Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Thailand Expat
    taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    19,339

    Court voids 'secured' foreigner leases

    Court voids 'secured' foreigner leases

    PHUKET — In a shock decision by the Phuket Civil Court, backed by the Region 8 Appellate Court, it has been ruled that so-called “secured leases” offered by some real estate developers to allow foreigners to secure a cast-iron 90-year lease are not valid.

    The case is now to go to the Supreme Court. If confirms the lower-court opinions, then not only will any renewal term of "secured" leases by foreigners be invalid, but also the current lease terms.


    The Phuket News' legal correspondent, Jerrold Kippen, has revealed that not only has the structure been ruled invalid but the courts' decision may mean that the original underlying 30-year lease, even if registered with the Land Office, is now void - it never existed, leaving the buyer with two handfuls of nothing.

    Mr Kippen explained, "as a general rule foreigners cannot own land and apartment units, but it is possible for foreigners to lease them and that is the reason why these are commonly marketed to foreign buyers on a leasehold basis.

    30 years maximum

    "Under Thai law the maximum lease term is 30 years, which may be renewed upon expiration of that term," he continued. "The leases marketed to foreigners typically provide for an initial 30-year term plus two additional successive 30-year renewal terms."

    However, Mr Kippen noted, "the renewal of a lease in Thailand is by no means assured even if it is provided for in the original lease agreement."

    He explained that in order to overcome this issue the "secured" or "collective" lease was devised and marketed to foreigners. This is meant to ensure that the lease is renewed, twice, as originally agreed.

    The way this "security" is supposedly provided is by the buyer not only entering into a lease agreement with the Thai company that owns the developer's land/apartment, but also entering into a share-sale-and-purchase agreement for shares that control the Thai company that owns the developer's land/apartment.


    Shopping mall models of luxury properties aimed at foreigners might become less enticing if the Supreme Court upholds rulings of two Phuket courts voiding all “secured” leases. (Bangkok Post photo)

    Now, however, two Thai courts have concluded that the "secured" lease is "void" as a matter of law. A contract that is found to be void is considered never to have existed.

    "This would be the case regardless of whether such a lease was already registered," Mr Kippen said.

    "Why? Because a finding that a lease is void means that it never legally existed and, therefore, as far as the law is concerned, a void lease cannot be, nor ever could have been, registered," he explained.

    "Even if the legally void lease went through the Land Office formalities of registration, with registration fees paid, papers signed and stamped by the land officials, it simply does not change the legal non-existence of the void lease because, legally, nothing happened by such acts."


    In the test case now headed for the Supreme Court, the buyers entered into the project's "secured" lease structure. Leases, in this case for apartments, were registered several years ago.

    The lessees filed a civil case against the developer of the project in the Civil Court to protect their leasehold rights. Neither the buyers nor the developer argued that the leases were not valid. Quite the contrary: they both relied on provisions of the leases to support their respective arguments.

    'Fictitious agreement'

    However, the court decided on its own that the leases - when considered in light of the share-sale-and-purchase agreement for the shares that control the Thai company that owns the developer's land/apartments - were actually fictitious agreements made to conceal what the parties had actually agreed: to sell and buy the relevant real estate.

    "Section 155 of the Civil and Commercial Code provides that if two parties enter a fictitious agreement in order to conceal their real agreement, the fictitious agreement is void," Mr Kippen explained. "It goes on to state that although the fictitious agreement is void, the hidden agreement that the parties actually made must then be evaluated under the provisions applicable to it."

    "In this case, the courts ruled that the parties had entered into fictitious lease agreements through the 'secured' lease structure and had done so in order to hide their actual agreement to sell and buy the properties."

    The court, he said, decided this meant that the leases were void and that the provisions of Section 456 of the Criminal Code applied to the "real" sale and purchase agreements.

    Section 456 provides, in pertinent part, that "a sale of immovable property is void unless it is made in writing and registered by the competent official."

    The court then concluded that since these sales were not made in writing nor registered with the competent official, they too were void.

    This ruling, by a sole trial court judge, was then appealed to a three-judge appeal court panel. The Appellate Court confirmed the trial court's decision on the very same factual and legal grounds as the trial court outlined above:

    Lease 'insecurity'

    "Taking these new decisions into account the 'secured' lease not only does little if anything to address the very real insecurity that your long-term lease will not be renewed, but it also could have the disastrous consequence that your current lease could be considered legally void," Mr Kippen said.

    "And according to these courts' analysis, anyone who has already invested or is considering investing in such a structure is facing the immediate loss of the investment."

