Stardust tahoe help please [Resort blocking transfer to new owner's business name]

[richardm]

Just wanted to apologize

I haven't visited in a bit, so just glanced at this thread to catch up.. Seems I may need to apologize to the HOA. If the "buyer" wanted the property transferred to a entity that does not have the proper registration and certificate of good standing- then kudos to the resort for performing the correct due diligence. And shame on the OP for leaving that tidbit out of the original post.

Regardless, I hope this gets resolved soon to the satisfaction of both sides.

Chances are the HOA doesn't have the legal authority to do this.. If you pull legal records, you will find many other deeds at the property that are held by businesses and trusts. The simple fact that they offered to take back the ownership from you for a large upfront fee means that they do in fact allow ownership to be held by something other than an individual.

A resort cannot totally protect itself from abandonment and foreclosures. These unfortunately are a fact of life whether the ownership is held by an individual, a trust, or a business. The correct action would be for the resort to require full documentation from any business, trust, or individual who wants to become an owner, and to never allow a transfer to be completed if the individual, trust, or business has an outstanding balance.

Many HOA's maintain records of businesses and their principals that have defaulted. I believe that one of the goals of Shep's HOA group was to create a way for resorts to share that information.

While I appreciate what they seem to be trying to do, the tactics they are employing are simply wrong....

 

[uscav8r]

Stardust tahoe help please [Resort blocking transfer to new owner's business ...

I haven't visited in a bit, so just glanced at this thread to catch up.. Seems I may need to apologize to the HOA. If the "buyer" wanted the property transferred to a entity that does not have the proper registration and certificate of good standing- then kudos to the resort for performing the correct due diligence. And shame on the OP for leaving that tidbit out of the original post.



Regardless, I hope this gets resolved soon to the satisfaction of both sides.

Perhaps, but I don't entirely buy this "due diligence" sentiment.

True due diligence also involves finding ways to get good paying (new) owners and avoid risking a current owner (who obviously wants out) from defaulting. The HOA/representative could have been more explicit on how to solve the problem, and not jumped to the conclusion the buyer was a potential Viking ship (which apparently colored the rest of the discussion with the OP).

If they had simply done some homework and openly discussed the situation with the OP as CO Skier and I did on this thread, the solution would have quickly presented itself. Thus, the OP would not have felt compelled to even start this thread.

Sounds like a case of poor communication/understanding than anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[torontobuyer]

There is a very good reason for this: Viking Ship Companies - Scammers are setting up dummy companies (LLC's) taking unwanted timeshares from owners for a fee, deeding the unwanted timeshares to them, and then bankrupting the companies. This creates a nightmare for the resorts. So many management companies are putting rules in place to prevent this from happening.

My guess is that the Board of Director's at the resort had to agree to this, and it's their job to make decisions about the running of the resort. A small resort like this may have a big problem with Viking Ship companies, which could literally force them into bankruptcy.

And precisely why TS locations need to stop playing games with dissatisfied owners, and allow easy "give backs". They simply have forced owners to this remedy. And the more they fight it, the more novel the approach will be to do this anyways.

 

[DeniseM]

And precisely why TS locations need to stop playing games with dissatisfied owners, and allow easy "give backs". They simply have forced owners to this remedy. And the more they fight it, the more novel the approach will be to do this anyways.

And what are the other owners supposed to do with all those "easy give backs"?

As explained before, deedbacks become the responsibility of all the other owners, not the management company, and not the developer. It could completely overwhelm a small, stand-alone resort like this. Simplistic solutions are not the answer.

 

[bogey21]

If they [HOA] had simply done some homework and openly discussed the situation with the OP as CO Skier and I did on this thread, the solution would have quickly presented itself. Thus, the OP would not have felt compelled to even start this thread.

Agree with this comment. HOA actually did a disservice to owners.

George

 

[pacodemountainside]

Agree with this comment. HOA actually did a disservice to owners.

George

I think there was mutual combat here given the confusion over proprietorship, LLC, legality of purchaser and crashed computer.





