30 Year Lease Question:

[Burgernev]

Assuming the land owner agrees, can you write a clause in the 30 year lease (or make seperate contractual agreement) that after 5 years has passed during the initial lease, that a new 30 year lease can be given and registered at the land office ?

Thnaks for any help,

Burger

Edited June 3, 2006 by Burgernev

[Mobi]

Assuming the land owner agrees, can you write a clause in the 30 year lease (or make seperate contractual agreement) that after 5 years has passed during the initial lease, that a new 30 year lease can be given and registered at the land office ?

Thnaks for any help,

Burger

Interesting question.

It's made me think. Another variation could be to sign a 30 year lease, say with the wife, and after 5 or 10 years, cancel the lease and do a new one for 30 years, assuming wife/landlord were agreeable. Could be a symultaneous transacation, and it might be a good idea for those expecting to live more than 30 years.

(not me, I hasten to add )

[Burgernev]

Interesting question.

It's made me think. Another variation could be to sign a 30 year lease, say with the wife, and after 5 or 10 years, cancel the lease and do a new one for 30 years, assuming wife/landlord were agreeable. Could be a symultaneous transacation, and it might be a good idea for those expecting to live more than 30 years.

Exactly Mobi, whether it was an 'extension' or a completely new one I guess would not matter to us.

I think the question really is, can a farang extend/renew on the same piece of land within the original 30 year period ?

Burger

[Khun Jean]

The lease is just a contract, which can be cancelled anytime when both parties agree. But cancelling and renewing it will be a little suspicious, like trying to find a loophole int the law.

The question is, whats in it to make it interesting for the landowner. With this cancelling and renewing the landowner is actually making his land worth less and less. There must be some financial gain to go through these procedures.

If the landowner is your wife, it looks like a 'trust' checkup every 5 years. Nothing good will come out of that.

You will have to write it somewhere in the contract that you want to do that (again why would the landlord want to do that?), which will make the contract duration 'open' so it still will be considered a maximum of 30 years.

If you write it in a seperate contract, what will happen after five years, will the owner renew that contract too, or will it have the same maximum duration of 30 years which will defeat its purpose?

When things go bad, the reason why you want to do this is i think, it will not really work in your favor. A five year rolling lease would be more appropiate for this purpose.

[Mobi]

The lease is just a contract, which can be cancelled anytime when both parties agree. But cancelling and renewing it will be a little suspicious, like trying to find a loophole int the law.

The question is, whats in it to make it interesting for the landowner. With this cancelling and renewing the landowner is actually making his land worth less and less. There must be some financial gain to go through these procedures.

If the landowner is your wife, it looks like a 'trust' checkup every 5 years. Nothing good will come out of that.

You will have to write it somewhere in the contract that you want to do that (again why would the landlord want to do that?), which will make the contract duration 'open' so it still will be considered a maximum of 30 years.

If you write it in a seperate contract, what will happen after five years, will the owner renew that contract too, or will it have the same maximum duration of 30 years which will defeat its purpose?

When things go bad, the reason why you want to do this is i think, it will not really work in your favor. A five year rolling lease would be more appropiate for this purpose.

Thank you for that, it all makes pretty good sense.

I agree there would have to be some incentive for the landlord to agree to such an arrrangement, but of course he might be a "nominee' landlord - maybe the lawyer or a good friend who was party to the land/house purchase in the first instance.

As for the "trust checkup" - well if the wife was trusted 100 % , there wouldn't be any need for a lease in the first place. It is generally acknowledged that even the best of marriages can go sour, so if the husband is say, forty when he pays for the house, he can raeasonable expect to live to well past 70, so why not cancel and do a new 30 lease when he is 50, assuming they are still both together at that point?

[Dragonman]

Assuming the land owner agrees, can you write a clause in the 30 year lease (or make seperate contractual agreement) that after 5 years has passed during the initial lease, that a new 30 year lease can be given and registered at the land office ?

Thnaks for any help,

Burger

Interesting question.

It's made me think. Another variation could be to sign a 30 year lease, say with the wife, and after 5 or 10 years, cancel the lease and do a new one for 30 years, assuming wife/landlord were agreeable. Could be a symultaneous transacation, and it might be a good idea for those expecting to live more than 30 years.

(not me, I hasten to add )

Burgernev's idea of a clause would be illegal as it would in fact put a legal responsibility on the lessor to renew in 5 years.

Mobi's suggestion is quite legal and is done frequently. If both parties agree, a lease may be cancelled at any time. A renewal for 30 years may then take place as long as you don't come across one of the Land Offices that make up their own laws. Of course you would need to pay the relevant tax again.

[Burgernev]

Thanks for all your replies, very helpful.

Burgernev's idea of a clause would be illegal as it would in fact put a legal responsibility on the lessor to renew in 5 years.

Dragonman, are you saying a clause in the lease would be the illegal part ? If so, what about a seperate contractual agreement (ie: not written in the lease contract) to renew after 5 years, would that be illegal too ?

By the way, why would it be illegal ? Is it because you are not allowed to 'tie down' any extension until after the 30 year period ?

Thanks,

Burgernev

Edited June 4, 2006 by Burgernev

[Dragonman]

Thanks for all your replies, very helpful.

Burgernev's idea of a clause would be illegal as it would in fact put a legal responsibility on the lessor to renew in 5 years.

Dragonman, are you saying a clause in the lease would be the illegal part ? If so, what about a seperate contractual agreement (ie: not written in the lease contract) to renew after 5 years, would that be illegal too ?

By the way, why would it be illegal ? Is it because you are not allowed to 'tie down' any extension until after the 30 year period ?

Thanks,

Burgernev

Either a clause or contractual agreement would be illegal, as you are in effect breaking the maximum 30 years allowed by law, by agreeing to what is in effect 35 years.It is in fact an option which may only commence when the current lease ends.

Regarding your final paragraph. Yes, extensions can only contractually take place to commence when lease ends. If however it ends early by agreement, and is renewed, there is of course no extension. However it would be adviseable to amend the lease slightly, to justify why a new lease was being negotiated.

Please note my advice is given as things for you to raise in discussion with a Thai lawyer currently licenced to practice. I am well and truly retired.

[JimGant]

If both parties agree, a lease may be cancelled at any time. A renewal for 30 years may then take place as long as you don't come across one of the Land Offices that make up their own laws. sad.gif Of course you would need to pay the relevant tax again.

The Land Office doesn't care about set-aside contracts between the lessor and lessee. They deal in 30-year contracts implemented by them, collect the applicable fees, and record the 30-year lease on the chanote. If the lessor and lessee want to make a contract that says they'll march into the Land Office in 5 years, cancel the original lease, then implement a new 30-year lease, so be it -- just as per the above quote. And also per the above quote, the Land Office is happy to collect the relevant tax 25 years early.

The problems arise when the lessor and lessee no longer agree on this set-aside contract to renew in 5 years time. Then, the court would have to decide on the validity of this contract -- an outcome I wouldn't care to bet on. But, again, the Land Office is divorced from this set-aside contract. The don't care if the lessor and lessee come into their office to cancel/renew a 30-year lease because of a personal contract -- or because of a court order.

Either a clause or contractual agreement would be illegal, as you are in effect breaking the maximum 30 years allowed by law, by agreeing to what is in effect 35 years.

Again, the Land Office doesn't even consider this personal contract for early renewal. Should the lessor want to renigre, it would then be up to a judge to determine the legality of this personal contract between lessor and lessee. Then, the Land Office wouldn't even know -- or care -- about the judge's decision -- the lessor and lessee either show-up at the Land Office for a cancellation-with-subsequent-renewal -- or they don't.

I'll probably be dead before my 30-year lease expires. But if my wife turns dangerously ill as this lease progresses, we'll probably cancel/renew this lease just in case my 'nice niece' who'll inherit the property forgets about the second 30-year renewal clause (which, like a 5-year renewal clause, is just a personal contract, not enforceable in the eyes of the Land Office, and which would be subject to some judge's decision).

[Mobi]

Thank you Jim Gant.

Looks like you hit all the relevant points in a"nutshell".

[GuestHouse]

I can't see why you could not do this, but I can't see why you would,

1. When you renew, you'll have to pay a further tax on the full lease value.

2. A renewel date on the lease is very likely a chance to deny the renewel or change the terms, if not then it's hardly a renewel.

[Mobi]

I can't see why you could not do this, but I can't see why you would,

1. When you renew, you'll have to pay a further tax on the full lease value.

2. A renewel date on the lease is very likely a chance to deny the renewel or change the terms, if not then it's hardly a renewel.

I was thinking of a hypothetical situation where you have a marriage between a youngish ( say 40) farang and a Thai. He goes the 30 year lease route, but expects to live longer than 30 years. In my scenario, ten (not 5) years on, he still has a good relationship with the wife, and they agreee to go down to the land office and cancel the old lease and do new 30 year lease. There's a cost invoilved, but he's now 'safe' until he's 80, rather than 70.

Maybe a bit far fetched - but might work in certain circumstances.

[Dragonman]

If both parties agree, a lease may be cancelled at any time. A renewal for 30 years may then take place as long as you don't come across one of the Land Offices that make up their own laws. sad.gif Of course you would need to pay the relevant tax again.

The Land Office doesn't care about set-aside contracts between the lessor and lessee. They deal in 30-year contracts implemented by them, collect the applicable fees, and record the 30-year lease on the chanote. If the lessor and lessee want to make a contract that says they'll march into the Land Office in 5 years, cancel the original lease, then implement a new 30-year lease, so be it -- just as per the above quote. And also per the above quote, the Land Office is happy to collect the relevant tax 25 years early.

The problems arise when the lessor and lessee no longer agree on this set-aside contract to renew in 5 years time. Then, the court would have to decide on the validity of this contract -- an outcome I wouldn't care to bet on. But, again, the Land Office is divorced from this set-aside contract. The don't care if the lessor and lessee come into their office to cancel/renew a 30-year lease because of a personal contract -- or because of a court order.

Either a clause or contractual agreement would be illegal, as you are in effect breaking the maximum 30 years allowed by law, by agreeing to what is in effect 35 years.

Again, the Land Office doesn't even consider this personal contract for early renewal. Should the lessor want to renigre, it would then be up to a judge to determine the legality of this personal contract between lessor and lessee. Then, the Land Office wouldn't even know -- or care -- about the judge's decision -- the lessor and lessee either show-up at the Land Office for a cancellation-with-subsequent-renewal -- or they don't.

I'll probably be dead before my 30-year lease expires. But if my wife turns dangerously ill as this lease progresses, we'll probably cancel/renew this lease just in case my 'nice niece' who'll inherit the property forgets about the second 30-year renewal clause (which, like a 5-year renewal clause, is just a personal contract, not enforceable in the eyes of the Land Office, and which would be subject to some judge's decision).

I agree the Land Office will, or will not, register what they want. This, however, has nothing to do with Contract Law. As you say the Judge will decide only if the contract is ever challenged. But this is the whole point. Who cares about anything if there are never going to be legal disputes. However, if there are, it is best to present the Court with a legal contract.

[JimGant]

It all boils down to: If you're young enough to sweat NOT being able to renew your lease after 30 years, whatya gonna do?

It seems that Land Offices do NOT consider the 30+30 option as codified law pertinent to real estate. (At least in my case, they wouldn't write such an option into the basic 30-year lease endorsed on my chanote.) But there is nothing to prevent the lessor and lessee from having a separate contract from that endorsed on the chanote, namely, at the end of 30 years (or some shorter period, if desired) the lessor agrees to renew the lease. Such a contract, if constructed properly (i.e., get a GOOD lawyer), would seem to protect the lessee should the lessor try to back-out. But what if, before renewal time, the lessor either dies or sells the property? Hmmmm. Would such a contract stand up in court? Dunno -- hasn't been a test case, as far as I know. But many have said that, if the original lessor is not there at renewal time, there is nothing about the original contract that requires the new lessor to renew.

What can you do? I guess you could write into the contract that, should the lessor sell the land, he's required to renew the lease before the sale is final. Sounds reasonable enough to stand up in court (but who knows). And it would at least give you another 30 years, as the new lessor is required by law to honor the in-place 30-year lease recorded in the Land Office. (And, of course, at this juncture you would try to write a new renewal contract with the new lessor.)

But what if the original lessor dies? Probably tough cookies, as there is nothing in contract law, as I understand it, that could demand that the inheritor of the land be required to renew expiring leases. (So, if your landlord is sickly, hustle him down to the Land Office for a quick cancel/renewal session.)

Anyway, the above applies mainly to situations where the Thai wife is NOT the lessor. I don't have any renewal contract with the wife (but, I suppose, if the marriage was shaky, it could be useful), mainly 'cause I'll be dead by renewal time. But her will has been rewickered to include: I'll inherit the land, should Thai law at the time so allow; I've the option to sell the land; and, should I not sell, I get to pick which of her relatives will take title. And, I guess, we could have included her desires about wanting the relative to renew the lease, blah blah blah, but, as in contracts, don't believe this would be legally binding.

[Dragonman]

It all boils down to: If you're young enough to sweat NOT being able to renew your lease after 30 years, whatya gonna do?

It seems that Land Offices do NOT consider the 30+30 option as codified law pertinent to real estate. (At least in my case, they wouldn't write such an option into the basic 30-year lease endorsed on my chanote.) But there is nothing to prevent the lessor and lessee from having a separate contract from that endorsed on the chanote, namely, at the end of 30 years (or some shorter period, if desired) the lessor agrees to renew the lease. Such a contract, if constructed properly (i.e., get a GOOD lawyer), would seem to protect the lessee should the lessor try to back-out. But what if, before renewal time, the lessor either dies or sells the property? Hmmmm. Would such a contract stand up in court? Dunno -- hasn't been a test case, as far as I know. But many have said that, if the original lessor is not there at renewal time, there is nothing about the original contract that requires the new lessor to renew.

What can you do? I guess you could write into the contract that, should the lessor sell the land, he's required to renew the lease before the sale is final. Sounds reasonable enough to stand up in court (but who knows). And it would at least give you another 30 years, as the new lessor is required by law to honor the in-place 30-year lease recorded in the Land Office. (And, of course, at this juncture you would try to write a new renewal contract with the new lessor.)

But what if the original lessor dies? Probably tough cookies, as there is nothing in contract law, as I understand it, that could demand that the inheritor of the land be required to renew expiring leases. (So, if your landlord is sickly, hustle him down to the Land Office for a quick cancel/renewal session.)

Anyway, the above applies mainly to situations where the Thai wife is NOT the lessor. I don't have any renewal contract with the wife (but, I suppose, if the marriage was shaky, it could be useful), mainly 'cause I'll be dead by renewal time. But her will has been rewickered to include: I'll inherit the land, should Thai law at the time so allow; I've the option to sell the land; and, should I not sell, I get to pick which of her relatives will take title. And, I guess, we could have included her desires about wanting the relative to renew the lease, blah blah blah, but, as in contracts, don't believe this would be legally binding.

Thai Law, although codified since the 1930's, still retains basic elements of common law which was used as per the British system prior to then. So people reading the Civil Code often wonder why the Judge's decision is strange. It is clear in most countries, including Thailand that any "option" is personal. Any contract attached to the chanote which effectively guarantees more than 30 years would be "void" and not enforceable.

People try in many ways to get around this 30 years, but it is there, and people should live with it, or rent. Everyone should realise that any lawyer fighting a case against a foreigner will immediately bring up that he is trying to circumvent Land Laws by these options or clauses. I personally cannot think of a defence.

[Tufty]

Is it possible for the land to be owned in joint names ie wife and trusted Thai friend, and then be possible to renew the lease if only one of them agrees, then after the lease has expired the wife has the right to purchase the land for a previously agreed amount.

Alternativly is it possible to for me to lend the wife the money with 50% of the loan to be paid back over the 30 period and the remainder to be paid on expiry of the lease or another 30 years be added

[JimGant]

Alternativly is it possible to for me to lend the wife the money with 50% of the loan to be paid back over the 30 period and the remainder to be paid on expiry of the lease or another 30 years be added

Strictly speaking, no, since you're supposed to attest at the Land Office that it's her money purchasing the land, not yours. So, a loan would not be kosher. And if you gift the money to her, with the understanding that she's to gift it back to you at a later date, it better be true love, 'cause no judge will come to your rescue, particulary since she'll have confirmation from the Land Office that it was her money used for the land.

As far as joint ownership of land in Thailand, I would think so, but don't know for sure. But what you're suggesting sounds a little spooky to me, and could result in a lot of head scratching by a judge........if it ever came to that.

[rockytimeshere]

Excellent info Jim, Dragon, Mobi and co, thanks.

When you enter into a 30 year lease and you are buying the house that sits on the land, what sort of contract/agreement is required regarding the house you are purchasing ?

Is is part of the lease contract or just a simple seperate contract ?

Cheers,

[JimGant]

People try in many ways to get around this 30 years, but it is there, and people should live with it, or rent. Everyone should realise that any lawyer fighting a case against a foreigner will immediately bring up that he is trying to circumvent Land Laws by these options or clauses. I personally cannot think of a defence.

I wonder how 30-yearsbecame the norm for leasing land in Thailand? (In the US, leaseholds are for 99 years.) I can't really believe the intent was to eliminate homesteading, and have the farang's white butt move on after a decent 30 year interval. No, it's probably just happenstance, or if thought out at all, it might be to give the landowner the chance to get out of a leasehold within his lifetime. If the latter applies, then a judge could possibly rule in favor of a lessor who's changed his mind since signing a contract about renewal. Or he could just as easily rule -- in the absence of any anti-homesteading intent -- that contracts that don't violate the law should be honored.