    The good news, he said, is that secured leases can be restructured to provide actual long-term lease security legally and without any downside to the developer by securing the pre-paid renewal terms with a mortgage over the land involved.

    "It is a simple and straightforward legal structure that provides security for the investor. A current 'secured' lease can be restructured into this better and genuinely secure alternative, before it is too late.

    bangkok post

    Phuket courts void 'secured' leases used by foreigners | Bangkok Post: news

  2. #2
    Thailand Expat
    jamescollister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    29-06-2020 @ 09:33 PM
    Location
    Bunthrik Ubon
    Posts
    4,764
    I've been posting for years, all these schemes are not legal, why anyone thought the courts would uphold them is beyond me.
    It's black and white, land act, an alien may not own or control the use of land.
    BOI companies have some leeway, as long as they are BOI accredited

    Thailand is just getting computerized, you can't hide dodgy deals locally, big brother is now on line.
    Stay legal stay safe.

  3. #3
    Excommunicated baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:46 PM
    Posts
    24,761
    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile
    A current 'secured' lease can be restructured into this better and genuinely secure alternative, before it is too late.
    some law firm is chasing clients

  4. #4
    Thailand Expat terry57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    07-12-2022 @ 03:12 PM
    Posts
    26,746
    Do I read that Farang cannot legally own Condo's. ?

    I think I did.

  5. #5
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    This comes up every few years. Thus far, nothing has ever come if it. My guess is, neither will it this time.

  6. #6
    Thailand Expat
    rickschoppers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    7,171
    This reminds me of how Mexico used to work their land leases when property could not be owned by foreigners. First it was a 30 year lease, then it was a 99 year lease, then it was a 30 year lease renewable to 90 years. This continued until Mexico decided foreigners could own land but not within 5 kms of the ocean. Then that was changed to where foreigners could own all land with the proper paperwork and deeds.

    As with any country, one must be aware of illegal land deals. Everything may appear legitimate, but many were duped into the land scam and had to give up the houses built on that land. The same exists in Thailand in the sense that one never knows for sure everything is legitimate or a scam. Plus, the government can always change the rules of land ownership at any time.

    I wonder if anyone will have to turn over their homes now that the Thai court has made its ruling.
    Last edited by rickschoppers; 27-02-2015 at 10:00 PM.

  7. #7
    Thailand Expat
    jamescollister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    29-06-2020 @ 09:33 PM
    Location
    Bunthrik Ubon
    Posts
    4,764
    Quote Originally Posted by terry57 View Post
    Do I read that Farang cannot legally own Condo's. ?

    I think I did.
    Condos came under an act that allows aliens to own them, think it came about by IMF intervention. You own the condo, but the land underneath is Thai controlled

    Sabang, been many judgments, mostly against Chinese and Taiwanese, bigger players so far.
    That does mean it will stop there, if it's not legal then the courts will take action given time.

    Things have been handled at a local level from year dot, that's changing, BKK needs to be informed now.
    If it's not legal, a computer record is generated, someday someone may look and take action.

    It's not just farangs, small percentage of these deals, locals, Japs, chinks, Malays are bigger players.

  8. #8
    Thailand Expat terry57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    07-12-2022 @ 03:12 PM
    Posts
    26,746
    ^

    Yes, I know that, Falang cannot own the ground floor and Falang cannot be more than 49 % of the owners of the Building.

  9. #9
    Thailand Expat
    jamescollister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    29-06-2020 @ 09:33 PM
    Location
    Bunthrik Ubon
    Posts
    4,764
    Quote Originally Posted by terry57 View Post
    ^

    Yes, I know that, Falang cannot own the ground floor and Falang cannot be more than 49 % of the owners of the Building.
    Terry, want to buy a house for your life, put it in my kids name.
    Xmas and birthdays send a present, that's all you will ever hear, when your dead, they will be sad, no presents, but they will have another house.

  10. #10
    Thailand Expat terry57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    07-12-2022 @ 03:12 PM
    Posts
    26,746
    ^

    I may just do that Jim,

    You seem like a decent sort of bloke and I'm sure you have a lovely family.

    Cheers EH.

  11. #11
    ความสุขในอีสาน
    nigelandjan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Frinton on sea and Ban Pak
    Posts
    13,332
    Your all heart Terry ,, I never did believe those nasty things some people say about you

  12. #12
    R.I.P. Luigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Abuja
    Posts
    26,213
    Is the sky falling again?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •