[2006] Disturbing Trend - Resorts Refusing to Take Back Timeshares When Nothing Owing

[T_R_Oglodyte]

You know they are selling a vacation accomondation and people should be happy with what they are getting or be free to go elsewhere.

But the HOA isn't selling vacation accommodations. All they are doing is running a resort, on behalf of owners who bought vacation accommodations.

You, the owner of the timeshare, is the person who owns the vacation accommodations, not the HOA. The services the HOA is providing is maintenance and upkeep on the accommodations that you own.

I also don't see why the HOA should have an obligation to bail you out because your personal circumstances might have changed so that what you own isn't so attractive to you individually really isn't their concern.

You say that people should be happy with what they are getting or they should be free to walk away. Do you really believe that?? If you buy a sports car, then one year later you start a family, do you expect that you should be able to just stop making payments on the car and hand the keys over to the finance company just because you are no longer happy owning a sports car?

 

[AwayWeGo]

HOA-BOD & Timeshare Selling Company Are Not Necessarily 1 & The Same.

You know they are selling a vacation accomondation and people should be happy with what they are getting or be free to go elsewhere.

Well, maybe. That is, the timeshare companies -- the developers, as we call'm here on TUG -- are selling vacation accommodations for sure. The HOA-BODs by contrast are keeping the timeshare resorts going after the timeshare companies create'm & sell'm to people.

While the timeshare is newish, the developer owns most of the units, & even when a bunch of'm are sold to customers, the developer stays in control by building & voting more & more units.

Eventually, though, the resort reaches a tipping point. That's when a majority of unit-weeks ("intervals") are no longer owned by the timeshare company. That's when it becomes possible for an independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD to get voted in & for control of the timeshare thereby to slip away from the developer's grasp.

Bottom line of the independent HOA-BOD is way different from the bottom line of the strictly-for-profit timeshare development company. Timeshare developer wants profits for himself or herself & his or her stockholders -- that, plus rising value for the shares of stock they hold. Independent HOA-BOD wants quality timeshare maintained & improved at reasonable cost for the enjoyment of the fee-paying timeshare owners, mox nix whether those owners paid big bux to developers or peanuts to resellers.

Management goals of developer-controlled timeshare may well differ from goals of independent owner-controlled HOA-BOD. Developer wants low fees, to make full-freight sales more attractive to new customers. Independent HOA-BOD wants to make sure current budget and future reserves are no higher than necessary but no lower than needed for high-quality operations & maintenance & periodic upgrades & renewals & renovations.

Developer & independent HOA-BOD can work together satisfactorily despite their different purposes & divergent goals. But that's not automatic -- much depends on the HOA-BOD members keeping their wits about them, keeping their eyes on the ball, & not getting distracted by side issues at the cost of neglet to their core mission on behalf of all owners at the resort.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[JMAESD84]

But the HOA isn't selling vacation accommodations. All they are doing is running a resort, on behalf of owners who bought vacation accommodations.

They are also renting or leasing unsold units, and owned units put up for the in-house rental program by the owners. They also try to sell unsold or units otherwise in the possession of the HOA.

You, the owner of the timeshare, is the person who owns the vacation accommodations, not the HOA. The services the HOA is providing is maintenance and upkeep on the accommodations that you own.

This is true and the owner has paid the mortgage in full and is current with all billed MF. However, the MF's being charged for the week have increase to the point that it no longer makes economic sense (in regard to the value of vacation accomondations provided) and has caused the market value to be less than zero.

It is so bad that an entirely new entity in the timeshare industry (PCC's) has been born that charges people several thousands of dollars to rid themselves of the timeshare unit. The business model of the PCC's makes more economic sense than to continue to pay annual MF's that will go on forever.

All because "we owners" through our HOA/management have not evolved our resort so that it makes economic sense.

I also don't see why the HOA should have an obligation to bail you out because your personal circumstances might have changed so that what you own isn't so attractive to you individually really isn't their concern.

