My Understanding of Farang Property Ownership - Comments, please!

[davejones]

Hm.

My intention is to retire in Pattaya and I couldnt figure out whats the best idea--to rent or to buy, and I see I cannot win unless I hit a lottery.

I can rent or own on a beach place size about 200-400 sq. f. and rent will be reasonable but my relatives dont want inherit rent.

And if I buy a condo they will be happy to pocket some money or use property and they will mention I was a good lad but should die some time ago.

If you rent and die, they will inherit your money, which might be preferable to them than inheriting a tiny condo in Pattaya.

[alfieconn]

Hi Tapster

I will try to answer these but for the technical questions I must recommend you speak to a Lawyer when you are next here, perhaps just for a consultation and happy to recommend one. I am not a lawyer and try not to advise on points of Law unless I have previous experience on those points. In fact, and not referring to you, I always recommend to buyers to at least consult with a lawyer before getting serious about buying. Just to sit down for a consultation for a few thousand baht so they can get an expert opinion on what they can really do and what the costs are likely to be. I see so many people who don’t, do everything themselves albeit based upon well meaning advice, and live to regret it.

Anyway, you say ;

“So, instead of truly buying the house, the foreigner is essentially leasing the land (and therefore essentially leasing the house) for 30 years with the distant, but by no means certain possibility of leasing again for another thirty years after that”

”

In the situation you describe you are buying the house, to do with as you wish, but you are not buying the land on which the house sits, otherwise correct, although the 30, 30, 30 arrangement has never been challenged so no one can say either way what the result would be. You seem to intimate that in 30 years you would have to negotiate a new 30 year lease and again 30 years after. Although there would be new leases the framework and agreement to do this would be all signed and agreed at the very outset. SDM

“Thus, I'm suggesting that, 'The so-called "sale price" and all the taxes, conveyancing fees, etc. associated with the purchase of such a property (as in 4, above) are in fact the cost of a 30-year lease on that property and no more'....that there is in fact, no 'buying' involved.”

Well 30 for sure and promises of another 60, but I would agree with that although technically no different to buying a London flat with a 99 year lease. SDM

“ If you own a house on this '30-year lease' and you want to sell it after ten years, are you selling only a 20-year lease or will the owner of the land start another 30-year lease with the new owner? “

If the lease is not transferable you may not be able to sell it on so make sure it is. Unless the Lessor (Land Owner) has signed an agreement saying he will issue a new 30 years lease (with the additional 30 & 30) to a new lessee that you wish to transfer the lease to then he is not obliged to do so, but that’s not to say he will not. I am sure he will for a price. But essentially correct, assuming the lease can be transferred with the further 30 & 30, if you have had the lease for 20 years then you would be transferring a 10 year lease plus two further leases of 30 & 30. But this is exactly why buyers must have good legal representation so they are safeguarded. SDM

“There seems to be a form of co-ownership. If a couple could co-own a property would this not allow the surviving spouse to continue with the lease? Does anyone know anything about this?”

A legal issue really but you would deal with it in the lease, i.e. you would have specified within the lease that if one party died then the remaining party would continue with the same rights of both. Another one for your lawyer to deal with at the outset. SDM

“P.S. I had a Space Hopper!”

Those were the days ! SDM

Can't see it mentioned anywhere that only the 30 year lease goes on the chanot !

If it went to court then surely the 2 thirty year options would be deemed to be circumventing the law as 90 year year leases are not legal, because that is basicly what is happening !

Would it not be the case that if the landlord sold the land before the 30 year lease expired then the 2 thirty year opions would be null and void as they were taken out with the original owner and not the new owner.

[SDM0712]

Hi Alfiecon

" Can't see it mentioned anywhere that only the 30 year lease goes on the chanot !

If it went to court then surely the 2 thirty year options would be deemed to be circumventing the law as 90 year year leases are not legal, because that is basicly what is happening !

Would it not be the case that if the landlord sold the land before the 30 year lease expired then the 2 thirty year opions would be null and void as they were taken out with the original owner and not the new owner."

