On Monday my wife purchased 2 adjoining pieces of land totaling 160 talang wa. The land has no structures at this time.

On the back of each Chanote we had a statement added that says for 30 years I have sole right of use of the land and any structures I may build there. There was an additional fee of 65 baht per Chanote.

I had initially requested a statement that I have sole use of the land for my lifetime. I was told this statement can only be added if the farang is not married to the owner. If married to the owner, the above statement must be used.

From my research of these options I believe that these statements can only be added at the time transfer of ownership and the land size can't exceed one rai. I don't know if it can apply to a property that already has a structure on it.

Hope this is helpful to others seeking a place to live here. Admittedly, a thirty year renewable lease is also an option, but leases are no stronger than the courts that enforce them.

If the land is in the wifes village,I don't think it makes much difference,because in most situations if there is a breakup,the land is unsellable and the falang will not enjoy staying there!

HI UdonExpat
It sounds like you have Usufruct

That is a legal mechanism that allows a foreigner to secure guaranteed access and use of land for his life time.
The Thai term is called

Yes, Usufruct is the term. I read Bryce's book several months ago and it set me on the path to pursue getting it.

The land is in Ban Luam a part of Nam Sam Lom and is just outside the ring road. My wife insisted on being very close to town as she is a "city girl". I could easily live there if she decides to leave, although I hope she never does.

I believe that they should have given you the Usufruct (gift of use for the rest of your life). There seems to be some confusion as to whether a husband can use the Usufruct, but it has been done several times.

You may want to try again. Different day, different answer.

Of course depending on your age and health, there might not be any practical difference between 30 years and the rest of our life.

I'm trying to run down some land too so I went to a lawyer in Nong Khai to find out what the options are when we do buy. I was all set to hear that a lease was the best way to protect my interests but she said the Usufruct was a better way to go. Cheaper with no tax and good for my life time. Though as rickfarang says I doubt there's any practical difference vs 30 years. My TW has changed her name to mine and I'm looking for more than 1 rai and since I've read Bryce's book I asked her about those points and she said it would still work. I guess we'll see when we do find some land.

I've just been re-reading this thread. What I am not clear on though is with the usufruct can one still sell the land and house or transfer it to another, along the way, if you later decide you want to?

I do not have a Thai wife, so am trying to compare the merits and pros & cons of a 30 year lease to those of a usufruct (which I am told is not the same as a habitation for life).

whoever owns the land can sell the land at anytime, unless a pre authorized/agreed upon restriction was addes. no matter who sells the land, nobody in the right mind, unless planning to bump you off would by if a lease/usefrunct/or gift of habitation is registered with land.

i had to cancel my 30 yr lease on land before transferring same out of ex wifes name over to Ree's name, then add the gift of habitation for life back on.

Thanks LA.

So is there any distinction of significance between "buying" with a usufruct or a leasing for 30 years, worth worrying about?

Presumably then with either you have a separate contract in which the lessor or usufructor(?) agrees that he will transfer ownership if you want to sell, or extend the lease etc?

I am aware that with the lease method there will be taxes to pay.

there's an informative "sticky" on usufructs in gthe House and Land section

Thanks. That was helpful, though it focusses predominantly on usufructs, and doesn't really compare the pros and cons of leases. I am trying to compare the merits of the two.

I was under the impression that with a Lease , after 30 years you walk away, as you dont own the property, even if you built the home on it, and no guarentee you have the right to sign up for another 30year

Usufructs allow you to build , change the colour of the walls, add to and remove any thing you built your self / own, after 30 years you may take what improvements you make with you, some say only 30 years others say you can get life

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

It's a little more complicated than that.

Aussie boy is right for a lease.

For a usufruct, depending how it's written, you can own the improvements on the property after this right is created. You can also separate the land and house by a legal fiction, or by superficies (that's another contract). Superficies can be added to a lease or to a usufruct but it would (to my opinion) not add so much to a usufruct...

A usufruct IS NOT FOR MAXIMUM 30 years. It's for a period of time (max 30 years), OR LIFE OF A PERSON, section 1418 of the Civil Code. It always dies with the usufructuary so you should always write for life time, CONTRARY TO THE RIGHT OF HABITATION, which in that case could make problems.

For a juristic person (a company), a usufruct is maximum 30 years. This point is not in the English translation of the Thai civil Code but into the Thai wording, lifetime, is related to a person.

I have heard mention that upon expiry of a usufruct one could theoretically remove/take away the house which one had subsequently built on the land subject to the usufruct. Though as that would likely be on the occasion of one's demise, there could be some practical difficulties. Maybe your spirit would have to come back to do it!

However, surely it's as, if not more common that the foreigner would have bought an existing house and land, and thus he could not take away the house as it would be part of what he has leased or obtained a usufruct on.

Noted that Aussieboy has built his house subsequent to the purchase of the land, and on legs, so that he can take it away! AB, Have you fitted wheels to the legs for ease of removal?

arjay wrote:Noted that Aussieboy has built his house subsequent to the purchase of the land, and on legs, so that he can take it away! AB, Have you fitted wheels to the legs for ease of removal?

Wheels not needed, but the building can be removed in 1 or split down the middle 2 pieces, such if the GF/ wife nags you just pack up and take the house with you, As I have Habitat for life, I'll be stay-in here and if things don't work out with current GF, she will be moving.

Next big project on My Udon Home will be just that, moving it, not far just lifting it up to make room under for workshop, thats when I'll send the GF away for a week , when she comes back , What has silly Farang done now!, she shakes her head a lot at me with my building methods, she always says But that's not Thai way to do it
Heres my Nu Nu, happy as larry with HER NEW HOME, not mine.