House If Wife Should Die

[too true]

Now to get the husband to discuss it! I don't know about everyone else but every time I try to bring this up my husband says "I don't want to think about it, I don't like to think about death".

Anyone have a good way of bringing this up for discussion with their Thai spouse?

Tell your husband that if he doesn't want to talk about it ....You will kill him!!

Along those lines.... I had the same problem with my husband. He didn't want to talk about it and kept putting it off, especially when I asked him who our kids should live with if we both died at the same time.

Finally I told him, fine, if you don't want to think about it, I will, and I'll go get the will written and it'll be in English in big legal words and I won't explain anything to you and you'll just sign it not knowing what it says because you didn't want to think about it. Right? And so we talked... that won't work for everyone, of course - my husband's become quite open to the whole talking thing.

Is it possible that the government would be easier on foreign women whose Thai husbands die (particularly where children will be involved), just as immigration is much easier for foreign women than for men? Our trip to immigration last week involved one question, and it wasn't about money. Mightn't the forces that be in wherever makes the decisions be softer on a women because after all, how will she possibly survive and raise her half-Thai children without her husband to support her and keep her straight in the ways of Thai culture???? I'm not wishing to find out, of course. It just seems that there's no rhyme or reason as to when the government actually chooses to enforce its laws.

[Heng]

Why cant you just buy property in your wifes name and then get her to lease it to you/your company for 30 years and also put the building in your name (as you can own that).

Now this might be a crazy idea.... but how about buying the property in your wife's name, stay on good terms with the family in question, and live happily ever after? Look at all the Asian foreigners and surely SOME falang foreigners who've done the same.

[ray23]

Why cant you just buy property in your wifes name and then get her to lease it to you/your company for 30 years and also put the building in your name (as you can own that).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now this might be a crazy idea.... but how about buying the property in your wife's name, stay on good terms with the family in question, and live happily ever after? Look at all the Asian foreigners and surely SOME falang foreigners who've done the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Money

[Heng]

Well to do locals often have similar problems. Sometimes the husband or wife is real frugal and good in business while their spouse is the diametric opposite. This is typically countered by the "smart" spouse buying property in the children's name, and when possible, putting two children on each chanote as a kind of a checks-n-balances system. Falangs can do this too, all they have to do is wait (stay alive) until their children are legal age adults.

[sbk]

Why cant you just buy property in your wifes name and then get her to lease it to you/your company for 30 years and also put the building in your name (as you can own that).

Now this might be a crazy idea.... but how about buying the property in your wife's name, stay on good terms with the family in question, and live happily ever after? Look at all the Asian foreigners and surely SOME falang foreigners who've done the same.

You've obviously never met my brother-in-law

[Heng]

Why cant you just buy property in your wifes name and then get her to lease it to you/your company for 30 years and also put the building in your name (as you can own that).

Now this might be a crazy idea.... but how about buying the property in your wife's name, stay on good terms with the family in question, and live happily ever after? Look at all the Asian foreigners and surely SOME falang foreigners who've done the same.

You've obviously never met my brother-in-law

True. But a united (nuclear) family front with property transferred to the children (who are well versed in frugality and ingrained into the "thou shall protect and not sell family assets" mentality) as soon as it is legally possible usually nips that kind of thing in the bud.

[srisatch]

Reading all of this leaves me thinking:

What is it with 'ownership'?

It is easy and cheap to rent land and property in Thailand...ok a bit insecure..bu not so insecure as dodgy land titles/leases etc.

If you want to give your wife a present..sure by and give her some land..or even a house

If you have kids..of course you want to look after them...I cannot comment on the kids your wife has already...presumably you thought about that before you got 'involved'?

The problem is 'getting old'...but there the issue is whether you have someone/people who will look after you..and maybe you should make financial provision for that?,,,,

Your assets you can reserve and make provision for disposal as normal in a will...and if you are not sure draw up a 'discretionary' will..which means you can change your mind, easily

I have kids...and the majority of what I have is in their names in trust...and my wife is not the trustee!!.. and my will provides explicitly for the children having ownership and possession of 'their' property in Thailand...when they come of age ...while my wife has her own...so if she chooses to shack up with someone after I am gone the kids are not in trouble as regards property ...though of course they might have trouble with a new 'uncle'!!

Seems to me the best thing is to keep your assets out of Thailand, but provide for that wife you love so!!

[sbk]

Why cant you just buy property in your wifes name and then get her to lease it to you/your company for 30 years and also put the building in your name (as you can own that).

Now this might be a crazy idea.... but how about buying the property in your wife's name, stay on good terms with the family in question, and live happily ever after? Look at all the Asian foreigners and surely SOME falang foreigners who've done the same.

