# Need advice on a big mess



## madxxdog (Dec 10, 2011)

My parents bought a time share four or five years ago at the Ellington at Wachesaw Plantation in S.C. They paid cash after reaching an agreement that there would be no maintenance fees, ever. They have a contract that lists maint. fees of zero. Three years ago while using the facility current management discovered they were not paying maint. fees. By the end of the day they were told they would have to pay maint. fees or leave. My dad was furious so they decided to leave and have not been back. After contacting the resort later to try and clear things up they got nowhere. They received in the mail a copy of the contract they originally signed but now the maint. fee section has been altered and instead of zero there is now an amount (around 700) in that spot. 
My parents then contacted the S.Carolina A.G. office but received a reply that the resort had done nothing illegal by altering the contract. My parents are in their 70's and can't afford to pay the fees which now total almost 3 grand. I'm guessing there is no way anyone is going to buy this thing until the fees are paid up. They just got a notice that the timeshare company is going to foreclose in 30 days.
They are pretty upset that people are so dishonest. I'm just glad they didn't sign their entire life savings to these thieves.
Any advice I can relay to them would be appreciated. 
The salesmen that peddled this thing were all fired for selling it with no maint. fees and the attorney who processed the original documents is dead.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 10, 2011)

Their alternatives are to to hire an attorney, or let it go into foreclosure.

Can they afford to hire an attorney?
Can they afford to take a hit to their credit rating if it goes into foreclosure?

BTW - Even if it was paid off, they probably couldn't sell it.  Most timeshares are selling for 0-10% of original retail today and they'd probably be lucky to give it away.


----------



## 1950bing (Dec 10, 2011)

WOW ! That is just so wrong.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 10, 2011)

madxxdog said:


> <snip>
> They received in the mail a copy of the contract they originally signed but now the maint. fee section has been altered and instead of zero there is now an amount (around 700) in that spot.
> 
> <snip>
> The salesmen that peddled this thing were all fired for selling it with no maint. fees and the attorney who processed the original documents is dead.



First- what the TS resort did is *FRAUD!* This should be pointed out to the SC AG by a SC based attorney. Submit the copies of the fraudulent new contract as well as copies of the ones signed at the time of the sale. Should be easy to prove.

And second- whether or not the salesman is still there or not, he acted as an agent of the TS company, and they are bound by the contract.
Other than this little detail, I concur with Denise- your parents have to decide if it's worth pursuing. Unless this is an ocean front, really deluxe unit, it probably has little if any value, and letting it go to foreclosure may be the best way out if they can avoid collection and a credit rating hit.

Welcome to TUG. We wish you well.

Jim Ricks


----------



## RX8 (Dec 11, 2011)

Did the AG fully understand the situation?  Generally, a contract CAN be altered IF the change is initialed.  Was the alteration adding $700 initialed by your parents?  If no, then it certainly LOOKS like fraud.  If your parents have a contract that is signed by all parties and lists ZERO for maintenance fees and is NOT initialed then I do not know how they can say THEIR altered contract is the correct one.  If that is the case, I would think the resort would LOVE to take the deed back with NO RECOURSE to your parents.  The alternative is potentially losing in court which would allow your parents to have FREE weeks forever.

I think the resort may be playing hard ball and the quicker they can foreclose, leaving you with a huge debt and credit issues, the quicker they may think that this "fraud" will be swept under the rug.  If this is truly fraud, you should be able to at a minimum get them to do a deed back with your parents owing nothing.


----------



## ttt (Dec 11, 2011)

Something just  doesn't sound right. I never heard of an inducement to purchase that includes never paying maint. fees.


