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

[e.bram]

AwayWe Go:

But the TS owner never signed the deed or master deed so how is he party to the agreement. If he doesn't pay his MF all that can be done is denying the owner access and forclosing.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

But the TS owner never signed the deed or master deed so how is he party to the agreement. If he doesn't pay his MF all that can be done is denying the owner access and forclosing.

He is party to the agreement because the agreement is attached to the property and by operation of law passes to all subsequent owners of the property. When a subsequent party purchases the property, that party is agreeing to accept and be bound by terms of the agreement.

Maybe it's technically not a contract, but I think the difference is mostly semantic. Under the agreement, both parties have rights and obligations, there is a quid pro quo (services provided in exchange for moneys paid), failure of any party to perform has legal remedies (which may be modified as provided in the agreementas prescribed in the agreement), and either party may take legal action in response to the other parties failure to perform and in accordance with provisions of the agreement.

For example, if the HOA were to arbitrarily deny an owner the right to use their unit, the owner would have the right to go to court to obtain an order requiring the resort to grant him access.

The resort has every right to treat failure to pay fees as non-payment and pursue collection as an unpaid debt.

Of course the specific remedies available might be modified by provisions that are in the agreement (i.e., the agreement might say the remedy for non-payment of fees is repossession of the unit). But if so, that makes it even more like a contract, because remedies for breach are often defined in contracts.

 

[JMAESD84]

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. Bill

Actually, while I never stated as much, I made the assumption he would take a loss on the resale, but it didn't change the point I was making, which was, regardless of gain or loss from the sale of the sports car he could satisfy his dept thus terminating his obligation.

 

[JMAESD84]

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.

As long as your buyer has not been declared legaly incompetent by the courts and is of legal age for entering into a contract, then I don't think you can could possibly know or be held resposible for the buyers future actions regarding what has now become his/her obligation. Of course, you'd be wispering "sucker" under your breath at the closing.....regardless of who was on the receiving end of the deed..... pennyless street person or well to do speculator. You get to proudly feel the same way as the developers sales person the first time the unit was sold.

"when the only reason for transferring the property, for no valuable consideration, is to extinguish your obligation! Maybe I got this all wrong.

I particularly love these final thoughts of this posted statement. It's common knowledge in the timeshare world that thousands of owners are paying thousands of dollars to PCC's for exactly this reason.

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head.

"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..

After all to Tombo's way of thinking, you would just be "man"ing up and "taking care of it yourself as it is your problem" for not going to the HOA for a deedback but by instead finding a new owner "who finds value in it".

Getting someone elses name on the deed and taking legal ownership of the obligation is what its all about ... right!

The problem is solved for the everyone but the HOA and the current owner of the week.

 

[AwayWeGo]

The Whole Ball Of Wax -- Master Association Document Included.

But the TS owner never signed the deed or master deed so how is he party to the agreement. If he doesn't pay his MF all that can be done is denying the owner access and forclosing.

The new owner takes over everything the old owner had that's covered by the deed -- hair, teeth, claws, eyeballs, & everything, including the binding Master Association Document recorded down at the courthouse & specifically included by reference in the deed. I buy it, that's what I get.

The seller can't sell me what he or she doesn't have. What the seller has is an ownership that's restricted, bound, & conditioned by the Master Association Document. That sticks to the deed upon transfer any way you shake it.

Transferring the deed to me doesn't erase any of the conditions, limitations, rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities, etc., that go with the original ownership. Quite the contrary -- I accept the whole bundle when I buy. S.I.G.

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

 

[rickandcindy23]

As long as your buyer has not been declared legaly incompetent by the courts and is of legal age for entering into a contract, then I don't think you can could possibly know or be held resposible for the buyers future actions regarding what has now become his/her obligation. Of course, you'd be wispering "sucker" under your breath at the closing.....regardless of who was on the receiving end of the deed..... pennyless street person or well to do speculator. You get to proudly feel the same way as the developers sales person the first time the unit was sold.



I particularly love these final thoughts of this posted statement. It's common knowledge in the timeshare world that thousands of owners are paying thousands of dollars to PCC's for exactly this reason.

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head.



After all to Tombo's way of thinking, you would just be "man"ing up and "taking care of it yourself as it is your problem" for not going to the HOA for a deedback but by instead finding a new owner "who finds value in it".

Getting someone elses name on the deed and taking legal ownership of the obligation is what its all about ... right!

The problem is solved for the everyone but the HOA and the current owner of the week.

Tom was saying that someone will value the off-season weeks. He is right. What I find valuable is very different from what YOU find valuable.

With your disdain of timeshares, I am surprised you own any. Perhaps you don't even own and just like to bash timeshare owners. You dug up this old thread, I believe. For what purpose, I wonder.

 

[chris5]

As long as your buyer has not been declared legaly incompetent by the courts and is of legal age for entering into a contract, then I don't think you can could possibly know or be held resposible for the buyers future actions regarding what has now become his/her obligation. Of course, you'd be wispering "sucker" under your breath at the closing.....regardless of who was on the receiving end of the deed..... pennyless street person or well to do speculator. You get to proudly feel the same way as the developers sales person the first time the unit was sold.



I particularly love these final thoughts of this posted statement. It's common knowledge in the timeshare world that thousands of owners are paying thousands of dollars to PCC's for exactly this reason.

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head.



After all to Tombo's way of thinking, you would just be "man"ing up and "taking care of it yourself as it is your problem" for not going to the HOA for a deedback but by instead finding a new owner "who finds value in it".

Getting someone elses name on the deed and taking legal ownership of the obligation is what its all about ... right!

The problem is solved for the everyone but the HOA and the current owner of the week.

I think you're on shaky legal grounds, when you deed over your property to avoid your payment obligations by placing the deed with homeless person, with no financial ability to pay maintenance fees. It's common knowledge that people are transferring their timeshares, whether for nominal value or no value (the gift to charity), for purposes of getting rid of their maintenace fee obligations. It happens all the time and some people even pay a premium to unload their timeshares, but in all of these instances there's the idea that someone will take over the maintenance obligations -- you're not accountable if the subsequent owner does make good on the obligation. But this is qualitatively different than the borderline fraud you propose, when you know full well that the new owner has no means to pay the obligation and will not even perhaps use the timeshare. As you posted before, you're sticking it to the man, right!

If I were a lawyer representing the interests of the HOA and homeowners, I'd certainly make an example of your creative efforts by trying to unwind your transaction and seeking to hold you accountable for this potential fraud.

 

[e.bram]

If a contract exists between the TS owner and the HOA, the owner has a right to act if the HOA(in the owners perception)has breeched the contract in any way. He can go to court or withhold his MF and let the HOA take legal action. That is why the government provides us with a civil court system. If has an owner takes action, it is in know way a shirking of an obligation, but rather a right to protect his(her) interest. I don't understand posters who consider such action as some type of moral infraction, but do not consider the HOA's breech a moral infraction by the HOA, who may have conflicts of interest and acts in opaque manner. These posters would consider the Boston Tea Party and illegal rather than a patriotic action.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Talk About Creativity !

If I were a lawyer representing the interests of the HOA and homeowners, I'd certainly make an example of your creative efforts by trying to unwind your transaction and seeking to hold you accountable for this potential fraud.

Now that would be an example of creativity by an HOA-BOD working in the interests of all owners at the resort.

If it worked, word would get around & disgruntled owners might be less inclined to try such shenanigans, I don't know.

Even having to defend oneself in court over a lawsuit like that would be a big drag. That would really make it hot for'm, no ?

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

 

[rickandcindy23]

Now that would be an example of creativity by an HOA-BOD working in the interests of all owners at the resort.

If it worked, word would get around & disgruntled owners might be less inclined to try such shenanigans, I don't know.

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

Alan, I thought of this entire scenario as a hypothetical situation. I doubt anyone is dumping their timeshares in such a manner. It's just TUG posters with overactive imaginations, dreaming of ways to dump timeshares.