You've obviously never met my brother-in-law

True. But a united (nuclear) family front with property transferred to the children (who are well versed in frugality and ingrained into the "thou shall protect and not sell family assets" mentality) as soon as it is legally possible usually nips that kind of thing in the bud.

Too late for him

And srisatch, my husband will be aquiring family owned property so we don't have the lease option. Does PR affect any of the inheritance issues at all?

[JimGant]

our land and house is on my wife's name. in a will she transfers all her possessions to her son with me having the right to live in the house.

I'd get my name on the chanote as a lessee. As it now appears, you're hanging strictly in the good graces of her son, who becomes the landowner upon her death. You have no legal rccourse should he decide to throw you out. A 'wishful will' cannot replace legal reality. A lease, however, *IS* legal reality (for what that's worth in Thailand).

[JimGant]

my husband will be aquiring family owned property so we don't have the lease option.

Why don't you have a lease option? If he acquires land -- family owned or otherwise -- he becomes the owner on the chanote and as such, can lease his land to you (or anyone).

[sbk]

my husband will be aquiring family owned property so we don't have the lease option.

Why don't you have a lease option? If he acquires land -- family owned or otherwise -- he becomes the owner on the chanote and as such, can lease his land to you (or anyone).

Good point, I am so used to thinking in terms of "we" that I forget about the "me"

Ok, so, say he leases it to me, can it be done with a symbolic payment or does it have to show a "real value" payment? ie I pay him 100 baht to lease his land or I have to pay him the fair market value of a lease?

[JimGant]

Ok, so, say he leases it to me, can it be done with a symbolic payment or does it have to show a "real value" payment?

It's symbolic.

Here's our story. A neighbor hired a lawyer to grease the skids for their lease deal. My wife, however, felt she had the wherewithal to deal directly with the land department, having done so earlier with acquisition title transfer. So, off she went to discuss with a land department official the ins and outs of a lease. When she asked him what was a fair lease value (i.e. 30 years' worth of rents), his figure was about 10% of what my neighbor-with-lawyer had arrived at (and our land is bigger!). Anyway, no rent is required to actually change hands -- only a percentage (2 or 5%, I forget which) of this contrived value is paid to the land department. In our case, it was only about 2000 baht (plus a generous tip to the very helpful agent). We didn't add a 30-year renewable clause, as at age 60, I didn't need it (plus, the land official wasn't sure of its legal value anyway).

Now, if there's one lesson we all learn on this forum: a different office or a different official usually means a different outcome. And whether my neighbor's lawyer was a crook -- or just uninformed, I don't know. Or possibly this lawyer's experience with contrived rent values at the land office had been different. So, if you know of a good lawyer who is versed in land deals, hiring such *might* be worth it -- or not.

But the bottom line is, it's easy to do, and it doesn't cost much, particularly for so much value in the peace-of-mind category.

[Dragonman]

Ok, so, say he leases it to me, can it be done with a symbolic payment or does it have to show a "real value" payment?

It's symbolic.

Here's our story. A neighbor hired a lawyer to grease the skids for their lease deal. My wife, however, felt she had the wherewithal to deal directly with the land department, having done so earlier with acquisition title transfer. So, off she went to discuss with a land department official the ins and outs of a lease. When she asked him what was a fair lease value (i.e. 30 years' worth of rents), his figure was about 10% of what my neighbor-with-lawyer had arrived at (and our land is bigger!). Anyway, no rent is required to actually change hands -- only a percentage (2 or 5%, I forget which) of this contrived value is paid to the land department. In our case, it was only about 2000 baht (plus a generous tip to the very helpful agent). We didn't add a 30-year renewable clause, as at age 60, I didn't need it (plus, the land official wasn't sure of its legal value anyway).

Now, if there's one lesson we all learn on this forum: a different office or a different official usually means a different outcome. And whether my neighbor's lawyer was a crook -- or just uninformed, I don't know. Or possibly this lawyer's experience with contrived rent values at the land office had been different. So, if you know of a good lawyer who is versed in land deals, hiring such *might* be worth it -- or not.

But the bottom line is, it's easy to do, and it doesn't cost much, particularly for so much value in the peace-of-mind category.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim, I presume the 5% is the stamp duty. What about your structures usage tax which is 12.5% of the assessed annual rental value, as presumably there is a house on the property?

