Buying Property - Protection For Foreigner

[binjalin]

1323640599[/url]' post='4906332']

I think the whole 'protection' part is forgotten.

Protection is what you need when you have a conflict.

When everything is fine and perfect, there is no need for protection.

We all know that relationships can go bad, promises broken, etc..

At such moments protection is all you have left.

I think if we look back at our own lives or to family, friends and others we know that the need for protecting things that are important to you is something that is often forgotten and often stupid in hindsight. And that is not only the case in Thailand.

Prenuptials are very common when one of the people who get married has worked long and hard to have some wealth and the other has little. Upon divorce these are very important.

Thaiand has 'Sin Suan Tua', which means everything you owned before getting married is and stays with you. A prenuptial as in the west is most of the time not needed. Once married new bought property is "Sin Somros" except when one of the spouses gets it as a gift! Also if the Thai national inherits property or money it is categorized as 'Sin Suan Tua'.

It is also one of the reason why foreigners have to sign a paper that the land bought while being married is the sole property of the Thai national (as foreigners may not own land this duty rests upon the landoffice), meaning it will be 'Sin Suan Tua'! If you buy a house when married, only the house will be 'Sin Somros'.

When you are going to divorce this 'Sin Suan Tua' and 'Sin Somros' is the basis on which everything will be decided.

One person can walk away from a multi million baht property, another persons will feel like his live is over. Have seen a few that lost everything and were going back to their country and live on government support. Only because the 'other' was such a nice and trustworthy person.

Just be careful, weigh your risk, get informed, get informed some more and then make the decision.

If there is just a hint of doubt in your mind , rent or buy a condominium.

Which is what I have highlighted in nearly every post! Dont do it if in doubt!!! (not that we were talking about marriage specifically). I have heard of tons of farang who have lost everything after 'falling in love' and then later it goes wrong.

I was highlighting a more 'business oriented approach' of a lifetime 'Usufruct' which gives protection fully during ones lifetime and allows you to rent-out and use as you wish. After death, of course, it goes to the 'Usufructee' automatically so that's something to consider.'

[binjalin]

I dont think I will contribute anymore to this thread (so no point 'someone' baiting and bickering anymore as I shall not be biting as this is how they get their 'enjoyment').

All the information is here.

I have years of experience and contact with professionals and lawyers here and successfully undertaken what I have described.

Do your own research, think before acting and seek professional advice if in doubt.

I will think twice, myself, before posting in future as TV is famous for flaming wars and arguing and I just wanted to contribute my experience, in real life, of buying, selling and renting property here in Thailand and I hope it has been of some use. I stand by everything I have contributed as it has been my exeperience - but let me repeat (one last time) check, check and re-check.

Some will say it's easy (which it isn't)' some will say it's so hard or impossible (as on here) and some (I am one of them and there are others on here) who will say it is 'possible' but be careful and I think that's the very best advice.

Good luck and caveat emptor always.

[thaiwanderer]

So when you suggested 'you can rent out no problems' you were only referring to unregistered leases?

Yes, of course... Why register? I have a lifetime Usufruct and I can let the house for 1 year contracts as and if I wish to do so - but actually, in my case, I will sell the house as I dont use it too much - I have a pre-signed PoA as my good friend is going with her husband abroad and may not be available to attend the land office. I did explain all that

Maybe you 'get' what I was saying now?

Not really. Without bickering, you've made various claims for your strategy that when examined bear little resemblance to the original claims.

Unregistered leases are hardly the full gambit of renting out 'no problems'.

You now say you are selling the house and have a pre-signed POA for this purpose.

Why not own the house in your own name? (or perhaps you are again being imprecise in your choice of words?)

Are you selling the house on your own behalf or your friend's (who owns it?), what about the land and the usufruct?

Are they being sold, leased, usufruct granted? Or transfer of usufruct? or habitation or superficies?

Does the POA enable you to receive sale funds that properly belong to your friend?

I'm wholly unconcerned with your business but am interested in the apparent confidence and certainty you have in your strategy yet you express its advantages very carelessly and incorrectly (no offence).

You obviously dont live here? Nor have even a limited understanding of Thai law? Farang cannot 'own' and therefore cannot 'sell in their own name' - that's the whole point! From all of your comments I can see that you are inexperienced and have not really grasped it (although I thought you might have in your last post but you still haven't - and i'm not sure what your motvation is in not 'getting it'). When did I suggest renting out 'no problems'? I stated 'usufruct and I can rent out no problems' which is not the same thing.

I respectfully suggest you stay well clear of property in Thailand - I own,sell and rent sucessfully and consult lawyers when I need. I am confident I have no issues or problems which you are trying your best to 'imagine'. The thread was about 'protection' and I am fully protected.

You jest? We can compare appendages if you wish but you would lose and I'd be disappointed in myself for getting into such a childish game.