Please re-read the potential nightmare scenario and other posting that demonstrate what CAN HAPPEN if "we owners" dont face the reality of the situation.

You say that people should be happy with what they are getting or they should be free to walk away. Do you really believe that?? If you buy a sports car, then one year later you start a family, do you expect that you should be able to just stop making payments on the car and hand the keys over to the finance company just because you are no longer happy owning a sports car?

This is a bad analogy. We are not talking about people walking away from a loan. We are talking about people that have paid in full and want to give their ownership interest away free.

 

[timeos2]

Less owners - more fees

Again, to my way of thinking the resort needs to evolve in what it's "job" is so that all customers be they owners, renters, lease holders are getting good value for there purchase. You know they are selling a vacation accomondation and people should be happy with what they are getting or be free to go elsewhere.

Ok, fair enough. You, the owner, are the resort - the HOA. I assume you are happy with your resort(s) and pay your fees. You are not looking to deed your time back.

Using your theory the resort, you, should take weeks back if the owner desires. Certainly keeps the owners from going delinquent so it's good so far. But now lets say your resort has 100 units and therefore 51 weeks x 100 units 5100 owners. Lets also make the (false) assumption that every unit is paying in 2006 and there was no bad debt (if that is true I want to own at THAT resort - you have no issues!). The fees for 2006 were $500/week with taxes. So the resort operates, sets aside money for future maintenance and pays the taxes for s total of $ 2.5 million dollars. Cheap. You have a good resort.

In 2007 the resort has a 3% increase in labor, 8% in utilities, 35% in insurance and taxes go up a whopping $25/week. All could easily happen. So the fees in 2007 are up $127,500 for taxes, $21K for labor, $12,000 for utilities and $35,000 for insurance. New total for the year $2,695,500 for $529/week or an 8% increase. Too much! 5% of the owners decide they want out. And you, the HOA, let them out. What does it mean to your wallet?

255 weeks revert to the HOA. Thats $134,895 in lost fees. Or nearly $28 more per week. So more owners get mad and deed back - the fees go up again. More, again. See the issue? How much are you willing to pay to give others an easy out?

Anything can be done if you pay enough. How much is it worth to you?

 

[johnmfaeth]

I strongly object to the statement that MF increases have made resorts economically unviable.

The majority of resorts MF's are priced at 50% or less of what an equivelent local hotel/resort would charge for a same stay (including taxes, et al).

What may have changed is that the price increases in general may have exceeded the ability of middle class folks to afford as their travel budget. That combined with air travel and rental car price increases may be pricing some folks, especially those with retirement incomes out of travel in general.

But rental lodging costs have increased proportionately over the years. They are subject to the same insurance, energy, and labor cost pressures as the local timeshares.

 

[PA-]

...
The majority of resorts MF's are priced at 50% or less of what an equivelent local hotel/resort would charge for a same stay (including taxes, et al).
....

Perhaps that's true. However, I would maintain that the MAJORITY of resorts MFs are HIGHER than the average rental for those same timeshares. For example, pick a resort at random, multiply the maintenance fees x 52, then take the fair market rental value for all 52 weeks per year combined, and see what you get. Most timeshares would be a loser. Factor in amortization of the purchase price, and most would be a big loser.

I'm familiar with Eagle Crest in Oregon. 52 weeks x $600 per week M.F. = $30,000 + per week. Some weeks in July and August will net $800 per week. Jan - May will net about $200 - $300 per week. June and Sept - Oct perhaps $300 - $400 per week. Nov - mid Dec, and Jan - March perhaps $200 per week. You get the idea. And that's for a GOLD CROWN resort that has nice weather and 4 season activities year round. If anyone doubts my figures, check out the ebay rental auctions.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Regruntling The Disgruntled.

So more owners get mad and deed back - the fees go up again. More, again. See the issue? How much are you willing to pay to give others an easy out?

