Resorts take owner to court after 9 years of non payment

[hajjah]

Simply amazing! You Tuggers are the best ever. I'm so thankful that I found TUG back in 1998.

 

[heathpack]

CA allows anti-deficiency judgments even if you lose.

Doesn’t the document state that deficiency judgements apply to timeshares in the state of California so contracts “should” have a provision stating the timeshare company (aka ‘subdivider’) will not seek a deficiency judgement in case of default by the individual owner?

No one should particularly listen to me because I had to google “deficiency judgement”. But this sounds to me like in CA, if you bought a timeshare after 2004 (the year this legislation was enacted), your contract should state that the developer won’t go after you for a deficiency judgement.

Which I believe would apply in the following scenario: you buy a timeshare from a timeshare from the developer in CA for say $50,000. You stop making your payments once you’re say $10,000 in. They foreclose, but can not seek a deficiency judgement for the difference between what you owe ($40,000) what they sell it for (who knows- if it’s Marriott maybe they sell it for $60,000 anyway in which case there would be no deficiency judgement).

I don’t think a deficiency judgement really applies to timeshares that are paid off, then you stop paying and the timeshare is coming after you for delinquent maintenance fees. But I could totally be wrong on this.

 

[Synergy]

I know even less than you, I'm sure - I didn't even Google - but I had been under the impression that the anti-deficiency idea was the exact opposite. I thought the financing were processed as personal loans, not loans for the timeshare. I thought anti deficiency was about the resort not being able to recover past due maintenance fees when they foreclose on ignored ownerships.

 

[Fredflintstone]

Doesn’t the document state that deficiency judgements apply to timeshares in the state of California so contracts “should” have a provision stating the timeshare company (aka ‘subdivider’) will not seek a deficiency judgement in case of default by the individual owner?

No one should particularly listen to me because I had to google “deficiency judgement”. But this sounds to me like in CA, if you bought a timeshare after 2004 (the year this legislation was enacted), your contract should state that the developer won’t go after you for a deficiency judgement.

Which I believe would apply in the following scenario: you buy a timeshare from a timeshare from the developer in CA for say $50,000. You stop making your payments once you’re say $10,000 in. They foreclose, but can not seek a deficiency judgement for the difference between what you owe ($40,000) what they sell it for (who knows- if it’s Marriott maybe they sell it for $60,000 anyway in which case there would be no deficiency judgement).

I don’t think a deficiency judgement really applies to timeshares that are paid off, then you stop paying and the timeshare is coming after you for delinquent maintenance fees. But I could totally be wrong on this.

Deficiency applies to any amount from any source the debt originated from that results in a loss.

For example:

You default on your timeshare. The resort attempts payment through collection efforts for, lets say, 2 years. The resort completes a non judicial foreclosure on the timeshare after 2 years.

The HOA sells the timeshare at Auction and gets 100 dollars. There is no loan on the TS.

BUT.. the MF with penalties, property taxes and late fees add up to 2000.00

Therefore, there is a DEFICIENCY of 1900.00

Anti deficiency means the resort cannot go after you for the 1900 loss.

Here’s a question that might help you. If, let’s say, the old laws say you can park in a certain place but a NEW law was created saying you will now be fined if you park there. Which law do you think NOW applies? Yup, the new law even though the old law said something different and you used to park there in the past.

Hope my examples help.








Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[WackyLucy]

I have nothing to offer to the legal discussion, but am prompted to wonder "aloud" if anyone here can cite any verified instance where any resort or developer has ever actually used the courts and / or filed lien(s) to successfully collect maintenance fees already in arrears for many years. I'm guessing NOT...

Time is money --- particularly attorney time. Personally, I would be inclined to believe (maybe even bet) that the resorts cited by the OP have not actually initiated any "lawsuit", but have likely instead merely issued empty threats to do so. Practically speaking, isn't it a whole lot easier and a lot less expensive for them to just go right ahead and foreclose?

