Govt floats long-term land leases for foreigners

[whoareyou]

The law changes here like the weather, why would you put your trust in a country that has only contempt for it's foreign visitors? I'd rather buy a property on the moon, at least I have more chance of keeping it.

Name a few examples in the last 50 years where farang have had their property stolen by the government?

Take your time now LMAO!

[oldsailor35]

On 3/24/2017 at 7:13 PM, Paruk said:

Yep, and we can all see how that turned out. Lesson? Don't sell your land to Jewish folks.

And make sure that there are no Palistinians or Hamas over the hill who will fire rockets at you .

[oldsailor35]

On 3/24/2017 at 9:29 PM, wealthychef said:

People without a home, a wife or kids.  People with no assets.  This is why Thailand is swimming in drunk white guys that just want to screw the young ladies.  Treat people like s**t and you get s**tty people flowing into your country. 

Stay in Pattaya where you belong please. Until you in turn join the Pattaya Flying Club !

Edited March 26, 2017 by oldsailor35

[janclaes47]

1 hour ago, Naam said:

that's the usual ignorant blah-blah without any supporting evidence! my first visit to Thailand was 44 years ago, spent uncountable holidays in Thailand with my wife and we are fulltime residents since more than 12 years and haven't noticed any contempt towards us.

You're right.

The law doesn't change here often, in fact the law that owning a real estate through a company that has no other business activities is illegal, is in place for many decades already.

 

It only isn't enforced, YET.

[elgordo38]

On 3/24/2017 at 6:14 PM, kannot said:

What happened to all those  poor  buggers who bought condos on the premise of " investing in Thailand" which allowed you to stay here, about 15 years ago was it?? ie  buy a condo = permission to stay.......or did I Imagine that back in the annals of time?

is that annals or anus sorry for the confusion. 

[Dogmatix]

On 24/03/2017 at 5:03 PM, robblok said:

The 50 year is more safe.. because its not sure the people you lease from will extend an other 30 years under the same terms. (unless good friends but even so a lot can happen in 30 years)

 

The friends may also be dead or have sold your land to someone else within 30 years.  You could end up being evicted from your home in your dotage with no funds to buy another one.

[lavender19]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 5:34 PM, 12DrinkMore said:

 

If they are heading back to the UK or Europe they are in for a disappointment.

Vietnam. Most of them

[Dogmatix]

On 24/03/2017 at 5:31 PM, 12DrinkMore said:

How does it work if you want to sell?

The question was about selling a usufruct.  It is impossible to sell a ususfruct because it is not transferable but it is legally possible to lease the land to a third party for up to 30 years at present.  There is  supreme court ruling that determined this was legal and that the lease was still valid after the death of the lessor.  Usufructs can be for a lifetime or any length of time up to 30 years. 

 

Despite the supreme court ruling, it is hard to see why anyone would want to take the risk of renting land from a usufructee, unless it was in a truly exceptional location.  

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

The friends may also be dead or have sold your land to someone else within 30 years.  You could end up being evicted from your home in your dotage with no funds to buy another one.

I doubt (legally) that a lease gets broken by sale. Practically.. different story

 

[Arkady]

The headline seems rather misleading because what is being floated is an amendment to the Land Code to extend the existing right to lease land for commercial purposes for 50 years to cover land for other purposes as well.  The Land Code makes no distinction regarding nationality in the sections to do with leasing.  This is not specifically for foreigners.  It is for everyone and it seems likely to be of use to Thai property developers who find it harder to justify large scale mixed use developments that don't qualify as purely commercial (to get a 50year lease) on 30 year leases.  It will also be helpful to land owners, such as State Railways of Thailand (SRT) that need to cede some of their land holdings to pay down massive debt but refuse to sell on the grounds that the land was royally granted to them. 

 

This amendment to the law was mooted some years ago to help SRT lease out its Makkasan plot, although I think there is still a problem over the wording of the royal grant of land that specified it was to be used for railway development.  I think it has just got a new spin on it to make it appear that it will revive the sagging housing market.  I guess it will encourage some foreigners to buy houses on leased land, particularly foreign couples.  However, I would guess that most foreigners want to buy a house because they have a Thai family and they would rather buy in the Thai spouse's name or might just add a 50 year lease or usufruct for personal security in case the Thai spouse pre-deceases or walks.  The impact on the property market is likely to be negligible.