This is correct because only a 30 year lease has been issued. There is only a contractural promise between the Lessor and Lessee that another 30 year lease will be issued in 30 years time and again in 60 years time. As far as I knows, there is no mention in Thai Law that prohibits a new 30 year lease being issued to the same party after their previous lease has expired. They are separate legal documents.

The lessee must oblige the lessor in the lease to pass on his contractural responsibilities if he should sell the land on. I even heard of one bright lawyer that drew up a lease that required lessor get the lessees consent before the lessor could sell on the land. A matter for the lawyers.

Whether this is circumnavigating the Law or not is a matter for the Courts if one of these arrangements is ever challenged. Really it's what we in the West call a legal loophole but would seem to be good for everyone. For the Thai economy bringing in millions of other countries currencies, for the land owner and for the tenant. Everyone would seem to be happy so perhaps this is why no action has ever ( I believe) been attempted.

Regards

Stephen

PS I believe that a smaller version of the original Space Hopper was released some years ago. But it couldn't compete with iPads etc so was a big rubbery deflated flop.

Edited November 3, 2013 by SDM0712

[davejones]

Whether this is circumnavigating the Law or not is a matter for the Courts if one of these arrangements is ever challenged. Really it's what we in the West call a legal loophole but would seem to be good for everyone. For the Thai economy bringing in millions of other countries currencies, for the land owner and for the tenant. Everyone would seem to be happy so perhaps this is why no action has ever ( I believe) been attempted.

The problem with relying on legal loopholes is that they are often closed at some future date. Decisions should be made on the reality now, not on some scheme that's been found to circumvent the law. It's pretty clear that these schemes are being used to get around the law. There is obviously at least some risk involved.

You say it's good for everyone, but is it? Many Thais might see it as land being taken out of circulation for 90 years instead of 30.

And why stop at 90 years, why not 900 years? Same principle. If 900 years is wrong, then so is 90 years. 90 years is just an arbitrary number made up by someone. Most likely someone trying to sell property.

But as you say, it's up to the courts to decide. And I'm sure they will one day.

Edited November 3, 2013 by davejones

[SDM0712]

Davejones

I agree with what you say apart from this

"You say it's good for everyone, but is it? Many Thais might see it as land being taken out of circulation for 90 years instead of 30. "

The only Thais who see it this way are Thais who do not own the land that is being put into foreign hands and this being the case it really is none of their business. If the rightful owner of the land wants to lease his land and property then it is up to him and no one else. In my opinion it is neither good nor "not good" (doesn't really sound right, but you know what I mean) for a Thai who does not own the land in question and has no rights over the land, unless they wish to own the land, and then it is up to them to buy the land if the seller wishes to sell to them. I am sure that the Thai granting a lease feels it extremely good for him !

Regards

Stephen

[alfieconn]

Hi Alfiecon

" Can't see it mentioned anywhere that only the 30 year lease goes on the chanot !

If it went to court then surely the 2 thirty year options would be deemed to be circumventing the law as 90 year year leases are not legal, because that is basicly what is happening !

Would it not be the case that if the landlord sold the land before the 30 year lease expired then the 2 thirty year opions would be null and void as they were taken out with the original owner and not the new owner."

This is correct because only a 30 year lease has been issued. There is only a contractural promise between the Lessor and Lessee that another 30 year lease will be issued in 30 years time and again in 60 years time. As far as I knows, there is no mention in Thai Law that prohibits a new 30 year lease being issued to the same party after their previous lease has expired. They are separate legal documents.

The lessee must oblige the lessor in the lease to pass on his contractural responsibilities if he should sell the land on. I even heard of one bright lawyer that drew up a lease that required lessor get the lessees consent before the lessor could sell on the land. A matter for the lawyers.

Whether this is circumnavigating the Law or not is a matter for the Courts if one of these arrangements is ever challenged. Really it's what we in the West call a legal loophole but would seem to be good for everyone. For the Thai economy bringing in millions of other countries currencies, for the land owner and for the tenant. Everyone would seem to be happy so perhaps this is why no action has ever ( I believe) been attempted.

Regards

Stephen

PS I believe that a smaller version of the original Space Hopper was released some years ago. But it couldn't compete with iPads etc so was a big rubbery deflated flop.

