# Help! My mortgage is underwater



## slgibbs1 (Dec 16, 2014)

I owned originally at St. Augustine. It was paid for and I was quite content. Then they talked me into "upgrading" by trading in my St. A for two Vistana timeshares. One is at Lakes, the other Fountains.
 Well, my maintenance fees are crazy! They want $500+ for each and I only own EVERY OTHER YEAR. When you figure in trading fees, it costs even more! And I've moved to Kissimmee- which is down the road...So, with all the trades etc. final result - One is paid for, the other I owe $8000 on. I tried to get a deed back and they blew me off. they said I could sell it. If I sell the paid-for one, I would be lucky to get 2K, and the new one 2K which still leaves me $4000 in debt with no timeshare. My job was outsourced and I am living on $1200 a month and my home rent is $500! 

I even considered declaring bankruptcy, but that is pretty extreme.

If they take it back they can sell it again to someone else, so what is their problem? My latest plan is to get a lawyer to huff and puff and threaten them. But, I think I should sell the one that's paid for FIRST and use that money to pay off some debt. That way they can't seize it as payment for the other one!
Any suggestions?


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 16, 2014)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but SVR Lakes and Fountains have no resale value, because the Staroptions will not transfer upon resale.  

I don't think an attorney can help you, unless you are ready to declare bankruptcy - it sounds like you might want to have a consultation about that.


----------



## LisaRex (Dec 17, 2014)

I agree with DeniseM.  Neither is worth anything on the resale market.   Sorry.

The best advice is to get a lawyer and ask his/her advice.   Certainly try to use the VOI that you've paid off as a sweetener to get them to take them both back.   Just hearing from a lawyer may make Starwood realize that you're serious. 

If that doesn't work, then I'd work on giving away the one I've paid off asap.  It's not worth anything, but it's possible you'll be able to find someone willing to take it over for the cost of the transfer fee.  

Then if I absolutely couldn't afford to keep it, and the lawyer doesn't know of any other better options, I'd notify Starwood of my intention to abandon the 2nd one.  This will come at a cost.    Expect to have bill collectors harrass you and your credit score to take a hit.  It's a legimate debt and walking away is not to be done lightly. 

Starwood should be ashamed of themselves for allowing some unscrupulous salesman to talk you out of the VOI you already owned outright, and into not one, but two additional contracts, which meant tens of thousands of dollars in additional debt.  That was an incredibly bad deal.  But you have to take some responsiblity here.  You signed the contract, and let the recission period pass, all without doing even a minimum amount of research, which would have shown you that the resale value of these VOIs is almost zero.  And while I don't care that Starwood will lose out on that $8k, I do feel badly for other Vistana owners.  Because Starwood will simply bill them for your uncollected MFs. 

Sigh.


----------



## gmarine (Dec 17, 2014)

To the OP, dont for one second feel bad about other owners. Youre talking cents per owner while you are in fiancial distress. Worry about your own situation. 

An attorney is unlikely to help, unless its to file for bankruptcy which might be your best option if the resort wont accept the deed back. Defaulting on maintanence fees is one thing but defaulting on a loan is a different story.  I would consult with a bankruptcy attorney to see what options you have in that regard.


----------



## persia (Dec 17, 2014)

Whatever you do, don't fall victim to the companies who claim they have a buyer for your timeshare and all you have to do is send them some cash upfront. They do not have a buyer, no matter how much they insist they do. Never pay an upfront fee to sell a timeshare.


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 17, 2014)

As others have mentioned.  You would be VERY unlikely to be able to sell a paid off week for $2000.  You would be very lucky to sell it for $500 and more likely would have to give it away or even pay part of the closing costs.


----------



## pathways25 (Dec 17, 2014)

slgibbs1 said:


> I owned originally at St. Augustine. It was paid for and I was quite content. Then they talked me into "upgrading" by trading in my St. A for two Vistana timeshares. One is at Lakes, the other Fountains.
> Well, my maintenance fees are crazy! They want $500+ for each and I only own EVERY OTHER YEAR. When you figure in trading fees, it costs even more! And I've moved to Kissimmee- which is down the road...So, with all the trades etc. final result - One is paid for, the other I owe $8000 on. I tried to get a deed back and they blew me off. they said I could sell it. If I sell the paid-for one, I would be lucky to get 2K, and the new one 2K which still leaves me $4000 in debt with no timeshare. My job was outsourced and I am living on $1200 a month and my home rent is $500!
> 
> I even considered declaring bankruptcy, but that is pretty extreme.
> ...



