Usefruct in Pattaya, did it work for you?

[Bulldozer Dawn]

Yes many mysterious deaths here in Thailand, who is next ?

Probably not the holder of an ufustruct since that would point to cause straight away.

Really, what is the dead guy going to do...sue to get his property back...

[samsung99]

Another round of a short sum up...

1) No feedback yet on anyone registering an usufruct in Pattaya after 2010

2) Do the usufruct before you get married or it might be split up after a divorce (you will loose half of the joint money / land,...)

3) It all depends on where you want to register an usufruct. In some parts of Thailand it seems to be easy, in some parts not

4) Don't give the usufruct for free, but instead put a payment in place in the usufruct contract to make the whole thing look more natural

5) A usufruct in rural area might be useless in case the shit hits the fan, because you might not be welcomed anymore in the neighbourhood even that you officially have the right to live on the usufruct company

6) For the notorious Thaivisa Thai Bashers: If you believe your wife will murder you to get your belongings -> Simply stay happy with your condo and let the others who want to take a bit more risk realize their dream!

[huawei]

^^^ 6) what's the dream house? And how much is worth the risk? Also how will you protect yourself?

[samsung99]

^^^ 6) what's the dream house? And how much is worth the risk? Also how will you protect yourself?

What is a dream home? Might be different for each of us., but don't invest more than you can afford to loose. Never put all your eggs in the same nest.

[slipperylobster]

Just brilliant I tell ya.

I know a guy who did all of this right and had it sewn up for life. That is until his now ex girlfriend's "brothers" showed up and convinced him that a new "health" issue demanded that he clear out and not come back - ever. The GF sold the house and what is he to do when he doesn't dare even go around there?

We don't have the same rule of law or other protections in LOS as we do in our home countries. If there was a sure-fire way to own a house in Thailand for life it would be done every day but it isn't. Some guys just think they do - for now.

"Don't invest anything in Thailand you aren't prepared to walk away from."

Cheers.

Another bar stool story from somebody who not only doesn't have first hand experience of the issue but also doesn't live in Thailand, never has and one who takes every opportunity to bash any aspect of Thailand that he can get.

"If there was a sure-fire way to own a house in Thailand for life it would be done every day but it isn't". How do you know it isn't, if you talk to people at any Land Office they'll tell you it's a very common occurrence.

N.S.

Could not cut it here and now he needs to justify that.. nothing new here seen it often. I know of a guy in the US who had his family killed in one of the many mass shootings. Now does that mean the US is a bad place ?

I don't see where dragging what goes on in the USA into this has any bearing on the laws, or consequences of buying a home/property. Potential buyers are from many foreign countries....

We all know people who "got out of town", when the marriage goes bad. Some walked, others were shipped out in a box/urn.

Buying is not an option for every single married couple. There are just too many bad marriages, and the ladies always insist on purchasing a home much too quickly. It seems to me that there are some farang real estate people who are presenting the optimistic views...(that it is perfectly fine for everyone to trust your marriage and the fairness of the Thai Courts/Government Land Offices)

Edited August 13, 2015 by slipperylobster

[samsung99]

Back to the original topic.

Noone tried to get a usufruct after 2010 in Pattaya?

[Litlos]

I tried to go the usufruct route, but the local land office in Pattaya area refuses to issue them, this in May 2015. So ended up going mortgage route. The reason given was that there is no tax payable on an usufruct so will not issue and not interested in inducements. Sounded like it came from the local manager.

I used a local lawyer to take care of the paperwork and do not regret this.

Cheers

[samsung99]

I tried to go the usufruct route, but the local land office in Pattaya area refuses to issue them, this in May 2015. So ended up going mortgage route. The reason given was that there is no tax payable on an usufruct so will not issue and not interested in inducements. Sounded like it came from the local manager.

I used a local lawyer to take care of the paperwork and do not regret this.

Cheers

Thanks for your feedback. Indeed this seems to be a problem in Pattaya... No cash in...no interest....Have you tried the brown envelope?

Nevertheless... Good you used a lawyer and made sure you have a mortgage to secure it.

Hope you enjoy your home!

[Walter Travolta]

Would somebody care to advise me in layman's terms on what a usufruct is and how it works by maybe giving an example? By reading the thread, it seems to me that it is a seperate agreement covered by law that covers the farang rights on a property rather than the thai wife/gf holding all the cards?

[HLover]

I tried to go the usufruct route, but the local land office in Pattaya area refuses to issue them, this in May 2015. So ended up going mortgage route. The reason given was that there is no tax payable on an usufruct so will not issue and not interested in inducements. Sounded like it came from the local manager.

I used a local lawyer to take care of the paperwork and do not regret this.

Cheers

Excellent answer, thank you.

[topt]

I tried to go the usufruct route, but the local land office in Pattaya area refuses to issue them, this in May 2015. So ended up going mortgage route. The reason given was that there is no tax payable on an usufruct so will not issue and not interested in inducements. Sounded like it came from the local manager.

I used a local lawyer to take care of the paperwork and do not regret this.

Cheers

Interested in what your local lawyers take was on trying to get an usufruct registered - or did you not use them for that?

[chiang mai]

Would somebody care to advise me in layman's terms on what a usufruct is and how it works by maybe giving an example? By reading the thread, it seems to me that it is a seperate agreement covered by law that covers the farang rights on a property rather than the thai wife/gf holding all the cards?

It's an assignment of rights, the owner of the property/land agrees to let the usufruct owner have free use of it for as long as he/she lives or until they relinquish their rights. That means, as an usufruct owner, you can live in a house, as if it were your own, have final say over who else can live there, rent it out, lease it, derive income from it etc. The only thing you have to do it to look after the property hence you can't demolish it or similar. The owner can sell the title to the property to another person and if that happens, you retain the right to live there. But it's very unlikely the owner would be able to sell as nobody would be interested in buying property they can't live in or use.

[Walter Travolta]

Would somebody care to advise me in layman's terms on what a usufruct is and how it works by maybe giving an example? By reading the thread, it seems to me that it is a seperate agreement covered by law that covers the farang rights on a property rather than the thai wife/gf holding all the cards?

It's an assignment of rights, the owner of the property/land agrees to let the usufruct owner have free use of it for as long as he/she lives or until they relinquish their rights. That means, as an usufruct owner, you can live in a house, as if it were your own, have final say over who else can live there, rent it out, lease it, derive income from it etc. The only thing you have to do it to look after the property hence you can't demolish it or similar. The owner can sell the title to the property to another person and if that happens, you retain the right to live there. But it's very unlikely the owner would be able to sell as nobody would be interested in buying property they can't live in or use.

So when a farang and his thai gf/wife move to Isaan and everyone calls the farang mad, is the usufruct agreement something that basically gives the farang rights not to get kicked out?

[JLCrab]

Should anyone at some point choose to contest the usufruct, what may be the determining factor is whether the transaction can be viewed as reflecting 'fair market value' i.e. if someone buys a property for$US 10,000 and then issues a lifetime usufruct on that prperty for $US 100, it might be assumed that the arrangement was an attempt to circumvent Thai property ownership laws and might be considered by the Court to be invalid.

[chiang mai]

Would somebody care to advise me in layman's terms on what a usufruct is and how it works by maybe giving an example? By reading the thread, it seems to me that it is a seperate agreement covered by law that covers the farang rights on a property rather than the thai wife/gf holding all the cards?

It's an assignment of rights, the owner of the property/land agrees to let the usufruct owner have free use of it for as long as he/she lives or until they relinquish their rights. That means, as an usufruct owner, you can live in a house, as if it were your own, have final say over who else can live there, rent it out, lease it, derive income from it etc. The only thing you have to do it to look after the property hence you can't demolish it or similar. The owner can sell the title to the property to another person and if that happens, you retain the right to live there. But it's very unlikely the owner would be able to sell as nobody would be interested in buying property they can't live in or use.

So when a farang and his thai gf/wife move to Isaan and everyone calls the farang mad, is the usufruct agreement something that basically gives the farang rights not to get kicked out?

It can quite easily be that, as long as it's done properly and legally. There's a separate thread on this subject somewhere on TVF which debates the details with a lawyer, in summary and from what I can recall:

the usufruct must not be seen to be a proxy to buy property hence it should not be done at zero cost.

and, if the chanote holder is the wife of the usufruct owner, in a divorce situation the usufruct can be seen as marital property which must be split 50/50.

But the ideal scenario is where the usufructee (!) is not married to the chanote holder (girlfriend perhaps) and the usufruct is taken out at the same time the property is purchased and the full price of the property is declared to the Land Office. Given that scenario it's pretty bullet proof. It's also worth noting that in that scenario the usufruct holder can kick out the girlfriend because the holder alone has say over who lives in the property.

[Walter Travolta]

Would somebody care to advise me in layman's terms on what a usufruct is and how it works by maybe giving an example? By reading the thread, it seems to me that it is a seperate agreement covered by law that covers the farang rights on a property rather than the thai wife/gf holding all the cards?

It's an assignment of rights, the owner of the property/land agrees to let the usufruct owner have free use of it for as long as he/she lives or until they relinquish their rights. That means, as an usufruct owner, you can live in a house, as if it were your own, have final say over who else can live there, rent it out, lease it, derive income from it etc. The only thing you have to do it to look after the property hence you can't demolish it or similar. The owner can sell the title to the property to another person and if that happens, you retain the right to live there. But it's very unlikely the owner would be able to sell as nobody would be interested in buying property they can't live in or use.

So when a farang and his thai gf/wife move to Isaan and everyone calls the farang mad, is the usufruct agreement something that basically gives the farang rights not to get kicked out?

