Wife Buys House In Her Name - Pays Me Back As The Lender

[thaigene2]

I'd be grateful for your views on the following:

1. I lend my wife money.

2. My wife buys an existing house (on land) - a single family dwelling with the money loaned to her.

3. The land is transferred to her at the Land Office and I sign the declaration that she is the sole owner of the house and that I have no claim to it. A simultaneous 30 year lease agreement is drawn up for me to own the house/building and lease/control use of the land - with the usual clauses that she can't sell, etc.

4. A lien is then placed against the title of the property for the loan that I gave to her (foredated after purchase date if required)

5. During the next ten years (or whatever) the money that we would have used to pay rent is sent to my bank account abroad (in my name only) essentially to repay the loan.

6. The loan is eventually repaid (to myself by me of course - no illusions there). The point is my wife is still the owner of the property (which will eventually go to our kids anyway), but if the marriage breaks down I'm not totally out of pocket - since she can't sell until the loan is repaid (outstanding lien).

Anyone see any big problems with this?

[Jimbo551]

3. Application for ownership in land by a Thai national who has an alien spouse or ex- spouse or by a Thai national who is a minor child of an alien

3.1 In the case where a Thai national who has an alien legitimate spouse applies for permission to purchase land or accept a transfer of land in a similar case during marriage or cohabitation as husband and wife with an alien, as the case may be, if after the inquiry the applicant and the alien spouse have given a joint written confirmation that the money which that Thai national will expend on the purchase of the land is wholly the separate property of that Thai national and not the community property or the jointly acquired property, the competent official will proceed with the registration of rights and juristic act.

This is where your idea falls down in my opinion.

Remember, land and buildings can be owned separately. Register the land in her name being aware of the above requirement, take a lease of the land to your self, registered at the Land Office and register the ownership of the structure in your name. All perfectly legal. Whether this totally solves your problem of the marriage breaking up I doubt as I suspect you are on a loser there whatever happens.

The loan scenario you propose, in my opinion, means either you both made a false declaration re the source/ownership of funds, or the registration in your wifes name could be held invalid.

[pnustedt]

if the marriage breaks down I'm not totally out of pocket

I think you have a misconception here. If your marriage breaks down you will be totally out of pocket. Same as anywhere.

I suggest that if you have a fear of your marriage breaking down that you do not invest any (or any more) money in Thailand. However, if you feel secure in your marriage then buy in her name and leave it at that.

Investing more money in Thailand than you are prepared to lose can be a problem!

[thaigene2]

the money which that Thai national will expend on the purchase of the land is wholly the separate property of that Thai national and not the community property or the jointly acquired property,

It is the 'wholly separate property' isn't it? If she had a good job (which she doesn't), and went to a bank to get a mortgage to buy the property it would be no different would it? The only issue here is that the lender is a foreigner and not a Thai bank. She'd get the loan from Bangkok Bank or wherever, we'd go to the land office and sign the affadavit. The loaned money is her 'wholly separate property' - but it has to be re-paid since it's a loan. Doesn't change the ownership issue as far as I can tell. The house is still hers. Just means she can't sell it til the Lien is removed.

My point about a loan and a lien is that it is better than just a 'lease' agreement. As you both point out, if the marriage fails the lease agreement means little or nothing. You're not going to want to continue living there..

[Jimbo551]

the money which that Thai national will expend on the purchase of the land is wholly the separate property of that Thai national and not the community property or the jointly acquired property,

It is the 'wholly separate property' isn't it? If she had a good job (which she doesn't), and went to a bank to get a mortgage to buy the property it would be no different would it? The only issue here is that the lender is a foreigner and not a Thai bank. She'd get the loan from Bangkok Bank or wherever, we'd go to the land office and sign the affadavit. The loaned money is her 'wholly separate property' - but it has to be re-paid since it's a loan. Doesn't change the ownership issue as far as I can tell. The house is still hers. Just means she can't sell it til the Lien is removed.

My point about a loan and a lien is that it is better than just a 'lease' agreement. As you both point out, if the marriage fails the lease agreement means little or nothing. You're not going to want to continue living there..

The reality is that you are man and wife.

I do not think there is sufficient separation in the transaction that would be seen as acceptable if this went to court. If I were the Judge I would ask

"Where did the funds come from to make the original purchase?"

If they were from you and you signed the declaration as required either you made a false declaration or you gave up those funds without recourse to your wife.

"For what purpose did your wife then take a loan from you and why and if she is your wife why does she need to take a loan from you?"

If as you say you are going to pay your self back through "re payments to an offshore loan" would it not be as easy to obtain the Foreign Exchange Transfer Certificiate for the incoming funds and then simply transfer the funds back out again over a period of time against that certificate?

[thaigene2]

If I were the Judge I would ask

"Where did the funds come from to make the original purchase?"

If they were from you and you signed the declaration as required either you made a false declaration or you gave up those funds without recourse to your wife.

Okay - so if you apply this logic across the board it means that nearly everyone's wife has lied on the affadavit since it's a joint declaration. Because, guess what? Almost all these Thai wives are getting the money from their foreign husband right?? So then you/we/all of us are lying when sign that paper. She got the money from a foreigner - pure and simple. The circumstaces will almost always be that 'she got the money from somewhere else'. And so once again I ask, what if she is married to a foreigner and got a loan from the bank to buy the house? It's the fact she's married to a foreigner that is the sticking point, correct?

If as you say you are going to pay your self back through "re payments to an offshore loan" would it not be as easy to obtain the Foreign Exchange Transfer Certificiate for the incoming funds and then simply transfer the funds back out again over a period of time against that certificate?

I don't know - there may be no difference, except that yoyu can transfer smaller amounts of the country without the FEC hassle.

[pnustedt]

Almost all these Thai wives are getting the money from their foreign husband right?? So then you/we/all of us are lying when sign that paper. She got the money from a foreigner - pure and simple.

My understanding is not that it is not that "pure and simple". I signed that I have no claim or future claim over the money or property when my wife bought property, not that she didn't get the money from me.

[Jimbo551]

If I were the Judge I would ask

"Where did the funds come from to make the original purchase?"

If they were from you and you signed the declaration as required either you made a false declaration or you gave up those funds without recourse to your wife.

Okay - so if you apply this logic across the board it means that nearly everyone's wife has lied on the affadavit since it's a joint declaration. Because, guess what? Almost all these Thai wives are getting the money from their foreign husband right?? So then you/we/all of us are lying when sign that paper. She got the money from a foreigner - pure and simple. The circumstaces will almost always be that 'she got the money from somewhere else'. And so once again I ask, what if she is married to a foreigner and got a loan from the bank to buy the house? It's the fact she's married to a foreigner that is the sticking point, correct?

If as you say you are going to pay your self back through "re payments to an offshore loan" would it not be as easy to obtain the Foreign Exchange Transfer Certificiate for the incoming funds and then simply transfer the funds back out again over a period of time against that certificate?

I don't know - there may be no difference, except that yoyu can transfer smaller amounts of the country without the FEC hassle.

If you have given the funds to your wife with no claim on them in the future then the declaration would be correct and as far as I can see that is the point of the requirement. The declaration as I understand does not ask for the source of the funds, but for the "ownership" of the funds.

If I understand correctly what you are trying to do is to establish, after registration, an offshore loan secured against the property in your favour. For the loan to be valid, the funds will need to come in from overseas and you will be entitled to the FETC. You would also presumably have in place a loan agreement (inThai and English) stating the terms of the loan. Together they would allow you to make interest and capital repayments overseas.

I am not saying this will not work and I am playing Devils Advocate with the best of intention so please bare with me.

It will probably work ok unless you fall out with the wife and end up with a divorce. Then I see the whole thing collapsing as inevitably the Court will take the Thai side. Would you intend specifying what the loan was for in the agreement? If it specified something specific other than property purchase you may prevail. Just my humble opinion if it helps.

[Charma]

As I understand it, signing the agreement is merely to confirm that you have on claim on the money or land. I do not think there is any problem with a husband giving the money as a gift, as long as he then makes the declaration that it all then belongs to the wife and he has no further claim on it. I then think that any subsequent loan agreement or lien would be invalid, because you have just signed a legal document stating that the money was hers at that point anyway.

What if the wife borrowed the money from someone else - a friend or relative of yours perhaps? That would be a more interesting question.

[number6]

im sorry folks i just cant understand why so many are so hel_l bent on trying to make sure they keep the house if marriage goes wrong - i understand marriages in time can go wrong or sour - my first one did after 30 years and my first wife got the house and loads more - but then i did not and dont begrudge her that for putting up with me for 30 years and apart from that just because our love died it did not mean i dont sitll care that shes ok financially. My second thai wife ive been with for 5 years and i reckon the same - weve bought 2 houses (in her name of ocurce) 2 condos in my name some sotcks jointly etc. If i go shes entitled to the lot if we fall out id still want her looked after.

WHY WHY are you all so paranoid or is it the only tihng you have in word

On a funny end note a few years before i split with my old wife i transferred some property into her name for tax reasons - my lawer said are you sure what if you divorce in future - i jokingly said if we divorce i dont need the money anyway - a few years later we divorsed and i could do with money since im now with my wonderful (juk) thia wife and our lovely child and probably could do with it but we manage

[birdbirdbat]

"register the ownership of the structure in your name"

has anybody ever done this? would love to hear from somebody who has. thanks

[astral]

Here are some sums for you to mull over.

7 years ago we bought a house for 1 million baht, I used the company route.

We extended the house spending another million.

If we had continued to rent our old house at 20K per month over the 7 years is would have cost us 1.68Million. Another year and we break even.

For various reasons my wife and I do not live togther any longer,

but under my will the house will go to our two children.

My wife will also get an allowance for her life.

Everyone is happy.

As I have often said you should never invest more money in Thailand than you are prepared to walk away from.

You never know what may happen............

[pnustedt]

For various reasons my wife and I do not live togther any longer,

but under my will the house will go to our two children.

How can you bequeath something in your will that you do not own? From your description I understand that the house is owned by a company in which you are a shareholder.

[astral]

For various reasons my wife and I do not live togther any longer,

but under my will the house will go to our two children.

How can you bequeath something in your will that you do not own? From your description I understand that the house is owned by a company in which you are a shareholder.

Two ways.

1. Pass my controlling interest in the company to the beneficary.

2. Make sure my executor will wind up the company and transfer the house to the beneficiary.

The latter is probably best, as they will receive the house clear of all expenses and taxes.

If they receive the shares they will still have to keep the company running with the related

yearly expenses.

[Dragonman]

As I understand it, signing the agreement is merely to confirm that you have on claim on the money or land. I do not think there is any problem with a husband giving the money as a gift, as long as he then makes the declaration that it all then belongs to the wife and he has no further claim on it. I then think that any subsequent loan agreement or lien would be invalid, because you have just signed a legal document stating that the money was hers at that point anyway.

What if the wife borrowed the money from someone else - a friend or relative of yours perhaps? That would be a more interesting question.

This is just about correct. Whilst there is nothing to prevent a contract between husband and wife, in this case it would be just about worthless if brought before Court! I would prefer to be the wife's lawyer than the farang's, because it would appear to be the simplest thing to convince a Judge you were going out of your way to break the Land Code and you may not only lose your house, but also have some confinement in "the big house". You must also remember that anything your wife borrows, is also your debt!

[Dragonman]

"register the ownership of the structure in your name"

has anybody ever done this? would love to hear from somebody who has. thanks

No problem, depending on your situation. House already built? House to be built? Do you have a lease on the land? It is possible to have a house registration certificate (yellow book). Confirmed by Supreme Court Decision No. 301/2538 (1995). Visit your friendly local Land Office.

[Charma]

For those nervous about the expiry of a 30 year lease, I think this "registering and ownership of the structure" would also offer a degree of back-up.

Let's say you divorced the wife at some point and then kept possession of the land until the end of the 30 year lease.

At this point, she may now refuse any further lease and demand the land rights back. However, you own the building that is on it. You would be entitled to flatten the house and remove the rubble from the land. It is now a matter of negotiation. If your wife is smart, she will find a compromise with you. Not ideal, but some leverage certainly.

The side issue is, by this point you may be getting on in years and not up to such robust tactics!

[Dragonman]

For those nervous about the expiry of a 30 year lease, I think this "registering and ownership of the structure" would also offer a degree of back-up.

Let's say you divorced the wife at some point and then kept possession of the land until the end of the 30 year lease.

At this point, she may now refuse any further lease and demand the land rights back. However, you own the building that is on it. You would be entitled to flatten the house and remove the rubble from the land. It is now a matter of negotiation. If your wife is smart, she will find a compromise with you. Not ideal, but some leverage certainly.

The side issue is, by this point you may be getting on in years and not up to such robust tactics!

In fact Thai Law enables the structure owner to claim compensation on eviction as to the value of the actual building. This follows on from Roman and French Law regarding "superficies".

[Charma]

For those nervous about the expiry of a 30 year lease, I think this "registering and ownership of the structure" would also offer a degree of back-up.

Let's say you divorced the wife at some point and then kept possession of the land until the end of the 30 year lease.

At this point, she may now refuse any further lease and demand the land rights back. However, you own the building that is on it. You would be entitled to flatten the house and remove the rubble from the land. It is now a matter of negotiation. If your wife is smart, she will find a compromise with you. Not ideal, but some leverage certainly.

The side issue is, by this point you may be getting on in years and not up to such robust tactics!

In fact Thai Law enables the structure owner to claim compensation on eviction as to the value of the actual building. This follows on from Roman and French Law regarding "superficies".

I was thinking more along the lines of a negotiation that would result in being able to stay in your house. Regarding the compensation though, what would happen if the land owner (wife) could not afford it and the banks won't lend her it? In the case of some of the big villas, you could be talking several times what the land is worth.