Starwood does do deed backs on weeks where there is a balance due on the mortgage.  I'm sure they won't take back the one that is paid in full, but you should contact them about a deed in-lieu of foreclosure for the week that you still own $8,000 on.  After all, if they refuse to take it back now, you'll just default on the mortgage payments and they'll be forced to foreclose and take it back later.


----------



## LisaRex (Dec 17, 2014)

gmarine said:


> To the OP, dont for one second feel bad about other owners. Youre talking cents per owner while you are in fiancial distress. Worry about your own situation.



FYI, 2 bdrm lockoff owners at SVV Bella were charged $118.69 this year to cover bad debt.  That's 9% of the total MFs.  (The budget is printed on the back of your annual dues statement)  It well may be higher at voluntary resorts because Bella and Key West are mandatory phases, which gives owners who are in financial straits an option to actually sell it.  

So it's not "cents" we're talking here.  It's a hundred bucks. 

Does that mean she shouldn't put herself first? No.  Sometimes people lose their jobs and they have to make tough decisions.  But they should also be aware that those unpaid MFs will be borne by their fellow owners, not the big bad corporation.  That's why I'd advise anyone who decides to abandon their TS to notify management of that decision, so that they can foreclose immediately (or offer to take the deed back) vs waiting the 12 months to 3 years it takes some of these HOAs to finally foreclose.


----------



## gmarine (Dec 17, 2014)

That $118 is the amount for ALL defaults, not per default. The amount per delinquent account is, like I said, CENTS. 

I find incredible that people come to TUG for help while in financial distress and they are made to feel bad about possibly causing owners a few cents each. 
If you want to do something useful, encourage your HOA to accept deedbacks from owners who cant afford to keep the units rather than letting them go into default with unpaid fees for years which end up costing owners more money.
__________________


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 17, 2014)

George - I believe that owners were EACH charged an additional $118 on their maintenance bee bill for defaults - so it actually was $118 per owner, not a few cents per owner.

It sounds like the OP needs some real help, and I don't begrudge him that, but I think the amount owners pay for defaults, is worth noting as well.

[On my own SVR timeshare, I paid $53.11 extra for "bad debt" on the 2015 MF bill for a 2 bdm., and at SDO, it was $113.77 for a 2 bdm.  Even at the Westin Ka'anapali there was a charge of $9.93 on my MF bill.]

As far as encouraging the resort to accept deed backs, we all know that Starwood has the BOD's under their control, and they will only accept deed backs if it benefits Starwood.  My guess is that they have more inventory than they can sell at the Florida resorts.


----------



## gmarine (Dec 17, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> George - I believe that owners were EACH charged an additional $118 on their maintenance bee bill for defaults - so it actually was $118 per owner, not a few cents per owner.
> 
> It sounds like the OP needs some real help, and I don't begrudge him that, but I think the amount owners pay for defaults, is worth noting as well.
> 
> ...



Denise, yes the portion of the maintenance fees for delinquent accounts is $118. But that isnt due to one delinquent account. Its for all accounts which is going to amount to cents for each delinquent account. So the OP themselves might be costing each owner a few cents by not being able to pay his fees.  
What I'm saying is it doesnt help to make the person feel bad because they cant pay the bills. I'm sure they feel bad enough without being told that they are costing other owners money. 

IMO, the biggest problem is the resorts refusing to accept deed backs and instead letting the units go into default for years before eventually offering to accept the deed back anyway. It ends up costing owners more money yet the vast majority of owners do and say nothing about it to their HOAs.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 17, 2014)

George - I don't see any post that is trying to make the OP feel bad?

Again - do you really think the Starwood BOD's have any genuine control over the situation?  I don't - it is all 100% Starwood driven.

If Starwood wants the units - they will take them back - if Starwood doesn't want the units, they won't.

