On behalf of all timeshare owners who live in Florida --- as well as non-residents who bought Florida timeshares --- We respectfully urge you to consider the following and forward this letter of our concerns to Gov. Rick Scott.
HB 453 was filed with no input from timeshare owners and, in our opinion, strips away some consumer protections already in law. Some aspects of this bill codify practices that developers already use, such as vacation clubs that sell points into trusts instead of deeded weeks. We have no quarrel with clear cut provisions that simply modernize Florida's timeshare laws. We do object, however, to the following provisions of HB 453:
• This bill expands the limitation on liability for developers who, in "good faith", attempt to substantially comply with all provisions of the Timeshare Act. There are many, many industries who wish they could skirt the laws simply by acting “in good faith”. Under this provision, so-called non-material errors by developers are not actionable. We contest the idea that some contractual errors can be considered material while others are meaningless. Further, from our vantage point, developers do not need additional legal protections from their own mistakes in contracts and disclosure to potential buyers. This provision is a direct attack on existing law that protects consumers. If this becomes law, timeshare owners will have a much more difficult time getting out of flawed contracts. The backers of this provision say, without apology, that this is designed to deter frivolous lawsuits against the industry. Yet they have not cited a single instance where any attorneys have filed frivolous lawsuits against developers or homeowner associations.
• Another provision of HB 453 allows developers or HOAs to exceed Florida's 125 percent cap on increases in annual maintenance fees. In technical terms, the bill excludes component site common expenses and ad valorem expenses from the cap on annual increases in common expense assessments. We view this provision as a blank check for developer controlled associations and a pocketbook issue for owners. Since owner-advocacy groups, such as the Florida Timeshare Owners Group and the National Timeshare Owners Association, were not consulted about this provision prior to its inclusion in HB 453, we can only conclude the following: it was designed specifically to benefit developers by giving them carte blanche to impose any fees they want. Again, we view this as a direct attack on owners who, under current law, cannot be socked with exorbitant annual increases in their maintenance fees.
• A third and seemingly innocuous clause in HB 453 allows developers to substitute inventory with replacement accommodations that are "better than or equal to" existing accommodations. However, we see a huge potential for abuse within the vague language of this provision. According to realtors who are very familiar with timeshare transactions, this clause opens the door for developers to take back prime inventory, then "substitute" it with potentially inferior accommodations --- all to the detriment of an unsuspecting owner or potential buyer. This provision would also enable developers to substitute inventory in the middle of a timeshare resale, or right afterwards, effectively disrupting sales for a section of the industry they view as fierce competition. In practical terms, this substitution clause could kill the timeshare resale market, because who would buy a piece of property that could be "substituted" with a lessor product at any point in time? The whole idea of substituting inventory without owner consent is in our opinion, anti-consumer
These are our primary concerns with HB 453. Beyond the specifics, however, we are concerned that the timeshare developer industry would sponsor special interest legislation that is so transparently one-sided, favoring developer interests over those of timeshare owners. For this over-riding reason, we urge you to veto HB 453. Protect the consumers of Florida by sending this measure back to the Legislature with your directive that it be revised to ensure that NO consumer protections are rolled back, either directly or through the back door.
