thai wife cant own land

[Arkady]

Thanks again Arkady.

However you have raised a question or two. Firstly you wrote:-

"1 rai for residential, 10 for agriculture and, I think, 5 for religious purposes - who were allowed to own land under the 19 treaties in force at the time. By 1959 Pibul had been booted out in a coup and his successor, Sarit, had the Land Code declared unconstitutional. It was reinstated minus the limits for Thai nationals but the limits for foreigners remained".

This seems to say that a foreigner can own 15 rai with a house on 1 rai, grow crops on 10 rai and have a church on 5 rai. Against that we are to understand that foreigners are not allowed to own land.

Secondly. You are a veritable mine of legal information. How come?

As already mentioned Section 34 was repealed in 1959. It actually limited land ownership for Thais as follows but was not retroactive.

Section 34 From the effective date of this Code, persons may have the right to land as follows:

(1) Land for agriculture not more than 50 rais

(2) Land for industry not more than 10 rais

(3) Land for commerce not more than 5 rais

(4) Land for dwelling not more than 5 rais

Sections 86-96 dealing with foreign land ownership have not been repealed but were rendered redundant by Thailand's abrogation of the 19 relevant international treaties during the period 1967 to 1970 when the last one was terminated. Here are the key clauses. Note that the minister's permission was required which might have slowed things up but embassies could make representations on behalf of their citizens who were having trouble registering land transfers.

Section 86 Aliens may acquire land by virtue of the provisions of a treaty giving the right to own immovable properties and subject to the provisions of this Code.

Section 87 The amount of land which may be permitted under the preceding Section is as follows:

(1) For residence, per family, not more than 1 rai

(2) For commerce, not more than 1 rai

(3) For industry, not more than 10 rais

(4) For agriculture, not more than 10 rais

(5) For religion, not more than 1 rai

(6) For public charity, not more than 5 rai

(7) For burial, per family, not more than ½ rai

Section 93 somewhat ambiguously provides for inheritance of land by foreigners with the minister's permission. Unfortunately, however, inheritance of land in these circumstances in fact contingent on the treaties remaining in force and is therefore now redundant.

Section 93 The Minister shall permit the inheritance of land by an alien who is the lawful heir, but such acquisition when added to that which s already held may not exceed the amount which may be held under Section 87.

Today the only lawful ways for foreigners to acquire land are through the 1999 Land Code amendment that permits foreigners making B40 million in approved investments (not including property) buy 1 rai of residential land and foreign entities buying land for factory development under BOI investment privileges and, even then the land must be sold when the BOI priveliges expire.

How do I know about this stuff? You could say that researching aspects of Thai law that affect foreigners is a kind of a hobby.

[Fishfarmer]

Do you think there is a risk the 50 rai limit will come true?

The exwife owns close to 300 rai farmland and she is terrified her land will be confiscated. She is also convinced this will come.

Therefore she is planning to transfer 50 rai to our son

[dazk]

Why changing name ? So useless except to show off with friends ?

so useless, then why is it done in our home country's then, oh just to show of to friends

[rwdrwdrwd]

Why changing name ? So useless except to show off with friends ?

so useless, then why is it done in our home country's then, oh just to show of to friends

Because most users of this forum (given it is English language) come from patriarchal societies, where it is the tradition.

There is no particular benefit to it, it's simply tradition. Lots of people in historically patriarchal societies choose to keep their names (or use both) these days.

Edited October 30, 2013 by rwdrwdrwd

[Muhendis]

Why changing name ? So useless except to show off with friends ?

so useless, then why is it done in our home country's then, oh just to show of to friends

Because most users of this forum (given it is English language) come from patriarchal societies, where it is the tradition.

There is no particular benefit to it, it's simply tradition. Lots of people in historically patriarchal societies choose to keep their names (or use both) these days.

There is a little more to it than tradition. The idea of name change at marriage comes from Roman Law. If you look up the meaning of the word USUFRUCT for example, you will find it goes back to Roman times when the wife was a non-entity and lost her identity with marriage by losing her name and being given her husbands. That law was spread throughout the Roman empire and stayed on the statute books for a couple of thousand years. If her husband should die before her then she had nothing. Times have moved on a bit now mainly due to such people as Emily Pankhurst and the suffragette movement in the early part of the last century.