July 23, 2014, 09:34 AM #60
WOLFRS
Guest


BBS Reg. Date: Aug 8, 11
Posts: 1 I am the real estate broker for the Association. Here is what actually happened here. The Seller’s listed their timeshare interval for sale on Ebay. The buyer wanted to transfer the interval into the name of a corporation. The Association checked with the Florida Secretary of State’s Office to see if the corporation was in good standing. They found that the corporation was listed as inactive for many years and therefore was not in good standing. The Association, stating such to the sellers, expected that the buyer would cure any issue with the Secretary of State’s Office and become an active corporation. But instead, the buyer then wanted to place the interval in the name of a fictitious business name. The Association’s attorney reviewed the proposed transfer and determined that a fictitious business name can’t take title to real property. What happens when the fictitious business name expires after several years, then who is the owner? At least corporations and LLC’s have winding down provisions.

 

[pacodemountainside]

And precisely why TS locations need to stop playing games with dissatisfied owners, and allow easy "give backs". They simply have forced owners to this remedy. And the more they fight it, the more novel the approach will be to do this anyways.

.

Your use of term dissatified owners rather than hardship shoots your self in foot.

Say you owned at a resort and some one got tired of his ownership, decided to go RVing, found better deal, buyer's remorse, kids do not want, ad nauseam. So resort says torontobuyer since you are nice benevolent guy you can have. You would say take a flying leap at a rolling donut. Instead resort takes back and everyone's MF go up a couple bucks. OK! Suddenly nice HOA finds itself with over a hundred and MF go up say $100. No way! This causes more owners to bail and resort files for bankruptcy.

One need look no further than Wyndham Path Ways Program. Simplified one bought say 105K points and after 30 days could sell everything Developer purchased back to Wyndham Corporate for 20%. Got overwhelmed and changed to five years. Believe now have even made more restricted.

Or, you purchase 100 Shares of Olde Bladder Buster Beer and it losses half its value so you tell company(other share owners) you want you money back as dissatisfied.

Granted as long as Developers refuse to maintain any kind of resale market PCCs, Viking ships. etc. will do their thingy. Disney and Marriott prove something can be done. Wyndham found too costly and decided share holders come first.

 

[DeniseM]

Granted as long as Developers refuse to maintain any kind of resale market PCCs, Viking ships. etc. will do their thingy.

As with many resorts, this is a small, stand-alone resort. There is no developer - just the HOA, and their office employees.

The HOA has a duty to do their best for ALL owners, and they have to strike a balance between maintaining a healthy budget for on-going owners, and assisting owners who want out. There is simply no easy answer...

 

[torontobuyer]

And what are the other owners supposed to do with all those "easy give backs"?

As explained before, deedbacks become the responsibility of all the other owners, not the management company, and not the developer. It could completely overwhelm a small, stand-alone resort like this. Simplistic solutions are not the answer.

Just to be clear, my comment didn't have anything to do with this specific place. It's an observation as to the constant rumblings that I read about TS owners just wanting out. And this current system that doesn't seem to want to let that happen. Then the scams that arise out of that. So the only real way to stop this, is allowing a more friendly exit. Not place extra hoops to jump through.

This is somewhat similar to an apartment building. When a renter leaves, they give back the apartment to the owner. With your analogy, yes, if every tenant leaves, probably the owner will be in financial trouble. But saying the tenant can't because it'll hurt the owner or other tenants, I just don't see it.

 

[DeniseM]

This is somewhat similar to an apartment building. When a renter leaves, they give back the apartment to the owner. With your analogy, yes, if every tenant leaves, probably the owner will be in financial trouble. But saying the tenant can't because it'll hurt the owner or other tenants, I just don't see it.

No, it's not similar at all - when an apartment renter leaves, the other renters in the building are not responsible for it, the owner of the building is.

When a timeshare owner bails, the other individual owners are financially responsible to make up the short fall.

But saying the tenant can't because it'll hurt the owner or other tenants, I just don't see it.

Let's say the house next door to you goes into foreclosure, and you and the rest of the neighbors on your court have to make the payments until a buyer can be found. Unfortunately, the market is really depressed, and it may be months before they can find a buyer. When it sells, you will get nothing. Does that work for you? That is exactly what happens at a timeshare.

 

[torontobuyer]

No, it's not similar at all - when an apartment renter leaves, the other renters in the building are not responsible for it, the owner of the building is.

But it is. Never was talking about the other renters, don't know why you went there. I'm talking about how when one leaves, it falls upon the owner(s). Since now the owner is just the other TS owners.

Here:

1) single...... renter bails............unit goes to the owner.
2) single TS owner bails......TS unit goes to the owner(s) (other TS owners)

Seems pretty similar to me.

