# New florida bill SB932: non-consumer friendly Timeshare law changes



## TUGBrian

House Bill 453 / Senate Bill 932  seems to have a good bit of contentious issues within it as it relates to timeshares....

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=53409

Description:    Revises provisions relating to timeshares, including amendments made to timeshare instrument, public offering statements, release of certain escrow funds, real estate licensure requirements, multisite timeshare plans, substitutions & deletions of component site accommodations or facilities, etc.

this is a link to the full text...its some 40 pages long

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0932&Session=2015


*Sign the online petition against the bill!

https://www.change.org/p/florida-governor-veto-senate-bill-932-florida-timeshare-act*


----------



## TUGBrian

start at line 503 seems to indicate a provision to allow a timeshare to be terminated with only a 60% vote from homeowners...vs a unanimous one.

sorry, cutting and pasting from that document is pretty impossible.


----------



## TUGBrian

I did read some folks claiming that this bill removes a number of rights and protections for owners...but I admit im not as versed in "legalese" to figure out what was added or removed from this bill to make that claim?


----------



## theo

TUGBrian said:


> I did read some folks claiming that this bill removes a number of rights and protections for owners...but I admit im not as versed in "legalese" to figure out what was added or removed from this bill to make that claim?



Adequately versed in "legalese" and owning several Florida timeshares, I will certainly go through this material with a fine tooth comb and with great interest when I have a chance, but today is a "moving day" with several days on the road thereafter before next settling in.

Without even reading a single word however, the first question to enter *my* mind is *who* is actually behind the legislative proposal --- and *why*?


----------



## Talent312

theo said:


> ...the first question to enter *my* mind is *who* is actually behind the legislative proposal --- and *why*?



My first guess would be one or more TS developers who made campaign contributions to its sponsors. From what I've observed, very little gets done in the Florida legislature without someone greasing the wheels. Legislators are not above introducing bill written by industry insiders.
<just a bit jaded>
.


----------



## Bwolf

Talent312 said:


> My first guess would be one or more TS developers who made campaign contributions to its sponsors. From what I've observed, very little gets done in the Florida legislature without someone greasing the wheels. Legislators are not above introducing bill written by industry insiders.
> <just a bit jaded>
> .



So, I wonder which TS developer in Florida stands a reasonable chance of getting a 60% vote to dissolve and which timeshare that might be?

Looking forward to Theo's upcoming analysis.


----------



## TUGBrian

this was sent to me as the specific breakdown of why this should NOT pass...note that this is an independent opinion:



> Issues in Order of Priority – HB 453 – Civil Justice Subcommittee Major Issues and corresponding page/line numbers
> 
> Lines 125 – 130 open the door to “substantial compliance” being enough to enforce the timeshare instrument and allows for “violations” to be immaterial, non-actionable and non-rescission worthy.
> 
> Lines 427 – 430 empower the developer to make unilateral substitutions or deletions of inventory without a quorum vote or a consultation of owners. The deleted language in
> 
> Lines 430-437 remove the court’s supervision of such activity, which circumvents checks and balances.
> 
> Lines 665 – 669 further removes this voting requirement and court oversight for substitution or deletion of accommodations or facilities. In our opinion, this is unconstitutional because it limits access to courts and violates the due process rights of existing owners, who lose the benefit of the bargain they received when they purchased initially.
> 
> Lines 519-544 provide that the term of a timeshare plan may be extended or terminated at any time by a vote or written consent, or a combination thereof, of a majority of all the voting interests in the timeshare plan. These statutory changes allow the timeshare industry more flexibility in controlling the property interests and use rights of the existing and prospective purchasers so as to allow for overselling, improper substitution of accommodations to increase occupancy of the collective timeshare properties, and in sum, a reduced benefit of the bargain. In our opinion, this is a due process issue in violation of the Constitution because it allows for the taking away of contractual, bargained for rights, after the fact, without compensation.
> 
> Lines 795 – 800 open the door to nondisclosure of lack of utilization of timeshare for purchaser (i.e. the term the accommodation is actually available) as immaterial. This allows for violations of this section to be permissible as immaterial and non-actionable. By allowing these changes, the legislature is allowing other statutes already in existence to be violated.
> 
> Pg. 34 – Lines 861 – 865 allows the timeshare instrument to control the right to consent of purchasers to these substitutions, which are unforeseeable and not contemplated by the purchaser at the time of purchase. Purchasers will contract away rights before realizing they had them.
> 
> Pg. 34 – Lines 869 – 880 seems like an attempt at limiting the unilateral substitution rights of the developer, but the developer can work around with a quorum vote. Pg. 35 continues with different levels of stringency depending on the level of unilateral control of the developer, managing entity and common ownership or control. All of these factors are able to be worked around by the developer or managing entity because Lines 909 – 913 take away all the supposed rights inured to the purchasers by stating “This subparagraph does not apply if the timeshare instrument provides that purchasers do not have the right to consent to any proposed substitutions. 5. This paragraph does not apply if the proposed substitution is approved in advance pursuant to paragraph (f).” Paragraph (f) on page 36-37 then states that “The person authorized to make substitutions may make unlimited substitutions in a given year without compliance with paragraphs (d) and (e) if a proposed substitution is approved in advance by a majority of purchasers of the multisite timeshare plan voting in person or by proxy at a meeting called for that purpose, provided that at least 25 percent of the total number of purchasers cast votes.” So this negates all of the statutory language preceding that seemingly protects purchasers, by permitting the developer to gain prior approval to “proposed” substitutions (meaning the substitution proposed will not have to comply with the substitution actually made).
> 
> Backtracking to the middle of page 36, lines 920 – 926: this paragraph puts the onus back on the purchasers to then affirmatively file a written objection within 21 days after the notice of substitution (which is certain not to comply with the “proposed” substitution).
> Page 38 – Lines 967 – 975 state that as long as the “person authorized to make substitutions’ (i.e. the developer) fully complies with these provisions (easily done by negating the rights of purchasers via the timeshare instrument, proposing a favorable substitution, then altering it to be more favorable to the developer), the trustee may convey title to any accommodations and facilities that have been designated or approved for substitution without any further vote or other authorization of the purchasers of the multisite timeshare plan. This writes around a trustee’s duty of loyalty to the purchasers and puts control in the hands of the developer.
> Lines 861 – 975 allow the timeshare instrument (contract) to control over statute by allowing the developer unilateral substitution rights over the consent of purchasers. These sections also allow a trustee to violate statutorily mandated fiduciary duties under §736.08.
> 
> Lines 113-114 remove the resort’s delivery requirement to provide amendments to the public offering statement (POS) for a component site of a nonspecific timeshare plan.
> 
> Lines 548 – 580 are especially onerous as they allow for the transfer of all personal customer information of hotels or other properties that are converted to timeshare by way of managing entity changes. This gives the timeshare resort free, targeted leads by way of the change in managing entity without concern for whether those previous customers would consent to such sharing of their personal information. Section (c) also provides for a pass-through of all costs associated with the transfer of this information to the purchasers as a common expense of the timeshare plan.
> 
> Line 705 states that Section 721.54 will be repealed. This means that it is no longer a violation to represent to a purchaser of a nonspecific multisite plan that the term of purchaser’s plan is longer than the shortest term of availability. For example, this permits a resort to sell two weeks of inventory when only one week is actually available.
> 
> Lines 745-747 will raise taxes on existing timeshare owners by expanding the definition of “common expenses” under the statute.
> Lines 849 – 855 open the doors for resort location transfers, leaves the definition of “improved” open to interpretation (i.e. Is a suite in a somewhat less desirable location an “improvement” to the bargained for room in Orlando?)
> 
> Lines 993 – 996 allow for the one to one requirement to be expanded to apply across all multi-site accommodations, rather than just at the one bargained for property.


