# [2012] [Sheraton Vistana Resort - Courts] Proposed Amendment to Continue As Timeshare



## travelbuff (Mar 24, 2012)

What are other owners view on this proposed amendment to continue as a timeshare? What does our property become if we don't approve it? It appears that I cannot trade, but can still use my weeks.  Would we, as owners hire a separate management company? Are we no longer part of Starwood? I know other timeshares have taken internal management to handle the property and it has worked out well.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 24, 2012)

We haven't heard anything about this!

First of all, are you talking about Sheraton Vistana Resort, or Sheraton Vistana Villages?

Where did you hear about this?  Please post the original, if you received an email.

*It sounds like you are saying that someone is proposing that the resort withdraw from Starwood management.  If you got this from anyone except the board, it will never happen.  There are some owners who are still fighting the special assessment - which is a done deal - so it could be them.


----------



## maggiesmom (Mar 24, 2012)

I'm with DeniseM on this one.
Before I get on the phone with Owners Service , would you please expalin where you got your information   .

Thank you.

maggiesmom


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 24, 2012)

A Tugger sent me the letters - note that they have until Oct. 2020 to get the necessary votes, so it just seems like a formality.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 24, 2012)

Interesting...if the deed states a week wouldn't that deeded week still be valid along with the unit?


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 24, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Interesting...if the deed states a week wouldn't that deeded week still be valid along with the unit?



As a jointly owned condo - not as a timeshare.


----------



## maggiesmom (Mar 24, 2012)

I don't mean to nit pick, but it should have stated in the first post that this is for Court Owners Only at Vistana, not the Whole of Vistana.
 Unless I'm misunderstanding this or is it for everyone at Vistana??.

maggiesmom

[I changed the title after I received the details - DeniseM]


----------



## jarta (Mar 24, 2012)

Tenants in common.

http://homebuying.about.com/od/marketfactstrends/qt/0207TinCommon.htm

It raises interesting possibilities.

For example, is a person's interest as tenant in common more valuable than as an owner of a condo interest "burdened" by a timeshare plan?  The tenants in common could do whatever they wanted (under zoning law) with the property held in common.   Salty


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> As a jointly owned condo - not as a timeshare.





jarta said:


> Tenants in common.



I'm a bit young and Naive, but i don't get the distinction...there will still be a condo association and MF's and you will still own the same thing you always did, what ever is week and unit you own on the deed...it just won't be 'labeled' a timeshare anymore


----------



## jarta (Mar 24, 2012)

Depends on whether the timeshare plan is the only thing terminated.

The FAQ attached to the letter (to the extent it is right) say the ownership would be as tenants in common.  To me (a lawyer) that means the timeshare plan is terminated.  But, the condo declaration is also voided, the entire property is owned in fee simple by the owners and the manner of tenancy is changed from the owner of a distinctly-described portion of the condo structure (with use of the outlot) to a tenant in common (percentage owner of something like an apartment building, but the use could be changed to anything or sold off as one distinct unit).

Reread the FAQ:  says you would own as tenants in common with the other (50-52) owners of the condo unit.  So, the condo concept would survive along with assessments by unit.  Only the condo unit itself could be sold off.  But, one condo unit might still bring the 50-52 owners more than selling the 50-52 units would bring each of them on the timeshare resale market.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 24, 2012)

jarta said:


> Depends on whether the timeshare plan is the only thing terminated.
> 
> The FAQ attached to the letter (to the extent it is right) say the ownership would be as tenants in common.  To me (a lawyer) that means the timeshare plan is terminated.  But, the condo declaration is also voided, the entire property is owned in fee simple by the owners and the manner of tenancy is changed from the owner of a distinctly-described portion of the condo structure (with use of the outlot) to a tenant in common (percentage owner of something like an apartment building, but the use could be changed to anything or sold off as one distinct unit).



Thats interesting...i'm learning alot, i thought the deed was the final word...i own two deeded timeshares, both specify a specific unit and week...if the timeshare plan is terminated in one of these timeshares, i thought the deed would still be valid


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 24, 2012)

This clause is in virtually all older Florida resort T&Cs.  I own two weeks at a small beachfront resort in a lovely area where timeshares were subsequently banned.  The timeshare is ending fairly soon and, although I'd miss it, I'm of the opinion that it will be worth far more if torn down and sold to someone like the Donald.  While it's simple in theory to just let the timeshare expire, the original laws require 100% of the TsIC to "sign off" on a sale of the property.  But, there is at least one HOA and its lawyer trying to get that changed (their plight has been written about in Timesharing Today).  Personally, I hope they're successful as it has proven overly burdensome to find and obtain sign off from ~52 owners per unit.  My resort, which is extremely well run, sends out a quarterly newsletter and in every issue, it reminds people what happens upon death, offers to re-record deeds at no charge (e.g. to JTWROS with a child), takes units back and offers them to other owners for pennies (and runs a successful rental program for the units it owns).  SVR, OTOH, is probably worth more as a timeshare, especially to Starwood, where it is a huge cash cow.  I still own there (different section, but it terminates a few years after Courts), and I'm pretty certain I'd vote to extend for another ten years or so, but definitely not into perpetuity (it's odd that Starwood didn't mention a new term).  There could come a day when SVR's land (or land and buildings) would be worth more torn down or sold as condos ...


----------



## RLG (Mar 24, 2012)

The termination of the timeshare would probably be a great windfall for the timeshare owners.  Instead of owning a week worth approximately zero, they would own their 1/50 interest in their full deeded condo unit.  Their share of selling the whole thing would likely be substantially more than the zero it's worth now.  

Unfortunately, an owner isn't likely to be able to realize on this since he's in partnership with many other owners who are generally gullible and foolish and can be counted on to sign away their rights for little or no compensation.


