Resort has requested Proof of Income for Transfer

[nightnurse613]

Well, ALL the timeshare presentations I've ever gone to have asked for an annual income requirement. It hasn't progressed to "prove it" but, who knows what's next.....

 

[davidvel]

I am sure they exist, but have never heard of an HOA having the right to deny a sale based on their choice not to admit a new member. Is this in the CC&Rs?

 

[DeniseM]

I am sure they exist, but have never heard of an HOA having the right to deny a sale based on their choice not to admit a new member.

Yes - it's becoming more and more common. There have been several discussions about it on TUG. It will probably continue to grow, as more resorts become aware of "Viking Ships."

 

[davidvel]

Yes - it's becoming more and more common. There have been several discussions about it on TUG. It will probably continue to grow, as more resorts become aware of "Viking Ships."

So, "Yes" means its in the CC&Rs? Just asking, as you deleted my actual question in your "quote" of my post.

 

[vacationtime1]

I am sure they exist, but have never heard of an HOA having the right to deny a sale based on their choice not to admit a new member. Is this in the CC&Rs?

If it's not in the CC&R's, the HOA would be improperly denying an owner the right to transfer his/her interest. That would probably be actionable in California.

 

[Rent_Share]

By the Viking ship denied ownership, or the individual denied relief of liability ?

 

[SmithOp]

I had the same request from Advanced Financial when I picked up a cheap Grand Pacific resale. I filled out just the standard demographics (name, address, phone) and left off what was not needed, they accepted it. It looked like a standard credit app that would have been used for financing a developer purchase.

I do the same thing all the time at Drs offices, leave info blank, there is no reason for a Dr to have my ssn.


Sent from my iPad using the strange new version of Tapatalk

 

[DeniseM]

So, "Yes" means its in the CC&Rs? Just asking, as you deleted my actual question in your "quote" of my post.

davidvel - The first part of your question said, "have never heard of an HOA having the right to deny a sale based on their choice not to admit a new member." - that is what I was addressing.

Maybe I misinterpreted your question - based on your wording, I thought you were saying you had never heard of this happening before.

I have no idea what's in the CC&R's - I suspect that in many cases "abandonment transfers" are not addressed at all. It's a fairly new trend.

My point was that many BOD's/management companies are taking the stance that they have the right to protect their HOA's from Viking Ship Companies. There have been several threads in which Tuggers wrote that their BOD's would not transfer the deed because the new owner was suspect in one way or another.

In one case the new owner wanted to deed it to an LLC, which made the resort suspicious, and they denied the transfer. (This is an over-simplification of the situation, but that's the gist of it.)

In another case, the owner wanted to deed it to a "known" Viking Ship Company, and they denied the transfer.

At this point, I don't think we have heard of any lawsuits, but I imagine there will be some, and it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[theo]

If it's not in the CC&R's, the HOA would be improperly denying an owner the right to transfer his/her interest. That would probably be actionable in California.

Not offering a legal opinion (nor any commentary on practices or policies in California), but I am certainly prompted to wonder whether formal amendment to resort by-laws would be entirely sufficient --- regardless of the content of long ago prepared, pre-Viking Ship CC&R's. Personally, I'd be strongly inclined to believe yes...

 

[comicbookman]

If it's not in the CC&R's, the HOA would be improperly denying an owner the right to transfer his/her interest. That would probably be actionable in California.

If the CC&R charges the HOA with maintaining the good financial health of the development, then I would say they have every right to deny a transfer that would be detrimental.

 

[b2bailey]

then I would say they have every right to deny a transfer that would be detrimental.

I am totally in favor of protection from transferring to a non-existent entity with no intention of paying M.F.

The problem with the term 'detrimental' -- at what point is the 'reason' considered to be detrimental be made on a whim or personal prejudice?

 

[DeniseM]

I am totally in favor of protection from transferring to a non-existent entity with no intention of paying M.F.

The problem with the term 'detrimental' -- at what point is the 'reason' considered to be detrimental be made on a whim or personal prejudice?

Why would an employee or Board Member make a decision based on a whim or a personal prejudice? Of course it's possible, but in most cases, they would have no motivation for doing so.

 

[theo]

Why would an employee or Board Member make a decision based on a whim or a personal prejudice? Of course it's possible, but in most cases, they would have no motivation for doing so.

Agreed. Moreover, there is significant legal liability associated with unfair, discriminatory, arbitrary or capricious practices. Ain't gonna happen, unless with a HOA comprised solely of clowns and morons (of which there are few, if any --- at least among "independents" where BoD / HOA members are often owners there too).

 

[b2bailey]

Well, I'm still waiting to be approved on this transaction...

Why would an employee or Board Member make a decision based on a whim or a personal prejudice? Of course it's possible, but in most cases, they would have no motivation for doing so.

Hmmm. I can think of several reasons -- most of which have been challenged when it came to country club memberships.

 

[CO skier]

Why would an employee or Board Member make a decision based on a whim or a personal prejudice? Of course it's possible, but in most cases, they would have no motivation for doing so.

Here is an example where an HOA whimsically denied a legitimate, legal timeshare transfer based on their prejudice against owners who might want to rent their timeshare.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/05/56403.htm

The HOA must have realized they were on shaky legal ground, and eventually caved, because the timeshare was ultimately transferred.

 

[b2bailey]

When a transfer is requested, the resort should have SOP

Not like the way my transaction has been handled -- which was started in October 2014. Each of these requests came separately.

