So Far, Has Anyone Lost His Home?

[nokia]

Folks, we are all aware of the risks in a 30 year lease, which gives a foreigner a right to use the land for 30 years. Well, most of us have not been in LOS for that long, but has anyone heard of any foreigner being thrown out of his "30 year lease" home because something happened to the landowner/landlord or the landlord got nasty?

[stevehaigh]

Folks, we are all aware of the risks in a 30 year lease, which gives a foreigner a right to use the land for 30 years. Well, most of us have not been in LOS for that long, but has anyone heard of any foreigner being thrown out of his "30 year lease" home because something happened to the landowner/landlord or the landlord got nasty?

it's really not possible to "being thrown out of his "30 year lease" home because something happened to the landowner/landlord or the landlord got nasty". the 30 years is legally binding regardless of what happens to the land owner, there should be no problem enforcing that.

the problem is when the lease is up, you may have no chance of renewing it.

[nokia]

it's really not possible to "being thrown out of his "30 year lease" home because something happened to the landowner/landlord or the landlord got nasty". the 30 years is legally binding regardless of what happens to the land owner, there should be no problem enforcing that.

the problem is when the lease is up, you may have no chance of renewing it.

stevenhaigh, you certainly have a valid point.

Well, we could look at 30 year leases as cheap rental compared to annual rental, or we can continue to "squat" in our house after 30 years. I dont think every landlord would be so mean to evict an aged tenant after 30 years, unless the government needs the land, well too bad no compensation for that.

Over the last few years, i have heard only nasty disputes when the foreigner spilt from his TG... u own the land, i own the house....?

Worst case scenario: in 30 years' time, all the evicted, homeless, aged foreigners can form a retirement community in the national parks... as a new UN minority tribe... what else can we possibly do?

-----

Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. Noun: one that squats is one that settles on property without right or title or payment of rent. Squatters often claim rights over the spaces they have squatted by virtue of occupation, rather than ownership; in this sense, squatting is similar to (and potentially a necessary condition of) adverse possession, by which a possessor of real property without title may eventually gain legal title to the real property.

Squatting has a long history, as old as or older than the idea of property itself. To squat in many countries is in itself a crime; in others it is only seen as a civil conflict between the owner and the occupants. Property law and the state have traditionally favored the property owner. However, in many cases where squatters had de facto ownership, laws have been changed to legitimize their status. It is said that the United States Homestead Act is an example of such legislation. Additionally, US states which have a shortage of housing tend to tolerate squatters in property awaiting redevelopment until the developer is ready to begin work; however, at that point the laws tend to be enforced.

--

Insecure ownership is indeed a problem faced by many farmers in developing countries.

In Thailand, about half of the area is classified as forest reserve land and it belongs to

the state. However, about a quarter of this land is actually under cultivation by squatters

who occupy it illegally. Many of the squatters settled a long time ago, in some instances

long before the land was officially declared public forest.

Ban Tung Wah in Takua Paa district, one of several settlements occupied by the Mokans, was flattened by the tsunami, leaving its inhabitants -- the indigenous sea gypsies -- homeless. The Mokans were living on 26 rai of coastal land in the area for decades but had no legal hold on the land as they had no title deeds or other documents.

After the tsunami, they were told by a local official that they could not longer occupy the land because a public hospital was to be set up in the area. They had in fact been squatting on public land all these years, they were told.

[Dragonman]

it's really not possible to "being thrown out of his "30 year lease" home because something happened to the landowner/landlord or the landlord got nasty". the 30 years is legally binding regardless of what happens to the land owner, there should be no problem enforcing that.

the problem is when the lease is up, you may have no chance of renewing it.

stevenhaigh, you certainly have a valid point.

Well, we could look at 30 year leases as cheap rental compared to annual rental, or we can continue to "squat" in our house after 30 years. I dont think every landlord would be so mean to evict an aged tenant after 30 years, unless the government needs the land, well too bad no compensation for that.

Over the last few years, i have heard only nasty disputes when the foreigner spilt from his TG... u own the land, i own the house....?

Worst case scenario: in 30 years' time, all the evicted, homeless, aged foreigners can form a retirement community in the national parks... as a new UN minority tribe... what else can we possibly do?

-----

Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. Noun: one that squats is one that settles on property without right or title or payment of rent. Squatters often claim rights over the spaces they have squatted by virtue of occupation, rather than ownership; in this sense, squatting is similar to (and potentially a necessary condition of) adverse possession, by which a possessor of real property without title may eventually gain legal title to the real property.