----------



## SteveS1 (Mar 24, 2012)

As a Courts owner (via resale in 1997)  I placed my yes vote right away. I felt the letter is convincing that we really don't have a choice and my opinion is the greatest value of this ownership is as a starwood timeshare. My assumption is this amendment is to remove this provision completely and there will be no expiration in the future.


----------



## Beefnot (Mar 24, 2012)

I have an Orlando timeshare whose timeshare plan is scheduled to terminate in 2030. I didnt know what that meant, seemed like some RTU language, but now this helps.


----------



## SteveS1 (Mar 24, 2012)

RLG said:


> The termination of the timeshare would probably be a great windfall for the timeshare owners.  Instead of owning a week worth approximately zero..



True, but  not worth zero if you use it, or exchange it.. Which is why we bought. In my case I do use/exchange it which i would think is true of most owners, except for the few who have their units up for sale.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 24, 2012)

> The termination of the timeshare would probably be a great windfall for the timeshare owners. Instead of owning a week worth approximately zero, they would own their .000x% interest in the entire complex.



This timeshare has the Starwood to Starwood priority in II and can be traded for some of the top Starwood resorts, like the Westins on Maui.

It's also recently been completely renovated, and redecorated, so while it may not have much resale value - it has great trading value, and value as a home resort.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 24, 2012)

I don't like the thought of no end date ... Especially if the law is changed to only require XX% of owners to agree to sell.  But, then again, perhaps the same law would allow XX% of owners to sell even if still under a timeshare plan - I don't recall the full details.  But, an end date forces people to address the situation, which seems like a good thing.  I love my timeshares as much as the next person (even when I don't love the management ), but the thought of my great grandchildren having to deal with them scares me  ...  even if one can refuse to take ownership of something they don't want, it still seems as if we are leaving potential hassles for the estate.  My executor is under orders to contact DeniseM as soon as I kick the bucket .... Sorry Denise!  I will tell him to throw in a week at our WSJ pool villa for your advice!


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 24, 2012)

WHAT!  ME?  How did that happen?  :hysterical: 

What did I ever do to you?    I knew I shouldn't have given you my phone number!

Folks - just 'cause Jersey girl can do this without my permission, doesn't mean YOU can!
:rofl:


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> This timeshare has the Starwood to Starwood priority in II and can be traded for some of the top Starwood resorts, like the Westins on Maui.
> 
> It's also recently been completely renovated, and redecorated, so while it may not have much resale value - it has great trading value, and value as a home resort.



With the Timeshare plan terminated...it still remains a Sheraton right?  I wonder what happens with trading....But, the value as a home resort should still be there, without the 'stigmata' of a timeshare it may even have more value

this is really interesting to me, i think a few timeshares that are in death throws could benefit from a vote like this, i don't think this resort is in 'death throws' but its an interesting case study!

ETA: I'd love to see a poll of who voted yes and if anyone voted No


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> WHAT!  ME?  How did that happen?  :hysterical:
> 
> What did I ever do to you?    I knew I shouldn't have given you my phone number!
> 
> ...



Well, maybe you can get a bunch of great vacations out of it.  Get your guest certificate upfront, of course!  :rofl:


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 24, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> With the Timeshare plan terminated...it still remains a Sheraton right?  I wonder what happens with trading....But, the value as a home resort should still be there, without the 'stigmata' of a timeshare it may even have more value



It's my understanding that this clause was originally intended to give owners the options of selling (as a whole) or renewing the plan.  If the owners decided to renew the plan, it would be a fresh start -- and a new manager could be appointed.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 24, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> With the Timeshare plan terminated...it still remains a Sheraton right?  I wonder what happens with trading....But, the value as a home resort should still be there, without the 'stigmata' of a timeshare it may even have more value



Sheraton is just the management company - so if it became a condo, and not a TS - Sheraton might not be the management, so no, it would not be a Sheraton in that case.

Also - If it was a condo, not a TS, it wouldn't necessarily trade with exchange companies - All that would have to be re-negotiated.

You know the OWNERS own a sold out resort - not the management company.  Recently the owners at Villas of Cave Creek terminated Starwood as their management company, and so they are no longer part of Starwood.


----------



## jarta (Mar 24, 2012)

First of all.  The Courts owners will probably provide sufficient votes to stay a timeshare.

Second, what happens to the personal property (Heavenly beds, sofas, TVs, etc.) in each unit?  Who gets those things?

Third, there was a mistake in my 2nd post on this thread that I corrected and you might not have noticed.  From the FAQ (if they can be believed), if too few votes were cast to keep things as is, each owner would have an undivided interest in the unit number purchased.  So, the condo would continue.  But, the units, not the whole condo building at once, could be sold off individually and the tenants in common for the condo unit would split the proceeds of the sale.  They could still come out way ahead.

But, it's fun to speculate what might happen.       Salty


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 24, 2012)

jarta said:


> But, it's fun to speculate what might happen.       Salty



it is though, right?


----------



## Fredm (Mar 24, 2012)

*Rule Against Perpetuities*



jerseygirl said:


> It's my understanding that this clause was originally intended to give owners the options of selling (as a whole) or renewing the plan.  If the owners decided to renew the plan, it would be a fresh start -- and a new manager could be appointed.



Just about every deeded timeshare resort has an expiration of the timeshare plan. Time frames vary, and rules vary by State. But the expiration exists because of the Rule Against Perpetuities. 

Simplistically put, "perpetuity" as in "never ending" does not exist. It must be defined. 

An interesting example is Marriott Desert Springs Villas II.
Rather than a fixed time frame, the governing documents define "perpetuity"  as the death of the last living direct descendent of either George H. W. Bush, or, Bill Clinton (the then former and current Presidents).  No joke.