----------



## Jason245

I guess Somebody needs to build an addition to their imitation French palace in the least expensive way possible.


----------



## Jason245

Bwolf said:


> So, I wonder which TS developer in Florida stands a reasonable chance of getting a 60% vote to dissolve and which timeshare that might be?
> 
> Looking forward to Theo's upcoming analysis.



Hint... they built a copy of the french palace of Versailles...


----------



## fiat1bmw

Laws are generally only passed to benefit the 'sponsor' or screw the 'sponsor's' competitor.


----------



## Bwolf

fiat1bmw said:


> Laws are generally only passed to benefit the 'sponsor' or screw the 'sponsor's' competitor.



Ain't that the truth.


----------



## Bwolf

Jason245 said:


> Hint... they built a copy of the french palace of Versailles...



Thanks Jason


----------



## alwysonvac

*Thanks for the update *

Found a March 12 Orlando Sentinel Article -  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-timeshare-bill-20150312-story.html




> _Florida bill to loosen cap on time-share fees draws critics
> 
> "A bill making its way through the Florida Legislature that would loosen a cap on timeshare assessment fees and make it tougher for buyers to get out of contracts has drawn criticism from time-share owners' attorneys and advocates.
> 
> State Rep. Eric Eisnaugle, R-Orlando, and state Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, are sponsoring the legislation, which makes a number of technical changes to the Florida Vacation Plan and Timesharing Act.
> 
> The lawmakers and the industry's trade association, the American Resort Development Association, describes the legislation as a bill that modernizes state law. Gregory Crist, chairman and CEO of the National Timeshare Owners Association, sees it otherwise.
> 
> "This is a developer-sponsored bill that strips away at consumer-protection mechanisms," Crist said.
> 
> The House version of the bill (HB 453) passed the government operations appropriations subcommittee Tuesday; the Senate version (SB 932) passed the regulated industries committee Wednesday. In an email, Eisnaugle said the updates provide protections for consumers, including giving owners more control by allowing them to terminate or extend a time-share plan on a 60 percent vote.
> 
> The American Resort Development Association donated a little less than $500,000 in Florida for the 2014 election cycle, records show. That included $5,000 to Eisnaugle's Committee for Justice and Economic Freedom PAC, more than $300,000 to the Republican Party of Florida and about $150,000 to the state's Democratic party.
> 
> Eisnaugle's PAC also received $10,000 from Orange Lake Resort Alliance last year. Orange Lake Resorts is a time-share company that operates under the Holiday Inn brand. "We regularly contribute to both charitable and political causes that impact our communities and our business," an Orange Lake spokeswoman said in an email.
> 
> The Walt Disney Co., which has a time-share business at its resorts, said it supports the industry's position but is not actively lobbying for the bill.
> 
> The legislation would remove property taxes and certain types of common-area expenses from a current 125 percent cap on annual increases in assessment fees that consumers pay.
> 
> "I don't see the logic in creating the exceptions which would allow greater increases," Scott Smith, an assistant professor of hospitality at University of South Carolina, said in an email. "This could harm the image of the industry and remove one of the best selling points for time-shares, which is that they are 'affordable.'¿¿"
> 
> The bill's proponents say it will help operators of multisite time-shares recoup the costs of expenses out of their control, including taxes, emergency repairs and improvements approved independently by a particular property's board.
> 
> Meanwhile, attorneys and time-share owners have questioned a provision that reduces liability for time-share developers if they make errors in contracts. Errors or omissions that are considered "nonmaterial" would not allow purchaser-cancellation rights after 10 days. Stargel said the legislation is meant to keep time-share owners from getting out of their contracts by finding minor flaws in them. It is meant to cover only technicalities, she said, not major problems.
> 
> "Some attorneys were making a cottage industry, if you will, of helping people get out of contracts," she said.
> 
> Last month, some members of a House civil justice subcommittee expressed concern that there is no clear definition of "nonmaterial." That kind of murkiness will "lead to increased litigation," said attorney Patrick Kennedy, who represents time-share consumers." _


----------



## TUGBrian

I would really like to know if arda or the developers mentioned in this article were the force behind it being presented by the representative.