[Gary A]

The Thai law is very specific. A foreigner CANNOT own land, period. There is no way around that law. Crooked lawyers always have an angle but they are simply in the business of making money for themselves. The only notable exception is a condo in your own name. There are thousands of bogus companies and the government could confiscate those bogus company properties at any time. Since those bogus companies pay taxes, employ an accountant and a lawyer who oversees the scam, it is likely that no action will ever be taken. I wouldn't go the company route because I like to sleep peacefully at night. Up to you.

[Dogmatix]

16 minutes ago, robblok said:

I doubt (legally) that a lease gets broken by sale. Practically.. different story

 

 

The Land Code is not specific on the rights of lessees binding on successive owners.  On the face of it a lease is between two specified parties and could be deemed as non-binding on successive owners, or they could just claim the lessee was in violation.  Once you have been evicted and your beautiful house has been bulldozed, you can feel free to spend many years pursuing a civil claim through the Thai courts.  This is not like lease law in a developed country like the UK, where lease law is very clearly defined in statutory and case law and you even have a statutory right to renew long-term residential leases on reasonable terms.   

 

Thais don't normally rent land to build houses on, so there has been no need to develop this type of law to protect them.  Condos are another matter but hardly any of the condos built on leased land are 30 years old yet.  Foreigners using a lease to build a house are using a legal mechanism that was designed for the leasing of farm land or land for commercial use which doesn't normally involve the investment of an individual's life savings and come to expiration in advanced old age.   

[Arkady]

20 hours ago, Krenjai said:

• As already mentioned in post 223, all leases (except the 30 year lease) are by definition toilet paper, even if they are drawn up by respectable (thai) lawyers. They are simply not enforceable by law. Period!    
• Setting up a shell Thai Company with 'fake' Thai nominees to obtain a majority voting right is illegal  and considered circumventing the law. 

I was suggesting that people who enter into Leases with extension options should also become shareholders in the land owning company. Example: if a Developer starts a project he creates a 100% Thai company that owns the land of which he keeps 51%. The other 49% are distributed among the Lessees. This is better than a Lessee creating a shell Thai company with nominees (common practice till 2008) because that is now illegal.

 

If the voting right issue cannot be sorted as per your quote, it leaves in fact the majority with the 51% Thai. If they don't want to extend the lease I guess this is trouble for the owners. I do believe however the structure of farangs owning 49% in this company is more safe than not owning anything in the owning company from a legal standpoint.

 

I think I stick with my prediction that the Thai courts will be flooded with court cases in coming years & decades,  K.Tricky Dicky versus Farang about 30 year lease renewals. It will be interesting to see this unfold.

The problem with these lease renewal options is that they are not enforceable by application to the Land Dept because there is no provision in the Land Code for options to renew leases.  The law only states that the maximum lease period is 30 years.   So you are left with pursuing a civil case that an agreement to enter into a lease 30 years into the future was not honoured.  You may only be able to file the case against the other party to your agreement, which is only an agreement to enter into an agreement, if they still exist, whether a company or an individual, or may possibly be able to file against the estate or heirs of a deceased individual.  If you won, the civil court would not have the power to order a new lease to be signed by the other party.  It could only award you financial damages and you would have to give evidence of the financial value of this which is usually reduced to a fraction of the claim by the court.  Legal costs can be awarded to a winning plaintive but these are not assessed at actual cost.  There is a fixed scale which is normally, you've guessed it, a fraction of the actual legal fees.  If the other party doesn't pay what the court ordered, you have to keep going to court until you get a court order to seize assets, if they have enough and you are still alive after taking things this far.

 

In conclusion it would probably cost foreign plaintives more than they stand to gain to pursue these cases which would take some years to process.  Meanwhile, unless they have plenty of dosh in their old age to buy another house in Thailand and the will to stay, they have probably been forced to move back to their home country.