So, the timeshare documents must be re-established (or entirely re-written). If they are not then each deed holder owns an undivided fractional interest in a specific condo. No master association, or anything for that matter, unless a majority of individual owners agree.

Can you imagine? It can turn into quite a mess.
No red, white, and blue weeks. Just a 52nd interest, where a Blue Season owner has exactly the same ownership interest as a Red owner, and all must agree on a equitable disposition. 

Vistana Courts is being proactive about this. They better be. They have to get a majority in line. Not a majority of those who vote, but a majority of all owners. An owner who does not vote, is a vote against.
 I would not be surprised if some owners get the idea that their condo should be sold. Or, or, ...

This will be interesting.


----------



## bizaro86 (Mar 24, 2012)

It seems to me that the courts owners would be dramatically better off selling the units as whole ownership condos. They're certainly worth $1000 or less on average, and each unit would almost certainly be worth 100k or more as a whole resort.

Anyone who is concerned about losing their use value/trading value could easily take their proceeds and use them to purchase an interest in one of the other Sheraton timeshares in Orlando. There certainly aren't a shortage of resale units of other sections or svv units available.


----------



## VacationForever (Mar 24, 2012)

Fredm said:


> An interesting example is Marriott Desert Springs Villas II.
> Rather than a fixed time frame, the governing documents define "perpetuity"  as the death of the last living direct descendent of either George H. W. Bush, or, Bill Clinton (the then former and current Presidents).  No joke.



Is Marriott DS HOA going to track lineage/family tree of the 2 former presidents then?  IMHO, this is not well thought out.  Possibly started out as a joke...


----------



## Fredm (Mar 25, 2012)

sptung said:


> Is Marriott DS HOA going to track lineage/family tree of the 2 former presidents then?  IMHO, this is not well thought out.  Possibly started out as a joke...



Have no idea how they will track it.  It is what it is.

My point being that timeshare documents do expire.


----------



## Ken555 (Mar 25, 2012)

Fredm said:


> This will be interesting.



Let the drama begin! :hysterical:


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 25, 2012)

bizaro86 said:


> It seems to me that the courts owners would be dramatically better off selling the units as whole ownership condos. They're certainly worth $1000 or less on average, and each unit would almost certainly be worth 100k or more as a whole resort.
> 
> Anyone who is concerned about losing their use value/trading value could easily take their proceeds and use them to purchase an interest in one of the other Sheraton timeshares in Orlando. There certainly aren't a shortage of resale units of other sections or svv units available.



That was the point I was trying to make earlier (you said it much better!) for many resorts, but I'm not so sure about SVR.  I have a couple of jumbled thoughts about that:

- I think Starwood, or any major player, gets a much better risk weighted return by managing the resort than by owning it (they're guaranteed 100% occupancy - even the delinquencies are covered by other owners).  That wouldnt happen if we werent captive owners.  That's why these developers got into the timeshare business in the first place - they made $$$ on sales, and now have a huge income stream in the form of a management contract.  I guess I'm saying I'm not confident there's a "resort buyer" out there who would want the place as a pure rental resort given the glut of availability in Orlando.

- It's not a great location for residential condos - smack in the middle of tourism/traffic central. And I would think all phases would have to expire at the same time to make a conversion to whole ownership even remotely feasible from a consumer interest standpoint - although, it would be fairly easy to separate Lakes and the two Fountains phases into one complex ... and perhaps some of the older phases in the SE corner as well.  But, there's still a real estate glut in Florida ... So they'd have to practically give them away ... but that may be a good solution someday if the majority of owners wanted out.

So I completely agree with your premise for some timeshares (like the beachfront one I referenced in an earlier thread) ... but not necessarily for SVR.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 25, 2012)

Fredm said:


> Just about every deeded timeshare resort has an expiration of the timeshare plan. Time frames vary, and rules vary by State. But the expiration exists because of the Rule Against Perpetuates.
> 
> Simplistically put, "perpetuity" as in "never ending" does not exist.



Thanks Fred.  So, interesting that Starwood didn't define the new term in their FAQs, eh?  Personally, I wouldn't vote to extend more than 10 or so years, perhaps 20, but I'd be more comfortable with 10.  Maybe it's just me, but I like a defined term a whole lot better than waiting for the Bush and Clinton families to fade away.


----------



## Fredm (Mar 25, 2012)

jerseygirl said:


> Thanks Fred.  So, interesting that Starwood didn't define the new term in their FAQs, eh?  Personally, I wouldn't vote to extend more than 10 or so years, perhaps 20, but I'd be more comfortable with 10.  Maybe it's just me, but I like a defined term a whole lot better than waiting for the Bush and Clinton families to fade away.



I'm sure the proposed time frame was specified in the detailed amendment included with the mailing. A Courts owner will probably come along shortly to tell us what it is.  My guess is that it will be at least as long as the original (40 years).


----------



## richardm (Mar 25, 2012)

The extension will be approved...  

While some may talk about how "values" may be greater as whole ownership condos, that discussion will fall on deaf ears. For most owners, the value isn't financial- it lies in the usage and enjoyment of ownership.

Besides, the housing and condo market in Orlando is already flooded to the point of ridiculousness, and that is with the vast majority of foreclosures currently being withheld by banks. 

To convince someone to end their timeshare regime now on the hope that the Central Florida housing market will recover sufficiently in eight years to result in a large financial gain- sounds like that argument would take quite a bit of convincing... How would that message even be spread?

Starwood is being proactive- and they are the group holding all the cards.. They have direct and instant access to owner communication, hold a large stake of weeks which is consistently growing, and have just gotten "EVERY" owner who is financially current to spend thousands on refurbishment- thereby renewing their sense of ownership and "investment".. 

There are times when a majority base of owners is so disillusioned and frustrated with ownership that dissolving the timeshare regime is the only reasonable course of action- but those times are extremely rare.  

This instance is not even close to that type of situation.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 25, 2012)

richardm said:


> The extension will be approved...
> 
> While some may talk about how "values" may be greater as whole ownership condos, that discussion will fall on deaf ears. For most owners, the value isn't financial- it lies in the usage and enjoyment of ownership.
> 
> ...



I agree completely, but would still prefer shorter extensions in case that day comes.  It's a lot cheaper to pay for minimal maintenance, security, taxes ... then to run a resort where the majority of owners have lost interest, defaulted, etc.

I think the end dates were smart planning and just hope owners don't get bamboozled into a form of potential perpetuity (e.g. Clinton/Bush scenario).


----------



## ada903 (Mar 25, 2012)

I heard from a broker that he has a client who has been buying weeks at Sheraton Vistana - not sure which section - like crazy - massive amounts.  I wonder if that has something to do with this.  I first suspected that maybe he knew some section was going to be invited to join SVN.  Not sure, but I thought I'd throw that interesting fact out there, why would someone buy those weeks in bulk?


----------



## jarta (Mar 25, 2012)

ada,   ...   "he has a client who has been buying weeks at Sheraton Vistana - not sure which section - like crazy - massive amounts. ... why would someone buy those weeks in bulk?"

Because they are being sold/dumped in bulk by owners who no longer can afford to pay the MF?

Because the broker represents Starwood and Starwood has the ability to turn a profit on resales of the units?

Because the client thinks that if the resale price rises from $1 to $500 dollars there is money to be made by buying now?

Because the client thinks massive amounts of timeshare units can be rented for a profit?

Because buying timeshares "like crazy" indicates the client is crazy?

Or, finally, because the story is not true, the broker has inventory for sale at SVR and wants to move it?  (When a timeshare salesman ...)       Salty


----------



## jjlovecub (Mar 25, 2012)

I own at the courts but haven't gotten this letter


----------



## maggiesmom (Mar 25, 2012)

I know this question is a little off topic, *but does anyone know when SVR-Cascades contract ends??. *In my SDO Governing Documents - I found out that it expires in 50 yrs( *wood purchased it in 1998,can remember the month).And can renew for 10yrs unless it was voted different.

TIA

maggiesmom


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 25, 2012)

I just added the proposed amendments to post #4.


----------



## maggiesmom (Mar 25, 2012)

Thanks DeniseM about:
*I just added the proposed amendments to post #4*.

But with SOOO much of it scratched out its hard to understand   . 
So could you in simple English, tell me when it expires?? 
Thanks again  

maggiesmom


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 25, 2012)

maggiesmom said:


> Thanks DeniseM about:
> *I just added the proposed amendments to post #4*.
> 
> But with SOOO much of it scratched out its hard to understand   .
> ...



By changing the requirements from 'continue' to 'terminate', they've basically said it will go on in perpetuity, or until the owners gang up(70%) and decide to vote to terminate, with no set date...or at least that's how it reads to me


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 25, 2012)

maggiesmom said:


> Thanks DeniseM about:
> *I just added the proposed amendments to post #4*.
> 
> But with SOOO much of it scratched out its hard to understand   .
> ...



This is the proposed amendment for Courts - not for Cascades.


----------



## jarta (Mar 25, 2012)

Right now, the timeshare ownership plan is set to terminate by terms of the declaration in 2020 (unless extended by a 70% vote of the unit-week owners).

The amendment would make the timeshare ownership plan last until 70% of the unit-week owners vote to terminate it.

In either case, as stated in the Declaration, termination would cause the unit-week owners to become tenants in common of the unit they own an interest in.  In either case, the termination would cause the condo association to ask the court to declare a partition of the individual unit-weeks at the resort (decide who owns what unit and in what percentage).

The Rule Against Perpetuities has nothing to do with the amendment.  Under both Florida case law and Chapter 718.104, Paragraphs 4(o) and 5 of the Condominium Act.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0718/Sections/0718.104.html

http://www.4dca.org/May2007/05-02-07/4D05-3601.op.pdf   Salty


----------



## maggiesmom (Mar 25, 2012)

DeniesM ,
See post #16 in RED.


maggiesmom


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 25, 2012)

maggiesmom said:


> DeniesM ,
> See post #16 in RED.
> 
> 
> maggiesmom




I saw your post - but I don't know the answer.   

However, I would expect the same amendments to be offered to Cascades' owners when the time comes, since the Cascades phase is also under Starwood management.


----------



## RLG (Mar 25, 2012)

richardm said:


> the housing and condo market in Orlando is already *flooded ...currently...*
> end their timeshare regime *now* on the hope that the Central Florida housing market will recover sufficiently in *eight years *



You seem to think that owners need to decide now and then wait 8 years to find out if they made the right decision.  I think you have the decision timing completely backwards. 

Under the original documents, the owners can wait 8 more years before making any decision.  If they wait, they can make the choice whether to terminate the timeshare based on their own situations and on market conditions in 2020.   Instead, they are being asked to give up that choice 8 years in advance.  It's not clear how any owner is better off making the decision now rather than making it based on the situation at the time.

I agree with you, however, that it will likely pass.  No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average timeshare owner.

How many of the owners do you think will vote yes and then end up paying a PCC to take their unit off their hands?


----------



## YYJMSP (Mar 25, 2012)

*Spas/Cascades, termination clause already dealt with?*

Just went through the docs for Spas, and found the Termination section of the Declaration of Condominium (dated Aug 1985), which states that "... the condominium form of ownership may be terminated (1) prior to June 1, 2025 only by agreement of all Owners and (2) after May 31, 2025 by agreement of Owners entitled to cast at least forty percent (40%) of the votes..."

In the docs for Cascades, the Termination section of the Declaration of Condominium (dated Aug 1997), states that "... may be terminated if the Owners and holders of liens and mortgages affecting all of the Condominium Parcels execute and duly record an instrument terminating the Condominium, or if termination arises as set forth in this Declaration due to destruction or condemnation..."

I didn't see any reference to some arbitrary number of years after which it would automatically expire.

There are references to Chapter 718 of the Condominum Act, Florida Statutes, and whatever is included in them with regards to I assume boilerplate in the absense of an explicit termination.

Does that mean that they've already dealt with any automatic expiry date on the agreement?


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 25, 2012)

For the record, when this comes up at my two resorts, i will be voting to terminate...Mostly just to see what happens

One vote won't matter, but its interesting...


----------



## Beefnot (Mar 25, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> For the record, when this comes up at my two resorts, i will be voting to terminate...Mostly just to see what happens
> 
> One vote won't matter, but its interesting...



We would expect nothing less from you.


----------



## Dave H (Mar 25, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> For the record, when this comes up at my two resorts, i will be voting to terminate...Mostly just to see what happens
> 
> One vote won't matter, but its interesting...



of course, I have seen things lose by one vote.... hmmm would be interesting fighting with 51 other owners on when you can use your week wouldn't it.....


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 25, 2012)

Dave H said:


> of course, I have seen things lose by one vote.... hmmm would be interesting fighting with 51 other owners on when you can use your week wouldn't it.....



Both my resorts have week & Unit on the deed, no fighting for me


----------



## VacationForever (Mar 25, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Both my resorts have week & Unit on the deed, no fighting for me



Ridewitheme38, good luck in trying to get the other 51 owners to agree on what to do with the property if not for TS use.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 25, 2012)

sptung said:


> Ridewitheme38, good luck in trying to get the other 51 owners to agree on what to do with the property if not for TS use.



It's established, in the documents from this resort(the one this thread is about), it becomes 'Tenants in common', why are you hoping for a problem that shouldn't exist?

What else could be done with the property? It just becomes a vacation property...there are no negatives at all to this move...Well that is unless you are unable to know what to do unless an HOA/POA/BOD is controlling you


----------



## RLG (Mar 25, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> What else could be done with the property? It just becomes a vacation property...



Not exactly.  I doubt that anyone will want to become partners with 51 strangers in owning a condo in Orlando.  

In most (all?) states, a tenant-in-common can bring a court action to "partition" the property.  If the property can't be subdivided, it would be sold with the proceeds divided between the owners.

That's the option I think the owners should keep alive until they get a lot closer to the 2020 deadline.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 25, 2012)

Ride - Just for fun, because it's not going to happen - but if they don't get the votes they need, and all contracts end in 2020 - who will:  check you in, take out the trash, mow the lawn, wash the sheets, and throw out the riff raff?  

How will you get all the owners together to figure out how to run the place?

Yes, you will still have a piece of paper with your name on it, but who is going to manage and maintain the resort?


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 25, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Ride - Just for fun, because it's not going to happen - but if they don't get the votes they need, and all contracts end in 2020 - who will:  check you in, take out the trash, mow the lawn, wash the sheets, and throw out the riff raff?
> 
> How will you get all the owners together to figure out how to run the place?
> 
> Yes, you will still have a piece of paper with your name on it, but who is going to manage and maintain the resort?



It's an interesting point, but when independent resorts are no longer under active sales, don't they have to vote for an HOA/POA/BOD and pick a Management company?  I'd think this would be the same as the Timeshare becoming an independent condo with an independent management company


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 25, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> It's an interesting point, but when independent resorts are no longer under active sales, don't they have to vote for an HOA/POA/BOD and pick a Management company?  I'd think this would be the same as the Timeshare becoming an independent condo



No, it would not be the same.  The developer/managment company facilitates the election of a BOD right away - as soon as the resort opens - while they are still managing the resort.  And if the management company changes later, there is still a Timeshare BOD that represents the owners and is in control of the property and has the authority to make decisions.  

If it became a condo - all of that would go away:  there would be no timeshare  BOD, no management company, and no employees - you would have to start from zero, with no infrastructure to manage the process.  You would own a condo with a few thousand strangers.  Where do you go from there?


----------



## vacationtime1 (Mar 26, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> No, it would not be the same.  The developer/managment company facilitates the election of a BOD right away - as soon as the resort opens - while they are still managing the resort.  And if the management company changes later, there is still a Timeshare BOD that represents the owners and is in control of the property and has the authority to make decisions.
> 
> If it became a condo - all of that would go away:  there would be no timeshare  BOD, no management company, and no employees - you would have to start from zero, with no infrastructure to manage the process.  You would own a condo with a few thousand strangers.  Where do you go from there?




Where you go from there is that the units would be judicially partitioned.  See post #4, "Exhibit 'A'", paragraph 2, last sentence:  "The Directors of the Association *shall* file a suit . . . for partition . . . ."  

Note that the document says shall, not may.

I don't know what these units would be worth as condos, but I suspect more than $52 -- the current fair market value of each unit used as timeshares.


----------



## pharmgirl (Mar 26, 2012)

See plantation village in grand cayman in Caribbean forum
Ts is done and selling condos


----------



## bankr63 (Mar 26, 2012)

*Another Courts owner's view*

I'm still waiting for the actual letter to arrive, international snail mail is slow, so thanks for the posting the terms.  So far I only have the initial e-mail instructing to watch for the important "yellow" envelope.  I half expect Ed McMahon to be there with my $1,000,000 cheque...  Ok, not the real Ed McMahon - because that's impossible - sheesh!