Its pretty common that those entities listed above make those donations to florida politicians year after year....vs it having to do with this particular bill.  If you note it does not specifically claim that any of the entities listed in the article are behind this particular bill, just a note that they donate money to various florida political campaigns.

I do agree that the part about increasing the cap on special assessments is absurd...and in no way benefits owners....as well as screams something developers/ARDA would think up to try to pass in a "consumer focused" law change.


----------



## pedro47

Jason245 said:


> Hint... they built a copy of the french palace of Versailles...



Sound like the King of Prussia gave a very large donation to a Florida legislator.


----------



## BocaBoy

Several of the provisions in this bill seem to me to be very technical and make sense.  Some provisions may be bad.  I am NOT saying it is a good bill...I don't have nearly enough knowledge to conclude that, but I don't think the overall bill is as onerous as most posters here seem to assume.


----------



## BocaBoy

TUGBrian said:


> I do agree that *the part about increasing the cap on special assessments is absurd.*..and *in no way benefits owners*...



What about the case where something extreme happens and a major cost needs to be incurred to keep up the property's value?  Wouldn't the current cap prevent this necessary expense?  I think this provision could indeed benefit owners in such an extreme case.  If not an extreme case, it would appear to me that the current cap is already so high that few if any normal increases would ever exceed it.  The owners' Board of Directors has to approve these increases.


----------



## TUGBrian

I am sure 90% of the bill is just fine, and perhaps useful to all parties....as is with most forms of legislature written....the concerns are only with a few of the more dubious items thrown in to alter current existing laws.

Boca:

I dont believe thats written anywhere in the current law...and provisions for "extreme happenings" fall under insurance.

as it was specifically written, they appear to want to exclude tax increases and other KNOWN expenses from the 125% limit.


----------



## Larry M

*I don't think so*



TUGBrian said:


> start at line 503 seems to indicate a provision to allow a timeshare to be terminated with only a 60% vote from homeowners...vs a unanimous one.
> 
> sorry, cutting and pasting from that document is pretty impossible.



Umm, Brian, that 60% vote only applies if the timeshare documents do not have a requirement specified.

501 Section 4. Section 721.125, Florida Statutes, is created to
502 read:
503 721.125 Extension or termination of timeshare plans.—
504 (1) Unless the timeshare instrument provides otherwise, the
505 vote or written consent, or both, of at least 60 percent of all
506 of the voting interests in the timeshare plan may extend or
507 terminate the term of a timeshare plan at any time. If the term
508 of a timeshare plan is extended pursuant to this section, all
509 rights, privileges, duties, and obligations created under
510 applicable law or the timeshare instrument continue in full
511 force to the same extent as if the extended termination date of
512 the timeshare plan were the original termination date of the
513 timeshare plan. If a timeshare plan terminates pursuant to this
514 section, the termination has immediate effect pursuant to
515 applicable law and the timeshare instrument as if the effective
516 date of the termination were the original date of termination.


----------



## TUGBrian

I had read that...made me wonder how many resorts dont have that stipulation at all?

if the % is very low...then thats a trivial modification.


----------



## Bloodmb

*Fla. Timeshare legislation*

Would this bill allow Wyndham to secure inventory from deeded points in Fla. to prop up Club Wyndham Access inventory which they may be desperate for?


----------



## bnoble

> I don't think the overall bill is as onerous as most posters here seem to assume.


You'd be hard-pressed to find a more paranoid group than informed timeshare owners. That paranoia is often with good cause, but still.


----------



## slgibbs1

I sent the following email to my Florida state Senator and my State Representative


House Bill 453 / Senate Bill 932 seems to have a good bit of contentious issues within it as it relates to timeshares. But overall, it favors the developers at the expense of timeshare owners. Timeshare owners make a large yearly contribution to the economy of the state. To gouge these timeshare owners so the extremely rich developers can buy another yacht is penny wise and pound foolish. In the long run, it will hurt the state.


----------



## BocaBoy

TUGBrian said:


> ...provisions for "extreme happenings" fall under insurance......as it was specifically written, they appear to want to exclude tax increases and other KNOWN expenses from the 125% limit.


Insurance only covers things like hurricanes, vandalism, etc.  It doesn't cover a rotting structure.  And why shouldn't the amount of any tax increases be passed on to the owners?  And it is the OWNERS' Board that determines the fees and assessments.  Again, I am not saying it is a good bill, only that most of it doesn't seem all that awful either.


----------



## BocaBoy

As a side comment not directly related to anything specific in this bill, I am frequently amazed on TUG by the number of people who think that there is nothing that makes sense for both developers and owners, and that everything between them is inherently adversarial.  I have owned Marriott timeshares for almost 28 years and I find that most things that are good for one are also good for the other.  It is the similar to a unionized company, where the two sides have much more in common to agree on than to disagree on.  The union (think owners) needs a healthy company, and the company (think developers) needs workers who feel their needs are being seriously considered.  One does not work without the other.


----------



## Talent312

> "Lines 427 – 430 empower the developer to make unilateral substitutions or deletions of inventory without a quorum vote or a consultation of owners.
> Lines 430-437 remove the court’s supervision of such activity...
> Lines 665 – 669 removes voting requirement and court oversight for substitution or deletion of accommodations or facilities."



As I read this, you could could show up for your ocean-view and find yourself with a parking lot view, with no recourse. Eggsactly, how  would that be good for both owners and developers?
.


----------



## BobSc

The senate summary of the bill seems to provide a good explanation of the current law and the proposed changes.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/0453/Analyses/h0453.CJS.PDF


----------



## TUGBrian

great find!


----------



## BocaBoy

Talent312 said:


> As I read this, you could could show up for your ocean-view and find yourself with a parking lot view, with no recourse. Eggsactly, how  would that be good for both owners and developers?
> .


How can you possibly read this language to mean that?  It deals with substitutions or deletions of developer inventory, not units that have already been sold.


----------



## Talent312

BocaBoy said:


> How can you possibly read this language to mean that?



Some have floating weeks/points wherein use of a unit depends on management/assignment.
I did not see the provision as being restricted to unsold units.
<Just becuz I'm paranoid, does not mean no one is following me.>
.


----------



## BocaBoy

Talent312 said:


> I did not see the provision as being restricted to unsold units.



Because units cease to be developer controlled units once they are sold.


----------



## TUGBrian

was an attendee at a meeting today that discussed this bill at length, it was pointed out that many of the arguments against this bill were based on the original release of it...and not its current form.

As it was explained, the original version of this bill was written based on what house staffers (the people who actually attempt to take what is discussed, and write the actual law down on paper) interpreted what was presented to them...after the first draft came out it was heavily edited.

While I still question how many of these changes benefit owners directly, in its current form there are a good number of the original "objections" that simply no longer seem to apply.


----------



## richardm

There is new legislation proposed in FL to address this... 

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...ntType=Analysis&CommitteeId=2828&Session=2015

Note - that it also includes a provision to limit developer liability for failing to deliver the required disclosures, and having that failure to disclose be an action that would allow a buyer to cancel..


----------



## theo

*Different versions exist...*



richardm said:


> There is new legislation proposed in FL to address this...
> 
> http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...ntType=Analysis&CommitteeId=2828&Session=2015
> 
> Note - that it also includes a provision to limit developer liability for failing to deliver the required disclosures, and having that failure to disclose be an action that would allow a buyer to cancel..



TUGBrian has specifically mentioned here that the original proposed legislation prepared by "staffers" has undergone some very significant changes in later iterations.

Do you happen to know whether the cite you have provided is *pre*-revision or *post*-revision?   (I'm betting that your cite is actually the first cut, *pre*-revision).


----------



## sutwin607

I think that who owns Timeshare must read this important article related to this Legislation and the Bills. 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opin...re-tactics-scott-maxwell-20150411-column.html


----------



## TUGBrian

was finally able to log in with facebook to read the article, its not a very descriptive or useful piece of journalism.

cites no specific parts of the proposed changes, just a blanket statement that the bill is designed to make it harder for consumers to cancel.

I dont quite see in what I have read how that is the case at all, as nothing in the bill references the current 10 day cancellation period available in florida (although id love to see that jump to 15 or 30 days personally)...and one can cancel for ANY reason during that period.


----------



## richardm

You can track bills on that site to find the latest version as well as committee decisions.


----------



## theo

*What's that foul aroma I smell here?*



richardm said:


> You can track bills on that site to find the latest version as well as committee decisions.



I'll have to poke around more on that site to see if I can indeed track subsequent revisions to this dubious (IMnsHO) proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, I believe that it's safe to say that the "staffer summary" provided in your link was actually the first mention of this proposed legislation, said "staffer summary" having been made exactly two months ago today. It will be interesting (and hopefully revealing) to examine more current status and language content after this sneaky attempt gets exposed to considerably more (and much needed) sunlight and much closer examination of exactly *who* benefits (...and who gets hurt) in this (IMnsHO) underhanded, back door attempt at changing the rules of the game and trying to move the goalposts while the game is actively in progress.    

Clearly, this proposed legislation is *not* an altruistic act of benevolence by the sneaky ba$t@rd$ lurking silently and invisibly behind the scenes on this matter. 

More specifically, it is quite apparent (at least to me) that someone, somewhere behind the scenes in Florida is unhappy with the irrefutable legal fact that recorded underlying governing timeshare documents are crystal clear, legally binding and prevail over all else; very "inconvenient" for someone with a different, hidden agenda. 

Since the fact of clear, legally binding governing documents is plainly irrefutable (and ultimately unavoidable in their application), it seems obvious (to me, anyhow) that the real "play" here is to try to push through dubious "legislation" that creates a brand new "end run" to circumvent and / or nullify long standing, legally binding and officially recorded underlying governing documents. I truly cannot see (or even imagine) *any* other credible explanation for this unnecessary, sneaky, back door attempt at legislative "maneuvering" to try to change the fixed rules of a game already long in progress  --- the rules of which are officially recorded and legally binding.


----------



## theo

*Off with his head!*



TUGBrian said:


> was finally able to log in with facebook to read the article, its not a very descriptive or useful piece of journalism.
> 
> cites no specific parts of the proposed changes, just a blanket statement that the bill is designed to make it harder for consumers to cancel.
> 
> I dont quite see in what I have read how that is the case at all, as nothing in the bill references the current 10 day cancellation period available in florida (although id love to see that jump to 15 or 30 days personally)...and one can cancel for ANY reason during that period.



