I sold my timeshare!

[AwayWeGo]

HOA-BODs Pay Maintenance Fees In Hard Times? Who Knew?

But i'm surprised that so many people are still doing it even with the BOD's offering to pay their MF's during hard times

I have never heard of any timeshare HOA-BOD offering to pay owners' maintenance fees during hard times or any time.

In fact, the very idea of that is the most unheard of thing I've ever heard of.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[TUGBrian]

Im not sure how you can both be on the side of "helping owners financially"...and also "walking away from obligations"

these are two fundamentally opposite stances, as the latter does nothing but directly hurt owners.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Healthy Reserve Fund Is The Best Insurance Against Special Assessments.

am i mistaking what the reserve fund is for

Timeshare reserve funds are not for bailing out distressed or delinquent owners. Reserve funds are not to be tapped to cover operating budget shortfalls. Reserve funds are not slush funds.

Timeshare reserve funds are what pays for future scheduled renovations & capital improvements & big-ticket replacements (roofs, pools, HVAC, paving, elevators, etc.).

Timeshare & condo HOAs that skimp on reserve funds are apt to hit up the owners for special assessments when it's time for major serious repairs or even routine renovations.

Shux upon'm. (HOAs that settle for inadequate reserve funds, I mean.)

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[vacationhopeful]

... i'm surprised that so many people are still doing it even with the BOD's offering to pay their MF's during hard times, why deal with creditors over a temporary funds situation, when the help is being offered, or am i mistaking what the reserve fund is for...its not to help the Owners...its for personal BOD gain

The reserve fund is for necessary items like a broken/rebuilt elevator (costing maybe $235,000), water chiller on the roof (say $500,000) or excess utilities or insurance increases. It is the emergency fund for the resort.

 

[timeos2]

But i'm surprised that so many people are still doing it even with the BOD's offering to pay their MF's during hard times, why deal with creditors over a temporary funds situation, when the help is being offered, or am i mistaking what the reserve fund is for...its not to help the Owners

?? The reserves are, like virtually all money the Association has/collects, owners money specifically collected to cover capital costs and improvements to the resort that have a life of over 1 year. It has nothing to do with "help" to delinquent owners. In fact like taxes they must be fully funded as budgeted so any delinquent accounts once again cost the other owners more as the funds must be paid for the reserve contribution whether or not the account owner pays that years reserve fee (or tax amount). It all means higher fees for the paying owners. It is one f many reasons why those that don't pay must be held responsible for what they bought/agreed to until they legally transfer that responsibility and ownership to someone new.

...its for personal BOD gain

??? Personal BOD gain? The BOD represents the owners and make / own nothing more than every other owner does (except the time and effort they give up serving on the Board). What gain is there to be had?

 

[mstoyanov]

Denise buying or disposing of timeshare is purely financial decision and should be treated as such. There is nothing moral or immoral about this and such decisions should be made purely on financial analysis for each individual.
I don't like paying bad debt from bailing owners too but I will never blame owners that want to abandon their ownerships since my only motive is also selfish (desire to pay less MFs). There is nothing immoral for owner to stop paying MFs or dump it to entity like PCCs and everyone needs to make that decision on his own. Of course one should take in consideration the negative consequences of such decision - damaged credit and/or foreclosure or huge sum it takes to pay PCCs.
And it is time for the BODs of the resort HOAs to wake up and pull their heads from the sand and recognize that Post Card Companies are here to stay and they have to fight with them much more effectively than adding a small warning in their notes.
PCCs provide service (very expensive though) that some people may find needed when resorts refuse deedbacks.
As a minimum HOA should really offer to the timeshare owners exactly what PCCs offer - to accept deedback in exchange of sum equal or less to what PCCs charge. If owners at given resort know openly that they can deed back their week in exchange of specific payment to the resort there will be much less desire for deedbacks from older people that are afraid to leave "something that will only burden their heirs" which are the primary target of the PCCs.
And this way resorts should have weeks back much faster without the expensive judicial foreclosure and will have money collected from such "deedback fees" to hire someone to actually try to sell or rent these weeks (for whatever these can be rented/sold).
And no I also do not agree that resorts should simply accept deedbacks for free since there is a real cost to dispose of worthless weeks. Or if resort already own too much weeks HOA should lead a strong campaign to dissolve timeshare and turn it to a whole ownership or sell the underlying real estate.

It's not the same thing - we are not talking about a business investment.

Based on the posts we get here from people who "want out," it becomes obvious that not all of them have a financial hardship. It seems like many of them just made a ill-advised purchase in the first place, and now they want an easy out.

When you walk away from your home, the other people on your street don't have to make your mortgage payment.

 

[TUGBrian]

I agree, resorts shoudl indeed adopt a similar strategy to the PCC's...just with less deception and tax fraud!

expecting non-judicial foreclosure to solve all the problems is a very poor idea IMO.

 

[DeniseM]

Denise buying or disposing of timeshare is purely financial decision and should be treated as such. There is nothing moral or immoral about this and such decisions should be made purely on financial analysis for each individual.

We will have to agree to disagree on this - when I make decisions, it's not just based on finances. YMMV

 

[e.bram]

What is the difference between a PCC and points club like Festiva, Innseason etc, where the trust takes control of the property and might eventually go belly up(by members defaulting) leaving TSes with a large(worse than PCCs) deficit of MFs. Their business model is very sililar.

 

[mstoyanov]

DeniseM,

So basically driven by your selfish desire to pay less MFs you are ready to declare other people actions immoral just because they are guided by the same selfish interests? I am sorry but in my opinion there is nothing immoral to try to make the best personal financial decision as long as you don't violate laws.
Exactly the same way as these people know that they should bare the consequences of decision to stop paying or dump a timeshare they have no use so should people making the decision to continue owning that resort.
Timeshares are not charities and that is why there are rules and provisions established when each condominium is created. Non payment of MFs is the same thing as non payment of any other debt - it should not be taken lightly since it caries a heavy consequences but this has nothing to do with moral.
And often it is HOAs fault that in many cases instead of providing the intervals with MFs not paid for the current year to the owners of the resort for the cost of such delinquent fees such intervals are given to developers and other commercial entities without adequate compensations of the association (even resorts that are very easy rental for the cost of MFs like WKORV and WSJ).

We will have to agree to disagree on this - when I make decisions, it's not just based on finances. YMMV

 

[DeniseM]

Wow! Really? I'd "selfish" because I don't want to pay OTHER PEOPLE'S maintenance fees? That's a stretch.

Let me give you an example of how "selfish" I am:

I haven't had a budget for my classroom for several years, so out of pocket, I pay a couple thousand dollars every year for classroom materials for my students. I don't have to do that - but it makes learning more fun and interesting for them. (That's after taking big pay cuts 2 years in a row.)

After my mom's estate closed, we discovered some unpaid bills - I paid them out of pocket - that's what my mom would have wanted.

Recently my son's tutor (a struggling single mom) came to me and said her pet had been hurt and she had a big vet bill she couldn't pay - I gave her $300.

Before I forget - I am an unpaid volunteer on TUG and I've put in thousands of hours here just because I like to help people and it's fun.

Yep - I'm definitely selfish!

 

[mstoyanov]

DeniseM - your big mistake is that you consider these "OTHER PEOPLE'S" maintenance fees which these are not. These are YOUR maintenance fees (and MINE too) as a person that chooses to still own the resort rather than dump it. These are MFs that are needed for the resort to run - there simply are less owners left after weeks are foreclosed or deeded back to the resort.
As for the unpaid maintenance fees for the current weeks that are not yet foreclosed - HOA should obtain possession for these as soon as owner become delinquent and try to recover at least maintenance fees (or as much as it is possible for blue/white week) by offering it to other owners first.

You are probably not selfish person in general but you are guided by the same motives by your desire to pay less MFs as the people that abandon their ownerships. So think about this before trying to chastise these people.

Wow! Really? I'd "selfish" because I don't want to pay OTHER PEOPLE'S maintenance fees? That's a stretch.

Let me give you an example of how "selfish" I am:

I haven't had a budget for my classroom for several years so out of pocket, I pay a couple thousand dollars every year for classroom materials for my students. I don't have to do that - but it makes learning more fun and interesting for them. (That's after taking big pay cuts 2 years in a row.)

After my mom's estate closed, we discovered some unpaid bills - I paid them out of pocket - that's what my mom would have wanted.

Recently my son's tutor (a struggling single mom) came to me and said her pet had been hurt and she had a big vet bill she couldn't pay - I gave her $300.

Before I forget - I am an unpaid volunteer on TUG and I've put in thousands of hours here just because I like to help people and it's fun.

Yep - I'm definitely selfish!

 

[timeos2]

DeniseM - your big mistake is that you consider these "OTHER PEOPLE'S" maintenance fees which these are not. These are YOUR maintenance fees (and MINE too) as a person that chooses to still own the resort rather than dump it. These are MFs that are needed for the resort to run - there simply are less owners left after weeks are foreclosed or deeded back to the resort.
As for the unpaid maintenance fees for the current weeks that are not yet foreclosed - HOA should obtain possession for these as soon as owner become delinquent and try to recover at least maintenance fees (or as much as it is possible for blue/white week) by offering it to other owners first.

You are probably not selfish person in general but you are guided by the same motives by your desire to pay less MFs as the people that abandon their ownerships. So think about this before trying to chastise these people.

And your mistake is assuming there is a "right" to abandon - for unwilling others to pay for- an ownership & rights you freely accepted & agreed to. Including paying all fees due until properly transferred to a new owner. Nothing in the docs lets any owner "just walk away". Hit them with every club possible until they do what they agreed to. No free rides.

 

[DeniseM]

I don't agree. When I get my maintenance fee bill and there are several hundred dollars clearly listed for "delinquent" maintenance fees - it's definitely NOT my maintenance fee.

Frankly, I resent being called "selfish," and name calling is a violation of the TUG rule of courtesy - so I'm done here.

 

[TUGBrian]

There is a big differnence between "not paying" because you dont have money to put food on the table...

and "not paying" because you simply dont like the arrangement any longer...yet have plenty of means to pay your share...

and even "not paying" because you want to continue to pay for plasma tv's, credit cards, the latest smartphone, a new laptop, a new car every few years, etc etc.

for people that flat out cannot pay because they have no money to do so is one thing.

people that choose NOT to pay...or choose to pay for other luxury items instead....are absolutely placing their own debt squarely on the shoulders of the remaining owners for frivilous reasons.

Do you go to dinner with your friends and then just get up and expect them all to pay because you didnt like the food?

 

[mstoyanov]

timeos2,
I fully agree with "Hit them with every club possible" part as of what is legally allowed. They should bare the responsibility of their actions.
But to try to make this a moral issue? This was never a moral issue - it was enterprise from the moment resort was created and condominium declaration written and current laws specifically state what you can and what you can not do.
Damage their credit and foreclose as soon it is clear they will not get current on MFs.
But don't try to make this moral issue - this has nothing to do with moral.
It is exactly the same as not paying your credit card debt.
But a good strategy is the one not only using a stick - it is one that also offer a carrot. If they want to pay $3-$4K to dispose of that timeshare to PCCs offer it to them for at least the same. Otherwise the resort will still end up with unpaid weeks that you need to foreclose instead of collecting these $3-$4k in its budget.

And your mistake is assuming there is a "right" to abandon - for unwilling others to pay for- an ownership & rights you freely accepted & agreed to. Including paying all fees due until properly transferred to a new owner. Nothing in the docs lets any owner "just walk away". Hit them with every club possible until they do what they agreed to. No free rides.

