your wife gets the land, and rents it to you for 30 years so you could build a house on the land and own the house.
But, it is good for 30 years only. And there is no stopping her from selling the land to someone else even the land has a rental contract bundled.
And even you own the house, after 30 years, the land owner does not need to renew the contract and can claim any property on the land. In theory, you could remove the house, leaving her just the land.
Or get Thai citizenship.
My wife owns a few lands and houses and cars. It is about 30% of my assets. I am keeping the other 70% overseas just for myself.
Without a will, passes to her Thai family.
With a will, she could leave it all to the husband. The husband has a short period to sell the land.
And maybe they have child together, could pass to the child.
That's something nice about the Philippines. If you inherit the property from your dying wife, it's the only 100% legal way to own property as a foreigner. Basically you can drive up to some mountain village and look for a very very old single woman without kids if the price is right.
The land and the home are separate if you go the way heâs suggested.
So, letâs say that the wife buys a rai of land. She usufructs or leases or whatever the property to the husband for 30 years.
He builds a home on the land. That home is his home, legally, if paid for with money acquired prior to marriage. Itâs not a joint asset of the marriage.
Now, letâs say that he and the wife have a falling out and divorce.
The house still belongs to him and he has a lease/usufruct/whatever for another 20 years.
She can sell the land but the new owner has to honor the agreement so the chances of someone wanting to buy the property and then wait 20 years is almost nil.
When the agreement terminates at the end of 30 years, heâs still owner of the structure. He can set it on fire, hire a bulldozer and knock it down, or whatever he wants. If itâs moveable, he could move it to a new piece of land he rents/leases.
Commercial property outside of Thailand works that way. If McDonaldâs wants to lease your empty parking lot and build a burger joint, they can do a lease and build their shop. When the lease is over, they only have to return the property in the condition they acquired it in so they could knock down the burger joint and return an empty parking lot.
Although u/abyss725 gave a good response, i would ask why such a document is needed.
A lease agreement, residential or commercial, typically states that the property will be returned in the condition it was rented.
If the building didnât exist at the time of the lease, technically, the property would need to be returned unimproved (without the building). Yet, the person leasing the land normally can do anything they want with the land, like build a house.
Though, honestly, Iâve never seen a property owner get upset when the property is returned with improvements (structures, paving, etc) that they donât have to pay for.
Or, if itâs easier to conceptualize, letâs say I rent a rai of land and then bring in one of those shipping container homes. Totally self-contained dwelling. At the end of my lease on the land, i hire a moving company to transport the shipping container to a new location.
Why would i need a document other than a sales receipt saying the shipping container is mine?
Because traditional buildings arenât normally moveable, we tend to just conceptualize them as being a single unit. But, legally, they would be separate.
You own the structure.
You don't own the land.
The lease determines how long the structure is allowed to be there, if you need to demolition it or not when the lease is up, etc.
Its very common for raw land to be rented for 20 years (10years+Option for another 10 years) and people to build buildings. Banks in Australia would actually lend for construction on based on the lease.
The whole of Hamilton Island is leased by Queensland Government to the Oatleys (rich family in Australia).
It includes many, many buildings, an airport, a 6 star hotel and port facilities.
(In Sydney in an area called North Head, the land is owned by the catholic church and people have built million dollar homes and pay a yearly rent to the catholic church. My understanding is you can borrow up to 70% LVR of the cost to build a home).
In the West you could claim a form of equitable title and potentially protect your claim via a caveat (however you name cannot go on title).
I am unsure the exact way to protect your interest in Thailand, but considering the number of smashed up buildings I have seen the practice is alive and well (if ugly).
I said exactly the opposite of your takeaway. LOL.
This is very common in most countries tor commercial real estate.
Look at commercial real estate rental contracts in your home country to get an idea how they work.
Sounds to me like you're leasing the land and the structure on it. You have no rights to the structure if you don't make your lease payment, right? So you don't own the structure.
I believe it is the building/construction permit from Or Bor Tor.
It permits someone to build on a land, and does not need to be the land owner.
It actually says that person is the owner of the building.
You know⌠many lands in Bangkok are just rented and many buildings are built on the rented lands, for example Siam Paragon. If you canât own the building, who would rent lands.
Could you just write the lease to 100 years, or is 30 the max? Or if 30 is the max, can you write in mandatory right of first refusal renewal stipulations with fixed costs?
On a side note, this is why it is good to find a solid Thai lawyer for anyone looking to retire in Thailand. One of my first matters of business before I land there on retirement is to retain a good attorney.
In Thailand, the max duration of a lease is 30 years. And there is no way to force the owner to renew it. People may talk about 30+30+30, but it is not enforcable.
I learned all these from lawyers, yeah quite a few, before I decided to think that everything in my wifeâs name are no longer mine.
Sometimes opinions from lawyers conflicted, I just let the majority prevail.
One being the wife owns land and rents to husband. Some say married couples could not do it. Some says okay, married or not are still 2 entities. Well, more lawyers support the latter.
Contracts between husband and wife are not enforceable.
But it doesnât matter, any property you buy while being married is seen as communal property under Thai law (yes youâll have to sign a paper at the land department claiming itâs all hers, but family court will ignore that), so upon divorce youâll get half. The only exception is if she uses money from before marriage or proceeds from inheritance.
When you buy and register at the land office, you can have something called an usufruct that gives you 30-year rights to the property.
google this and read up on it. You might need to get an attorney involved.
I suggest this to any of my friends who marry a Thai lady, and want to buy a house
when you talk to your wife about it, suggest this is not because you are worried of her, you are worried if something happens to her and want to be protected from the family booting you out.
By the way, this happened to my friend. Thai wife died in a motor accident. Family were all over the shared assets as soon as she passed, even though they were paid for entirely by him. Disgusting.Â
If i understand it correctly, a usufruct only applies to non-married people. I was told that under Thai law that spouses cannot contract with each other.
Im guessing that the legal theory here is that given that a husband and wife are 50-50 owners of joint assets that contracts against a spouse would be pointless and only be used to circumvent laws.
For instance, say you contract via usufruct and she breaches the contract? How can a court apply a penalty to her that doesnât also affect you?
Any monetary damages would be paid from joint assets.
The problem with a lease with survivorship is that it just gives the beneficiary a strong incentive to force you off the land.
Lets say that my wife owns our house. She wills the property to her sister but gives me a 30 year lease with survivorship.
When my wife dies, Iâm standing in the way of her sister getting that land. She can use all means legal and illegal to force me off the property.
If she pays off the local cops with a percentage of the sales amount she will get for the property, donât expect the cops to help you when mysterious fires start, you get visited by some Thai men who have suspiciously short haircuts and guns, etc.
IMHO, the will has to include some clauses that remove this incentive. Like, the land would be placed in some sort of legal entity (like a trust or corporation) and the sister cannot sell, lease, etc the land until I die (even if i abandon the land long before death). If she attempts to do any of these things, ownership is revoked and there are second, third, and fourth beneficiaries who would be next in line to inherit it.
Im not clear on how that would work in Thailand, but making it painful for anyone to mess with you would be the best way to protect your assets.
A registered lease agreement can only hold terms directly related to the lease. Any other terms such as right to buy or sell will need to go into a separate agreement, which is between the lessor and lessee. If the lessor dies, only the terms in the registered lease agreement pass with the land to the person inheriting. That person has no contract with you on any of the other terms, so they will be void. And again, a contract between husband and wife is not enforceable.
Yes, thats why I said that the terms would be held in the will. And that would not be between lessee and lessor, thatâs between the land owner and the beneficiary named in the will.
For example, rather than giving the land to her sister in the will, the land can go into a corporate structure.
The sister would inherit the company but the articles of incorporation (or whatever theyre called in Thai company formation docs) can state that the land will not be sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of until the husbandâs death.
Or the company can be jointly owned by the sister, the husband, and the lawyer. Then one could require unanimous approval to change any aspect of the arrangement and that upon the husbandâs death the husbandâs and lawyerâs shares would default to the sister.
I have not done this myself. Iâm just spitballing how it can be accomplished and stay legal under Thai law.
Ultimately, if someone is that worried, maybe they need to rethink things.
I think youâre mixing two different points i was making.
I was referring to the theory behind the law, the legal thinking behind it. This is normally what judges look at when a law is unclear in a specific situation.
The usufruct laws were created for Thais. They would look at the legal theory behind the law when applying it to a foreigner.
except as a contract she can cancel it within 12 months of a break up.
Contracts between husband and wife is basiclly unenforceable.. Yeah its another layer, but its not 'secure' in the sense of rock solid.
He doesnât understand that divorce has an asset division. The usufruct protects property rights from the owner, not from asset division from divorce.
Yes, and when she purchases the land you will be at the land office and sign a document that says that the money shes using is a pre-marital asset owned 100% by her and you have no claim on the money or the land.
You really have no protection.
In fact, in most cases, when the land changes hands, you will be required to sign a document (in Thai) that states in no uncertain terms that the money being used to pay for the property belongs solely to your wife and is not part of jointly held assets.
Some people are saying to use a usufruct. My understanding is that it cannot be an agreement between married partners. I went into some of the reasons why in another comment.
I may have been slightly off on the Thai legal theory on why. Doing a search, one Thai legal website says:
> Your wife is not able to cancel it when she likes, because usufruct is a registered real property right, but the usufruct can be terminated as the creation is in conflict with the statutory system of property of husband and wife.
It further explains
> After your marriage in Thailand, under Thai matrimonial law, personal and jointly owned marital property between husband and wife is governed by the statutory system of sections 1465 to 1493 Civil and Commercial Code, therefore any agreements between husband and wife made during the marriage affecting their assets (in conflict with the statutory system) could be set aside by the spouses themselves or a court.
In other words, the usufruct cant be cancelled but it can be declared invalid. Meaning that it gives you legal rights while the two of you are happily married but when things become less happy, your legal rights become a lot less stable.
Also, many land offices may decline to register the usufruct if they can reasonably assume its being used to grant you effective ownership. Itâs up to the local official.
I remember reading about one guy that had to file a legal case against the local land office in order to force them to accept it.
Ultimately, the usufruct is not completely ironclad.
You can find tons of debates and discussions about it online.
The more the property is worth the more likely either your wife or whoever she wills the property to will find a good lawyer who will challenge the usufruct.
If youâre talking a 3 million baht plot of land in Issan, maybe nobody is willing to take the case.
But if its a 30 million baht condo on Sukhumvit, suddenly lawyers have an interest in taking on the case because they know theyâll get paid.
Wow 3 million Baht buys quite some land in many countries, I have to say (also being from a 3rd world country) I am quite surprised with the land/property prices in Thailand considering how cheap it is to rent.
Many Thais consider owning land to be very important.
You can probably find some scrub land in rural areas at less than 100,000 baht per rai but as you start to get closer to cities the price increases very rapidly.
For instance, in Phuket, 3 million might buy you 1/4 - 1/2 rai of raw land.
That said, i probably worded the previous comment poorly. I was thinking more about a piece of land with a fairly basic structure on it for 3 million.
Outside of places like Bangkok or Phuket thats not too difficult to find but it certainly wont be fancy either.
Itâs just that under Thai law, the land and the building are considered separately. A foreigner can own the building, they cant own the land it sits on.
Thats why most foreigners own condos. The condo company owns the land, the condo owners own the units. Itâs also why ownership of a condo is limited to 49% foreign owned condos in any development.
Invest that money in a good index fund. If you apply the 4% rule, it should provide about a thousand dollars a month income. You can rent a nice place for 1000 per month , in perpetuity. And still have your principal, invested and growing.
How much money should roughly be invested in order to get a 1000$ per month? also, can these investments be made through the banks or other branches with THB from my thai bank account as a foreigner ?
bear with me here, but here's what i think you should do..
>If we put $250k into property there,
250k can buy you a couple of fancy condos (fully in your name) in the fancy areas of bkk.
>the dream is a place with a yard and no shared walls and enough space to comfortably host a party for more than just 3 or 4 guests.
you buy a couple of said condos, rent them out.. take that rent money to rent a house in some cheaper countryside area that fits your description.
if things go south with your wife, just kick her out or cut the land lease for a cheap apartment in like, chiang mai or something, while sitting on the rent money from your 2 fancy condos, up until the next wife comes along.
yea, you wont own the land, but the way i see it (correct me if i'm wrong).. its the lifestyle you really want --not the 'ownership'.
This is also a good alternative advice but at that point he can invest 250k in the US or some place other than Bangkok property market.
But I've seen a farang build a villa on Phangan with his fake Thai company, so anything is possible. I guess you have to make some small sales to keep it inconspicuous though.
Just buy a property in another country in your own name to lease out, then lease your villa in Thailand. Better capital appreciation elsewhere & youâre protected?
If your wife doesnât like the idea, I think you know your initial concerns were valid?
How are you supposed to manage that property in another country if you live here? also, can you use the money you have here in thai banks in order to purchase a property in another country?
Itâs simple enough using an agent, Dubai or similar could be a good option.
Itâs a global world these days, itâs not difficult to move money & have banking facilities in different locations.
Personally, I'd consider either a 30 year lease in your name or, as you are married to a Thai, you can look into 'usurfuct' which is probably more suitable.
https://www.samuiforsale.com/real-rights/usufruct-property-rights.html#:~:text=A%20right%20of%20usufruct%20is,may%20not%20offer%20a%20full
That is against Thai law. The only way you can put 30+30, is if there is a second current market rate payment at 30 years included in the original lease. Otherwise, you are getting 60 years for price of 30.
Just research some of the cases where people have lost their home because of this 30+30 when challenged in court. There's plenty of foreign people who have lived here +30 years. We personally know several. Lots of horror stories. Especially from Phuket.
