My Understanding of Farang Property Ownership - Comments, please!

[SDM0712]

Afternoon

To reiterate one point I made if you acquire property on 30+30+30 leases this is a package deal. There should be no need to re-negotiate and pay for a new lease for each period, but that is exactly why a lawyer must be used to look out for your interests.

I hope that this is not in breach of Forum rules, I have already had one warning, but I would like to recommend anyone who is interested to have a well researched insight into property matters in Thailand to buy a book called " Buying Property in Thailand" by Rodney Waller. It is 542 pages of everything you wanted to know about every aspect of buying property, land etc in Thailand.

There is an element of risk with most things in life but everyday I deal with many preople, mainly non-Thais, who want to buy here or have lived here for many years quite happily and want to upgrade to a bigger place. So I would advise anyone who wants to live here to do their own independent research and make an informed decision.

Regards

Stephen

PS In case anyone was wondering I'm not a " bald", although I don't really have much hair. I started my career in London's West End some 25 years ago and have held senior positions with some of the UK's biggest estate agency companies and in fact still own an agency in NW London in addition to my Phuket company. I am used to working within the highly regulated UK sector with Laws such as the Property Misdescriptions Act and still work within those guidelines, even here. Some of us are reliable and trust worthy !

Edited November 4, 2013 by SDM0712

[Khun Jean]

If you had senior positions with big estate agencies you would be a senior 'bald'.

You have a Phuket Company, if it is dealing in realestate or anything to do with i consider you a 'bald'.

You can personally be reliable and trustworthy, i don't doubt that, but you can still be completely wrong professionally.

If you believe what you state is true you are the best person to repeat it. Because you are convinced it is true.

Did you come up with that 30+30+30 scenario or are you repeating it?

I suggest trying to register a 30+30+30 lease and report your findings.

I have done it in my 'naive' years and luckily it was refused (Samui). Since then i studied the subject and found out why.

My wife has land so we did some 'dry runs' to see what is accepted.

Usufruct no problem, 30 year lease no problem but difficult to establish the right amount to be taxed.

Anything else, not accepted. This was in Bangkok and Prachuap.

The only thing you need to read is the Thai land act code. It has been available online a long time.

Everything else is often just a misinterpretation (on purpose!) to get foreigners to buy.

http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/law-text-land-code-act-1954.html is a good translation, also the amendments from 1999 and 2008 are available.

Everyone that has a wish to buy real estate in Thailand should at least read it. If you do not understand parts there are always people to explain it, even some lawyers. It is essential that you do this before making any decision, especially if it is your live savings.

edit: Added the locations where i had dealings with the land office.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Khun Jean

[SDM0712]

Dear Khun Jean

To get a few things straight, I am an agent. It is my job to visit properties and prepare the best details that I can and offer these to buyers that wish to see them, taking them if they wish. I am able to make recommendations, but that is all.

It is not my job to advise on the legalities of buying because I am not a qualified lawyer, either in the UK or Thailand. This is exactly why the first thing I advise any buyer to do is to consult with a lawyer and get the facts for themselves. It is all very well to read the English translation of a Thai Law but as the case with many laws it is the interpretation that it important and that's assuming the translation is accurate. I'm sure that many people make comments with the best of intentions but unless they are experts or have actually experienced the item under discussion it can only cause confusion.

If you do not trust brokers, lawyers, agents or developers then I can understand why you (assuming) haven't bought a home here, which is a shame because it is a lovely place to live, even if you do take the worst case view that you may need to return home after 30 years. For many people there is no choice to return home at 70/80 years of age anyway and that has more to do medical insurance, but that's another story.

SDM

[Khun Jean]

As an agent (the a in bald, and which you stated not so long ago that you were not) you should then be more knowledgeable about the real estate laws in Thailand.

You are often the first contact and as such you should give good information.

Your 90 year lease package is non existent and is certainly not enforceable.

If you do not know that, you are unable to do your job correctly and you will cause people harm.

Now that you do know, stop repeating what others say (lawyers) and study the law yourself.

At least ask a few other lawyers if that is your favorite source (it is not mine), read some, etc

It is relatively easy. If you are serious about your work then you must make surer that anything you tell in that capacity is true and possible.

If you continue, well i don't have kind words for that. Being not fully informed is not an excuse.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Khun Jean

[SDM0712]

Dear Khun Jean

As the folks your side of the pond like to say, I'll take your comments " under advisement" but

I think I will leave the lawyering to the lawyers. Also, in the interests of getting our facts right I do not have a 90 year package I was merely explaining that on these schemes one is not expected to purchase a new lease at each 30 year point as had been intimated.