 

[mstoyanov]

TUGBrian,
Debt repayment obligations are not and should not be a moral issue. They are legal issue and should be treated as such.
Imagine in a resort where you own some company/point club purchase 50% of the intervals and replace HOA BOD with its own one and decide to raise MFs to $10,000 per week without substantially improving the resort and at the same time pay 90% of these fees as a "Management fee" to the same company/point club?
Will you still consider keeping that week or will you chose to dump it to the PCC?
I personally do not consider my right to judge what person can and can not afford to pay. As for restaurant analogy - my friends are not supposed to pay. I owe money to the restaurant and if we notified waiter that bill will be separate restaurant has full right to try to collect money from me with all legal means.

There is a big differnence between "not paying" because you dont have money to put food on the table...

and "not paying" because you simply dont like the arrangement any longer...yet have plenty of means to pay your share...

and even "not paying" because you want to continue to pay for plasma tv's, credit cards, the latest smartphone, a new laptop, a new car every few years, etc etc.

for people that flat out cannot pay because they have no money to do so is one thing.

people that choose NOT to pay...or choose to pay for other luxury items instead....are absolutely placing their own debt squarely on the shoulders of the remaining owners for frivilous reasons.

Do you go to dinner with your friends and then just get up and expect them all to pay because you didnt like the food?

 

[ocean401]

Well, LindaLee's story differs from others in that she actually got some leads as a result of her listing. Virtually all other people who come here talking about these companies (other than the shills) say they listed with the company and heard absolutely nothing afterward.

One problem with those sites is that in order to make an inquiry you have to make an offer and some even require a phone number. When I was looking, I never responded to any ad that required my phone number. And the ones that didn't require a number, I'd fill out the form and list my questions only to receive a generic email response that would say if I had any specific questions to email so-and-so.
So I don't think its that the ads don't generate potential buyers, its that these selling sites are so idiotic that interested buyers give up.

 

[e.bram]

If there is a management change during your ownership(as noted above) I believe you have both the legal and moral right to abandon.

 

[mstoyanov]

You have neither legal nor moral right to abandon timeshare regardless of the change of management or not. You have moral issue when someone lie or cheat on you, not when you deal with property/legal matter. You may claim being lied to when you initially bough property from developer since a lot of timeshare salesmen do lie but that is why the law in every state gives you rescind period. Timeshares are probably the only product that is sold with such huge amount of lies but lawmakers recognize that and that is why you have these rescind laws. Even in Mexico you have state laws that gives you such rescind period.
As for the legal issues I know of no timeshare/condominium that gives you the right to abandon property anytime. Of course you are free to disregard your contractual obligations but be prepared to face the consequences.

If there is a management change during your ownership(as noted above) I believe you have both the legal and moral right to abandon.

 

[Ridewithme38]

T
Imagine in a resort where you own some company/point club purchase 50% of the intervals and replace HOA BOD with its own one and decide to raise MFs to $10,000 per week without substantially improving the resort and at the same time pay 90% of these fees as a "Management fee" to the same company/point club?
Will you still consider keeping that week or will you chose to dump it to the PCC?

This is a valid point...What if its raised to 15k, 20k, 100k a year....For those that believe its a moral issue...is there a price point when it isn't anymore? Or is there a price point where you give up on your morals? At some point it just doesn't make financial sense to keep the week anymore....and lets face it, no one could sell a 10k a year MF TS....

Why is it morally ok to walk away from that...but not for the poorer person to walk away from a lower number?

 

[timeos2]

This is a valid point...What if its raised to 15k, 20k, 100k a year....For those that believe its a moral issue...is there a price point when it isn't anymore? Or is there a price point where you give up on your morals? At some point it just doesn't make financial sense to keep the week anymore....and lets face it, no one could sell a 10k a year MF TS....

Why is it morally ok to walk away from that...but not for the poorer person to walk away from a lower number?

