Need help with house buying

[Guess]

............................. I obtained a chanote in a company name within the last 2 weeks .The Thai shareholders were not present and we supplied no information regarding financial status .If asked the shareholders could easily have provided income proof between them to cover the land value .All are Hua Hin residents ....................

This does not surprise me and I have heard a similar (but unsubstantiated) recent story.

The blocking of the company landownership loophole (or as onlyme says the accepted crime) was shut for a specific reason that was nothing to do with the individual owning a retirement or holiday home.

I am sure that, at national government level, the income and foreign currency earned by Thailand from ex-pats is considerable. Although some stupid decisions are made due to shortsightedness and selfish motivations, I believe that the government under Thaksin would not have wished to drive foreigners out altogether. The Thaksin regime was all about lining pockets.

My understanding was that the tightening up/enforcement of regulations surrounding foreign company land and house ownership was carried out with full cooperation with, or under instructions of, G8 countries when it was discovered that the system was being abused by large scale property developers and being used for black money laundering.

The changes have already had the desired effect and there were a number of shootings disappearances and arrests made in Australia, the US, the UK and other countries.

This was major league international crime syndicates, not the sort of developers that operate in holiday towns although there was a complex in Jomtiem mentioned at the time. Most of the dealings involved industrial and retail premises, hotels and condo blocks.

After initial arrests that were published in the world's press the whole topic became sub judice and it all went quiet.

If all that is true it is pretty pointless to carry on enforcing every legal detail.

Also in the case Crazy88 mentions, the shareholders were in Hua Hin rather than scattered around the country. This would indicate it is a real company with real Thai people.

I took the same precaution at the time and made sure that the shareholders were willing and able to give evidence of their right to a share holding.

There are some tax implications that make that sensible too.

[Brit Jim]

Hi

So have I read this correct???

So if a foriegner has a Thai Co for the Land and its not legitimate and the authorities get wind and give them the 180 days notice.

Then all you do is go to the land Dept and change the Chanote to a lease from a Thai person that you can trust!

I Think having Thai shareholders from HH would look legitimate and maybe thats why the the OP had no problems with the transfer. I did mine 3 years ago and the share holders where from all over the country.

I think this was the case for most Farang. I have since replaced most of these now and most are HH based and its an easy process.

Further the majority of people on my estate have all use the Thai co method and to date none have received any problems. Also none have registered their homes at the land Dept just the Land Transfer. Maybe this is why they have not received any attention????

I appreciate that things could change in the future!

[Super Joe]

So if a foriegner has a Thai Co for the Land and its not legitimate and the authorities get wind and give them the 180 days notice.
Then all you do is go to the land Dept and change the Chanote to a lease from a Thai person that you can trust!

Yes, but you do not have to trust them, the transfer of land and registration of your lease on the land title will all be done behind the counter at the land office, before coming back into his hands. Takes approx. 30-45 minutes.
Once your lease is registered by law the Thai has to honour the 30 years, he can sell the land the next day but the new owner is bound by law to honour the 30 years, or however long is left of it.

A Thai trustworthy friend would help if you want them to give you the 30 year extension at the end of the initial 30 years. But I wouldn't even consider a Thai staying friends with me that long AND turning down the chance to get his land back at a real current day value.

SJ

[faq2mfh]

Onlyme's advise for new comers and home buyers is sound. Rent a place in Hua Hin and take the time to research these things yourself.

[clive]

I have to declare that I am involved in the Real estate business and that my company has been referred to in this post.

Now that’s out of the way, Most of the posts on this thread have been very interesting. However we see that once again it is always the Farangh who have not bothered to get an understanding of the rules, and most of them are only rules not laws, that have run into trouble. From reading many posts over the years it is nearly always Farangh buying a home and then living with and trusting a Thai partner that have the problems, love is!

Before anyone can go forward you need to understand the mindset of the Thai government, they do not want to lose their jobs, they earn big money and have an excellent lifestyle. They have to appease as many Thai voters as possible to get re-elected, hence Thaksin buying every family a cow! But at the same time they have to be seen to assist in the growth of the country and its citizens. So they have to embrace inward investment from outside global companies, hence the likes of Honda & Ford investing many millions.

