).

I was assuming that the land owner is a friendly party, as was suggested by you and others in this thread. I apologize if I misunderstood this. Also, based on my research into these issues, there was a Thai Supreme Court decision in 1998 that was interpreted by the legal community as meaning that a usufructuary could lease out the land to another party and that this second agreement would not end upon the death of the usufructuary. So it looks like, if properly structured, you could have very good legal protection of possession and use of the property for many years. But I am not a lawyer and it would certainly make sense for the OP to engage one, should he want to put some asset protection in place. These things are complicated.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as precedence in Thai law, so that case can be mentioned for reference but no decision will solely be made upon it.

I just want people to realize that contracts most of the time consists of 2 parts. One part are the real lease rights and the other are non real rights. Only the real rights transfer to a new owner. As such a landowner only has to transfer the land to someone else to get rid of these non real rights. Especially in the case of lease renewals this is important to know. But is is also important when using a usufruct. As the right to give out a lease is not one on which you can count upon 100%. The signature of the real landowner is still needed to make the lease secure for the one leasing it. Without that security i doubt it is possible to find someone who would agree with not getting it mentioned on the chanot.

3 Year leases don't have that requirement and should be easy to do.