[Muhendis]

Do you think there is a risk the 50 rai limit will come true?

The exwife owns close to 300 rai farmland and she is terrified her land will be confiscated. She is also convinced this will come.

Therefore she is planning to transfer 50 rai to our son

If your wife is Thai then it is perfectly legitimate for her to own as much land as she wants. The problems start when the land office begin to question how she got the land. If she acquired it either by inheritance or with her own money then there is no problem. If she acquired it with farang money and the land office are made aware of this then they may apply the law. The land will not be confiscated but it must be transferred to a Thai national. This could be done through sale or as a gift. It is my personal opinion that, if she keeps her head down and with the passage of time, this will become irrelevant and she will not have any problem.

[rwdrwdrwd]

Because most users of this forum (given it is English language) come from patriarchal societies, where it is the tradition.

There is no particular benefit to it, it's simply tradition. Lots of people in historically patriarchal societies choose to keep their names (or use both) these days.

There is a little more to it than tradition. The idea of name change at marriage comes from Roman Law. If you look up the meaning of the word USUFRUCT for example, you will find it goes back to Roman times when the wife was a non-entity and lost her identity with marriage by losing her name and being given her husbands. That law was spread throughout the Roman empire and stayed on the statute books for a couple of thousand years. If her husband should die before her then she had nothing. Times have moved on a bit now mainly due to such people as Emily Pankhurst and the suffragette movement in the early part of the last century.

You are right, my use of the word tradition wasn't intended to gloss over the historical female subjugation aspect to the practice - more to indicate that it does not tend to be such any more (from a legal perspective), and that name changes are a hangover from the days when it was.

Edited October 31, 2013 by rwdrwdrwd

[Khun Jean]

Do you think there is a risk the 50 rai limit will come true?

The exwife owns close to 300 rai farmland and she is terrified her land will be confiscated. She is also convinced this will come.

Therefore she is planning to transfer 50 rai to our son

If your wife is Thai then it is perfectly legitimate for her to own as much land as she wants. The problems start when the land office begin to question how she got the land. If she acquired it either by inheritance or with her own money then there is no problem. If she acquired it with farang money and the land office are made aware of this then they may apply the law. The land will not be confiscated but it must be transferred to a Thai national. This could be done through sale or as a gift. It is my personal opinion that, if she keeps her head down and with the passage of time, this will become irrelevant and she will not have any problem.

As a foreign husband you have to declare that all money to buy the land is your wife's.

Basically it is a gift. That she chooses to buy land with it is up to her.

As such it is 100% hers and there is no law broken.

The Thais made that silly law, so unless they added some clauses to it, it is the way it is.

Irrelevant what people think or hear. Even irrelevant what a employee at the land office thinks.

They can suspect your wife is a nominee, but all you have to do is just show them the paper they made you sign to clear that up.

[Muhendis]

Because most users of this forum (given it is English language) come from patriarchal societies, where it is the tradition.

There is no particular benefit to it, it's simply tradition. Lots of people in historically patriarchal societies choose to keep their names (or use both) these days.

There is a little more to it than tradition. The idea of name change at marriage comes from Roman Law. If you look up the meaning of the word USUFRUCT for example, you will find it goes back to Roman times when the wife was a non-entity and lost her identity with marriage by losing her name and being given her husbands. That law was spread throughout the Roman empire and stayed on the statute books for a couple of thousand years. If her husband should die before her then she had nothing. Times have moved on a bit now mainly due to such people as Emily Pankhurst and the suffragette movement in the early part of the last century.

You are right, my use of the word tradition wasn't intended to gloss over the historical female subjugation aspect to the practice - more to indicate that it does not tend to be such any more (from a legal perspective), and that name changes are a hangover from the days when it was.

My intention was not to criticize your terminology but to attempt to add background information. It is, as you say, now not legally required but traditional that a woman takes the name of her husband. For an old man like me it is sooo confusing to find a husband and wife with different names. If they have different names maybe they are not married. Add to that trying to trace the family tree. I hope the tradition is maintained for many reasons.