30 year leases.

**Nawty** · 09-10-2009, 06:27 PM

For resident lawyers and anybody that has a lawyer like opinion.

The second term of a 30 year lease is not legal, not enforcable and basically at the mercy of the lessor. Up to him really.

Then, dependant on how your lease is written and what is in it, is again down to what you get back at the end of it for the buildings which can be removed as they are the only thing you can own outright.

You can write in various agreements as to buyback and so and so and such and such, but....

I would like the opinion from someone legal like on a lease that I have, not mine, given to me by someone and it is for the leasehold properties in Phuket for Mon Tri properties, some of you may know of these, very upmarket properties, i believe the latest stage is/was in the regions of 100 million baht etc.

Anyway, these are all based on leasehold and 2 extensions.

The way it is worded after a brief read and I never absorb all the mumbo jumbo gobbilty gook on the first read, but the lessor has written into it that the buyer or lessee for legal issues, has already paid the lessor a substantial fee for a successfull renewal of the secondterm 30 year lease. By substantial I am talking in the millions of baht, not hundreds.

Now this fee is not actually paid as an on top of the purchase price, it is simply taken as being paid in the form of the purchase price, but written up seperately for this purpose.

If the lessor or its heirs, successors, transferees etc etc dishonour the transfer, then they are by way of agremment liable to repay this fee in full plus an interest component of I think it was 10% per year and until recitified, so essentially 30 years ++.

What do you think of this type of deal and if anyone with legal expertise would like a copy to read it and qualify...just ask.

**dirtydog** · 09-10-2009, 06:37 PM

Tax paid on this non existent money? Land office know about the second lease? Better call in Bob Hope cos thats the only HOPE you got.

**Nawty** · 09-10-2009, 06:42 PM

Like I said numbnutts....not mine.

But i will say that this MonTri is royally related and a lot of very wealthy people have bought on this basis....so maybe they know a little more than your goodself.

The second terms taxes and whatever is need to be officialised at that time is done at that time as is agreed now. But the lessor has the option to opt out if they want, so it is not binding in the form of 'yes you do have a second term now and agreed for sure'....he can back out and pay whats owing.....the incentive is not there to backout however.

**Spin** · 09-10-2009, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Nawty

the lessor has written into it that the buyer or lessee for legal issues, has already paid the lessor a substantial fee for a successfull renewal of the secondterm 30 year lease.

The law is very clear on this. If at the end of the first thirty year lease, the lessor doesnt fancy renewing, the lessee can happily go to court and show all his fancy documents that show he has paid for the second term of the lease.

The thing is, upon sight of this agreement, the Thai judge will IMMEDIATLEY rule that the terms of this lease is 30 years only, regardless of monies paid.

**dirtydog** · 09-10-2009, 07:01 PM

Lets say the worst comes to the worst and everybody gets kicked out after 30 years, so you have recourse maybe, so the owner gives you back the money listed as what you illegally paid for the second 30 years, lets say it was a million baht for arguements sake, in 30 years time it might buy a full tank of petrol and pay for a couple of pad thais.

**Spin** · 09-10-2009, 07:24 PM

What I would really like to hear is first hand experience of farangs that have come to the end of their first 30 year period....and how they got on with any renewal.

What with 30 years being a long time, theres not much in the way of evidence out there yet. Maybe in a few more years there will be.

**the dogcatcher** · 09-10-2009, 07:37 PM

30 years is your lot. I believe a court may take the view that if a house is not removable then an agreement will have to be come to or imposed by the court. Have a look at English law, always a good guide.

**tsicar** · 09-10-2009, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by the dogcatcher

30 years is your lot. I believe a court may take the view that if a house is not removable then an agreement will have to be come to or imposed by the court. Have a look at English law, always a good guide.

sadly, english law is not something that the thais are bothered to concern themselves with.
it seems that if one manages to find a loophole that would legally, in another country, allow one to circumvent certain laws, the thai courts will smack you down with their" interperatation of the spirit of the law."
i would hate to be a lawyer in thailand, since it seems that one can never be certain of winning a case, based solely on what is written and legislated.
seems there is always a "but" or an "interperatation" gremlin that can creep in.
(just ask thaksin)

**the dogcatcher** · 09-10-2009, 09:45 PM

I know, but English law is not a bad starting place.

**tsicar** · 09-10-2009, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by the dogcatcher

I know, but English law is not a bad starting place.

but it is based on precedent and logic.
no place for that kind of thing in thailand!

**Spin** · 09-10-2009, 10:37 PM

This page is a must read on lease the topic.

