Deliquent Co -Owners

[Delight]

Is there a method within Thai law to ensure that co -owners honour there commitments.

The co -owners in question are all absent -never lived there -never rented the rooms out.

-I am assuming that they 'bought to sell'

The 'sell' part has not been successful.

The water meters have been removed-so the rooms are unfit for human habitation

All the foregoing is legal within the Condo Act.

What next?

Advice appreciated

Edited July 28, 2011 by Delight

[trajan]

there should be a provision that heavy interest starts accruing on outstanding sums and effectively the units cannot be sold until those sums (and interest amounts) are paid, because of the need to obtain an "no-debt" letter from the CJP when transferring ownership of the unit at the Land Office.

However, I have never heard of other interim action being taken (other than cutting-off utilities, and access) before the owner tries to transfer ownership of the unit to a buyer.

[chris2004]

We have a similar problem in my condo with unpaid common fees. The legal advice from our management company is that after a certain time, i think 1-2 years, we can apply to the Court to enforce a sale of the condo and collect any unpaid fees from the proceeds.

[Delight]

We have a similar problem in my condo with unpaid common fees. The legal advice from our management company is that after a certain time, i think 1-2 years, we can apply to the Court to enforce a sale of the condo and collect any unpaid fees from the proceeds.

Thanks for your useful reply.

I would be grateful if you could inquire as to which specific Thai law allows this method of enforceability

[ripley]

Thai Condominium Law, Section 18/1 states that a charge of 12% of the outstanding amount of payment (without compound interest) may be charged a defaulter. After 6 months, a charge of 20% can be levied. This "shall be in accordance with the By-Laws".

The real kicker is that the defaulting owner may be suspended from receiving common services AND using common property (as well as the right to vote). Common property includes lobby, stairs, hallways, elevators.... Let's see how the deadbeat accesses his property either to sell or for any other reason without paying up in full. But then, how to monitor & make sure s/he doesn't slither in and out?

Law doesn't specify whether this penalty relates to condo regulations, but probably a good idea for a condo to include these clauses just to make sure.

People who renege on their contractual commitment to pay into Maintenance Funds, etc. make it really tough on the rest of us. Especially infuriating to know it's being done by "investors" who never intended to pay up. It would be interesting to know where to find the Law that states such a condo unit may be sold to collect unpaid dues, after how long a period of time this is permitted and what other pressures can be brought to bear.

[ripley]

Incidentally, does anyone know whether it's legal to put a lock on the door of a long-term defaulter? A building manager who was tracking down defaulters one by one told me that, if the CJP goes to court on the matter, all furniture can be sold off. That's what he was going for - until he was forced to resign. Of course in an untouched condo the furniture wouldn't be worth much even if there was any. But if you can be allowed to go that far and suspend access to elevators & hallways, a lock would stop a defaulter in his tracks. Seems that, if only for "the protection of the condo unit" in the circumstances, the courts would grant permission to put a lock on the door.

Anyone have any personal experience, or able to quote law on this?

[Delight]

Incidentally, does anyone know whether it's legal to put a lock on the door of a long-term defaulter? A building manager who was tracking down defaulters one by one told me that, if the CJP goes to court on the matter, all furniture can be sold off. That's what he was going for - until he was forced to resign. Of course in an untouched condo the furniture wouldn't be worth much even if there was any. But if you can be allowed to go that far and suspend access to elevators & hallways, a lock would stop a defaulter in his tracks. Seems that, if only for "the protection of the condo unit" in the circumstances, the courts would grant permission to put a lock on the door.

Anyone have any personal experience, or able to quote law on this?

Access to a indebted co owners condo can not be organised ie no changing of locks etc.

However ,the co -owner in question can be denied access to lifts ,stairs and corridors.

I attach a JPEG detailing Section 41 of the Act -which does allow the JPM to sell 'moveable ' assets i.e. furniture etc.

I suspect that to resolve the issue then the committee will pass a resolution which decrees that the bad payer will be taken to a Civil court.

The threat of this should provide sufficient motivation to resolve the issue.

I suspect ,but do not know,that this tactic has been employed on many occasions -but of-course the details remain non -public.

[ripley]

"Access to a indebted co owners condo can not be organised ie no changing of locks etc."

I don't understand your meaning. Can you clarify? Also indicate your source for the info?

Thanks.

[Delight]

"Access to a indebted co owners condo can not be organised ie no changing of locks etc."

I don't understand your meaning. Can you clarify? Also indicate your source for the info?

Thanks.

Not surprised that you can't understand my statement-now that I read it again then neither can I !

Clarification:

The Act only allows the denial of access to common property.

Only the co -owner can change or add to the security arrangement of his or her room. So no adding or replacing of locks on personal property.

Section 18 of the Act details what can be done. It does not state that any and all necessary action can be employed

Thanks for highlighting my incorrect earlier statement.

I attach a JPEG of section 18

[ripley]

You know, Thai Condo Law says what you can do, but not what you can't do!

When an owner refuses to pay maintenance & other expenses, s/he is breaking a contract made at the time of purchase. And I just know that there have to be laws that deal with the breaking of contracts. Laws that support collection of unpaid debts. They may not be contained in the Thai Condo Act, but I'd be willing to bet they exist elsewhere. Problem is that the other owners remain unaware of the number of defaulters in their building & of the consequences to their own investment. Managers don't seem eager to go there, probably because of an understandable hesitation to stick one's foot into the quicksand of litigation. But I'm surprised that it appears nobody has followed up on the possibilities of restitution with a lawyer. Management companies usually have their own legal staff which ought to be a resource. Certainly if they have pursued the matter - as you say - they're keeping the details non-public. Wonder why.

[Delight]

You know, Thai Condo Law says what you can do, but not what you can't do!

When an owner refuses to pay maintenance & other expenses, s/he is breaking a contract made at the time of purchase. And I just know that there have to be laws that deal with the breaking of contracts. Laws that support collection of unpaid debts. They may not be contained in the Thai Condo Act, but I'd be willing to bet they exist elsewhere. Problem is that the other owners remain unaware of the number of defaulters in their building & of the consequences to their own investment. Managers don't seem eager to go there, probably because of an understandable hesitation to stick one's foot into the quicksand of litigation. But I'm surprised that it appears nobody has followed up on the possibilities of restitution with a lawyer. Management companies usually have their own legal staff which ought to be a resource. Certainly if they have pursued the matter - as you say - they're keeping the details non-public. Wonder why.

This was Ripley's response to original question dealing with long term delinquent non-payers of Condo Fees

Turns out he was right on the mark.

Chapter 2 Section 7.4 of a sample of Condo regs says-In relation of the scope of the Juritic Manager

7.4 to initiate or commence any legal actions or legal proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction or in any administrative body or in any arbitration in order to protect or to preserve any interest of the Condominium or of all Joint (sorry about size of this -can't get it to reduce)

I got it online from a reputable law firm. I suspect it is only legal if it is detailed in the Regs .of a condo.with the problem

I attach a JPEG which is a sample of typical condo regulations pertaining to this topic

(only the part that deals with this topic.)