Khun Jean

Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

435 Excellent

About Khun Jean

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. Buy her a ticket to Switserland. She will not be able to refuse. :) The when she gets back there is nothing to go back to. Just kidding. You are on Samui, about the worst place to be when you have to get the services from the government/police. The military is one hope, another might be the Ombudsman. Personally i would just deduct a certain amount from the lease and describre it as "1 bungalow per month 20.000 baht".
  2. I like older condos. 10 years or older. If they are in good shape and maintenance is in order i trust them more then a newly build. My older condos give a return of 10%, new ones will struggle a lot to get that. I do this for more then 10 years and never had any problems with occupancy. In the meantime the price more then doubled. Which is not of that much importance to me. It just keeps up with inflation so that when i want to sell and buy another i do not have to add much from savings. After ten years it is also time to slowly roll over some of them and that will be an ongoing process from now on. I am off the opinion that cash on the bank is the worst. I prefer real estate, gold, silver, stocks, tools.
  3. If you trust your wife then a usufruct is good to have when she dies before you. Include one of your 'heirs' on a usufruct and after you die they 'inherit' it. With a company you not have one party to worry about as with a usufruct but at least two. Three shareholders is the minimum and 51% of the shares must be in Thai hands. Sure you can have preferential shares until that law is reviewed when a company is only used for holding land. You would also need to proof that the 51% procent in Thai hands are not nominees, as in they should put in cash too. Sure you can borrow them the money but that is just another loophole that is going to be closed. I rather have a 30 year lease (or usufruct) as they are much stronger and stable rights. Nothing to worry about for at least the next 30 years.
  4. The 39% is to escape scrutiny when land title is transferred to the company. After the transfer you can then increase your share to 49%. It is just a little extra step that makes this more smooth. I am not in the same situation but if i was, i would not use the 'company' loophole. I would just stick to a lease/usufruct. Having 49% in a company probably also makes you worth more dead then alive.
  5. Yes accountants always assure as real estate brokers will always say that now is the best time to buy. Self interest is always the constant factor. As they say, results in the past will not be guaranteed in the future. A lot has changed with company ownership of land and houses. A lot more scrutiny is done now as 2-3 years ago. If you feel fine owning 49% of a business and use nominees (which is illegal) for the other 51% then at least you know going in what the risks are. If the company is only owning land and house and the business is to rent that out then it is now even advised by lawyers to settle for 39% as that will not trigger any alarm bells with the authorities. The number of shareholders have been changed to only three so it should be a lot easier now, before it was seven. If you can get two Thai people that are trustworthy then that would be better then using the nominees provided by a lawyer/accountant firm. The risk that a lawyer/accountant firm is checked and found to be using nominees many times will result in more scrutiny on all the companies they helped to incorporate. Hua-Hin, Pattaya, Phuket are the hotspots and companies are being investigated. I don't know your wife and family but is the risk really bigger that you are getting killed or is the risk bigger that you get caught using a company with nominees? There is also the option that the land is sold to another Thai individual who gives you a new usufruct. My wife has done that for a friend of ours and it worked out fine. At this very moment she will probably make another usufruct for a foreigner couple as she is in the process of selling some land. If you want i can post here how that went. It is planned on the 3rd of july.
  6. Your wife would need to make a new usufruct after the divorce, or not cancel it at all. It would then remain. Starting a company for the sake of securing the land and house is even more difficult and is absolutely not advisable. If the company already exists then it is different. If you are the director of it then you get into a grey area because then the company will be suspect to use nominees. If you 'pay off' and she is willing to move ownership to a company then she is probably MORE willing to keep it in her name and let the usufruct remain for the same amount of 'pay off'.
  7. Which brings us back to the point that a lease or usufruct is not secure when done when you are married. You are depended on your wife asking, the courts decision etc.. If you want it 100% sure, choose either option. 1) Do it before you marry or before you transfer the land to your wifes name. 2) If you really have to do it when you are married then INCLUDE A THIRD PARTY. Why keep things vague. I know the answer to that, you would need a lawyer. I like to keep things simple and independent of other peoples opinions and their idea of being 'fair'. If you are already married then you only need a usufruct or lease to protect you in case your wife dies. There is no other value, as is said many times in many posts. You open yourself up to 'fair' decisions by a judge or other situation that will result in you loosing at least 50% and probably more. BTW. Is this post another excuse to bump your wife's review post? What was it.... three times a post with the word 'Up'. Maybe consider advertising. And if you quote me, don't delete part of it!
  8. How do you go from stating (in another topic) to the above story in your posts on this topic? Do you have new information since 29 april 2017 that makes that statement invalid? And just to keep on the topic that the OP posted, how do you stay on the land when a court 'fairly' decides to split the proceedings from a sale which in most cases is fully paid by the husband(Land & house). Wasn't the whole point of a usufruct to get 100% control of the land. Otherwise why bother with it (ok it is good when the wife dies first). So the only thing that can keep a usufruct in place is that the wife does not ask the court to cancel it. Not much to hope for. That you have so much 'lol' is just weird. Or are you feeling young at heart (about 10) to do this after each sentence? Seems like your wife is doing a good job compared with many others, which is commendable. probably also influenced by having a foreign husband, nothing helps better to get a more balanced view. Lots of Thai people do not have that and will treat a foreigner unfairly, just because the fact he is a foreigner. So one of the things people have to do to get a 'fair' divorce is to contact your wife. The odds for getting a good representation and good outcome seems to get smaller and smaller for people who never read Thai Visa or know your wife.