Anyway, before any of this gets tested in the courts, the law will again change -- and I bet in favor of the foreigner. In the meantime, building your dream home in Thailand has a definite TIT angle to it.

[Dragonman]

People try in many ways to get around this 30 years, but it is there, and people should live with it, or rent. Everyone should realise that any lawyer fighting a case against a foreigner will immediately bring up that he is trying to circumvent Land Laws by these options or clauses. I personally cannot think of a defence.

I wonder how 30-yearsbecame the norm for leasing land in Thailand? (In the US, leaseholds are for 99 years.) I can't really believe the intent was to eliminate homesteading, and have the farang's white butt move on after a decent 30 year interval. No, it's probably just happenstance, or if thought out at all, it might be to give the landowner the chance to get out of a leasehold within his lifetime. If the latter applies, then a judge could possibly rule in favor of a lessor who's changed his mind since signing a contract about renewal. Or he could just as easily rule -- in the absence of any anti-homesteading intent -- that contracts that don't violate the law should be honored.

Anyway, before any of this gets tested in the courts, the law will again change -- and I bet in favor of the foreigner. In the meantime, building your dream home in Thailand has a definite TIT angle to it.

Jim, the 30 years was, as you say, to protect the land owner not the lessee. The Ministry of Interior did in fact request residential and commercial leases be increased to 50 years. However the Senate decided that only businesses should have more protection. The Ministry has previously suggested 1 rai maximum ownership for foreigners (rejected by Senate), and has since looked at 99 year lease possibility with the land to be kept in Trust by Land Department. ( not sufficient sympathy yet from Senate).

Judges have thus far inevitably ruled for the lessor as having the ultimate right when the lease ends whatever the contract.

I agree the law will change before 30 years. Likely to be the 99 year lease.

Tufty. I am afraid both parties signatures are required for all sales and leases. As Jim said the loan is not really an option if you are married or living together as husband and wife.

rocky. If your lease gives you permission to build you are covered in Law. You then only need to furnish receipts to show that you paid for the building to record at Land Office. It may be possible to prove the funds for building are not "communal property" if you acquire with funds from your home country, obtain a Foreign Exchange Transaction Certificate, and can show you had such funds in your account prior to marriage.

[rockytimeshere]

rocky. If your lease gives you permission to build you are covered in Law. You then only need to furnish receipts to show that you paid for the building to record at Land Office. It may be possible to prove the funds for building are not "communal property" if you acquire with funds from your home country, obtain a Foreign Exchange Transaction Certificate, and can show you had such funds in your account prior to marriage.

Dragonman,

Mine is more a case of buying an already built house on the said land. Was just wondering if I needed some kind of special contract for the house purchase, or just a simple agreement on top of the 30 year land lease ?

Cheers,

[Dragonman]

rocky. If your lease gives you permission to build you are covered in Law. You then only need to furnish receipts to show that you paid for the building to record at Land Office. It may be possible to prove the funds for building are not "communal property" if you acquire with funds from your home country, obtain a Foreign Exchange Transaction Certificate, and can show you had such funds in your account prior to marriage.

Dragonman,

Mine is more a case of buying an already built house on the said land. Was just wondering if I needed some kind of special contract for the house purchase, or just a simple agreement on top of the 30 year land lease ?

Cheers,

Slightly more difficult as you will need to prove to Land Office that you paid for the house, and that the landowner did not. Separate contracts at time of purchase required normally, as if it's not perfectly clear the Law will side with the landowner, who owns everything unless it can be proven otherwise. Best to ask the Land Office in your area as they will all say something different.

[JimGant]

Nifty info, Dragonman.

Some sort of trust arrangement would certainly seem superior to what we now have. In my case, having the niece (or even the Land Office) as trustee, rather than outright owner, seems a better arrangement, should the wife die before me.

Now, would fiduciary responsiblity of the trustee translate into Thai?

[Dragonman]

Nifty info, Dragonman.

Some sort of trust arrangement would certainly seem superior to what we now have. In my case, having the niece (or even the Land Office) as trustee, rather than outright owner, seems a better arrangement, should the wife die before me.

Now, would fiduciary responsiblity of the trustee translate into Thai?