----------



## madxxdog (Dec 11, 2011)

I can only add what my parents have told me. I live in Michigan and they live in Kentucky. My dad said that when this thing was first agreed to there was a big argument between people at the time share office because the contract was written up with no maint. fees. For me that would have been a red flag but they didn't know any better. That's why the elderly get cheated so often. Anyway after all was said and done they left the timeshare with a signed contract for no maint. fees. 
My dad said he sent the documents to the A.G. for S.C. and the reply he received was no wrong was committed. I believe he also called an attorney in the area of the timeshare but was told there was nothing that could be done. For all I know it was someone who does legal work for them(timeshare resort).
My parents have little money left. Dad has had open heart surgery and recently a small stroke and mom is no better. The medical bills have taken a toll. They can't currently travel and I really don't think they can afford an attorney. Given my opinion of S.C. legal hospitality how can we find one that's honest? 
This whole deal was bad from the start. I wish I had known about it sooner but there is still nothing I could have done to prevent this.


----------



## madxxdog (Dec 11, 2011)

*reply*

And...I appreciate all the replies. Wish they had called me before buying this thing. I'm glad I found TUGG. It has answered lots of questions already.Thanks again.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 11, 2011)

What else are you wanting to learn?  Why not just let it foreclose and be done with it?  It sounds like they have no use for it anyway.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 11, 2011)

madxxdog said:


> My parents have little money left. Dad has had open heart surgery and recently a small stroke and mom is no better. The medical bills have taken a toll. They can't currently travel and I really don't think they can afford an attorney. Given my opinion of S.C. legal hospitality how can we find one that's honest?
> This whole deal was bad from the start. I wish I had known about it sooner but there is still nothing I could have done to prevent this.



It is a shame how many elderly are taken for a ride, but from what you say, they may very well be 'judgement proof'. No entity will sue them for the arrears if there's no hope of collecting anything. Let 'em foreclose and be done with it. What they spent is unfortunately in this market water under the bridge.

You could seek an attorney reference from the SC Bar Assn (google it) if you want to, but it's prolly not worth the effort/trouble.

I'm sorry they were taken, but if it's any small comfort, they were no the only ones.

Jim


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm not an attorney, but if all the details you have provided are correct, I'd just let it go into foreclosure.  

The timeshare has NO VALUE, and they can't travel, so they aren't losing anything by letting it go.

You may have to convince them that it has no resale value - here are some ebay listings for Diamond Resort Points (this timeshare is in that system).  People are listing them for $1 on ebay - and still aren't getting any bids-
http://www.ebay.com/csc/Timeshares-...=Timeshares&LH_PrefLoc=0&_fsct=&LH_Complete=1


----------



## madxxdog (Dec 11, 2011)

*reply*

I'm trying to convince them to just let it go. It's difficult for them to accept that the thing has no resale value. I think their main concern now is someone trying to take another 3 or 4 grand from them after foreclosure through collections. Hopefully it's more trouble for the timeshare than it's worth. I guess we just wait and see what happens down the road.

Thanks again for your input.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2011)

Here is some info. about how "collections" works - http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre18.shtm

A debt collector does not have the power to just take the money from them - that would take a court order.

Here is a quote from the article above:





> Can a debt collector keep contacting me if I don’t think I owe any money?
> 
> If you send the debt collector a letter stating that you don’t owe any or all of the money, or asking for verification of the debt, that collector must stop contacting you. You have to send that letter within 30 days after you receive the validation notice. But a collector can begin contacting you again if it sends you written verification of the debt, like a copy of a bill for the amount you owe.



If they are contacted by a debt collector they should respond as above, with a copy of their original contract.  

I personally had this experience when I was turned over to collections for a debt I paid in full, and they did stop contacting me immediately, when I provided the proof.

If it continues, they could pay an attorney $100 to write a letter to send with the contract, to the collection agency.


----------



## djs (Dec 11, 2011)

Since the original contract states that there are to be no maintence fees, would that provision transfer over to a new owner were the TS to be sold/given away?


