BajaNomad

FM-T vs FM-3?

Alan - 3-26-2007 at 08:50 AM

In another post someone commented that they couldn't understand why so many people ignored the requirement for an FM-3. Apparently I don't understand the requirements either so I'm looking for some advice from those more experienced.

After well more than 30 years travelling the peninsula I have finally taken the plunge and bought some property in La Paz. I plan to only use it as a second home and for less than 180 days at a time. I was of the understanding that an FM-T would be adequate for this purpose. My Real Estate agent explained that the FM-3 was only required if the property was to be held in trust by a corporation or if I planned to work or start a business. Based on a previous post it is obvious I don't have a complete understanding of this process so I'm looking for a little clarification. Any help?

David K - 3-26-2007 at 09:01 AM

A 'tourist' (FM-T holder) only visits Mexico for vacation. Once you own something there, or leave personal property there, you are no longer a 'tourist', but instead are a 'part-time' resident (FM-3 visa holder).

You have no legal rights with the wrong visa...

Now, please don't just take my word for it but listen to others who actually have a home or property in Baja...

Don Alley - 3-26-2007 at 09:27 AM

This is my understanding:

As a tourist, simply visiting with an FM-T, when you go home to the USA you take all your stuff with you. Anything left behind is legally abandoned.

If you buy, lease or rent property, you should have an FM-3. It allows you to legally leave items behind while you leave the country. In addition, it gives you additional rights with Immigration should you have trouble and face deportation, such as a right to a hearing. You don't want to spend money on real estate then get permanently deported.

An FM-3 also allows you to bring stuff into the country duty free: a restricted, one-time-only load of household goods, and $150 per person each trip into the country.

And, finally, Los Arcos Hotel in La Paz will give a discount to those with an FM-3.;D

I do see posts from time to time where people who have places down here just use an FM-T. They may get away with it but I don't think it's legal if you have permanent property left in Mexico.

It's cheaper and more convenient to just have an FM-T, so it must be wrong.:biggrin:

[Edited on 3-26-2007 by Don Alley]

Does your Real Estate agent work for migration?

Dave - 3-26-2007 at 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Alan
My Real Estate agent explained that the FM-3 was only required if the property was to be held in trust by a corporation or if I planned to work or start a business. Based on a previous post it is obvious I don't have a complete understanding of this process so I'm looking for a little clarification. Any help?


Why take our advice when you can go to the migra office and ask them? After all, they're the people who can deport you. ;)

osoflojo - 3-26-2007 at 10:26 AM

While you are at it ask them (or someone else) if your signature on a contract is legal if you are not a legal resident.

Pstreet1 - 4-4-2007 at 09:02 AM

We've been told you cannot buy property if you are not a legal resident, but we're farther north, so the rules may be enforced differently--as they so often are in Mexico.

I'd be leary of owning without being legal (which does require the FM3) though; the Mexican government is definitely beginning to notice all the gringos, and they are starting to enforce laws they've always had and are looking at new laws.

DanO - 4-4-2007 at 09:31 AM

Among other things, without the FM3 you cannot go to court to enforce any contract you sign. Frankly, it is so easy to get and renew that I don't understand why anyone would take on the risk of not having one.