Legal Question About Land Purchase and the Courts

[stevenl]

Firstly.. HG asked for a single case where land (by extension property) deals ended in murder.. These seem all too common..

Secondly it depends on structure.. If the OP is as stated it seem the land deal is done (Big thai developer buys land from Western owner) implied it is already 'bought' ie transferred.

In which case it is now simply the debt / payment of the 85% shortfall..

If thats the case, I would be sleeping in a different bed each night !!

EDIT :: If it isnt already transferred.. The seller is holds the cards, its up to the buyer to fight for their contractual rights and thats tough.. hence why I was asking the specifics of whose name the land is now is what liens have been registered on the land document, who is in possession of the papers etc..

Yes, agree with you, there are quite a few examples. And yes, knowing who is on the land deeds at the moment would be important information.

But even if the it is now a simple debt case, that still would not change the fact that killing the seller would not solve the issue, so still a major difference with the other cases mentioned, so for the moment I don't see a threat to the seller's life.

[NamKangMan]

@ hansgruber

"It would probably buy him more time so is that extra time worth the murder? I doubt it." - isn't that what the buyer wants, more time?

For a few thousand baht, he can buy more time by having the foreign owner "suicided" and, it's cheaper than going to Court.

I am sure they would be considering it as an option, or, his house gets raided and they find drugs, another option.

[NamKangMan]

This sounds like one of those deals where someone usually ends up dead, on Phuket.

Link me one source of a land sale ending in murder.

Your imagination is running wild again.

Francis Degioanni murdered by Diana Goh Li Fun over a land deal / development deal.. Patong in what 09 ??

In fact was our own moderator case not partly involving land ownership ?

The guy shot in the neck in hua hin.. Both he and the developer was known to my hua hin mates.

These are not rare incidents..

The difference is that in those cases the killer profited from the killings, whereas here killing the seller would not help the buyer at all, the issues would remain.

If the seller is going to keep the deposit, because the buyer couldn't secure the finance, they would probaby want to kill the seller, purely out of revenge.

[LivinLOS]

Firstly.. HG asked for a single case where land (by extension property) deals ended in murder.. These seem all too common..

Secondly it depends on structure.. If the OP is as stated it seem the land deal is done (Big thai developer buys land from Western owner) implied it is already 'bought' ie transferred.

In which case it is now simply the debt / payment of the 85% shortfall..

If thats the case, I would be sleeping in a different bed each night !!

EDIT :: If it isnt already transferred.. The seller is holds the cards, its up to the buyer to fight for their contractual rights and thats tough.. hence why I was asking the specifics of whose name the land is now is what liens have been registered on the land document, who is in possession of the papers etc..

Yes, agree with you, there are quite a few examples. And yes, knowing who is on the land deeds at the moment would be important information.

But even if the it is now a simple debt case, that still would not change the fact that killing the seller would not solve the issue, so still a major difference with the other cases mentioned, so for the moment I don't see a threat to the seller's life.

Dont really agree..

If the land has been sold to the developer already, and the developer now merely owes money to the westerner.. Killing the westerner does provide many advantages.

Does the westerner has an hier ?? Does the hier have the funds or ability to chase the Thai ?? Does the hier have the documentation etc ??

If the westerner still has the land in his (company) name.. I would say he holds the cards, and the deposit and the developer has forfeited, they are the ones to sweat it and fight.. If the developer now has the land, its a very tough job to claim in a timely manner.. I hope the 'debt' is at least listed on the chanote.

[KarenBravo]

Seems to me it depends on one of two scenarios.

1. Deposit paid, but, land-paper has not been turned over.

I think you would be within your writes to officially offer their deposit back, then sell the land. Let them try to sue.

2. Deposit paid, land-paper now in the buyers name.

You're stuffed.....

[LivinginKata]

<snip>

Francis Degioanni murdered by Diana Goh Li Fun over a land deal / development deal.. Patong in what 09 ??

As I understood it that was a straight loan issue. Diana loaned Francis some money to develop his condo project, and he refused to pay it back or even acknowledge the loan existed.

[stevenl]

Firstly.. HG asked for a single case where land (by extension property) deals ended in murder.. These seem all too common..

