We were offered a "trade in" value for our old timeshare (El Cid) when we purchased a new time share (Grand Solmar). The cost of the new one was discounted by the trade in.
Now through Timeshare Equity Services we have an option to retain the old one, why wouldn't we want that to use for trading for other locations?
But TES is asking us to pay $1500 for the paperwork between the 2 time share companies.
QUESTIONS: If we are retaining full ownership of our old timeshare property, how can the equity be used for the purchase of the new one?
In essence, the new time share company discounted the purchase price by the trade in value. Therefore there is no transfer of property between the old one and the new one, and therefore no need for Timeshare Equity Services.
Am I thinking this through correctly or missing something....please help!
I sure enjoyed the discussion previously.
Thanks!
1. The "trade in discount" was just smoke and mirrors; a common and long standing ploy in 'ol Mexico. Chances are very good that others have paid the same (or less) for the very same RTU contract
without any such "trade in". In essence, the "trade in discount" was just a shiny lure dangled in front of you as "bait" --- and you bit.
2. Afaik, You didn't / don't actually have any "ownership" anyhow and, accordingly, no "equity". You almost certainly just have a right to use (RTU) contract, probably date defined (commonly 20, 30 or 40 years).
Actual resale market value of your RTU contract was / is is likely somewhere squarely between very low and zero.
3. Asking you to pay $1500 to "keep" the (traded in) contract that you already had is essentially just more gringo dollar extraction. They don't want your "traded in" RTU contract anyhow. It is worthless to them --- and they will now promptly and gladly take $1,500 more from you to let you "keep" it. It's your decision whether it has sufficient value for use or exchange to warrant continuing to pay annual fees --- plus the new one-time $1,500 charge just to "keep" what you already had anyhow.
I apologize if this summation seems harsh, but it is nonetheless accurate. You're examining the matter as if "on the up and up". It isn't, plainly and simply stated.