Be careful, Brian --- Queen SueDonJ might raise her mighty moderator scepter and unilaterally determine and proclaim that you are "attacking the poster" by merely noting that the media report cited  is just weak, factually deficient and uninformative "journalism".


----------



## TUGBrian

I still reiterate that there are indeed parts of this law modification that I simply dont believe are in the best interests of the consumer...(the substitution section for example).

I would certianly agree with opposing the passing of the bill in its entirety without those items significantly altered or flat out removed.


----------



## theo

*Foul odor in the air remains...*



TUGBrian said:


> I still reiterate that there are indeed parts of this law modification that I simply dont believe are in the best interests of the consumer... <snip>



That's putting it mildly and much too charitably.


----------



## TUGBrian

I just dont think the complaints focus on what they should, and instead just say "its all bad!!!!!"


----------



## TUGBrian

from an email I was copied on from the office of Rep. Steube...this is the most current (and proposed) copy of the bill

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=53409&SessionId=76

although unless im blind (or just dumb) I dont see any major changes to the document since 3/11/2015


also this is on the agenda for discussion tomorrow starting at 10:30am in the house, and can apparently be watched live online here:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/HouseCalendar/broadcast.aspx


----------



## TUGBrian

This is the current and most recent analysis provided by the Florida senate subcommittee...which basically explains what the bill is SUPPOSED to do as a summary.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...entType=Analysis&BillNumber=0453&Session=2015


----------



## TSToday

*FL Legilation*

TimeSharing Today Radio
Sent out a Podcast on the legislation. Here's the link:
http://66.242.134.60/express-05-2015.mp3


----------



## richardm

Here is a link to new timeshare legislation being discussed in California.. This one looks to simply authorize the "electronic" delivery of required documents and disclosures- which is a common practice in other areas.. It may be interesting to watch and see if new parts are added which relate to the same changes being pushed in Florida.. 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0901-0950/ab_905_cfa_20150413_090335_asm_comm.html


----------



## nkldavy

*Petition to the Governor To Veto*

https://www.change.org/p/florida-governor-veto-senate-bill-932-florida-timeshare-act


----------



## theo

nkldavy said:


> https://www.change.org/p/florida-governor-veto-senate-bill-932-florida-timeshare-act



Thank you for posting this link. 

Voicing opposition to the bill's enactment might not ultimately prevail, but it's important to at least provide some input and perspective *other than* the subjective and carefully massaged position of profit-minded developers who are silently (but quite plainly) behind all this proposed (...ahem) "improvement" in the first place. :annoyed:


----------



## SueDonJ

Nevermind.


----------



## TUGBrian

This is the statement that the Florida Timeshare Owners Group is submitting to the Governors office in opposition of this bill:



> Dear Governor Rick Scott,
> 
> *On behalf of all Florida timeshare owners, and future buyers, we respectfully urge you to veto SB932, a developer-sponsored bill that was drafted without input from owners and consumer protection groups. *
> 
> While perhaps well intentioned, the bill contains many flaws that erode owner legal rights and, worst of all, includes and expands vague language that will simply have to be litigated down the line.  The bill, in short, needs to be amended to provide clarity and equity for both owners and developers on several key issues: public disclosure, contract litigation, timeshare trusts, legacy resorts and maintenance fees.
> 
> As it stands, the bill before you is a one-sided effort by the development community to rewrite state law to match their current marketing efforts.  Example: The bill allows developers to unilaterally decide what constitutes “compliance” and “materiality” with regard to mistakes and omissions in contracts. The bill also restricts owners’ ability to challenge the legality of their contract after the 10-day rescission period required by current law.  As you know, developers already hold all of the cards in timeshare transactions;  Potential buyers are subjected to verbal high-pressure sales tactics that, under current law, are not actionable. Developers provide buyers with long and complicated contracts that are very difficult to read much less understand, and which are written to protect the developer.  Beyond that, most timeshare developers don’t even offer, to this day, programs that will allow longtime Florida owners with medical or financial hardship to get OUT of their timeshare contracts while their mandatory maintenance fees continue to increase.
> 
> SB 932, if enacted, would give developers even more leverage over the owner community --- and the fact is, they don’t need it.  There is no emergency that requires passage of this bill.
> 
> Action:  Please send it back to the Legislature with a veto message that says, “Give me a fair and straightforward bill that balances the needs of owners and developers.”
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Frank Debar, Chairman, Florida Timeshare Owners Group.



for those that wish to write their own letter, the address for the Governors office is:

Executive Office of Governor Rick Scott
400 So. Munroe St.
Tallahassee, FL. 32399


----------



## SueDonJ

Brian, I'm thinking that it may be a good idea to put a link to this thread, specifically mentioning the letter in your post #50 above, in each of the Timeshare Resort Systems forums.  It's good exposure if all of the owners of Florida timeshares aren't reading this thread?

[Deleted.]


----------



## TUGBrian

its going to be in this weeks newsletter actually.


----------



## palmtree7339

*New FL. Bill Changing Timeshare Laws. Letter To The Governor.*

I have sent the following letter to Florida Governor Rick Scott:
As a Florida resident, timeshare owner,  and Chairman of the Florida Timeshare Owners Group, I am writing in behalf of our entire organization, which unanimously approved that I request that you veto SB 932, Florida Timeshare Act, in it's present form, in order to allow more input from timeshare owners, as well as prospective owners. This bill has been rushed through the legislature so quickly that most timeshare owners groups, such as ours, have just recently learned of its existence. It's clear that the bill is unpopular with timeshare owners, and its passage, as presently drafted, will likely bring unfavorable publicity nationally, when consumer groups outside Florida become aware of its full implications.
SB 932 is a one-sided effort by the developer community to ease their burden by stripping away significant consumer protections. There are issues involving public disclosure, contract litigation, timeshare trusts, legacy resorts, and maintenance fees. If these issues are addressed in a more open and objective forum, it shouldn't be that difficult to present an amended bill for your signature that we can all support. Further discussion, input, and more appropriate revisions could result in a far better bill, that would be acceptable, and protect the interests of both the developers and owners.
As one of many thousands of Florida residents who are currently owners of timeshares, I urge you to veto this bill if it reaches your desk. Please give this matter your utmost attention. Very truly yours, Frank Debar


----------



## KevinD40

*WHOs Behind...*

Wynhdham Corporate. I over heard them talking about this at the Christmas party...



theo said:


> Adequately versed in "legalese" and owning several Florida timeshares, I will certainly go through this material with a fine tooth comb and with great interest when I have a chance, but today is a "moving day" with several days on the road thereafter before next settling in.
> 
> Without even reading a single word however, the first question to enter *my* mind is *who* is actually behind the legislative proposal --- and *why*?


----------



## palmtree7339

*Changes in Florida Law Affecting All Fl. Timeshare Owners*

The following statement was recently distributed to all members of the Florida Timeshare Owners Group, in connection with pending legislation awaiting the approval, or the rejection, (a veto), by Florida Governor Rick Scott. This decision is expected within the next two weeks, and all owners of timeshare units located within Florida, should be made aware of its dire implications, regardless of where they presently reside, if this legislation goes into effect on July 1st, 2015.   

Bill SB932 is presently on Florida Governor Rick Scott's desk, and we certainly have the hopes that it will be vetoed, since it is fatally flawed.
Besides eroding so many other consumer protections for timeshare owners, it gives timeshare resort developers legal benefits that they don't deserve, and have not earned.

The timeshare industry has continually used high pressure sales tactics to persuade people to buy timeshares that, in many cases, they simply cannot afford. Timeshare resort developers should be required to stop these predatory practices.

Senate Bill 932 does not address this issue. This bill intentionally includes vague language that provides developers with a general exemption from liability, if and when they make so-called "non-material" errors in contracts and disclosures to buyers.

Sounds harmless, but the bill provides no definition of what "non-material" means, and worse, leaves it up to the developer to decide what's material vs. what isn't.

Isn't that like allowing the fox to guard the hen house? The liability exemption for developers is clearly objectionable to present timeshare owners, and will most negatively effect any and all future purchasers of timeshares.  Therefore, this bill must be defeated.

Developers already make all of the rules in their current timeshare sales practices, so why do they need a liability waiver to protect themselves from their current highly questionable sales practices?

Further information on this matter may be obtained by contacting our FTOG website, tsownersgroup.com, or by contacting me at fdebar433@gmail.com.

Thank you,

Frank Debar, Chairman
Florida Timeshare Owners Group


----------



## buildsmart

*Passed Senate 38-0 seems Veto Proof*

This is the Summary. Votes seem Veto Proof. 


The bill relates to the Florida Vacation Plan and Timesharing Act (act), which establishes requirements for the creation, sale, exchange, promotion, and operation of timeshare plans, including requirements for full and fair disclosure to purchasers. The act is enforced by the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes (division) within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (department). The bill:

Provides that an ownership interest in a condominium or cooperative unit or a beneficial interest in a timeshare trust is required for such interests to qualify as timeshare estates;
Revises the definitions for nonspecific and specific multisite timeshare plans to provide that the plans may include interests other than timeshare licenses or personal property timeshare interests;
Revises the required disclosures for public offering statements in multisite timeshare plans and provides that the developer has the burden of proof with regard to compliance with those provisions;
Revises the requirements for amendments to timeshare instruments in regards to component sites;
Expands the limitation on liability for developers who, in good faith attempt to and substantially comply with, all the provisions of the act;
Requires the disclosure of lease terms in timeshare trusts;
Repeals the requirement for judicial approval of transactions involving timeshare trust property;
Creates a procedure for the extension or termination of timeshare plans;
Creates a procedure for the transfer of the reservation system and owner data when a managing entity is discharged;
Requires all multisite timeshare plans to disclose the term of each component site plan and prominently disclose the term of component sites which are shorter than the term of the plan;
Excludes component site common expenses and ad valorem expenses from the cap on annual increases in common expense assessments;
Allows for substitute and replacement accommodations that are better than the existing accommodations; and
Revises the notice requirements on substitute accommodations.
If approved by the Governor, these provisions take effect July 1, 2015.

Vote: Senate 38-0; House 87-22


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

How sad that capital always has the edge in lobbying for their interests.


----------



## pedro47

Wow! Post #50 is right on target with his letter to the Florida Governor.


----------



## hunkyleebo

This may be a flawed bill, but we need to find ways to terminate timeshare situations that have become untenable without requiring a 100% vote.