----------



## nightnurse613 (Dec 11, 2011)

This is soooo wrong.  As someone else said-I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but, generally speaking one party cannot unilaterally change a written contract.  If the contract your parent's have says NO Maintenance Fees (ever) then it cannot be altered without the approval of both parties.  You might want to contact AARP and get a referral for legal advice.  While the State AG might be unwilling to intercede in this private matter (some of them are appointed, some are elected).  As I see it, this is water over the dam; it sounds like your parents have no use for this property, if no one is willing to help them then let them foreclose and try to collect.  I would love to see the look of horror when your parents show up in court to fight the debt.  Maybe the company will decide to pay them back what they paid in order to keep this kind of activity out of the public eye - or maybe you should contact a local TV that does investigative work.  We have several in our town that contact businesses and help resolve issues like this.  Tell them you're going to call Channel 3!!


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 11, 2011)

madxxdog said:


> My parents then contacted the S.Carolina A.G. office but received a reply that the resort had done nothing illegal by altering the contract.


 
I guess this information is key.  Why did the A.G. say this?


----------



## madxxdog (Dec 11, 2011)

*reply*

Thanks Denise for the information. 
I have not seen the contract or the letter from the AG. The info I have provided is what was explained to me over the phone by my dad.
Maybe the contract is worded in such a way that allows changes to the maint. fee in future years. I do know my dad is adamant he was told they wouldn't owe any fees. That was the only way he would agree to purchase it. So I could see the possibility for a deceptive salesman to pull one over on them. And since they relied on the timeshares attorney to check the contract...well it's a double whammy. He thought they were getting a deal but the devil was in the details. 
I'm heading down there in a couple weeks for the holidays. I will look the stuff over then and provide an update.
I will pass the info on to them about contacting the AARP and other suggestions made.


----------



## madxxdog (Dec 11, 2011)

*reply*

But the fact the timeshare company sent my parents an altered copy of the original contract document is troubling to say the least.


----------



## ronparise (Dec 11, 2011)

Knowing what I think I know about real estate, condos, and timeshares; there has to be a maintenance fee. How could the housekeepers, desk clerks and maintenance staff get paid without one. 

There has to be a maintenance fee. To allow your parents use of a resort without paying one is not fair to the rest of the owners. 

Of course you may have a case, and may have the right to use a resort for free

So what to do now, ...Do you fight to keep something you dont want and cant afford, or just let it go?....

If it was me Id try to negotiate a deed in lieu of foreclosure


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 11, 2011)

You need to see the original contract and the "new" one sent by the resort.  If your dad doesn't have the original contract and is going by what he remembers he was told would/should be in the contract, he is out of luck and has no case what so ever.  Even if he has a contract signed by both parties with the original terms or no MF (even with use) there would still be a fairly expensive legal battle  ahead.  I believe parts are managed by Festiva and parts are managed by Diamond and neither are very owner friendly.

The only way I think MF or any additional amenities can or should be included for "free" is if they make it part of the upfront cost.  Ex If you are over the age of 70 we will include no MF during your lifetime (non transferable benefit-even to family members) then add $14,000 to the upfront cost. This for MF at the time of sale of $550.  Then if the owners die, sell, transfer or are foreclosed before 20 years the resort makes out, if not the remaining owners are on the hook for the fees.  This would only work if an escrow for the additional money was set up which doesn't happen.  ( I believe this is what Wyndham should be required to do to pay for all the VIP perks but in reality I think Wyndham pockets all the crazy retail buy in fees and lets the regular members pay for the upgrades, additional housekeeping, transaction fees, newspapers, etc. of the VIP's)


----------



## Rent_Share (Dec 12, 2011)

Let them foreclose

Close any bank accounts previously used for payments

Change Banks 

Your defense is the original contract

They breached by changing it's terms

You win you keep the T/S Maintenance Fee Free

You loose (based language in the contract allowing the HOA to change the amount of MF charged) they get a Judgment and the T/S back

BTW if they do get the timeshare back they could also end up with a money judgment for unpaid maintenance fees and the cost of foreclosing

That being said:

Social Security and most retirement assets are exempt from garnishment to satisfy a judgment debt, the primary checking account in most states has an exemption provision, but no sense in making it easy for the attorney which is the reason for moving the checking account to am undisclosed location prior to the litigation.