Squatting has a long history, as old as or older than the idea of property itself. To squat in many countries is in itself a crime; in others it is only seen as a civil conflict between the owner and the occupants. Property law and the state have traditionally favored the property owner. However, in many cases where squatters had de facto ownership, laws have been changed to legitimize their status. It is said that the United States Homestead Act is an example of such legislation. Additionally, US states which have a shortage of housing tend to tolerate squatters in property awaiting redevelopment until the developer is ready to begin work; however, at that point the laws tend to be enforced.

--

Insecure ownership is indeed a problem faced by many farmers in developing countries.

In Thailand, about half of the area is classified as forest reserve land and it belongs to

the state. However, about a quarter of this land is actually under cultivation by squatters

who occupy it illegally. Many of the squatters settled a long time ago, in some instances

long before the land was officially declared public forest.

Ban Tung Wah in Takua Paa district, one of several settlements occupied by the Mokans, was flattened by the tsunami, leaving its inhabitants -- the indigenous sea gypsies -- homeless. The Mokans were living on 26 rai of coastal land in the area for decades but had no legal hold on the land as they had no title deeds or other documents.

After the tsunami, they were told by a local official that they could not longer occupy the land because a public hospital was to be set up in the area. They had in fact been squatting on public land all these years, they were told.

It is not automatic that you are evicted after 30 years. The Law prescribes that if you include a right to build a property under the lease, and register such superficies as an additional guarantee, you will have a case to avoid eviction.Although of course the matter will be decided by a Judge.

However if you are treated as some of the tsunami survivors, the Judge will be replaced by half a dozen scar faced "security men"

[johnnyk]

If I was 29 years old I might not be overly concerned about going to court at age 59 over my lease and its renewal.

Most people with the means to buy/lease property here are older than 29.

I certainly don't want to be in court anywhere, much less Thailand, at age 88 or 89!

[nokia]

No sane foreigner would want to appear in a Thai court.

If faced with a nasty landowner, how about at the 29th year of rental,

1. form a holding company or

2. sell the house to a Thai and purchase a condominium or

3. simply purchase another new house if u have the monies

since houses now are priced about the same as a brand new SUV here, and your SUV would have corroded into an antique or junk car by then?

[Dragonman]

No sane foreigner would want to appear in a Thai court.

If faced with a nasty landowner, how about at the 29th year of rental,

1. form a holding company or

2. sell the house to a Thai and purchase a condominium or

3. simply purchase another new house if u have the monies

since houses now are priced about the same as a brand new SUV here, and your SUV would have corroded into an antique or junk car by then?

You would not have options 1&2 as the chanote is not in your hands to sell. Everything would be up to the owner. I think probably move on and rent would be best at a good age. That would be my plans, but it depends on your pension provision.

johnnyk. Your lawyer would of course represent you at the eviction hearing, but it would of course help if at 88 or 89 you sat there and looked sorry for yourself.

[johnnyk]

You would not have options 1&2 as the chanote is not in your hands to sell. Everything would be up to the owner. I think probably move on and rent would be best at a good age. That would be my plans, but it depends on your pension provision.

johnnyk. Your lawyer would of course represent you at the eviction hearing, but it would of course help if at 88 or 89 you sat there and looked sorry for yourself.

With my front teeth in a glass of water beside me, drool running down my chin and my 24 yr old TGF (whom I met in a bar but she is different) trying to revive me with a foot massage

[Dragonman]

You would not have options 1&2 as the chanote is not in your hands to sell. Everything would be up to the owner. I think probably move on and rent would be best at a good age. That would be my plans, but it depends on your pension provision.

johnnyk. Your lawyer would of course represent you at the eviction hearing, but it would of course help if at 88 or 89 you sat there and looked sorry for yourself.

With my front teeth in a glass of water beside me, drool running down my chin and my 24 yr old TGF (whom I met in a bar but she is different) trying to revive me with a foot massage

Hey, your description sound more like the Judges I know, rather than the Defendants.

[nokia]

You would not have options 1&2 as the chanote is not in your hands to sell. Everything would be up to the owner. I think probably move on and rent would be best at a good age. That would be my plans, but it depends on your pension provision.

johnnyk. Your lawyer would of course represent you at the eviction hearing, but it would of course help if at 88 or 89 you sat there and looked sorry for yourself.