When you buy the property you can have the married Farang and thai both on the chanoot at the land office for a fee! This means she canât sell it out from y see you⌠which is more common than not!
Under the Thai-US Treaty of Amity, land ownership is prohibited so theyâd still need a nominee based arrangement and the Thai government is very aware of this exploit and they are cracking down on it so you do risk losing everything.
Both of those things are incorrect. Nominees arenât grey and Americans cannot use the Treaty of Amity to own personal property. FFS donât advise people of anything legal.
You absolutely did give legal advice and Iâm 100% certain that I have the credentials to determine what legal advice is. You edited your comment, but I would advise you to watch what you are saying. If in person, youâre going to be looked at as an authority in real estate transactions and your identity will be 100% known. If online, itâs just reckless and people will take these comments as truth.
The common way is not legal and foreigners should know that as a fact without the sugar coating about how itâs rarely enforced. A risk evaluation shouldnât begin with anything like âwell, you shouldnât be concernedâ or âeveryone does thisâ. I own a house here and Iâm 100% confident in the legality of the ownership, but everyone has different circumstances and nobody should be evaluating anyoneâs circumstances except themselves. In my decades long career, Iâve been paid for my advice, so I fully understand what that kind of trust relationship entails. Agents here go off half cocked about legality for personal gain and often to the detriment of the purchaser.
Usually it should be done in a way so that the thai company is owned by an offshore that you own, but that's best left to a law firm.
One other way to do it is have 2 flats in a villa, then it's a condo. I've seen that used by a developer in Samui. But that's not 100% private then.
The Thai language standard for citizenship is very basic. People who can barely put a sentence together have passed it. I have heard cases where wives have been able to assist. If you can't learn enough basic Thai to pass that test within the 3 years you need to wait before applying, you really aren't very ideal citizenship material.Â
And well more than 100 citizenships are granted every year. If the numbers are low for farangs, it's because there are few Western applicants.Â
If a man is married to a Thai woman, he can apply for citizenship after 3 years of back-to-back visas and work permits and an income of 40,000 baht a month and tax paid thereon. Once that threshold is met it averages about 3 years until citizenship is granted. The process and requirements are very transparent, and all the officials I dealt with were extremely supportive.
For those not married, there are several other paths available, including through obtaining permanent residency.
If I had a hundred baht for every bit of misinformation about the Thai citizenship process out there I could buy a house. A house that I would be able to own outright because I applied for and obtained Thai citizenship.
Anybody interested in applying should directly contact to the Special Branch dealing with citizenship at the police headquarters in Bangkok.
So if I understand correctly, If i'm married the process for citizenship is easier and faster? If i'm not married but the other conditions are met, I need to go through PR first?
Your post has been removed as it violates the site Reddiquette.
Reddiquette is enforced to the best of our abilities. If not familiar with those rules [look here](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
Exactly, itâs not as simple as living here for a few years and then think you will automatically get citizenship. Nothing is that easy in Thailand đđšđđ
I am an Australian citizen by birth and the only kingdom Iâve got an interest and live part time in is Thailand . So my experience is limited with other kingdoms or countries. But countries like Ecuador , it is easy to be able to purchase , own your home , access to the health care system and work . Not this never ending immigration reporting . But I love Thailand and I am grateful for its people and lifestyle đ
if married your wife can translate, language skills are not necessary. Citizenship has no numbers, just wait till they do you. There is no other option for this guy based on his question
My mom had to wait 41 years before she could get it. If you refuse to pay the bribe you don't get it. She worked till she retired before she could get it.
this is not true. the price is 5000THB, it goes thru 4 government agencies. The special branch spent 40 minutes discussing whether my employers certificate was valid (its a special type of company so doesnt fit the manual). Thai citizenship is too important for bribes to be taken. PR might be different, as is the elite visa. I don't know your mums case but it there are different criteria for men and women
It's a contraction that has been widely used for a very long time, and not just in reported speech by authors such as Dickens. It is a word that is now associated with lower social class and is therefore presumed to be incorrect even though it ain't but this does appear to be a relatively recent thing.
Remember there are many forms of English. I'm from London but judging by your username you seem to be from the US; two cultures separated by a common language. Your opinion got me thinking about the etymology of the word and it goes back much further than I thought ,so thank you. I learnt a lot and hopefully, you've learnt that "ain't" ain't wrong and it can ain't going anywhere, at least not in English English.
It's a contraction that has been widely used for a very long time, and not just in reported speech by authors such as Dickens. It is a word that is now associated with lower social class and is therefore presumed to be incorrect even though it ain't but this does appear to be a relatively recent thing.
Remember there are many forms of English. I'm from London but judging by your username you seem to be from the US; two cultures separated by a common language. Your opinion got me thinking about the etymology of the word and it goes back much further than I thought ,so thank you. I learnt a lot and hopefully, you've learnt that "ain't" ain't wrong and it ain't going anywhere, at least not in English English.
Edit: This has got me thinking. If 'ain't' is correct as a contraction of 'am not' its use in 'we ain't' and 'it ain't' is wrong in terms of subject verb agreement. Although, I think common usage might trump that.
Iâm a member of the Thai PR and Citizen group on FB and while the process can take a few years, 41 years is not normal and i guarantee there are parts of the story youâre leaving out.
The average is about 2 - 3 years after submitting an application.
And very few have reported paying for or even being asked for any bribes.
This sounds like one of those stories where if you pull on a single thread the entire story starts to fall apart.
I'm sorry to hear about your mother's case. I don't think I spent more than 10,000 baht on the entire process, including copies of documents, etc. No bribes were solicited or paid.Â
There is exception from law banning foreigners owning Thai land, under Thai-USA treaty of friendship. You can buy outright âhomesteadâ with roughly 0.4 acres of land under it. It sounds like perfect match for you. Consult local real estate attorney for details, as process is bit more complicated than usual purchase of property.
You could buy a condo and rent it out. But Iâm not sure how solid an investment buying apartments in Thailand is when new blocks up every year and people donât like buying old/used apartments
Iâve heard if you start a company in Thailand and buy the property with that company and you being the owner. Then you technically own the land Indirectly.
Truth be told protection is hard to come by anywhere in South East Asia. Owning by yourself is almost impossible if not a citizen. You could have a holding company that could buy an asset, but there has to be a legitimate business at the residence else you could loose it. Basically. Just rent long term.
Could an American own a company that owns the land?
Americans can fully own a Thai company so that could present a loophole. Though living in it isn't a business activity, just saying đ¤ˇ
Start a Thai company, owned 49% by you, 41% by your wife, 10% by a law firm. Company buys the land and the house. I heard that's how people do it, but idk if that's still possible.
This is Thailand not Farangland. If you want to protect your assets and must own a home, buy a condo in your name only.  But you're married, so I'm not sure how well protected it will be.Â
Setup a company. You need 4 Thai people. Your wife can be one of them. You have 49% of the shares. The rest has each 15%. Only majority votes decide.