If he/they own real property that could be encumbered plus post judgment interest, however there is minimal risk that the debtor would invest in the cost of foreclosing to recover, depending on the state homestead exemptions would also kick in, instead waiting until the property goes through probate and collecting (plus post judgment interest) as a cost of transferring the property.

The cleanest solution is a deed in lieu of foreclosure. If it is branded, try to get it escalated within the organization, there may be an issue of trying to bury a rogue salesman's antics that should have been caught in normal document quality control review


----------



## Cary (Dec 12, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Their alternatives are to to hire an attorney, or let it go into foreclosure.
> 
> Can they afford to hire an attorney?
> Can they afford to take a hit to their credit rating if it goes into foreclosure?
> ...


I am not an attorney, but I would get a Quit Claim Deed, copy the exact legal description that was on the original document have a notary witness the signatures an send it back to the resort with a signature required from the resort that they received it. I would probably include a letter with a copy of the original deed showing "no fees" and mention fraud on the resorts part and you do not expect to hear from them in the future. 

  I would then forget about it. It's done. Onward.

This is my opinion only as one way not to worry anymore but I would keep the original documents


----------



## theo (Dec 13, 2011)

*I respectfully disagree...*



Cary said:


> I am not an attorney, but I would get a Quit Claim Deed, copy the exact legal description that was on the original document have a notary witness the signatures an send it back to the resort with a signature required from the resort that they received it. I would probably include a letter with a copy of the original deed showing "no fees" and mention fraud on the resorts part and you do not expect to hear from them in the future.
> 
> I would then forget about it. It's done. Onward.
> 
> This is my opinion only as one way not to worry anymore but I would keep the original documents



No personal offense intended, but I regard this suggestion as uniquely bad advice...

One cannot just unilaterally name an unknowing and unsuspecting "grantee" in *any* deed and expect that deed to hold up under any subsequent scrutiny as actually being vaild. Absent the clearly required legal component of *acceptance*, such a deed could (and likely would) simply be regarded as invalid at best --- and fraudulent at worst.

It would be much better, imho, to seek a "cleaner", final ownership exit which involves the full knowledge and overt participation of the resort, however deceitful the practices of long-departed sales weasels or incompetent attorney(s) may have been in the past. Why create a potential estate issue for later when it can likely be more easily and conclusively resolved now?

If the original (unaltered) contract documents are still available and legible to compare to any improperly altered later copies, the resort should be very clearly advised of that fact. That  would seem (...to me, anyhow) to constitute considerable leverage to "strongly encourage" the resort's willing acceptance of a deedback. In any event, the original purchase money is almost certainly water under the bridge and won't be recovered, either in whole or in part, in any imaginable likely scenario. *That* may well be the toughest pill of all for the "elders" to swallow (...that and /or the fact that the timeshare likely has no current resale market value at all). 

Personally, I'd be inclined to approach the facility to request their willing acceptance of "deed in lieu of foreclosure", making very clear and very specific reference to the current possession of *both* the (authentic) original and later (unilaterally altered) purchase documents. In view of those past questionable practices, the resort might be inclined to accept the deedback as a much less painful and much less expensive alternative to potentially being named as "respondent" (...if civil) or as "defendant" (...if criminal) in public legal proceedings.  If the resort won't willingly accept "deed in lieu of foreclosure", then let them go ahead and foreclose (and so inform them when they decline to accept the "deedback"). 

But believing that the unilateral preparation of a quit claim deed to an unsuspecting and unwilling grantee somehow actually brings closure and / or creates a  legitimate basis on which to "just move on" is, I must respectfully submit, both quite naive and legally incorrect.