[12DrinkMore]

2 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

The question was about selling a usufruct.  It is impossible to sell a ususfruct because it is not transferable but it is legally possible to lease the land to a third party for up to 30 years at present.  There is  supreme court ruling that determined this was legal and that the lease was still valid after the death of the lessor.  Usufructs can be for a lifetime or any length of time up to 30 years. 

 

Despite the supreme court ruling, it is hard to see why anyone would want to take the risk of renting land from a usufructee, unless it was in a truly exceptional location.  

 

Not saying you are wrong, but can you confirm that is correct and not a misprunt?

 

This would allow an old codger on life's limit to issue a lease for another 30 years to anybody, monetizing that what never belonged to him in the first place.

 

This could be a tidy arbitrage model for somebody in their 70's. Take out low priced usufructs based on a short life expectancy and then issue 30 years leasholds....

[Destiny1990]

3 hours ago, Gary A said:

The Thai law is very specific. A foreigner CANNOT own land, period. There is no way around that law. Crooked lawyers always have an angle but they are simply in the business of making money for themselves. The only notable exception is a condo in your own name. There are thousands of bogus companies and the government could confiscate those bogus company properties at any time. Since those bogus companies pay taxes, employ an accountant and a lawyer who oversees the scam, it is likely that no action will ever be taken. I wouldn't go the company route because I like to sleep peacefully at night. Up to you.

Yes and so with the current 30 lease on the table foreigners have stopped buying them at all.Look at Phuket Samui lovely villas price range 10-50 million bht will u buy them with only 30 years lease?who will buy it from u if u want to sell such villa  after 10 years with only 20 years lease left?result no sales and no resales nothing.

[sendintheclowns]

19 hours ago, Naam said:

that's the usual ignorant blah-blah without any supporting evidence! my first visit to Thailand was 44 years ago, spent uncountable holidays in Thailand with my wife and we are fulltime residents since more than 12 years and haven't noticed any contempt towards us.

before I give you a 'like', I'd like to know if you own your own house? Because surely that is a major concern to most westerners moving here. For example, say I sell my house back home and move here. I want to build my dream house. But everything is stacked against me being able to do that. I agree with you that, locally one encounters mostly warm, friendly people,. Living in a Thai village is idyllic.  But there is contempt, (a better word would be prejudice), which exists in the laws and/or in the ways that they are interpreted.

 

To return to the topic at hand, i.e. of land leases, the  most common types of prospective land leasers are;

(i) those who are married or GF'd into a Thai family, from whom they lease the land and

(ii) those who are single, married or divorced non-Thais who want to lease land which they can pass on to their non-Thai children.

There is no land title insurance, to protect you from discovering later that there is an undisclosed right of way through your land.

There is no assurance that you have the protection of the law.

In fact, if a lawyer screws you and you complain, you get screwed a second time.

The reality is that Thailand needs to clean up the whole property mess in order for the country to become as attractive as some of its neighbours. I do not thing the will is there, because Thai will never ever surrender the concept that every non-Thai is inferior. We moved here 19 years ago.

[Jim walker]

Typical after I sold my foreign owned apartment last year and headed home again because I always knew that it was up to some obscure general who had the final say on my property not for me, so I took things into my own hands and I took control sold up and moved back home, so when I come over for a few months now just rent a property wherever I want to be in Thailand. very happy and contented with my life I have now.  

[Destiny1990]

5 hours ago, sendintheclowns said:

before I give you a 'like', I'd like to know if you own your own house? Because surely that is a major concern to most westerners moving here. For example, say I sell my house back home and move here. I want to build my dream house. But everything is stacked against me being able to do that. I agree with you that, locally one encounters mostly warm, friendly people,. Living in a Thai village is idyllic.  But there is contempt, (a better word would be prejudice), which exists in the laws and/or in the ways that they are interpreted.

 

To return to the topic at hand, i.e. of land leases, the  most common types of prospective land leasers are;

(i) those who are married or GF'd into a Thai family, from whom they lease the land and

(ii) those who are single, married or divorced non-Thais who want to lease land which they can pass on to their non-Thai children.

There is no land title insurance, to protect you from discovering later that there is an undisclosed right of way through your land.

There is no assurance that you have the protection of the law.