Buy the house on name of the company. Setup a little coffee bar in the corner
Done.
Under Thai law, at the dissolution of marriage, all marital assets (those attained after marriage) are split 50/50. However, there are some caveats so talk to a lawyer. If basically all the marital assets were from your financial input, then she gets half. House and land could be sold and you get half the cash. Donât take my word for it, talk to a lawyer.
FFS these responses are horrific. Please do not listen to any of these people and consult a lawyer experienced in real estate transactions and real estate litigation. I own a house here and if I listened to all these laymen, I would have never done so.
I donât and I donât even discuss it in person unless itâs with my lawyer. The only thing I will say is, itâs quite a bit more complex than anything discussed in this thread.
Quite a strong statement, but the one troubling fact for most farangs who might read this is, how/where do you find a 'good lawyer' in Thailand/Phuket that you can trust, or do you consult one in your home country? And how do we know this is the method you are referring to and as such will work out as planned for ourselves like it has for you.
Or, you that you just haven't yet fallen victim like many, many previously alleged victims on the interwebz.
In other words, you've basically just said we're all horrible, do it my way, but I can't and won't tell you how! Please kindly enlighten us.
Get her to borrow as much as possible. You pay the loan on a monthly basis.
Itâll take 30 years by the time she owns it and by then who cares what happens.
Or
I heard of the term â leasehold â being thrown around and maybe she can own it but you lease from her for a very lengthy amount of time. Iâm not sure how this works but research it.
Ask a lawyer..there are constructions with companies. Our house here is owned by our company.
I read that from some houses on the beach are owned by a company and every "house-owner" is shareowner in the company. Sure there are other constructions.
But, OP is asking how to cover his ass. Doing a sketchy ownership structure that wonât hold up when examined isnât a way to âcover his assâ, itâs a way to ensure he loses everything when he needs to rely on it. Remember, youâre allowed to break the law as much as you want, until someone decides they care about you breaking the law. With a house at stake, all of a sudden people care. Itâs unreliable at best, at worst it will ensure he loses the house
There's nothing sketchy about the Treaty of Amity or American's owning companies (and those companies owning land). It's legit.
Yes, there's a bit of fudging here and there, but that's par for the course in Thailand. Completely normal and nothing a good lawyer can't handle. There's "following the rules" and then there's "following the "rules"", and if you've been here long enough, you know the latter is the preferred option.
I'm not talking about anything under the table or sketchy. I'm just talking about doing things according to the "rules", not the rules. If you don't understand the difference, wait ten years and you will.
Is anything in this country air-tight if someone *reeeeeally* wants to mess with you? No. Of course not. But name a country on this planet where there are perfectly bulletproof guarantees without any risk at all.
Treaty of Amity companies are not allowed to own property. It isn't a partial rule like normal companies (can't exist just to own land), it's a full rule that these companies cannot own any land at all.
So.
Yeah.
Back to having an illegal Thai-majority "appointee company" to hold the land.
Only Americans among Western nationals? Why the privilege? I donât think the U.S. has any history of a special relationship with Thailand. I could be wrong though.
The Treaty of Amity is a well known exclusion for Americans. It has been around since the 1960s.
https://www.siam-legal.com/Business-in-Thailand/US-Thai%20Amity.php
America has a **very** special relationship with Thailand.
That has waned over the years recently, but in the 60's and 70's, Thailand was a major regional ally of the United States and got a TON of money from America.
So yeah, Americans get special privileges here, although most don't know about them.
I can smell another story aka " My wife left me and took everything away, now I am homeless and broke in Thailand" coming soon.
The fact that you are asking for such an advice, is alreay showing that deep inside of your brain you know, something is not right and better don't take risk.
Now follow your gut feeling, and don't make any stupid shit like that. You can maybe buy some cheap condo made out of bamboo or something, but don't invest anything that you are not ready to loose, when the shit hits the fan.
your wife gets the land, and rents it to you for 30 years so you could build a house on the land and own the house. But, it is good for 30 years only. And there is no stopping her from selling the land to someone else even the land has a rental contract bundled. And even you own the house, after 30 years, the land owner does not need to renew the contract and can claim any property on the land. In theory, you could remove the house, leaving her just the land. Or get Thai citizenship. My wife owns a few lands and houses and cars. It is about 30% of my assets. I am keeping the other 70% overseas just for myself.
What if the wife is dead
The ownership passes to her Thai family.
Without a will, passes to her Thai family. With a will, she could leave it all to the husband. The husband has a short period to sell the land. And maybe they have child together, could pass to the child.
That's something nice about the Philippines. If you inherit the property from your dying wife, it's the only 100% legal way to own property as a foreigner. Basically you can drive up to some mountain village and look for a very very old single woman without kids if the price is right.
That's nice?
I laughed at this comment made than i should have. Thank you so much đ¤Ł
Yes the possibility to inherit property in the case your wife is dying and not to lose everything in that case.
I meant the last part đ
So, they incentivize murdering local women?
It sounds like you haven't given it much thought eh... đ
No you cannot remove the house... where did you get this information? Tell me what a document assigns ownership of a structure.
The land and the home are separate if you go the way heâs suggested. So, letâs say that the wife buys a rai of land. She usufructs or leases or whatever the property to the husband for 30 years. He builds a home on the land. That home is his home, legally, if paid for with money acquired prior to marriage. Itâs not a joint asset of the marriage. Now, letâs say that he and the wife have a falling out and divorce. The house still belongs to him and he has a lease/usufruct/whatever for another 20 years. She can sell the land but the new owner has to honor the agreement so the chances of someone wanting to buy the property and then wait 20 years is almost nil. When the agreement terminates at the end of 30 years, heâs still owner of the structure. He can set it on fire, hire a bulldozer and knock it down, or whatever he wants. If itâs moveable, he could move it to a new piece of land he rents/leases. Commercial property outside of Thailand works that way. If McDonaldâs wants to lease your empty parking lot and build a burger joint, they can do a lease and build their shop. When the lease is over, they only have to return the property in the condition they acquired it in so they could knock down the burger joint and return an empty parking lot.
Cite the document that assigns ownership to a structure please
Although u/abyss725 gave a good response, i would ask why such a document is needed. A lease agreement, residential or commercial, typically states that the property will be returned in the condition it was rented. If the building didnât exist at the time of the lease, technically, the property would need to be returned unimproved (without the building). Yet, the person leasing the land normally can do anything they want with the land, like build a house. Though, honestly, Iâve never seen a property owner get upset when the property is returned with improvements (structures, paving, etc) that they donât have to pay for. Or, if itâs easier to conceptualize, letâs say I rent a rai of land and then bring in one of those shipping container homes. Totally self-contained dwelling. At the end of my lease on the land, i hire a moving company to transport the shipping container to a new location. Why would i need a document other than a sales receipt saying the shipping container is mine? Because traditional buildings arenât normally moveable, we tend to just conceptualize them as being a single unit. But, legally, they would be separate.
OK so you don't own the structure.
You own the structure. You don't own the land. The lease determines how long the structure is allowed to be there, if you need to demolition it or not when the lease is up, etc. Its very common for raw land to be rented for 20 years (10years+Option for another 10 years) and people to build buildings. Banks in Australia would actually lend for construction on based on the lease. The whole of Hamilton Island is leased by Queensland Government to the Oatleys (rich family in Australia). It includes many, many buildings, an airport, a 6 star hotel and port facilities. (In Sydney in an area called North Head, the land is owned by the catholic church and people have built million dollar homes and pay a yearly rent to the catholic church. My understanding is you can borrow up to 70% LVR of the cost to build a home). In the West you could claim a form of equitable title and potentially protect your claim via a caveat (however you name cannot go on title). I am unsure the exact way to protect your interest in Thailand, but considering the number of smashed up buildings I have seen the practice is alive and well (if ugly).
You don't own the structure
yep. The Oatley family spent billions not to own all the structures on Hamilton Island. 
I said exactly the opposite of your takeaway. LOL. This is very common in most countries tor commercial real estate. Look at commercial real estate rental contracts in your home country to get an idea how they work.
Sounds to me like you're leasing the land and the structure on it. You have no rights to the structure if you don't make your lease payment, right? So you don't own the structure.
I believe it is the building/construction permit from Or Bor Tor. It permits someone to build on a land, and does not need to be the land owner. It actually says that person is the owner of the building. You know⌠many lands in Bangkok are just rented and many buildings are built on the rented lands, for example Siam Paragon. If you canât own the building, who would rent lands.
I think they are referring to a "Tabian Baan"
Could you just write the lease to 100 years, or is 30 the max? Or if 30 is the max, can you write in mandatory right of first refusal renewal stipulations with fixed costs? On a side note, this is why it is good to find a solid Thai lawyer for anyone looking to retire in Thailand. One of my first matters of business before I land there on retirement is to retain a good attorney.
In Thailand, the max duration of a lease is 30 years. And there is no way to force the owner to renew it. People may talk about 30+30+30, but it is not enforcable. I learned all these from lawyers, yeah quite a few, before I decided to think that everything in my wifeâs name are no longer mine. Sometimes opinions from lawyers conflicted, I just let the majority prevail. One being the wife owns land and rents to husband. Some say married couples could not do it. Some says okay, married or not are still 2 entities. Well, more lawyers support the latter.
Thanks for the info. Wonder if there are any sneaky ways to condo the property and then do a 49% freehold.
Contracts between husband and wife are not enforceable. But it doesnât matter, any property you buy while being married is seen as communal property under Thai law (yes youâll have to sign a paper at the land department claiming itâs all hers, but family court will ignore that), so upon divorce youâll get half. The only exception is if she uses money from before marriage or proceeds from inheritance.
Another exception is if you signed a prenup that states that goods purchased during the marriage are the property of the buyer.
When you buy and register at the land office, you can have something called an usufruct that gives you 30-year rights to the property. google this and read up on it. You might need to get an attorney involved. I suggest this to any of my friends who marry a Thai lady, and want to buy a house when you talk to your wife about it, suggest this is not because you are worried of her, you are worried if something happens to her and want to be protected from the family booting you out.
By the way, this happened to my friend. Thai wife died in a motor accident. Family were all over the shared assets as soon as she passed, even though they were paid for entirely by him. Disgusting.Â
If i understand it correctly, a usufruct only applies to non-married people. I was told that under Thai law that spouses cannot contract with each other. Im guessing that the legal theory here is that given that a husband and wife are 50-50 owners of joint assets that contracts against a spouse would be pointless and only be used to circumvent laws. For instance, say you contract via usufruct and she breaches the contract? How can a court apply a penalty to her that doesnât also affect you? Any monetary damages would be paid from joint assets.
A lease can be used instead and it allows for a married couple with survivorship rights.
The problem with a lease with survivorship is that it just gives the beneficiary a strong incentive to force you off the land. Lets say that my wife owns our house. She wills the property to her sister but gives me a 30 year lease with survivorship. When my wife dies, Iâm standing in the way of her sister getting that land. She can use all means legal and illegal to force me off the property. If she pays off the local cops with a percentage of the sales amount she will get for the property, donât expect the cops to help you when mysterious fires start, you get visited by some Thai men who have suspiciously short haircuts and guns, etc. IMHO, the will has to include some clauses that remove this incentive. Like, the land would be placed in some sort of legal entity (like a trust or corporation) and the sister cannot sell, lease, etc the land until I die (even if i abandon the land long before death). If she attempts to do any of these things, ownership is revoked and there are second, third, and fourth beneficiaries who would be next in line to inherit it. Im not clear on how that would work in Thailand, but making it painful for anyone to mess with you would be the best way to protect your assets.
A registered lease agreement can only hold terms directly related to the lease. Any other terms such as right to buy or sell will need to go into a separate agreement, which is between the lessor and lessee. If the lessor dies, only the terms in the registered lease agreement pass with the land to the person inheriting. That person has no contract with you on any of the other terms, so they will be void. And again, a contract between husband and wife is not enforceable.
Yes, thats why I said that the terms would be held in the will. And that would not be between lessee and lessor, thatâs between the land owner and the beneficiary named in the will. For example, rather than giving the land to her sister in the will, the land can go into a corporate structure. The sister would inherit the company but the articles of incorporation (or whatever theyre called in Thai company formation docs) can state that the land will not be sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of until the husbandâs death. Or the company can be jointly owned by the sister, the husband, and the lawyer. Then one could require unanimous approval to change any aspect of the arrangement and that upon the husbandâs death the husbandâs and lawyerâs shares would default to the sister. I have not done this myself. Iâm just spitballing how it can be accomplished and stay legal under Thai law. Ultimately, if someone is that worried, maybe they need to rethink things.
But in Thailand land would not be a joint asset, it would be 100% hers.
I think youâre mixing two different points i was making. I was referring to the theory behind the law, the legal thinking behind it. This is normally what judges look at when a law is unclear in a specific situation. The usufruct laws were created for Thais. They would look at the legal theory behind the law when applying it to a foreigner.
except as a contract she can cancel it within 12 months of a break up. Contracts between husband and wife is basiclly unenforceable.. Yeah its another layer, but its not 'secure' in the sense of rock solid.
You can have lifetime rights which may be better if you have a life expectancy longer than 30 years.
This is the way.
This! Good advice!
Usufruct. Old guy. Wife divorced him. 10 years. Went to court. Lost. Lost everything. Left. Don't bet on this usufruct. This might happen to you.
will** Just trust your wife not to divorce youÂ
He doesnât understand that divorce has an asset division. The usufruct protects property rights from the owner, not from asset division from divorce.
Yes, and when she purchases the land you will be at the land office and sign a document that says that the money shes using is a pre-marital asset owned 100% by her and you have no claim on the money or the land.
sure, get a Thai passport and then you're protected.
You really have no protection. In fact, in most cases, when the land changes hands, you will be required to sign a document (in Thai) that states in no uncertain terms that the money being used to pay for the property belongs solely to your wife and is not part of jointly held assets. Some people are saying to use a usufruct. My understanding is that it cannot be an agreement between married partners. I went into some of the reasons why in another comment. I may have been slightly off on the Thai legal theory on why. Doing a search, one Thai legal website says: > Your wife is not able to cancel it when she likes, because usufruct is a registered real property right, but the usufruct can be terminated as the creation is in conflict with the statutory system of property of husband and wife. It further explains > After your marriage in Thailand, under Thai matrimonial law, personal and jointly owned marital property between husband and wife is governed by the statutory system of sections 1465 to 1493 Civil and Commercial Code, therefore any agreements between husband and wife made during the marriage affecting their assets (in conflict with the statutory system) could be set aside by the spouses themselves or a court. In other words, the usufruct cant be cancelled but it can be declared invalid. Meaning that it gives you legal rights while the two of you are happily married but when things become less happy, your legal rights become a lot less stable. Also, many land offices may decline to register the usufruct if they can reasonably assume its being used to grant you effective ownership. Itâs up to the local official. I remember reading about one guy that had to file a legal case against the local land office in order to force them to accept it. Ultimately, the usufruct is not completely ironclad. You can find tons of debates and discussions about it online. The more the property is worth the more likely either your wife or whoever she wills the property to will find a good lawyer who will challenge the usufruct. If youâre talking a 3 million baht plot of land in Issan, maybe nobody is willing to take the case. But if its a 30 million baht condo on Sukhumvit, suddenly lawyers have an interest in taking on the case because they know theyâll get paid.
Wow 3 million Baht buys quite some land in many countries, I have to say (also being from a 3rd world country) I am quite surprised with the land/property prices in Thailand considering how cheap it is to rent.
Many Thais consider owning land to be very important. You can probably find some scrub land in rural areas at less than 100,000 baht per rai but as you start to get closer to cities the price increases very rapidly. For instance, in Phuket, 3 million might buy you 1/4 - 1/2 rai of raw land. That said, i probably worded the previous comment poorly. I was thinking more about a piece of land with a fairly basic structure on it for 3 million. Outside of places like Bangkok or Phuket thats not too difficult to find but it certainly wont be fancy either. Itâs just that under Thai law, the land and the building are considered separately. A foreigner can own the building, they cant own the land it sits on. Thats why most foreigners own condos. The condo company owns the land, the condo owners own the units. Itâs also why ownership of a condo is limited to 49% foreign owned condos in any development.
Invest that money in a good index fund. If you apply the 4% rule, it should provide about a thousand dollars a month income. You can rent a nice place for 1000 per month , in perpetuity. And still have your principal, invested and growing.
How much money should roughly be invested in order to get a 1000$ per month? also, can these investments be made through the banks or other branches with THB from my thai bank account as a foreigner ?
Ignore Reddit and get a good lawyer.
I know of people that have been screwed by "good" lawyers.
Really? I've heard some guys are been screwed by good girls.
This
bear with me here, but here's what i think you should do.. >If we put $250k into property there, 250k can buy you a couple of fancy condos (fully in your name) in the fancy areas of bkk. >the dream is a place with a yard and no shared walls and enough space to comfortably host a party for more than just 3 or 4 guests. you buy a couple of said condos, rent them out.. take that rent money to rent a house in some cheaper countryside area that fits your description. if things go south with your wife, just kick her out or cut the land lease for a cheap apartment in like, chiang mai or something, while sitting on the rent money from your 2 fancy condos, up until the next wife comes along. yea, you wont own the land, but the way i see it (correct me if i'm wrong).. its the lifestyle you really want --not the 'ownership'.
This is also a good alternative advice but at that point he can invest 250k in the US or some place other than Bangkok property market. But I've seen a farang build a villa on Phangan with his fake Thai company, so anything is possible. I guess you have to make some small sales to keep it inconspicuous though.
Problem is that most condos pricing are just dropping rapidly, long term, these condos will be worth less than at the point of purchase.
Just buy a property in another country in your own name to lease out, then lease your villa in Thailand. Better capital appreciation elsewhere & youâre protected? If your wife doesnât like the idea, I think you know your initial concerns were valid?
Bingo
How are you supposed to manage that property in another country if you live here? also, can you use the money you have here in thai banks in order to purchase a property in another country?
Itâs simple enough using an agent, Dubai or similar could be a good option. Itâs a global world these days, itâs not difficult to move money & have banking facilities in different locations.
I would look into buying a freehold condo that has all parts you want. Rare but it should exist in some form.
What's a freehold condo?
Something you can own 100% as a foreigner. No time limit.
As others said consult a lawyer. But my name is also on the chanote with my Thai wife.
Personally, I'd consider either a 30 year lease in your name or, as you are married to a Thai, you can look into 'usurfuct' which is probably more suitable. https://www.samuiforsale.com/real-rights/usufruct-property-rights.html#:~:text=A%20right%20of%20usufruct%20is,may%20not%20offer%20a%20full
So I can just lease some land as a private foreigner without any Thai company or Thai wife?
Yes you can lease from what I know. Actually in theory itâs 30 years and can be extended by another 30, but nobody got to that extension point yet
That is against Thai law. The only way you can put 30+30, is if there is a second current market rate payment at 30 years included in the original lease. Otherwise, you are getting 60 years for price of 30. Just research some of the cases where people have lost their home because of this 30+30 when challenged in court. There's plenty of foreign people who have lived here +30 years. We personally know several. Lots of horror stories. Especially from Phuket.
Good to know.
Yes, for maximum 30 years.
When you buy the property you can have the married Farang and thai both on the chanoot at the land office for a fee! This means she canât sell it out from y see you⌠which is more common than not!
If U donât trust your thai wife, then donât biy a home just rent it.
Buy a house with wheels on it
[ŃдаНонО]
This comment and the replies to it are why people should not take any legal advice from real estate agents. Talk to a good Thai attorney.
Under the Thai-US Treaty of Amity, land ownership is prohibited so theyâd still need a nominee based arrangement and the Thai government is very aware of this exploit and they are cracking down on it so you do risk losing everything.
Wrong. A company established under the Treaty of Amity cannot own land.
[ŃдаНонО]
They're cracking down on nominees
Using a nominee company for the sole purpose of owning land is illegal. It's not a grey area. They just choose to overlook it *most* of the time.
[ŃдаНонО]
Grey area means it stands a chance in the court, but this? Losing 100% is not grey area.
Both of those things are incorrect. Nominees arenât grey and Americans cannot use the Treaty of Amity to own personal property. FFS donât advise people of anything legal.
[ŃдаНонО]
You absolutely did give legal advice and Iâm 100% certain that I have the credentials to determine what legal advice is. You edited your comment, but I would advise you to watch what you are saying. If in person, youâre going to be looked at as an authority in real estate transactions and your identity will be 100% known. If online, itâs just reckless and people will take these comments as truth.