----------



## TUGBrian

A copy of another letter sent by an FTOG owner to the Florida Governors office



> Dear Governor Scott,
> 
> The injustice of the current Timeshare act that sits on your desk is quite apparent to all fair minded citizens. Please do not taint the many great accomplishments you have achieved by allowing this bill to become law.
> 
> Your record is filled with a balance seldom practiced by politicians. Yes changes are needed!  The changes contained in this bill are disproportionately weighted to the side of the developers.
> 
> The damage caused by this bill will be both immediate and long term. It will cause harm to consumers in Florida and beyond. It will damage the Republican Party and you personally.
> 
> It seems such an innocuous bill yet it affects an industry ripe with corruption and disrepute. What other industry sells a product that loses 80% of its value the moment after you purchase it.
> 
> The only truly reputable company within this industry is Disney. They keep the resale price of their product at respectable levels immediately and they take those resale values above original purchase price long term by putting their money back into the resale market assuring consumers are protected!  They are the only ones participating in this responsible practice!
> 
> They do not need the changes that will be brought about by this bill and the companies that would have you sign this bill into law are looking to further take advantage of consumers.
> 
> I would further offer to you that the notion of ARDA ROC being a consumer organization is, in my most humble opinion, a sham!  In virtually all HOA dues, (which are primarily controlled by developers), there is a $5 "donation" line item to ARDA ROC. The "donation" should be an "opt in". It is not. It is an "opt out". When the 225,000 Hilton Grand Vacations members "donate" $1.1 million ARDA ROC sees that as coming from Hilton. They are listening to Hilton Executives, not individual Resort Owners.
> 
> When the 410,000 Marriott Vacations members "donate" $2 million ARDA ROC sees that as coming from Marriott. They are listening to Marriott Executives, not individual Resort Owners.
> 
> When the 900,000 Wyndham Vacations members "donate" $4.5million ARDA ROC sees that as coming from Wyndham. They are listening to Wyndham Executives, not individual Resort Owners.
> 
> Most developers in this industry sell their product utilizing very questionable methods, do not back up the product that they sell, and not only do not keep the promises they make to sell their product they readily change the rules to their advantage.
> 
> The changes they are attempting to make through this legislative act removes some of the few protections consumers had in this arena.
> 
> In closing I implore you to veto this unethical legislation and let the House and Senate bring a bill to your desk next year that balances the needs of the industry with the rights of the consumers.


----------



## TUGBrian

another letter sent to the governor recently by the FTOG chairman....has some summaries of the main complaints in it for clarification.



> 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.


----------



## TUGBrian

sadly it appears the gov signed this bill (along with many others) yesterday.


----------



## TUGBrian

more op-ed about the bill...pretty telling.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...tt-signs-bad-timeshare-law-20150617-post.html


----------



## Talent312

But at least they didn't mess with the recession period, yet.

Look alikes? Governor Scott & Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter)..


----------



## theo

*One step forward, two steps back...*



Talent312 said:


> But at least they didn't mess with the rescission period, yet.



It's a curious and noteworthy contradiction that Florida's rescission period is among the longest rescission periods in the U.S. (at 10 days) and the pertinent  FL law was tightened up even more just a very few years ago, by also applying that 10 day rescission period to timeshare resales as well as to developer-direct transactions.  

But then this regressive, pro-developer /  anti-consumer timeshare legislation gets introduced --- and has now formally been enacted into FL law.  :annoyed:

The article content in post #63 above says it all. The (only) two "sponsors" of this foul-smelling legislation *both* received campaign money from the timeshare industry. 
A well greased wheel rolls more smoothly, obviously including in Florida state politics --- although that's certainly not a situation unique or limited to Florida.


----------



## TUGBrian

I doubt any of the politicians involved had the least bit of useful information about the timeshare industry in general, much less the resale market.


----------



## sparty

TUGBrian said:


> I doubt any of the politicians involved had the least bit of useful information about the timeshare industry in general, much less the resale market.



So are some of the higher profile timeshare law companies who help folks get out of contracts bad as many have commented here on TUG? Some of the comments about the bill talk about this industry of law firms and how they hope this bill helps curb that.


----------



## TUGBrian

We have heard of zero legitimate "law firms" who can carte-blanche get someone out of their timeshare, and certainly not the ones that advertise the guarantees to do so.

most arent even law firms, and in almost all cases the actions taken are ones any owner can do themselves (ie repeatedly send letters demanding cancellation over and over and over).

Each of these firms in question we have ever seen all violate the main red flag warnings for ripoffs in the timeshare industry:

1. they provide guarantees and claims that cant possibly be true for everyone
2. they charge large upfront fees.


----------



## dannybaker

*Wow*

I love the fact this bill is 100 percent not for the people. And it past with 100 percent approval but no politicians who voted have an idea what the bill even covers. At what point do Americans take back America? Another said day for the innocent victims of the time share business. I am so thankful for TUG and all of the knowledge you wonderful people have provided my family. Most people find TUG to late to help them with the Mafia mentality in the time share business. The extremely high sales pressure, the out right lies. It really is a mind control they put people under. The entire presentation is geared to play with your sub conscience mind. In my opinion they are criminals and scum bags. I truly am sorry for the innocent victims and thankful to TUG.


----------



## fiat1bmw

*Timeshare owners don't vote*

I would venture to guess that most time share purchases in Florida are made by out of state residents and so can't vote in Florida elections.


----------



## fiat1bmw

_[Deleted.]_


----------



## chapjim

_[Deleted.]_

Thank you!  Really!  I mean it!


----------



## palmtree7339

*Florida's Changes in Timeshare Law. An Overview. ARDA And ARDA-ROC.*

As the Chairman of the Florida Timeshare Owners Group, I recently sent a message to our membership, that I would like to also share with interested Tuggers. The message deals with the recent passage of revisions to the Florida Timeshare Act, which will go into effect on July 1, 2015.

These changes in the laws governing all Florida timeshare resorts will negatively affect many current and future owners. These revisions were requested and supported actively by timeshare resort developers, as well as the American Resort Developers Assn., also known as ARDA, and its subsidiary, ARDA'S Resort  Owners Coalition, also known as ARDA-ROC.

You should now be aware that both of these organizations named above shall, as of this date, be banned from attending any and all future meetings of the Florida Timeshare Owners Group, as a direct result of their efforts to support these many anti-timeshare owner legislative changes.

