Cost Of Housing In Phuket

[stevenl]

Why is everybody talking about 'farang' here? Considering a great chunck of land is owned by non Thai Asians, 'foreigner' would be better.

Ah, but wait, we want to complain about being discriminated against, got it.

[Valentine]

My ex has a Phuket home in her name, paid for out of my earnings...

...I believe this is the principle on which the OP wished to purchase i.e. a nice home to live out his retirement which will go to his lady should she outlast him.

I would guess thats exactly what many dont want.. To buy a house and then find the owner becomes an 'ex'..

I dont mind on a low value house.. if I broke up with my wife now I would make sure she ended up with a house, but it would probably be a different value one than one I wish to live in.

Ummm, I wonder how many relationships ended once the property was bought in the girly's name?

The point I really want to make is that having a home in a Thai person's name whom you trust is the most preferable for securing future value. Even though she is my ex I trust her implicitly to do the right thing when the home is sold i.e. split it between her & the kids as I am not interested in any of the proceeds. I agree with others re the leasing idea & in fact is purely a marketing gimmick to get sales. I do not believe in precedents when it comes to legal issues in this country & there are so many variables involved in long term leases which lose value as the lease approaches expiry. The landowner can die so are the heirs obligated to follow the terms of the lease considering they did not sign it? Even if the landowner is still about he could raise all sorts of objections to extending the lease at the terms which were agreed upon 30 years previously. A lease is a very messy way to secure land unless you view it as a long term rental option.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Valentine

[LivinginKata]

<snip>I don't think there will be police and land owners knocking on the doors to throw people out on the street as the end to the 30 year lease approaches .

That's exactly what I think WILL happen. The leasee has no legal right to stay after the registered 30 year period expires. No legal reason for the land owner to show any compassion. I can see that there will be a legal case (in civil court) when the first of the 30 year leases expires and once that case is resolved then there will a legal precedent that will be applied in all future cases. But don't hold your breath, that will take a long time to unfold.

[Valentine]

<snip>I don't think there will be police and land owners knocking on the doors to throw people out on the street as the end to the 30 year lease approaches .

That's exactly what I think WILL happen. The leasee has no legal right to stay after the registered 30 year period expires. No legal reason for the land owner to show any compassion. I can see that there will be a legal case (in civil court) when the first of the 30 year leases expires and once that case is resolved then there will a legal precedent that will be applied in all future cases. But don't hold your breath, that will take a long time to unfold.

Are you sure legal precedents are watertight here? I reckon they are only good until the next one comes along. As I said before there are just too many variables which can arise for the landowner to use as an excuse for not extending or raising the price outrageously. You can imagine the drawn out legal battles which will ensue.

[barka]

what this thread has brought to the readers is... a good collective choice of ideas .based on opinions from some very experianced expats who have ived in Phuket for a long time and i am sure there is a lot of good advice here my advice is ..

take out of it what you think suits you...

dont beleive all that you read only.. beleive what you think is right for you. god luck wether you BUY... LEASE OR RENt.......as they say in LOS....UP TO YOU.....

[LivinginKata]

Are you sure legal precedents are watertight here? I reckon they are only good until the next one comes along. As I said before there are just too many variables which can arise for the landowner to use as an excuse for not extending or raising the price outrageously. You can imagine the drawn out legal battles which will ensue.

No idea about legal precedents in Thailand, but it might lend some weight to future cases. And yes, I expect there will be many long drawn out legal cases. I just wonder when the first of these 30 year leases expires ? I think I used to have one of the very earliest of these 30 year leases in Patong. Started in 1991, I bought the lease (transfer) in 1996, resold in 1999 while the land lease still had 22 years left and value of the house was still rising. In that case no extension was offered, so the 30 years land lease was clear, that's one of the reasons why I got out.

[inmysights]

I have heard a rumour you can put the property in your 50/50 Thai/farang kid's name. Does anyone know anything about this. Is it possible or just a rumour.