SDM

PS, Out of interest and assuming you have a home in Thailand since you seem to be so sure of your facts can I ask what type of title your property is on?

[Khun Jean]

We do not own a home. We rent a condo in Bangkok. I am married so that limits my options.

My wife owns several pieces of land. I have a usufruct on two of them, just in case she dies before me.

Everything is willed to the children.

My wife and i have a company of which i have 49% that owns tens of condos that are rented out. That was done last year. It makes my stay more permanent and i have more rights and chance to get permanent residency when i work here and pay taxes.

I am not worried about getting divorced as we are already married for 12 years and have seen some good and rough times together.

If it does happen i would still be 49% owner of the company that generates income, and i would loose the usufructs.

As all land has been bought with 'our' money that personal loss is acceptable. The main reason we bought land is security for my wife and our children. Worst case scenario is that i can fall back on my countries safety net, my wife can not.

We have some more expensive land and plans are to build a guesthouse on it. The guesthouse will be a commercial activity and it will be owned by a business of which i would have 49%. When getting older this would generate enough income and part of it will be our home.

Again in case of divorce we already agreed that it will go to the children.

I am almost 50 and in case of a divorce i can change it into a retirement visa.

All of the above is done with clearly understanding the risks.

Buying land that never will be yours is just a fact in Thailand.

When your not married a usufruct is the only way to have security for a long time, but still your money is tied up.

If you can afford it and are not afraid to take the risk, go for it.

Only do it when you can walk away from it.

If not then just rent, or buy a condo.

[parallaxtech]

SMD is correct -- go question the best real estate lawyer in your area instead of listening to half-wit TV bar stoolers. This is a major investment and you don't want to lose your ass plus I'm sure the first consultation is free. Thai law is full of ambiguities for a reason -- so lawyers and judges can interpret it in the way they see fit whether it's to your advantage or not. Think about it for a second: Do you want to stand up in court and argue Thai law?

The Khun Jean Brigade is on every farang real estate forum shouting their credo that no farang can own real estate. This advice is heeded so well that farangs buy Thai real estate every day (75% of Koh Samui and 90% of Phuket beachfront already purchased). A couple of years ago the Thai government (DSI) approached my accountant and had questions about my Thai company (TMC). It was only a matter of referring them to my Thai lawyer and the matter ended. Now, if I had said that I didn't use a lawyer, but followed Khun Jean's advice on TV, well you know where I and my property would be now. Use a reputable Thai lawyer and get the documents stamped by the Thai Ministry and you will be fine. Finally, Khun Jean, et al might have some tips on getting a liver transplant without using a surgeon (doesn't trust doctors, either) but don't follow that advice, either.

Sorry KJ if I offended you as I know that you are only stating what the Thai law appears to say in black and white but the Thai authorities will just as easily say that you are a farang and have misinterpreted it. Thai law is only what the judge says it is and only a reputable Thai lawyer can navigate the legal minefield for you. .By the way I'm not a baldie. I made my fortune buying Thai real estate and have retired.

[Khun Jean]

So basically what you say is that you used a company with nominees and got away with it and many others do also.

Flipping real estate does not have the same risk as 'buying' land and house for a home. If you move fast you can stay undetected. Sit on a property for a long time and see if you can evade it for that long.

A 'reputable' lawyer that says 30+30+30 is possible is in my book a crook.

I call you a 'gamer'.

[SDM0712]

Actually the interpretation issue is no different in the UK and those Laws are written in English, so no possibly inaccurate translation to worry about. There is a very known English legal saying which the Brits will know and that's " it's down to the Judge on the day", and that verdict becomes case law and is more down to that Judge's interpretation of the Law than some say the spirit of what Parliament intended.

In anything that you are not an expert in you should take the best expert advise, whether it be legal or financial, or anything. Unfortunately reading a Law, whether the original text is your mother tongue or not does not an expert make you.

SDM (aka SMD? 555)

[Khun Jean]

The baldie from Phuket and the gamer from Samui are teaming up. Afraid of lost revenue close to high season?

It is exactly the reason why you should stay on the safe side.

For a usufruct use the standard form at the land office.

No judge in Thailand will suddenly all by himself decide something different.

He will though decide against a 30+30+30 lease because it the law does not spell that one out.

He will decide in spirit or the letter, up to him and maybe even his mood.

Would you like to bet on being lucky after 30 years, with your life savings?

He will never decide against a regular 30 year lease. If that happens all hell breaks loose.

Same if he dissolves a usufruct. It will just not happen because those are real rights with lots of history.