As a Courts owner, the amendment deals with one of my largest fears and that is that the original terms were slanted towards the dissolution of the Timeshare.  The terms called for a meeting to be held between 60 and 30 days of the term date at which a MAJORITY of owners must vote to *continue* the plan.  This almost guaranteed dissolution because gathering the owners or proxies required for a majority is near impossible - the default action was dissolution.  At least with the new amendments, a majority must vote to dissolve.  I also understand the 8 years headstart, because this could take that long to pull together!

I am not as comfortable with the 70% majority proposal required to dissolve.  That seems to be an artificially inflated number, and as stated above, pretty much impossible to achieve.  So now we are stuck with the TS plan that is in effect for perpetuity.  I liked the 40%-50% percent required by the Spas agreement as noted by YYJMSP.  At least that would be remotely achievable.  I read about Plantation Village in TSToday, and there was something like 20-30% of the owners that they couldn't even properly identify!

I do ponder the unit value.  Presumably our upper Courts could (arguably) fetch $52,000 on the open market, including an interest in the 13 tennis Courts, Clubhouse and the Courts Swimming pool that are also part of the TS plan and would divide equally among all owners (yes I have read my entire TS agreement).  So maybe my $1 (ignoring the $$$$ in refurb fees) investment is now worth a paltry $1000.  And Sheraton is left with the original Courts resort phase sitting smack dab in the middle of the overall resort, no longer a part of the resort.  They would also lose the tennis courts clubhouse and pool as well.

Hilarity and ugliness ensue.  No one wins but the lawyers (apologies Jarta).  I expect my $1000 would very quickly be depleted hiring "Dewey Skrewim & Howe" to clean up the mess.

Better to bite the bullet and sign our proxy.  We plan to keep on using our ownership for several more years, and if I'm lucky I'll sell it for $2 then doubling my original "investment".


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 26, 2012)

So what's the general thoughts, do you think they will be able to get a 'majority' approval?

I'm considering starting to scour the internet in search of a resale unit as a gamble that they don't, so i can be a part of the actually profit afterwards

But it wouldn't be worth it to me if it DOES get approved


----------



## bankr63 (Mar 26, 2012)

*One more thought...*

Just thought that really, all SVR owners should be worried about what is happening in Courts.  If we DON'T get a majority together in the next 8 years, and especially in the 60-30 days prior to the end date if we get that far, what exactly is YOUR resort going to be like with a big hole in the middle?

If it starts to fall apart, I expect everyone at SVR will suffer a bit...


----------



## jarta (Mar 26, 2012)

"So now we are stuck with the TS plan that is in effect for perpetuity."

Yes, if the amendment passes, you would be stuck with a timeshare resort unless 70% of the owners vote to terminate the timeshare plan (unlikely until the end of the useful life of the structures and uneconomic 8 years from now after investment of money in the renovation that is nearing completion).

But, you are not stuck with Starwood management or any other particular management company.  Management can be terminated by a vote of the board and, over time, board composition changes.

The alternative is to wait until 2020, have the meeting and see if the owners then want to keep it a timeshare.  But, those who would vote to keep the resort a timeshare will have difficult, but surmountable, time constraints for that meeting to decide what to do.

"I'm considering starting to scour the internet in search of a resale unit as a gamble that they don't, so i can be a part of the actually profit afterwards"

That's ridiculous.  Special elections to amend can be called every year (see bullet point 3 in the letter) and the 2020 vote may then be to continue the timeshare.  Will you hold for 8 more years?

I consider lawyer jokes to be fair comment.   Salty


----------



## bizaro86 (Mar 26, 2012)

jerseygirl said:


> That was the point I was trying to make earlier (you said it much better!) for many resorts, but I'm not so sure about SVR.  I have a couple of jumbled thoughts about that:
> 
> - I think Starwood, or any major player, gets a much better risk weighted return by managing the resort than by owning it (they're guaranteed 100% occupancy - even the delinquencies are covered by other owners).  That wouldnt happen if we werent captive owners.  That's why these developers got into the timeshare business in the first place - they made $$$ on sales, and now have a huge income stream in the form of a management contract.  I guess I'm saying I'm not confident there's a "resort buyer" out there who would want the place as a pure rental resort given the glut of availability in Orlando.
> 
> ...



Starwood would certainly get a better return by managing it as a TS then they would from managing it as rentals for a single owner, which is why they are pushing to get this voted on nearly a decade in advance. It may be the right choice for Starwood but it's not the right choice for the owners. I'm quite confident someone could be found to purchase it. Carlos "Slim" Helu (the richest man in the world according to Forbes) bought an Orlando hotel (the Ramada, iirc) from Westgate at the bottom of the financial crisis. I'm not saying "Courts" would fetch a huge price, but I guarantee you could get 52k per timeshare condo. I suspect it would be more like 100-150k. 

It would never be residential condos, it would be managed as a vacation rental property, like the Nickelodeon hotel or similar. 

The only people I can think who would possibly be worse off are the original developer owners and/or those who have requalified and have received elite status. A buyer could easily replace a Courts unit with one from some other phase or from Vistana Villages for much less than what they'd receive from a disposition of Courts. Those who purchased developer and want to keep their staroptions could buy in a mandatory phase of SVV, but that doesn't come with elite status. Everyone else would be better off selling.


----------



## hypnotiq (Mar 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> I consider lawyer jokes to be fair comment.   Salty



You're a lawyer?! Now everything from the other thread makes sense.