Of course you can. It doesn't get you any closer to getting your mits on it mind. If I buy a house, it will be in my wifes name and have my 2 kids as beneficiaries if anything happened to her.

Scare mongers always go on about distant relatives coming in for the pickings like vultures! but the law isn't as poor as that as far as I know, wouldn't be a problem, just probably wouldn't be allowed to sell the house until the kids are 18 or something like that.

If you are married to a Thai who dies, his/her parents are entitled to 10% of your jointly owned estate under Thai Law.

[LivinLOS]

Why is everybody talking about 'farang' here? Considering a great chunck of land is owned by non Thai Asians, 'foreigner' would be better.

Ah, but wait, we want to complain about being discriminated against, got it.

Most members on here are I would guess 'farangs' of one stripe or another.. So when discussing 'our' property ownership issues me mention the problems of 'farang' / 'our' issues..

[LivinLOS]

<snip>I don't think there will be police and land owners knocking on the doors to throw people out on the street as the end to the 30 year lease approaches .

That's exactly what I think WILL happen. The leasee has no legal right to stay after the registered 30 year period expires. No legal reason for the land owner to show any compassion. I can see that there will be a legal case (in civil court) when the first of the 30 year leases expires and once that case is resolved then there will a legal precedent that will be applied in all future cases. But don't hold your breath, that will take a long time to unfold.

Thailand doesnt work on the western system of precedent case law.. A judge is free to 'interpret' the law even if previous cases were decided differently.

But I agree.. A the end of 30 year lease time, you will be told to vacate.. I also suspect that a lot of +30+30 cases will happen, and while some by honorable companies and possibly individual will comply, the majority of contested ones will lose. Thailand is for Thais, and you had your 30 year use, now pay again or give it back.

[BangTaoBoy]

If you are married to a Thai who dies, his/her parents are entitled to 10% of your jointly owned estate under Thai Law.

I didn't know that. However both my in-laws are dead, and when they were alive they weren't the, 'where's my sinsod' (whatever it's called) kind of people (just as well, would have had a long wait) so I don't think they would have come for their 10% anyway.

Is this the standard law, that applies to Thais married to Thais as well?

[katabeachbum]

Are you sure legal precedents are watertight here? I reckon they are only good until the next one comes along. As I said before there are just too many variables which can arise for the landowner to use as an excuse for not extending or raising the price outrageously. You can imagine the drawn out legal battles which will ensue.

No idea about legal precedents in Thailand, but it might lend some weight to future cases. And yes, I expect there will be many long drawn out legal cases. I just wonder when the first of these 30 year leases expires ? I think I used to have one of the very earliest of these 30 year leases in Patong. Started in 1991, I bought the lease (transfer) in 1996, resold in 1999 while the land lease still had 22 years left and value of the house was still rising. In that case no extension was offered, so the 30 years land lease was clear, that's one of the reasons why I got out.

When you sell a lease, IOW new lessee, law permits new 30 year to be registered, and if this is agreed on in first lease, should work.

The 30 year legal lease limit is on one lessee, if I had such lease I would transfer it to new lessse within the initial 30 years, and it should be a new 30 years lease.

Or if presently being half way in a 30 year lease, and an agreement to issue another one on expire, I would start this process now issuing the next lease on another name.

Trying to get another 30 years in same name is not likely to be supported by court.

and yes 1991 must have been one of the first 30 years, as it was previous max 10 years

[BangTaoBoy]

Thailand is for Thais, and you had your 30 year use, now pay again or give it back.

I've said it before. The two best things Thais could possible do for themselves, and extremely important if they are going to have any kind of future, are limiting the employment Farangs can do and not allowing them to own land.

I'm happy with the way the law is when it comes to these two things. If you are not, I can only suggest, your own needs are more important to you than that of Thailand, so in which case why would Thais want people like that to own land anyway?

[LivinginKata]

When you sell a lease, IOW new lessee, law permits new 30 year to be registered, and if this is agreed on in first lease, should work.

