Forums > General > Living, Working, Retiring

1 2 View All

viktoremski

Dec 5, 2011, 2:57 PM

Post #1 of 28 (2794 views)

Shortcut

No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

My understanding has always been that in order to buy property near the border or the ocean, non-Mexican citizens needed to use "fideicomiso". However, last night I was reading a guide from 2001 on how to live in Mexico. It states that one of the benefits of FM2 (current "inmigrante") is no more need for "fideicomiso". According to that book, "inmigrantes" can buy property directly. Does anyone have any input on this?

YucaLandia

Dec 5, 2011, 3:06 PM

Post #2 of 28 (2781 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Viktor,
Is it possible that the guide said that "Inmigrado" permit holders are ~~not~~ required to have fideicomisos inside the border and coastal zones ? Inmigrante permit holders must have fideicomisos to own property in the border and coastal zones.

See: http://yucalandia.wordpress.com/...xico-fmm-fm2-or-fm3/ for descriptions of the opportunities and limitations of the various types of permits issued by INM.
-
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com

(This post was edited by YucaLandia on Dec 5, 2011, 4:38 PM)

morgaine7

Dec 5, 2011, 3:52 PM

Post #3 of 28 (2770 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

I'm in my fourth year as an FM2/inmigrante with a house 500 meters from the water. If someone could prove me wrong, I'd be very happy, but your earlier understanding was correct. Only Mexican citizens can own property in the restricted zone without a fideicomiso. Neither inmigrante nor inmigrado status does away with that requirement, as one is still considered a foreigner.

Kate

viktoremski

Dec 5, 2011, 4:18 PM

Post #4 of 28 (2763 views)

Shortcut

Re: [YucaLandia] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Well, the authors, John Howells and Don Merwin contradict themselves on the same page #37 "Choose Mexico", 2001. At one point they say "you can't own the property outright [near seacoast & border]; even if you have FM-2 status". Then, on the same page they say "a legal immigrant with FM-2 papers can buy the property in his or her own name, without bothering with trusts". So I guess, they must have been smoking some bad weed when they were writing page 37.
Thanks for your input and clarification!

YucaLandia

Dec 5, 2011, 4:27 PM

Post #5 of 28 (2759 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Ooops, ooops, ooops....

Please ignore what I wrote above about "Inmigrado"s not needing fideicomisos. Morgaine is exactly right, only Mexican citizens can own property in the border and coastal zones without fideicomisos. My mental mistake... *sigh*
steve
-
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com

morgaine7

Dec 6, 2011, 7:41 AM

Post #6 of 28 (2686 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Whatever Howells and Merwin were smoking in 2001, they were still smoking it in 2005. I have that later edition of "Choose Mexico", and sure enough, on pp 48-49 it says, "Of course a legal immigrant with FM-2 papers can buy the property in his or her own name, without bothering with trusts." To my knowledge, that has never been true.

Kate

viktoremski

Dec 6, 2011, 9:02 AM

Post #7 of 28 (2657 views)

Shortcut

Re: [morgaine7] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Thanks Kate and Steve. On a different page they also assure that "inmigrantes" have all the rights that mexican citizens have, except for the right to vote. I'm glad I checked with with you, before getting involved in a real estate deal. Greetings from freezing Tijuana,
Vic

surebought

Dec 15, 2011, 10:55 AM

Post #8 of 28 (2436 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

When I finished the FM2 process and got the letters back for D.F. with imigrado status, I went to the Notario here in Ensenada and explained that I wanted the property I was coincidentally buying at the time to go into my name only. Nice try, he said. When you finish the final step to citizenship with the Foreign Ministry, we can talk again. With some kind of Commercial excuse, you can use the Corporation (SA de CV). Its a much better idea because you can fractionally sell shares to other investors. This makes it easier and less expensive than the Bank Trust. You'll thank me a million times if you take my advise and just start out by renting a place here in Mexico.

viktoremski

Dec 15, 2011, 11:47 AM

Post #9 of 28 (2419 views)

Shortcut

Re: [surebought] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Thanks for your reply. Actually, that's what I've been doing - renting - for years now, here in Tijuana. However, we are thinking about moving to Puerto Vallarta in about five years, once I retire. The idea was that instead of watching my savings lose value due to inflation, we would buy something now, when the prices are low. We are still considering doing this by buying a house or apartment under my mexican partner's name, and getting a will, in case if something happens to him. We've been together for over eighteen years, so I trust him more than some bank... and don't have to pay him any fideicomiso ;-)

By the way, someone was trying to convince me recently that the whole bank trust issue matters only if you buy land, or a house, but not an apartment in a multi-apartment building. I think he's wrong, but I wonder if anyone could give his opinion on this. Thanks...

sioux4noff

Dec 15, 2011, 11:48 AM

Post #10 of 28 (2418 views)

Shortcut

Re: [surebought] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Quote

You'll thank me a million times if you take my advise and just start out by renting a place here in Mexico.