I have no doubt you are entirely happy with your decisions and am not criticising them whatsoever.

What I am picking up on is the ambiguity and lack of precision in the strange claims you make here. Even in such a short thread you've made a number that soon morph into something quite else when questioned. Is that 'someone's' fault for questioning them?

You did say without qualification you could rent out no problems in your numbered list above but that then changed to mere unregistered leases which is not even approaching a small part of the same claim.

Regarding your purported house sale - you can own the house in your own name but given your imprecision so far I suspected you didn't just mean selling the house (and also as its useless without the land or at least rights over the land). But then as we've been discussing POAs, usufructs and latterly renting its not clear what you are actually 'selling'. Hence the questions in my last post. Based on what you've clearly said so far, all you can really be selling is a cancellation of your usufruct (and perhaps the house) - everything else is surely sold by the landowner (your friend? via the POA? but the bulk of the sale and the monies should presumably be for them - and talk of you selling overstates your true involvement in the whole deal even if you are driving it).

There's a huge difference between doing your own thing and being comfortable with it and making bold (but imprecise) claims in a forum predicated on discussion of such issues.

I can't see why you should be agitated by responses to your claims made in a forum. If you don't like it be a little more clear or just don't post?

No offence intended at all.

[binjalin]

Not worth responding - you just don't understand the process and reasoning behind proxy purchase using an Usufruct.

[thaiwanderer]

Not worth responding - you just don't understand the process and reasoning behind proxy purchase using an Usufruct.

I fully understand numerous ways this can be structured and the merits of each but yet again imprecision and morphing claims from you.

I suspect you either don't understand your own structure fully or are being disingenuous in making differing claims for it depending on your mood.

[binjalin]

1323683206[/url]' post='4907435']

1323682653[/url]' post='4907403']

Not worth responding - you just don't understand the process and reasoning behind proxy purchase using an Usufruct.

I fully understand numerous ways this can be structured and the merits of each but yet again imprecision and morphing claims from you.

I suspect you either don't understand your own structure fully or are being disingenuous in making differing claims for it depending on your mood.

I suspect that you have never underaken buying by proxy using an Usufruct and then sellling? You have studiously avoided mentioning your experience or lack of.

[thaiwanderer]

Not worth responding - you just don't understand the process and reasoning behind proxy purchase using an Usufruct.

I fully understand numerous ways this can be structured and the merits of each but yet again imprecision and morphing claims from you.

I suspect you either don't understand your own structure fully or are being disingenuous in making differing claims for it depending on your mood.

I suspect that you have never underaken buying by proxy using an Usufruct and then sellling? You have studiously avoided mentioning your experience or lack of.

At first you appeared to be indicating protection with your undated POA, then when questioned claimed it was mere convenience now you appear to be implying control.

Which is it? Do you even know?

You haven't bought anything, a usufruct has been granted to you. Now you are selling the whole lot - good for you. The usufruct is an unnecessary (and illusory) add on since the whole thing rests on your nominee. If it works, good for you. Despite referencing personal risk / decisions you have been quite boastful about your structure - though it morphs depending on the question.

Why would I personally use such a pathetic structure? Unlike you I don't need to circumvent the law.

Why would I recommend it to a foreigner? There are far better ways for them to have beneficial use and effective control without your little ploy (even if they are on as good terms with a nominee as you with yours). I'd recommend a usufruct if it fitted their circumstances but for anything other than a pure usufruct only it wouldn't play a central role as in yours.

As to experience - I had already suggested you'd lose the appendage game and I'd feel foolish for playing it, but since you insist:

How long have you practised law in Thailand?

What was the total value of transactions you dealt with professionally last year?

On a personal level, total profit from your own Thai real estate dealings last year?

Edited December 12, 2011 by thaiwanderer

[udonguy]

Not worth responding - you just don't understand the process and reasoning behind proxy purchase using an Usufruct.

I fully understand numerous ways this can be structured and the merits of each but yet again imprecision and morphing claims from you.

I suspect you either don't understand your own structure fully or are being disingenuous in making differing claims for it depending on your mood.

I suspect that you have never underaken buying by proxy using an Usufruct and then sellling? You have studiously avoided mentioning your experience or lack of.

At first you appeared to be indicating protection with your undated POA, then when questioned claimed it was mere convenience now you appear to be implying control.

Which is it? Do you even know?

You haven't bought anything, a usufruct has been granted to you. Now you are selling the whole lot - good for you. The usufruct is an unnecessary (and illusory) add on since the whole thing rests on your nominee. If it works, good for you. Despite referencing personal risk / decisions you have been quite boastful about your structure - though it morphs depending on the question.

Why would I personally use such a pathetic structure? Unlike you I don't need to circumvent the law.