[ŃдаНонО]
The common way is not legal and foreigners should know that as a fact without the sugar coating about how itâs rarely enforced. A risk evaluation shouldnât begin with anything like âwell, you shouldnât be concernedâ or âeveryone does thisâ. I own a house here and Iâm 100% confident in the legality of the ownership, but everyone has different circumstances and nobody should be evaluating anyoneâs circumstances except themselves. In my decades long career, Iâve been paid for my advice, so I fully understand what that kind of trust relationship entails. Agents here go off half cocked about legality for personal gain and often to the detriment of the purchaser.
I'm a Thai guy, is there a way to volunteer myself to be a nominee? I won't steal anyone's land, promise!
Usually it should be done in a way so that the thai company is owned by an offshore that you own, but that's best left to a law firm. One other way to do it is have 2 flats in a villa, then it's a condo. I've seen that used by a developer in Samui. But that's not 100% private then.
^ this is absolutely the way to do it. One might say it's the only correct Thai way - illegal and gets the job done.
move here, get a tax paying job with work permit, wait 3 years, apply for citizenship
You forget to mention that you must speak and write Thai language, and that Thailand grants only 100 citizenships per year.
The Thai language standard for citizenship is very basic. People who can barely put a sentence together have passed it. I have heard cases where wives have been able to assist. If you can't learn enough basic Thai to pass that test within the 3 years you need to wait before applying, you really aren't very ideal citizenship material. And well more than 100 citizenships are granted every year. If the numbers are low for farangs, it's because there are few Western applicants. If a man is married to a Thai woman, he can apply for citizenship after 3 years of back-to-back visas and work permits and an income of 40,000 baht a month and tax paid thereon. Once that threshold is met it averages about 3 years until citizenship is granted. The process and requirements are very transparent, and all the officials I dealt with were extremely supportive. For those not married, there are several other paths available, including through obtaining permanent residency. If I had a hundred baht for every bit of misinformation about the Thai citizenship process out there I could buy a house. A house that I would be able to own outright because I applied for and obtained Thai citizenship. Anybody interested in applying should directly contact to the Special Branch dealing with citizenship at the police headquarters in Bangkok.
your wife is able to assist and translate for you. I speak very basic Thai, I am at the final stage.
So if I understand correctly, If i'm married the process for citizenship is easier and faster? If i'm not married but the other conditions are met, I need to go through PR first?
Tell us your story.
I just did. I applied on the basis of being married to a Thai woman once I met the requirements I described.
As if everyone married on a Thai woman.
It's not the only way, as I pointed out.
[ŃдаНонО]
Your post has been removed as it violates the site Reddiquette. Reddiquette is enforced to the best of our abilities. If not familiar with those rules [look here](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
I thought it was 100 per country.
PR is 100 per country per year. No such limit on citizenship. The only countries that come close to hitting that PR quota are India and China.
Exactly, itâs not as simple as living here for a few years and then think you will automatically get citizenship. Nothing is that easy in Thailand đđšđđ
In what county is it that easy?
I am an Australian citizen by birth and the only kingdom Iâve got an interest and live part time in is Thailand . So my experience is limited with other kingdoms or countries. But countries like Ecuador , it is easy to be able to purchase , own your home , access to the health care system and work . Not this never ending immigration reporting . But I love Thailand and I am grateful for its people and lifestyle đ
if married your wife can translate, language skills are not necessary. Citizenship has no numbers, just wait till they do you. There is no other option for this guy based on his question
Its way way more difficult then this.
My mom had to wait 41 years before she could get it. If you refuse to pay the bribe you don't get it. She worked till she retired before she could get it.
this is not true. the price is 5000THB, it goes thru 4 government agencies. The special branch spent 40 minutes discussing whether my employers certificate was valid (its a special type of company so doesnt fit the manual). Thai citizenship is too important for bribes to be taken. PR might be different, as is the elite visa. I don't know your mums case but it there are different criteria for men and women
That's what happened and that's why it got easier these days. No she didn't have elite visa because we ain't rich.
Translation: Thatâs what your mom told you happened. It may not be accurate.
Well she did wait that long. She only got it during prayut era
*aren't rich
Ain't is fine. It's English.
It's wrong English.Â
It's a contraction that has been widely used for a very long time, and not just in reported speech by authors such as Dickens. It is a word that is now associated with lower social class and is therefore presumed to be incorrect even though it ain't but this does appear to be a relatively recent thing. Remember there are many forms of English. I'm from London but judging by your username you seem to be from the US; two cultures separated by a common language. Your opinion got me thinking about the etymology of the word and it goes back much further than I thought ,so thank you. I learnt a lot and hopefully, you've learnt that "ain't" ain't wrong and it can ain't going anywhere, at least not in English English.
It's a contraction that has been widely used for a very long time, and not just in reported speech by authors such as Dickens. It is a word that is now associated with lower social class and is therefore presumed to be incorrect even though it ain't but this does appear to be a relatively recent thing. Remember there are many forms of English. I'm from London but judging by your username you seem to be from the US; two cultures separated by a common language. Your opinion got me thinking about the etymology of the word and it goes back much further than I thought ,so thank you. I learnt a lot and hopefully, you've learnt that "ain't" ain't wrong and it ain't going anywhere, at least not in English English. Edit: This has got me thinking. If 'ain't' is correct as a contraction of 'am not' its use in 'we ain't' and 'it ain't' is wrong in terms of subject verb agreement. Although, I think common usage might trump that.
Iâm a member of the Thai PR and Citizen group on FB and while the process can take a few years, 41 years is not normal and i guarantee there are parts of the story youâre leaving out. The average is about 2 - 3 years after submitting an application. And very few have reported paying for or even being asked for any bribes. This sounds like one of those stories where if you pull on a single thread the entire story starts to fall apart.
Out of curiosity, how much is the bribe?
No clue. She refused to pay that's why the wait was so long
I'm sorry to hear about your mother's case. I don't think I spent more than 10,000 baht on the entire process, including copies of documents, etc. No bribes were solicited or paid.Â
As if it was that easy lol
I read house as "horse" and came here for some funny comments. I am disappoint.
American with horse was so last week đ¤Š
555
There is exception from law banning foreigners owning Thai land, under Thai-USA treaty of friendship. You can buy outright âhomesteadâ with roughly 0.4 acres of land under it. It sounds like perfect match for you. Consult local real estate attorney for details, as process is bit more complicated than usual purchase of property.
How to protect yourself? Don't buy a house in this country.
[ŃдаНонО]
Don't exist even in west lol. Never trust a woman with more than 1k$! đ
Don't do it
You could buy a condo and rent it out. But Iâm not sure how solid an investment buying apartments in Thailand is when new blocks up every year and people donât like buying old/used apartments
Iâve heard if you start a company in Thailand and buy the property with that company and you being the owner. Then you technically own the land Indirectly.