We purchased out home here in Bucerias and could not be happier. We can change what we want, when we want to the house. Renting to start out is good advice, but buying can work out well also.

chicois8

Dec 15, 2011, 12:10 PM

Post #11 of 28 (2412 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

In Reply To

Great, another law breaker,welcome to Mexico!

viktoremski

Dec 15, 2011, 1:14 PM

Post #12 of 28 (2393 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

What law breaker?!?! What the hell are you talking about? Read carefuly. Discrimination, maybe. Thanks for the welcome, although it's many years past due.

surebought

Dec 15, 2011, 1:55 PM

Post #13 of 28 (2374 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

You need the Trust whether its an apartment or land, unless it is commercial. Then you can use the corporation. There are a lot of people who bring their linear values of right and wrong - weak and strong on their shirtsleeves when they come to Mexico, but to me it is their moral compass that is out of kilter. Anything; they just compare it to what it is to the States and they make a moral judgment out of the most unimportant things. Even when it comes to protecting their property rights. I put most of the property I possess in the name of my Senora. You could set it up with the Notario that you are loaning him the money and you have a Mortgage (hipoteca). That way he can't sell it without your signature. Now I am going to get hate mail saying that's wrong or immoral. But there was a famous case in Rosarito where this old Gringo married a young wife. He bought about a Million Dollars worth of property and put it in her name. He got sick and she started selling it and keeping the money. He could have protected himself by having the Notary( at time of purchase) create the Hipoteca with him as the beneficiary. What I said about renting. Many people come down here for one reason or another and buy a house. Then an excuse comes along like a sick relative. They move back and their house is almost impossible to sell. It never gets this cold in Puerta Vallarta.

chicois8

Dec 15, 2011, 2:11 PM

Post #14 of 28 (2366 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

In Reply To

What law breaker?!?! What the hell are you talking about? Read carefuly. Discrimination, maybe. Thanks for the welcome, although it's many years past due.

this is an attorneys website: http://www.zihuatanejo-rentals.com/realestatelawyer.htm

The most extreme example of foreigners recklessly investing, without legal protection, is the "PRESTA NOMBRE". Translation: Borrow a name. A Mexican "fronts" for the foreigner and holds the title in his name to avoid the laws affecting foreign real estate ownership. Prior to the 1971 formation of the fideicomiso (bank trust), this was a common method for foreigner's to possess coastal or border properties in Mexico other than leasing property.

The risk is incredibly high in this situation even with documents that guarantee the foreigner recompense for property titled to a Presta Nombre. The parties in a Presta Nombre are breaking the law, therefore, unprotected from non-compliance to an agreement intended to subvert the law. Many beautiful homes, hotels, commercial and industrial properties, were acquired by Mexican families as a result of a Presta Nombre backfire.

(This post was edited by Rolly on Dec 15, 2011, 2:16 PM)

viktoremski

Dec 15, 2011, 2:46 PM

Post #15 of 28 (2347 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

I understand your concern, but this is not a "presta nombre" case. We are a couple of 18 years. If we go about this, there is not going to be any financial deal between us. Suppose, you have a mexican spouse. Would you rather pay a bank to be owner of the house, or would you let your mexican spouse own it? The fact that we are not married is not because we don't want to. We don't have the right to it. Still, I can buy him the house, and not the bank. And I am not breaking any laws. So think twice before mindlessly throwing insults.

Now, my question was of a different nature; house vs apartment. Again, only to clarify what someone had told me, and not to break any laws. Now it's been answered. Thank you very much.

chicois8

Dec 15, 2011, 7:48 PM

Post #16 of 28 (2292 views)

Shortcut

Re: [viktoremski] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Oh, I am sorry, I thought you stated:

" We are still considering doing this by buying a house or apartment under my mexican partner's name, and getting a will, in case if something happens to him."

What do you mean this is not a presta nombre case, presta nombre is exactly what you are describing...

By the way in a fidecomisso has a section for a beneficiary to be named so a will is unnecessary.It seems you are just too cheap to pay for a fidecomisso and yearly costs like the rest of us do, you are circumnavigating the Mexican Constitution by buying property this way.....

Your example of me having a Mexican spouse and putting a home in her name is like comparing apples to oranges, you are legally married with a spouse, and not legally married to a partner! Good night Sir...........

mazbook1

Dec 15, 2011, 9:48 PM

Post #17 of 28 (2273 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

chicois8, I think you are going totally overboard in your castigation of victoremski, as I don't really feel this is a case of a "presta nombre" at all, nor do I think that victoremski is trying to circumvent the Mexican law or Constitution. The house being bought is essentially a gift to the partnership, and putting it in one partner's name (no matter which one) is a matter of personal choice. This is EXACTLY how I bought the house that I gave my Mexican wife, long before we were married, or I was a Mexican citizen. It never even entered my mind that some (gringos) might think I was trying to circumvent the Mexican law, nor was there any thought of a particular saving of money, since the cost (original and annual) of a fideicomiso is negligible as such things go. However…

A will (wills) would be an absolute necessity and for complete protection victoremski really should take back a mortgage as described by surebought in post #13. That mortgage is NOT a financial thing at all, it's just an additional protection for the partner that put up the money. No payments need ever be made, unless for some reason the partnership should fail (not to likely in this case, I would think.) Just a piece of paper that gives a little extra level of protection.