Secondly it depends on structure.. If the OP is as stated it seem the land deal is done (Big thai developer buys land from Western owner) implied it is already 'bought' ie transferred.

In which case it is now simply the debt / payment of the 85% shortfall..

If thats the case, I would be sleeping in a different bed each night !!

EDIT :: If it isnt already transferred.. The seller is holds the cards, its up to the buyer to fight for their contractual rights and thats tough.. hence why I was asking the specifics of whose name the land is now is what liens have been registered on the land document, who is in possession of the papers etc..

Yes, agree with you, there are quite a few examples. And yes, knowing who is on the land deeds at the moment would be important information.

But even if the it is now a simple debt case, that still would not change the fact that killing the seller would not solve the issue, so still a major difference with the other cases mentioned, so for the moment I don't see a threat to the seller's life.

Dont really agree..

If the land has been sold to the developer already, and the developer now merely owes money to the westerner.. Killing the westerner does provide many advantages.

Does the westerner has an hier ?? Does the hier have the funds or ability to chase the Thai ?? Does the hier have the documentation etc ??

If the westerner still has the land in his (company) name.. I would say he holds the cards, and the deposit and the developer has forfeited, they are the ones to sweat it and fight.. If the developer now has the land, its a very tough job to claim in a timely manner.. I hope the 'debt' is at least listed on the chanote.

He can not owe money to the westerner, there has to be a company involved.

"Dont really agree.." Of course not, you never have and never will, just not in your nature. But good to see you're still missing all our company here

Edited January 29, 2015 by stevenl

[LivinLOS]

Dont really agree..

If the land has been sold to the developer already, and the developer now merely owes money to the westerner.. Killing the westerner does provide many advantages.

Does the westerner has an hier ?? Does the hier have the funds or ability to chase the Thai ?? Does the hier have the documentation etc ??

If the westerner still has the land in his (company) name.. I would say he holds the cards, and the deposit and the developer has forfeited, they are the ones to sweat it and fight.. If the developer now has the land, its a very tough job to claim in a timely manner.. I hope the 'debt' is at least listed on the chanote.

He can not owe money to the westerner, there has to be a company involved.

"Dont really agree.." Of course not, you never have and never will, just not in your nature. But good to see you're still missing all our company here

For the pedantic.. To the westerners company..

And yes, online way too much as an uninsured unlicensed teenage driver in an untaxed car just took me out head on.. Screws pins plates surgery and other fun stuff like that.. Out about a million baht in costs and the police fine her 500b for driving illegally.

I think KB nailed it above.. Tho I wouldnt be in any hurry to offer them the deposit back if they blew out the contract terms.. I mean thats the very point of a non refundable deposit isnt it ?? On his second alternative assessment.. Bang on..

[Kaymcdonnell]

FYI

No aggression is going on with either party so far, so no need to talk about extreme possibilities

The land is in the sellers name, nothing transfered

The whole point of the post is to see if anyone has any past experience or if any lawyer could shed light on what is the scenario when and if the buyer decides, as we think he will, to take the issue to the court.

If you do not know then best not to reply?

Thank you in advance

[LivinLOS]

FYI

No aggression is going on with either party so far, so no need to talk about extreme possibilities

The land is in the sellers name, nothing transfered

The whole point of the post is to see if anyone has any past experience or if any lawyer could shed light on what is the scenario when and if the buyer decides, as we think he will, to take the issue to the court.

If you do not know then best not to reply?

Thank you in advance

So if the land is in the sellers name.. And the seller has the deposit, and a clear contract which the buyer is in violation of..

I would say whats the issue.. Have a lawyer send them a "thanks for doing business.. and goodbye" letter and forget them. Thats the price of failing to meet the contract.

I would expect nothing less from a Thai (or any other) business party.

[Kaymcdonnell]

Well if only it was that simple. The buyer has paid a large deposit so if the land owner decides to cancel the contract, even if he is in the right, the buyer has a right to complain to the court. If he chooses this option he can freeze the right for the owner to sell to another buyer (according to the lawyers) until the case is dealt with in the court. This could take years and the land owner is left with land he cannot sell or use.