The 30 year legal lease limit is on one lessee, if I had such lease I would transfer it to new lessse within the initial 30 years, and it should be a new 30 years lease.

Or if presently being half way in a 30 year lease, and an agreement to issue another one on expire, I would start this process now issuing the next lease on another name.

Trying to get another 30 years in same name is not likely to be supported by court.

and yes 1991 must have been one of the first 30 years, as it was previous max 10 years

Not in my case, when I bought from the previous leasee it was only a straight transfer of the initial 30 years, and when I sold on it was just another transfer. The transfers were processed/registered at the Phuket land office. As it happens the leasor was in no position to extend/renew the lease as she did not actually own the land, she in fact was leasing the land from another Thai for only 30 years. That why no possible extension was offered in the original contract.

I can't believe that any land owner would agree to sign the lease over to a second buyer for a new full 30 year lease without any sort of financial compensation. And the land owner's signature is usually required to support the transfer papers.

[barka]

Are you sure legal precedents are watertight here? I reckon they are only good until the next one comes along. As I said before there are just too many variables which can arise for the landowner to use as an excuse for not extending or raising the price outrageously. You can imagine the drawn out legal battles which will ensue.

No idea about legal precedents in Thailand, but it might lend some weight to future cases. And yes, I expect there will be many long drawn out legal cases. I just wonder when the first of these 30 year leases expires ? I think I used to have one of the very earliest of these 30 year leases in Patong. Started in 1991, I bought the lease (transfer) in 1996, resold in 1999 while the land lease still had 22 years left and value of the house was still rising. In that case no extension was offered, so the 30 years land lease was clear, that's one of the reasons why I got out.

When you sell a lease, IOW new lessee, law permits new 30 year to be registered, and if this is agreed on in first lease, should work.

The 30 year legal lease limit is on one lessee, if I had such lease I would transfer it to new lessse within the initial 30 years, and it should be a new 30 years lease.

Or if presently being half way in a 30 year lease, and an agreement to issue another one on expire, I would start this process now issuing the next lease on another name.

Trying to get another 30 years in same name is not likely to be supported by court.

and yes 1991 must have been one of the first 30 years, as it was previous max 10 years

I agree..and hope fully this is what i hope to do

[barka]

I did this once with my first lease hold property i bought ..sold it 3 years later on... with my lawyer making a new 30 year lease... wether it would stand up in THAI COURT I DONT KNOW....Only time will tell

[katabeachbum]

I can't believe that any land owner would agree to sign the lease over to a second buyer for a new full 30 year lease without any sort of financial compensation. And the land owner's signature is usually required to support the transfer papers.

If thats what is agreed on in initial lease (the only lease agreement I would enter) i dont see how land owner can deny without being brought to court. Land owner signatures is required unless a court order states otherwise

[BangTaoBoy]

I did this once with my first lease hold property i bought ..sold it 3 years later on... with my lawyer making a new 30 year lease... wether it would stand up in THAI COURT I DONT KNOW....Only time will tell

'BARKA', What is it with the RANDOM BLOCK capitals?

[LivinginKata]

I can't believe that any land owner would agree to sign the lease over to a second buyer for a new full 30 year lease without any sort of financial compensation. And the land owner's signature is usually required to support the transfer papers.

If thats what is agreed on in initial lease (the only lease agreement I would enter) i dont see how land owner can deny without being brought to court. Land owner signatures is required unless a court order states otherwise

I find this very interesting and I'm not doubting what you say. One would think that the land owner is making an initial price to lease his/her land for 30 years, with the expectation of making more money at the end of that deal. It seems unreasonable (to me) that the owner or decendents are never going to make any more money on the land they own. After all they are not selling the land, just lending (at a price) for a fixed period of time.

[NamKangMan]

I can't believe that any land owner would agree to sign the lease over to a second buyer for a new full 30 year lease without any sort of financial compensation. And the land owner's signature is usually required to support the transfer papers.