[Dragonman]

For those nervous about the expiry of a 30 year lease, I think this "registering and ownership of the structure" would also offer a degree of back-up.

Let's say you divorced the wife at some point and then kept possession of the land until the end of the 30 year lease.

At this point, she may now refuse any further lease and demand the land rights back. However, you own the building that is on it. You would be entitled to flatten the house and remove the rubble from the land. It is now a matter of negotiation. If your wife is smart, she will find a compromise with you. Not ideal, but some leverage certainly.

The side issue is, by this point you may be getting on in years and not up to such robust tactics!

In fact Thai Law enables the structure owner to claim compensation on eviction as to the value of the actual building. This follows on from Roman and French Law regarding "superficies".

I was thinking more along the lines of a negotiation that would result in being able to stay in your house. Regarding the compensation though, what would happen if the land owner (wife) could not afford it and the banks won't lend her it? In the case of some of the big villas, you could be talking several times what the land is worth.

You could apply for a Court Order insisting that the house and land are sold and proceeds to be shared as applicable. Strictly speaking however you are not in a good financial situation, as the building value will likely be asessed at less than you expect, and half the value will probably be classed as "communal property".

[Charma]

In this case, I presume that the value of the land and house would be treated separately and therefore the farang would only be entitled to a half share of the "House" portion of proceeds from the sale.

In this case, it may be better to negotiate a deal for a new 30 year lease using both possible alternatives as leverage. It would still cost you, but probably better than losing the lot.

[thaigene2]

To Number6

(and some others)

Yes, as a matter of fact, buying a house and then losing it - probably would break most of us..that's why we're spending so much time trying to figure this out. Maybe we are not as lucky as you Number6. If I had 2 condos, 2 houses, stocks, gold, a cattleranch, four mercedes like you (or whatever what it was) I wouldn't care either.. She could have the whole lot, and some of the cows too - in her name.

My question was if we buy a house and I sign the declaration to no further claim, could we (she) then AFTERWARDS take out a loan against the property (for 50% of the value - my half), give me the money (which I send back overseas) and then we pay it off as fast as we can? That way I get at least half of the value back in cash as a guarantee and of course in any event the house and land will always belong to her.

The reason for doing this is that the bank would apply a lien against the property until it is paid off. SO even if the marriage breaks down, she can't kick me out and sell the house I paid for because there is a lien against it - and since I'm the one paying the loan (which is in her name) she needs me to continue to do so in order that she may one day liquidate if that's what she really wants to do.

[rishi]

Reading through this thread (which isn't much other than a new version of a lot of similiar threads along the same lines) it is obvious to me that if one invests his lifesavings in a house in Thailand - the only solution to sleep well at night is a mental one: buy the house and STOP WORRYING for Gods sake! There isn't any security of any kind that can prevent you from loosing everything. Regardless of what security one might find in the laws and practices of today, those laws and practices might change in one's disfavour next year --- and if they don't change next year, they might change the year after.

Put in other words: there isn't any external solution to piece of mind for foreign real estate owners in Thailand ... So the question is: Can you mentally handle the insequirity?

[think_too_mut]

I'd be grateful for your views on the following:

1. I lend my wife money.

2. My wife buys an existing house (on land) - a single family dwelling with the money loaned to her.

3. The land is transferred to her at the Land Office and I sign the declaration that she is the sole owner of the house and that I have no claim to it. A simultaneous 30 year lease agreement is drawn up for me to own the house/building and lease/control use of the land - with the usual clauses that she can't sell, etc.

4. A lien is then placed against the title of the property for the loan that I gave to her (foredated after purchase date if required)

5. During the next ten years (or whatever) the money that we would have used to pay rent is sent to my bank account abroad (in my name only) essentially to repay the loan.

6. The loan is eventually repaid (to myself by me of course - no illusions there). The point is my wife is still the owner of the property (which will eventually go to our kids anyway), but if the marriage breaks down I'm not totally out of pocket - since she can't sell until the loan is repaid (outstanding lien).

Anyone see any big problems with this?

I might say there might be an issue with your approach.

My wife built a house for her mother and father, both in their 70s. It was 15K US$ and I paid for it.

No documents or contract have ever been mentioned. Intentionally.

Me, working in Japan, the wife used her school break in October 2003 to arrange, oversee, pay, yell at labourers and get everything done.

I spent more money than that foolishly, would never backtrack her oldies if our relationship goes bad. It's theirs, done thing.

If it comes to a loss, lose what you can afford.

The better part is - it's not lost. Although I don't like staying there more than a day or two, there is a room for us that nobody enters. Always locked, they keep what little valuables they have locked up in the wardrobes in that room.

Our child enjoys the continuation of comfort from our BKK apartment - a western bathroom, aircon..and loves going there and play with children.