FYI

No aggression is going on with either party so far, so no need to talk about extreme possibilities

The land is in the sellers name, nothing transfered

The whole point of the post is to see if anyone has any past experience or if any lawyer could shed light on what is the scenario when and if the buyer decides, as we think he will, to take the issue to the court.

If you do not know then best not to reply?

Thank you in advance

So if the land is in the sellers name.. And the seller has the deposit, and a clear contract which the buyer is in violation of..

I would say whats the issue.. Have a lawyer send them a "thanks for doing business.. and goodbye" letter and forget them. Thats the price of failing to meet the contract.

I would expect nothing less from a Thai (or any other) business party.

[hansgruber]

Well if only it was that simple. The buyer has paid a large deposit so if the land owner decides to cancel the contract, even if he is in the right, the buyer has a right to complain to the court. If he chooses this option he can freeze the right for the owner to sell to another buyer (according to the lawyers) until the case is dealt with in the court. This could take years and the land owner is left with land he cannot sell or use.

FYI

No aggression is going on with either party so far, so no need to talk about extreme possibilities

The land is in the sellers name, nothing transfered

The whole point of the post is to see if anyone has any past experience or if any lawyer could shed light on what is the scenario when and if the buyer decides, as we think he will, to take the issue to the court.

If you do not know then best not to reply?

Thank you in advance

So if the land is in the sellers name.. And the seller has the deposit, and a clear contract which the buyer is in violation of..

I would say whats the issue.. Have a lawyer send them a "thanks for doing business.. and goodbye" letter and forget them. Thats the price of failing to meet the contract.

I would expect nothing less from a Thai (or any other) business party.

Just offer his deposit back. Forget the bloodsucking lawyers. Nobody loses and you don't make a possibly powerful enemy.

[Kaymcdonnell]

the point is the buyer really wants the land so if he takes this road, he can get many years to pay for it

Well if only it was that simple. The buyer has paid a large deposit so if the land owner decides to cancel the contract, even if he is in the right, the buyer has a right to complain to the court. If he chooses this option he can freeze the right for the owner to sell to another buyer (according to the lawyers) until the case is dealt with in the court. This could take years and the land owner is left with land he cannot sell or use.

FYI
No aggression is going on with either party so far, so no need to talk about extreme possibilities
The land is in the sellers name, nothing transfered
The whole point of the post is to see if anyone has any past experience or if any lawyer could shed light on what is the scenario when and if the buyer decides, as we think he will, to take the issue to the court.
If you do not know then best not to reply?
Thank you in advance

So if the land is in the sellers name.. And the seller has the deposit, and a clear contract which the buyer is in violation of..

I would say whats the issue.. Have a lawyer send them a "thanks for doing business.. and goodbye" letter and forget them. Thats the price of failing to meet the contract.

I would expect nothing less from a Thai (or any other) business party.

Just offer his deposit back. Forget the bloodsucking lawyers. Nobody loses and you don't make a possibly powerful enemy.

[LivinLOS]

Well if only it was that simple. The buyer has paid a large deposit so if the land owner decides to cancel the contract, even if he is in the right, the buyer has a right to complain to the court. If he chooses this option he can freeze the right for the owner to sell to another buyer (according to the lawyers) until the case is dealt with in the court. This could take years and the land owner is left with land he cannot sell or use.

FYI

No aggression is going on with either party so far, so no need to talk about extreme possibilities

The land is in the sellers name, nothing transfered

The whole point of the post is to see if anyone has any past experience or if any lawyer could shed light on what is the scenario when and if the buyer decides, as we think he will, to take the issue to the court.

If you do not know then best not to reply?

Thank you in advance

So if the land is in the sellers name.. And the seller has the deposit, and a clear contract which the buyer is in violation of..

I would say whats the issue.. Have a lawyer send them a "thanks for doing business.. and goodbye" letter and forget them. Thats the price of failing to meet the contract.

I would expect nothing less from a Thai (or any other) business party.

It would all hinge on the contract.. If the contract clearly stipulates that non payment by certain deadlines cancels the contract.. Then I dont see what leg the buyer has to stand on..

