What puts you off investing in real estate?

[laislica]

9 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

Also not issuing receipts for various incoming payments (wifi cards, key-cards, cleaning services, technician services, renovation fees, fines etc etc) and pocketing the cash.

 

Not forgetting fake petty cash expenses (500B for gasoline every month for a building manager who doesn't actually ever need to go anywhere).

 

And I've known management to also simply steal cash from the till and fudge the accounts to hide the shortfall. 

 

 

Oops Deja Vu?

Is this Karma?

Sounds just like us bloody cheating Farang when we put our expenses in at the end of the month!! He he

I remember one of my coworkers spending ages trying to think up stories of visits he'd never made to far distant places to justify the advance he always drew on expenses. Then one day he came unstuck, he made a false claim for an overnight stay with a long drive. Turns out he was also in house at a board meeting, Oops!!!

 

Why was it OK when we fiddled our expenses or taxes but not OK when others do it to us?

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

(But, do it to them first LOL!!)

What goes around, comes around.....

 

To all those who never fiddled or did anything dodgy;

Your reward will be in Heaven!

 

 

[laislica]

7 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

Yes indeed but the poster doesn't say he's married. I have an usufruct and I'm not married but after fifteen years I consider I am part of an extended family.

 

Normally (IMHO), as soon as your ladies family saw that you were doing right by her, you would have been regarded as family from then on.

It's all about the two tier marriage I think.

Many Thai's marry with only the Buddhist ceremony for which no certificate is granted and no divorce needed.

If you live with a Thai lady for any length of time Buddhist ceremony or not, you will be referred to as "her husband" by your "wife", her family, friends and neighbours or as the Spanish would say, the whole world.

 

The certificate is not important in one way but important in another.

If you intend to stay in Thailand it's really not needed but if you want to take her to live abroad the certificate becomes necessary.

You can guess why I have the certificate LOL

Just sayin

 

 

 

 

[thai3]

On 11/20/2016 at 7:39 AM, chiang mai said:

 

"Buy into a property,

and then the extended family invites themselves in

 

 - you get kicked out..."

 

Rubbish! There are several simple ways to avoid that scenario, an usufruct for one..

 

How does a bit of paper stop the family moving in?

[chiang mai]

2 hours ago, thai3 said:

 

How does a bit of paper stop the family moving in?

 

An usufruct gives the holder the right, in law, to determine who lives in the property and who does not,

[chiang mai]

3 hours ago, ricklev said:

Or try asking this question:  "I have a usufruct.  The owner of the land won't agree to go to the land office to help me register a thirty year lease to a third party.  I understand from your website that I can do this.  Can you handle this transaction for me?"

 

I honestly don't know on this issue but that's one of the great aspects of forums such as this, issues can be identified, determined, challenged and so forth so let's see what other contributors have to say on this subject. And I'm due to see my lawyer this week so I'll raid it with her and post whatever I find out, in the meantime, thanks for raising it as you did.

[blackcab]

If a foreign national is a Usufructee they will not be able to register a lease at the land office for a period greater than 3 years without the cooperation of the Thai land owner.

 

This is as a result of the Thai Land Code Act, which regulates what foreigners can and cannot do with land in Thailand.

 

I have a work permit that allows me to do a lot of things with land transactions in Thailand, but it does not allow me to register such a lease on behalf of a foreign Usufructee.

 

If the Usufructee is Thai, they can register such a lease without the cooperation of the land owner.

 

The reason for the different approaches is that foreigners are not allowed to manage or assign long term rights over land on their own account. By allowing a foreign Usufructee to issue a 30 year lease by themselves then the land controls could be bypassed.

[lkn]

 

19 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Also not issuing receipts for various incoming payments (wifi cards, key-cards, cleaning services, technician services, renovation fees, fines etc etc) and pocketing the cash.

 

Not forgetting fake petty cash expenses (500B for gasoline every month for a building manager who doesn't actually ever need to go anywhere).

 

And I've known management to also simply steal cash from the till and fudge the accounts to hide the shortfall. 

 

Wherever there is money, there is temptation, but proper procedures can go a long way to detect the fraud you describe.

 

Forgetting to issue receipts should make the residents suspicious and for physical items, it’s easy to do an inventory count to see if items are missing (i.e. sale not recorded) and for key cards, I think we can actually see (from the access database) which residents got new key cards in the period where one was “lost” and ask that/those residents who were responsible for their new card, and check if there are matching receipts, and if not, we know who pocketed the money.

 

For services like cleaning, let one employee be responsible for the work schedule and another for payment, then they would need to work together to defraud the community.

 

Not denying that fraud exists, I know it does, but unlike the post I replied to, I am not at all worried that the developer or manager are pocketing the management fees that I pay.