BTW - If I were the OP, I would do whatever it takes to get out of his TS (legally). 

However, that doesn't make me any happier to pay the additional fees on my MF Bill.

YMMV


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 17, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> George - I don't see any post that is trying to make the OP feel bad?
> 
> Again - do you really think the Starwood BOD's have any genuine control over the situation?  I don't - it is all 100% Starwood driven.
> 
> ...




Denise: 1
George: 0
OP: difficult choice ahead (deed back is best option, IMO)


Sent from my iPad


----------



## gmarine (Dec 17, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> George - I don't see any post that is trying to make the OP feel bad?
> 
> Again - do you really think the Starwood BOD's have any genuine control over the situation?  I don't - it is all 100% Starwood driven.
> 
> ...



Read the last two sentences of post 3 in this thread. It tells the OP that Starwood will bill other owners for their fees. IMO there is no reason to say that except to make the OP feel bad that they cant pay their fees. 

Have you let HOA management and Starwood know that you think they should accept deed backs because you dont like paying for delinquent accounts ? 

 I have complained to Starwood and the HOAs of my resorts for years that they should accept deed backs rather than wait years to foreclose.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Dec 17, 2014)

If everyone walked away - then SVO would be force to deal with them, but until that Hell Freeze... the HOA (Owners... Us) is on the hook and MFs are increased, causing more more to walk away, and then more and more as the MFs get out of control.

IMO
This is a big issue for SVO Resorts that are SVN Voluntary, and have same MF/VOI that is season independent (Silver pay same MF as Plat).  It is a very unstable model - especially when MFs increase much higher than the comparable rent, or during economic weakness.
IMO


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 17, 2014)

gmarine said:


> Have you let HOA management and Starwood know that you think they should accept deed backs because you dont like paying for delinquent accounts ?



Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple:

I am afraid that at some of the older, less popular resorts, there would be an avalanche of deed backs - probably 20-30% or higher.

Who pays the maintenance fee on these deeded back weeks?  Not Starwood - owners would have to pay for them.

What does the HOA do with those weeks?  Especially off-season weeks like summer at SDO that are going to be difficult to resale.

The problems is that accepting deed backs would dump them right in the HOA's lap - Starwood would cherry pick the best weeks and resale them, but what about the weeks that will sit around forever...


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 17, 2014)

DavidnRobin said:


> If everyone walked away - then SVO would be force to deal with them, but until that Hell Freeze... the HOA (Owners... Us) is on the hook and MFs are increased, causing more more to walk away, and then more and more as the MFs get out of control.
> 
> IMO
> This is a big issue for SVO Resorts that are SVN Voluntary, and have same MF/VOI that is season independent (Silver pay same MF as Plat).  It is a very unstable model - especially when MFs increase much higher than the comparable rent, or during economic weakness.
> IMO





DeniseM said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple:
> 
> I am afraid that at some of the older, less popular resorts, there would be an avalanche of deed backs - probably 20-30% or higher.
> 
> ...



DavidRobin nails it here.  This is the inevitable tail spin I sometimes write about.  Any resort that has undesirable weeks that were sold by the developer convincing people that the week they own doesn't matter is going to run into this problem eventually and that day is drawing nearer for many resorts.

As more and more owners can't or don't want to pay MFs and the weeks are so lousy they can't be given to new owners, those resorts will go down in flames.

 When many folks bought timeshares they didn't see this problem but anyone who can't see it now and continues to own at these resorts have no one to blame but themselves when they have to pay for the delinquent accounts.

Why would you want to own at a resort that can't be given away?  It may be time to get out any way you can no matter how much you love your resort.


----------



## LisaRex (Dec 18, 2014)

gmarine said:


> Read the last two sentences of post 3 in this thread. It tells the OP that Starwood will bill other owners for their fees. IMO there is no reason to say that except to make the OP feel bad that they cant pay their fees.



I've told the OPer, and anyone else who happens to read this thread, the TRUTH. Just like I'd tell someone who paid Starwood $20k for SVR/SVV that they got hosed, even if it makes them feel really, really badly.  Being allowed to speak the truth about the good, bad and ugly in the TS industry is what makes TUG a great place to seek advice. 

FTR, I told the OPer the truth about what happens when people bail for three reasons:

1) The OPer isn't the only person who will read this thread.  Anytime someone talks about bailing, I consider it my duty to let them know the truth, that they're not just sticking it to the developer, but to their fellow owners.  Many people honestly don't know this. And while they'd cheerfully stick it to the developer, they might (and should) think twice with the knowledge that they're harming innocent people.  

2) To give her a very valid reason for notifying the developer of her decision instead of simply stopping payment and waiting for them to foreclose. If you must harm someone, at least do what you can to mitigate that harm.  Narrowing that foreclosure window as much as possible is the most ethical thing to do.     

3) Since I'm advising the OPer to abandon their TS, on a board frequented by TS owners, I want to acknowledge that I realize that my advice will come at a cost to them. I don't offer such advice lightly, nor would I ever dismiss it  as being "just a few cents."  



> Have you let HOA management and Starwood know that you think they should accept deed backs because you dont like paying for delinquent accounts ?



Part of the reason that it took me an hour to save my emails from Starwood (because they are switching to a new system and the archived emails would be destroyed) is because I communicate with them frequently about ways that I think that they can improve.  My biggest, and most vociferous complaint, is that the HomeOWNERS Association doesn't represent the OWNERS.  It is controlled by Starwood, and there's very little we can do about it because they control all uncast proxies.  Were it actually controlled by owners, I cannot guarantee that they'd accept deed backs, but I can guarantee you that it wouldn't take three years to foreclose on non-paying owners.  

Besides that, putting pressure on the HOA will do nothing to change the OPer's options as her MFs are due now.


----------



## ronparise (Dec 18, 2014)

LisaRex said:


> FYI, 2 bdrm lockoff owners at SVV Bella were charged $118.69 this year to cover bad debt.  That's 9% of the total MFs.  (The budget is printed on the back of your annual dues statement)  It well may be higher at voluntary resorts because Bella and Key West are mandatory phases, which gives owners who are in financial straits an option to actually sell it.
> 
> So it's not "cents" we're talking here.  It's a hundred bucks.
> 
> Does that mean she shouldn't put herself first? No.  Sometimes people lose their jobs and they have to make tough decisions.  But they should also be aware that those unpaid MFs will be borne by their fellow owners, not the big bad corporation.  That's why I'd advise anyone who decides to abandon their TS to notify management of that decision, so that they can foreclose immediately (or offer to take the deed back) vs waiting the 12 months to 3 years it takes some of these HOAs to finally foreclose.



As you say the other owners are the ones hurt by higher mf in the case of default.   The HOA is the other owners. So to my way of thinking the HOA owes it to themselves to craft the solution to the problem of defaults. They need a resale/rental program to deal with defaults. 

If an immediate  foreclosure is the best outcome for the HOA when someone has no other choice but default, why dont they agree to a deed in lieu of foreclosure, ie just take it back...there going to get it anyway


----------



## Sicnarf (Dec 18, 2014)

So, if we owners pay for the defaults and apparently unused weeks, does our HOA rent out those unused weeks or at least cover some of the costs?


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 18, 2014)

Sicnarf said:


> So, if we owners pay for the defaults and apparently unused weeks, does our HOA rent out those unused weeks or at least cover some of the costs?



I think they try but the give it to Starwood to rent.  Starwood probably rents their own units first.  They take something like 30-40% of the top as a commission for renting the units when they do rent.  They can rent as little as 1 day out of the 7.  Housekeeping and usually daily housekeeping (since it is rented on a per day basis through the hotel site) is taken out of the rental money and the remaining goes to the HOA.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Dec 18, 2014)

People are confusing SVO with the HOA... they are 2 separate indenties.
(Other than SVO controls the HOA via puppet members and quorum regulations that cannot be attained due to lack of Owner participation - for multitude of reasons)


----------



## slgibbs1 (Dec 22, 2014)

Just to clarify. I am current on the Maintenance fees. I am only talking about the original loan.
Good advice about just letting them go back to developer. I am not too worried about my credit at this point in my life, since I am not planning on buying anything in the next 20 years.
And moving to Kissimmee has pared down my living expenses considerably.


----------



## am1 (Dec 22, 2014)

gmarine said:


> IMO, the biggest problem is the resorts refusing to accept deed backs and instead letting the units go into default for years before eventually offering to accept the deed back anyway. It ends up costing owners more money yet the vast majority of owners do and say nothing about it to their HOAs.



The biggest problem is people are able to default with little recourse.  Other countries defaults follow you for a lot longer then the 7 years in the US if not eventually paid.  

Accepting all deed backs would be great but some resorts cannot handle all the inventory.


----------



## LisaRex (Dec 23, 2014)

slgibbs1 said:


> Just to clarify. I am current on the Maintenance fees. I am only talking about the original loan.
> Good advice about just letting them go back to developer. I am not too worried about my credit at this point in my life, since I am not planning on buying anything in the next 20 years.



Thanks for coming back.  I've heard reports that more companies are planning to start hiring again this coming year, so I hope that 2015 finds you fully employed again. 

Be sure you fully understand the impact to your credit rating. Some employers run credit checks on prospective employees before they hire.  A low score will certainly impact your ability to lease or borrow for a car, and it may significantly increase the interest rate you'll pay on credit cards.  Most landlords check credit scores these days, too. (Don't know if you own or rent.)

Not trying to scare you here, but I do want you to be fully informed about the consequences of abandoning these timeshares.  

re MFs: We're talking about MFs on the TS that you will abandon.  MFs will remain unpaid until Starwood actually forecloses on the property and finds a new buyer.  In some cases they are taking years to do this.  (If you have time, please come back and let us know how long it took Starwood to foreclose, or whether they offered a deedback when you informed them of your decision to abandon it.)  

Also, if you plan on keeping the already paid VOI (and paying its MFs), be sure that there isn't language in the contract that designates that any funds received will be used to satisfy delinquencies first.  IOW, make sure that if you pay $$ towards Augustine's MFs, that those funds won't be redirected towards paying your delinquent loan on Fountains.  I'm not certain that they legally do this across one contract, let alone two, but I cannot be certain that they can't, either.  

Your cleanest option would be to find a taker for the paid VOI BEFORE defaulting on the loan OR MFs for either.


----------



## LisaRex (Dec 23, 2014)

am1 said:


> The biggest problem is people are able to default with little recourse.  Other countries defaults follow you for a lot longer then the 7 years in the US if not eventually paid.



Really? I can think of a dozen bigger problems than the penalties for people who cannot or will not pay upside down loans.  

It's tough enough when the disparity between the developer price and the resale value is so wide.  But when you do things like stripping a TS of its SOs upon resale, you're further hurting the resale value, which in turn negatively impacts the entire resort. The OPer really doesn't have a choice here, because it's a voluntary resort.  Had it been in a mandatory phase, she'd have been able to get at least $2000 for these VOIs.  Shame.

If I was a Starwood exec, I'd create a program that took advantage of all these resales.  Every couple of years, I'd offer a buy-in program for resale buyers to join SVN for a nice fee ($5000?).  Think of all the money they'd make, not just for buy-in fees, but in SVN fees, transfer fees, banking fees, canceling feels....years after year.  This would prop up the value for all their TSs -- especially WMH and WPORV -- which would in turn mean fewer walkaways because a VOI worth just 67,100 SOs is worth SOMETHING on the resale market. 

Ah, well,


----------



## okwiater (Dec 23, 2014)

LisaRex said:


> If I was a Starwood exec, I'd create a program that took advantage of all these resales.  Every couple of years, I'd offer a buy-in program for resale buyers to join SVN for a nice fee ($5000?).  Think of all the money they'd make, not just for buy-in fees, but in SVN fees, transfer fees, banking fees, canceling feels....years after year.  This would prop up the value for all their TSs -- especially WMH and WPORV -- which would in turn mean fewer walkaways because a VOI worth just 67,100 SOs is worth SOMETHING on the resale market.



I think you're overestimating how many resale owners there actually are. Very few people know you can buy a timeshare on the resale market, let alone how to go about doing so. The only reason mandatory resorts sell for high(-er) prices is simple supply and demand -- i.e. there aren't many weeks with favorable MF/SO ratios, and the relatively few people interested in buying are competing over an even fewer number of available weeks.

Your assumption that allowing SOs to transfer would raise the value of voluntary resales is incorrect; more likely, what would happen is the value of mandatory weeks would drop precipitously, while simultaneously harming one of the selling points (and perceived value) of developer purchases.

By the way, a Starwood exec has _already_ created a program similar to what you propose. It's called requalifying, and is clever because it allows them to bring resales back into the network while making a sale and without exposure to the risks I mentioned above.

One final thought: if/when Starwood gets out of the sales business and stops developing new timeshares, then it probably would make sense from their perspective to start allowing SVN portability on voluntary resales. This would increase their collection of SVN fees and would only hurt owners of mandatory weeks, rather than themselves.


----------



## am1 (Dec 23, 2014)

LisaRex said:


> Really? I can think of a dozen bigger problems than the penalties for people who cannot or will not pay upside down loans.
> 
> 
> Ah, well,



I would think people would think once or twice knowing it would be their debt until they pay it off.  Also prices would be lower as the default rate would be near 0.  

I wish the best to the OP.


----------



## Joshadelic (Dec 23, 2014)

slgibbs1 said:


> I owned originally at St. Augustine. It was paid for and I was quite content. Then they talked me into "upgrading" by trading in my St. A for two Vistana timeshares. One is at Lakes, the other Fountains.
> Well, my maintenance fees are crazy! They want $500+ for each and I only own EVERY OTHER YEAR. When you figure in trading fees, it costs even more! And I've moved to Kissimmee- which is down the road...So, with all the trades etc. final result - One is paid for, the other I owe $8000 on. I tried to get a deed back and they blew me off. they said I could sell it. If I sell the paid-for one, I would be lucky to get 2K, and the new one 2K which still leaves me $4000 in debt with no timeshare. My job was outsourced and I am living on $1200 a month and my home rent is $500!
> 
> I even considered declaring bankruptcy, but that is pretty extreme.
> ...



I don't mean to be insensitive, but let's have a reality check here. You say your home 'rent' is $500 per month? I take that to mean that you don't own your home — yet you have purchased multiple VOI's with someone else's money. I'm really having a hard time finding any sympathy. I'm sure there is much more to the story, but this situation you're finding yourself in is because of bad decisions that you have made. I'm curious as to what job you had that was 'outsourced'. Is it hard to find jobs right now in the Kissimmee area? Have you tried booking some weeks and renting them out to cover your maintenance fees?


----------



## Joshadelic (Dec 23, 2014)

slgibbs1 said:


> ...I am not too worried about my credit at this point in my life, since I am not planning on buying anything in the next 20 years.



Well, that's nice. I wish there were a way to report that to the credit bureaus so anyone who pulls your report will think twice before loaning you money that the rest of us are eventually going to have to pay back.


----------



## alexadeparis (Dec 23, 2014)

Way harsh, Josh. Sounds like this person has had a run of bad luck (lost job, then had to move, due to a fixed income) and then you dump on them for being honest about their financial problems? I'm sure that person no longer feels welcome to post freely here anymore.

The real issue should be with Starwood. Why would they prey upon someone to buy more timeshares than they could afford? And I am betting this person is getting up in age also. Why target seniors, Especially when they had a paid off unit? Pure corporate greed! That's what we should be upset about.


----------



## Joshadelic (Dec 23, 2014)

alexadeparis said:


> Way harsh, Josh.



Sorry, I was just sharing my feelings.


----------



## YYJMSP (Dec 24, 2014)

Joshadelic said:


> Sorry, I was just sharing my feelings.



I applaud  your courage to share.

I'm personally of a similar mind, but figured there would be an outcry to say so...


----------



## Bob808 (Dec 24, 2014)

alexadeparis said:


> The real issue should be with Starwood. Why would they prey upon someone to buy more timeshares than they could afford? And I am betting this person is getting up in age also. Why target seniors, Especially when they had a paid off unit? Pure corporate greed! That's what we should be upset about.



I disagree that Starwood has chosen to prey upon anyone.

