Current Housing Market

Post by **caller** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:34 am

Burger - thanks for that.

So how does one exercise their right to buy the land and how lawfully, absolutely rock solid, can a lease be extended for another 30 years? I've heard about the latter but not the former.

Both scenarios are challenged elsewhere in the sense that the only way to legally buy land is via a Thai owner - they are the owner - and the 30+30 is not in statute and therefore nothing more than an agreement between two parties that is not lawfully binding?

Caller

Post by **JimmyGreaves** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:10 am

Burger wrote:
In such cases, what could you expect to pay as the lease?
Say you buy a 5M Baht house from a developer, the house costs 4m and the land 1M.
The 30 year lease fee is therefore 1M and is paid upfront (when you register the lease at the land office).
So in effect the lease does not cost you anything extra, apart from some taxes at the land office each year.

So that, cutting through all the why's and wherefores, at the end of 30 years, you can get kicked off with no comeback?
You have a legally binding contract with the land owner/developer that they will extend your lease for a further 30 years.
Or you can exercise your right to purchase at any time.

Burger

That's what I was getting at Burger. if you have paid the 1 million the wording purchase only means exchanging some documents to say you are the owner as you have already purchased for 1 million. You don't want the developer trying to get the current rate for the land 10 years down the line when the land has increased 200% and they want another 2 million to purchase do you?

Post by **fremdulo** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:10 am

Caller, i'm sure you're right. I've been trying to find a way to own land here and the bottom line is that you can't, unless you bring a wadd of money into the country, about 0.5M stg, which you have leave with the government interest free, everything else is a smoke screen. Also the the land office only recognises the original 30 year lease, everything else is a contract between you and the owner, think what the land will be worth in 30 years, willl they try to wriggle out of a contract they made 30 years ago? what if they die? what if they sell? what if they change their mind? its all legal stuff so you have to ask the question ... do you want to buy the possibility of aggravation and expense in the future or not? You have to trust the owner and trust the law will change in your favour otherwise your land becomes less attractive as the lease expires. Would you go for that back home?

Post by **Burger** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:12 am

You give notice in accordance with your lease contract that you want to buy the land and the land owner has legally committed in the contract to let you do that for a fee of 1% of the total rental. You can then take out a new 30 year lease with someone else, leave it in a Limited Company or A.N. Other option if the law changes.

The land owner has to extend you for another 30 years, because he has legally committed to it in a contract, but this only comes into play if it is the same land owner that you initially made the agreement with.

Burger

Post by **Mack111** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:35 am

what actually happens when the lease exspires?

most of the leases in Europe are with the goverment and probally can be renewed but idoubt that happens in Thailand

Post by **johnnyk** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:59 am

The owner is under no obligation to renew the lease at the end of the 30 years. If you do have an agreement saying you have the right to another 30 years it can be recognized 30 years later... but both parties must appear in person at the Land Office to register it. Most likely when the lessee and lessor are 80+ years old.
555 and chok dee krup on that.

In Thai law, should the heirs or successors to the land not wish to renew for a second 30 years they are required to compensate the lessee for the house on the land. Naturally this will be a meaty subject for negotiation and lawyers when the lessee is 80+ years old.
Chok dee krup on that.

Given the pace of development and awareness of HH in recent years I would guess that many of the falang housing estates will be even closer to the centre than now and the land that much more valuable.
This can provide ample motive to get your arse off the land when you are 85 years old.
More chok dee krup.

[/b]

Post by **Mack111** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:23 am

thanks, sounds about what i thought happened

Post by **HansMartin** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:29 am

prcscct wrote:To clarify what may be yank lingo to some, "off the charts" means extremely strong.

Actually you can go off the top of the chart = good or fall off the bottom of the chart = bad. Anyhow thanks for the clarification.

So back to my question are sales of condos and villas in HH following the same pattern as in Pattaya. Condo sales up and villa sales down? That makes sense to be given the uncertainty and risk in owning or leasing land.

Post by **Mack111** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:35 am

think if you read JW post its pretty steady away just now

Post by **JimmyGreaves** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:58 pm

Burger wrote:You give notice in accordance with your lease contract that you want to buy the land and the land owner has legally committed in the contract to let you do that for a fee of 1% of the total rental. You can then take out a new 30 year lease with someone else, leave it in a Limited Company or A.N. Other option if the law changes.

The land owner has to extend you for another 30 years, because he has legally committed to it in a contract, but this only comes into play if it is the same land owner that you initially made the agreement with.

Burger

Why 1% why not 1 satang!

Post by **Burger** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:39 pm

Why 1% why not 1 satang!

I think it's because the land owner has a tax to pay when selling the land, so it covers him.
Don't quote me on that.

Burger

Post by **bozzman101** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:11 pm

mabey its time to dump my thai company and pt the house in partners name and daughter

what you guys think???

Post by **JimmyGreaves** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:23 pm

You ever heard the saying UP2U

Post by **PeteC** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:30 pm

bozzman101 wrote:mabey its time to dump my thai company and pt the house in partners name and daughter

what you guys think???

Its been said on here and other forums many times before. It depends upon your feeling and comfort with the situation and only you can decide that. Having a child though, your level of mutual trust should be greater than many.

There's also a way you can get a lawyer to prepare a registered contract stating that you have lent money to your wife to purchase the property, therefore you hold the mortgage, even if only $1.00. In this way at least she can't go off and sell it or transfer title at the land office without you being informed. I don't know the specific legal details but apparently this mechanism is becoming more and more popular. The key words are "at least being informed." What you can do about it is probably nothing, but at least you'll know before the movers arrive.

Pete

Post by **Burger** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:52 pm

mabey its time to dump my thai company and put the house in partners name and daughter

Personally I still think the Company route is better.
Why ? Because the Government have had plenty of opportunities with all the other changes recently to clamp down on them, but IMO they welcome this kind of investment.
Also when they recently tightened up on the nominee shareholding situation for FBA List one and Two businesses they gave them 2 years to resolve it.
Two years!?!? What happened to the 'knock on the door we want you off the land' people were spouting about ?

Also if say in 5 or 10 years time they do clamp down on the companies, take out a 30 year lease then, you'd have had a number of years under your belt already.
Just my opinion like.

Burger