Imagine in thirty years' time, thousands of toothless, aged foreigners in their 70's & 80's straggling to Sanam Luang with their TGFs, petitioning for the right to stay in LOS & in their expired houses. Would the public be divided between the nationalistic Thais & the compassionate Thais, the former shouting "Foreigners, awk pai(Get out), Go home", and the latter saying "Have compassion on the elderly".

The less vociferous ones could convert their antique SUV/pickups/cars to campervan homes, and form campervan communities near rivers,streams etc. aka mobile squatters...

Seriously, does holding the chanote(land deed) mean anything more less than a worthless piece of paper since the landowner's name is written on it & not ours?

[marshbags]

No sane foreigner would want to appear in a Thai court.

If faced with a nasty landowner, how about at the 29th year of rental,

1. form a holding company or

2. sell the house to a Thai and purchase a condominium or

3. simply purchase another new house if u have the monies

since houses now are priced about the same as a brand new SUV here, and your SUV would have corroded into an antique or junk car by then?

You would not have options 1&2 as the chanote is not in your hands to sell. Everything would be up to the owner. I think probably move on and rent would be best at a good age. That would be my plans, but it depends on your pension provision.

johnnyk. Your lawyer would of course represent you at the eviction hearing, but it would of course help if at 88 or 89 you sat there and looked sorry for yourself.

................................................................................

.......................................................ended

Hiya Dragonman

Hope this is not off topic

I know this has been rumoured many times, but......................

An officer high up in the local Amphur was asking my wife why we still rented and she told her because of the restrictions on Farang. ( this afternoon )

She said they where at this time putting together a new law at Gov. level to allow us to own a small holding / land.

Wondered if you had heard any whispers along these lines ( she said it was not a rumour. )

Anyone else by the way ?

I trust your knowledge on the subject and refer it to you for your usual constructive comments please.

I told my wife it was hard to believe, especially as no one on T.Visa had posted anything on it.

Thanks

marshbags

P.S. hope it doesn,t close the thread down as it,s listed as a reason for people loosing interest on an earlier thread.

Ha Ha Ha...................................only joking who ever it was............................ honest.

Edited April 8, 2006 by marshbags

[Dragonman]

No sane foreigner would want to appear in a Thai court.

If faced with a nasty landowner, how about at the 29th year of rental,

1. form a holding company or

2. sell the house to a Thai and purchase a condominium or

3. simply purchase another new house if u have the monies

since houses now are priced about the same as a brand new SUV here, and your SUV would have corroded into an antique or junk car by then?

You would not have options 1&2 as the chanote is not in your hands to sell. Everything would be up to the owner. I think probably move on and rent would be best at a good age. That would be my plans, but it depends on your pension provision.

johnnyk. Your lawyer would of course represent you at the eviction hearing, but it would of course help if at 88 or 89 you sat there and looked sorry for yourself.

................................................................................

.......................................................ended

Hiya Dragonman

Hope this is not off topic

I know this has been rumoured many times, but......................

An officer high up in the local Amphur was asking my wife why we still rented and she told her because of the restrictions on Farang. ( this afternoon )

She said they where at this time putting together a new law at Gov. level to allow us to own a small holding / land.

Wondered if you had heard any whispers along these lines ( she said it was not a rumour. )

Anyone else by the way ?

I trust your knowledge on the subject and refer it to you for your usual constructive comments please.

I told my wife it was hard to believe, especially as no one on T.Visa had posted anything on it.

Thanks

marshbags

P.S. hope it doesn,t close the thread down as it,s listed as a reason for people loosing interest on an earlier thread.

Ha Ha Ha...................................only joking who ever it was............................ honest.

I'm afraid as far as I'm aware there are no plans for foreigners to own land, other than by current legislation. There have been Ministry of Interior plans to relent on the Lease Laws, understanding that these "options" suggested by some lawyers do not give any protection. The idea would be for the chanote to be held by the Land Office with the lessee obtaining a 99 year lease. On death the land could only be inherited or sold to a thai. Pretty vague to date, and who knows what any future Minister will think of.

[Gary A]

Speaking for myself, there is no way I would want to live in a house alone. If something were to happen to my relationship with my Thai wife, I'd be quickly headed back to my condo in the farang ghetto.

The first thing to think about before spending money on all sorts of "legal" documents is would you be happy living alone in your house on leased land?

If you can't afford to walk away from it I would advise you not to spend the money.