The buyer was adult and should make wise purchase decisions.  It is only right that the buyer bear responsibility. No different than an automobile company selling vehicles with advertising hype: how easy to buy, often little or no down payment, minimal credit check, quick signature and the new owner drives off the lot.  Instantly the vehicle's value drops and the low down payment owner is upside down.  Is that predatory?


----------



## Bob808 (Dec 24, 2014)

I am sad for the OP that tough financial times have befallen.  Many of us have had financial crises.  One fixes those by making sacrifices, working two jobs, and being creative rather than throwing in the towel.


----------



## LisaRex (Dec 24, 2014)

Bob808 said:


> The buyer was adult and should make wise purchase decisions.  It is only right that the buyer bear responsibility. No different than an automobile company selling vehicles with advertising hype: how easy to buy, often little or no down payment, minimal credit check, quick signature and the new owner drives off the lot.  Instantly the vehicle's value drops and the low down payment owner is upside down.  Is that predatory?



Listen, Bob, this was a business transaction.  Remember that Starwood not only ALSO agreed to the terms of the contract, but they wrote the thing, including the remedy that they crafted for themselves for breaches.  

If a car buyer defaults on a loan, the company keeps all the money and repossess the car.  If a timeshare owner defaults on a loan, the company keeps all the money and takes back the title of the loan. That's how the buyer is forced into "taking responsibility."

If that's not sufficient remedy for them, then they should quit loaning money to people who might lose their jobs tomorrow.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 24, 2014)

Bob808 said:


> Is that predatory?



Absolutely - you failed to included the blatant lies that timeshare sales people tell.


----------



## Joshadelic (Dec 24, 2014)

YYJMSP said:


> I applaud  your courage to share.
> 
> I'm personally of a similar mind, but figured there would be an outcry to say so...



Thank you for saying that.


----------



## okwiater (Dec 24, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Absolutely - you failed to included the blatant lies that timeshare sales people tell.


Not saying it's right for them to lie, but car salespeople often do the same thing. Caveat emptor.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 24, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Absolutely - you failed to included the blatant lies that timeshare sales people tell.




Unfortunately, this doesn't obviate all (or, really, any) responsibility from the buyer.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 24, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> Unfortunately, this doesn't obviate all (or, really, any) responsibility from the buyer.



Agreed - but saying that timeshare salespeople don't "prey" upon buyers is also completely untrue.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 24, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Agreed - but saying that timeshare salespeople don't "prey" upon buyers is also completely untrue.




But that's also true for many other industries. I don't like defending any slimy sales tactics, but it's not as if timeshares sales techniques are unique. As mentioned earlier, it's not dissimilar to car sales. 

There's a reason timeshare sales and marketing efforts include "free" gifts, since they know it's money well spent to convince people to dedicate time to be pressured to buy. While I abhor many of the sales techniques performed in the timeshare industry, it's fairly obvious that they aren't illegal. And while we may personally blame the sales depts for selling to unqualified people, at the end of the day the buyer needs to have some resilience and knowledge about how they spend their money. While I am all in favor of protecting consumers, a little common sense goes a long way, and I'm more with Josh on this particular thread issue given the fact that OP was not new to timeshares and should have known better.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 24, 2014)

Ken - My response was specifically to post #34 where is was stated, "I disagree that Starwood has chosen to prey upon anyone."


----------



## Bob808 (Dec 24, 2014)

I never meant to throw a rosey picture on Starwood sales agents.  They will happily take advantage when able.  No question.  However, if you agree to attend a sales presentation you know what you are going to get.

If you put a For Sale sign on your front lawn for 10x what your home is worth and someone knocks on your door and agrees to sign the contract how many Tuggers would say "no, Mr. and Mrs. Buyer that would be a mistake for you"?


----------



## alexadeparis (Dec 24, 2014)

My only point was it doesn't help anyone to make OP feel bad about her situation. 

I do agree with Josh, Bob and Yymj, in that I really don't like paying for bad debt on my timeshares. BUT, I don't think I have ever NOT paid some amount of MF towards bad debt on my timeshares. 

There will always be a certain number of people that will not pay a debt (any debt, not just timeshares) and that is just a fact of life and the cost of doing business. There are some who won't and some who can't, but no matter what the reason, bad debt (in any industry) will never be eliminated entirely. 

