USUFRUCT: in the case of divorce

[chiang mai]

You don't actually need a contract, a statement recorded on the back of the chanotte is all that is required, the statement should read that an usufruct is granted and to whom and at what rent.

[happylarry]

You don't actually need a contract, a statement recorded on the back of the chanotte is all that is required, the statement should read that an usufruct is granted and to whom and at what rent.

I think you are mixing this up with a lease because there is no rent involved in a usufruct, it's simply permission granted to use that land for whatever purpose.

HL

[chiang mai]

You don't actually need a contract, a statement recorded on the back of the chanotte is all that is required, the statement should read that an usufruct is granted and to whom and at what rent.

I think you are mixing this up with a lease because there is no rent involved in a usufruct, it's simply permission granted to use that land for whatever purpose.

HL

Nope, not mixing it up at all. An usufruct, if granted at zero rent, can be interpreted as proxy ownership, that on the advise of my lawyer here in CM and also confirmed by a lawyer in a thread on TVF recently, on the same subject. And if you think about it, it only makes sense since an usufructee can sub lease the land for 30 years and claim value, given that is the case, why would the granter give the usufruct for free. In my case my usufruct is granted by my girlfriend at zero rent and I in turn have bequeathed the house to her in my Will, the entire will scenario is more complex than just that and involves a series of gifts and caveats which incentivizes her to keep me alive, actually it penalizes her if I die by foul play. The point of all that is that my usufruct is seen to be paid for, in my case with the value of the property.

[sometimewoodworker]

You don't actually need a contract, a statement recorded on the back of the chanotte is all that is required, the statement should read that an usufruct is granted and to whom and at what rent.

Sorry you are wrong. An usufruct is a contract. The information on the back of the land deed is a record of the detail of the contract, it is not the usufruct. If you have been told something different then it is wrong and you should take legal advice and if you have and that is what he told you then you have been had. If you think you have an usufruct on that basis then any court will be happy to show that you don't.

[chiang mai]

You don't actually need a contract, a statement recorded on the back of the chanotte is all that is required, the statement should read that an usufruct is granted and to whom and at what rent.

Sorry you are wrong. An usufruct is a contract. The information on the back of the land deed is a record of the detail of the contract, it is not the usufruct. If you have been told something different then it is wrong and you should take legal advice and if you have and that is what he told you then you have been had. If you think you have an usufruct on that basis then any court will be happy to show that you don't.

STWW, you need to go see a decent lawyer, me trying to tell you what is and what is not, based on my inputs, simply isn't working!

Best

Out

[Mangostin]

People here are making a MASSIVE mistake.

Basically this originated by the fact that, *someone*, doesn't seems to understand the meaning of a very basic word of the english language, which is "BETWEEN" , just try to Google that up, and then read again that law that was quoted on this thread.

I will sum that up for you to make your life a little easier.

You will be safe with a usufruct, as long as that was not given to you by your wife, so, if that's the case, you can continue to sleep safe, goodnight.

[happylarry]

There are a couple of points that have not been mentioned yet, once a usufruct is in place the chanote holder cannot sell or get a mortgage on the property and the relevant authorities will not go searching anywhere and everywhere to see if there has been a contract made out, but they will see from the back of the chanote, kept in the land office and refuse any further dealings on the property therefore this is the important part of the operation not the contract. In other words the contract is just a means of getting the usufruct written onto the chanote and is then no further use.

HL

[chiang mai]

There are a couple of points that have not been mentioned yet, once a usufruct is in place the chanote holder cannot sell or get a mortgage on the property and the relevant authorities will not go searching anywhere and everywhere to see if there has been a contract made out, but they will see from the back of the chanote, kept in the land office and refuse any further dealings on the property therefore this is the important part of the operation not the contract. In other words the contract is just a means of getting the usufruct written onto the chanote and is then no further use.

HL

Exactly, a point that our woodworking friend earlier seemed unable to grasp!

[JLCrab]

The whole thing with usufructs or 30-year leases in Thailand is really simple: If the transaction appears as would a reasonable arms-length transaction between two unrelated parties, then no problem; if not, there can always be problems.

[Mangostin]

Again some WRONG and MISLEADING information.

The LandOwner CAN still sell the land, but the new owner will be subject to the same restrictions as the previous owner, so, in fact, this will restrict the number of people interested in purchasing that land, as the person having control of it remain the usufruct's holder.

The law also entitle the usufructuary to sell the privileges of his contract to someone else, and if it's been stipulated for "life" (always the life of the original usufructuary, not the new one or the LO), even if the original usufructuary die, it will be valid for a maximum of 30 years from his death.

Now, the question that people should ask theirselves, is, whom has an interest into discrediting the validity of an usufruct, writing completely FALSE informations?

Perhaps some agencies which knows that usufruct are much more difficult to obtain, so, suggesting to make a different contract at the expenses of their clients, will make their lives much more easier and profitable??? Beware people, beware, there are plenty of unscrupulous individuals around.

[chiang mai]

Again some WRONG and MISLEADING information.

The LandOwner CAN still sell the land, but the new owner will be subject to the same restrictions as the previous owner, so, in fact, this will restrict the number of people interested in purchasing that land, as the person having control of it remain the usufruct's holder.

The law also entitle the usufructuary to sell the privileges of his contract to someone else, and if it's been stipulated for "life" (always the life of the original usufructuary, not the new one or the LO), even if the original usufructuary die, it will be valid for a maximum of 30 years from his death.

Now, the question that people should ask theirselves, is, whom has an interest into discrediting the validity of an usufruct, writing completely FALSE informations?