Just my personal opinion, but one surely worth at least what you've paid me for it...


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 13, 2011)

The way I read the suggestion is for the owner of the Week to send a notarized quit claim deed to the Resort who would decide whether or not to record it.  The *acceptance* would be if/when the Resort recorded the deed.

George


----------



## theo (Dec 13, 2011)

*A big gamble --- and I don't like those "odds" AT ALL...*



bogey21 said:


> The way I read the suggestion is for the owner of the Week to send a notarized quit claim deed to *the Resort* who *would decide whether or not to record it*.  The *acceptance* would be *if/when* *the Resort recorded the deed*.
> 
> George



Personally I'm *not* a believer in leaving important legal details to chance (...nor to thieves or incompetents). Accordingly, I would *never* choose (or advise) to leave the deed recording option in the resorts' hands. If they never record the (unsolicited and unwelcome) deed, take a wild guess who *still* owns that timeshare...

"*If / when*" does not appeal to me at all if trying to conclusively resolve a legal matter like this one. YMMV.


----------



## madxxdog (Dec 14, 2011)

*RE*

I think we are going to try a deed in lieu of... with a detailed letter reminding them of their fraudulent activity during this whole mess in the hopes that they will just want to make this all go away. A protracted legal battle is not in my parents best interest. Even if they win... unless they could get a judgement that the resort would have to pay their legal fees they still end up losing. Lawyers are not cheap and this kind of thing could take a while to get into a court room.


----------



## mrrick (Dec 14, 2011)

tschwa2 said:


> You need to see the original contract and the "new" one sent by the resort...



This is the crux of it. Until you see the contract(s), there is no point in speculating. The AG doing nothing in the face of one copy of a contract being altered just doesn't add up.


----------



## RMitchell (Dec 14, 2011)

I have never seen anything as crooked as the timeshare business...nothing. They have you completely in their control and I would never even think about getting into this again if I can ever get out. I wouldn't consider a timeshare if they paid the maintenance fee 100 years in advance. To even think this stupid business is not called out on fraud and everyone is put in prison amazes me. I’ve talked at least 10 people out of this junk at the “resort” and at work.
Slimeball is way to complementary for a TS sales employee.


----------



## theo (Dec 15, 2011)

*A final thought...*



madxxdog said:


> I think we are going to try a deed in lieu of... with a detailed letter reminding them of their fraudulent activity during this whole mess in the hopes that they will just want to make this all go away. <snip>



In your written communications with the resort formally requesting their acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, you *might* also consider mentioning (...and please note that I used the word *mention* --- not the word *threaten*...) that local media outlets might well be interested in knowing about (and potentially making a news story out of) the facility's alleged practice of unilaterally and improperly altering copies of contract documents after their execution and signature.

This prospective "leverage" would, of course only be of potential concern to the facility *if* they are still involved in developer-direct sales. If the place is aready "sold out", then they wouldn't likely care much (...if at all) about any such "media coverage". So, if the place *is* sold out then this idea promptly loses its' merit. 

Just thinking out loud --- not rendering legal advice.


----------



## kayaker (Dec 16, 2011)

RMitchell said:


> I have never seen anything as crooked as the timeshare business...nothing. They have you completely in their control and I would never even think about getting into this again if I can ever get out. I wouldn't consider a timeshare if they paid the maintenance fee 100 years in advance. To even think this stupid business is not called out on fraud and everyone is put in prison amazes me. I’ve talked at least 10 people out of this junk at the “resort” and at work.
> Slimeball is way to complementary for a TS sales employee.



RMitchell, your response does not help madxxdog with his problem, but is sooooo right.  I agree w/you completely.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 16, 2011)

IF you father has the original contract that stipulates no MF, this is the most Valuable TS in existence...i don't know why people are telling you to give it up...there is NO WAY i would give this up!  If it wasn't christmas time i'd offer you $1000 for it right now!