In fact, if a lawyer screws you and you complain, you get screwed a second time.

The reality is that Thailand needs to clean up the whole property mess in order for the country to become as attractive as some of its neighbours. I do not thing the will is there, because Thai will never ever surrender the concept that every non-Thai is inferior. We moved here 19 years ago.

My guess is that Naam lives in a freehold condo.

[sendintheclowns]

23 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

You're right.

The law doesn't change here often, in fact the law that owning a real estate through a company that has no other business activities is illegal, is in place for many decades already.

 

It only isn't enforced, YET.

quote the relevant law, please. i need to read it,

[janclaes47]

Just now, sendintheclowns said:

quote the relevant law, please. i need to read it,

I'm not Google

[xylophone]

10 hours ago, sendintheclowns said:

quote the relevant law, please. i need to read it,

It has been quoted on similar Thaivisa threads a few times before, so a search might uncover it.

 

 

[garyk]

I had a friend that had a lease like the 30 year one.  He had problems with the missis and she left.

The land was next to relatives of her's. 

He was harassed mercilessly for months on end. Rocks thrown at him. Cursing at and trashing his property time and time again.

LAW! Was called several times. A joke to say the least.

Finally with no choice really he left the property. Which was immediately taken back by the owner.

LEASE property here?  A crap shoot at best IMO. For and individual.

For big business it is a different story all together IMO. Many company's lease land in the states just like this.

Edited March 28, 2017 by garyk

[garyk]

On 3/26/2017 at 11:05 AM, Gary A said:

A long term lease may be pretty safe but if you consider your heirs, they will have nothing when the lease expires. Other than my condo which I bought in my name before we were married, everything else is in my wife's name. No crooked lawyers or land offices to deal with. If my wife should throw me out, I will pack my bags and head to the farang ghetto to my condo. Never spend more than you can comfortably afford to walk away from. If the worst should happen, I will have a roof over my head and will not miss any meals. Always have a plan "B".

Well said and I totally agree. 

[xylophone]

On 3/25/2017 at 7:01 PM, Shawn0000 said:

 

And I said that we need to adjust the laws, not sure where you got this about me thinking that adjusting them won't work.

How can you adjust the laws, when the people who are responsible for those laws are part of the problem and this link epitomises what I have been saying.........

 

https://m.aseanbreakingnews.com/2017/03/red-bull-killer-found-living-the-good-life/ 

[Naam]

15 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

My guess is that Naam lives in a freehold condo.

during the last 40 years i lived 12 months in a rented condo. that was in 2005 during the construction of our present house. if somebody would offer me to live free of charge in a million dollar condo i would reject the offer and keep on living in our modest shack happily ever after.

 

[Destiny1990]

28 minutes ago, Naam said:

during the last 40 years i lived 12 months in a rented condo. that was in 2005 during the construction of our present house. if somebody would offer me to live free of charge in a million dollar condo i would reject the offer and keep on living in our modest shack happily ever after.

 

Looks impressive?.Lease hold or?

Edited March 28, 2017 by Destiny1990

[fullcave]

On 3/24/2017 at 4:41 PM, uchibenkei said:

There are ways around land ownership laws.  I wouldn't bother with a lease.

 

Good luck with that..

[Naam]

12 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Looks impressive?.Lease hold or?

designed, built and owned! and as of today paid for 2½ times by savings on income tax. when i read rubbish such as "Thailand is more expensive than <insert country>" then i  and

[Destiny1990]

44 minutes ago, Naam said:

designed, built and owned! and as of today paid for 2½ times by savings on income tax. when i read rubbish such as "Thailand is more expensive than <insert country>" then i  and

Its getting late let me read it again tomorrow morning maybe I understand than?

[garyk]

51 minutes ago, Naam said:

designed, built and owned! and as of today paid for 2½ times by savings on income tax. when i read rubbish such as "Thailand is more expensive than <insert country>" then i  and

I don't understand that statement, "paid for itself 2.5 time because savings on income tax?"  Are you talking about taxes on a home in another country?

I know different country's have different tax laws. Where I am from income tax is totally different than home taxes. 

Please explain, Thanks