I cannot imagine paying a dumpy and deteriorating timeshare facility 10 years worth of unpaid back maintenance fees when, realistically, all the resort can or will likely ever do (bluster and posturing notwithstanding) is foreclose anyhow.

Just my personal thoughts and opinion, fwiw.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I have nothing to offer to the legal discussion, but am prompted to wonder "aloud" if anyone here can cite any verified instance where any resort or developer has ever actually used the courts and / or filed lien(s) to successfully collect maintenance fees already in arrears for many years. I'm guessing NOT...

Time is money --- particularly attorney time. Personally, I would be inclined to believe (maybe even bet) that the resorts cited by the OP have not actually initiated any "lawsuit", but have likely instead merely issued empty threats to do so. Practically speaking, isn't it a whole lot easier and a lot less expensive for them to just go right ahead and foreclose?

I cannot imagine paying a dumpy and deteriorating timeshare facility 10 years worth of unpaid back maintenance fees when, realistically, all the resort can or will likely ever do (bluster and posturing notwithstanding) is foreclose anyhow.

Just my personal thoughts and opinion, fwiw.

Good points. If they don't even have money to maintain the place, they probably don't have money to hire lawyers other than to pay for paper and postage for them to write nasty letters (aka "bark not bite").

 

[Fredflintstone]

Good points. If they don't even have money to maintain the place, they probably don't have money to hire lawyers other than to pay for paper and postage for them to write nasty letters (aka "bark not bite").

My guess is that’s why resorts are now creating deedback programs. It’s a win win versus threats and intimidation.

Here’s their gain with deedback programs.

1. It’s amicable. The default owner is more open to paying a fee to deedback.
2. Its profitable. Now, the deed can be resold or rent money can be pocketed.
3. It works because all the owner wants to do us get out and if they have an avenue to do that properly, they will usually take it.

And...

That’s why resale is so important. If you pay a buck for your TS, you won’t think twice reselling it for a buck here or in EBay. Conversely, if you paid 20 k, you are resistant to dump it for a buck and prefer to make the resort suffer by defaulting because you felt ripped off in the first place. Or, you are more inclined to use Exit Companies which IMO are not the way to go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[heathpack]

Deficiency applies to any amount from any source the debt originated from that results in a loss.

For example:

You default on your timeshare. The resort attempts payment through collection efforts for, lets say, 2 years. The resort completes a non judicial foreclosure on the timeshare after 2 years.

The HOA sells the timeshare at Auction and gets 100 dollars. There is no loan on the TS.

BUT.. the MF with penalties, property taxes and late fees add up to 2000.00

Therefore, there is a DEFICIENCY of 1900.00

Anti deficiency means the resort cannot go after you for the 1900 loss.

Here’s a question that might help you. If, let’s say, the old laws say you can park in a certain place but a NEW law was created saying you will now be fined if you park there. Which law do you think NOW applies? Yup, the new law even though the old law said something different and you used to park there in the past.

Hope my examples help.








Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol, no your examples do not help at all, actually. And I'm a person with pretty good reading comprehension.

When I googled, the definition of "deficiency" I found had to do with real estate principle and interest but not penalties. Hence my specific example- I really don't know and would defer to you on specifics, but yes I understand the basic concept.

When I read the document linked to in @Grammarhero's post, my understanding is that in CA timeshare debt is the type of debt for which a developer/HOA/management company *could* pursue a deficiency judgement BUT obviously the authors of that TS law didn't like that so the law states that TS contracts "should" have a provision that a deficiency judgement will not be pursued.

So the TS law in CA is "anti-deficiency". That makes sense.

I have no idea how your parking example relates to what I'm saying. But I don't think its worth explaining because I think it doesn't really have anything to do with the core concept here.