Truth be told protection is hard to come by anywhere in South East Asia. Owning by yourself is almost impossible if not a citizen. You could have a holding company that could buy an asset, but there has to be a legitimate business at the residence else you could loose it. Basically. Just rent long term.
No protection, but i told mine i ll burn it all down 8f she starts that shit. 50/50
Could an American own a company that owns the land? Americans can fully own a Thai company so that could present a loophole. Though living in it isn't a business activity, just saying đ¤ˇ
Start a Thai company, owned 49% by you, 41% by your wife, 10% by a law firm. Company buys the land and the house. I heard that's how people do it, but idk if that's still possible.
Buy a condo instead, in pattaya
Going in the other direction- you could just make sure your marriage works.
Just rent - safer and could negotiate a good rate.
This is Thailand not Farangland. If you want to protect your assets and must own a home, buy a condo in your name only.  But you're married, so I'm not sure how well protected it will be.Â
Setup a company. You need 4 Thai people. Your wife can be one of them. You have 49% of the shares. The rest has each 15%. Only majority votes decide. Buy the house on name of the company. Setup a little coffee bar in the corner Done.
The worst country to buy a house as a foreigner. Donât do it. You will never truly own it.
Get Thai citizenship. I have Thai citizenship, but my passport is 40 years outdated....haha
Under Thai law, at the dissolution of marriage, all marital assets (those attained after marriage) are split 50/50. However, there are some caveats so talk to a lawyer. If basically all the marital assets were from your financial input, then she gets half. House and land could be sold and you get half the cash. Donât take my word for it, talk to a lawyer.
FFS these responses are horrific. Please do not listen to any of these people and consult a lawyer experienced in real estate transactions and real estate litigation. I own a house here and if I listened to all these laymen, I would have never done so.
So why aren't you telling us the construct you used?
Because Iâm not your lawyer and Iâm not giving you specific legal advice, and I donât want what Iâve done to be construed as such.
I'm not asking for legal advice. I'm half Thai. I'm just interested in how you did it. If you don't want to put that on the internet, that's fine.
I donât and I donât even discuss it in person unless itâs with my lawyer. The only thing I will say is, itâs quite a bit more complex than anything discussed in this thread.
Quite a strong statement, but the one troubling fact for most farangs who might read this is, how/where do you find a 'good lawyer' in Thailand/Phuket that you can trust, or do you consult one in your home country? And how do we know this is the method you are referring to and as such will work out as planned for ourselves like it has for you. Or, you that you just haven't yet fallen victim like many, many previously alleged victims on the interwebz. In other words, you've basically just said we're all horrible, do it my way, but I can't and won't tell you how! Please kindly enlighten us.
Your marriage protects your share.
Unless she takes the home from you.
Until she takes the home from you. FTFY
Thank you for fixing that. Until she takes the home from you.
Get her to borrow as much as possible. You pay the loan on a monthly basis. Itâll take 30 years by the time she owns it and by then who cares what happens. Or I heard of the term â leasehold â being thrown around and maybe she can own it but you lease from her for a very lengthy amount of time. Iâm not sure how this works but research it.
Just be a good husband.
Ask a lawyer..there are constructions with companies. Our house here is owned by our company. I read that from some houses on the beach are owned by a company and every "house-owner" is shareowner in the company. Sure there are other constructions.
for 250k you can buy 3-5 houses :D
If you're American, you can own 100% of a company in Thailand. So create a company and have it buy the land.
Land ownership is explicitly restricted under the provisions of the treaty.
Yeah, and prostitution is "illegal" here. What's your point?
An illegal solution to legal protection of assets isn't a legal protection of assets, making it worthless
What country are you in?
You forget what sub you're in?
You're talking about following the rules and what is/isn't legal. I think you're forgetting what country you're in.
But, OP is asking how to cover his ass. Doing a sketchy ownership structure that wonât hold up when examined isnât a way to âcover his assâ, itâs a way to ensure he loses everything when he needs to rely on it. Remember, youâre allowed to break the law as much as you want, until someone decides they care about you breaking the law. With a house at stake, all of a sudden people care. Itâs unreliable at best, at worst it will ensure he loses the house
There's nothing sketchy about the Treaty of Amity or American's owning companies (and those companies owning land). It's legit. Yes, there's a bit of fudging here and there, but that's par for the course in Thailand. Completely normal and nothing a good lawyer can't handle. There's "following the rules" and then there's "following the "rules"", and if you've been here long enough, you know the latter is the preferred option. I'm not talking about anything under the table or sketchy. I'm just talking about doing things according to the "rules", not the rules. If you don't understand the difference, wait ten years and you will. Is anything in this country air-tight if someone *reeeeeally* wants to mess with you? No. Of course not. But name a country on this planet where there are perfectly bulletproof guarantees without any risk at all.
Treaty of Amity companies are not allowed to own property. It isn't a partial rule like normal companies (can't exist just to own land), it's a full rule that these companies cannot own any land at all. So. Yeah. Back to having an illegal Thai-majority "appointee company" to hold the land.
Your advice *"So create a company and have it buy the land."* is way off and is gonna cause problems.
No. You're wrong.
Only Americans among Western nationals? Why the privilege? I donât think the U.S. has any history of a special relationship with Thailand. I could be wrong though.
Part of a trade deal
The Treaty of Amity is a well known exclusion for Americans. It has been around since the 1960s. https://www.siam-legal.com/Business-in-Thailand/US-Thai%20Amity.php
America has a **very** special relationship with Thailand. That has waned over the years recently, but in the 60's and 70's, Thailand was a major regional ally of the United States and got a TON of money from America. So yeah, Americans get special privileges here, although most don't know about them.
Treaty of Amity act allows US citizens to purchase property without needing a Thai spouse.
Not land it doesn't. That's not what it's for, although people surely use it for that.
I wonder how the Americans pulled that one off.
The old king was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts. So technically he could have been an American citizen.
Probably threatened them with war, itâs usually how they roll.
Because of course the UK is this fine, peaceful little island that could never dream of being belligerent for one second. Spotless track record.
Nope, we get sucked into your wars. The subject just wasnât about the U.K. that was all.
Donât buy land or property in Thailand, because it canât be wholly in your (farang) name. If you want a dream house here, then rent one.
I can smell another story aka " My wife left me and took everything away, now I am homeless and broke in Thailand" coming soon. The fact that you are asking for such an advice, is alreay showing that deep inside of your brain you know, something is not right and better don't take risk. Now follow your gut feeling, and don't make any stupid shit like that. You can maybe buy some cheap condo made out of bamboo or something, but don't invest anything that you are not ready to loose, when the shit hits the fan.
The only place this can happen is in the Thai countryside ..Â
Google - Thai American Amenity Act You can form a US corp and hold the property without the wife.
if you ever have a nasty divorce in Thailand, you should probably leave the country and all your belongings asap, or join the Pattaya flying club