That's why I think HOA-BODs should not make it too easy for disgruntled owners to deed back unwanted weeks.

When the HOA-BOD simply does a great job of delivering quality vacation resort accommodations, more owners will remain gruntled & fewer will become disgruntled -- & so the number of those desiring to end their ownerships will remain small. Plus, when the resort has a reputation for delivering quality vacation resort accommodations, demand will be brisk for any weeks that show up on the resale market -- meaning those disgruntled few can sell on their own without burdening the HOA-BOD with deedbacks.

In short, to do the most effective job of keeping owners happily gruntled the HOA-BOD needs to focus on Job One -- keeping up & improving a nice timeshare resort, while keeping fees in line via hard-nosed budgeting, accurate ownership-billing records, & aggressive action against deadbeats. Accepting deedbacks might be compatible with that in some circumstances, but probably not most of the time.

Preventing timeshare delinquencies by maintaining owner satisfaction is much to be preferred over setting up an easy path to deedbacks.

I rest my case.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

This is a bad analogy. We are not talking about people walking away from a loan. We are talking about people that have paid in full and want to give their ownership interest away free.

Nay - it's a fine analogy.

You are espousing that timeshare owners should be able to walk away from their unit merely because they are no longer interested in making their required payments.That doesn't differ from someone wanting to walk away from car payments just because they are not interested in making their required payments.

Ownership is irrelevant - in both situations the person has a financial obligation to someone else, and the property is being returned in lieu of the financial obligation. Either way there is a financial obligation owed to another party. If a timeshare owner should be able to walk away from a legal and properly incurred obligation, why not a car owner??? In both cases the owner entered into a contract assuming that financial obligation.

Why is it ok to walk away from one contract simply because you're no longer interested in continuing to meet your obligations, but it's not ok to walk away from the other??

 

[chris5]

Yep, it's a pretty good analogy and you have your opponent on very unsettled grounds. I'd be interested in the response since ownership of a timeshare is bundled with separate obligations to pay maintenance fees. While transferring ownership might, in most cases, also extinguish the obligation to pay maintenance fees, the transfer proposed to a known deadbeat incapable of paying maintenance fees, for no purpose other than to eliminate that obligation, could be a "fraudulent conveyance" under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to be on dubious moral and legal grounds. Or maybe I'm stretching things a bit.

 

[e.bram]

There is no written contract between the owner and the TS. The only written contract that exists is between the buyer and seller. The deed is not signed by the grantee only the seller grantor. However if ther was a contract between the owner and the HOA and the TS owner perceived that the HOA was not performing to that owner's satisfaction he would have a right to withhold payment claiming breech of contract on tht HPOA's part.

 

[JMAESD84]

Ok, fair enough. You, the owner, are the resort - the HOA. I assume you are happy with your resort(s) and pay your fees. You are not looking to deed your time back.

Using your theory the resort, you, should take weeks back if the owner desires. Certainly keeps the owners from going delinquent so it's good so far. But now lets say your resort has 100 units and therefore 51 weeks x 100 units 5100 owners. Lets also make the (false) assumption that every unit is paying in 2006 and there was no bad debt (if that is true I want to own at THAT resort - you have no issues!). The fees for 2006 were $500/week with taxes. So the resort operates, sets aside money for future maintenance and pays the taxes for s total of $ 2.5 million dollars. Cheap. You have a good resort.

In 2007 the resort has a 3% increase in labor, 8% in utilities, 35% in insurance and taxes go up a whopping $25/week. All could easily happen. So the fees in 2007 are up $127,500 for taxes, $21K for labor, $12,000 for utilities and $35,000 for insurance. New total for the year $2,695,500 for $529/week or an 8% increase. Too much! 5% of the owners decide they want out. And you, the HOA, let them out. What does it mean to your wallet?

255 weeks revert to the HOA. Thats $134,895 in lost fees. Or nearly $28 more per week. So more owners get mad and deed back - the fees go up again. More, again. See the issue? How much are you willing to pay to give others an easy out?

