Buying one house/land for multiple children

[Awk]

From what I gather I can buy a property (land with house on) in my Thai child's name, while my child is still a minor.  At the land office, the child's id can be registered as the owner, and I, a non-Thai father, can be registered as the sole guardian of the property.   I have seen posts here where the child was mentioned as being as young as two years (a fingerprint was used).  

This guardianship gives me the right to live in the house , or rent out the house should I wish, until my child is no longer a minor, and all that is necessary for this to be done  is for me to show up with my passport, and the child with his/her Thai id card at the land office when the purchase is formalized.   From what I read, this should be a fairly standard procedure in bigger cities and no lawyer is necessary.

 

 I hope someone can confirm this.  

 

What I have so far been unable to find is whether I can at the land office register both my children as owners of the property.  Does anyone know?

If both children cannot be registered as owner, is there something else that can be done that will have the same effect - the property being the shared inheritance to both children?

 

If someone could provide me with the correct Thai term for being the guardian of the property, that would also be much appreciated. 

[bark]

Please do not use the Thai Visa Members for free Lawyer advice. Land and house will cost you a few million baht,

anywhere in Thailand. Call a real Lawyer; get safe advice.

I know some of the members here are good and experienced; but it is the biggest purchase you will ever make in Thailand.

Don't be cheap, and maybe have problems later.

[Naroge]

I believe that "shared inheritance" is not relevant as you are not the legal owner of the land.

[greenchair]

29 minutes ago, Naroge said:

I believe that "shared inheritance" is not relevant as you are not the legal owner of the land.

And be reminded that, if in the next 20 years you need to sell that house for any number of reasons, ain't no where, no why, no how. 

[DiamondKing]

But it can be done EASILY no need to pay expensive lawyers the ampur will do it for you for next to nothing BUT the above poster is correct NO WAY you sell it or do anything with it until your child comes of age if they agree of course since they are the owner 

Edited August 18, 2016 by DiamondKing

[blackcab]

Yes, you can have both children's names on the chanote. Understand that when you do this the property becomes theirs. You can get permission to sell the property from Court but it isn't easy and it's not meant to be easy. However any proceeds become the children's and can only be spent on what the Court approves.

 

The next point to address is that you can not buy the land. You also can not buy the land and put it in their names, as this could be considered a form of proxy ownership. They can buy the land, however, on your advice, from money you gift them. The destination is the same, but the journey is different.

 

Finally you can administer the property for them, but technically any income received belongs to them (nobody is checking). Also you can not sign a Lease on their behalf for longer than three years. 

[khunPer]

Quote

...all that is necessary for this to be done  is for me to show up with my passport, and the child with his/her Thai id card at the land office when the purchase is formalized.

I presume you will need a formal proof og guardianship, as normally required. If you are married to the child's mother, you automatically have shared guardianship, but if you are unmarried, your name of a Birth Certificate will not do it; in that case, if the child is under 7 years of age, a Court document (may include DNA-test) will be needed. If child is 7-years or older, you can get a father-ship documented at the Amphor together with both child and mom in person to confirm. You may need a sole guardianship to be safe with a land deal. As suggested in posts above, you will need advice from a lawyer experienced in handling foreigners land purchase, he shall know the at present best procedure.

 

(F.y.i: I have a half-Thai child, who owns land and company stocks).

[Awk]

Thanks to those who replied with information.

 

I hope to meet with a lawyer in Chiang Mai some people have recommended, next week, but thought it would be a good idea to hear what people here say too.  Especially since I'm not sure if I'll manage to meet that lawyer or not, and an alternative incompetent lawyer would of course be pretty useless.  

 

Information from people with knowledge here may help when evaluating the competence of a lawyer.

 

I am married so I assume additional proof of guardianship is not required, though not sure if I need to bring a marriage certificate with me or not.  What I intend to is however to have only my own name listed as guardian on the chanote, and only the child/children listed as owners.    Hopefully that is no problem, but if anyone here knows anything to the contrary, I'm of course interested in hearing that.

 

With kind regards, Awk.

 

 

[MikeyIdea]

It is easy, I did this when my daughter was 2 years old (including the fingerprinting) but even so, You should use a lawyer that the mother does NOT know. You probably don't read Thai fast enough to know exactly what you sign and that is a very bad idea

 

The chanote will only have your childrens name on it. You will not be registered as guardian as such. The legal guardians of the children are automatically shared guardians of the property. You sign on the original purchasing agreement (sennjaa suu kai = agreement buy sell) and other documents that I cannot remember what they were. The original purchasing agreement is more important to keep safe than the original chanote by the way.

 

The process to let children buy property is exactly the same regardless of if you are a Thai or foreigner, you should not need a lawyer with previous experience with westerners

 

It is quite possible that the land office will refuse if the mother is not present. Try without her first and let us know. Both mother and father signed in my case and I instructed my lawyer to ensure that my name was on top and her name below mine, that was no problems at all to arrange. You will definitely need original and copy of marriage certificate to prove that you are legal guardian. I am not legally married and I had to show original fathers certificate and provide copies before I was allowed to sign the papers

 

I do not know if you need a Thai translation of your name, I gave them copies of my work permit for that but I don't know if they used it 

 

Good luck

[Awk]

I met with the recommended lawyer today, which seemed like a decent woman.  

