Squatting relatives

[harada]

Hoping someone can help me out with a bit of advice, my wife is currently going through some legal stuff with relative who squatted on her land and house 10years ago ( three houses on the land) we realise that they are entitled to lay claim to the land after 10 years but I'm unsure if they are entitled to claim the house.

[funandsuninbangkok]

Another good reason to rent not buy. No chance of adverse possession. 

 

If if you added up all the legal bills from farang property owners in Thailand and compared rents paid by renters - same same but less headache 

[dotpoom]

12 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Another good reason to rent not buy. No chance of adverse possession. 

 

If if you added up all the legal bills from farang property owners in Thailand and compared rents paid by renters - same same but less headache 

There's a hugh difference between coming home to your own home......than coming home to four walls that one can' t even hang a picture of dear old Mum without asking for somebody's permission......we all have different values though, I understand that.

PS. I do remember reading somewhere before about any person.having the right to squat in any house that was vacant for more than 10 years.....cannot be sure though.

Edited May 10, 2017 by dotpoom

[dorayme]

Adverse possession might imply living openly without permission and unchallenged.

 

The attorney would know Thai law.

[Minnehaha]

oh, they have a legit claim to the land and therefore the immovable property as well, I do believe. 

I have seen squatters do this to beach front, great view properties. Owners are obliged to upkeep their property or at least defend it against squatters if they care to keep it. This happens surprisingly often

[Nokawou]

10 years is the legal time that you have to occupy a property before you can claim it, this is according to an attorney we consulted in Surin.

[xylophone]

4 minutes ago, Nokawou said:

10 years is the legal time that you have to occupy a property before you can claim it, this is according to an attorney we consulted in Surin.

Not sure of the law on this in Thailand, but I believe that similar laws in other countries stipulate that the land which is being claimed by the "squatters" has to have been left unattended/forgotten about for 10 years by the owners.

 

If the owners knew that their relatives were building houses on this land and allowed them to do so/gave them permission, then I believe that's a different story altogether?

[ToddinChonburi]

So how do they prove the ten years ?

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, Nokawou said:

10 years is the legal time that you have to occupy a property before you can claim it, this is according to an attorney we consulted in Surin.

Does this work as well in abandonment like the wife has been gone a long time""

Edited May 10, 2017 by elgordo38

[Nokawou]

I presume so, I only know that the attorney said if the wife used the property for 10 years she has legal claim to it. She build all the structures on it so these belong to her but I am sure that this is valid for structures as well.

[Nokawou]

Just spoke to the wife if house (land) has red chanote they have a claim but only if owners never showed up in ten years if there was a verbal agreement with the occupants then they have no claim. It still has to go through the court uncontested and there will still be lot of questions asked before they are awarded ownership. If you contest the claim in court and can prove the house/land belongs to you they have no claim. Hope this helps.

[bazza73]

17 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Another good reason to rent not buy. No chance of adverse possession. 

 

If if you added up all the legal bills from farang property owners in Thailand and compared rents paid by renters - same same but less headache 

I actually have another good reason to rent and not buy here. If I buy, I then have to declare my status as a homeowner to Centrelink

( Australia ). It doesn't matter if the property is 1 million or 20 million baht.

Centrelink will then kindly cut my part pension by about 20,000 baht a month. It's a wonderful world of bureaucracy we live in.

[cornishcarlos]

I thought the title referred to not having a western style toilet !!

Bit disappointed after reading the OP...

[KarenBravo]

Bugger!

Thought this was going to be one of those "foot-prints on the toilet seat" threads.

[NoshowJones]

2 hours ago, ToddinChonburi said:

So how do they prove the ten years ?

What do you think one of the ways in Thailand that makes lawyers rich is?

How much do you think an average lawyer will make by finding out?

[RBOP]

The wify brother built a little shack on her land upcountry to sell goods. We said no way and promptly destroyed the structure. He was pissed but the reasoning was that after a certain time period the brother could claim the land for himself.

[RBOP]

2 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

What do you think one of the ways in Thailand that makes lawyers rich is?

How much do you think an average lawyer will make by finding out?

THB 15,000 per hour.  