Yes it gets messy.. But while its messy at least the seller has both the land, and the contract.. If the buyer does want it.. They can make a new 'higher priced' contract as a compromise.. If they dont, the 15mil should soften the blow of a delay and litigation,

[schlog]

Usually a buyer like this wont walk away without a big compensation. Developers know how to play the game and he starts playing. This doubtful contract was his first goal and now he is shooting his second goal. Every elapsed day is a lost day for the seller and the sellers position is getting weaker.

Your client has to make a decision how far he will go and you have to find a lawyer with backup and real connections and solve the problem offensive. He must give up his defensive position if he dont want to loose the land and more.

Phuket thai friend of mine playing this game with a bangkok business men since more then 10 years in court. This bangkok guy will never build next to the Marriott on the stipuleted land. Why? Because the guy with the right connections and game experience only can loose by death. That's Thailand and particular Phuket.

[LivinLOS]

Big compensation to the buyer ??

Genuinely curious. If the contract is well written, and the buyer has failed to meet the contract.. What possible grounds do they have.. THEY screwed up... They should be concerned about losing the deposit far more than he would be concerned about them gaming him.. Seems he holds far more of the cards.

[Kaymcdonnell]

Big compensation to the buyer ??

Genuinely curious. If the contract is well written, and the buyer has failed to meet the contract.. What possible grounds do they have.. THEY screwed up... They should be concerned about losing the deposit far more than he would be concerned about them gaming him.. Seems he holds far more of the cards.

The contract is very well written

[LivinLOS]

So then what grounds do they have ??

They have to claim some legal right.. Simply "we paid a lot" does not a civil case make..

I have only been involved in small scale civil cases, in fact got one starting now.. But each one had to have a basis in law, "destruction of property" "loss of earnings" etc etc.. I am wondering what they use as a legal right to claim ?? Losing a deposit due to not meeting terms is common, not for large sums perhaps, but the legal rights should remain the same.

[schlog]

Big compensation to the buyer ??

Genuinely curious. If the contract is well written, and the buyer has failed to meet the contract.. What possible grounds do they have.. THEY screwed up... They should be concerned about losing the deposit far more than he would be concerned about them gaming him.. Seems he holds far more of the cards.

You have to see the deal with the developers view. A southern thai developer playing in this league would not walk away only with his deposit back particular when the seller is a foreigner. Good luck with that. My bet is on the buyer.

[Reigntax]

A contract was entered into and signed by both parties.

The contract conditions state the obligations of both parties.

The contract will state the conditions to finalise the deal. Ie the vendor will provide clear title to the buyer or title as stated in the contract to the purchaser upon payment of the agreed amount.

If the buyer has failed to provide payment in accordance with the contract conditions, the purchaser is in breach of contract.

The vendor is able to claim costs due to breach of contract by the purchaser, this may equal the deposit, be less than the deposit or more than it.

Place the property for sale again. If you get a better price well and good. If you receive a lower price sue the first purchaser for damages for breach of contract plus additional expenses for the second sale. If you get the same price, deduct the second sale costs from the doposit and return the remainder.

Let him sue you to try and recover any monies and as the default party, if the contract is tight, he has no chance.

If they have registered a claim on the title of the property after paying the deposit, make application to have it removed. The purchaser will then have to justify the claim to the title or it will be removed as you have an enforceable contract recognised by law and they are in default.

More importantly, get some lawyers with balls!

Edited January 29, 2015 by Reigntax

[LivinLOS]

Big compensation to the buyer ??

Genuinely curious. If the contract is well written, and the buyer has failed to meet the contract.. What possible grounds do they have.. THEY screwed up... They should be concerned about losing the deposit far more than he would be concerned about them gaming him.. Seems he holds far more of the cards.

You have to see the deal with the developers view. A southern thai developer playing in this league would not walk away only with his deposit back particular when the seller is a foreigner. Good luck with that. My bet is on the buyer.

I understand this is presumably a heavy hitter.. And see risks outside the law..

I am just trying to see the legal risks... You say "good luck with that" but what grounds for a claim does he have.. The law here may be slow, awkward, occasionally corrupt, etc etc.. But there is still a legal framework and if the buyer is in breach of a contract, the buyer being able to ask for penalties seems more than strange.

[rayongchelsea]

It very much depends who the buyer is. I have been and am going through the legal process, believe me, influence plays a huge importance in the lower courts in particular. My bet is is on the buyer, until at least the appeal..looking at about 4 years...they will play the long game....

[inzman]

The law doesn't apply if the buyer is connected and powerful. He will end up winning.

[NamKangMan]

Big compensation to the buyer ??

Genuinely curious. If the contract is well written, and the buyer has failed to meet the contract.. What possible grounds do they have.. THEY screwed up... They should be concerned about losing the deposit far more than he would be concerned about them gaming him.. Seems he holds far more of the cards.

You have to see the deal with the developers view. A southern thai developer playing in this league would not walk away only with his deposit back particular when the seller is a foreigner. Good luck with that. My bet is on the buyer.

I understand this is presumably a heavy hitter.. And see risks outside the law..

I am just trying to see the legal risks... You say "good luck with that" but what grounds for a claim does he have.. The law here may be slow, awkward, occasionally corrupt, etc etc.. But there is still a legal framework and if the buyer is in breach of a contract, the buyer being able to ask for penalties seems more than strange.

The buyer may not have a case at law, but that doesn't mean using a Thai Court, to play for time, isn't hs strategy.

The buyer can seek an injuction (caveat) to stop the sale of the land to another party. In the mean time, the buyer invests the other XXX millions of baht, whilst still locking in the original contract price.

So, that land is now on hold for the buyer, and his capital is making money in other investments.

The buyer seeks Court adjournment, after adjournmnet, after adjournment, dragging out the Court case as long as possible - which he knows he has no case, but can claim he has, for a variety of reasons.

Then, at the 11th hour, when he can not stall proceedings any longer, and that may be years from now, he pays the contract out, in full, thus, forfilling his obligation, as per the contract, and the matter no longer proceeds to a Court hearing.

The seller has basically allowed himself to be used as financial institution for the purpose of holding an asset, one that does not produce income for him, on his books, rather than the buyer's books.

Given the land may appreciate in value, after a few years of stalling a Thai Court, the land value has increased, but the buyer pays the contract price, which may be significantly less than the value of the land some years later, after stalling the Court.

The buyer can then sell the land the next day, and keep the profit, and all he has done to make the profit is take advantage of the seller, who has received poor advice regarding the sale of his land.

The seller should never have accepted the deposit. Payment in full, up front - or the land remains "for sale." This is Thailand - not farangland.

Now, the foreign seller may then take the Thai buyer to Court, for loss monies, but, "Good luck with that."

Edited January 30, 2015 by NamKangMan

[LivinLOS]

Then, at the 11th hour, when he can not stall proceedings any longer, and that may be years from now, he pays the contract out, in full, thus, forfilling his obligation, as per the contract, and the matter no longer proceeds to a Court hearing.

If the contract is written in any way decently he cannot pay the contract out late and fulfill his obligation. The contract will (should) stipulate timelines, and breaking those come with penalties.. Including potentially the loss of the deposit, and the termination of the contract entirely.

You cannot both violate the contract and fulfill the contractual obligation.. Thats completely contradictory.

[NamKangMan]

Then, at the 11th hour, when he can not stall proceedings any longer, and that may be years from now, he pays the contract out, in full, thus, forfilling his obligation, as per the contract, and the matter no longer proceeds to a Court hearing.

If the contract is written in any way decently he cannot pay the contract out late and fulfill his obligation. The contract will (should) stipulate timelines, and breaking those come with penalties.. Including potentially the loss of the deposit, and the termination of the contract entirely.

You cannot both violate the contract and fulfill the contractual obligation.. Thats completely contradictory.

I understand the point you are making, and certainly, one must have access to the contract to give a legal opinion, but it's possible a dispute, whether real, or strategic, would lead to an injuction, which could then see the "timelines" and penalties voided, at law.

I'm with several other members, given the limited details available, and knowing the buyer is Thai, and the seller is farang - I think the buyer will come out in front on this one, and that's even with not having anyone assassinated.

Edited January 30, 2015 by NamKangMan

[Reigntax]

NamKangMan,

A Caveat and injunction are two completely different issues.

A Caveat is only a notice attached to a title to warn a potential purchaser to " beware". It could be a party has claimed ownership, a mortgage exists, a right of way exists or many other issues applicable to land titles. A title will usually have a schedule listing the issues affecting the title. These may remain on the title or be satisfied in some other manner upon a certain transaction taking place. In some countries a Caveat may be a statutory injunction once certain procedural matters or notices have been complete.

An injunction is a court order for a party to do or refrain from doing ....something. To achieve such a court order the aggrieved party needs to make out his case to support this order.

A Caveat can be lodged on the title of any property by a person who has a legal claim to all or part title. In the case of land transactions of high value, it is not unusual for the purchaser upon paying a deposit to lodge a Caveat to warn other buyers.

When a Caveat is lodged, the title owner is notified and given a period of time to take action, take no action or agree to the Caveat.

In the case mentioned, paying a deposit, there would generally be no objection to the Caveat by the vendor.

If an unwarranted Caveat is lodged and objected to by the title owner, the owner can lodge a Notice of Lapsing Caveat. This is served upon the person who lodged the Caveat. If they take no action, the Caveat expires and is not registered on the title.

If they believe they have a justifiable claim, they must apply to a court having juristriction and justify why the Caveat should be upheld.

Lodging a Caveat on a title is a serious action and usually done by Stat Dec to confirm that the lodger has rights, these are supported by legally enforceable documents. In this case the contract would be the main document.

A person who places a Caveat on title, either falsely or without legally authority can expose themself to numerous claims for costs, damages, lost income and even criminal charges.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Reigntax

[NamKangMan]

NamKangMan,

A Caveat and injunction are two completely different issues.

A Caveat is only a notice attached to a title to warn a potential purchaser to " beware".

An injunction is a court order for a party to do or refrain from doing ....something. To achieve such a court order the agreived party needs to make out his case to support this order.

A Caveat can be lodged on the title of any property by a person who has a legal claim to all or part title. In the case of land transactions of high value, it is not unusual for the purchaser upon paying a deposit to lodge a Caveat to warn other buyers.

When a Caveat is lodged the title owner is notified and given a period of time to take action, take no action or agree to the Caveat.

In the case mentioned, paying a deposit, there would generally be no objection to the Caveat by the vendor.

If an unwarranted Caveat is lodged and objected to be the title owner, the owner can lodge a Notice of Lapsing Caveat. This is served upon the person who lodged the Caveat. If they take no action, the Caveat expires and is not registered on the title.

If they believe they have a justifiable claim, they must apply to a court having juristriction and justify why the Caveat should be upheld.

Lodging a Caveat on a title is a serious action and usually done by Stat Dec to confirm that the lodger has rights, these are supported by legally enforceable documents. In this case the contract would be the main document.

A person who places a Caveat on title, either falsely or without legally authority can expose themself to numerous claims for costs, damages, lost income and even criminal charges.

I know what an injuction is, and what a caveat is, and the difference between the two. Did you notice I put the word "caveat" in brackets? That's because I am quite sure a caveat is imminent, if there isn't one in place already.

There was "offer and accecptance" in this deal - the basis of "exchange" - leading to "settlement."

15 million baht was paid as a deposit. The buyer now has 15 million reasons he is able to place a "caveat" on the property, to stop the owner selling the property to another party.

So, if the buyer has placed a caveat on the land title, this property can not be sold to anyone else.

Then, the buyer seeks an injuction over a contractual dispute, whether real, perceived, or fraudulent. This action gains the buyer more time, for whatever reason he wants it, or needs it.

So, the seller is now "along for the ride" and in Thailand, that "ride" can be long, costly, and frustrating.

Of course, we all need more information, but reading between the lines, I would not be surprised if what I have mentioned above, is the motivation for the seller seeking Court action.

Edited January 30, 2015 by NamKangMan

[Rimmer]

Some off topic bickering and flaming posts removed

[Reigntax]

In reference to the property transaction stated, the purchaser would be entitled to lodge a Caveat to register his interest on title using the sale contract to justify the claim.

However, once the Caveator was in breach of contract or in default, he also has an obligation to withdraw any claim from the title as his claim was only enforceable by the sale contract.

Should this Caveat/ claim cause the vendor to suffer any loss, resell the property, ongoing holding costs, the Caveator should be liable for all additional costs by reason of their default, contract breach and limitation caused by their action.