Anyone can "walk away" from any legal obligation, which in timeshares the fees most certainly are an obligation. If they do they have to expect negative consequences just like walking out on any financial obligation - say credit card or mortgage - would produce. The timeshare Association that doesn't create the maximum allowable negative consequences for any delinquents, and that doesn't do it in a very timely way, has a death wish. The fees are the very lifeblood of every Association and nothing else including foreclosures can occur of the cash flow isn't there.

So while it appears our society is more forgiving today of those who for any reason decide to default on payments they obligated themselves to (due largely to serious abuses by some very large players in various financial sectors) that still doesn't change the fact that the obligation exists. And that in the case of condo/timeshares it is your fellow owners that pay the price of your decision to "walk away". Do so at your own risk and expect the others to take any all measures they can to make it a very bad choice.

We all entered into the agreement by choice and with the expectation that the terms would be honored. Perceived or real wrongs by the developer and/or management does nothing to change that obligation as the other owners also depended on it (and you). The paying owners are living up to the promises and you are expected to as well. Or properly transfer it to someone that will. It can be done but may take more work than the simple walk requires.

 

[bilfbr245]

If enough people walk away from their timeshare obligations, it will inititally be a very difficult problem for the timeshare marketplace, but ultimately it will be a good thing. Enlightened timeshare organizations will respond appropriately to reorganize on a much more stable basis. This is the free market process working.

We can say over and over again that we think that people should uphold their obligations, but ultimately many will decide what to do without seeking our advice. As MF's climb and the reality of being stuck forever sinks in more and more, people will decide to do this despite our moral and ethical compunctions about it. This is the future. The problem is in the product itself. A high MF low demand timeshare whose obligations go on forever has no right to exist. We owners of prime and economic timeshare units have no right to be subsidized forever by these victims, despite that fact that someone once did sign on the dotted line. Maybe we can prolong the misery somewhat by lecturing people about personal responsibility and counseling these owners on how best to dump their units on unsuspecting buyers. But is this really a good strategy? Eventually the system will fall apart anyway, and that is a good thing for the long term stability of the timeshare market. I still would like to think that a better alternative would be to start planning for this now, but if not, and I just get subsidized another decade or so by these poor unfortnuates, well so be it.

 

[msprisrn]

Scam

I also gave money away to a group called Vacation Realty International where they said that they had a buyer for my timeshare and should received my payoff for the timeshare by the end of February or the middle of March. I have seen where this same group (after the fact-Resort Group Sales) has done this same thing to other individuals. Does anyone have any idea who I shoudl contact to start a class action suit again this group and would anyone else be inteested in pursuing this to obtain their fund back?

 

[timeos2]

We owners of prime and economic timeshare units have no right to be subsidized forever by these victims, despite that fact that someone once did sign on the dotted line. Maybe we can prolong the misery somewhat by lecturing people about personal responsibility. But eventually the system will fall apart, and that is a good thing for the long term stability of the timeshare market. I still would like to think that a better alternative would be to start planning for this now, but if not, and I just get subsidized another decade or so by these poor unfortnuates, well so be it.

Ah - we have an area of agreement! I do believe that those resorts in seasonal areas that refuse to take steps to give intrinsic value to the poor times and instead continue to demand that RCI/II support them through unwarranted trades (largely gone now with the changes to open values & points exposing that sham) and or equal fees from the poor demand times basically subsidizing the prime time owners ARE being greedy & selfish. They need to acknowledge that fees have to be in line with value either by adjusting them up for prime time & down for lesser times and/or creating features that give the resort year round appeal. Both ideas are even better together.

Sticking their heads in the sand and saying the poor time owners owe is a bad choice and will lead to defaults - in that case I understand it even if I can't defend it as a choice. That is bad Association management IMO and can be addressed. That type of action is much better than a general call to "default if you get tired of it" that unfortunately seems to be the approach of some here (not pointing at you just in general comment). Look for real answers not the simple bromides like "cut costs" (I'm still waiting fro e.Bram to deliver that magical list!) and "walk away" to address complex issues. Thanks for the input. We're getting toward some real answers now I think