----------



## bankr63 (Mar 26, 2012)

bizaro86 said:


> Starwood would certainly get a better return by managing it as a TS then they would from managing it as rentals for a single owner, which is why they are pushing to get this voted on nearly a decade in advance. It may be the right choice for Starwood but it's not the right choice for the owners. I'm quite confident someone could be found to purchase it. Carlos "Slim" Helu (the richest man in the world according to Forbes) bought an Orlando hotel (the Ramada, iirc) from Westgate at the bottom of the financial crisis. I'm not saying "Courts" would fetch a huge price, but I guarantee you could get 52k per timeshare condo. I suspect it would be more like 100-150k.
> 
> It would never be residential condos, it would be managed as a vacation rental property, like the Nickelodeon hotel or similar.
> 
> The only people I can think who would possibly be worse off are the original developer owners and/or those who have requalified and have received elite status. A buyer could easily replace a Courts unit with one from some other phase or from Vistana Villages for much less than what they'd receive from a disposition of Courts. Those who purchased developer and want to keep their staroptions could buy in a mandatory phase of SVV, but that doesn't come with elite status. Everyone else would be better off selling.



Selling isn't that easy, you have to be able to provide clear title to the buyer.  When the TS plan collapses, we would at best have to get enough owners together for each unit to force the others to allow a sale through the courts.  At worst, they would require all 52 owners to agree to sell.  That would have to be done for every condo unit in the development.  Once clear title to the entire development could be determined, then perhaps a buyer could be found.  By the time that all happens my great grandchildren will have spent their entire inheritance trying to get the $1000 that great granddad's timeshare might possibly have been worth out of legal limbo.  It's an impossible proposition!

Considering how long these things can drag out, I'm not sure that 8 years is enough time to get it done.  I do hope that enough owners respond this time around for quorum, or we are going to be paying to keep asking the same question over and over until 2020.


----------



## RLG (Mar 26, 2012)

bankr63 said:


> When the TS plan collapses, we would at best have to get enough owners together for each unit to force the others to allow a sale through the courts.  At worst, they would require all 52 owners to agree to sell.



I guess you haven't bothered to read the rest of the thread.  Two separate people have posted the answer to this issue.  No it wouldn't require unanimous consent.  

Any single owner could bring an action to force the sale but should not need to do so since since the Board of Directors is required to bring such an action itself.




RLG said:


> a tenant-in-common can bring a court action to "partition" the property.  If the property can't be subdivided, it would be sold with the proceeds divided between the owners.







vacationtime1 said:


> Where you go from there is that the units would be judicially partitioned.  See post #4, "Exhibit 'A'", paragraph 2, last sentence:  "The Directions of the Association *shall* file a suit . . . for partition . . . ."


----------



## bankr63 (Mar 26, 2012)

Bringing a motion before court is not a "done deal" and is not without costs.  It just means that the court would consider it.  Presumably if there are owners with differing interests who wish to be heard the court may decide in their favor?

Just asking, I am a Canadian and don't know a lot about American jurisprudence, but I assume that everyones' interests are protected, not just the one making the motion?

Regardless, in my mind courts = lawyers = money = nothing left for me. JMHO


----------



## vacationtime1 (Mar 26, 2012)

bankr63 said:


> Bringing a motion before court is not a "done deal" and is not without costs.  It just means that the court would consider it.  Presumably if there are owners with differing interests who wish to be heard the court may decide in their favor?
> 
> Just asking, I am a Canadian and don't know a lot about American jurisprudence, but I assume that everyones' interests are protected, not just the one making the motion?
> 
> Regardless, in my mind courts = lawyers = money = nothing left for me. JMHO



I'm not licensed in Florida, but partition and sale should be a "no brainer" for a judge under these circumstances.  Heck, the governing documents specifically contemplate a partition in year 2020; why would a judge see it differently?

Yes, the litigation costs are real, but the net result for the owners would still be a couple of thousand times better than the each units' current $1 value.


----------



## travelbuff (Mar 31, 2012)

*Starwood Vistana Options*

I emailed Denise the information





maggiesmom said:


> I'm with DeniseM on this one.
> Before I get on the phone with Owners Service , would you please expalin where you got your information   .
> 
> Thank you.
> ...


----------



## travelbuff (Mar 31, 2012)

*Hire a Management Company*

Obviously a Management company has to be hired, but they are working for you and it is just like a condo, people vote and decide, not Starwood pushing buttons.





DeniseM said:


> Ride - Just for fun, because it's not going to happen - but if they don't get the votes they need, and all contracts end in 2020 - who will:  check you in, take out the trash, mow the lawn, wash the sheets, and throw out the riff raff?
> 
> How will you get all the owners together to figure out how to run the place?
> 
> Yes, you will still have a piece of paper with your name on it, but who is going to manage and maintain the resort?


----------



## travelbuff (Mar 31, 2012)

*Formality?*

No, we are being asked to vote on a 2020 amendment *Now* to ensure that Starwood has control over choices 8 years from now. A vote is not a formality. Yes, Starwood creates Votes that are in actuality forced agreements -  such as the outlandish charges for renovations.  (My husband is a contractor), but they forced the pro vote.




DeniseM said:


> A Tugger sent me the letters - note that they have until Oct. 2020 to get the necessary votes, so it just seems like a formality.


----------



## travelbuff (Mar 31, 2012)

*Nit Picking*

I purposeless did not specify because
1. I did not know if others in the Vistana Family had encountered this or
2. They might in the future.





maggiesmom said:


> I don't mean to nit pick, but it should have stated in the first post that this is for Court Owners Only at Vistana, not the Whole of Vistana.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding this or is it for everyone at Vistana??.
> 
> maggiesmom
> ...


----------



## travelbuff (Apr 15, 2012)

*Proxy Letter*



jjlovecub said:


> I own at the courts but haven't gotten this letter


You should enquire.  The last email we got from Starwood even thanked us in advance for voting YES (which we haven't done and may not.)