 

Also, majority of our management fee goes toward salary (lobby, cleaning, security, external accountant) followed by utilities (electricity, internet, and water) and then building improvements, not really that much spent on reimbursing staff for expenses for which they could have made up fake receipts :)

[Bassosa]

11 hours ago, laislica said:

 

 

Oops Deja Vu?

Is this Karma?

Sounds just like us bloody cheating Farang when we put our expenses in at the end of the month!! He he

I remember one of my coworkers spending ages trying to think up stories of visits he'd never made to far distant places to justify the advance he always drew on expenses. Then one day he came unstuck, he made a false claim for an overnight stay with a long drive. Turns out he was also in house at a board meeting, Oops!!!

 

Why was it OK when we fiddled our expenses or taxes but not OK when others do it to us?

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

(But, do it to them first LOL!!)

What goes around, comes around.....

 

To all those who never fiddled or did anything dodgy;

Your reward will be in Heaven!

 

 

 

What is this nonsense? Just because it happens elsewhere doesn't make it alright! With this line of thought you could justify pretty much anything...

[madmax2]

On 11/21/2016 at 7:35 AM, trogers said:

 

How can it be sold as a 30-year lease when it is only valid for the lifetime of the usufruct holder?

 

Besides, who would buy it over?

If in the lease agreement it states the leaser can sell the lease or transfer it to anyone they want to

I do not know if its legal like a lot of agreements here but its included in the only lease agreement i have had drawn up by a law firm 

[trogers]

10 minutes ago, madmax2 said:

If in the lease agreement it states the leaser can sell the lease or transfer it to anyone they want to

I do not know if its legal like a lot of agreements here but its included in the only lease agreement i have had drawn up by a law firm 

 

A usufruct confers the right of use to a particular person during his lifetime, and terminates upon his demise. Thus, this person cannot issue or sell anything beyond his rights.

[madmax2]

25 minutes ago, trogers said:

 

A usufruct confers the right of use to a particular person during his lifetime, and terminates upon his demise. Thus, this person cannot issue or sell anything beyond his rights.

As i stated it was agreed to by both parties in the leasing agreement,drawn up by a local law firm

Personally i do not trust law firms, they seem to make up their own laws on real estate

Both Thai and farang owned law businesses 

I do not need a lease agreement anymore so it does not matter but so called law firms should not draw up any type of agreement that is not legal and take peoples money for doing it

Those that do are just conmen and crooks 

[chiang mai]

38 minutes ago, trogers said:

 

A usufruct confers the right of use to a particular person during his lifetime, and terminates upon his demise. Thus, this person cannot issue or sell anything beyond his rights.

 

Not to be pedantic but previous posts seem to confirm that the usufructee can sell a three year lease without reference back to the chanotte owner and longer leases with the chanotte owners co-operation.

[blackcab]

31 minutes ago, trogers said:

 

A usufruct confers the right of use to a particular person during his lifetime, and terminates upon his demise. Thus, this person cannot issue or sell anything beyond his rights.

 

Actually, they can. If a Usufructee grants a lease that is correctly registered by the land office on the back of the chanote then the lease survives the death of the Usufructee.

 

In the most extreme example, a Usufructee could register the lease on their death bed and then encumber the property for another 30 years.

 

As you can imagine this piece of law was judged by the Supreme Court years ago (case 2297/2541).

[trogers]

3 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

Actually, they can. If a Usufructee grants a lease that is correctly registered by the land office on the back of the chanote then the lease survives the death of the Usufructee.

 

In the most extreme example, a Usufructee could register the lease on their death bed and then encumber the property for another 30 years.

 

As you can imagine this piece of law was judged by the Supreme Court years ago (case 2297/2541).

 

Sure? A tenant signs a one-year lease agreement with me and issue out a two-year sublet agreement the next day...

[blackcab]

1 minute ago, trogers said:

 

Sure? A tenant signs a one-year lease agreement with me and issue out a two-year sublet agreement the next day...

 

I didn't say tenant, I said Usufructee.

 

Do you give your condo tenants a one year Usufruct?

[trogers]

1 hour ago, blackcab said:

 

I didn't say tenant, I said Usufructee.

 

Do you give your condo tenants a one year Usufruct?

 

Similar. Both are not ownership rights. Just the rights to use the property without making any major changes to it.

[blackcab]

22 minutes ago, trogers said:

 

Similar. Both are not ownership rights. Just the rights to use the property without making any major changes to it.

 

The key difference is that a Usufructee can issue a lease without the permission of the property owner, and have the lease registered at the land office (subject to my comments in post 66).

 

A Lessee can not issue a (sub)lease and have it registered at the land office without the permission of the property owner.

 

That's a big difference.

[trogers]

10 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

The key difference is that a Usufructee can issue a lease without the permission of the property owner, and have the lease registered at the land office (subject to my comments in post 66).

 

A Lessee can not issue a (sub)lease and have it registered at the land office without the permission of the property owner.

 

That's a big difference.

 

Sure you can register the lease, but it would be terminated prematurely upon the demise of the usufruct holder, and all rights returned to the property owner.

[chiang mai]

39 minutes ago, trogers said:

 

Sure you can register the lease, but it would be terminated prematurely upon the demise of the usufruct holder, and all rights returned to the property owner.

 

As said previously, the lease appears to survive the usufructee.

[blackcab]

46 minutes ago, trogers said:

 

Sure you can register the lease, but it would be terminated prematurely upon the demise of the usufruct holder, and all rights returned to the property owner.

 

No, sorry, that is incorrect. If a lease is granted by a Usufructee and it is properly registered at the land office, the lease survives the death of the Usufructee.

 

That was the judgement of the Supreme Court in case 2297/2541.

[ricklev]

22 minutes ago, blackcab said:

 

No, sorry, that is incorrect. If a lease is granted by a Usufructee and it is properly registered at the land office, the lease survives the death of the Usufructee.

 

That was the judgement of the Supreme Court in case 2297/2541.

That is an erroneous interpretation of a Supreme Court decision which is not followed by land offices in Thailand.

 

No usufruct holder is ever going to register a lease without the usufruct simultaneously being dissolved and the land owner registering the lease.  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by ricklev

[blackcab]

Are you saying a Usufructee cannot register a lease without the land owners permission?

 

Or that a Usufructee cannot register a lease at all?

Edited November 22, 2016 by blackcab

[ricklev]

The usufruct holder can't register a lease at the land office.   Period.  No land office will allow it. In reality of course nothing is absolute here. and it might very rarely happen. I've never heard of it though.  

Edited November 22, 2016 by ricklev

[ricklev]

The Supreme Court  decision referred to related to whether or not an innocent third party should have their lease revoked when the land office did indeed allow a usufruct holder to register the lease. It does not address the issue of whether or not the land office acted in error by allowing the registration. 

 

But whether or not that ruling established a legal right for a usufruct holder to register a lease really doesn't matter.  All that matters is that the land office does not and will not allow it. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by ricklev

[blackcab]

So we agree that a properly registered lease issued by a Usufructee will survive the death of the Usufructee.

 

The only point up for discussion is whether the Usufructee can get the land office to register the lease.

 

As I have previously said on this thread, the land office will not register a lease for from a Usufructee to a non-Thai person.

 

I have experience of a Usufructee granting (and registering) a lease to a Thai person, however the sample size is 1, so it's hardly setting a nationwide precedent.

Edited November 22, 2016 by blackcab

[chiang mai]

On a different aspect of this thread, the following from Bloomberg today:

 

Bangkok at number 8 in the  he league tables of cities regarded as good investment locations in Asia, up from 19th place last year!

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/indian-cities-are-the-asian-property-bargain-of-2017

[mcfish]

On a different aspect of this thread, the following from Bloomberg today:
 
Bangkok at number 8 in the  he league tables of cities regarded as good investment locations in Asia, up from 19th place last year!
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/indian-cities-are-the-asian-property-bargain-of-2017

Outstanding. I'm going to start a new thread with that info, just to see how the bashers will put a negative spin on it lol

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

[ricklev]

5 hours ago, blackcab said:

So we agree that a properly registered lease issued by a Usufructee will survive the death of the Usufructee.

 

The only point up for discussion is whether the Usufructee can get the land office to register the lease.

 

As I have previously said on this thread, the land office will not register a lease for from a Usufructee to a non-Thai person.

 

I have experience of a Usufructee granting (and registering) a lease to a Thai person, however the sample size is 1, so it's hardly setting a nationwide precedent.

Yes, I do agree with you.

 

I'm surprised the land office allowed it, but yes, the Supreme Court ruling is persuasive support for upholding the lease of the innocent lessee.  It's not binding on the judge though.  They can consider the circumstances.

 

It's possible that the owner of the land can sue the the usufruct holder or their estate for improperly leasing the property.  That's what I was told anyway........  In reality I doubt this situation happens very much.  :)

Edited November 22, 2016 by ricklev

[chiang mai]

5 minutes ago, ricklev said:

Yes, I do agree with you.

 

I'm surprised the land office allowed it, but yes, the Supreme Court ruling is persuasive support for upholding the lease of the innocent lessee.  It's not binding on the judge though.  They can consider the circumstances.

 

It's possible that the owner of the land can sue the estate of the usufruct holder for improperly leasing the property.  That's what I was told anyway........  In reality I doubt this situation happens very much.  :)

 

Forgive me for being sceptical but I'm now doubtful of your authority on this subject.

[ricklev]

1 minute ago, chiang mai said:

 

Forgive me for being sceptical but I'm now doubtful of your authority on this subject.

All that's important to me is that foreigners reading this understand that they won't be able to register a lease.  I forgive you!