@Grammarhero refers to an "anti-deficiency judgement" in his post but its not clear to me what that is, actually. I understand what a "deficiency judgement" is but not an "anti-deficiency judgement". If the developer/HOA/management company cannot pursue a deficiency judgement, why would there ever be any kind of judgement in the case, let alone an "anti-deficiency judgement"?

 

[Grammarhero]

Lol, no your examples do not help at all, actually. And I'm a person with pretty good reading comprehension.

When I googled, the definition of "deficiency" I found had to do with real estate principle and interest but not penalties. Hence my specific example- I really don't know and would defer to you on specifics, but yes I understand the basic concept.

When I read the document linked to in @Grammarhero's post, my understanding is that in CA timeshare debt is the type of debt for which a developer/HOA/management company *could* pursue a deficiency judgement BUT obviously the authors of that TS law didn't like that so the law states that TS contracts "should" have a provision that a deficiency judgement will not be pursued.

So the TS law in CA is "anti-deficiency". That makes sense.

I have no idea how your parking example relates to what I'm saying. But I don't think its worth explaining because I think it doesn't really have anything to do with the core concept here.

@Grammarhero refers to an "anti-deficiency judgement" in his post but its not clear to me what that is, actually. I understand what a "deficiency judgement" is but not an "anti-deficiency judgement". If the developer/HOA/management company cannot pursue a deficiency judgement, why would there ever be any kind of judgement in the case, let alone an "anti-deficiency judgement"?

Instead of asking us what we mean or questioning why we are using certain language, can’t you just research and google beforehand? This are google results for “anti-deficiency judgment.”

@Fredflintstone trying to explain legal issues to laymen can be frustrating.

 

[Grammarhero]

I have nothing to offer to the legal discussion, but am prompted to wonder "aloud" if anyone here can cite any verified instance where any resort or developer has ever actually used the courts and / or filed lien(s) to successfully collect maintenance fees already in arrears for many years. I'm guessing NOT...

Time is money --- particularly attorney time. Personally, I would be inclined to believe (maybe even bet) that the resorts cited by the OP have not actually initiated any "lawsuit", but have likely instead merely issued empty threats to do so. Practically speaking, isn't it a whole lot easier and a lot less expensive for them to just go right ahead and foreclose?

I cannot imagine paying a dumpy and deteriorating timeshare facility 10 years worth of unpaid back maintenance fees when, realistically, all the resort can or will likely ever do (bluster and posturing notwithstanding) is foreclose anyhow.

Just my personal thoughts and opinion, fwiw.

In these TUG threads, tuggers reported liens

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...-notice-of-default-and-intent-to-sell.295884/
https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...fees-what-happened.296893/page-4#post-2354111

An elderly lady lost her home after buying 7 Wyndham TS and 1 Westgate TS, all retail. Looks like they ganged up to take the woman’s home. https://www.tugbbs.com/forums/index...ds-to-unload-wyndham-and-hilton.292420/page-3

 

[Grammarhero]

Lol, no your examples do not help at all, actually. And I'm a person with pretty good reading comprehension.

When I googled, the definition of "deficiency" I found had to do with real estate principle and interest but not penalties. Hence my specific example- I really don't know and would defer to you on specifics, but yes I understand the basic concept.

When I read the document linked to in @Grammarhero's post, my understanding is that in CA timeshare debt is the type of debt for which a developer/HOA/management company *could* pursue a deficiency judgement BUT obviously the authors of that TS law didn't like that so the law states that TS contracts "should" have a provision that a deficiency judgement will not be pursued.

So the TS law in CA is "anti-deficiency". That makes sense.

I have no idea how your parking example relates to what I'm saying. But I don't think its worth explaining because I think it doesn't really have anything to do with the core concept here.

@Grammarhero refers to an "anti-deficiency judgement" in his post but its not clear to me what that is, actually. I understand what a "deficiency judgement" is but not an "anti-deficiency judgement". If the developer/HOA/management company cannot pursue a deficiency judgement, why would there ever be any kind of judgement in the case, let alone an "anti-deficiency judgement"?