The fact of the matter is that you can get rid of a timeshare, very easily. I have helped people get rid of their timeshares myself. I don't list them, but I tell them exactly what to do and not one person has said they couldn't get rid of an unwanted timeshare. Good grief, people, there is no problem getting rid of timeshares. Ask $1.00 on MRN or Redweek and someone will bite. Think of all the young married and single people who have no idea about timeshare and have nothing but time on their hands--no kids, still partying, vacation weeks to burn, etc. The blue weeks trade very well last minute, so spur of the moment people can benefit from those dumpy timeshares.

 

[e.bram]

If the HOA can't sell the units, what amkes anyone think an individual TS owner can. If the HOA/BOD actions made the TSes worthless then they are responsible and should take the continueing loss, not the powerless owner. The TS owner has to do whatever they can to cut their losses. I am OK with this and it might make the HOA more thoughtful about their actions with respect to the nonprime owners.

 

[AwayWeGo]

That Is Good To Know.

The fact of the matter is that you can get rid of a timeshare, very easily.

Let's hope so -- wouldn't want the schemers & scammers out there deeding'm over to street bums, then getting sued to undo the transactions by HOA-BODs.

BTW, I'm guessing paying a postcard Timeshare Liberation company big bux to take an unwanted timeshare off 1's hands is cheaper than paying a lawyer to defend against a lawsuit brought by a honked-off HOA-BOD.

Then again, Timeshare Liberation might not take just any timeshare, only those they know they can turn over. Timeshare Liberation wouldn't want to get stuck with the dogs & cats, either.

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

 

[e.bram]

AwayWeGo

There is no requirement for a natural person to hire a lawyer to defend him(her)self in a legal action. In a case where the damages are small a litigant who is pro se has the advantage over an entity who has to pay $300.00 /hr for a lawyer. Anybody can take a paralegal course in a community college for a few hundred dollars and acquire the skills to act in his(her) behalf in a simple legal matter. It might be fun, look how many people spend big bucks to go to sports camps to play with pros. This is the real thing(not a law camp), especially for someone who wanted to be a lawyer.

 

[AwayWeGo]

I'm Not Going To Try It. (Hey, Let's Get Mikey To Try It. Yeah! )

There is no requirement for a natural person to hire a lawyer to defend him(her)self in a legal action. In a case where the damages are small a litigant who is pro se has the advantage over an entity who has to pay $300.00 /hr for a lawyer. Anybody can take a paralegal course in a community college for a few hundred dollars and acquire the skills to act in his(her) behalf in a simple legal matter. It might be fun, look how many people spend big bucks to go to sports camps to play with pros. This is the real thing(not a law camp), especially for someone who wanted to be a lawyer.

I have no doubt that is 100% true. For me, however, being taken to court is not a D-I-Y matter. Shux, with my luck I'd try telling it to the judge while defending myself on a traffic ticket & end up getting the chair.

Now, The Chief Of Staff is made of sterner stuff. She's gone to Small Claims Court a few times now -- once for a used G.E. gas dryer she bought that didn't work even though the seller said it did. Chief Of Staff actually won a judgment against the seller -- but was never able to collect anything. Any satisfaction she got from winning her own case was psychological & theoretical. (I ended up doing fixa-fixa on the dryer -- installed a working burner assembly off an old Sears gasser. With some slight adaptation to make the Sears burner fit the G.E. mounting screwholes, it worked fine. Then The Chief Of Staff resold the newly fixed dryer for approximately what she paid for it -- or possibly just a tad more. Who'd a-thunk? )

The Chief Of Staff has also gone to court as plaintiff representing herself in some eviction cases. She wins, but all she gets is an order requiring tenants to vacate -- no money. (No money she could actually collect, anyway.) So it goes.

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

 

[JMAESD84]

I think you're on shaky legal grounds, when you deed over your property to avoid your payment obligations by placing the deed with homeless person, with no financial ability to pay maintenance fees. It's common knowledge that people are transferring their timeshares, whether for nominal value or no value (the gift to charity), for purposes of getting rid of their maintenace fee obligations. It happens all the time and some people even pay a premium to unload their timeshares, but in all of these instances there's the idea that someone will take over the maintenance obligations -- you're not accountable if the subsequent owner does make good on the obligation. But this is qualitatively different than the borderline fraud you propose, when you know full well that the new owner has no means to pay the obligation and will not even perhaps use the timeshare. As you posted before, you're sticking it to the man, right!

