Thread: Usufructs and Superficies

Leases and the company route are out of fashion for obvious reasons.

Usufructs are being widely promoted but is this because developers ( often the owners) see that at the end of the term the house becomes theirs. The land will always be theirs of course the usufruct only gives a right of use,

But what about a suprtficie which stipulates the house is not part of the land and therefore can be owned by the foreigner and can be transferable and inheritable in certain circumstances within the term ( up to 30 or life)

Any ideas??

Originally Posted by setaputra

Leases and the company route are out of fashion for obvious reasons.

The company route is less desirable than a lease.

A properly drawn up lease is not out of fashion, nor are there any obvious reasons that I can think of why they would be.

Perhaps you can enlighten us to these obvious reasons?

There are many claims that it is regarded as illegal and merely a device for a farang to try to own land.

Usufructs can be voided

Noone seems able to comment on superficies. They seem safer than the other routes but I welcome comment and discussion. I certainly don't have all the answers. I'm looking for constructive opinion ( which I have not posted on Thaivisa)

My superficie successfully in place, giving me more of a safety net than a usufruct. All done at the land office for 100 baht - actually a bit less

Obtained forms on the government site. My apologies to all the lawyers who weren't able to charge their usual usufruct fees.

My lease is fine.
In fact it's the way the Thais want it.
It takes 20 mins and costs almost nothing.

Originally Posted by the dogcatcher

My lease is fine.
In fact it's the way the Thais want it.
It takes 20 mins and costs almost nothing.

Glad you and your lease are fine and in good health.

Of course the Thais like it, but you can use usufructs and superficies to your advantage

I can transfer or bequeth my house and the right to live on the land. You can't with a lease.

Check the Thai law - and by that I suggest you don't approache a lawyer but get a copy of the CC code.

Agree above
Thai legal code is translated.
I paid 1000 baht for consultation copies of all legal papers 100 baht at Office best money ever spent
Online lawyers who advertise prominnely on rival forum wanted $1000 for starters

Originally Posted by setaputra

I can transfer or bequeth my house and the right to live on the land. You can't with a lease.

Why do people believe this? A lease is simply a contract and as such terms can be agreed and enforced so long as they aren't in conflict with the code (for LOS).

Check the Thai law - and by that I suggest you don't approache a lawyer but get a copy of the CC code.

Can you refer to any precedent or a specific section of the code that specifically states that a lease cannot be transferred in LOS?

Usufructs can be voided

Only in the case of a man and wife, and then must be done within one year of divorce. My usfruct was done before I was married, so can not be voided. The usfruct is on the land only, has nothing to do with buildings on that land, those are owned by who ever can prove they paid for them.

Isee, yes provided it does not conflict with the ccc a lease can be enforced

but there is no way you can force a change or extention or transfer. and unlikely that the thai partner or land office would agree

courts would almost certainly void any attempt to extend a 30 year lease or any other device such as usufruct or superfice for a further term on the grounds that it is a way round the 30 year rule and not in the spirit of the law as drafted

a superficie during its duration (usually 30 years or life) can not be changed which gives valuable inheritance and transfer protection (but only till expiry)

cdn, if the agreement was made before marriage, yes i agree. most are made during marriage on legal advice (helps the thai, stitches the farang even if he is paying the legal fees)

you probably need more than evidence that you paid for the building to secure ownership of the house

your paying could be judged as giving your wife a gift of the house built on her land (the ccc assumes a house is owned by the landowner unless specifically shown otherwise), safest thingb is to keep receipts for payment as you suggest, and get the plans, building consent, and building contract in your name

some well thought out responses there guys

Is it possible to register usufruct and superficies at the same time thus giving me control over house and land. The house on the land is not yet registered so not sure how superfice will work. The land office aware there is house on land and have no problems but im a bit confused re house ownership and superficies. Have spoken with local land office and they assure me they will include any wording i require on their standard usufruct including superficies, would that be legal or would i need a separate contract. Seem to be digging myself in deep. Any advise would be appreciated guys

must choose ! usufruct or superficies, but the latter does not die with the owner,reverts to usufruct and MUST include contract for sublease, as not part of standard superficies contract issued by land office (which has clause negating right to sublease) Seems gremlins in gov busy reading forums

I like the Superficie route

danno, you don't need both and as good2b says the superficie is more powerful

the supeficie 'dies' at the end of the term or life but can be bequethed during the validity of the superficie

so if you die the day after you sign a 30 year superficie, your heir gets the same rights as you had for the rest of the term

there does not need to be a sublease clause. your heir inherits the same rights that you had

as with all things thai you may have to, very tactfully and without their losing face, have to point that out to them

for house ownership keep bills any bank transfers photos the contract and the building permit in your name

unless house ownership is clear it will be assumed it belongs to the land owner

hope this helps and good luck