Moreover, I am requesting that all FTOG members refrain from making any further voluntary contributions to either ARDA or ARDA-ROC, in the future, by way of the listed check-off method, as usually contained within their resort's annual maintenance fee billings, regardless of your resort(s) location.

These 2 group's are not our friends! 

They chose not to inform our organization of the prior filing of this onerous legislation when their representative attended our March 2015 meeting to expressly update our membership on all legislative activities affecting Florida's timeshare owners, which was the essential agreement that led to their being invited to attend as one of our Guest Speakers.

It is also requested that all members contact their home resort's HOA Board members, and indicate their views re: ARDA and ARDA-ROC, and request that any future provisions for voluntary donations to these two organizations not be included on their resort's future mainteance fee billings.

We should not continue to financially support any organization that chooses to weaken our timeshare consumer protection laws that have already been established.

P.S. Be prepared to witness similar proposed timeshare legislation being filed in other states, now that these changes are established law in the State of Florida. 

Frank Debar, Chmn. 
Florida Timeshare Owners Group. 
Website: www.tsownersgroup.com


----------



## LannyPC

*Anything Positive?*

I know many TUGgers and owners of FL TSs are quite upset at this bill and there are a lot of negatives to it.  But, when a bill is passed, usually there is *some* rationale to it.  What was the rationale behind this one?

I understand that any positives will not compensate for the negatives, but is there at least a shred of positivity to this, even if the negatives far outweigh the positives?  Is there any silver lining to this cloud regardless of how big the cloud is and how thin the lining might be?


----------



## palmtree7339

*Florida Timeshare Law Changes. Response to LannyPC.*



LannyPC said:


> I know many TUGgers and owners of FL TSs are quite upset at this bill and there are a lot of negatives to it.  But, when a bill is passed, usually there is *some* rationale to it.  What was the rationale behind this one?
> 
> I understand that any positives will not compensate for the negatives, but is there at least a shred of positivity to this, even if the negatives far outweigh the positives?  Is there any silver lining to this cloud regardless of how big the cloud is and how thin the lining might be?



Lanny,  Good question, and certainly it deserves an answer. Unfortunately, significant positives, in my opinion, do not exist. This was strictly a pro-developer, anti-consumer series of changes in our state's Timeshare Act, as drafted and submitted to the legislature by a prominent law firm located in Orlando, FL, who was hired by ARDA to represent only the timeshare resort developer interests, and not we, the consumers, (timeshare owners).
Be prepared for many more pro-developer timeshare-related legislative changes being filed here in Florida next year, as well as in many other states. The recent Florida revisions should be, in my opinion, considered just the "foot in the door" to further anti-timeshare-owner legislation, throughout the country, in the coming years.
Watch, and see!


----------



## Talent312

LannyPC said:


> ...[W]hen a bill is passed, usually there is *some* rationale to it.  What was the rationale behind this one?



The bill was sold as a benign "glitch" bill to correct technical problems.
Anti-consumer provisions were hidden among multiple layers of legalese.
Very few, other than vested interests, understood it's true intent.
IOW, the legislature was told, "Nothing to see here; move along."


----------



## palmtree7339

Talent312 said:


> The bill was sold as a benign "glitch" bill to correct technical problems.
> Anti-consumer provisions were hidden among multiple layers of legalese.
> Very few, other than vested interests, understood it's true intent.
> IOW, the legislature was told, "Nothing to see here; move along."



Bingo!  You hit the nail on the head. With the willing cooperation of the  Representative and Senator, who both represent the Orlando area, (surprise),  agreeing to file this egregious bill in behalf of the Florida timeshare developers, as represented by their trade organization/lobby, known as ARDA, and both of these legislators not having a clue as to what was contained in the bill or how it would directly and negatively affect present and future timeshare owners, we now have a timeshare law that weakens liabilities on developers who generate flawed contracts to buyers, allow developers to exceed the pre-existing cap on annual maintenance fees imposed on owners, and allow developers to 'substitute" owners existing accommodations for inferior inventory, without the owners consent. 
This bill sailed through both the Legislature and the Governor's office, as a "done deal". And who said campaign contributions don't produce much desired results. Expect more of the same, come next year. You can count on it.


----------



## carl2591

*WestGate Resort, Timeshare westgate resort, Orlando*



Jason245 said:


> Hint... they built a copy of the french palace of Versailles...



hint,, hint.. they were in documentary that about the "Queen of Versailles" , and had a recent death in the family. (which is a sad byproduct of excessive wealth it seems)  


In reading through the entire thread it appears this piece of garbage was signed by the gov of florida.. Too bad the republican party has become beholden to big business and lobbyist. (lobbyist, lowest form of scum on earth.) 

BOTH parties at this point are WORTHLESS to the american citizens..  might be time to get the pitchforks and head to the capitals.


----------



## Talent312

carl2591 said:


> BOTH parties at this point are WORTHLESS...



Now, now, let's not get contentious. Remember, others may think politicians are nice people who only wish to promote the public-good, and would never line their own pockets at anyone else's expense. We should respect this head-in-the-sand POV.
.


----------



## Tia

Talent312 said:


> Now, now, let's not get contentious. Remember, others may think politicians are nice people who only wish to promote the public-good, and would never line their own pockets at anyone else's expense. We should respect this head-in-the-sand POV.
> .



:hysterical::rofl: 

sadly some like their head in the sand just fine


----------



## TUGBrian

Nice article from Tom Tubbs posted on the FL TS owners group website about this:

http://www.tsownersgroup.com/news-and-views.html


----------