[JimGant]

Just to muddy the water a little more:

The following is part of a 3-year old article from the Nation. It is found in its entirety in the Thaivisa archive:

Buying Land in Thailand

Most foreigners who “own” land and houses – as opposed to condos, which can be owned outright – go for a leasehold agreement of typically 30 years, with two prepaid 30-year renewals. The lease will include clauses that automatically allow freehold ownership if the laws of foreign ownership change in the future, and the right to sell and/or transfer the property.

This gives you 90 years with strong backup, making it effectively ownership.

Just to complicate things a little, while you can only lease land, all the buildings – either on the land when it was purchased, or improved or built by you after purchasing the land, are yours freehold. Technically this means that once the lease expires, the owner of the land must purchase the building(s) at an independently and legally valued price, or negotiate another lease period. God knows how that can work.

So, the "two prepaid 30-year renewals" seems to be an option, so I guess some have gone this route (paying the land office 3 times the cost of the initial 30-year lease). Now, why the land office has, in my case, questioned its legality, I don't know. But no one has probably yet to reach the first 30-year anniversary of an initial lease, so it has yet to be tested. Stay tuned, eh?

The part about buildings on your leased land is interesting -- but a little screwy. Does the author mean "either on the land when it was leased, or ... built by you after leasing the land...?" (The author says "purchased," but that doesn't make any sense since the whole gist of this article is the inability of foreigners to 'purchase' land.) Also, nothng about how these buildings are separately titled, if indeed they are(?).

Kinda hard to get a warm comfy feeling with this subject, no?

[Dragonman]

Just to muddy the water a little more:

The following is part of a 3-year old article from the Nation. It is found in its entirety in the Thaivisa archive:

Buying Land in Thailand

Most foreigners who “own” land and houses – as opposed to condos, which can be owned outright – go for a leasehold agreement of typically 30 years, with two prepaid 30-year renewals. The lease will include clauses that automatically allow freehold ownership if the laws of foreign ownership change in the future, and the right to sell and/or transfer the property.

This gives you 90 years with strong backup, making it effectively ownership.

Just to complicate things a little, while you can only lease land, all the buildings – either on the land when it was purchased, or improved or built by you after purchasing the land, are yours freehold. Technically this means that once the lease expires, the owner of the land must purchase the building(s) at an independently and legally valued price, or negotiate another lease period. God knows how that can work.

So, the "two prepaid 30-year renewals" seems to be an option, so I guess some have gone this route (paying the land office 3 times the cost of the initial 30-year lease). Now, why the land office has, in my case, questioned its legality, I don't know. But no one has probably yet to reach the first 30-year anniversary of an initial lease, so it has yet to be tested. Stay tuned, eh?

The part about buildings on your leased land is interesting -- but a little screwy. Does the author mean "either on the land when it was leased, or ... built by you after leasing the land...?" (The author says "purchased," but that doesn't make any sense since the whole gist of this article is the inability of foreigners to 'purchase' land.) Also, nothng about how these buildings are separately titled, if indeed they are(?).

Kinda hard to get a warm comfy feeling with this subject, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was confused until I realised Mr Macdonald is a journalist providing second hand information. The buildings ownership is over simplified and only an extremely experienced Property Lawyer should draft the necessary contract and lease agreement. I have detailed previously the problems associated with being left with a house surrounded by someone else's land.

Option Agreements are only useful if the freehold owner wants them to be. If you have a peppercorn rental agreement it will not be useful to the owner in the future. I have never come across an "option agreement" which I was unable to break, as they are contractual, although they do have a legal status.

[JimGant]

What about your structures usage tax which is 12.5% of the assessed annual rental value, as presumably there is a house on the property?

Good question.

First and foremost is that this 'rental' agreement is a ploy around Thai ownership rules and is *not* an arms length business deal. In our case, the owner lives in the house, the head of our Moo Ban knows it (this, I believe, is where any usage tax would be paid), and I doubt he would ever push the issue (considering we just gave him a nice donation for the new Wat).

Having said that, are we correct in saying this is not a real commercial deal? I don't know. If push came to shove, I'd convert the lease to a usofructs.

Here's what's said about a structures usage tax:

It does not apply to a private residence lived in by the owner and his family. It does however apply to a property that is rented or let to a third party - or used by it's owners (even in part) for commercial purpose as say an office or a shop.

Obviously, we key on the 'lived in by owner,' and consider myself a spouse, not a 'third party.'

[wolfman jack]

My wife won't talk about it either. I mention it and she gets pissed off then says that her family won't bother me and walks out.

As I see it without a will I will inherit. my 2 children, and my wife's parents. That makes 5 people on the title that have to agree if we want to do anything with the land. Then if either the father or mother die that adds 5 brother and sisters to the mix making a total of 9 people having a say.

What a mess.