Anything can be done if you pay enough. How much is it worth to you?

Ok, I'll play. Let's say your very seasonal resort has the following characteristic for the sake of argument. We will look at the values based on the units rental rate and resale value. We'll set the resale value at 5 x the difference between the rental rate and the MF.

We'll also devide the available weeks on a 5 tier system based on prime time as the top tier and dead-season as the low tier.

2006 Values

Tier Weeks Rental Subtotal Resale Subtotal
1 1000 1200 1200000 3500 3500000
2 1000 900 900000 2000 2000000
3 1000 700 700000 1000 1000000
4 1000 500 500000 0000 0000000
5 1100 200 220000 0000 0000000
Total 3520000 6500000

So here's the good news the total rental value of the resorts weeks exceeds operating costs by about 1M 3.52M-2.5M and the market value of the property is also positive to the tune of 6.5M / 5100 or about 1275 average per owned unit.

Now let's assume rental rates keep up with inflation so that's a year over year wash. Unhappy owners of tier five deed back 255 units at a cost of $30 to each of the resorts 5100 units but the resort is creative and can get a third of that back through rental/lease so the realized impact is $20 additional in increased MF that the rent rate wont cover.

2007 Values

Tier Weeks Rental Subtotal Resale Subtotal
1 1000 1200 1200000 3400 3400000
2 1000 900 900000 1900 1900000
3 1000 700 700000 900 900000
4 1000 500 500000 000 000000
5 1100 200 220000 000 000000
Total 3520000 6200000

So the good news the total rental value of the resorts weeks still exceeds operating costs and the market value of the property has decreased to the tune of 6.2M / 4845 but increased slightly to 1280 per owned unit.

2008 Values

Tier Weeks Rental Subtotal Resale Subtotal
1 1000 1200 1200000 3300 3300000
2 1000 900 900000 1800 1800000
3 1000 700 700000 800 800000
4 1000 500 500000 000 000000
5 1100 200 220000 000 000000
Total 3520000 5900000

So the good news the total rental value of the resorts weeks still exceeds operating costs and the market value of the property has decreased to the tune of 5.9M / 4590 but increased slightly to 1285 per owned unit.

So you can extrapolate this on and on, you can update the tables for the inflation adjusted rental rates for accuracy.

I think what this shows is that upper tiers will gradually lose some value if they are renting out instead of using and a little resale value if they sell there individual weeks.

The rate of deedbacks should slow year over year as the number of lower tier owners nears exhaustion. This is how a resort might evolve so that impact from deed backs is minimal and costs for use of the resort starts to align more closely with the underlying value of the weeks used.

Owners wont feel trapped and increased foreclosures will likely be avoided.

 

[JMAESD84]

Nay - it's a fine analogy.

You are espousing that timeshare owners should be able to walk away from their unit merely because they are no longer interested in making their required payments.That doesn't differ from someone wanting to walk away from car payments just because they are not interested in making their required payments.

I'm saying these two types of debts an not equivalent and you have a very unique situation with regard to these timeshares.

With the sports car analogy the owner can satisfy the debt and simply sell the car for what the market will bear, period, done and over with. He doesn't want to be a sports car owner anymore and he's not.

With these timeshares the owner has perhaps no way to rid himself of the obligation, except to find a "sucker" whos willing to take on an obligation to pay a MF that's perhaps double what he could rent the same unit for without taking on such an open ended obligation. So even if he's done and over with, the fundemental problem with the timeshare remains and transfers to the next owner.

So what I've suggested acknowledges that there is a fundemental problem with these timeshares and proposes a solution that involves "the other owners" of the resort who have a vested interest to avoid foreclosure, significant costs and clouded titles, while providing clear title and use of these timeshare units.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

I'm saying these two types of debts an not equivalent and you have a very unique situation with regard to these timeshares.

With the sports car analogy the owner can satisfy the debt and simply sell the car for what the market will bear, period, done and over with. He doesn't want to be a sports car owner anymore and he's not.