But that is all hypothetical because the land office will already stop it from being registered, unless they are corrupt. Samui is a good example for that. You need to be on your guards all the time when dealing with real estate in tourist areas. Lots of hunters and unfortunately a lot of naive prey.

Passing a crossing when the lights are green is safer then when the lights are red.

You can get to the other side in both cases, but the risk is a lot higher when you choose to cross it with red lights.

With long term real estate i like to stay on the safe side. I think most would do.

Unless you are a gamer, then you do it for quick profits.

A 'bald' just does it for the commission.

No long term risk for either.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Khun Jean

[SDM0712]

I guess if I'm the "baldie " from Phuket and parrallaxtech is the " gamer " from Samui then KJ must be the " know it all " from Bangkok.

It seems thoughout this our KJ has assigned an opinion to me that I do not have, in fact I haven't really expressed one with regard to the 30,30,30 scheme, I have just explained it.

It may come as a surprise to him that I don't really disagree with his analysis either. However we are all adults so the best I can do is to advise that buyers get the best legal advice that they can and then make an informed decision. I would say that most of my buyers hope for the best but allow for the worst. Like (I assume KJ), I am not a lawyer and therefore am not going to offer legal advice on the basis of reading a translation of a Thai Law, in fact I think that would be criminal.

S

Edited November 6, 2013 by SDM0712

[parallaxtech]

SDM, once again, is the voice of reason here. If you want to risk your lifesavings by taking advice from a barstool blowhard than you deserve the end result. At least get your free consultation from the best attorney in your area and then you can proceed from there.

Also, it is a felony to provide legal advice unless one is licensed to practice law in Thailand so keep that in mind when some ignorant farang is spouting out Thai legal statutes. See: http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/charununlegal2.html

As far as being a gamer or flipper, I purchased my land in 2006 and sold all of it, minus the one rai I live on, last year. There are over thirty farang families living on this mountain and all that I have met have purchased, not rented, their land. So, don't think I would qualify as a flipper or gamer, but perhaps KJ should go back to flipping hamburgers and leave the legal advice to professionals.

Edited November 6, 2013 by parallaxtech

[Khun Jean]

As long as so called professionals are not even capable to understand a simple law, then i do find them unsuitable to work in that profession.

It is plain and simple, a foreigner can not own land. There is one exception, bring at least 40.000.000 baht with you and maybe, just maybe you get permission to own 1 rai of land.

All other foreign 'ownerships' are impossible. They are leaseholds or rights of use.

Just to be clear, ownership = freehold title.

Because only when you own it you can sell it without any restrictions whatsoever.

If you say that you purchased land you mean you purchased a leasehold, or you formed a company with nominees (which is illegal) to hold the land.

The lease hold is not ownership, if done right you could sell the remaining time on that lease. But do not call it ownership.

Ownership is also not through a company. You would be 49% shareholder of that company.

That does not even come close to ownership. Add to it the administrative tasks and costs, dependency on 51% Thais and you got yourself a problem that costs money every year just to maintain.

Those over thirty farang families do not own the land.

If you are convinced of that, talk to one of them and asked what they did to 'own' it.

There are thousands of foreigners who would like to know.

So please elaborate and proof that i am wrong.

And just to make it simple please use the case where a retired couple, both persons from a western country, wants to buy some land and house.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Khun Jean

[parallaxtech]

Sorry, won't join you on the next barstool and advise others on Thai law. So, prospective land buyers can get the stamp of approval from KJ or have it approved by the Thai government as only a Thai lawyer can lay out the myriad of ways to purchase property here. I have found over the years that if one has substantial assets and is worried about losing their hard-earned money then they seek the best legal advice. Whereas, those without money, perhaps out of jealousy, shout to anyone who hasn't passed out already that you can't purchase anything. So, keep providing illegal, inaccurate, and contradictory advice and I'm sure the homeless will agree with you.

[Dork]

A short story from Koh Samui, New Year 1989. I was there for a weeks holiday together with a bunch of ex-colleagues and fellow expats from HK most of whom were there because they had either bought property there or were considering doing so. All were quite a bit older than me and some were planning on retiring there. It was my first visit to Koh Samui. I was 23 years old, had no intention of buying anything and anyway had no money to do so. It was interesting though and I was curious. The road around the island wasn't much more than a dirt track with a few patches of tar seal here and there and Bangkok Airways had just opened the airport.

During that week, one of the most discussed topics was the issues surrounding foreigners and land ownership, especially the perils & pitfalls of using Thai Nominees, Limited Companies etc. to control land on their behalf. Some said the government would soon crack down on this type of circumvention of Thai land laws. Also there was talk of these strange 30 year leases and whether or not a guaranteed renewal was possible. Of course there was no internet in those days (just making a phone call was difficult enough) and if there were any English translations of Thai land laws available, I didn't see them.