Why would I recommend it to a foreigner? There are far better ways for them to have beneficial use and effective control without your little ploy (even if they are on as good terms with a nominee as you with yours). I'd recommend a usufruct if it fitted their circumstances but for anything other than a pure usufruct only it wouldn't play a central role as in yours.

As to experience - I had already suggested you'd lose the appendage game and I'd feel foolish for playing it, but since you insist:

How long have you practised law in Thailand?

What was the total value of transactions you dealt with professionally last year?

On a personal level, total profit from your own Thai real estate dealings last year?

Most people do indeed use the way described an usufruct in a thai friends name or a company and you are coming across as bullying and it is not circumventing the law and is lawful why dont you get of that high horse and add something useful to the thread instead of snipe? this person describes what happens to most transactions and i have yet to read you saying what way is so much better. i have done the same way with usufruct and poa unsigned and it is common practice. i thought the rules say posters were to focus on the thread not insult each other?

[DanielToddGilbert]

When I'm 60 I will buy a massive detached villa with pool, lots of land to garden have plenty of things to do in and around the house all with a nice 30 year lease so who gives a toss when/if you make 90. It will be a very nice last 30 years of life better then wallowing around in a rented room until you pop your clogs wondering whether life was really worth it or not.

[thaiwanderer]

Most people do indeed use the way described an usufruct in a thai friends name or a company and you are coming across as bullying and it is not circumventing the law and is lawful why dont you get of that high horse and add something useful to the thread instead of snipe? this person describes what happens to most transactions and i have yet to read you saying what way is so much better. i have done the same way with usufruct and poa unsigned and it is common practice. i thought the rules say posters were to focus on the thread not insult each other?

Not bullying at all, responding to a poster who can't decide on the merits he chooses to claim (nay boast) in this thread for his structure.

TV rules also bar discussion of illegality but if that were enforced rigorously in the real estate section it would at a stroke end the majority of threads.

I assume you mean an undated POA - using an unsigned one would be even more illegal.

'Most people' is quite a bold claim as is the claim there's no effort to circumvent the law with an unsigned POA (or do you mean undated? still illegal).

Usufructs of themselves are entirely legal and have some advantages, and of course all these things are person and circumstance specific. They can be used within a structure utilised by a foreigner to strengthen their efforts (if so inclined) towards having beneficial use and effective control (over and above a mere usufruct) but are merely a minor ingredient.

[Khun Jean]

When I'm 60 I will buy a massive detached villa with pool, lots of land to garden have plenty of things to do in and around the house all with a nice 30 year lease so who gives a toss when/if you make 90. It will be a very nice last 30 years of life better then wallowing around in a rented room until you pop your clogs wondering whether life was really worth it or not.

When you are 60, go for it.

What do you do when you are 30 or 40? Hope you die before your 30 years are up?

What happens when you get older than 90? Or is the lifestyle such that that is out of the question.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Khun Jean

[binjalin]

1323800538[/url]' post='4910479']

1323778723[/url]' post='4909908']

When I'm 60 I will buy a massive detached villa with pool, lots of land to garden have plenty of things to do in and around the house all with a nice 30 year lease so who gives a toss when/if you make 90. It will be a very nice last 30 years of life better then wallowing around in a rented room until you pop your clogs wondering whether life was really worth it or not.

When you are 60, go for it.

What do you do when you are 30 or 40? Hope you die before your 30 years are up?

What happens when you get older than 90? Or is the lifestyle such that that is out of the question.

Im guessing most of us are the wrong side of 50 when debating whether to buy land through a proxy not 30 or 40 at 30 to 40 I was climbing up the corporate ladder and thoughts or retirement were - well not even thoughts! Anyway we have covered everything I think - for me a Usufruct properly registered for my lifetime is adequate protection and would only be disappointing if I reincarnate and recall it all

[Back Sida]

Would it be possible to register the land (with the house) on the child's name (Thai citizen) ,

and make then the usufruct in the benefit of the father (farang)?

So that it is still void also after a divorce?

Thanks and regards

[InterestedObserver]

Would it be possible to register the land (with the house) on the child's name (Thai citizen) ,

and make then the usufruct in the benefit of the father (farang)?

So that it is still void also after a divorce?

Thanks and regards

YES you can register land with a title deed (Chanote) in a Thai child's name. The usufruct would then have to be approved by the Juvenile and Family Court. Ownership of the house is another separate issue.

[Back Sida]

Thanks for that info.

Out of the blue, do someone know if the court would approve this easily (let's assume the mother approve and agreed)?

Or, how difficult would be that process?

Regards

[chiangmaibruce]

does someone know if the court would approve this easily (let's assume the mother approve and agreed)?

Refer to this earlier Thaivisa thread:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/357192-landhose-in-childs-name-plus-usufunct/page__p__3533365#entry3533365