Usufruct Registering Question

[jbrain]

I have searched for the usufruct thread, since I wanted to ask my question there, but as usual the search function here is of no use.

So here we go.

I am the mortgagee on a piece of land and which is registered on the back of the title deed.

In principal the land office will not register a lease to the mortgagee on the same plot. ( fact ) I'm not sure if they will register a lease at all on a mortgaged piece of land ???

So my question is if they will register a usufruct on that land to the mortgagee.

[AyG]

In short, no.

The land has a certain value without a usufruct, and a lower value with a usufruct. The company which issued the mortgage has the land as security in event that the mortgage payment run into arrears. It would not agree to a reduction in the value of its security.

[Crossy]

Like most things in LoS I'll bet it depends upon which land office you talk to.

I certainly had to cancel my usufruct when we mortgaged our land to build the house, but that was to the bank (Siam Commercial). I will re-assert my rights once the loan is paid off.

[jbrain]

In short, no.

The land has a certain value without a usufruct, and a lower value with a usufruct. The company which issued the mortgage has the land as security in event that the mortgage payment run into arrears. It would not agree to a reduction in the value of its security.

Read my post again. I am the one ( mortgagee) who issued the mortgage, no company involved.

But I can not own land in Thailand, so to avoid going the company route which I think is risky, I decided to do it this way.

I also built a house on the land, which is in my name and where I live in, but because the land office doesn't register a lease to the mortgagee ( Me ) entered on the back of the title deed, I have to resort to 3 year lease contracts.

There are no issue wit that other then that the contracts have to be renewed every three years, and if the landowner dies at one point, it can not be renewed anymore, hence my search for a better solution.

[AyG]

Your arrangement sounds bizarre. If I've got it right, you lent money to someone to buy a piece of land. That person is paying you mortgage payments - effectively paying off the loan. But you're living on the land, and now want to secure the right to use it for the foreseeable future - even if the landowner dies. Is that correct?

What's in it for the land owner. Are the mortgage payments ridiculously small that they don't matter? Are you giving him/her the money to make the mortgage payments? Otherwise why would the land owner pay for land he won't have use for (potentially) many years?

[jbrain]

Your arrangement sounds bizarre. If I've got it right, you lent money to someone to buy a piece of land. That person is paying you mortgage payments - effectively paying off the loan. But you're living on the land, and now want to secure the right to use it for the foreseeable future - even if the landowner dies. Is that correct?

What's in it for the land owner. Are the mortgage payments ridiculously small that they don't matter? Are you giving him/her the money to make the mortgage payments? Otherwise why would the land owner pay for land he won't have use for (potentially) many years?

My arrangements with the " legal " landowner are of no concern to this forum.

How, if , when or how much he pays back is irrelevant to my question or this thread.

My question was, will the land office register an usufruct to the mortgagee registered on the back of concerned title deed.

Edited May 17, 2013 by jbrain

[BEVUP]

Like most things in LoS I'll bet it depends upon which land office you talk to.

I certainly had to cancel my usufruct when we mortgaged our land to build the house, but that was to the bank (Siam Commercial). I will re-assert my rights once the loan is paid off.

Got me thinking , but not sure why yu had to cancell as the owner still holds the rights to do as she pleases with the land, but as mentioned i guess the bank values it more without one

[Khun Jean]

In my experience only one lien at the time is allowed.

Only solution i can think of is removing the mortgage from the chanot and put a usufruct on it.

A mortgage gives only protection if it is not paid off. In the future this might happen and then you are without security and have a maximum 3 years if your lucky.

Getting your money back is better then nothing, but nevertheless that amount can after a long period be insufficient.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Khun Jean

[jbrain]

In my experience only one lien at the time is allowed.

Only solution i can think of is removing the mortgage from the chanot and put a usufruct on it.

A mortgage gives only protection if it is not paid off. In the future this might happen and then you are without security and have a maximum 3 years if your lucky.

Getting your money back is better then nothing, but nevertheless that amount can after a long period be insufficient.

When I made the contract with the lawyer, he explained to me that it wasn't possible to register both a mortgage and lease on the same title deed, so I asked him which one I should choose.

He told me, a mortgage when it isn't paid off at the time of your death will go over to your heirs, while a lease will expire at the time of your death.

He continued, make sure whenever you make a contract of any kind in Thailand that you don't create a reason to die for yourself.

So the mortgage was registered, and there are no issues with, as I have a very good understanding with the " legal " owner of the land. Otherwise I would have never considered this in the first place.

However, later I started to realise that in a country where there are almost 30.000 traffic deaths every year, the owner may have a high risk of passing away at any time in the future, which would mean that she is not able to sign any future lease contracts anymore.

I had hoped that with the usufruct it would be possible to have both the mortgage and usufruct registered.

Edited May 17, 2013 by jbrain

[donx]

I don't know the answer to your question but I am very interested in hearing what you end up finding out. Although you say that the mortgage arrangement with the "legal" owner is of no concern regarding your question, I suspsect that a land office may disagree with you on that point.

I wonder if it would be easier to get a usufruct if you weren't the mortgagee? Would it be possible to have a company (Thai or foriegn, I don't know which) be the mortgagee instead of you as an individual? Would that make it more likely for you to obtain a usufruct for the property? You as the acting director of a company would be willing to allow the usufruct assuming that the land office would allow such an arrangement.

Unfortunately, I think you are going to have to go to the land office to get your answer or back to your lawyer. What did/does your lawyer say?

Looking forward to hearing what ends up happening.