Tourism in Thailand provides a very small window of opportunity, being almost exclusively a short term 4 month period. Farangh owners of property here are of benefit to the economy, Thai labour to build the homes, government taxes and the money these people spend. They also know that most of these properties are available for rent and this brings in another area of tourism, people who do not want to stay in a hotel and for sure would not rent a Thai style house. But a big factor here is that these owners tend to visit outside the high season.

So the Thai government wants the Farangh buying private homes or a small number for rental investment but they do not want to upset the Thai people. So they find ways around the rules whereby they can save face with the electorate and continue the business of selling property to the Farangh. As a matter of interest I can tell you that in Pattaya 95% of all property sales, including condos, are to Farangh, and most of the developers are very large Thai companies, most of whom will have Thai MP’s as shareholders.

No one has a crystal ball, we know not what will happen in the future, Thailand is a great place to live, not too much big brother, excellent weather and a more relaxed way of life than in the West, just be careful.

There must be thousands of people who own second homes here, all bought using differing methods and yet every time anyone posts about property here we hear the same worn out and as far as I can see unsubstantiated stories of woe. And of course those stories appear to be coming from people who live here, maybe they just want to stop anyone else enjoying the place or maybe they are just plain jealous because they either did not have the courage to buy or could not afford to buy a property here, and if they do not live here what gives them the right to criticize the systems here.

Forget the rest here is the best! Go with your gut feelings, buy what you like where you like because you want to. But be careful! Ask lots of questions and if the only answers you get are YES then walk away, you are being fed lies, a substantial number of your questions should be answered NO because the person providing the answers should KNOW.

[Guess]

...................................There must be thousands of people who own second homes here, all bought using differing methods and yet every time anyone posts about property here we hear the same worn out and as far as I can see unsubstantiated stories of woe. And of course those stories appear to be coming from people who live here, ......................

I agree that moaners get heard more but I also believe that everybody should be made aware of the potential pitfalls no matter what the likeliehood is.

It is human nature to grumble unfortunately. Can you imagine anybody getting on the forum, starting a thread and saying that they had bought a house and everything was hunky dory.

What has been said already that I have also noticed is that most problems are to do with buyers trusting their partners and being let down.

[Super Joe]

What has been said already that I have also noticed is that most problems are to do with buyers trusting their partners and being let down.

Agree Guess, there are set-up's available where you have total control, and your partner or her family have none. But farangs choose to put the land in their partners name and handover control.
There's benefits to that but massive risks too

SJ

[Wanderlust]

What has been said already that I have also noticed is that most problems are to do with buyers trusting their partners and being let down.

Agree Guess, there are set-up's available where you have total control, and your partner or her family have none. But farangs choose to put the land in their partners name and handover control.
There's benefits to that but massive risks too

SJ

I don't think the risk is much greater than it would be anywhere else really; relationships go sour everywhere, and if the couple split then in the UK and Thailand both parties are legally entitled to 50% of the marital possessions i.e. anything purchased when married. In the US I don't think that applies and is more dependent on how good your lawyer is. Of course in the UK and the US there is no restriction on who owns the land but that is actually irrelevant when it comes to a couple splitting up. Where foreigners would have a problem would be if the land was put in the name of a girlfriend, because then there would be no legal claim for the foreigner at all. Even a lease agreement expires at the end and then a foreigner could be left with nothing, although they will have had the benefit of 30 years on the land. At least the married foreigner who puts it in their Thai spouses name can get a minimum 50% of the value.

[malcolminthemiddle]

At least the married foreigner who puts it in their Thai spouses name can get a minimum 50% of the value.

The officer at Cha Am Land Department refused to register a Usufruct on land being registered in my Thai wifes name, for that exact reason.

