I'm all in favor of HOAs being required to take back unwanted paid-in-full-weeks. And, I'm saying this despite being happy with almost all of the 21 timeshares that I own (the only ones I might want to deed back are, as it happens, at a resort that accepts deed-backs.) I don't know if such a law can be applied to existing timeshares (and the relevant laws may vary from state-to-state), but if it can be done, I'm all for it!
However, as part of the legislation, I feel it should also be made easier for timeshares to dissolve and divide up the proceeds from the sale of the underlying real estate. If there is no easy way for owners to vote to dissolve and many owners want out, then bankruptcy might be the only way to dissolve the timeshare, and that would be difficult, time consuming, and might destroy the property's value.
The owners ARE the resort. Management companies don't own the resort - all the owners do...
But developers still sometimes control the resort and its MFs. Isn't that the situation with Starwood? Requring deedbacks would give the resort management a desperately-needed incentive to keep MFs down.
...
Yes, some people get ill, or lose their jobs, or have an accident and can't pay their bills - but we already have legal solutions in place for those people, and they should pursue that legal resolution. I'm not talking about them.
....
IMNSHO, I'm not willing to pay for other people's bad financial decisions, and I've paid hundreds of dollars in MF this year, to cover those who didn't pay.
....
Maybe all TS's need to be 20 year RTU?
In North Carolina, timeshare covenants are only for 40 years. After 40 years, the owners have to vote whether to continue the timeshare, or dissolve it and divide up the property. They then have to vote again every 10 years. I think Foxrun's 40 years will be up within a decade or so, and I'm eager to learn what the owners decide. (Assuming my personal "covenant" hasn't expired by then! :rofl: ) The real estate at Foxrun should have quite a bit of value, assuming the real estate market has recovered.
I think the 40-year expiration cause is a great idea, but it's too long a time period to handle the problems we are discussing now. The 40-year expiration cause should be good for situations where land usage has gradually changed, or buildings have deteriorated.
As for "legal solutions in place" for people who fall ill or lose their jobs, the only one I'm aware of is bankruptcy. I'd hate for a timeshare to be the "last straw" that drives a person into bankruptcy -- most people who lose their jobs or have a serious illness try to keep paying their bills, and many of them succeed. (Actually, DH and I have been dealing with both expensive illnesses and lack of permanent employment for almost four years now, and we are not even close to considering bankruptcy.) Also, as has been discussed on other threads, timeshares are difficult to discharge in bankruptcy, because they are often in a different state than the bankruptcy filer.
....
As far as inheriting a unwanted TS, everything I have read on TUG states that an heir cannot be forced to accept unwanted property....
It is also my understanding that no particular heir can be forced to inherit a timeshare. However, I believe the
estate remains on the hook for any unpaid MFs. This can reduce the value of the estate, and also may delay the settling on the estate. So, when someone shows up on TUG and says, "My grandparents left me a timeshare I don't want," we here on TUG are correct that they can turn it down
BUT if no one else wants it, they may have a problem with receiving their other inheritance from the estate. Perhaps someone here with more legal background can comment on this.
I'm sorry I seem to be picking on you, Denise, but you have been doing a great job of arguing
against allowing deed-backs, so I'm trying to refute your arguments! (John brought up the very valid point that requiring deed-backs may not even be legal, but I'm not up on the laws, so I don't have much to say there.)
While I can appreciate the difficulties that highly seasonal locations like Cape Cod face, they too should offer a VALUE PROPOSITION to their owners.
I don't live far from Cape Cod and the hospitality businesses on Cape Cod do just fine for hundreds of for-a-profit businesses that operate there....If there is no value to off-season ownership, then let those off-season weeks be turned in and run the place as a seasonal resort....
Exactly! I've often wondered why Cape Cod resorts don't just close down for the winter. Lots of other Cape Cod businesses do, and the heating bills for a timeshare have got to be steep in winter!