Truthfully, would ANY of you say no to buying a TS with a contract Stipulation that you'll NEVER have to pay a MF???


----------



## Rent_Share (Dec 16, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> IF you father has the original contract that stipulates no MF, this is the most Valuable TS in existence...i don't know why people are telling you to give it up...there is NO WAY i would give this up! If it wasn't christmas time i'd offer you $1000 for it right now!
> 
> Truthfully, would ANY of you say no to buying a TS with a contract Stipulation that you'll NEVER have to pay a MF???


 


> Three years ago while using the facility current management discovered they were not paying maint. fees. *By the end of the day they were told they would have to pay maint. fees or leave*. My dad was furious so they decided to leave and have not been back.


 
Windsham is not honoring the original contract - We are assuming the contract allows for a change in mainytenance fees - 

If you are so sure offer the OP $ 1.00 since they just want out


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 16, 2011)

Rent_Share said:


> Windsham is not honoring the original contract - We are assuming the contract allows for a change in mainytenance fees -
> 
> If you are so sure offer the OP $ 1.00 since they just want out



I'm not sure, i'd have to see the contract...But IF it does say that they don't have to pay MF's ever, this timeshare is the most valuable Timeshare ever...i wouldn't give it up till i knew for sure

Seriously, would you EVER give up a TS with a contract guaranteed NO maintenance fees ever?  Its like being handed a lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it, sure the guy that gave it to you could have faked it and it not have any value, but wouldn't you want to make sure first?


----------



## theo (Dec 17, 2011)

*Interesting logic...*



Ridewithme38 said:


> I'm not sure, i'd have to see the contract...But IF it does say that they don't have to pay MF's ever, this timeshare is the most valuable Timeshare ever...i wouldn't give it up till i knew for sure
> 
> Seriously, would you EVER give up a TS with a contract guaranteed NO maintenance fees ever?  Its like being handed a lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it, sure the guy that gave it to you could have faked it and it not have any value, but wouldn't you want to make sure first?



Have you bothered to *read* all of the details provided by the OP in the very first post within this thread?

Your odd presumption seems to be that that this (or any other) owner can somehow force the facility to allow permanent and unfettered access and use of the facility without paying any maintenance fees, based upon the content of some laughably bogus contract content. With no such magical timeshare ownership in existence anywhere else on the planet, one would be very hard pressed to get any judge to rule in favor of *any* owner's permanent free use and access. Moreover, the facts presented by the OP in post #1 clearly state that the actual owner (his father) was essentially *already* forced off the property some years ago after not paying any maintenance fees.

In the final analysis, the very notion of any deeded timeshare ownership with no maintenance fees (...forever, no less) is clearly just preposterous in the first place. If you think that *you* could somehow prevail differently on the original bogus contract content, then perhaps *you* should offer to accept the ownership from the OP's Dad. Please let us know later how *you* subsequently make out if / when *you* attempt to occupy the facility without ever paying any maintenance fees.  

I'll look for you on the 6 o'clock news --- with all the other "Occupy XYZ"  protesters being legally and forcibly evicted from assorted locations "XYZ".


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 17, 2011)

A contract is a contract Theo, IF the contract stats no MF and was initialed and signed by both the salesman and the buyer, it is absolutely legally enforceable....if it doesn't say that, well thats a whole different issue

Throwing the father out of the room IMO isn't proof of anything legally binding...things like this happen all the time illegally

I think you guys should really be asking what specifically the contract says before throwing away a winning lotto ticket


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 17, 2011)

But a contract, to be enforceable, has to have a benefit to both sides. In a case like this unless the seller, the developer, prepaid years or an agreed flat amount for all future fees due to the Association there was no benefit to the Association and thus its unlikely they would have to honor any such "agreement" or contract. There is no contract with the Association that exists only to operate & maintain the resort for the owners - maybe there is one with (the likely long gone) Developer but that is another lawsuit with an unknown outcome. 

