As far as usufruct (or in my case) "The right to live on the land until death")is concerned, I have heard a lot of differing opinions: It ranges from "MUST be written on the Land-Title, otherwise worthless" up to "A right to live on the land can be written on a sepertate document and is completely sufficient".

Can somebody enlighten me ? Thanks & cheers.

The usufruct (contract) must be registered on the back of the Chanote as an encumbrance or else the land can be sold out from under you. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 538, A hire of immovable property is not enforceable by action unless there be some written evidence signed by the party liable. If the hire is for more than three years or for the life of the letter or hirer, it is enforceable only for three years unless it is made in writing and registered by the competent official. Also see Land Code, Chapter 6, Recording of Rights and Legal Acts.

That takes any debate out of this thread . 100% excellent answer.

That takes any debate out of this thread . 100% excellent answer.

While I don't necessarily disagree with InterestedObserver's conclusion, 538 relates to Hire and Usufruct is not Hire.

That takes any debate out of this thread . 100% excellent answer.

While I don't necessarily disagree with InterestedObserver's conclusion, 538 relates to Hire and Usufruct is not Hire.

That's exactly what a Usufruct is, the hire of immovable property, with or without compensation, for a specified period of time which may be lifetime.

the usufructuary shall remain on the chanote for the land depending on the terms of the agreement with the owner which in most cases regarding foreigners and their wives is until he dies or gives permission to have it removed as in cases of divorce...

the usufruct agreement is registered with the local land office as well as a copy of the chanote with the usufruct so indicated...the usufruct is considered to be 'an encumbrance' on the chanote in the same way as a mortgage, ie., the owner of the land (or future owners if the owner dies) is not free to sell the property without the permission of the mortgage holder or usufructuary...

although there have been various posters on thaivisa asserting otherwise there has been no case revealed on thaivisa in the way of a successful challenge to the above that has demonstrated otherwise...

One slightly off subject but important caveat:

If a Thai wife has granted a foreign husband a Unufruct - She may within one year after a divorce ask that the Usufruct be voided (along with ANY contracts)...

One slightly off subject but important caveat:

If a Thai wife has granted a foreign husband a Unufruct - She may within one year after a divorce ask that the Usufruct be voided (along with ANY contracts)...

yeah...I believe that the law sez that any legal agreement between husband and wife made during the marriage can be unilaterally voided by either party...but the intent in most cases is that the husband retains control of the property in the case of his wife dying and not have to worry about being kicked out by unscrupulous in laws wanting to get their paws on the property/house as the case may be...

the usufruct is a flimsy protection mechanism for falang husbands and only holds together with the good will of the husband and wife in most cases...but I need to know of a case where the intended purpose regarding the husband remaining in control of his living arrangement by means of a usufruct after his wife dies has been defeated...

That takes any debate out of this thread . 100% excellent answer.

While I don't necessarily disagree with InterestedObserver's conclusion, 538 relates to Hire and Usufruct is not Hire.

That's exactly what a Usufruct is, the hire of immovable property, with or without compensation, for a specified period of time which may be lifetime.

Usufruct is not Hire.

That takes any debate out of this thread . 100% excellent answer.

While I don't necessarily disagree with InterestedObserver's conclusion, 538 relates to Hire and Usufruct is not Hire.

That's exactly what a Usufruct is, the hire of immovable property, with or without compensation, for a specified period of time which may be lifetime.

Usufruct is not Hire.

Technically Usufruct is a real land right, a contract or agreement which is covered under the Civil and Commercial Code and Land Code.

While I don't necessarily disagree with InterestedObserver's conclusion, 538 relates to Hire and Usufruct is not Hire.

That's exactly what a Usufruct is, the hire of immovable property, with or without compensation, for a specified period of time which may be lifetime.

Usufruct is not Hire.

Technically Usufruct is a real land right, a contract or agreement which is covered under the Civil and Commercial Code and Land Code.

So you agree now it's not Hire?

Ok, starting from the beginning, all usufruct agreements must be registered with the Land Department in order to be valid according to the Supreme Court of Thailand in decision 6872/2539.

the usufructuary shall remain on the chanote for the land depending on the terms of the agreement with the owner which in most cases regarding foreigners and their wives is until he dies or gives permission to have it removed as in cases of divorce...

the usufruct agreement is registered with the local land office as well as a copy of the chanote with the usufruct so indicated...the usufruct is considered to be 'an encumbrance' on the chanote in the same way as a mortgage, ie., the owner of the land (or future owners if the owner dies) is not free to sell the property without the permission of the mortgage holder or usufructuary...

although there have been various posters on thaivisa asserting otherwise there has been no case revealed on thaivisa in the way of a successful challenge to the above that has demonstrated otherwise...

I am bandying words here, but only for the purpose of getting 100% accuracy.

I believe that owner of the land IS free to sell the land BUT it would be subject the encumbrance of the usufruct. In practical terms nobody is likely to buy but I think the ability to sell exists.

^^yeah...I guess I wanted to say that if there is a new owner the terms of the usufruct remain in place, ie., the usufructuary cannot be kicked out if the terms are that he be allowed to reside on the property until he dies, etc...

Land subject to a Usufruct may be an attractive purchase to someone more confident of the Usufructuary meeting an early death .

(Off topic, but to bring to the attention of those searching in the future for usufruct threads, I believe it prudent to include mention of:

my disagreement with Isaanlawyers published interpretation that a lease granted by a Usufructuary survives the Usufructuary's death

; and;

the general suspicion about their practical efficacy as highlighted in my post #25 of the previous 'Usufructuary can issue 30 year lease?' thread link , to which I believe Sunbelt didn't respond to).

Land subject to a Usufruct may be an attractive purchase to someone more confident of the Usufructuary meeting an early death .

(Off topic, but to bring to the attention of those searching in the future for usufruct threads, I believe it prudent to include mention of:

my disagreement with Isaanlawyers published interpretation that a lease granted by a Usufructuary survives the Usufructuary's death

; and;

the general suspicion about their practical efficacy as highlighted in my post #25 of the previous 'Usufructuary can issue 30 year lease?' thread link , to which I believe Sunbelt didn't respond to).

Again, Isaanlawyers and Sunbelt's silence on these issues is deafening.

It is telling isn't it. I think the matter is clear, just read the law, laywers always complicate things.

Land subject to a Usufruct may be an attractive purchase to someone more confident of the Usufructuary meeting an early death .

(Off topic, but to bring to the attention of those searching in the future for usufruct threads, I believe it prudent to include mention of:

my disagreement with Isaanlawyers published interpretation that a lease granted by a Usufructuary survives the Usufructuary's death

; and;

the general suspicion about their practical efficacy as highlighted in my post #25 of the previous 'Usufructuary can issue 30 year lease?' thread link , to which I believe Sunbelt didn't respond to).

Ever the conspiracy theorist !