While at her office, she called the land office that has jurisdiction over the Chiang Mai area the house in, and after some checking, they said they would not allow a minor to own the house.  Quite unfortunate and surprising, as I've seen many posts here from people who have put the land/house in their minor childrens name.  According to the lawyer, this varies a little from district to district, and while in other districts (also in Chiang Mai), it has been done, in this case, the land office seems to refuse it

 

I don't really understand why it is a problem, but according to the lawyer "everyone will know that the money is not the child's"  and various land office bosses are more careful/diligent about protecting themselves against reprisals from above.  :-/

 

Quite unfortunate to say the least. 

 

Will see what happens at the land office itself, where I requested an associate of the lawyer accompany us to help  with the Thai documents, but I assume the answer will be the same then.  

 

Since the house is new, with an empty house book, it may be possible to put the house in my name, the land in Mrs. Awk's name, and with a usufruct on the land in my name.   The lawyer thought that may be possible, though said the process would then have to be done in two steps, with the house being registered to me after 30 days.  Of course, the moo baan owner would expect me to pay all  the money when purchasing the land/house, and then I would depend on the honesty of the moo baan owner to fulfill his duty in registering the house in my name 30 days later.  Not a very good situation either, unless I can withhold a substantial sum until the house is transferred.  

 

Barring that, I guess it will be an usufruct in my name, with both land and house in Mrs. Awk's name.  Much less ideal than I had expected.

 

I've read some posts here suggesting one should simply ask the land office to point out where in the law it prohibits a Thai child, minor or not, from being the owner of Thai land, but I suspect none of those suggesting that "simple solution" have actually tried that, or heard about anyone having success with that.  In addition, the lawyer I talked with seems to have a friend at the mid-level  in the hierarchy at this particular land office.  This is the person at the land office which Ms. Lawyer called, but the decision is up to the top boss, and according to the friend, the top boss does not allow it.

 

Admittedly I'm quite surprised as I thought at least putting my Thai children on the chanote as the owners would be straightforward here in Chiang Mai.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Awk

[khunPer]

That was "sad" news, but it's well known that procedures are not the same in all Land Offices. One thing I've been told by lawyers in property business is, that to protect yourself, you can have a loan declared as servitude on the land deed, kind of mortgage. That loan can cover both land and house. The land cannot be sold or transferred, before the loan has been paid in full. Worth checking with a local lawyer; also if you are Thai married that the marriage don't cancel a loan document, it's often said that contracts between husband and wife are void.

 

For owning a house, you should check "superficies", which is recommended by some as a better solution than usufruct. There is an article about superficies here. 

 

A short explanation:

The right of superficies in Thailand legally separates ownership over the building and the land
The right of superficies is used when you build upon land you do not own. It creates the registered right to use the land and to own the structures you build upon the land without obtaining ownership rights over the land itself. A right of superficies may be established either for 1- a period of time up to 30-years, or 2- for life of the owner of the land or 3- for the life of the superficiary. A right of superficies registered for a specified term is a transferable and inheritable interest in land.

[MikeyIdea]

Hua Hin also refuses to process land ownership for Thai children if one parent is western. I think it always is a bad idea to call, never call. It's way too easy to say no when answering a call. It's too easy to not go far enough up the ladder if phone call

 

I think you should go there with daughter and mummy and try in person. I don't think it matters if the mother comes too actually, the land will be well locked down until the children reach majority and the mother can not take out loans on the land, can't give a child responsibility / debt

 

How long time do you have? You could also take this to Juvenile court, that will be quite quick = court appearance within 10 weeks to 3 months and they should be happy to help a Thai child. They may refuse to order that it is legal for a Thai child with one western parent to own land as such but they should be OK with a "kamm yaam" = legal guardians agree... and one paragraph with direct wording that court confirms that there are no legal obstacles to a Thai child with one western parent owning land and a second paragraph that mother and father agree that their children X and Y jointly shall own this specific plot of land. 

Here's a compromise approach: It could be a good idea to have the lawyer write the formal request first and give a copy to the land office to read, the names of the Thai children and the exact plot of land should be specified. Words won't be enough of course but to be given a formally written request to let their bosses read and pass up the ladder may. You can hand in a formal request and then cancel it within 7 days so let the lawyer make one more visit if they still refuse with the receipt that it has formally been handed in, or give up and try to secure the land another way

 

Never trust your Thai lawyer!!! Don't let your lawyer near the mother until the day at the land office! You can trust Juvenile court, it's the lawyer you can't trust. 

 

The court case as such is simple so it shouldn't be more than 50K. Only paper work shouldn't be more than 10K. If you do this, then tell the lawyer that you WILL proceed to Juvenile court or she will hint to the land office that "he won't follow through". 

 

Good Luck

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by MikeyIdea

[Awk]

Many thanks, in particular to MikeyIdea and khunPer for taking the time to provide good replies.  

 

MikeyIdea, I would probably have tried your idea, unless the lawyer rejected it flat out as something that would not work here, but did unfortunately not have enough time.

 

Today I, or rather, soon to be ex-Mrs. Awk, purchased the house and the land it sits on.

Things we tried, and failed to do:

 

- Put Awk Jr. as the owner of the land.  No go.  The land office person said we would have to show the money came from a Thai person, e.g. Mrs. Awk.  As Mrs. Awk can not provide documentation to that effect, that was a no go.  According to the land office woman, it would have been no problem if I was also Thai.  

 

I, in what in different circumstances might have been funny to Mrs. Awk asked if it would also be "no problem" if Mrs. Awk and I divorced today, and Mrs. Awk came back on Monday to purchase the house on behalf of Awk Jr.  The land office woman said that would be no problem, but Mrs. Awk would also have to show a divorce paper stating she, and only she, had custody over Awk Jr.  If I, the evil bignose, still had part custody, it would again be a no go.

 

- Separate land and house, putting me as the owner of the house, and Mrs. Awk as owner of the land.  This was not possible due to the "build license" of the moo baan.  Even though the house was new with an empty house book, apparently things had progressed too far for such a separation, the superficie khunPer refers too.  The separation of building from land in the article khunPer refers too was not an option I was suggested, though I did not specifically ask for it.

 

I ended up with a simple usufruct on the land/house.  As per the lawyers suggestion, Mrs. Awk will also sign a contract gifting the land and house to the two Awk Juniors to be effective once Awk Jr. is of age.  Presuming I and my lifetime usufruct does not die, least of all under suspicious circumstances, before that, the Awk Juniors should hopefully get the house and land without problems, and Mrs. Awk's will will state something similar.

 

One interesting idea that I for personal reasons did not go with, but which my lawyer suggested, was to include the two Awk Juniors in the usufruct.   She did not explain, and I did not ask, what the precise effect of this would be, but I wonder if the effect of that, together with the contract (not will, as a will can be changed whenever you want) would be very similar to Awk Jr. owning the land outright from the beginning?  

 

Presumably the life time usufruct for the children would prevent anyone from selling the land, or cancelling the usufruct, before the children become 20.  And the contract Mrs. Awk will sign will make it possible to transfer the land to the children once they are 20.  So once 20, they will, after transferring ownership with or without Mrs Awk's consent, own the land.  And before that, no one can sell the land.  I'm guessing the sticky point is how sure one can be that the contract will ensure ownership can be transferred, even if the owner of the land refuses.  E.g., does one need to go to court?  

Perhaps it could be of interest to somebody else to consider this option, to include the children on the usufruct, should better alternatives not be available.

 

Again, many thanks for the helpful replies.

 

 

[blackcab]

On 26/08/2016 at 9:43 PM, Awk said:

And the contract Mrs. Awk will sign will make it possible to transfer the land to the children once they are 20.  So once 20, they will, after transferring ownership with or without Mrs Awk's consent, own the land.  And before that, no one can sell the land.  I'm guessing the sticky point is how sure one can be that the contract will ensure ownership can be transferred, even if the owner of the land refuses.  E.g., does one need to go to court?  

Perhaps it could be of interest to somebody else to consider this option, to include the children on the usufruct, should better alternatives not be available.

 

Again, many thanks for the helpful replies.

 

 

 

The contract is meaningless if you are not prepared to go to Court to enforce it.

 

Remember that the law allows any contract between husband and wife to be cancelled if the effect would not be detrimental to a third party.

 

In this case it would be detrimental to your children, however that would be another matter for Court.

[MikeyIdea]

This sounds like a lawyer who does not want to upset the system. A Thai citizen has the right to own land and Juvenile should really be happy to help. And this thing about mother must have sole custody is simply not Thai law, Juvenile would frown on it

 

OK, another thing to help you to "keep" power over the house. Also a good way to know if you can trust Mrs. Awk. She will be made Chao baan in the blue book. Once she is, get her to issue a yellow book for you and make you Chao baan in the yellow book. Sorry to say but if she refuses, then you know you can't trust her 

 

The mother and father can gift the land to the children at any time and you can go down the Juvenile court path at any time so if you have money, check more lawyers. It's only 50K

Edited August 28, 2016 by MikeyIdea

[Awk]

On 8/28/2016 at 0:30 AM, blackcab said:

Remember that the law allows any contract between husband and wife to be cancelled if the effect would not be detrimental to a third party.

 

I asked the lawyer about that since I've seen it quoted here on TV often.  She said people like to refer to a ruling in the supreme court when saying that, but according to her, it is not a correct interpretation, and the usufruct cannot be cancelled by the wife.

 

 I don't know who is correct. 

[blackcab]

Thailand Civil and Commercial Code Section 1469:

 

Any agreement concluded between husband and wife during marriage may be avoided by either of them at any time during marriage or within one year from the day of dissolution of marriage; provided that the right of third persons acting in good faith are not affected thereby.