  9. I find it interesting you use the words 'your rule book' as if i am the one who wrote it. You could have said that judges not follow the countries laws because they rather decide something that is fair for both parties. S basically anyone could be a judge then, why even study the law as it is all so strict. Any court/judge has one obligation and that is to follow the law, not some 'feel good' emotion that controls their action. If they did that they should be removed from their function. They might interpret it differently but that can be challenged. If the interpretation is shared with other judges it could be used to change the law, but until that is done, the law remains the law. Fair decisions, bet interest for all? Is it in the best interest for all parties to sell the land and divide the money. or the usufruct stays in place so the foreigner can continue to live there but the Thai person has to again leave, maybe getting a compensation from the foreigner. The other way around is hardly common. There are not many options available. Selling and splitting seems the only one available in most cases. Is that what makes you feel secure, paying for everything ending up with half and loosing your home? And does all of that not depend on which judge you have and even in which district. Or are you talking about experiences around the whole country with tens if not hundreds of cases decided by judges who all base their work on the written law but choose to ignore it? Do they have so much compassion for foreigners that they even ignore signed documents and make decisions on what they feel is fair? I find that hard to believe, but if you say so, there must be lots of cases that can be studied. I am curious if those are documented because then it would carry some real value. Like a precedent, which btw is not used in Thailand. I am fortunate enough to not have any bad experiences (land, houses, condos), i believe i had a part in that by making good (and a bit of luck) decisions. Friends and family however were not so lucky, does that count as experience or does it only count if your wife is a 'worker in the legal profession'? Is that as a lawyer, a judge, an assistant to one of those or the one that cleans the office and brings around coffee? I hope you can see that 'working in the legal profession' can be very non descriptive. Another part of my 'experience' is talking to lots of lawyers (at least 20 over the years) and they all can not give a concise answer and even contradict each other. Yes, even including the 'better' ones. As long as they are not fully accountable they do not care what documents you want, they will make it for you for a price. In the meantime i will await posts made by foreigners who went through all of the divorce proceedings and came out with a 'fair' deal. If there are any i would like to read them.
  10. So now we are to believe that a judge will not follow 'quotes' from a 'rule book'. In other words he acts outside of the law. What happens when you have a judge that does follow the law? I'll take a countries law book over ANY comment and experience shared on internet. Comparing with immigration is just silly.
  11. Do any real estate (land especially) business before you get married. Afterwards you have to sign documents stating it is not yours (becomes her Sin Suan Tua) and not part of the common marital possesions (Sin Somros) . There is no value left for you after signing that document as it has never been part of yours to begin with. Upon marriage in Thailand there is a 'built in' pre nuptial off all the possessions of each spouse. This will stay out of what needs to be divided upon divorce. When you are married the Thai wife was not allowed to own land as it would become shared property, resulting in the foreign husband owning 50% of the land which is not allowed. This was solved by making sure the land is always 100% of the Thai, hence the need to sign away your claims. This document should tell enough as it very explicitly says that it will be hers 100%. After signing you can not claim anything from that. You could build a house on it and document that all money that was used was yours (from your private money that you had before you married, a prenuptial will help). Then you could get some of that back, as a house without land is not worth much. Or have kids and put it in their name. That will give you some time. And be nice to your kids so they will be nice too if it is their turn to take care of you.
  12. With a divorce 'all properties must be taken out of the marriage and common property divided equally'. The land is obviously from the wife as at the time it was bought the husband have to sign a document stating it is fully paid by his wifes personal account. The land does not become common marital property. Upon divorce it goes back to that situation. If you want to have some recourse you would need to pay a compensation for a usufruct. This can then be part of the negotiations. If the usufruct was 'free', then dissolving it does not give any rights for compensation. If you are unsure read 'article 1469 CCCT'.
  13. 'reselling property with a usufruct' Land always has value, even with a usufruct on it. If desperate enough even a little money can be enough. Nothing to worry about in that case as the usufruct will remain. But if 'big' money is needed, why wouldn't she just cancel it. It is within her power to do so, even if it needs a divorce to get it done quickly. Desperate time, desperate measures. Maybe stay on her good side and not always be drunk and sleep with other women. :) (That was not personal, just a little joke!) When things go bad in a marriage it often leads to a divorce, which will lead to a usufruct being canceled as all contracts between couples have to be dissolved. Sure you can renegotiate as after the divorce both persons are doing it on a personal bases. A usufruct made while being married has only one value and that is that you can remain on the property after the death of the spouse. In short, if you want to be secure, sort your property stuff out before you marry. Another way is to get a usufruct from the owner (not your wife) of the land before transferring it to your wife's name.
  14. A usufruct is a 'real right', a lease also. There can be only one on a chanot. AND both to the same person will also not work. The land office will simply not do it. AND it does not give you anymore protection. Both can be canceled by the wife at any time. To be short, you (i mean your 'friend') should have done it differently. Now it is to late. We have all been there, let the next one be right. The only hope is that she really thinks the usufruct is strong. Once she talks with a lawyer, it is over.
  15. Is she ask you to lie, what do you get in return? Lower rent? If nothing in return then the answer should be a No. It should be no always but TiT. It is tax that the owner has to pay, does not concern you now. It can concern you for the next contract. The price will be at least 12.5% higher. :) A owner that does not know tax has to be paid is a dumb one, so only the dumb one should suffer and learn a lesson. Once this tax on rent gets better enforced the silly maximum 3 year contract that many owners use will also be less interesting.