An anti-deficiency judgment is a judicial judgment for which the judge finds the defaulting TS owners liable up to the sale price of their TS, but not any deficiency. Let's say a defaulting DVC owner owes $15k on his/her mortgage and $1.5k on MF. Let's say the DVC TS sells for $10k at a CA judicial foreclosure sale. The anti-deficiency judgment would be that the defaulting TS owner is liable for that $10k, but not the $6.5k deficient amount. Couldn't you have just google this, instead of my having to explain to you?

 

[Fredflintstone]

Instead of asking us what we mean or questioning why we are using certain language, can’t you just research and google beforehand? This are google results for “anti-deficiency judgment” shows.

@Fredflintstone trying to explain legal issues to laymen can be frustrating.

@Grammarhero is right. We are not trying to give legal advice. We always encourage you do your own homework and seek legal advice if you need clarification.

If you are confused, it is up to you to get clarification from your own research and seeking a qualified legal professional in your area.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Grammarhero]

Lol, no your examples do not help at all, actually. And I'm a person with pretty good reading comprehension.

When I googled, the definition of "deficiency" I found had to do with real estate principle and interest but not penalties. Hence my specific example- I really don't know and would defer to you on specifics, but yes I understand the basic concept.

When I read the document linked to in @Grammarhero's post, my understanding is that in CA timeshare debt is the type of debt for which a developer/HOA/management company *could* pursue a deficiency judgement BUT obviously the authors of that TS law didn't like that so the law states that TS contracts "should" have a provision that a deficiency judgement will not be pursued.

So the TS law in CA is "anti-deficiency". That makes sense.

I have no idea how your parking example relates to what I'm saying. But I don't think its worth explaining because I think it doesn't really have anything to do with the core concept here.

@Grammarhero refers to an "anti-deficiency judgement" in his post but its not clear to me what that is, actually. I understand what a "deficiency judgement" is but not an "anti-deficiency judgement". If the developer/HOA/management company cannot pursue a deficiency judgement, why would there ever be any kind of judgement in the case, let alone an "anti-deficiency judgement"?

If you have a problem with the term "anti-deficiency judgment" as inaccurate or confusing, please kindly email the CA Dept. of Real Estate, which uses the same language.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

IMO I am a layperson, and completely understood what you said so much appreciated. I believe the confusion is coming in because anti-deficiency is frequently associated with primary home mortgages from the 2008 crisis and not with TS maintenance fees.

However, I thought @Fredflintstone definition was crystal clear that MF is also part of it because that's a deficiency in which the TS lost $$$.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

LOL

Rule 1: Never argue with a lawyer...

Rule 2: Never argue with a lawyer...

 

[Grammarhero]

IMO I am a layperson, and completely understood what you said so much appreciated. I believe the confusion is coming in because anti-deficiency is frequently associated with primary home mortgages from the 2008 crisis and not with TS maintenance fees.

However, I thought @Fredflintstone definition was crystal clear that MF is also part of it because that's a deficiency that the TS lost $$$.


View attachment 15451

A simple click on the SC and FL TS law links would have revealed that MF, taxes, late fees, special assessments, trustee or attorney fees, and other lien penalties can be considered part of deficiency judgments.

 

[Grammarhero]

LOL

Rule 1: Never argue with a lawyer...

Rule 2: Never argue with a lawyer...

It's okay to argue with a lawyer. We just ask that people bring some knowledge or do adequate research beforehand, so that we are not arguing over basic issues.

 

[Fredflintstone]

It's okay to argue with a lawyer. We just ask that people bring some knowledge or do adequate research beforehand, so that we are not arguing over basic issues.

Funny you mentioned that. When I was in University doing an argument project, I thought I could just wing the argument without anything to back up what I was arguing.

I was slaughtered so bad, I made sure to never do it again! It was the best lesson I think I could ever have had.