**tsicar** · 10-10-2009, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by Spin

This page is a must read on lease the topic.

thanks, spin.
now here is a poser:
say one leased the land for 30 years, all tied up and "legal"
then, rented to a thai, or even allowed thai "family" to live on the land rent free...........
there seems to be a law that allows a thai, who has lived on a piece of land for 10 years or more, to claim title to that land.
would the lease or the "tenant" who laid claim to the land be favoured under thai law?
i have a small problem at the moment, in that i (well, my kids) won a courtcase against their thai grandparents, for title of the land they (the grandparents) are presently occupying.
even though they deserve to be thrown off the land (long story), i have no use for the land, and would be happy to allow them to live there until they die, but if they can legally claim it after 10 years, i am afraid i will have to have them thrown out.
they deserve it, but i do not really want to do it if i do not have to.

it seems that nobody can ever really know exactly where they stand under thai law:
grey areas and cultural stuff getting in the way of reality and reason.

**the dogcatcher** · 10-10-2009, 02:34 AM

I've not heard the 10 year thing. I believe there is a first refusal to buy land should the land become available for sale.

**Spin** · 10-10-2009, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by tsicar

there seems to be a law that allows a thai, who has lived on a piece of land for 10 years or more, to claim title to that land.

Indeed there is, section 1382 of the commercial and civil code states that for chanote titled land, a squatter can claim ownership after 10 years of uninterrupted use of the land.

Note, in the case of Nor Sor Sam (gor) land, this period is one year.

Now, what I don't know is how the land being leased to you interacts with the above law.

I didn't come across that before, so cant comment but it something you should investigate further. It may be that they can hang around on the land for 10 or 1 year, depending on title, and make a successful claim to ownership OR It may be that the lease over-rides the squatters aspect and they can stay there for 30 years and getty diddly squat. pun intended

**dirtydog** · 10-10-2009, 06:55 AM

The lease must over ride the squatters.

**the dogcatcher** · 10-10-2009, 09:05 AM

What happens if I let a third party squat on my leased land for 10 years. Can they clain it if they are Thai.

**William** · 10-10-2009, 03:40 PM

10 years is 'adverse possession' - i.e., unkept land by the landowner. It has little or nothing to do with 30 year rents.

As for 30 year rent, it is enforceable against the grantor of the option to renew, but no one else. We have been discussing this on this forum for some time and it soemwhat surprises me that posters have yet to grasp this concept.

**tsicar** · 10-10-2009, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by William

10 years is 'adverse possession' - i.e., unkept land by the landowner. It has little or nothing to do with 30 year rents.

As for 30 year rent, it is enforceable against the grantor of the option to renew, but no one else. We have been discussing this on this forum for some time and it soemwhat surprises me that posters have yet to grasp this concept.

i am getting my head around it william, but at this point i am trying to find a reason not to have my kids' grandparents thrown off the land that the kids inherited. the grandparents own a house on the land , which they have inhabited for over 20 years.
chanote changed to my boys' name last year,by order of the court, and after a long and expensive legal battle and i am happy to let them live there for the rest of their lives, but i do not need some crap hitting me in the face in 10 years' time.
thought that perhaps getting them to sign a lease would serve the purpose of both protecting my childrens' land and allowing the old folks to stay there without the threat of future claims , which will surely arise, if i do not stitch this whole issue up really tight!

**Nawty** · 12-10-2009, 09:38 AM

Maybe I should post sections of terms of this lease at Mon Tri.

**aras** · 11-11-2009, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Spin

What I would really like to hear is first hand experience of farangs that have come to the end of their first 30 year period....and how they got on with any renewal.

What with 30 years being a long time, theres not much in the way of evidence out there yet. Maybe in a few more years there will be.

lol

you want first hand info from someone who has leased a property in he 70 s? thats gonna be tricky mate lol

**the dogcatcher** · 11-11-2009, 08:47 PM

Well 79. But I did think the same.

**DrAndy** · 13-11-2009, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Spin

a squatter can claim ownership after 10 years of uninterrupted use of the land.

if they are paying rent or have signed any agreement, then they are not squatters

**wefearourdespot** · 13-11-2009, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Spin

What I would really like to hear is first hand experience of farangs that have come to the end of their first 30 year period....and how they got on with any renewal.

I don't think there are any farangs who managed to survive 30 years in Thailand.

**Loy Toy** · 13-11-2009, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by wefearourdespot

I don't think there are any farangs who managed to survive 30 years in Thailand.

I personally know of many who have lived very happily in Thailand for over 30 years mate both men and woman.

**Stinky** · 13-11-2009, 09:56 PM

I've known quite a few people who have live been In Thailand and quite happily for 30+ years.

Thread: 30 year leases.

Thread Tools

Display

30 year leases.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions