Seven years ago I purchase some land in the name of a Thai.

The Thai in turn granted me a 30 year Lease on it.

The amount I actually paid for the Lease in total (registration fees extra) was inconsequential.

It has crossed my mind whether or not in a court of law, this Lease would be deemed legal.

In spite of actually sourcing the original price of the land, I have not in fact paid anything for the actual Lease in question.

There might have been some token amount, but nothing resembling the commercial value.

I do not know how much the equivalent rental of such a piece of land would be, but I have not paid the owner annually, or in advance for this occupancy.

Due to the fact that I have not done so, could the owner of the Land now declare the Lease null and void.

Further more no ground rent has been paid annually, let alone rent.

The bottom line is are Leases legal, even in the event they are given away free?

A 30 year lease has to be on the chanote. If it is (in your name) everything is OK. If not, you don't have a lease!

Seven years ago I purchase some land in the name of a Thai.

As far as I know that is buying by proxy which is illegal.

is the 30 year lease registered at land office if yes no problem ,if no then you dont have a 30 year lease you should have really been researching this 7 years ago when you actually rented the land

A 30 year lease has to be on the chanote. If it is (in your name) everything is OK. If not, you don't have a lease!

Seven years ago I purchase some land in the name of a Thai.

As far as I know that is buying by proxy which is illegal.

is the 30 year lease registered at land office if yes no problem ,if no then you dont have a 30 year lease you should have really been researching this 7 years ago when you actually rented the land

To clarify the replies that have been made.

I purchased this land unconditionally, legally stating that at the time, I have no recourse to the Land at all.

On the back of the Chanote document, a 30 year Lease has been officially registered in my name.

The point I am trying to make is, how can a Lease be interpreted as being legal, if the Leaseholder has not been reimbursed, for the rental of his land at the going commercial rate?

If there is in the future any probem the remuneration or otherwise may be llked at at that time. one thing that some forget is that there is local tax payble on company rented condos and houses and this may mount up but I am not sure who is responsible. owner or leesee.

For starters, the Thai landlord controls the real property (land) and you control the commercial activities (lease) as registered on the Chanote. Under these circumstances, with no money changing hands for the lease and no real property rights (usrfruct, superficies etc.) included on the rear of the Chanote, I do not see how you expect to hold on to the lease if the Thai owner changes his mind.

If the OP's lease was registered at the land office, he would surely have dealt with tax issues, which he hasn't mentioned.

If the OP's lease was registered at the land office, he would surely have dealt with tax issues, which he hasn't mentioned.

Not the tessaban ones.

Don't know if this applies in Thailand, but under American contract law there must be something of value exchanged in order for a contract to be valid. That's why, if you execute a quit claim deed between husband and wife (putting the title in the name of your spouse) the title agent will always require a selling price of $10 even when you just want to give away the title for free. With the exchange of $10, the contract will hold up under legal scrutiny.

If there is any such concept under Thai contract law, I would encourage you to arrange a token payment of some sort. Of course, legal assistance should first be sought. You wouldn't want the other party to get wind of this "loophole" if, in fact, it even exists.

Don't know if this applies in Thailand, but under American contract law there must be something of value exchanged in order for a contract to be valid. That's why, if you execute a quit claim deed between husband and wife (putting the title in the name of your spouse) the title agent will always require a selling price of $10 even when you just want to give away the title for free. With the exchange of $10, the contract will hold up under legal scrutiny.

If there is any such concept under Thai contract law, I would encourage you to arrange a token payment of some sort. Of course, legal assistance should first be sought. You wouldn't want the other party to get wind of this "loophole" if, in fact, it even exists.

Now you are getting to the gist of what I have been trying to raise - thank you.

But I feel in the event somebody was prepared to go to court on this, their claim would be for the going commercial rent, as opposed to just the principle.

Their argument might be that they did not know that they were even entitled to rent, let alone having to settle for $10.

A further point on all of this, what happens in the case of companies. Do they have to charge the Lessor/Tenant the going commercial rent on the property?

And then in turn have to pay any applicable taxes on these rental fees?

If the Thai in who's name you registered the land is a friend it will be no problem to have him sign a receipt that you paid the lease 30 years upfront.

If the Thai in who's name you registered the land is a friend it will be no problem to have him sign a receipt that you paid the lease 30 years upfront.

And then that "friend" would become liable for the 12.5% annual tax collected on the leased property.

If the Thai in who's name you registered the land is a friend it will be no problem to have him sign a receipt that you paid the lease 30 years upfront.

And then that "friend" would become liable for the 12.5% annual tax collected on the leased property.

Well, 12.5% on on a very low amount is nothing to write home about.

Do you have any source for that, and how is it collected in case of a lease between two private person and the property is used for private purposes.

I think every Thai is also liable to pay personal income taxes.

You could of course have granted the owner a mortgage to buy the land, he pays you the mortgage every month and you return the money as rent! This has been mooted several times on how to get round the problems, however, I do not know if this has ever been tested in a court of law.

You could of course have granted the owner a mortgage to buy the land, he pays you the mortgage every month and you return the money as rent! This has been mooted several times on how to get round the problems, however, I do not know if this has ever been tested in a court of law.

I have structure like that set up. Only thing is that you can't register both mortgage and a lease on the same plot.

In my case I registered the mortgage and have 3 year leases.

If the Thai in who's name you registered the land is a friend it will be no problem to have him sign a receipt that you paid the lease 30 years upfront.

And then that "friend" would become liable for the 12.5% annual tax collected on the leased property.

Well, 12.5% on on a very low amount is nothing to write home about.

Do you have any source for that, and how is it collected in case of a lease between two private person and the property is used for private purposes.

I think every Thai is also liable to pay personal income taxes.

That depends. If the land office consider the rent too low they will decide on a 'fair rent' depending on the property.

I don't think anyone can come after you for more rent. You bigger concern is the court might find there is no lease at all for the reason I mentioned above, and then you'd have no rights to the land at all.