----------



## bogey21 (Apr 15, 2012)

If I were an owner here I would be pushing to delay a resolution of this.  My guess is that as the deadline 2020 approaches other alternatives will be put forward from which to choose.

George


----------



## jarta (Apr 16, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> If I were an owner here I would be pushing to delay a resolution of this.  My guess is that as the deadline 2020 approaches other alternatives will be put forward from which to choose.
> 
> George



George,   ...   My guess is your guess is wrong.  The 2 alternatives are right now and will be in 2010:  fractionalized condo - with use rights dictated by a plan or fractionalized condo - with no plan for sorting out usage. 

Why delay?  What alternatives do you think could possibly be proposed by the Association board other than remain a fractionalized condo with a use plan or become a fractionalized condo without a use plan?  I'd love to hear some.

PS  The vote (then or now) will not determine whether Starwwod continues to manage the resort.  Nor, will it abolish the condo system of ownership of the units and common areas.  Nor, will any vote avoid the necessity of management of the property, the necessity of paying taxes, the necessity of insuring the property or the necessity of maintaining the property.   Salty


----------



## dbmarch (Apr 16, 2012)

I think this will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I suspect it will be difficult to get enough votes.   There are typically a lot of owners that will not respond to these questionaire's and then there are the units that have no owners.  Which way do you count them? ( I bet you can't count them).

Since you are really just voting to ammend the rules, I would guess they will try to vote on this ammendment every year until you reach 2020!  If you reach 2020, it sounds like you get to vote for continuation of another 10 years.  If this vote fails, the units get sold and the proceeds divided up to the owners.  Until they are sold, you should be able to use them like you use them now.   Only thing needed is a management company.

Do owners know what percentage of the unit they are entitled to?   For PV, this is displayed when I log into my account.  Our units are not all equal.

Who knows, maybe you will be able to buy a condo in the middle of SVR!


----------



## travelbuff (May 20, 2012)

*Red White or Blue?*

Good Point, I have to check, but I think it is already already one level.




Fredm said:


> Just about every deeded timeshare resort has an expiration of the timeshare plan. Time frames vary, and rules vary by State. But the expiration exists because of the Rule Against Perpetuities.
> 
> Simplistically put, "perpetuity" as in "never ending" does not exist. It must be defined.
> 
> ...


----------



## travelbuff (May 20, 2012)

*Running The Resort*

There would be a management company that is not controlling the owners but that the owners control.





DeniseM said:


> Ride - Just for fun, because it's not going to happen - but if they don't get the votes they need, and all contracts end in 2020 - who will:  check you in, take out the trash, mow the lawn, wash the sheets, and throw out the riff raff?
> 
> How will you get all the owners together to figure out how to run the place?
> 
> Yes, you will still have a piece of paper with your name on it, but who is going to manage and maintain the resort?


----------



## travelbuff (May 20, 2012)

*Can't Sell Anyhow*

We took our kids every year and they loved it and now our grandchildren do, too.  But it is impossible to sell, so the only value is if we use it. When I take a vacation We would prefer not to have to put in a year in advance to exchange. Instead of paying for maintenance and exchange we could take a pretty nice vacation.





bankr63 said:


> Selling isn't that easy, you have to be able to provide clear title to the buyer.  When the TS plan collapses, we would at best have to get enough owners together for each unit to force the others to allow a sale through the courts.  At worst, they would require all 52 owners to agree to sell.  That would have to be done for every condo unit in the development.  Once clear title to the entire development could be determined, then perhaps a buyer could be found.  By the time that all happens my great grandchildren will have spent their entire inheritance trying to get the $1000 that great granddad's timeshare might possibly have been worth out of legal limbo.  It's an impossible proposition!
> 
> Considering how long these things can drag out, I'm not sure that 8 years is enough time to get it done.  I do hope that enough owners respond this time around for quorum, or we are going to be paying to keep asking the same question over and over until 2020.


----------



## bankr63 (Oct 10, 2012)

*Update October 8th Vote*

I guess we'll never know what would have happened.  We recieved the following notice from Vistana Courts Owners Ass'n yesterday:



> Exciting News from Your Courts Association Board of Directors!
> 
> Great News Fellow Courts Owner!
> 
> ...


----------



## Captron (Oct 12, 2012)

Sintargic said:


> It will head up Starwood's timeshare business upon the closing of the transaction and will continue to work for the beautiful Paradise Island in the Bahamas as part of a proposed  one. [spam link deleted]



Um....huh? I believe we were discussing Sheraton Vistana Resort - Courts phase in Orlando Florida. SVR Courts is the oldest of the associations in the Starwood network. Harborside Resort, located on Paradise island is a much newer resort also in the Starwood Network.  Are you confusing the two?  I am not sure what you are referring to here when you say proposed one? 

THANKS DENISE! Feel free to delete this one too.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 12, 2012)

Sintargic is a spammer who brought this thread out of mothballs to post a nonsense post and a commercial link - posts deleted and poster banned.


----------



## Ty1on (Jun 16, 2015)

Ridewithme38 said:


> it is though, right?



I'm no lawyer, but the case goods, their replacement and maintenance have been paid by the owners via maintenance fees and special assessments, so I would guess they would have to remain with the condos.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 16, 2015)

PrestonCaldwell said:


> I'm no lawyer, but the case goods, their replacement and maintenance have been paid by the owners via maintenance fees and special assessments, so I would guess they would have to remain with the condos.



Preston - Just so you know - this is a 2012 thread, and Ridewithme38 was our resident troll at that time, but he isn't very active on TUG any more.


----------



## timesharen00b (Jun 17, 2015)

maybe stupid question but any affect this has on SVV?


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 17, 2015)

timesharen00b said:


> maybe stupid question but any affect this has on SVV?



This is an old thread - old news.


----------