That's no different from the timeshare owner. The timeshare owner can sell the timeshare for whatever the market will bear. Now, if the timeshare has negative value, he may have to pay someone to take it off his hands. But again, that's no different from the sports car owner. If he can't sell the car for more than the amount outstanding, he has to come up with the difference to close the transaction.

Again, how is that any different from a timeshare????

*****

Now there might be valid reasons why a HOA might want to do something different.

But I think you're way off the mark by trying to create an ethical construct for walking away from a valid financial obligation just because it's no longer convenient to continue making payments.

 

[bugzapper]

That's no different from the timeshare owner. The timeshare owner can sell the timeshare for whatever the market will bear. Now, if the timeshare has negative value, he may have to pay someone to take it off his hands. But again, that's no different from the sports car owner. If he can't sell the car for more than the amount outstanding, he has to come up with the difference to close the transaction.

Again, how is that any different from a timeshare????

The reason the sports car analogy doesn't work is that you keep insisting that the owner is carrying a loan. Most cars, if paid off and in working condition, have some value. Many timeshares do not. If the owner of a paid-off sports car decides he doesn't want to use the car anymore, he can put it in his garage on blocks; he doesn't have to pay insurance or maintenance if he doesn't feel like it, and he may not have to pay taxes. He can deed it to his heirs, who can continue to do the same thing, with no expense. On the other hand, timeshare maintenance fees continue to rise at alarming rates whether you use it or not. There are many weeks that probably should have never been sold in the first place, because cheaper rentals can be found. The owners probably bought them because they believed the lies the salesmen told them.

I've followed this thread with interest and it has pretty much convinced me not to buy into a weeks system--at least one that charges equal MFs, regardless of season. The mini-points systems (Wyndham, Fairfield, etc.) seem to spread the maintenance costs more fairly. What I'm reading here is that with a weeks system, you have to own a prime week or you end up subsidizing owners of prime weeks with your MFs. Even if you own a prime week, you eventually face rapidly increasing MFs as it ages, loses trading value, owners of off-season weeks default, and your resort goes to the dogs.

 

[timeos2]

Points to the rescue.

I've followed this thread with interest and it has pretty much convinced me not to buy into a weeks system--at least one that charges equal MFs, regardless of season. The mini-points systems (Wyndham, Fairfield, etc.) seem to spread the maintenance costs more fairly. What I'm reading here is that with a weeks system, you have to own a prime week or you end up subsidizing owners of prime weeks with your MFs. Even if you own a prime week, you eventually face rapidly increasing MFs as it ages, loses trading value, owners of off-season weeks default, and your resort goes to the dogs.

Actually that isn't a bad conclusion to draw from this thread. The points based model can do a much better job of tying use value to cost than weeeks can - especially in the highly seasonal areas.

As has been pointed out above some non-points resorts are being creative and finding ways to create ongoing value for otherwise virtually worthless weeks. It seems that points are an answer not only for exchange but for the very survival of many resorts. When available the association with a mini-system, also often points based, helps accomplish the same result by allowing even poor value time to have easy (no outside valuation or trade required) access to other, more useful areas within the system. Buying into a mini does make more sense for many buyers than a single, non-prime week would with similar costs.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Well, Yeah, Kind Of -- But Not Exactly.

There is no written contract between the owner and the TS. The only written contract that exists is between the buyer and seller.

The timeshare Master Association Document recorded down at the courthouse is where it's all spelled out. The Master Association Document is specifically included by reference in each timeshare deed, whether that deed comes from a timeshare company ("developer") or from a timeshare reseller, mox nix. The Master Association Document spells out the owners' obligations to abide by the rules, pay the fees, get locked out of they don't, & all that, plus the form of governance, election & responsibilities of HOA-BOD, the whole works. That's the written contract between the owner & the timeshare.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[Jya-Ning]

???

I must misread something.