Sorry i didn't make myself clear,should have read, If it went to court because the landlord renaged on the 2 thirty year options then surely the 2 thirty year options would be deemed to be circumventing the law and thus illegal as 90 year year leases are not legal, because that is basicly what they have !

The lessee must oblige the lessor in the lease to pass on his contractural responsibilities if he should sell the land on. I even heard of one bright lawyer that drew up a lease that required lessor get the lessees consent before the lessor could sell on the land. A matter for the lawyers.

So what happens if the landlord sells the land one year into the 30 years,all the lessor can do is sue for breach of contract at the end of the 30 years if the landlord hasn't already disappeared or died, i would imagine the new owner would legally become the new owner and do what he wants with the land due to the Chanot not stating anything to the contrary !

Edited November 3, 2013 by alfieconn

[davejones]

Davejones

I agree with what you say apart from this

"You say it's good for everyone, but is it? Many Thais might see it as land being taken out of circulation for 90 years instead of 30. "

The only Thais who see it this way are Thais who do not own the land that is being put into foreign hands and this being the case it really is none of their business. If the rightful owner of the land wants to lease his land and property then it is up to him and no one else. In my opinion it is neither good nor "not good" (doesn't really sound right, but you know what I mean) for a Thai who does not own the land in question and has no rights over the land, unless they wish to own the land, and then it is up to them to buy the land if the seller wishes to sell to them. I am sure that the Thai granting a lease feels it extremely good for him !

Regards

Stephen

I totally agree with you. Some people might think it's bad, but I think everyone should be allowed to travel and invest freely all over the world. I don't agree with groups of people carving up sections of the world and excluding others.

[Khun Jean]

A landowner would do anything to get out of the renewal.

The first and easiest way is to ask at least ten times the amount you paid for the first 30 years.

And it even might be the market price at that moment.

Does anybody realize that when they sign a 30+30+30 year lease?

Or are they made to think that the 30 year renewals are also paid for, i would not be surprised if an agent, developer or lawyer actually said that?

If you thinking about leasing land, better take a usufruct instead.

Another consideration to make is, do you really want to stay at that place for 30 years? How can you be sure?

My own experience is that moved a lot sooner from one pace to another. Would that not continue to be the case.

Or would the 30 year lease/usufruct inhibit your ability to move and thus having a happy live.

[Tapster]

@Khun Jean

EXACTLY!!

I've been thinking about this.

I was just getting a bit more comfortable about the possibility that the second 30-year lease might actually happen but then no-one has mentioned how much such a renewal might cost!

If you have spent a good proportion of your life savings on 'buying' this house 30 years before, you are unlikely to be able to afford to pay the market price for it in order to renew the lease.

Presumably, there are no rules about how much one might be expected to pay??

If, after 30 years, you're back to square one and you might be asked to pay the market value of the house again, then there really is no 'buying' a house at all.

It's a lease for 30 years and the house will have no resale value (for the poor sod who bought it 30 years before) at the end of the 30 years because it basically goes up for sale again to whoever can afford the new lease!

mmmmm........worrying!

[Tapster]

@Khun Jean

How would a usufruct make the position any more secure at the end of the first 30-year lease?

[alfieconn]

A landowner would do anything to get out of the renewal.

Yep, i can see a lot of owners selling their land to a family member a week before the 30 year lease runs out !

[SDM0712]

@Khun Jean

EXACTLY!!

I've been thinking about this.

I was just getting a bit more comfortable about the possibility that the second 30-year lease might actually happen but then no-one has mentioned how much such a renewal might cost!

It's a package deal, you are buying all three leases at the outset. There will government fees for the issue of each lease, but these can all be paid at the outset, ie the fees for the 2nd and 3rd terms can be prepaid.

Stephen

[Tapster]

Hi Stephen,

A package deal?

Ah, so is that why posters are talking about a legal loophole?

Is it against Thai law to have a lease longer than 30 years?

So, when you buy a house you are buying three 30-year leases with no further negotiation needed?

I didn't understand that.

I suspect I may not be alone in having thought that the second and third leases had to be re-negotiated.