If thats what is agreed on in initial lease (the only lease agreement I would enter) i dont see how land owner can deny without being brought to court. Land owner signatures is required unless a court order states otherwise

I find this very interesting and I'm not doubting what you say. One would think that the land owner is making an initial price to lease his/her land for 30 years, with the expectation of making more money at the end of that deal. It seems unreasonable (to me) that the owner or decendents are never going to make any more money on the land they own. After all they are not selling the land, just lending (at a price) for a fixed period of time.

I agree. An example would be if you had one of these 30 year land leases and decided to sell after 25 years. The sale price will most likely be a lot higher than you paid 25 years before. No one is going to pay a lot of money for the use of the house for 5 years. I believe the Thai land owner WILL NOT allow the farang to have the profits of the capital gain made by the sale of THEIR land. So, all I can see happening is a large portion of the selling price being forwarded to the Thai owner by the purchaser for a new 30 year lease to be drafted, and, because the house on the land is quite old, I can only see a very small payment going to the farang seller which will most likely be a loss for them.

The other problem occurs if the Thai land owner simply refuses to sign off on a new lease at all. What can you do with these houses other than bulldoze them rather than give a free house to the Thai land owner who has left you with nothing to sell.

[katabeachbum]

Thats to simple

If you enter a lease agreement stating you at any point can sell the lease, and new lessor shall be issued and have registered a new 30 year lease(or longer if law allows) or freehold (sold to thai or law changes allowing foreign freehold), and the land lord denies, you do have a simple win in civil court.

Since appeal is likely, schedule 5 years to have a court order you can use at land office, and make sure transfer happens before initial lease expires.

[LivinginKata]

Civil court in Thailand is never simple. Just scheduling a hearing might take a year and even then the judge might be too busy that day and schedule another hearing ... a year later. I know, I am involved in a 30 lease transfer case on behalf of a deceased friend. We are now in year 9 with no end in sight because the other side just delay and appeal at every step. The costs so far have been about 20% of the value of the home on the leased property and the daughter of the deceased has not been allowed any use/access to the home these 9 year. The land owner was granted access/use by the court and has been renting out all this time. Sorry ... I am going off topic here.

[stevenl]

Thats to simple

If you enter a lease agreement stating you at any point can sell the lease, and new lessor shall be issued and have registered a new 30 year lease(or longer if law allows) or freehold (sold to thai or law changes allowing foreign freehold), and the land lord denies, you do have a simple win in civil court.

Doesn't that implicate from the get go a (potentially/probably) longer than 30 years and thereby illegal lease?

[katabeachbum]

Civil court in Thailand is never simple. Just scheduling a hearing might take a year and even then the judge might be too busy that day and schedule another hearing ... a year later. I know, I am involved in a 30 lease transfer case on behalf of a deceased friend. We are now in year 9 with no end in sight because the other side just delay and appeal at every step. The costs so far have been about 20% of the value of the home on the leased property and the daughter of the deceased has not been allowed any use/access to the home these 9 year. The land owner was granted access/use by the court and has been renting out all this time. Sorry ... I am going off topic here.

agree in this case, I have not read any supreme court ruling on inherriting a lease

However transfer as agreed on according to lease agreement, should take no more than 5 years, but obviously can take +9 years. Its good I said half way in a 30 year lease in a previuos post here........................

[katabeachbum]

Thats to simple

If you enter a lease agreement stating you at any point can sell the lease, and new lessor shall be issued and have registered a new 30 year lease(or longer if law allows) or freehold (sold to thai or law changes allowing foreign freehold), and the land lord denies, you do have a simple win in civil court.

Doesn't that implicate from the get go a (potentially/probably) longer than 30 years and thereby illegal lease?

the first lessee is entitled to 30 years max, or to swap to freehold within the 30 years if law changes/allows

another lessee is entitlled to 30 years max

which is acceptable by law.