The title says "Disturbing Trend". I did not find anything to point to a trend.

The post mentioned there is a SA come up, so the owner want to give the TS back to the resort, and get reject.

It never say if the resort was accepting the week before or not, so where is the trend?

If it is US TS, as owner, shouldn't you be able to create/change by-law? If so, should you be willing to fight a law in your HOA says as long as the MF is current, the HOA has to take back the week even if there is a SA still attach to that week?

If you can not change it, shouldn't you be evaluate your risk before hand, and decide if you want this ownership or not already?

The event that cause SA is happening during your ownership period. Or you just take over willing from another owner without checking if a SA will come?

Now, most city I know have this Tax Sale thing. Where they just aution the property tax collection right off to a bidder. It becomes bidder's responsibility to collect the tax. If the governor does not put a law say if you have problem come out your property tax money, we will gladly take your house, or say it out loud public, then what is the chance a HOA will do that? You assume HOA is in this as business so they should have rent branch, saling branch? Maybe they should have develope branch as well?

Maybe I missed something. Is there a data that says there used to be 100% HOA accept the week back now it is 40%? If that is the case, I will assume the economic is in the bad turn.

I would not think HOA has to do anything in this case if they can not handle it also.

Jya-Ning

 

[bogey21]

When you bought the timeshare, you thought it had some value - what changed? The resort, or you?

In some cases I think people were sold on the idea that they could buy a cheap off-season Week and exchange it for something better thru RCI or II. This may have been true when they bought it, but it is generally not true now. Thus the value they preceived in the Week no longer exists!

GEORGE

 

[rickandcindy23]

In some cases I think people were sold on the idea that they could buy a cheap off-season Week and exchange it for something better thru RCI or II. This may have been true when they bought it, but it is generally not true now. Thus the value they preceived in the Week no longer exists!

GEORGE

Bogey gets to the crux of the problem, right here.

This is so accurate!

Of course, you really can exchange any blue week for last-minute accommodations very easily. I wonder how many people even know that.

Jya-Ning, you are so correct, too! Many resorts never took back weeks, even with nothing owing. Pay the resort $3,495 to take back your week and then see if they bite.

Most resorts don't have any means of getting rid of weeks. I am personally trying to help sell Twin Rivers' inventory of fall, spring, and even summer weeks, and no offers. 100 weeks to sell and no one wants them. This resort is pretty nice, but it isn't really a resort!

This thread is a year old, started by a guy who hasn't been along for a while.

 

[rapmarks]

This thread has really got me thinking. sometimes getting rid of an off season ownership is like getting rid of toxic waste.
I am in the situation where the resort charges less to rent out my week to the general public than they charge in maintenance fees. And then they claim we have low maintenance fees.
Owning a flex week, everyone calls to book the prime week. Trying to book for next June, I got through after 20 minutes and all 47 units were gone. This happened three weeks in a row. since it takes at least two minutes for transaction, and only one person handles them, this was odd. Now I am wondering if perhaps the resort booked all the flex weeks they have from defunct owners and plans to rent them out. Those weeks are worth a lot more than the September and other shoulder season weeks.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

This thread has really got me thinking. sometimes getting rid of an off season ownership is like getting rid of toxic waste. .

Yeah - I actually thought about that analogy before I went with the sports car analogy.

If Uncle Titus wills you that vacant piece of commercial property and you accept it, you may wind up owning something you can't give away, that will cost you money out of pocket, and that you can't walk away from.

 

[chris5]

Yeah - I actually thought about that analogy before I went with the sports car analogy.

If Uncle Titus wills you that vacant piece of commercial property and you accept it, you may wind up owning something you can't give away, that will cost you money out of pocket, and that you can't walk away from.

I see no one has addressed my point that you really can't "defraud" a creditor of an obligation that runs with the ownership of a property interest by simply transferring the property to an insolvent, known deadbeat incapable of paying the debt when the only reason for transferring the property, for no valuable consideration, is to extinguish your obligation! Maybe I got this all wrong. The sports car analogy isn't that bad but as pointed out there's a flaw to it.

