Advantages Of Two Or Three Nominee Lessors To "own" Your House?

[sleepyjohn]

Although I have a couple of threads going on this forum I think this idea merits it's own thread:

Instead of choosing one Thai "friend" as one's nominee lessor....would it be a great idea to have a "partnership" of perhaps three Thais "owning" one's land. They would be three preferably unconnected friends.

The articles of association or whatever they're called could specify that not all but any of the three can perform actions on behalf of the others. (Bit like the sort of bank account where two or more people have access and any one of them can sign a cheque)

This would take care of a major problem: the death, departure, or dishonour of any of the individuals.

As long as one has one co-operative person still in there one can renew one's lease, swap the ownership to a new name, sell, or do anything else one may want.

Of course one hopes and expects that there will be absolutely no problems, but if there were the knowledge that if any of the lessors doesn't co-operate himself it will be one of the others that will earn a laptop or whatever for doing next to nothing would be a pretty good incentive to toe the line.

So would this type of association be possible?

(I'm starting to get so devious I think there might be a career for me.....lawyer.....whoops Dragonman and Nadia I didn't say that your replies are welcome!)

Edited February 28, 2006 by sleepyjohn

[mortorroundkid]

Hey,man I don't know anything about this. I'm in Arizona and thinking about getting a house in Chiang Mai. I gotta say this idea has merit and at the least, you have a terrific sense of humor. That's my thread. Mortorroundkid signs out.

[Dragonman]

Although I have a couple of threads going on this forum I think this idea merits it's own thread:

Instead of choosing one Thai "friend" as one's nominee lessor....would it be a great idea to have a "partnership" of perhaps three Thais "owning" one's land. They would be three preferably unconnected friends.

The articles of association or whatever they're called could specify that not all but any of the three can perform actions on behalf of the others. (Bit like the sort of bank account where two or more people have access and any one of them can sign a cheque)

This would take care of a major problem: the death, departure, or dishonour of any of the individuals.

As long as one has one co-operative person still in there one can renew one's lease, swap the ownership to a new name, sell, or do anything else one may want.

Of course one hopes and expects that there will be absolutely no problems, but if there were the knowledge that if any of the lessors doesn't co-operate himself it will be one of the others that will earn a laptop or whatever for doing next to nothing would be a pretty good incentive to toe the line.

So would this type of association be possible?

(I'm starting to get so devious I think there might be a career for me.....lawyer.....whoops Dragonman and Nadia I didn't say that your replies are welcome!)

sleepyjohn. Are you trying to give me a headache, and I thought my wife was bad.

I am not an expert on thai contract law as it is somewhat different to most countries. However I presume the underlying concept of property ownership will be the same. If so, all 3 owners will be required to sign for the sale or lease of the property. Therefore if 1 of the owners sold his share pre-option, the new owner would not be obligated to extend the lease. I am sure there could be a Court Case if some outside contract was drawn up, but these cases don't happen except where there is outside influence trying to manipulate a contract. Thai judges would I think take a dim view.

On a personal level, trusting 1 thai is worrying, 3 now that's a different ball game. For instance I would never put my land in my wife and my 2 mia nois names.

[astral]

Why not go the tried Company route?

As majority share holder and director with sole signing power, you DO have total control.

[sleepyjohn]

Why not go the tried Company route?

As majority share holder and director with sole signing power, you DO have total control.

Why is because of the hoops one has to go through. I only just started seriously considering the company. Already I have got into the realm of:

Formation of two companies (recommended by Sunbelt)

Getting work permit &

Changing my visa to O-B, requiring:

leaving the country every 90 days or having 4 employees @5250baht/month.

Paying an accountant.

Having an office address.

Trying to fabricate income and thenpaying tax on it.

Being totally reliant on the PRESENT law.

Never feeling secure one could continue to juggle all the above. At least with a lease one has 30yr security and time to respond to problems.

If a lease could be done well I see it as an easy alternative, all done cheaply and in a day, with minimal continuing hassle. This is why I've been very active exploring the boundaries of the lease method on various threads.

I do in fact think that maybe company or lease each have some advantages depending on the expected period of tenure. if you want to "turn over" property for a profit probably the best way is company, you can sign everything yourself without anyone's permission and walk away from the deal with your cheque. I am personally thinking longer tenure, and would only need to subdivide a corner to a friend if I go broke in my dotage, in which case I would have to ask my lessor to cooperate and they would get a nice drink.

I am still very interested in the company though, so all feedback gratefully received. I'm about 50/50 actually.

Edited March 2, 2006 by sleepyjohn