(This post was edited by mazbook1 on Dec 15, 2011, 9:54 PM)

chicois8

Dec 15, 2011, 10:30 PM

Post #18 of 28 (2263 views)

Shortcut

Re: [mazbook1] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

David,

When someone writes

" We are still considering doing this by buying a house or apartment under my mexican partner's name, and getting a will, in case if something happens to him."

That is the definition of a presta nombre,
and if you did the same think you also broke Mexican law, you are living in a home where you did not pay for a fidecomisso or the yearly fees and probably got a tax advantage because a Mexican National "bought the house"

I know you and I have been to your shop and we talked for a while, the law is in black and white so while this guy has not broken any law yet you already have and feel you must defend his future actions, kind of saying I did it so others should be allowed to do it........

mazbook1

Dec 15, 2011, 11:14 PM

Post #19 of 28 (2258 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do not feel that this is a definition of or a case of "presta nombre" at all. And believe me, I KNOW exactly what a presta nombre is, in English it is a strawbuyer. This certainly is not the case in victoremski's situation, nor was it the case in my personal situation. Believe me, THERE ARE NO TAX ADVANTAGES to be gotten at all. If there were, I would certainly know about them and would have taken advantage of them. BTW, why haven't you attacked surebought for putting his Mexican properties in his Mexican wife's name? The simple fact of being married to a Mexican doesn't give a foreigner the privilege of NOT using a fideicomiso. And outside of the restricted zone, a foreigner CAN buy property in their own name (with a permission letter from the SRE). Why are victoremski and I being castigated for breaking the law (NOT!), yet you let surebought completely off the hook?

I would never, under any circumstances, recommend to anyone that they use a Mexican strawbuyer to buy property in the restricted zone, even though I know Mexicans who have acted in such a manner and gringos who have enlisted their services. It's NOT illegal, but it is unethical and immoral and can backfire on the gringo with terrible financial consequences, as that gringo has absolutely no protection in the law. surebought in his post listed some of the gruesome possibilities. Had the use of presta nombres been illegal, the fideicomiso would probably never have become the law, as there would not have been the excessive and scandalous use of presta nombres back in the 50s and 60s.

'Nuff said.

sparks

Dec 16, 2011, 4:54 AM

Post #20 of 28 (2243 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

A presta nombre includes a 'carta de poder' which is not the same as a will ... and a partner is usually someone you are sharing your life with ... not just a friend.

Sparks Mexico - Sparks Costalegre

chicois8

Dec 16, 2011, 5:55 AM

Post #21 of 28 (2225 views)

Shortcut

Re: [sparks] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

In Reply To

A presta nombre includes a 'carta de poder' which is not the same as a will ... and a partner is usually someone you are sharing your life with ... not just a friend.

Hola Scott, I don't understand why you are getting into the act, your own website has a link to an attorney who says presta nombre is illegal, not worth the paper it is written on and any documents supporting it would be thrown out of court because the PN was illegal to begin with...I site:
http://sparks-mexico.com/Assorted/realestate/realestate3.htm

sparks

Dec 16, 2011, 6:00 AM

Post #22 of 28 (2222 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

No more butting heads with you over prestanombres .... but I was getting into the act because I don't think this even similar

Sparks Mexico - Sparks Costalegre

chicois8

Dec 16, 2011, 6:05 AM

Post #23 of 28 (2219 views)

Shortcut

Re: [mazbook1] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Hola David, You wrote : This is EXACTLY how I bought the house that I gave my Mexican wife, long before we were married, or I was a Mexican citizen.

This is what I am saying,as a foreigner you bought a house in the restricted zone, put it in a Mexican Nationals name so you would not have to pay for the fidecomisso and its yearly trust fees, you circumnavigated the law of the land...You cheated the system.....

Please read the link to Scotts web site on PN....

mazbook1

Dec 16, 2011, 9:33 AM

Post #24 of 28 (2182 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

chicois8, You obviously did not read/understand my last post that ended, 'Nuff said.

¡Ya no!

P.S. - MY notario says that presta nombres, although very unsafe, are NOT illegal, regardless of what Scott's told him.

viktoremski

Dec 16, 2011, 10:19 AM

Post #25 of 28 (2168 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] No Need of "Fideicomiso" for "Inmigrante"?

| Private Reply

Take some antidepresants, man. I think you're so way out of line. My partner is going to live in the house I buy for him and me. We are not breaking any laws. If you believe it would be morally superior to pay a bank to own our house, and exclude my partner right from the start, then there is indeed a huge gap between your moral values and mine. And it bothers you that we want to have a will? Maybe you plan to live forever, but I know that one of us will die one day. We want the one who survives be able to keep the house and enjoy the rest of his life. What's wrong with that? And then you're going to blame us for the fact that we can't officialy be married?. Well, that's a subject for a different telenovela... Adios.

1 2 View All