The problem is more closely analogous to the toxic waste piece of property. The owner of toxic real estate can't really absolve his environmental clean-up or remediation obligations by simply deeding the property to another party.

 

[AwayWeGo]

"Real" Real Estate & Timeshare Real Estate.

All I actually own with my deeded tmeshares is the obligation to keep on paying required fees year after year, indefinitely on into the future for as long as the deed is in my name.

Sure, I get something valuable for what I pay. That's because the timeshare resorts where I own my deeded weeks provide value for money -- luxury accommodations for approximately Motel 6 & Super 8 rates. So my ongoing obligation to pay year after year remains a plus so long as what I get for my payments remains worth the money.

Should that change & the obligatory fees I'm shelling out are getting me consistently worse accommodations than I could get via some other arrangement, that's my tough luck. The only way I can get out of the ongoing payment obligation is to get somebody else to take over ownership.

So. It. Goes.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[tombo]

"Caveat Emptor", let the buyer beware is a good rule. If you made a mistake and purchased a bad business, bad stock, or bad timeshare, it was your fault. If the market changed and you didn't keep abreast of the changes leaving you stuck with what you feel is a white elephant, still your fault. Should I pay higher dues because you don't want to put in the time and effort to find someone who will take your week and the financial obligations that come with it, no I don't.

I have personally owned a couple of dogs that seemed great when I bought them. I didn't give them back to the HOA, I found someone who found value in them and sold them. I have owned at several resorts that were wiped out by Hurricanes, closed for a couple of years, and I was asessed. I rode out the storm, paid the assessments, and aknowledged that owning ocean front has inherent risks which I assumed when I bought there. I didn't cry and give back my weeks. I didn't say why am I paying for a closed resort!

If you spill hot McDonald's coffe in your lap it is your fault, not Mcdonald's. If you bought a dog week, man up and accept your responsibility rather than blaming your problem on the resort, the HOA, RCI, and anyone else you can deflect your poor purchase on. What happened to the buck stops here and accepting responsibility for one's actions. Sometimes in life bad things happen to you, take care of it yourself as it is your problem.

 

[wbtimesharer]

I'm saying these two types of debts an not equivalent and you have a very unique situation with regard to these timeshares.

With the sports car analogy the owner can satisfy the debt and simply sell the car for what the market will bear, period, done and over with. He doesn't want to be a sports car owner anymore and he's not.

With these timeshares the owner has perhaps no way to rid himself of the obligation, except to find a "sucker" whos willing to take on an obligation to pay a MF that's perhaps double what he could rent the same unit for without taking on such an open ended obligation. So even if he's done and over with, the fundemental problem with the timeshare remains and transfers to the next owner.

So what I've suggested acknowledges that there is a fundemental problem with these timeshares and proposes a solution that involves "the other owners" of the resort who have a vested interest to avoid foreclosure, significant costs and clouded titles, while providing clear title and use of these timeshare units.

I suggest you take a visit to sites like priceline and put your theory to test. I think that you will find most hotel rooms run between 60 to 80 per night during your off seasons and around double that during your prime seasons. Now this is in areas like the Midwest.

Now I think the average 2 bedroom timeshare runs around $500. So I counter that you are probably getting double the room for the same price as a hotel room using the discount sites.

I also think you are making a big assumption that selling your sports car is guaranteed to make money rather than lose it. I think thats a pretty hefty assumption. Now try using that theory on say an a run of the mill american car. Try selling a car you paid 25,000 for a month after you have driven it off the car lot and you will probably drop between 2000-5000 in value.

Timeshares are overpriced if bought from the developer, but the same laws of supply and demand apply to them as do many other types of purchases out there. If you smart about what you buy and don't buy what you don't need, then you more than likely will walk away happy and have many years fun vacations.

Bill

Bill