In fact, won't the TS owners benefit if the turned in TS is marketed and sells? With lower MF's.

And you sure make a lot of assumptions with your arguments. Such as assuming there would be a shortfall. Maybe the unit gets rented for that time. Then no shortfall.

 

[DeniseM]

I give up - your argument is completely illogical.

 

[TUGBrian]

orrrrr.....

you go to dinner with 9 of your friends and all agree to split the bill 10 ways and they all decide they dont want to pay for dinner and leave you sitting there...who do you think is going to be asked to pay the bill?

I dont agree with 100% takeback policies any more than I agree with 100% refusal to accept deedback policies.

It can be made to work, but the answer is not in choosing a policy within either of the extremes.

 

[VacationForever]

Note that torontobuyer does not own ts, so torontobuyer does not understand how ts works... just saying...

 

[torontobuyer]

Note that torontobuyer does not own ts, so torontobuyer does not understand how ts works... just saying...

Yes, I don't own. So in your eyes I'm less of a tugger, nice. Just saying....

And never said 100% take back.

All I'm saying, is that if and when I become an owner, I'd prefer to own where the owners have realized that locking people in is counter productive. The legal fees, the scams, collection agencies, the unhappiness. All avoided if more friendly exits were allowed. Why this thought is completely scorned is beyond me.

 

[DeniseM]

Why this thought is completely scorned is beyond me.

And precisely why TS locations need to stop playing games with dissatisfied owners, and allow easy "give backs".

Because there is no such thing as an "easy give back," and when presented with the facts, you continue to suggest simplistic solutions.

 

[TUGBrian]

Its not...however in a situation where "every owner should be allowed to walk away at their leisure" is just as poor a suggestion as "noone should ever be allowed to deedback".

perhaps its just a communications issue.

 

[torontobuyer]

orrrrr.....

you go to dinner with 9 of your friends and all agree to split the bill 10 ways and they all decide they dont want to pay for dinner and leave you sitting there...who do you think is going to be asked to pay the bill?

I dont agree with 100% takeback policies any more than I agree with 100% refusal to accept deedback policies.

It can be made to work, but the answer is not in choosing a policy within either of the extremes.

I agree with most of what you've said.

Except that extreme example. How about take it down a notch, and let it fit TS situations a little closer. Such as if you go to dinner with 9 of your friends and agree to split the bill 10 ways, and one of them gets a phone call and leaves. You gonna make the best of it, split it nine ways, maybe divvy up his uneaten plate. That's what I would do. Or is everyone going to chase them down for their share?

 

[pacodemountainside]

Sage Observation Courtesy Rent Share

I give up - your argument is completely illogical.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -George Carlin

 

[torontobuyer]

Because there is no such thing as an "easy give back," and when presented with the facts, you continue to suggest simplistic solutions.

I've not suggested a solution at all. And you haven't presented a fact. Except for saying you give up, yet apparently, that fact is wrong.

 

[DeniseM]

I agree with most of what you've said.

Except that extreme example. How about take it down a notch, and let it fit TS situations a little closer. Such as if you go to dinner with 9 of your friends and agree to split the bill 10 ways, and one of them gets a phone call and leaves. You gonna make the best of it, split it nine ways, maybe divvy up his uneaten plate. That's what I would do. Or is everyone going to chase them down for their share?

Once again - you don't understand the situation - at older, stand alone resorts, like the Stardust, it would be more like this:

6 owners would pay their fair share, and 4 would leave before the check came.

So instead of paying $30 each for dinner, the remaining 6 owners would pay $50 each.​

Even at the top resorts, the "bail" rate would probably be 20-30%. Why? Because people finance these expensive resorts, and then can't make their payments.

Obviously, resorts need an exit strategy - but opening the flood gate and then standing back to watch the resort drown is not the answer.

 

[DeniseM]

I've not suggested a solution at all. And you haven't presented a fact. Except for saying you give up, yet apparently, that fact is wrong.

Originally Posted by torontobuyer View Post
And precisely why TS locations need to stop playing games with dissatisfied owners, and allow easy "give backs". They simply have forced owners to this remedy. And the more they fight it, the more novel the approach will be to do this anyways.

Yes, you have - You specifically said that you want "allow easy give backs." Feel free to define that further.