Suddenly, buying Thai property seems a bit more secure a purchase than I thought.

If one has a clause as you described earlier, requiring the landowner to seek the lessee's agreement to sell the land, then you've pretty much got yourself a way of ensuring that the three leases follow on smoothly. Then all we need to do is sort out inheritance and it's looking like a much better deal!

Thank you very much for that!

[Khun Jean]

Good luck REGISTERING those 3 consecutive leases.

It is not allowed, remember it is about the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.

A landoffice would not even consider it (maybe in corrupt places like Samui where it did happen.)

The best way of owning Thai property is to commit yourself to a live in Thailand.

Start a company or get a job, make money, get married, have children. Even Thai citizenship is possible.

The children will have all the rights you did not have. Takes only one generation. Put the property in their name.

Don't fight them (Thai law) but join them. It is how the Chinese do it, multi generational plans instead of the 1-2 year plans most westerners have.

Otherwise accept the cards that are dealt, instead of trying to be smart and find loopholes. As if that has not been done since the first foreigner set foot in Thailand.

A usufruct can be for live, if your young enough that can be a lot longer then 30 years. If you have children include them so that they also can use the property for the duration of their lives. It still would be a calculation if it is worth it, but the 30 year barrier is gone when using a usufruct.

[alfieconn]

Hi Stephen,

A package deal?

Ah, so is that why posters are talking about a legal loophole?

Is it against Thai law to have a lease longer than 30 years?

So, when you buy a house you are buying three 30-year leases with no further negotiation needed?

I didn't understand that.

I suspect I may not be alone in having thought that the second and third leases had to be re-negotiated.

Suddenly, buying Thai property seems a bit more secure a purchase than I thought.

If one has a clause as you described earlier, requiring the landowner to seek the lessee's agreement to sell the land, then you've pretty much got yourself a way of ensuring that the three leases follow on smoothly. Then all we need to do is sort out inheritance and it's looking like a much better deal!

Thank you very much for that!

The Landowner can sell the land and the Lessee wouldn't know anything about it !

[Khun Jean]

A landowner would do anything to get out of the renewal.

Yep, i can see a lot of owners selling their land to a family member a week before the 30 year lease runs out !

The most probable thing that would happen is that the land is transferred to one of the children. It cost nothing to do that.

They still would have to honor the 'real rights', not anything else that is mentioned in the contract, those are only enforceable between the people who made the contract.

If prices and inflation continues as it did in the last 10-20 years i would think the price for the renewal is out of many peoples reach. As you get older you will probably be retired somewhere in those 30 years of the first lease and a high probability your earnings are lower.

Unless you prepare for it and reserve money monthly in the first 30 years, the most probable thing to happen is that you are without a place to live when you reach an age between 70-80. Not a comfortable thought at all, so don't even consider doing a 30 years lease if it is for a home.

[jbrain]

I know someone who sold his London property at 400K because it was "obvious" to him that prices were way overvalued. He was confident of buying a similar property for 200-300K sometime soon after. The property he sold in now valued at over 800K. He's still "convinced" it's overvalued. But now he can't afford a property in the place he wants to live. These are very dangerous games to play.

That is strange, as however I have no direct knowledge of UK property prices, i know that property prices all over the world have declined sharply in the past 5 years.

And the UK doesn't seem to be an exception.

Property prices tumble across UK, but London is still soaring.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=189138

But then prices started to tumble as the Great Recession took hold. By the end of 2012, average house prices were around 20 per cent below their peak.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/house-prices-are-booming-again-but-the-bust-thats-bound-to-follow-will-cost-us-dear-8793316.html

Edited November 3, 2013 by jbrain

[davejones]

I know someone who sold his London property at 400K because it was "obvious" to him that prices were way overvalued. He was confident of buying a similar property for 200-300K sometime soon after. The property he sold in now valued at over 800K. He's still "convinced" it's overvalued. But now he can't afford a property in the place he wants to live. These are very dangerous games to play.

That is strange, as however I have no direct knowledge of UK property prices, i know that property prices all over the world have declined sharply in the past 5 years.

And the UK doesn't seem to be an exception.

