Trespassing, Ownership In Dispute, Purchase In Progress,

[Robbiechiang]

I would appreciate comments onto this situation. This information was supplied by my Thai friend. The Juristic Person Office stumbled onto a co-owner unit on updating the ownership records in the estate. The record shows that the unit belongs to Thai registered company. The unit was on rental to a Farang who had been paying the Common Fees on behalf of the company. The receipts were made out to the Thai Registered Company. When asked about documents relating to the Thai Company , the tenant was unable to produce the documents. The tenant claimed that the unit legally belongs to them and he had paid the full amounts of moneys, but there had been no title deed transfer. The directors of the company had disappeared too. The Office were never able to contact the particular company. Checks with the registry of companies showed that the Company is no more on the Thai Company registry. Probably, the company have been liquidated or struck off the rolls. I understand that under Thai Laws if the company has not been supplying the companying accounts to the IRS etc it will be struck off the Rolls and a warrant of arrest will be issued against the directors. The company will cease to exist as a legal entity.

On our layman thinking, there will be some legal implications. A) If the unit catches fire or inadvertently cause damage to other units like a leaking water pipe, who will be ultimately responsible? Must the Juristic Office report this particular case to the Official Assignee as currently there is no legal entity holding the ownership C) Is the tenant trespassing in the Condominium Estate as the tenancy agreement is Null and Void and is a Dud D) Must the Juristic Office evict this particular person as some co-owners does not like the tenant and are litigatious in nature and are worried that they may meet with a legal suit likewise if there is a fire etc etc E) Will there be an tax implications as it seems that since the company does not exist but the tenant pays the common fees and the receipts are still in the name of the Thai Company...... will the IRS hold the Juristic Office responsible F) Must a police report be made for a Missing Owner?

G) Do you need to report the incident to the Land Office H) Must there be a report made to the State Attorney General to take over the premises and the Tenant to deal with them. This is a rather interesting case study.

[PattayaParent]

The tenant claimed that the unit legally belongs to them and he had paid the full amounts of moneys, but there had been no title deed transfer.

Is there a sales agreement?

Answers to your other questions

A) The occupier who causese the damage

C) Who has he been paying rent to all this time?

D) I doubt they could evict him unless he has been causing some sort of nuisance that was reported to the police and a court order etc. obtained.

E) No, it's not the Juristic Office responsibility to pay taxes for a company that owns property in the building, and the tennant wouldn't be liable either.

[Robbiechiang]

The tenant claimed that the unit legally belongs to them and he had paid the full amounts of moneys, but there had been no title deed transfer.

Is there a sales agreement? There was some sale agreement and it dates back many years ago. The agreement is rather complicated and he told me that it is a complicated buyer and seller case which happened many years ago and had many actors in it. The question was why there was no Transfer at the Land Office ? He smells a rat.

Answers to your other questions

A) The occupier who causese the damage The occupier cannot produce a tenancy agreement or ownership title hence. He told me that he approached the earlier Management Office but nobody wants to stick out the neck.

C) Who has he been paying rent to all this time? He just pays the Common fee to the Office and the Office issues the receipt to the co-owner which the Company which had bought the unit many years ago. But now it is impossible to contact that Company.

D) I doubt they could evict him unless he has been causing some sort of nuisance that was reported to the police and a court order etc. obtained. My friend thinks. This occupier cannot prove that he is a genuine tenant. He has no Tenancy Agreement and no way to contact the Co-owner. He is not the co-owner. He cannot vote in the AGM. He cannot be proxied to attend the meeting. He got no right to demand for any service from the Office. Just a squatter. Some co-owners have complained against his "wife" and their maid as nuisances and how to handle this situation and wants them thrown out. And one of them was a so called best friend and advisor to them. "The evil that lies in people's heart ". Some co-owners have started to raise the issue that he is an OUTSIDER as he now becomes not responsible to the Office.

E) No, it's not the Juristic Office responsibility to pay taxes for a company that owns property in the building, and the tennant wouldn't be liable either. Yes, agree with you. I recommended that he hand this case over to the lawyers. But the counterargument is why the Office should spend the Condo's money to engage the lawyer when they can just stop him from entering the premises unless he shows proof.

[PattayaParent]

If the tenant has a sales agreement can he show that he paid the money and so is the legal owner, even though the title has not been transferred?

The person that lives in the unit is responsible for damages caused to other units, it doesn't matter whether he can show a tenancy agreement or ownership documents.

If it was a company that owned the unit before I assume that it was a nominee company owned by a Farang to circumvent the 51%/49% quotas? In that case it is possible that there would be no transfer of title of the unit but the new owner would actually be buying the company? Is the tenant/owner also Farang because if he is then that's why there was no transfer of title to his name.