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, Nokawou said:

owners never showed up in ten years if there was a verbal agreement with the occupants then they have no claim

As I alluded to earlier, if the land had been "abandoned" to all intents and purposes and had never been visited by the owner or had any sort of maintenance or improvements done on it, then after 10 years the squatter can lay claim to it.

[IAMHERE]

harada, fight this in court. Your wife did not abandon the house or land. Did the relatives just move in for ten years and your wife never talked to them? If she knew they were there then she let them stay, she did not abandon the property. The relatives were looking after the property in exchange for living there, by your wife's permission and direction. Did the relative ever do your wife another favor or gift her anything? A gift or favor or dinner would be considered payment.

[cornishcarlos]

A rent book will prevent any disputes...

[Fulwell53]

5 hours ago, xylophone said:

Not sure of the law on this in Thailand, but I believe that similar laws in other countries stipulate that the land which is being claimed by the "squatters" has to have been left unattended/forgotten about for 10 years by the owners.

 

If the owners knew that their relatives were building houses on this land and allowed them to do so/gave them permission, then I believe that's a different story altogether?

No no no.

If it is bad law and unscrupulous people the old fogie thai haters on here will insist it can only happen in thailand...no where else on earth.

[JSixpack]

23 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Another good reason to rent not buy. No chance of adverse possession. 

 

If if you added up all the legal bills from farang property owners in Thailand and compared rents paid by renters - same same but less headache 

 

But if Thais, as the issue is regarding a Thai wife's land, have to rent, not buy, then rent from whom?

[Keesters]

On 5/10/2017 at 0:18 AM, funandsuninbangkok said:

Another good reason to rent not buy. No chance of adverse possession. 

 

If if you added up all the legal bills from farang property owners in Thailand and compared rents paid by renters - same same but less headache 

If I'd rented my house the owner would have had to pay me to live there to make it the equivalent of buying.

[BEVUP]

14 hours ago, bazza73 said:

I actually have another good reason to rent and not buy here. If I buy, I then have to declare my status as a homeowner to Centrelink

( Australia ). It doesn't matter if the property is 1 million or 20 million baht.

Centrelink will then kindly cut my part pension by about 20,000 baht a month. It's a wonderful world of bureaucracy we live in.

Nothing to worry about there

You bought nothing & own nothing as you would of no doubt signed the Samros paper in the Amphor

[BEVUP]

13 hours ago, RBOP said:

The wify brother built a little shack on her land upcountry to sell goods. We said no way and promptly destroyed the structure. He was pissed but the reasoning was that after a certain time period the brother could claim the land for himself.

Maybe he knew you said no way that's why he was pissed as the Thais would of not worried as it's family 

[BEVUP]

Their must be some proof of paying a bill to the government or someone that only your wife could of done

[xylophone]

21 minutes ago, BEVUP said:

Their must be some proof of paying a bill to the government or someone that only your wife could of done

That's one way............another poster has suggested a rent book or similar and then again a simple written "agreement" which states that the owner allows the relative to live on/use the property at their discretion (one page drawn up by local lawyer and signed by both parties would suffice).

 

In the case where none of the above has been done then evidence that the owner undertook some "maintenance" on the property (cutting grass, trees, planting) or even visited the occupier should be enough to stave off "squatters rights".

[harada]

13 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

harada, fight this in court. Your wife did not abandon the house or land. Did the relatives just move in for ten years and your wife never talked to them? If she knew they were there then she let them stay, she did not abandon the property. The relatives were looking after the property in exchange for living there, by your wife's permission and direction. Did the relative ever do your wife another favor or gift her anything? A gift or favor or dinner would be considered payment.

Yes the second court case is in a couple of weeks, I probably didn't explain things fully in my first post , the house that these people ( stepsister and husband) occupied is the original old family home on a section of the block, there is also another new house that my wife and her mother live ( and me when I'm in Thailand ) and a smaller one that my stepson lives in, these people were given land by the government which they sold, which I am now led to believe is illegal prior to swatting in this house, and as far as doing some work in lieu of rent, the only time they will do any work for my wife is if she pays them, as you suggested something down in writing may have been a good Idea, hopefully the lawyer will sort it out.