Property prices tumble across UK, but London is still soaring.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=189138

But then prices started to tumble as the Great Recession took hold. By the end of 2012, average house prices were around 20 per cent below their peak.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/house-prices-are-booming-again-but-the-bust-thats-bound-to-follow-will-cost-us-dear-8793316.html

They sold a long time ago before the 2008 crisis. I can't remember when but there were lots of people on forums forecasting a big crash and many people were claiming they would sell. Some did, but the crash never came. Well, it did in 2008, but by then it was just a blip compared to when people were claiming things were 100% overvalued.

Prime Central London is up massively in last few years. It some areas prices are up around 80-100% in the last 3-4 years. Rest of UK isn't doing too well though. Many places still below their peak, with some still falling.

[johnnyk]

A legal 30 year lease is registered and inscribed on the chanote.

The Land Office will look at the additional 30+ years and wave it away, just a piece of paper with no standing to them and that's what counts. They will tell you to come back in 30 years and sign a new lease. Good luck, especially if you think the land will not become more valuable with a corresponding increase in leasehold price.

If the leased land is sold or inherited you are entitled to the remaining years of your lease unless the heirs or successors want you out. There are extra-legal ways to encourage your departure especially if the land has appreciated in value which just may provide them motivation.

A lease transfer clause could be written in but even so I doubt many would be interested in buying the less-than-30 years remaining. IT IS A DIMINISHING ASSET.

For the Thai lessor and his family it is the gift that keeps on giving. They get X million baht, the land is still theirs along with any improvements like electricity service, water, sewerage/septic systems, landscaping etc. AND they now have an asset that has appreciated. The falang leaseholder is now elderly with no place to live and at the mercy of market prices 30 years or so from now.

Try to contest your second, unregistered 30 years and you will find yourself betting chips against someone holding three aces and two kings while you hold a pair of clubs or worse.

Is this a game you want to be in?

Edited November 3, 2013 by johnnyk

[olfu]

Guys.

I see a lot of talking but not one real person who actually been this route.

Do I have to mention that your talking is useless?

[johnnyk]

Guys.

I see a lot of talking but not one real person who actually been this route.

Do I have to mention that your talking is useless?

Some of the posters have been involved with the real estate process in Thailand and do know what they are talking about. Talking based on actual experience is much more valid than barstool opinions from people who have never entered the game with money to put on the table. Not everyone needs to share all the details of their experience.

[davejones]

Guys.

I see a lot of talking but not one real person who actually been this route.

Do I have to mention that your talking is useless?

Some of the posters have been involved with the real estate process in Thailand and do know what they are talking about. Talking based on actual experience is much more valid than barstool opinions from people who have never entered the game with money to put on the table. Not everyone needs to share all the details of their experience.

But no-one has renewed a 30-year lease. It's all speculation. Sure you'll be able to renew after 30 years, but you'll have to pay full price for a new 30-year lease.

[johnnyk]

Guys.

I see a lot of talking but not one real person who actually been this route.

Do I have to mention that your talking is useless?[/iome of the posters have been involved with the real estate process in Thailand and do know what they are talking about. Talking based on actual experience is much more valid than barstool opinions from people who have never entered the game with money to put on the table. Not everyone needs to share all the details of their experience.

But no-one has renewed a 30-year lease. It's all speculation. Sure you'll be able to renew after 30 years, but you'll have to pay full price for a new 30-year lease.

If the owner or his heirs or successors want to.

I think the point is that people should not be conned, or con themselves, into thinking its a sure thing. Nor should they fall for the 30+30+30 sales pitch designed to delude them into signing without doing their homework.

No fun to wake up age 75 or more to discover you have nothing.

[Khun Jean]

Unfortunately it is still the 'best' way according to many Brokers, Agents, Lawyers and Developers.

I call them BALD, because they can lie to you bald faced. As in telling barefaced lies.

They not even deserve capital letters so i think of them as b.a.l.d.

Every time i read something written by them, often in disguise, i just remind myself that it is another "baldy" and should be treated with lots of caution.

And check how many still advise the company route. It is still a jungle out there and lots of prey is caught every day.

The "baldies" who will warn you against this practice can be counted on one hand. Most are promoting it.

People trust "baldies" more then some anonymous person on internet.

They are experts right? I agree with that, they are experts at making money, that does not mean they are experts in giving good advice.

I don't know how "baldies" got the reputation of being hard working honest people. The ones i talk to looked hardworking and honest but spouted nonsense nevertheless.

When contested i got answer like "then Thailand is not for you". You would be amazed if i told you who gave that answer.

Another example when asked what happens to a usufruct on land between a foreigner and thai wife and when building a house on it.

That was after i got the advice to use a usufruct or lease. They left that information out of course but i knew about it. (Sin Somros and Sin Suan Tuan).

In general, divorce courts will divide assets equally between spouses, so if the judge does cancel the usufruct then he will require the land and house to be sold and the assets divided between the spouses.

I hope this clears this up for you

As land is 100% property of the wife, you signed that paper when registering the land this obviously is not true. Did you notice the word 'if'. Are they not sure what the judge will decide, is that not strange because laws need to be followed. What is the use of a contract when it results in 'if'.

I said 'By law the judge would have to cancel..'

The answer was:

I understand your concern but if you have no trust in a legal contract or the Courts to enforce the rule of law then perhaps its best that you don't build a house here at all and rather rent.

If the Court did not revoke the usufruct then you would still have control, if they did then the only reason would be that the land and house were considered a marital asset. Since you can't own land, the Court would order it sold and the cash split. The house would also be considered a marital asset and as per Thai law, would be sold and the proceeds divided 50/50.

This all takes place at auction, so while it may be rigged, its also unlikely that its not.

The system is fallible certainly, but I think you are placing a deeper mistrust in it than is necessary.

Now 'who has no trust in a legal contract or the Courts'? I was not the one using 'if' as it is some personal decision depending on someones mood.

The rest is incorrect, but it is written as if it is the truth, instead it is a bald faced lie.

And then the cop out sentence 'The system is fallible certainly' is the most important. Because it will protect them from blame.

Also notice again the use of the word 'If'. That would not be needed if it was all according to the law. It is not 'If' a Court revokes the usufruct but 'when' the Court revokes the usufruct.

A contract (usufruct) is 'infallible' and it will stand up in court. When married it will be dissolved as it is required by law. There will be no monetary compensation because you did not pay anything for the usufruct only the few hundred baht for registering it. Everything Sin Suan Tuan will stay with that person. Everything Sin Somros will be divided. Again you signed that document that declares that the land is Sin Suan Tuan at the land office. You can not deny that, or say that you did under duress. The landoffice informed you and you agreed by signing the document that the land will be 100% owned by your Thai wife.

Only the house will be considered a marital asset (Sin Somros), but without the land you get 50% of a very low value, because when sold at an auction nobody would buy it if the land is not included.

Make sure you have documentation and bills when constructing the house otherwise it will be considered a Sin Suan Tuan of the Thai also and will not be divided 50/50!

Gullible people is a life source for these "baldies". Please don't be one and do your own research.

Of course there are honest ones, but it remains true that 99% of them ruined it for the 1%.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Khun Jean

[Tapster]

Good morning from Johannesburg where the sun is shining out of clear skies and which would be almost the perfect place to live (for me) if it weren't for the crime and the ANC's inexorable squeezing of the the white man!

Sure, there is much talk about the Thai property situation but it hasn't been useless at all. As OP I'm getting just what I wanted and am very grateful to all contributors!

If we were talking about UK property this could have been a short thread where hard facts were stated and the subject closed.......mmmm,but this is a forum, so maybe not!

A few things have become clear which anyone thinking of buying property in Thailand now, should think about carefully. For sure, some of these things may not come to pass but they are well worth bearing in mind....'Eyes wide open' and all that!

1. As a long-term investment, house purchase in Thailand is at best a very uncertain prospect.
   
2. If you can put that aside and still want to buy, there is no guarantee that you will secure more than a 30-year stay in that house.
   
   (With a usufruct agreement you may be able to stretch that security to your lifetime but if land leases are only 30 years max., we still return to the uncertain issue of securing the second 30-year lease.)
   
3. Contracts drawn up at the time of purchase cannot be relied upon to determine future outcomes. Loopholes and clever clauses may mean nothing when the shit hits the fan.
   
4. Your house may be worth nothing at the end of 30 years as the cost of negotiating another 30-year lease may be prohibitive.
   
5. Inheritance of the house or the lease may not be possible for foreign house-owners with foreign spouses/families.
   
6. Some real estate firms are definitely giving the impression that house purchase is much more secure than it actually is.

Jeez!

All this is very disappointing for me.

I don't want to live in a small freehold condo. I have a lifetime's-worth of 'stuff' that I'd like to bring to Thailand and put in a decent-sized house. I'd like a garden for our cats and a feeling of not being hemmed in (after some years in a secure estate in Joburg with electric fences, barbed wire and security men with guns!)

Why does any foreigner buy property in Thailand?? It seems to make to sense, but obviously people do it!

I'm just throwing my thoughts on paper, not looking for any real solutions as there don't seem to be any that will fit my circumstances and give me the security I'd like.

The best scenario I can see is the one I started with at the beginning of this thread: that buying a house gives you a 30-year, long-term rental which works out significantly cheaper per month than current rents for a similar-sized property and is fixed (inflation-proofed) for the full term.

It's not ideal but I can't see a better way of owning a decent-sized property in Thailand.

Thanks for all the thoughts so far and if there are any further comments, I'm looking forward to reading them.

All the best,

"Depressed" of Johannesburg!!

[Tapster]

"Why does any foreigner buy property in Thailand?? It seems to make to sense, but obviously people do it!"

Sorry, that should read.......... Why does any foreigner buy property in Thailand?? It seems to make NO sense, but obviously people do it!

[Khun Jean]

The best scenario I can see is the one I started with at the beginning of this thread: that buying a house gives you a 30-year, long-term rental which works out significantly cheaper per month than current rents for a similar-sized property and is fixed (inflation-proofed) for the full term.

It's not ideal but I can't see a better way of owning a decent-sized property in Thailand.

The better way is getting a usufruct! It works out even cheaper.

The best way is a condo. It will be freehold, so it gives you the freedom to sell (recoup your money) and move.

Condos in older established buildings can be large. I have seen a few 250m2 and bigger. Of course they have a price tag.

Most have swimming pool fitness, shopping close by etc.

But if you have the money you can live very comfortable AND be able to recoup your money.

Condos have more security compared to a house.

Currently my 'best' way is to live in a rented condo in Bangkok. Own several small condos to have an income stream and 'own' land on my wifes name that will be her security and that of the children.

The best piece of land will be used later to establish a guesthouse, not per se to make money, but to have it in a legitimate company name. It can then be used, rented out or sold if we wish. For me personally that would be the perfect way. And i am working on it (i am not rich) for 10 years and counting. The plan is to get it done before i am 60.

[olfu]

Another thing nobody want to mention actual property rights.

When I buy property in USA by paying cash I supposedly own it. In reality it is conditional ownership as different goverment and quasi-government entities have the right take your property

without your consent, typical example will be eminent domain.

I checked paperwork for my 4 properties and none says anywhere I own these, it does say paperwork transfered into my name.

Yes, what I am trying to say is we live in State capitalism society where government has last word on anything and we are just subjects.

In short we are slaves and have masters

[chiang mai]

The first reply to your post was the correct answer.

[Khun Jean]

Another thing nobody want to mention actual property rights.

When I buy property in USA by paying cash I supposedly own it. In reality it is conditional ownership as different goverment and quasi-government entities have the right take your property

without your consent, typical example will be eminent domain.

I checked paperwork for my 4 properties and none says anywhere I own these, it does say paperwork transfered into my name.

Yes, what I am trying to say is we live in State capitalism society where government has last word on anything and we are just subjects.

In short we are slaves and have masters

You are correct. It is called 'Fee simple'. It is the best you can get at the moment. It is still more of a use right that can be revoked and taxed.

What you really want is an 'Allodial title'. Unfortunately it is not available as governments and kings and queens took that away a long time ago.

Only a few remnants are remaining in Scotland.

Texas and Nevada have something close to it.