I was expecting to see posts from people; sorry, farangs - about those so called 'secured' 90 year leases - all over Thaivisa. Surely there are a bunch of regular posters who now own nothing, (according to the Phuket Civil Court and Region 8 Appellate Court ruling), since entering into such a lease agreement is illegal ( according to them). I just came from the 'properties for sale' in Phuket page and it does seem that there are a helluva lot of 50 million baht + palaces for sale down there. According to a certain journalist who shall nae be mentioned in this neck of the woods, lease holders are now at the mercy of the venerable RTF as to whether or not they get to keep their houses...

Those who bought 90-year leases owned nothing before. Now they still own nothing, but less of it.

Anyway it was easy to guess right ?

But it's just like illegal workers, most of them will never be caught because of time and interest.

So of course some will have to pay to keep their houses but most will never hear about anything that changed, so it will still be ok for most.

This is Thailand <3 and luckily Thailand administration does not know how to use computers properly <3

Good to see the Thai courts clamping down on the farang chancers who thought they could flout the law.

Hit 'em right where it hurts.

Anyway it was easy to guess right ?

But it's just like illegal workers, most of them will never be caught because of time and interest.

So of course some will have to pay to keep their houses but most will never hear about anything that changed, so it will still be ok for most.

This is Thailand <3 and luckily Thailand administration does not know how to use computers properly <3

Suppose you bought a 90 year lease from someone and built an expensive house on the land. If that guy gets it that the lease on land that he owns is void, isn't he going to be tempted to take the land and house?

I don't know about LOS, but in countries including the USA which follow old English Law, there is a term "void", and another, "voidable". I've been reading "void" but of course it's LOS and it's a translation.

Void means void on its face and no action has to be taken to declare it is void. Force the people off the land today.

Voidable means court action would have to be taken to get it declared void, and then the house could be taken.

If the leases are void in the Western sense, then it's time to move. If the lease was illegal, it should be void as if it never happened.

I don't know the answer but the tone of the articles leads me to believe some foreigners are going to take some lumps.

Moved to Real Forum.

If the leases are void in the Western sense, then it's time to move. If the lease was illegal, it should be void as if it never happened.

I don't know the answer but the tone of the articles leads me to believe some foreigners are going to take some lumps.

I suspect that either way the ultimate losers will be the farangs who bought the leases.

Eventually something similar will probably happen to land purchases made via company structures.

THE GREAT PHUKET COURT SWINDLE: Based on recent reports by esteemed Thai lawyers, former press articles that Thai courts do not respect secured lease structures (collective leasehold, protected leasehold) seem to be heavily falsified and misguiding - intentionally as a brash marketing tool or unintentionally by lack of understanding of the laws of Thailand.

SOURCE: http://linkd.in/1JKQ32W

As far as I am aware the maximum lease has always been 30 years. It has long been known that anything longer is not enforceable.

Still, sad for those that may have been ripped off, assume shonky lawyers.

As far as I am aware the maximum lease has always been 30 years. It has long been known that anything longer is not enforceable.

Still, sad for those that may have been ripped off, assume shonky lawyers.

Agreed. There has never been any leases longer than 30 years. So offering a secured 90 year lease is a scam

As far as I am aware the maximum lease has always been 30 years. It has long been known that anything longer is not enforceable.

Still, sad for those that may have been ripped off, assume shonky lawyers.

Agreed. There has never been any leases longer than 30 years. So offering a secured 90 year lease is a scam

Sorry, but you did not get the general idea: With a corporate structure to control the lessor by the lessees, the renewal term is secured. You can't protect the 90 years by lease rights, but by shareholding rights.

As far as I am aware the maximum lease has always been 30 years. It has long been known that anything longer is not enforceable.

Still, sad for those that may have been ripped off, assume shonky lawyers.

Agreed. There has never been any leases longer than 30 years. So offering a secured 90 year lease is a scam

Sorry, but you did not get the general idea: With a corporate structure to control the lessor by the lessees, the renewal term is secured. You can't protect the 90 years by lease rights, but by shareholding rights.

Which the court deemed to be an illegal breach of the Land Code.

I would direct you to the TV link in last weeks News Section, but I haven't found it since the first day for some reason. Maybe it's still there somewhere and I'm just doing something wrong

Jerry

You can rent for 30 y. and all very clear here. And you can't own. The questiion was "what happens after the first 30 y will expires?". And many of buyers paid for the answer what we've got. I saw the difference in villa prices between 30, 60 and 90 years in Phuket before

Risk and return in investing does not mean 'double or nothing'. The latter is used only in gambling.