The condo juristic office cannot ask him to show proof that company taxes have been paid, what's it got to do with them? It's none of their business. Of course if he HAS bought the company then he would be liable for the taxes and accounts etc. but still nothing to do with the condo juristic office and they would not be pursued by the tax office. (or is the unit the registered address of the company?).

Regarding the eviction I guess he can prove residence for a number of years without any question until now? Who's name is the electric / UBC / Internet / telephone in?

[thaiwanderer]

Why does the OP think the tenancy agreement is null and void?

[PattayaParent]

Why does the OP think the tenancy agreement is null and void?

Good point, just because the landlord hasn't come around to collect the rent doesn't mean that you're not willing to pay it if he does.

[Robbiechiang]

If the tenant has a sales agreement can he show that he paid the money and so is the legal owner, even though the title has not been transferred? Sales/Purchase Agreement is one piece of document that must be studied by the courts and could be one of the reason why the unit was never transferred.

The person that lives in the unit is responsible for damages caused to other units, it doesn't matter whether he can show a tenancy agreement or ownership documents. Create damage and run away and then who will be responsible. Who then will become persecuted immediately... first verbally for letting the dog out ?

If it was a company that owned the unit before I assume that it was a nominee company owned by a Farang to circumvent the 51%/49% quotas? Yes, but probably the moneys could be paid to several persons. We do not know. In that case it is possible that there would be no transfer of title of the unit but the new owner would actually be buying the company? From what I understand it is from a Nominee company to a person. Is the tenant/owner also Farang because if he is then that's why there was no transfer of title to his name. This is Thailand ! Complicated. So many agendas?

The condo juristic office cannot ask him to show proof that company taxes have been paid, what's it got to do with them? Yes, I already agreed. Its none of their business ! It's none of their business. Of course if he HAS bought the company then he would be liable for the taxes and accounts etc. but still nothing to do with the condo juristic office and they would not be pursued by the tax office. (or is the unit the registered address of the company?). Good Point. I will ask him to check that out. But the company is no more found in the Thai Registry of Companies. Winded Up ? Liquidated ? Or struck off the rolls because they did not give any accounts to the IRS and therefore is not a legal entity.

Regarding the eviction I guess he can prove residence for a number of years without any question until now? Squatter ? Nobody wants to evict him but it was unfortunate as it was his so called good farang friend who fixed him up and told the office about it. We suspect that a group of them were buying and selling condos in the estate together and there was a fallout. Who's name is the electric / UBC / Internet / telephone in? Good point for investigation. But I think my friend says that the office dont want too much problems. Why look for additional headaches.

[Robbiechiang]

Why does the OP think the tenancy agreement is null and void?

Good point, just because the landlord hasn't come around to collect the rent doesn't mean that you're not willing to pay it if he does. Find me such a landlord.

[Robbiechiang]

Why does the OP think the tenancy agreement is null and void? Frankly it is too assuming. The occupier could not provide the tenancy agreement.

[thaiwanderer]

Why does the OP think the tenancy agreement is null and void? Frankly it is too assuming. The occupier could not provide the tenancy agreement.

Couldn't or wouldn't?

(You said null and void rather than non-existent, implying there was a tenancy agreement. If there was the tenancy doesn't die with the company's death).

The unit should have been disposed of before the company was shut down.

That is, if indeed it has been fully shut down (possible but unlikely).

If so it will need to be revivied in oder for this issue to be resolved.

Are you / the JP going to pay for that?

I'm unclear what power the JP has to evict since even without a paper agreement a verbal tenancy may have been given.

[Robbiechiang]

Why does the OP think the tenancy agreement is null and void? Frankly it is too assuming. The occupier could not provide the tenancy agreement.

Couldn't or wouldn't?

(You said null and void rather than non-existent, implying there was a tenancy agreement. If there was the tenancy doesn't die with the company's death). It seems that the tenancy agreement could not be produced.

The unit should have been disposed of before the company was shut down. Agreed. Right way. Why now?

That is, if indeed it has been fully shut down (possible but unlikely). How to check if it has been fully shut down ?

If so it will need to be revivied in oder for this issue to be resolved. The problem must be resolved by the Buyer. None of the JP business.

Are you / the JP going to pay for that? A few co-owners says that the problem lies with the occupier and they do not want to pay a single cent out of their maintenance fees. They said why should they ?

I'm unclear what power the JP has to evict since even without a paper agreement a verbal tenancy may have been given. If the guardhouse have orders to tell that they are restricted not to enter then the onus is for them to prove that they have right of stay. Some co-owners as put to understand especially those backstabber friends of his wants this to be done . It seems that they are trying to fix the JP too and make the JP to be the demon. Its a litigatious place populated by many retirees who have nothing to do. My friend says he just cannot understand their type of "friendship ".