I haven't been to Koh Samui for at least 15 years now and I've lost touch with all but a couple of that group but as far as I know none of them suffered any financial loss from their investments. Some though, did very well indeed.

So what's my point? None really. If anyone asks me about land ownership as it affects foreigners, I still don't have any real advice to offer. One thing I would say to them though is that reading a translation of the Land Code to understand the realities of foreign investment in land is about as useful as handing over a copy of the Thai traffic laws so that they can safely navigate their way across Bangkok.

[Khun Jean]

Sorry, won't join you on the next barstool and advise others on Thai law. So, prospective land buyers can get the stamp of approval from KJ or have it approved by the Thai government as only a Thai lawyer can lay out the myriad of ways to purchase property here. I have found over the years that if one has substantial assets and is worried about losing their hard-earned money then they seek the best legal advice. Whereas, those without money, perhaps out of jealousy, shout to anyone who hasn't passed out already that you can't purchase anything. So, keep providing illegal, inaccurate, and contradictory advice and I'm sure the homeless will agree with you.

In short. You do not know anything because the answer is pretty simple.

You sell property and divert all responsibility to the buyer and lawyer. A lawyer who has self interest and uses the fact that people don't know the land act.

You are the first person buyers meet, it would be best if you actually know something instead of repeating what you have been told.

Still no word of one of those 30 farang families? Just walk over and ask.

Why stay uninformed?

It is such a 'cop out' to say that everything you hear on internet is 'barstool' wisdom. I don't even drink alcohol or visit bars. Better call it armchair wisdom in my case. Wisdom, better just call it knowledge i gained by experience and asking many lawyers. Especially ones that are not recommended by a 'bald' (Broker Agent Lawyer Developer) or real estate flipper.

If you know something that others don't know, why not share it?

[Khun Jean]

So what's my point? None really. If anyone asks me about land ownership as it affects foreigners, I still don't have any real advice to offer. One thing I would say to them though is that reading a translation of the Land Code to understand the realities of foreign investment in land is about as useful as handing over a copy of the Thai traffic laws so that they can safely navigate their way across Bangkok.

So what you say is that only a lawyer can read?

Did you ever try to read it, or you already made the conclusion that it must be to difficult before reading even one sentence.

I call it laziness and it is naive to trust someone 100% who has a personal interest.

You would actually follow a lawyers advice to do something illegal (company with nominees) out of lack of knowledge?.

Good luck to you, because you will need it.

[SDM0712]

“So what you say is that only a lawyer can read?

Did you ever try to read it, or you already made the conclusion that it must be to difficult before reading even one sentence.

I call it laziness and it is naive to trust someone 100% who has a personal interest.

You would actually follow a lawyers advice to do something illegal (company with nominees) out of lack of knowledge?.

Good luck to you, because you will need it.”

I think the point is that most people can read, but the ability to read is not in question here, it is ability to interpret the spirit of the meaning that might be applied in Court. For example since most of my two and a half decades of professional experience was in London I will use that location as my reference. I am English, English is thus my mother tongue, so I would consider that I understand English in its purest form very well. I have read and am familiar with all British Acts of Law that regulate and concern the real estate market. Such Laws as The Estate Agents Act 1979, The Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, The Trades Descriptions Act 1968, 1987. In fact you might be surprised to learn that in the UK it is actually a criminal act to lie about a property or anything related to it. The offender would be tried in a criminal court as opposed to a civil court and if found guilty could go to jail. So, sufficed to say, it is important that we understand our Laws over in Blighty.

Now bearing in mind I am an educated Englishman, reading the text of a Law in my own language I must say that I understand the words, but the interpretation, or to be more specific, the possible alternate interpretations is completely another matter. So, if I have an issue, I would consult a specialist lawyer for a professional opinion, not to do so is shear folly. After all if the various Laws were so simple to understand why would these professionals would go to university for upto seven years if it was only a simple matter of reading and immediately understanding.

To return the 6500 miles to Thailand where even some of the most rudimentary translations from Thai to English are inaccurate to say the least is it really being suggested that we should read the English translation of a Thai legal document and draw a definite and absolute conclusion from that. Again, shear folly. Read the translation if you want, but use this as a basis to ask you lawyer questions/ Now that I agree with. But do not base your financial decisions on reading a Law in a second hand language.