In fact 30 years lease can be registered on me today, and another 30 year lease can be registered on my son tomorrow, starting when my 30 years expires. Have to pay taxes for both today and tomorrow tho

[NamKangMan]

Thats to simple

If you enter a lease agreement stating you at any point can sell the lease, and new lessor shall be issued and have registered a new 30 year lease(or longer if law allows) or freehold (sold to thai or law changes allowing foreign freehold), and the land lord denies, you do have a simple win in civil court.

Since appeal is likely, schedule 5 years to have a court order you can use at land office, and make sure transfer happens before initial lease expires.

What if he doesn't refuse a new 30 year lease but just puts a ridiculous price on the new 30 year lease? Your sale falls over or you are left with a small payment out of the sale for a 30 year old house.

If the Thai land owner, at Thai law, must renew the lease, upon sale of the property within the first 30 year lease, we are going to see a lot of places for sale in the latter years of the lease, but who will buy them without a new 30 year lease attached to the property???? Also, because there will be so many of these on the market, the price would have to get lower and lower as the lease years run down.

Edited January 3, 2011 by NamKangMan

[katabeachbum]

Thats to simple

If you enter a lease agreement stating you at any point can sell the lease, and new lessor shall be issued and have registered a new 30 year lease(or longer if law allows) or freehold (sold to thai or law changes allowing foreign freehold), and the land lord denies, you do have a simple win in civil court.

Since appeal is likely, schedule 5 years to have a court order you can use at land office, and make sure transfer happens before initial lease expires.

What if he doesn't refuse a new 30 year lease but just puts a ridiculous price on the new 30 year lease? Your sale falls over or you are left with a small payment out of the sale for a 30 year old house.

If the Thai land owner, at Thai law, must renew the lease, upon sale of the property within the first 30 year lease, we are going to see a lot of places for sale in the latter years of the lease, but who will buy them without a new 30 year lease attached to the property????

agrred on in lease agreement such compensation is not to be required

most reputable lawyers can draw up a lease agreement favoring lessee as good as posssible within Thai law

[NamKangMan]

the first lessee is entitled to 30 years max, or to swap to freehold within the 30 years if law changes/allows

another lessee is entitlled to 30 years max

which is acceptable by law.

In fact 30 years lease can be registered on me today, and another 30 year lease can be registered on my son tomorrow, starting when my 30 years expires. Have to pay taxes for both today and tomorrow tho

This is good to know. It maybe something I would consider. I have never heard of this before. Wouldn't the Thai land owner ask for a lot of money on the second lease to your son, for example?

[LivinginKata]

the first lessee is entitled to 30 years max, or to swap to freehold within the 30 years if law changes/allows

another lessee is entitlled to 30 years max

which is acceptable by law.

In fact 30 years lease can be registered on me today, and another 30 year lease can be registered on my son tomorrow, starting when my 30 years expires. Have to pay taxes for both today and tomorrow tho

You are very sure about this. Good for you. I on the other hand am not so sure. Let's see when you put it to the test, and please report back. Best of luck.

[katabeachbum]

This is good to know. It maybe something I would consider. I have never heard of this before. Wouldn't the Thai land owner ask for a lot of money on the second lease to you son?

Buying a property, agree on a price, and the lease is a formality to enable you and your next to control it for an agreed time, or until you can become freehold owner or until you establish a co ltd, or until someone want to lease it for 30 years

I dont know how many Phuket lawyers register 30 and 30 years, but at least Sam in International Law office has done it. Dowroong, Phuket town office

[stevenl]

the first lessee is entitled to 30 years max, or to swap to freehold within the 30 years if law changes/allows

another lessee is entitlled to 30 years max

which is acceptable by law.

In fact 30 years lease can be registered on me today, and another 30 year lease can be registered on my son tomorrow, starting when my 30 years expires. Have to pay taxes for both today and tomorrow tho

So that would mean it depends on the conditions of the contract (lease) whether the lessor is allowed ask for more money to extend the lease yes or no or even refuse extension. Have I interpreted this correctly?