I am just glad I can count myself in the group that can afford to pay multiple thousands of dollars a year towards MF and take really nice vacations.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 24, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Ken - My response was specifically to post #34 where is was stated, "I disagree that Starwood has chosen to prey upon anyone."




I suppose it all depends on the context of "prey". Most sales organizations have bonuses and other incentives to encourage the sales staff to sell sell sell. Some salespeople will sell to unqualified buyers, regardless of industry. Implying that SVN preys upon buyers more than other industries could be correct - I don't know any specific statistics on this - but chances are they are just as guilty as other industries. To continue the earlier analogy, do you also think that car sales routinely preys upon their buyers, too?

You know I'm not inclined to give Starwood a break, and I think their and other timeshare sales processes are less than forthright. But, at the end of the day, it's up to the buyer to know how much they can afford. I really don't see how you can get away from that fundamental point. It's like blaming the banks in the 2000s for approving buyers for homes they really couldn't afford...while the bankers should never have approved many of those loans, the buyers should have known better and knew what they could and could not afford. How much of the decision making process do you really want to give away to the seller? I don't rely upon any seller to tell me what I can afford to buy, and I know you don't either. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## YYJMSP (Dec 25, 2014)

Joshadelic said:


> Thank you for saying that.



We've had this discussion numerous times as it relates to our daughter eventually getting our units and their MF obligations.  We decided to set aside an estimated 5yrs of monies so that she has tons of time to figure out how to handle the financial responsibility of this luxury.  If she gets herself in to a situation with that much buffer, there are other larger fundamental issues that need to be addressed...

This is just like anything else you buy -- you have to be prepared for whatever happens, as you agreed to pay for it when you bought it.  It's not some surprise that there are ongoing costs, etc.  People need to think in terms of the long term when buying timeshares; otherwise, perhaps renting with no ongoing obligation would make more sense.  

Having to finance at 15% or whatever it is that SVO charges should be the first sign of possible future financial issues.

On a lighter note, ho ho ho


----------



## YYJMSP (Dec 25, 2014)

alexadeparis said:


> I do agree with Josh, Bob and Yymj, in that I really don't like paying for bad debt on my timeshares. BUT, I don't think I have ever NOT paid some amount of MF towards bad debt on my timeshares.



Paying other people's debt is unfortunately part of our purchase agreements

While I think we should get something for doing that (a proportionate share of the usage, or some kind of payback if the monies are somehow collected through rental, etc), I can't complain as that wasn't part of the deal...


----------



## Bob808 (Dec 25, 2014)

I wonder why Starwood does not agree to take the units back for $0 and resell them.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 25, 2014)

Bob808 said:


> I wonder why Starwood does not agree to take the units back for $0 and resell them.




Because they don't have buyers for all weeks all the time, and those weeks where the owner doesn't pay their MF SVN has the right to rent the nights anyway, so why would they pay MF when they don't need to? SVN has the system locked up to their advantage.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## slgibbs1 (Dec 27, 2014)

Well, interesting discussion. Before this started I had a credit score of 750.
I am current on both maintenence fees. The maintenence fees are not the problem. It's the $8,000 loan. If they took it back they could sell it again and keep the $1000 I already paid. 
I sold my house. Asked $140K, cleared 86K. Big disappointment. Paid off all debts and purchased cheap condo in Kissimmee. I had planned on paying off the loan in full after settlement. But, there was no money left after settlement. And I am 70 years old, in excellent health. and planned to continue to work. Most jobs in Kissimmee require you to be bilingual. Maybe Starwood is hiring. I don't live far from the resort!!!


----------



## Joshadelic (Dec 28, 2014)

So are you saying this loan the only debt you have right now? How much is your loan payment per month?


----------



## slgibbs1 (Jan 4, 2015)

My loan payment is $150 a month. My income is $1020 a month. Rent is $500, elect, car insur, etc comes to $460. That leaves $80 for food, gas, living.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 4, 2015)

slgibbs1 said:


> My loan payment is $150 a month. My income is $1020 a month. Rent is $500, elect, car insur, etc comes to $460. That leaves $80 for food, gas, living.



I thought you had said you bought a cheap condo.  So why is there rent?


----------