While finding an altered contract seems to be a smoking gun - and it may be in a case against the developer - it likely has little or no value in a claim against the Association and they control access to the use time.  That is why the AG said there was no case. If the OP can get the resort to accept the week back and cancel any past fees and future fees due they have done well. The time to fight the "life use, no fees" was years ago when the Developer was still on site and may have wanted to settle to avoid bad press or shutdown of sales. Far too late now.  

The contract is worth the paper it's on and little more now.


----------



## ronparise (Dec 17, 2011)

theo said:


> Have you bothered to *read* all of the details provided by the OP in the very first post within this thread?
> 
> Your odd presumption seems to be that that this (or any other) owner can somehow force the facility to allow permanent and unfettered access and use of the facility without paying any maintenance fees, based upon the content of some laughably bogus contract content. With no such magical timeshare ownership in existence anywhere else on the planet, one would be very hard pressed to get any judge to rule in favor of *any* owner's permanent free use and access. Moreover, the facts presented by the OP in post #1 clearly state that the actual owner (his father) was essentially *already* forced off the property some years ago after not paying any maintenance fees.
> 
> ...



either the op is right or the op is wrong about what the contract says

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.


I think Ride has proved that the op is wrong about his fathers contract. If the op is right Ride is also right. 

However I dont think Ride is arguing for the purchase of this timeshare; rather,  I think he is engaging in a rather sophisticated argument to make a point that Theo seems to have missed

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

since it is not possible to have a timeshare without maintenance fees, the ops claim that his father has such a contract, must be false (QED by Ride)

[Political comments deleted.]


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 17, 2011)

timeos2 said:


> But a contract, to be enforceable, has to have a benefit to both sides. In a case like this unless the seller, the developer, prepaid years or an agreed flat amount for all future fees due to the Association there was no benefit to the Association and thus its unlikely they would have to honor any such "agreement" or contract.



The contract (whatever it says) was between the Seller and the Purchaser.  Both benefited.  The Seller was paid and the Purchaser received ownership of the Week on terms acceptable to him. At that point the Association presumably didn't exist.  Seems to me the key is how the Association was formed and whether the documentation at the time of the sale spelled out  that there would be an association and if so, what its powers would be.

George


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 17, 2011)

timeos2 said:


> But a contract, to be enforceable, has to have a benefit to both sides. In a case like this unless the seller, the developer, prepaid years or an agreed flat amount for all future fees due to the Association there was no benefit to the Association and thus its unlikely they would have to honor any such "agreement" or contract. There is no contract with the Association that exists only to operate & maintain the resort for the owners - maybe there is one with (the likely long gone) Developer but that is another lawsuit with an unknown outcome.
> 
> While finding an altered contract seems to be a smoking gun - and it may be in a case against the developer - it likely has little or no value in a claim against the Association and they control access to the use time.  That is why the AG said there was no case. If the OP can get the resort to accept the week back and cancel any past fees and future fees due they have done well. The time to fight the "life use, no fees" was years ago when the Developer was still on site and may have wanted to settle to avoid bad press or shutdown of sales. Far too late now.
> 
> The contract is worth the paper it's on and little more now.



This is a mess and why timeshare sale staff should not sell t/s to anyone over 66 years old with out legal assistance being provide for the senior.


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 17, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> The contract (whatever it says) was between the Seller and the Purchaser.  Both benefited.  The Seller was paid and the Purchaser received ownership of the Week on terms acceptable to him. At that point the Association presumably didn't exist.  Seems to me the key is how the Association was formed and whether the documentation at the time of the sale spelled out  that there would be an association and if so, what its powers would be.
> 
> George



That is absolutely correct. The contract is between the buyer and the seller (the Developer). The Association, which with any condo/timeshare is formed when the project is established and released for sale, got ZERO dollars of what was paid by the buyer. That is why, unless specific agreements & payments were made to cover a "no fee ever" sale, the Association isn't party to any such arrangement or contract. They certainly may have a great case against that Developer (lots of luck tracking THAT legal entity down now) but they have no claim against the Association which is only doing what they are chartered and must by law enforce. Collect the fees & operate/ maintain the resort for the owners it represents. 