Perhaps some agencies which knows that usufruct are much more difficult to obtain, so, suggesting to make a different contract at the expenses of their clients, will make their lives much more easier and profitable??? Beware people, beware, there are plenty of unscrupulous individuals around.

Very good post but a couple of points:

Firstly that the Landowner can sell the title but the likelihood of them being able to do so is minimal, as you allude to.

Secondly, not all Land Offices wish to offer usufructs within their area of responsibility, it seems it is discretionary therefore this option may not be open to all.

[Mangostin]

Somebody buying a piece of land that has an usufruct in place, it's probably just someone in no rush to have it back, nothing new really, plenty of people stocking up on chanotes.

The reason why many land office would try to deny something to a foreigner, which it's perfectly legal, it's because this kind of contract protect the foreigner with a minimal expense from its part, so, no there is no wonder for anyone not wearing rose tinted glasses on why this can sometime be harder to obtain, however, they could deny to you anything, not just that, so, logic would suggest that if someone it's having that kind of problem, it would be necessary to take some further legal steps, not a big deal, really....

[JLCrab]

Thai Land Code Act B.E. 2497 (1954) update 2008

Section 96 When it appears that any person has acquired land as the owner in place of an aliens or juristic person under the provisions of Section 97 and 98, the Director-General shall have the authority to dispose of such land and the provisions of Section 94 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

(Courtesy SamuiForSale.com)

[laolover88]

All of which basically tells you:

There are multitude of countries on earth

Many, but obviously not all, have managed to institute "The Rule of Law". Many have even provided for an emigree/non citizen/ex pat to own land and property.

Why anyone should begin to contemplate acquiring property in Thailand is a mystery to me. Plenty of other ways to provide for your wives and children when you shuffle off.

[MaeJoMTB]

I tend to think of marriage as more an affair of the heart than of the wallet......

Not in Asia, it's definitely a business deal.

Nobody in Asia cares about a western man's thoughts.

[Mangostin]

Always worth to remember, that even if you have full use of the land, you are not actually owning it, this means that at the end of your contractual time (which can be for as long as the whole life of the usufructee + (that's a PLUS, yes..) 30 MORE years, the land will be returned to the owner, that's why is legal, it's up to you to make it worth the effort during your tenure though

Don't drink on what titanium's scarecrows are trying to let you believe.....just read and understand, that's it

- Courtesy of somebody which doesn't have any vested interest into telling things as they actually are -

[happylarry]

For the sake of repeating, the land office will not transfer any chanote that has a usufruct on it until the usufruct has been removed which needs the signature of the person whose name is on the usufruct.

Why people are saying different is beyond me but they are wrong.

My wife has made many usufructs for clients and deals with the law daily and assures me this is so and I prefer to believe her than soap box experts.

HL

[Mangostin]

So let's resume, someone first tell us that it's not possible to sell a chanote with a usufruct in place, all been loudly asserted by people presumably sharing their drink's time together with this person, then someone else pointed out that this was clearly wrong and went on a bit further to explain on why someone would try to cheat other into believing this, then the same guy, inadvertently came out to confirm that theory and show his cards on the table, alright then, thanks for your time, it was really entertaining

[chiang mai]

I think perhaps where there's confusion is when somebody says "you can't sell it", they don't mean it is illegal to do so, it means it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to find a buyer.

[cornishcarlos]

Does anyone have a Usufruct contract that they could post on here, would like to see the wording required.

Delete personal info obviously

[chiang mai]

Does anyone have a Usufruct contract that they could post on here, would like to see the wording required.

Delete personal info obviously

As HL wrote earlier, "the contract is just a means of getting the usufruct written onto the chanote and is then no further use". In our case we didn't even write up a contract which was verbal (it was those words that I responded to by saying exactly), our lawyer simply wrote out the form of words necessary for the LO to prepare the chanotte - you are never going to be required to produce that contract again because it was superseded or replaced by the chanotte.

[cornishcarlos]

Does anyone have a Usufruct contract that they could post on here, would like to see the wording required.

Delete personal info obviously

As HL wrote earlier, "the contract is just a means of getting the usufruct written onto the chanote and is then no further use". In our case we didn't even write up a contract which was verbal (it was those words that I responded to by saying exactly), our lawyer simply wrote out the form of words necessary for the LO to prepare the chanotte - you are never going to be required to produce that contract again because it was superseded or replaced by the chanotte.

Great....

So what is the wording on your Chanote then ?

[chiang mai]

Does anyone have a Usufruct contract that they could post on here, would like to see the wording required.

Delete personal info obviously

As HL wrote earlier, "the contract is just a means of getting the usufruct written onto the chanote and is then no further use". In our case we didn't even write up a contract which was verbal (it was those words that I responded to by saying exactly), our lawyer simply wrote out the form of words necessary for the LO to prepare the chanotte - you are never going to be required to produce that contract again because it was superseded or replaced by the chanotte.

Great....

So what is the wording on your Chanote then ?

Off the top of my head I don't recall precisely but I will happily find out for you and report back.

[cornishcarlos]

Does anyone have a Usufruct contract that they could post on here, would like to see the wording required.

Delete personal info obviously

As HL wrote earlier, "the contract is just a means of getting the usufruct written onto the chanote and is then no further use". In our case we didn't even write up a contract which was verbal (it was those words that I responded to by saying exactly), our lawyer simply wrote out the form of words necessary for the LO to prepare the chanotte - you are never going to be required to produce that contract again because it was superseded or replaced by the chanotte.

Great....

So what is the wording on your Chanote then ?

Off the top of my head I don't recall precisely but I will happily find out for you and report back.

If you could take a photo and PM it to me, would be fantastic.