Another Inheritance law/mixed Muslim marriage question

[Hermes]

It is indeed difficult when there are conflicts in the family. By the sound of it she doesn't trust her own parents.

Just one parent alive, but it's a matter of principle. She does and will always take care of her family, as would I if she passed before me, but is not interested in them receiving a large, unearned financial windfall at my expense.

 

[Hermes]

Can't she sell all her assets now to a PT that you and her own

Then sell that PT to your offshore company

That's one way round it

Interesting idea, and worth looking into..

 

[Helpful Herbert]

I guess the chances of her dying before her remaining parent are quite low. However if you're talking about property worth 20M+ then it would be very difficult to sell that at the correct price within one year. You might have to sell at a big discount, or even not be able to sell at all (not sure what happens then - someone from the government turns up and takes it?). That is probably your bigger risk here, so snpark's idea sounds like a good one.

 

[fastpitch17]

And people ask me why we rent. We already have nieces and nephews stating who gets what. Reality will be, they get nothing and poor families will get it all to do as they please with it. Whoever outlast the other will downsize and then designate where the remaining goes and who gets access to bank accounts via debit cards both here and the US.

 

[Helpful Herbert]

One way of looking at it is that buying a house is like having a very long term rental contract (eg 25 years). So if you pay 5M then it is like a rental of 200jt per year (or a bit more if you include a discount rate). If you end up with an asset and are allowed to keep some or all of it then that is a bonus. At least no-one can kick you out of the house at short notice, or increase the price, which they can if you're renting.

 

[Hawk256]

Buying isn't perfect for everyone but I would much rather have something that is mine and that I can sell for the win later. Even if you only got back back what you put into it, that means you stayed those years for free.

 

[fastpitch17]

One way of looking at it is that buying a house is like having a very long term rental contract (eg 25 years). So if you pay 5M then it is like a rental of 200jt per year (or a bit more if you include a discount rate). If you end up with an asset and are allowed to keep some or all of it then that is a bonus. At least no-one can kick you out of the house at short notice, or increase the price, which they can if you're renting.

Must be Jakarta. My rent is 25 juta a year and renewals haven't had an increase. 1/8 of your figure. Nice big beautiful house, corner lot, 4 years old. Owner has 6 houses so chances of needing to leave abruptly are quite remote. The also plus, we are not tied down to anywhere if we want to leave the area. Oh, if you pay 5 juta a month that is only 60 juta per year. Not 200.

 

[Samoerai]

The also plus, we are not tied down to anywhere if we want to leave the area

Yes, I like the flexibility too ... more than a profit (when selling your house).

 

[snpark]

Yes, I like the flexibility too ... more than a profit (when selling your house).

If you can even sell it

 

[fastpitch17]

If you can even sell it

One less worry.

 

[jstar]

Depends very much on the personal situation (age and life expectancy, amount of children and their future, long term plans for where to live, taxes and subsidies, …).

If you think you’d stay somewhere for more than 10 years, the rule of thumb is it is better to buy. (And install solar panels, apply insulation, ….)

 

[snpark]

Depends very much on the personal situation (age and life expectancy, amount of children and their future, long term plans for where to live, taxes and subsidies, …).

If you think you’d stay somewhere for more than 10 years, the rule of thumb is it is better to buy. (And install solar panels, apply insulation, ….)

And build your own western standard style

 

[mellowyellow]

I've read that in case of a mixed marriage where the WNI spouse passes, the WNA has one year to sell any real property, for example a house, owned by the deceased. However, in a Muslim mixed marriage (ie, most of them here), wouldn't sharia law apply to the estate, granting the WNA, if male, only a 50% interest in the house? A rather tough thing to sell, it would seem. Is there something I'm missing here? In the case where the WNA funded the acquisition of the house, would it therefore make sense to make a loan agreement so that this money could be repaid first out of the estate (presumably by selling the house), before the sharia division?

I think there is a simile solution to secure the right of the foreign fund provider - hak tanggungan

Have a look at this page

https://lawjakarta.com/property/mortgage-to-secure-land-nominee-arrangement/

 

[Samoerai]

Have a look at this page
https://lawjakarta.com/property/mortgage-to-secure-land-nominee-arrangement/

My Norton blocked this webpage ... dangerous!

 

[jstar]

Yeah, be careful with that.

Also, hak tanggungan is used in applying for credit or loans by individuals or companies. So then the land is defined as collateral for the bank for instance. I also don’t see how it can be applicable in this case.

 

[mellowyellow]

Yeah, be careful with that.

Also, hak tanggungan is used in applying for credit or loans by individuals or companies. So then the land is defined as collateral for the bank for instance. I also don’t see how it can be applicable in this case.

I have asked PPAT, they confirm that individuals can be the holder of hak tanggungan - this area is hardly explored probably due to the assumption that hak tanggungan cannot be used by individuals

 

[jstar]

As individual it’s a slippery slope anyway, they don’t want anyone to undertake banking activities. And giving out loans with collateral etc. could be interpreted as that.

 

[snpark]

Yes that won't work for bule and getting finance against land or property even for WNI is long and difficult and expensive

 

[centurion]

Putting hypothec on land/building (hak tanggungan) in favor of the individual lender is perfectly legal, foreigner or citizen.

 

[jstar]

I have asked PPAT, they confirm that individuals can be the holder of hak tanggungan - this area is hardly explored probably due to the assumption that hak tanggungan cannot be used by individuals

I still don’t see any advantage for the OP to provide a hipotek which needs to be centrally registered by the Kantor Pertanahan, brings on additional registration costs (i.e. 1% PPAT) and people & time involved and will have to be removed from the registry when the property is going to be sold. And last but not least; when the debtor passes away, the hipotek will normally be transferred to the heirs, which you can call at least ‘awkward’.

A (personal) loan then would be much more flexible, The disadvantages are shared; as with a loan, the periodical repayment of the debts -with interest- has to be proved. Obviously the debts also need to be reported in the tax filing.
.