1. Must pay 2015 M.F. now. (OK, as long as LT Transfer hold the check)
2. Need a photocopy of I.D. (OK, faxed it, even though my Hawaii Notary affirmed they had seen my ID to complete the required document.)
3. Need another photo of ID -- picture did not come through clearly on fax.
4. Need proof of income

= = =

It would have made more sense back in October for the resort to tell the transfer company what would be required to make the transfer. Not be making the request 4 months after the transfer was initiated.

 

[DeniseM]

Hmmm. I can think of several reasons -- most of which have been challenged when it came to country club memberships.

With Country Club membership applications, you have other members deciding who will become members. That's a completely different situation than having a paid staff that processes deed backs, according to resort policy, from individuals, whom in most cases, they don't even know. I don't think it's a major concern. Sure it's possible, but in terms of the issues related to this process, I think it's way down on the list.

 

[theo]

Here is an example where an HOA whimsically denied a legitimate, legal timeshare transfer based on their prejudice against owners who might want to rent their timeshare.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/05/56403.htm

The HOA must have realized they were on shaky legal ground, and eventually caved, because the timeshare was ultimately transferred.

I stand corrected regarding my previously stated personal belief that there are few if any independent timeshare facility HOA's comprised solely of clowns and morons. The HOA personnel in the above referenced matter apparently consitutute a noteworthy exception.

 

[DeniseM]

Here is an example where an HOA whimsically denied a legitimate, legal timeshare transfer based on their prejudice against owners who might want to rent their timeshare.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/05/56403.htm

The HOA must have realized they were on shaky legal ground, and eventually caved, because the timeshare was ultimately transferred.

OK - but that has nothing to do with "whimsy."

This resort apparently had a very specific reason - they didn't want rentals - but that's not "whimsy."

whimsey - an odd or fanciful or capricious idea

 

[davidvel]

davidvel - The first part of your question said, "have never heard of an HOA having the right to deny a sale based on their choice not to admit a new member." - that is what I was addressing.

The first part of my post was a statement. You deliberately deleted my question, then answered my statement.

 

[DeniseM]

The first part of my post was a statement. You deliberately deleted my question, then answered my statement.

Yes - I did, as I stated above - "I misunderstood your question."

I "thought" you were saying you'd never heard of resorts refusing to accept deeds.

Now, it appears that you were actually saying, "To my knowledge, this isn't legal."

I did not respond to the question about the CC&R's because at this point - no one knows.

 

[davidvel]

If it's not in the CC&R's, the HOA would be improperly denying an owner the right to transfer his/her interest. That would probably be actionable in California.

I agree with this.

My legal opinion is that property in California is freely alienable, and the condo/ts association (or its manager) has no right to restrict such transfer except as expressly provided in the CC&Rs (not rules). This is true even as to "undesirables": low credit scores, convicted felons, those of limited income, those perceived to have inability to pay dues, trojan horses, viking ships, communists, LLCs, etc. Any restrictions in the CC&Rs affecting transferability would be closely scrutinized under California law.

In reviewing the MRD Condo Declaration and Timeshare Declaration, there certainly are some restrictions: ROFR, subject to liens, etc. There also is this provision:

nothing herein contained shall restrict the sale or transfer of Timeshare interests as provided in the Timeshare Declaration or restrict the manner in which title to a Project Condominium may be lawfully held under California law…

 

[davidvel]

Yes - I did, as I stated above - "I misunderstood your question."

I "thought" you were saying you'd never heard of resorts refusing to accept deeds.

Now, it appears that you were actually saying, "To my knowledge, this isn't legal."

I did not respond to the question about the CC&R's because at this point - no one knows.

I get it. You said "Yes" meaning you believed resorts had refused to accept new owners. Obviously with any legal matter, especially relating to transfer of property, "semantics" as some call it, really matters.

I don't believe "resorts" or HOAs or managers or developer/declarants can accept or reject deeds. Transfer of ownership of property generally occurs through the granting of interests by the holder through recording of a deed reflecting such transfer, subject to any covenants or restrictions contained in CC&Rs. In other words, the owner records his/her deed, and and transfer occurs.

It seems the issue here is whether the HOA can refuse to acknowledge the "rights" of a transferee as a timeshare owner of the interest, based upon its own perceived standard of suitability. The answer to this, as noted in my post above, is generally no, subject to the governing documents, state law, and restrictions on discrimination.

 

[DeniseM]

It's going to be really interesting to see how this plays out in court.

Some states (Colorado?) have already written legislation specifically prohibiting Viking Ship Schemes.

 

[ronparise]

Many condos that Im familiar with require an interview with prospective owners,and absolutely have the right to deny membership in the hoa. but this procedure is written into the original condo docs and on file at the local courthouse. I have also seen situations where the hoa has denied use of the common elements (pool, parking lot etc to owners that have fallen behind in their condo fees

The timeshares that Im familiar with have nothing in their docs to require an approval before the sale of a timeshare. In most cases the first an hoa knows of a sale is after the sale when they get a look at the newly recorded deed. Its at this point that they deny transfer, but of course the transfer has already happened. Allthat they are really doing is deciding not to change their records and continue to send the annual mf bill to the old owner.

They can certainly screw up someones credit, but its probably too late to for it to do the hoa any good. I mean, would you pay for something you no longer own?