[Super Joe]

Thailand both parties are legally entitled to 50% of the marital possessions i.e. anything purchased when married

WL, What you're saying make sense back home etc, but a farang who puts the land in his wife's name here gets 0% of the land value in the event of divorce as it was bought with her private money that she had prior to marriage and not part of the marital assets (the declaration form you have to sign at the land office.)
Farang would be entitled to anything upto 100% of the house on the land but during the 2 years you're waiting to get her in court she has already sold land and house (she can do this in one hour) and the money's under her uncle's matress. When you get in court she says she lost it all playing cards, what do you do.
Back home it's not so bad usually as you are still working and get yourself another house to live in, but the 60 year old who comes out here with his life savings and loses most of it in the above example is stuffed.

The property set-up can be arranged so that you own 100% of land and house in the event of divorce as none of it is part of the martial assets, she would only be entitled to 50% of any gain since you bought the property, which is marital assets.

It's a big risk people do not need to put themselves in, some win some lose.

Extract from Government Land Code:
"An alien whose spouse is a Thai national either legitimate or illegitimate, that Thai national can purchase land but the alien spouse of that Thai national must give a joint written confirmation that the money which that Thai national will expend on purchasing the land is wholly the separate property or personal effects of that Thai national and not the Sin Somros or jointly acquired property."

SJ

[Super Joe]

At least the married foreigner who puts it in their Thai spouses name can get a minimum 50% of the value.

The officer at Cha Am Land Department refused to register a Usufruct on land being registered in my Thai wifes name, for that exact reason.

Malcolm, didn't they get you to sign the declaration that it's all hers ? Then is should have been ok, we've done several at Hua Hin land office.

SJ

[Wanderlust]

That declaration doesn't hold up in a Thai court; I know because a Thai court awarded me the value of land and house in a complicated legal case when I broke up with my first Thai wife - basically I agreed with her to pay her a sum of money in lieu of her half as it would take some time to sell the house, but we were both conned by a 'lawyer' in Bangkok who got her to sign a document that ended up allowing him to sell the house without our knowledge (neither of us were living there at the time). I sued him, and the ex gave evidence on my behalf, and the court awarded me the full amount. My proper lawyer was amazed at the document the land office requires foreigners to sign and told me it was not legally enforceable, and he was right. The legal marital rights are that you are entitled to 50% of anything bought or acquired while you are married regardless of who pays for them or where that money comes from.

[malcolminthemiddle]

SJ. Yes I did sign the declaration.

Can you have a look here

[ URL edited, no competing websites. Please post the article. ]

Is there a conflict between the Land Code quoted in your post and the Civil and Commercial Law under the sections 1470 - 1472 and 1474 quoted in this article albeit from 2005?

[Super Joe]

That's refreshing to know, sometimes they are fair and on the side of us Aliens.
Ofourse any judge can interpret a case on its merits under civil law we have here. Presumably most farangs don't take it as far as you did as they are probably not aware they may have a chance of 50%. What would have happened to your case if she had sold the chanote and ran off into the sunset!?

It's still a risk as time and again farangs seem to be getting ripped off in case of separation, whether because they did not bother going to court, a court decided against them or the wife simply sold the land asap!?

SJ

[Super Joe]

SJ. Yes I did sign the declaration.

Can you have a look here


Is there a conflict between the Land Code quoted in your post and the Civil and Commercial Law under the sections 1470 - 1472 and 1474 quoted in this article albeit from 2005?

Malcolm, I think the contradiction/joke about it is that the farang clearly uses his own money to buy the land but he has to sign the declaration to say that it is all her personal money gained before marriage, as per Section 1470 " properties of husband and wife except in so far as they are set aside as "Sin Suan Tua" ( personal Assets ). Supposedly once farang signs that then under the law it is her personal property and not part of the marital assets as Section 140.
WL case was judged differently, but I bet not all judges would decide the same way neccessarily1?

My concern with it all, and what I think is the biggest risk is that the wife holds the cards (in the guise of a Chanote) and can sell it the next day and the onus is on the farang to persue it through court. WL ex seemed to be co-operative in the process but many won't even attend their court date.

Can't understand why they would not register your Usufruct, I've done 3 at Hua Hin without question!?

SJ