This is a great example of older people being taken advantage of as well as why a "clear cut case" in the law may not be so clear after all.  It stinks beyond a doubt. But that doesn't mean the OP parents or any future buyer gets use with all fees waived. Isn't going to happen.  They are best off now if they can get the right to walk away with past payments covered and no future payments due.  Still a sad case.


----------



## teepeeca (Dec 17, 2011)

Of course, one would have to see the original contract, to see what it actually says.  It "might be" that the father "remembers" what the salesman agreed to do, BUT, the contract actually says something else.

Another thought.  Had the parents been using the timeshare "for free", for several years, and nobody objected?  Was the current association "in place" during that time?  If so, it could be said that the association "agreed" to the provisions in the original contract, that there would be usage "for free", with no maintenance fees payable.

The "benefit" the association received would have been paid to them, by the developer, from "excess funds" originally paid by the purchasers, for the "free of mx fees" language in the contract.

Tony


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 17, 2011)

I suspect that the OP was told its hopeless on the basis that:
-- There's a clause in the contract somewhere that says their ownership is subject to the power of the HOA to manage the resort under the terms of the declarations of record; or
-- The Deed says that, and under property law in that state, a deed supercedes whatever was said in a sales contract, so by agreeing to the terms of the deed, they waived rights under their contract.

_... jus' sayin'._

Despite the armchair quarterbacking here, the only way to get competent legal advice is to consult an attorney licensed to practice law in S.C., show him a copy of the unaltered contract, if they have one, a copy of the new one, and ask him or her for an opinion.

_It may be $$ down a rat-hole, but perhaps they could raise some sand._


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 17, 2011)

Well, Ellington at Wachesaw Plantation in S.C. is definatly now a timeshare company i will never deal with....If they aren't willing to honor a contract, i don't see how they can expect anyone that buys off of them to honor the contracts either...


----------



## theo (Dec 18, 2011)

*The bottom line...*

None of us here can possibly know or confirm what the original sales contract documents actually contain, or if *all* of the pertinent documents are still available for examination and comparison now, 4 or 5 years later. 

Even absent questioned document comparison (...and regardless of law degrees or state bar memberships), we can all likely agree that *NO * owner, current or future, was ever  going to (...nor ever will) get "permanent, no maintenance fees use and access" to this (...or to any other) deeded timeshare property, *regardless* of what the original and / or any subsequently altered sales documents might state or suggest to the contrary. The very concept just makes no sense, flying directly in the face of both financial logic and basic reality.
The undeniable fact is that _*there is no "timeshare tooth fairy"*_, bogus contract content notwithstanding.


----------



## alohakevin (Dec 21, 2011)

madxxdog said:


> But the fact the timeshare company sent my parents an altered copy of the original contract document is troubling to say the least.



It sounds like a good idea if they had legal counsel. The resort is trying to play hardball and will get away with it unless they are called on it. If the change to the original agreement wasn't mutual it's fraud pure and simple, not to mention your parents have been denied services due them under the original agreement. Just a suggestion check out legalshield.com to contact an attorney for a reasonable rate


----------



## dryden (Jan 17, 2012)

*so what happened?*

It's like a book without an ending!  I'm rooting for the parents...


----------



## e.bram (Jan 17, 2012)

Residents of a cemetery get free use.


----------



## mrrick (Jan 25, 2012)

Does the OP have any further information to share now that he's spent some time with his folks and has seen the contract(s)?


----------



## RX8 (Jan 25, 2012)

mrrick said:


> Does the OP have any further information to share now that he's spent some time with his folks and has seen the contract(s)?



He hasn't been logged in since December 14th


----------