Our KJ has intimated that I am being unprofessional by not giving my buyers advice based upon knowledge gained by reading of Thai Law. I would say the complete opposite in fact. I would say that as soon as I start advising on Thai Law, and putting aside the fact that I would be breaching the terms of my work permit, and Thai Law itself, I could be doing “harm” by giving the wrong advice that would only be apparent in years to come.

I am familiar with the process of transplanting a heart, but I am not a surgeon so would never attempt it (!)

I am familiar with how to pilot a passenger jet, but I am not a pilot so would never attempt it.

I am familiar with the process of removing a tooth, but I am not a dentist so would never attempt it.

I am familiar with both English Laws and Thai Laws, but I would never advise on them because I am not a lawyer.

I think to conclude since most of us cannot know absolutely everything there must come a point where we must rely on the advice of a professional.

Before you commit to anything, see a lawyer of good standing and reputation, and take advice.

SDM

[Khun Jean]

Still it is rather simple:

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.

Now list the countries that have a treaty with Thailand about owning land

None

In how many ways can you interpret this?

[SDM0712]

Still it is rather simple:

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.

Now list the countries that have a treaty with Thailand about owning land

None

In how many ways can you interpret this?

Is this rather simple? I think not.

Lets look at this from a Laypersons point of view, since my buyers certainly fall into this category, as would it seem are the posters on this topic, including myself.

“Section 86 Aliens”

This requires further reading of relevant sections of Law that make a definition of what these are.

“ may acquire land by virtue of the provisions of a treaty”

This seems to allow land to be acquired by use of a treaty, however it does not describe the form that this “ treaty” should take. When you say “Now list the countries that have a treaty with Thailand about owning land “ you seem to presume that the use of the word “ treaty” implies a formal agreement between two nations, where in fact the word “ treaty” merely means any form of agreement. Examples of a treaty could be, a tenancy agreement, a trade agreement, a contract to purchase, a cheque (check, money order), in fact any form of agreement in the strictest legal definition of the word.

“Immovable properties”

Although this would seem to imply a building since one would traditionally be quite difficult to move it is not impossible and therefore not “ immovable”. As an example I would describe a structure such as a bridge as most definitely “immovable”, or really unmovable, however you will be aware that the famous London Bridge was moved from the banks of the River Thames in London to Lake Havasu in Arizona by Robert McCulloch in 1967. In fact as I understand it he thought he was buying Tower Bridge. To conclude, there is no such thing as an immovable property.

“Subject to the provisions of this code”

This requires complete reading and absolute understanding of this entire Law since the statement leaves the way open for another clause, which may very well be minor in nature and size, to have a major impact.

“How many ways to interpret this”

I really cannot list how many ways, but the definition is not absolutely clear and that is ignoring the fact that your quote is not in fact Thai Law. It is merely someone trying their best to find the equivalent words in English that match the original Thai text of the Law. In Court it is the Thai text that is applied, a Thai Judge would not be interested in reading the English, since the Law was written in Thai, and past into Law by the Government in Thai. The English translation is irrelevant in Court and only a courtesy that our Thai “ friends” make to us. The translation should be viewed as nothing more than a rough guide.

This statement really just means that some people can buy land following an agreement with an unmentioned person/party that allows them to put a house on it.

As you know KJ I think your concerns are valid, but there is no substitute for expert advice.

SDM

Edited November 8, 2013 by SDM0712

[Khun Jean]

My concerns are valid and i voice them because many so called experts, especially laywers, developers, agents and brokers twist it to their advantage.

This seems to be mainly a problem in tourist places like samui, phuket and huahin where many people trust these 'experts' to tell the truth.

I lived a while in Samui, but consulted a lawyer from Bangkok at that time. His advice was clear.

So it is not that i distrust lawyers in general but in Thailand and especially those i mentioned in certain areas have special interests and have proven to me at least that they twist the law to make a sale.

To all that are reading:

I still did not read the solution for owning land and house for a retired couple from a western country.

If nobody doesn't tell while so many people do it without problems might it be that there isn't.

I remain that 'leasing for 30 years' and a 'usufruct for live' are the only safe ways to use land and house, until someone proofs me otherwise.

And i am not talking about legitimate (making profit, do accounting, pay taxes, have employees) businesses where you can own maximum 49%, i know all about that already.

[Khun Jean]

I see even the word treaty gets new meaning.

It is not a contract between individuals.

Why does every word that has a very clear meaning have to be distorted so it is convenient to ones profession.

A meaning does not change according to ones needs and desires.

Look it up in a dictionary when you not know the meaning.

The translation is not done by some corner shop, but it is an official translation.

As such you can bet on it that the word treaty is translated from the Thai word treaty and the Thai version did not contain the word contract.