It can quite easily be that, as long as it's done properly and legally. There's a separate thread on this subject somewhere on TVF which debates the details with a lawyer, in summary and from what I can recall:

the usufruct must not be seen to be a proxy to buy property hence it should not be done at zero cost.

and, if the chanote holder is the wife of the usufruct owner, in a divorce situation the usufruct can be seen as marital property which must be split 50/50.

But the ideal scenario is where the usufructee (!) is not married to the chanote holder (girlfriend perhaps) and the usufruct is taken out at the same time the property is purchased and the full price of the property is declared to the Land Office. Given that scenario it's pretty bullet proof. It's also worth noting that in that scenario the usufruct holder can kick out the girlfriend because the holder alone has say over who lives in the property.

I see. So if it is done through a lawyer, it is legal so the farang cannot be conned? IE the lawyer cannot be given a backhander by the owner to con the usufructee?

[Walter Travolta]

My reason for asking is that I have noticed many guys here that have bought houses in their gf/wives name and feel ok as they have lived happily for 20 years etc and the guy feels secure even though the gf/wife could turn round at any time and boot them out. I could not live like that knowing I could be booted out at a moments notice and lose 1m baht just like that!! I would rather rent . . .

[chiang mai]

It's an assignment of rights, the owner of the property/land agrees to let the usufruct owner have free use of it for as long as he/she lives or until they relinquish their rights. That means, as an usufruct owner, you can live in a house, as if it were your own, have final say over who else can live there, rent it out, lease it, derive income from it etc. The only thing you have to do it to look after the property hence you can't demolish it or similar. The owner can sell the title to the property to another person and if that happens, you retain the right to live there. But it's very unlikely the owner would be able to sell as nobody would be interested in buying property they can't live in or use.

So when a farang and his thai gf/wife move to Isaan and everyone calls the farang mad, is the usufruct agreement something that basically gives the farang rights not to get kicked out?

It can quite easily be that, as long as it's done properly and legally. There's a separate thread on this subject somewhere on TVF which debates the details with a lawyer, in summary and from what I can recall:

the usufruct must not be seen to be a proxy to buy property hence it should not be done at zero cost.

and, if the chanote holder is the wife of the usufruct owner, in a divorce situation the usufruct can be seen as marital property which must be split 50/50.

But the ideal scenario is where the usufructee (!) is not married to the chanote holder (girlfriend perhaps) and the usufruct is taken out at the same time the property is purchased and the full price of the property is declared to the Land Office. Given that scenario it's pretty bullet proof. It's also worth noting that in that scenario the usufruct holder can kick out the girlfriend because the holder alone has say over who lives in the property.

I see. So if it is done through a lawyer, it is legal so the farang cannot be conned? IE the lawyer cannot be given a backhander by the owner to con the usufructee?

An usufruct costs 78 baht at the Land Office and it's nothing more than the Land Office putting details of the usufruct (and usufructee) on the reverse side of the chanotte. Sadly however, unless you speak fluent Thai and understand the wokring of the culture and the Land Office, you will need a lawyer to do this for you. I did another one last year and I paid a very good and reputable CM lawyer 22k baht to do the conveyancing of the property, two wills and the usufruct which was a very fair deal indeed - so that's the ball park price you should pay I reckon.

[JLCrab]

From K. Chiang Mai above: the usufruct must not be seen to be a proxy to buy property hence it should not be done at zero cost.

Of course that seems to be exactly what it is in many (most?) cases as the money to buy the property came from the Usufructee in the first place and was then declared as a gift. As I noted above, it is not that it is only not at zero cost, but whether it reflects fair market value to a reasonable degree such that it is not viewed in arrears as a quid prop quo for the gift in the first place.

[chiang mai]

Yes I agree with JLC.

But not to over egg the point: if a person takes out the usufruct at the same time the property is purchased and if full value is declared and all taxes paid, and, the usufructee is not married to the chanote holder, it's a pretty robust arrangement.

[bangkoklawyer24]

Yes I agree with JLC.

But not to over egg the point: if a person takes out the usufruct at the same time the property is purchased and if full value is declared and all taxes paid, and, the usufructee is not married to the chanote holder, it's a pretty robust arrangement.

In other words: In 9 out of 10 cases it has been done wrong in the past, under the applause of this forum for many years.

[JLCrab]

On 'fair market value' from Clear and Present Danger (1994) -- Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan:

[Jack needs a helicopter]

Jack Ryan: I'm here to rent the Huey.

Helicopter owner: We don't rent it anymore, but it is for sale.

Jack Ryan: How much?

Helicopter owner: Two million dollars.

Jack Ryan: Uh, my pilot and I will have to take it for a test drive.

Helicopter owner: Of course, you just have to leave a deposit.

Jack Ryan: How much is that?

Helicopter owner: Two million dollars.

[chiang mai]

Yes I agree with JLC.

But not to over egg the point: if a person takes out the usufruct at the same time the property is purchased and if full value is declared and all taxes paid, and, the usufructee is not married to the chanote holder, it's a pretty robust arrangement.

In other words: In 9 out of 10 cases it has been done wrong in the past, under the applause of this forum for many years.

Very probably.