After that slaughter fiasco, I always have the docs to back up my point or I will just .

I would rather lose an argument then argue unprepared.

Actually, it’s a great life lesson no matter what you do for a living.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[heathpack]

Instead of asking us what we mean or questioning why we are using certain language, can’t you just research and google beforehand? This are google results for “anti-deficiency judgment.”

@Fredflintstone trying to explain legal issues to laymen can be frustrating.

If its not worth your time, then don't do it. Life is too short to be frustrated by your TUG posts.

I spend all day long explaining things to laypeople myself, so I don't jump in to every veterinary-related discussion on TUG. It takes a lot of time to express yourself in lay terms when you don't necessarily think in lay terms.

 

[tgropp]

I live in Canada and owned at Beachplace Towers in Fort Lauderdale. I got sick of paying hurricane damage on top of maintenance fees and was considering just stopping the MF payments. I contacted them and we came to an agreement that they would just take it off my hands with no monetary fines or fees. Win Win for me.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

The states that have non-judicial, anti-deficiency push the developers and HOAs to be more responsible about exit. Developers/HOA will be more likely to negotiate a deal and take back the timeshare if they know that all they will recover is the timeshare.

The challenge is the FL and SC laws incent people to be non-responsive out of fear of giving up their anti-deficiency right. Or it may cause unscrupulous developers/HOAs to bait unsuspecting owners into objecting to foreclosure and thus unknowingly waiving their rights so the developer can recover more than just the timeshare.

 

[wolfrs]

I will be as brief as possible. My sister has a unit at Ocean Villas Beach & Racquet Club in Myrtle Beach. I gave her the unit over 20 years ago. She decided she didn't want to travel there anymore because of the condition of the condo, so she stopped paying the fees in 2009. She is now being sued for non payment of the fees. She also has the same problem with Shawnee in the Poconos, which she got on Ebay for $1 about 20 years ago as well. Is there a statue of limitation when it comes to non payment of the fees? She thought everything was ok all these years, but now this is not the case. Both of these places have gone down tremendously over the years. My sister thinks that she can submit a Quit Claim Deed now and be free of both resorts. Is this information correct?

 

[wolfrs]

I will be as brief as possible. My sister has a unit at Ocean Villas Beach & Racquet Club in Myrtle Beach. I gave her the unit over 20 years ago. She decided she didn't want to travel there anymore because of the condition of the condo, so she stopped paying the fees in 2009. She is now being sued for non payment of the fees. She also has the same problem with Shawnee in the Poconos, which she got on Ebay for $1 about 20 years ago as well. Is there a statue of limitation when it comes to non payment of the fees? She thought everything was ok all these years, but now this is not the case. Both of these places have gone down tremendously over the years. My sister thinks that she can submit a Quit Claim Deed now and be free of both resorts. Is this information correct?

 

[wolfrs]

Instead of trying to figure out how someone can walk away from a timeshare without ruining their credit, or weasel on the amount owed due to statutes, how about the owner just contact the Association and negotiate a deed back for a fee to cover the cost of preparation and recordation. Geez, when a timeshare owner defaults, the other owners have to cover the delinquency and eventually the cost of foreclosure by the Association. After owning 2 timeshares for 20 years, is it right to recommend she just default and stick her fellow owners with the cost?

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Instead of trying to figure out how someone can walk away from a timeshare without ruining their credit, or weasel on the amount owed due to statutes, how about the owner just contact the Association and negotiate a deed back for a fee to cover the cost of preparation and recordation. Geez, when a timeshare owner defaults, the other owners have to cover the delinquency and eventually the cost of foreclosure by the Association. After owning 2 timeshares for 20 years, is it right to recommend she just default and stick her fellow owners with the cost?

Yes but this OPs ship already sailed in 2010. Contacting the HOA with what you described could forfeit her legal right to anti-deficiency and they could go after much more than the cost of prep and recording.