Again, a treaty does not mean any form of agreement like a rental contract between individuals.

It means an agreement between states and falls under international law.

my goodness.

The word is also used in a document that represents the country. As such there is no other meaning to the word treaty. It is in the context of a countries laws and acts.

Are you mixing it up with 'private treaty'. Because you can not just drop the 'private' and still think treaty will mean the same.

and why add:

in fact any form of agreement in the strictest legal definition of the word.

when you stated you are not a lawyer. Suddenly now you are knowledgeable about words and their use and meaning in law?

A lawyer in disguise?

Edited November 8, 2013 by Khun Jean

[SDM0712]

a. A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.

b. The document in which such an agreement is set down.

2. A contract or agreement.

3. Obsolete

a. Negotiation for the purpose of reaching an agreement.

b. An entreaty.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/treaty

[Khun Jean]

The word treaty is used in a government (representing the country) document.

That means the government is one part of the 'deal'.

Do you really think that a contract between Somchai and John is a treaty?

[SDM0712]

Dear KJ

The term "treaty " is a very common legal term. As you can see in the definition that I have posted you are not wrong, and your interpretation is certainly the same as most people would apply but clearly the fact is that you are unaware of the full legal definition.

You have also not considered that which I have posted several times, but I shall repeat it.

The legislation to which you refer does not mention the word "treaty". I have not read the original Thai text but it will use a word that is similar, So if an accurate interpretation is required the services of someone who is both an expert in Thai Law and the Thai language should be used.

S

[Khun Jean]

Legal interpretation by an agent? How suddenly you know everything about full legal definitions?

Meaning changed according to your needs?

A treaty can be a very common term when used between parties that are not a state or government. I don't disagree with that.

It can then be replaced with agreements and contracts.

In a document from the government however it means an agreement between states.

How difficult is that to understand?

I found an online translation here: http://www.thailandlawonline.com/thai-real-estate-law/thai-land-law-land-code-act

there is a whole chapter about "Limitation of Aliens (foreigners) Rights in Land"

It is one translation but it is word for word the same as the one i have.

[SDM0712]

My dear Khun Jean

Considering the fact that we both have similar reservations, and our opinion is quite similar, this is indeed a very unusual debate. It seems that the main difference is that you advocate a layperson reading the translation of a foreign legal document and drawing their own conclusions and further on the basis of those conclusion deciding on whether to make a possibly life changing decision. You seem to intimate that the advice from the expert would be unreliable, possibly biased, but interestingly you then go on to say that you have yourself consulted a lawyer.

I on the other hand advocate a buyer taking the best legal advice available and on the basis of that advice then making an informed milestone decision. Your further suggest that I should offer such advice to buyers based upon my laypersons interpretation of a Law that I am unable even to read in its native text.

What you are failing to appreciate, and perhaps I am not being clear, is that in any legal document, in any country, the language is open to interpretation and the words chosen have in all probability been chosen for that purpose. In the UK we use the term “legalese”, and it’s not viewed as a positive thing. Until a case hits the Courts no body knows for sure what the outcome would be. All I would say is that this is Thailand and some say that nothing is exactly as it seems. If such a case ever did come to court and the multiple lease principle were ruled against, it would cost this country billions of baht.

My point is further made by the multiple definitions we have both found for the term “ Treaty”. Neither one of us is wrong, in fact we are both correct as born out by the definitions that we have both posted. And here is my point, the mere fact that we have both drawn alternate definitions for exactly the same word shows clearly that there are different ways to interpret it.

Before I close I have a few observations:

“Legal interpretation by an agent? How suddenly you know everything about full legal definitions? “

I have merely stated my understanding of the word “ treaty” and further posted a definition that confirms this. I have not made a legal interpretation or offered legal advice. I have disagreed with you and posted evidence to support this.

“Meaning changed according to your needs?”

This is an odd comment when you consider that I have maintained throughout that professionally I don’t advise on these issues under discussion, I merely pass buyers onto someone who is professionally qualified to advise. Anticipating that you will retort by suggesting I recommend a “ friendly “ lawyer in fact I do not. I offer a couple of recommendations yes, but who they speak to is down to them,

“A treaty can be a very common term when used between parties that are not a state or government” SDM

I don't disagree with that. It can then be replaced with agreements and contracts.” KJ

My thanks, and again confirmation that the term “ treaty “ has multiple meanings, applications and can be replaced with similar wording.

“In a document from the government however it means an agreement between states. How difficult is that to understand?”

As I am neither a Lawyer, an International Lawyer nor a Government official I am not qualified to answer and if I did my unqualified understanding is completely irrelevant and of absolutely no value.