If I were a lawyer representing the interests of the HOA and homeowners, I'd certainly make an example of your creative efforts by trying to unwind your transaction and seeking to hold you accountable for this potential fraud.

I think that in every way the evidence would show the seller acted in a responsible manner and never in any way defaulted on his obligation. His ownership was paid in full, he was current with all MF's and SA's, he legally and properly transferred his interest to the new owner with a properly recorded warranty deed.

Just like any of a thousand other timeshare transfer's have done.

You'll just be wasting more of the HOA's money trying to sue the seller under these circumstances, when the HOA must already be involved in a costly foreclosure they could have avoided with a proactive deed back policy.

 

[JMAESD84]

With your disdain of timeshares, I am surprised you own any. Perhaps you don't even own and just like to bash timeshare owners. You dug up this old thread, I believe. For what purpose, I wonder.

Cindy, I'm surprised by your comments. Are you simply trying to stir the pot here or what? Since we've gone a few rounds on the PCC issue, I've made known I'm not a shill, what exactly my first few purchases were, that I'm extremely bullish on selective timeshare ownership at this time and that I believe that some timeshare is not worth owning

For the record, I don't work in the timeshare industry but for a major defense contractor. I'm a timeshare consumer.

Within the past 5 months I've acquired, 5 2BD lock-offs and 2 1BD ocean front weeks units and units contracted for 288K annual RCI points.

My way of thinking about timeshares may be different than yours, or others that post to and read these threads, but that's what makes them interesting.

 

[e.bram]

AwayWeGo:

Why do you think the HOA would do better than the CHIEFOFSTAFF.
In your first paragraph you are talking criminal court. Here we are talking civil court. You as a natural person can go into court pro se, with zip legal fees while the sueing corp has to shell out at least $300.00/ hour plus expenses. Unless you are talking big bucks, who do think has the advantage.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Cindy, I'm surprised by your comments. Are you simply trying to stir the pot here or what? Since we've gone a few rounds on the PCC issue, I've made known I'm not a shill, what exactly my first few purchases were, that I'm extremely bullish on selective timeshare ownership at this time and that I believe that some timeshare is not worth owning

For the record, I don't work in the timeshare industry but for a major defense contractor. I'm a timeshare consumer.

Within the past 5 months I've acquired, 5 2BD lock-offs and 2 1BD ocean front weeks units and units contracted for 288K annual RCI points.

My way of thinking about timeshares may be different than yours, or others that post to and read these threads, but that's what makes them interesting.

Of course some timeshare ownership is not worth owning for YOU, for ME for Alan, for Dave M, for any number of people. BUT the beauty of a timeshare is in the eye of a beholder. One board member at Twin Rivers is 80 years old and loves his off-season week more than any other. He says it's quiet, relaxed and he can take some of his grandkids up every year and have a great time. THERE IS value to all timeshares to someone. Even if it is just last minute trade power.

ALL blue weeks are not garbage, and all older resorts are not worthless. :annoyed:

The PCC's who post here never pay for a TUG membership, they just post their agenda for timeshares. They are against timeshare and hate the institution that is timeshare.

 

[JMAESD84]

With your disdain of timeshares, I am surprised you own any. Perhaps you don't even own and just like to bash timeshare owners. You dug up this old thread, I believe. For what purpose, I wonder.

I guess, I was just wondering why, since you've conversed with me on both public and private messages here on the TUG BBS, you would make such a statement as above which you know to be patently false.

You know that I own timeshares, that I like timesharing, I'm in a buying mode, and am bullish on the industry in general with the demand forethcoming from the baby boomer generation.

You also know that I'm very aware of the many ways people are taken advantaged of by this industry.

I found this thread very interesting since at it's core it gets to a fundemental flaw, as I see it, in timeshare operations at highly seasonal resorts. Were an owner doesn't feel very well served by a HOA that may be charging him $500 MF as owner, while at the same time renting the same week out for $200, undermining the resale value and refusing to take a deed back when the owner complains there's no resale value.

I think this is one way people are taken advantage of in the timesshare industry. It's a complex issue. Yet one that I think resorts need to address and resolve for their own long term interests.

