Ways For Foreigners To Buy Houses And Costs Thereof...

[tebee]

I've never heard of "right of habitation" too - wonder what they are talking about ?

One other way that's been suggested is using a loan secured on the property combined with an usufruct.

As I understand this, they don't buy the property from us, but instead make us a loan for the value of the property that is also secured on the property. In exchange we give them a lifetime usufruct. So if they want to sell it in the future they call in the loan the have made to us, we don't pay and they can then sell the property to pay off the loan.

[andre47]

Nevertheless, if a foreigner is to use a usufruct for solely the right to occupy or reside on the property, and not for the expressed commercial activities as stated by the Thai law, it is conceivable that the Land Department official may decide that the usufruct is being used to circumvent the law and advise that the foreigner should register a right of habitation, which is a separate right, rather than the usufruct.

thanks for the interesting information Andre. never heard of "right of habitation" before. can you elaborate a bit more?

I'm not a lawer. As I mentioned I got this text from a lawer website. Anyway such questions should be discussed with a lawer or better two different lawers. As far as I read everything regarding foreigners and the possibility to possess land in Thailand, I got the conclusion that the only legal way is to buy the house and rent the land. All other ways are illegal. For that reason most of the properties in the main touristic areas in Thailand are far too expensive, because you never get owner of the land. I deceided just to rent a property. This is the safe way.

[TravelerEastWest]

If you happen to have a company with annual audits, tazes paid, Thai employees and a real business thats make a profit and so on...

I think you should be able to buy land through the company without a problem.

Andre47,

Even though you didn't write that article you did a good job of researching - good work.

[davejones]

I don't see why anyone in their right mind would use an usufruct. Suppose the Aussie couple pay 6m baht and get an usufruct for 30 years. If they want to stay 50 years it means they lose the property and have to buy a new one. And what if they decide they want to leave after 2 years? Do they just walk away from the 6m baht. Seems like a really stupid thing to do.

a usufruct is not for a limited time but for life.

But what happens if you decide you no longer want t live at a property? Not many people make a lifelong commitment to live in one property. I don't know anyone who's lived in the same property their whole life. No-one knows what the future holds, so I still think you'd have to be mad to enter a transaction such as this.

My goodness. Isn't that a decision to be made by the ones who are going to do the transaction.

For me living in one place is difficult, that is why i rent.

Others don't always have that problem and are not limited to renting. Each to his own!

Yes, I agree. It's just that people dish out the advice as a one size fits all solution. But even for people that are happy to stay put it's a big risk because you just can't tell what the future holds. For example, you may want to stay forever but then can't get a visa to stay in the country because the rules change. That's just one example. In real life 100s of things could make you want to leave. So it's a huge risk to "buy" this way.

[BlackPuddingBertha]

I deceided just to rent a property. This is the safe way.

And by far the cheapest as far as I'm concerned.

[Synastry]

Usufruct is the only way without living with stress. The usufruct can not only accommodate the couple, they can include their current/future children to take over the usufruct for life.

[Synastry]

If the couple wanted to sell the property, the usufruct can be modified/transferred to a new usufructor. Property under a current usufruct is definitely more attractive for the security of permanency than buying an expensive condo.

[djjf]

Not trying to resurrect old threads unnecessarily, but since reposting old questions is frowned upon, I would like to ask for some clarification on the topic of usufruct within a specific scenario:

1. I "gift" money to my Thai wife to purchase land and house in Thailand in her name

2. We sign the required document at the LO to that effect (I waiver any rights/compensation on the property in case of divorce)

Now the question regarding usufruct:

Could my wife and I now sign an usufruct granting me occupation rights to the property (even for just residential purposes) meaning that she at least would be barred from selling in case of divorce, without my prior consent?

In case we want to sell later on, do I revoke the usufruct and my wife is free to sell the land and house as freehold to a new owner, without this owner having to worry about the usufruct issued to me?

I'm simply concerned that there is some minimal right vested in me in case of a divorce/separation, whereby I at least have some say/power in the disposal of assets. I understand the potential issue with regards to the LO's interpretation of the usufruct being misused for circumvention of the property laws.

Looking at it, a "RIght of Habitation" for lifetime granted to me by my wife does seem like a better option, granted that we're able to revoke this in case of a later sale.

[Crossy]

An usufruct or lease between husband and wife will offer zero protection in the event of divorce as either party can unilaterally cancel any agreements made during marriage

Both will provide legal (but not physical) protection from grabbing relatives should your wife per-decease you.

Should you wish to dispose of the property you are correct, just cancel the usufruct / lease and you're good to go.

[simple1]

OP: get your potential Australian buyers to review the T&C's of the Australia Thai Free Trade Agreement & ascertain what benefits, if any, there to acquire property in a company name under the agreement.

http://www.thaifta.com/english/eng_au.html