Now this is where my doubts about the Land Department come into play. I would much prefer to see a separate Department set up. The Land Department is far too autonymous, proven by the fact that their bosses, the Ministry of Interior, have to memo them to do their job (as in Company Land Ownership).

The basic elements of Fiduciary Responsibility in real estate are;

Utmost Care

Integrity

Honesty & Duty of Full Disclosure

Loyalty

Duty of Good Faith

Well I'll say no more.

[racefan]

The point people do not seem to know about leases in Thailand is that when you die, the lease dies with you and any question of leaving the remainder of your lease to your nearest and dearest is therefore irrelevant.

This has been confirmed to me by my Thai lawyer.

[Old Man River]

My attorney has opined that an alien can own both a house and land in Thailand given a certain set of circumstances. I realize many wish to protect themselves should their marriages fall apart and opt for the 30 year lease route. My set of circumstances are such that we are comfortable (at least up to today) with our marriage and I don't see this as a risk going forward. Based on this, I have received the following advice and would like to know if anyone disagrees with any of it (Dragonman?):

Circumstances: I am an alien (permanent resident) married to a Thai national. We have one child who is also a Thai national. Our marriage is legal in Thailand (i.e. has been registered in Thailand). Although both the land and house have been acquired while we have been married, they are in my wife's name, with the land having been purchased by my wife using her money (and is so registered at the land department). We both have wills, leaving our assets to each other (and then to our child). As the complete and separate owner of the property, my wife can include the land in her will. According to Section 93 of the Land Code, an alien can inherit land to the extent that the total land does not exceed that set forth in Section 87 (i.e. not more than one rai for residential purposes).

Therefore, should I survive my wife, I can legally inherit both the house and land pursuant to our wills. I am told I would have the legal right to live in the house on the land for as long as I survive. I would not have to dispose of the land after one year.

Again, as stated above, this option only has value if you are certain that your marriage will remain in place and are willing to take that risk.

Dragonman, apart from my stupidity for taking this risk, any comments?

[Dragonman]

The point people do not seem to know about leases in Thailand is that when you die, the lease dies with you and any question of leaving the remainder of your lease to your nearest and dearest is therefore irrelevant.

This has been confirmed to me by my Thai lawyer.

Not correct! It is my belief that by implication the Commercial Leasehold Amendment Law allows inheritance of leases, hence changing the nature, and even if any lawyer disagrees, all that is needed is a clause within the lease. You will inevitably see all draft leases including a clause on inheritance. Unless the lawyer is having a mental aberration.

OMR. Sounds like a reasonable set up. However having looked through every law and legal report I have, I can find nothing to say that the foreigner may remain . In fact even staying until the property is sold or transferred is at the will of the Minister of Interior. The basic facts are that you may stay as long as you wish until the Land Office takes the land for auction or a relative of your wife asks for an eviction notice. No Judge will go against Land Laws and allow more than a temporary stay, unless you have a lease.

How has the person giving the advice, re. staying in the property, explained the position regarding you being unable to have your name on the chanote. It remains in the name of the deceased for x years? This would allow a challenge by family members!

My advice would be transfer to the child immediately on death, and include a clause in the will to state that "if my husband is unable by law to take possession of the property , the property will be transfered to my child". Will save any disputes with the Land Office.

[Old Man River]

The point people do not seem to know about leases in Thailand is that when you die, the lease dies with you and any question of leaving the remainder of your lease to your nearest and dearest is therefore irrelevant.

This has been confirmed to me by my Thai lawyer.

Not correct! It is my belief that by implication the Commercial Leasehold Amendment Law allows inheritance of leases, hence changing the nature, and even if any lawyer disagrees, all that is needed is a clause within the lease. You will inevitably see all draft leases including a clause on inheritance. Unless the lawyer is having a mental aberration.

OMR. Sounds like a reasonable set up. However having looked through every law and legal report I have, I can find nothing to say that the foreigner may remain . In fact even staying until the property is sold or transferred is at the will of the Minister of Interior. The basic facts are that you may stay as long as you wish until the Land Office takes the land for auction or a relative of your wife asks for an eviction notice. No Judge will go against Land Laws and allow more than a temporary stay, unless you have a lease.

How has the person giving the advice, re. staying in the property, explained the position regarding you being unable to have your name on the chanote. It remains in the name of the deceased for x years? This would allow a challenge by family members!

My advice would be transfer to the child immediately on death, and include a clause in the will to state that "if my husband is unable by law to take possession of the property , the property will be transfered to my child". Will save any disputes with the Land Office.

As usual, good advice Dragonman.

Best regards.