Are there poeple out there that would be happy with this ownership, sure a few I suppose, mostly people that already own and don't like change, maybe they've been coming to to the same place for years, have a history at the place and wouldn't change the fact that they a gauranteed this same week for the world. I think these folk are extremely uncommon.

Do I see a new buyer looking to get the most out of his/her purchase dollars, making a knowledgeable and informed decision to buy these troubled weeks - NO WAY.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I guess, I was just wondering why, since you've conversed with me on both public and private messages here on the TUG BBS, you would make such a statement as above which you know to be patently false.

You know that I own timeshares, that I like timesharing, I'm in a buying mode, and am bullish on the industry in general with the demand forethcoming from the baby boomer generation.

You also know that I'm very aware of the many ways people are taken advantaged of by this industry.

I found this thread very interesting since at it's core it gets to a fundemental flaw, as I see it, in timeshare operations at highly seasonal resorts. Were an owner doesn't feel very well served by a HOA that may be charging him $500 MF as owner, while at the same time renting the same week out for $200, undermining the resale value and refusing to take a deed back when the owner complains there's no resale value.

I think this is one way people are taken advantage of in the timesshare industry. It's a complex issue. Yet one that I think resorts need to address and resolve for their own long term interests.

Are there poeple out there that would be happy with this ownership, sure a few I suppose, mostly people that already own and don't like change, maybe they've been coming to to the same place for years, have a history at the place and wouldn't change the fact that they a gauranteed this same week for the world. I think these folk are extremely uncommon.

Do I see a new buyer looking to get the most out of his/her purchase dollars, making a knowledgeable and informed decision to buy these troubled weeks - NO WAY.

What troubled weeks? You speak in general terms. To what are you referring? I haven't seen many posts by owners saying their resorts are in dire trouble.

What about a young person that is paying rent on an apartment, a car payment, utilities and the like, but has no money to invest $7K in a resale timeshare. I know how blue weeks work, which is something that person needs to know. You can buy these blue weeks for almost nothing, pay the closing costs and then a week after closing, that young person can grab a week anywhere in RCI or II within 3 weeks, anytime of the year. My blue week has MF's of $416. You have to own one to get it, otherwise you think it must be crap because it is blue.

It is a good fit.

 

[e.bram]

I don not understand why many posters try to make dumping an unwanted TS a moral issue(owning up to ones obligations) instead of a legal one(trying in any way to rid themselves of a continuing financial obligation) by any means at their disposal. (including abandonment(sp)). Even morally if someone is wronged he has a right to redress.

 

[chris5]

You'll just be wasting more of the HOA's money trying to sue the seller under these circumstances, when the HOA must already be involved in a costly foreclosure they could have avoided with a proactive deed back policy.

Maybe, maybe not. If I had the right case in which someone has done what you advised him to do -- transfer the timeshare to a homeless person who you know has no real ability to use the timeshare or pay maintenance fees -- I think I'd be able to pursuit that person for fraud or a "prima facie tort," which many lawyers, including myself, have studied in law school, in which perfectly legal and legitimate conduct is "legally actionable" because the conduct is somewhat outrageous. And damages for fraud or prima facie tort could include punitive damages. I don't think you really want to test this proposition so I wouldn't mouth-off and say you're sticking it to the man!

Would this be a waste of the HOA's money, I dunno about that either; you'd be surprised how many lawyers might take cases on a contingency fee basis if they see blood in the water.

 

[e.bram]

Chris5:

We are not dealing witha tort. It is a contract since all parties have a relationship with each other.
This is not a PI case, I don't think a lawyer would touch this case witha ten foot pole on contingency. They are out chasing ambulances where the big bucks and deep pockets. Certainly not a few bucks due in MFs or even SAs

 

[chris5]

We are not dealing witha tort. It is a contract since all parties have a relationship with each other.

Ok. You can "waive the tort and sue in assumpsit" or vice versa. Just because a claim might arise from a contractual arrangement does not mean you only have a contractual remedy against someone who has wronged you.

 

[e.bram]

Chris5:

What would you estimate to the order of magnitude of the damages in this instance? It is not a medical malpractice or product liability issue.