“I found an online translation here: http://www.thailandl...w-land-code-act

there is a whole chapter about "Limitation of Aliens (foreigners) Rights in Land" It is one translation but it is word for word the same as the one i have.”

Quite useful I am sure however my issue still remains with the quality of the translation. How often have any of us been to Immigration, a Police Station and read a very unusual English guide or instructions. I would also say the Land Department but I cannot remember being at any Land Department in any province where there has been any decent English translation of anything, apart from “Toilet” or “Exit”.

Incidentally I am grateful for the definition of “Alien”. I know it a common term Stateside but not often used in England outside the cinema environment. My friends and family are all amused at my description in my work permit and I am often asked if I need to “phone home”

Have a good day.

Regards

SDM

[Tapster]

@ KJ and SDM0712

Hi guys,

I have been reading your posts with great interest.

If one wants to know how property laws work in most First World countries, unless it's something obscure, it's not usually necessary to consult a lawyer.

HOWEVER, before committing funds one would be mad not to have the best legal advice available.

The fact that Thai property law is so unclear and apparently dependent upon how it is interpreted by individual government officials until a consensus is formed, is not reassuring and the lack of such a consensus in the case of the 30-30-30 lease issue is a major stumbling block (for me, anyway) in the path of 'owning' property in Thailand.

SDM, you said:

"What you are failing to appreciate, and perhaps I am not being clear, is that in any legal document, in any country, the language is open to interpretation and the words chosen have in all probability been chosen for that purpose. In the UK we use the term “legalese”, and it’s not viewed as a positive thing. Until a case hits the Courts no body knows for sure what the outcome would be. All I would say is that this is Thailand and some say that nothing is exactly as it seems. If such a case ever did come to court and the multiple lease principle were ruled against, it would cost this country billions of baht."

Do you know when the 30-year lease idea was first enacted?

Are the first leases coming to the end of their 30 years?

If so, have the 30-30-30 lease terms been tested yet?

I think this issue is very important and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in this thread.

If the land-registering authorities have started to deal with the second 30-year leases then is a consensus being reached?

I read what you're both saying and KJ's points about usufruct and the 30-year lease being the only things you can currently rely on, certainly seem to agree with everything I've read and with the consensus on this thread.

SDM, I get what you're saying as well. I agree that good, honest legal advice is essential. However, without precedent and consensus regarding the second 30-year lease it does seem foolhardy to rely on any lawyer's advice concerning matters that are 30 years down the line when the lawyer has probably retired and if he was wrong, it's just too late!

Gentlemen, please tell me the the situation as you understand it regarding testing of the renewal of the second 30-year lease.

Cheers,

Tapster

[SDM0712]

Hi Tapster

I have no idea when the first 30+30+30 lease pattern was first applied. I am also unaware of the 1^st renewal being challenged legally to date. I wish it would happen so at least we would all know where we stand. But I have a sneaking suspicion that it won’t ever happen, because it is not in the interests of the people with the power (money). This is Thailand and even the events of the last few days should seal the “ who knows!” attitude. Not really helpful I know.

Adopt the attitude that the first 30 years period is safe and allow for the worst case scenario in 30 years time, and thirty years thereafter. Really it depends on your attitude to risk and not that it really means anything but there are several hundred expats living on Phuket alone, and have been for many years on this basis. But as Ian Fleming would have said, never say never.

With regard to the lawyer incidentally I don’t just mean consult with regard to the 30+30+30 principle, I mean with regard to any matter of importance that has legal implications. Before I became involved in business here I had two or three meetings with my lawyer before I was satisfied.

In my career I have dealt with so many people who have boasted to me about how they purchased without using a lawyer, then to discover some awful legal problem when they came to sell or before.

If I were in your shoes I would certainly want to get it from the horse’s mouth before even starting to consider the idea.

But to answer you real question - no, there is no case law on the matter, just opinion and lawyers trying to be clever.

Regards

SDM

[Khun Jean]

Considering the fact that we both have similar reservations, and our opinion is quite similar, this is indeed a very unusual debate. It seems that the main difference is that you advocate a layperson reading the translation of a foreign legal document and drawing their own conclusions and further on the basis of those conclusion deciding on whether to make a possibly life changing decision. You seem to intimate that the advice from the expert would be unreliable, possibly biased, but interestingly you then go on to say that you have yourself consulted a lawyer.

I would have made a very grave mistake if i went to only one lawyer. A good lawyer referred to by an agent. (Sounds familiar!)

I smelled something fishy was going on. It was too much 'no problem'. After consulting a Bangkok lawyer (a rather expensive and famous one i might add) it became clear.

They used the Land Act to point out what my possibilities were. Becoming a bit suspicious about why two lawyers had such different opinions i even went so far to get a third opinion.

The story i got then was very similar to the Bangkok lawyers except on details about a usufruct and being able to lease out land when having a usufruct. The ownership question was answered the same. Still not 100% convinced i got myself a translation of the full Land Act and read and discussed it. It became clear:

The first lawyer (on Samui) was just lying.

Unless you get permission you are unable to own land.

Everything in that land act can be summarized for a foreigner in one sentence.

Unless you get permission you are unable to own land

Just accept it as a fact.

That permission is not that you are able to register it at the land office. They are often unaware what is allowed, but tend to stay on the safe side.

You need an official permission from the Minister and the land area is maximum 1 rai.

As a foreigner you can only own a condo (and thereby a small part of the land) that is in the foreigner quota.

There is a separate Condominium Act where that is detailed.

I on the other hand advocate a buyer taking the best legal advice available and on the basis of that advice then making an informed milestone decision. Your further suggest that I should offer such advice to buyers based upon my laypersons interpretation of a Law that I am unable even to read in its native text.

What you are failing to appreciate, and perhaps I am not being clear, is that in any legal document, in any country, the language is open to interpretation and the words chosen have in all probability been chosen for that purpose. In the UK we use the term “legalese”, and it’s not viewed as a positive thing. Until a case hits the Courts no body knows for sure what the outcome would be. All I would say is that this is Thailand and some say that nothing is exactly as it seems. If such a case ever did come to court and the multiple lease principle were ruled against, it would cost this country billions of baht.

Most of the Thai law and Land Act is NOT legalese. It is surprisingly very clear.

Legalese is often used by lawyers when they make a legal document for a company to minimize responsibilities, not so much by governments as they have a responsibility to be as clear as possible. Try reading a few documents made by Apple, or Google and then read the Land Act. You will notice the difference.

The courts in Thailand don't use precedence.

About leases. When the law of the land is that a lease can be maximum 30 years it is just that. (Yeah i know for commercial use it can be longer).

How can you misinterpret that? How much legalese in "maximum 30 years"?

Does maximum have another meaning so that it means approximately or it can be interpreted as NOT maximum.

Common sense is valuable to have.

The 30 year maximum is registered and is called a 'real right', the renewals are not and only enforceable against the other party of the contract. If owner changes all those nice clauses (including legalese) the lawyer included are of zero value. Legalese is often used to impress their customers. Wow, if such difficult words are used it must be correct.

A 30+30+30 year package is not accepted and it might be legal when following the letter of the law, most law in Thailand is in the spirit of the law. And that is often (if not always) not in a foreigners favor.

A contract that has provisions in it to extend it beyond the 30 years is overruled by the law and 30 years is again the maximum.

Also signatures placed on documents in advance are illegal and if caught can have great consequences. Not for the lawyer of course who setup the whole thing, no only the person that holds them is fully responsible. How convenient.

I use a lawyer from time to time. But only for my convenience and on my conditions.

If i am incapable of detecting falsehoods told by a lawyer (or any other person for that matter) it means i am open to abuse.

Knowledge is your only guard. And internet is a good place to share that knowledge and experience.

I not ask anybody to 100% believe me, i am just a person on internet. All i am suggesting is, get as much information as possible and preferably first hand. The documents are available.

My point is further made by the multiple definitions we have both found for the term “ Treaty”. Neither one of us is wrong, in fact we are both correct as born out by the definitions that we have both posted. And here is my point, the mere fact that we have both drawn alternate definitions for exactly the same word shows clearly that there are different ways to interpret it.

My opinion is that you are wrong and i am right.

I see it in the right context and you in the wrong context.

There is only one way to interpret it and that is in the right context.

The context being that it is in a Government (representing the country) document. It is even signed by the King.

There is no other context to be imagined. It is not between companies, private persons or any combination of those.

The word treaty has therefore one meaning.

“A treaty can be a very common term when used between parties that are not a state or government” SDM

I don't disagree with that. It can then be replaced with agreements and contracts.” KJ

My thanks, and again confirmation that the term “ treaty “ has multiple meanings, applications and can be replaced with similar wording.

“In a document from the government however it means an agreement between states. How difficult is that to understand?”

As I am neither a Lawyer, an International Lawyer nor a Government official I am not qualified to answer and if I did my unqualified understanding is completely irrelevant and of absolutely no value.

You are writing legalese!

Suddenly when it is in the context of a government your understanding of the word treaty is unqualified.

Please, use a better excuse.