Tasman Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Hi All, Briefly, probably getting married this year and want to jointly purchase property with my Thai wife in BKK. I am happy about just doing it in her name as no concerns with trust. However, security for the money does need to show a certain level of ownership on my part and therefore I have been looking at the options that are available. Has anybody on here had direct experience with either leasing back from their partner or as ownership of the property but with the land registered in the spouse's name as 'ownership of superficies'? I would be interested to hear if either is easy to set up and whether it does provide some security. Input is much appreciated. Cheers, Tas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whosyourdaddy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 My wife and I bought a house over a year ago. Since it is a house the house is in her name. The mortgage is in both of our names and the monthly fee is quite high compared to her salary. So we are in a co-dependent relationship when it comes to the house. One board member leases the house from his wife for 30 years but why waste money on taxes in transferring the lease??? You have dedicated your entire life to your wife in marriage why be so concerned about property ownership is the way I see it. The car is in my name and the house is in hers. No real problems. Many people back home do the same , dont know why people in thailand get so upset about having to put the house in the wifes name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickman Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 The huge number of marriages that go bad in Thailand largely contributes to people?s paranoia and a lack of willingness to put things in their spouse?s name, irrespective of the fact that that person is supposed to be their life partner. In your case, it is very easy to see why the house is in the Mrs? name, as the likelihood of her leaving you is about as close to zero as you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasman Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Whosyourdaddy wrote: "You have dedicated your entire life to your wife in marriage why be so concerned about property ownership is the way I see it. The car is in my name and the house is in hers. No real problems. Many people back home do the same , dont know why people in thailand get so upset about having to put the house in the wifes name" I agree and if you read my post you will see that is what my philosophy is too. However, as I also point out it is more for my financial benefactor that is requiring this. I just asked if anybody had any experience in either of the options that i mentioned. I will not be taking out a mortgage but prefer to pay cash and therefore not waste a lot more money in interest. Why is your mortgage in both names? Thanks for your input anyway. Cheers, Tas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whosyourdaddy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Well if she does leave you ,she cant go run and hide since YOU KNOW WHERE SHE LIVES. LOL As we know from a mutual friend whom just got divorced with a house as an asset that there is a contridiction in the law. One a farang can not own land, but 2 any asset aquired during marriage is to be shared apon divorce. So therefore the house is sold and the money is split. The thai court has set a precidance recenty and ruled in favour of the farang who has paid for the mortgage and upon divorce got his share of the marriage asset back. SO no you can not own the house but yes you can get the money back out of the house! WYD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whosyourdaddy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Why is your mortgage in both names? tax purposes! Also based on our combined salaries we are entited to a higher loan rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasman Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 "The thai court has set a precidance recenty and ruled in favour of the farang who has paid for the mortgage and upon divorce got his share of the marriage asset back." That is interesting to know and IMO quite fair. I agree that things should be equally split despite one party maybe paying more than the other - that would often be the case in the west anyway. I understood that after registering the property the farang spouse has to sign a document to the effect of having no financial interest in it. For the court to rule in his favour even after this is somewhat refreshing to hear. Cheers, Tas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardinalblue Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 You are putting a lot of faith in the thai court system that it is a just and fair process. I think the jury (pun intended) is still out... Following your one example, the falang would have received 50% of the 100% of his money he put into it. That is fair in theory assuming assets are split 50% once they got married... In reality, she has the land and house in her name. Unless 1. she posses some integrity and high character and does the right thing or 2. she is directed by the court ruling that her husband is entitled to half of the value of the property, it is a strong probability she would do nothing and gain a 100% of the land/house... One is at the mercy that the thai legal system will follow precedent or set precedent. Pretty damn risky if you ask me! Why wouldn't it be better to have your wife sign legal documents upfront spelling out percentage distribution, etc. While it still doesn't guarantee equity, it might help in the court interpretation and ruling. Though the bottom line is the falang (a foreigner) is still at the mercy of the thai court system... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardinalblue Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 I would prefer, too, to pay outright cash for the house but a mortage might give you some financial protection should things go south. Yes, one will pay interest for not paying the whole cost, but should we look at it as a form of financial insurance? One has shifted the mortgage to the bank rather than to you. She would be forced to sell the house to pay the mortgage in essence the bank loan unless she has a good enough job to maintain mortage payments.. The other way is once you pay 100% cash for the house, one has lost any leverage at all as well as put all that money at risk. Personally. i am looking in the 4 to 7 million baht price range and face the same issues you face. I prefer to pay cash in whole and not deal with mortgages, etc., but at the same time, i neede to protect my assests strictly from a savy business decision.. I am undecided at this point what to do and need to further research my situation... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasman Posted February 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Thanks for your input CB - like you, I am still looking at options and have decided to spend some money on legal advice from a law firm. I didn't want this post to wander too much to the issue of trust in the spouse, hence posting in the legal/visa section rather than relationships. I/we do have trust in each other but the protection would be more for the fact that I am buying in a country that is essentially unknown to me. We both live outside of LOS anyway though not a million miles away and would only move to live there later and when we can both do so together. For now this purchase is seen rather more on the investment/good time to purchase and would consider renting it out initially. I will feedback any information once I have it. Cheers, Tas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.