[2008] What happens if I just quit paying my maintenance fees?

[CarGuy2003]

... but you have the obligation to pay because you signed a contract stating that you would pay.

As far as I can figure out, no contract is signed by an owner of a timeshare who purchased it for cash (or received it for free) secondhand. The deed conveys obligations. But, it does NOT convey an obligation to own it forever and pay. If it was deeded in 2005 and dues were $390/year, and now in 2010 they're $610/year and the owner no longer chooses (or is able to) to own it and pay for said maintenance, the owner has made no commitment to do so. Any legal way of divesting it is acceptable. If it has no value and can't be given away, and the resort won't accept it, then using a company who will accept title for a price may be the best option.

For the person who accuses me of coming to this forum to promote a scheme, that's unfair and not correct. I'm trying to think out loud, in this forum, to find a solution for persons in this difficult situation.

I DO take responsibility for my choices. I teach my kids the same. BUT, I'm also not going to bullied into a responsibility that does not exist. That's what I'm trying to figure out here. Does a responsibility exist? It appears there is NO legal obligation to keep a free and clear timeshare I don't want. If the resort won't take it back, some of you appear to be arguing that the "Social Contract" requires I continue to pay. I disagree. By the way, at one timeshare in question, I'll be continuing to own 2 timeshares just as I divest of two, so I'm sitting in both shoes, those of the continuing owner and those of the divestor.

 

[theo]

'Round and 'round we continue to go...

As far as I can figure out, no contract is signed by an owner of a timeshare who purchased it for cash (or received it for free) secondhand..... The deed conveys obligations. But, it does NOT convey an obligation to own it forever and pay.

This thread seems to have become something of a circular discussion going 'round and 'round and 'round, but imho Dave H has already best described and summarized all of the pertinent legal details (see post #23 above) of why your position, as quoted in relevant part above, is simply incorrect.

In most private resales (i.e., those with no developer, company or broker involvement), it is relatively rare for a "signed contract" to exist at all at any point in the transaction. Nonetheless, the underlying governing documents of the timeshare, clearly referenced within the deed, still prevail and apply not one iota less to such a "private resale" new owner after the recording of a valid deed transferring the ownership. In short, the presence or absence of a "signed contract" is simply irrelevant. Upon acceptance of the timeshare ownership (whether for "free" or for big bucks consideration is equally irrelevant), the new owner clearly also "owns" all of the associated obligations until that new owner lawfully parts with his/her ownership.

The "social contract" aspect of this discussion is a matter of personal opinion. The permanency and certainty of ownership obligations however is instead clearly a matter of established law, unaffected by personal opinions, objections, or viewpoints. Increasing maintenance fees, albeit always unwelcome by any owner, do not in any way impact the validity or permanency of the ownership and / or its' associated legal obligations.

It's clear that you would like the answers and / or facts of the matter to be different, but endless discussion or defense of your position won't alter the facts of the matter, unpalatable as they may be to you.

 

[e.bram]

I agree with CarGuy2003, so far no one has presented a case for personal obligation vis a vis MFs.
Theo: contracts being signed is irrelevant, why have a signature line on them?

 

[theo]

The TUG "ignore" feature is wonderful, but...

Theo: contracts being signed is irrelevant, why have a signature line on them?

...in this instance I unfortunately saw your post before remembering to first log on to TUG, so the "ignore" feature (put in place long ago for any and all of your drivel postings) was not yet "turned on".
That mistake certainly won't be repeated anytime soon...

As usual, you miss (...or choose to simply ignore, or to just completely misinterpret) the point entirely...

Yes, a formal written contract does indeed customarily have "signature lines". My point was (and still remains) that a signed, written contract is NEVER ACTUALLY REQUIRED AT ALL to lawfully effect a timeshare ownership transfer. The absence of any such contract is completely irrelevant when a valid deed is prepared and recorded and accepted and ownership obligations thereby transferred.

Get it yet??? I can't actually draw you a picture here, so try your best to somehow comprehend.

 

[e.bram]

Theo: The cites?

 

[Talent312]

No, CarGuy, there is nothing in-writing that requires you keep and pay the TS forever and you are free to dispose of it. However, the trick is to dispose of it in a manner that meets the requirements for transfer on the books of the resort, such that the transfer is approved and your name removed as the owner of record.

Sure, the deed may transfer liability for the MF's to a new owner, but that won't necessarily stop the resort from hounding you. Its only after the resort transfers the ownership on its books that they will let you "off the hook." IOW, if a foreclosure action is filed, you may still expect to be named as a defendant 'cuz, as far as they are concerned, you still have an interest that needs to be "foreclosed."

 

[e.bram]

If you want to get rid of the TS, why would you care if they foreclosed on your interest?

 

[Dave H]

I agree with CarGuy2003, so far no one has presented a case for personal obligation vis a vis MFs.
Theo: contracts being signed is irrelevant, why have a signature line on them?

Here, you agreed to it when you ACCEPTED the DEED..... there is your case law. Subject to the following:

DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM

of course you can always join the black helicopter theorist, renounce your citizenship become a soverign person, and never have to be bothered with it our any other legal obligation you have. That is, if you believe that to be the case. I understand there is an organization in Florida that for $4,000 will help you do that, and then you can quit paying for your house to and argue with the court that as a soverign citizen, they lack jurisdiction to remove you from your home.:rofl: :hysterical:

 

[e.bram]

DaveH:
Please cite the case law. That is what myself and CarGuy are looking for. Not pontification and conjecture.(given by Theo, Denise et al)

 

[DeniseM]

This all boils down to one simple question:

If this is such an easy way to get rid of a timeshare, why do you just TALK ABOUT IT - why haven't you done it? :deadhorse:

 

[Fredm]

DaveH:
Please cite the case law. That is what myself and CarGuy are looking for. Not pontification and conjecture.(given by Theo, Denise et al)

No, No.
If there is case law supporting your position, you should state it.

The rest of us have already clearly stated why your position has no defensible basis.
In so doing, sample and specific verbiage has been referenced to underscore why.

You know, the folks here on TUG have offered advice to help others from making mistakes that can be costly and damaging. If you wish to constructively contribute to the dialog, then offer similar concrete reasons for your disagreement. Not what you misguidedly choose to believe because it is convenient to a baseless argument.

Absent that, argue your position with a judge and let us know how it turns out. Nothing will impress us more than to see the courage of your convictions in action.
You prove your case. Our statements have been reinforced thousands of times by the actions of the laws you choose to disagree with.

BTW, signatures on a contract have nothing to do with the the transfer of rights and obligations of real estate. The signatures permit the buyer and seller to enforce the terms of the contract with one another. The buyer promises to perform and the seller promises to sell, all subject to the terms of the contract (time frames, contingencies, liquidated damages, amount, remedies for non-performance, etc etc).

 

[e.bram]

More pontification and conjecture.(and insults)

 

[Tommart]

From the HOAs Perspective

I concur that one should give it away, or pay to get rid of it.

I was able to return a timeshare to an HOA that I didn't want, but had to agree to pay a year's MF.

I was a President of a subdivision HOA (not timeshare). We had people who did not pay monthly assessments.

The cost to go to court was about $2K, but only about one-third of money owed is considered reasonable legal charges and could be reimbursed. Let's say the homeowner owed $3K and we went to court and paid $2K lawyer fee. We always won and would get $3K plus $1K for legal expenses. So we lost $1K.

If they only owed $1K, we would only be reimbursed $300 for legal expenses (even though it cost us $2K).

So we would wait until they owed $3K -- which typically took over 3 years. However, at $500, we would place a lien on the property.

I've always wondered what timeshare HOAs do. For timeshares with value, they probably place a lien and don't allow use. They must wait until they have group of foreclosures and go to court with the group to reduce the per TS cost to foreclose. But unlike homes which have value, many timeshare do not.

It may cost the TS HOA thousands in legal fees to foreclose on a group of worthless weeks. It may be better to just allow members to return the week to the HOA without foreclosing--but then they may get a flood of weeks.

Probably all that happens to the owner who defaults is that the TS owner loses the TS and it shows on their credit score. It may also negatively impact future employment if the employer requires a credit check, which is becoming common.

Obviously, current owners bear the cost of the deadbeats. The HOA loses MFs, incurs legal expenses, and must now resell the weeks. About 6% of the MF at my resort is to cover this bad debt. In worst case, the resort can go bankrupt if bad debt gets too high.

 

[Fredm]

More pontification and conjecture.(and insults)

Well, where is your case law? Please cite it.

 

[LannyPC]

Obviously, current owners bear the cost of the deadbeats. The HOA loses MFs, incurs legal expenses, and must now resell the weeks. About 6% of the MF at my resort is to cover this bad debt.

We just received the proposed 2011 budget from the resort where we own. Each interval is being assessed $19.68 for "Provision for Uncollectable Accounts".

 

[weh8625]

Property Transfer Cites

You have asked for cites about property transfer, here they are. Since the idea of forcing someone to take your deed is so ridiculous, I had to go back quite a ways to find any cases:

" ... we are not aware of any principle of law by which a title is thrust upon an unwilling grantee" - Lick v. Diaz, 37 Cal. 437 at 444

"This statute does not force any obligation upon an unwilling grantee ..." - Colchester Sav. Bank v. Brown, 75 Conn. 69

" ... the grantee must generally evince a purpose to accept the conveyance, as it is not competent for the grantor by his act alone to impose a title or the conditions of a conveyance upon an unwilling grantee. An exception to this rule is where the grantee is an infant, or under disability, and the conveyance is beneficial to the grantee." - Sutton v. Gibson, 119 Ky. 422 at 425

So the idea of forcing someone to take your deed is probably out. Maybe one of you can start a company that accepts deeds for a fee, then rents out the units for the maintenance fee. But as stated above, a shell company that accepts deeds is a fraud and will be ineffective.

 

[e.bram]

FredM:
Ask DaveH. He is the one that mentioned case law.
Quote by FredM
"Our statements have been reinforced thousands of times by the actions of the laws you choose to disagree with."
Now which actions are we talking about, please state them with specificity.

 

[DavidnRobin]

I hadn't read this forum in a while - and... LOL - this troll is back...
hey genius - how about this? just don't pay the MFs - you have absolutely no obligation to do so - you are right - everyone is wrong... now take your hand off the mouse and back into pants...

 

[e.bram]

DavenRobin? Is that like BatMannRobin? Two Guys?

 

[theo]

Ignore...

This might be an appropriately perfect time to remind tormented TUG posters and readers of a truly wonderful TUG feature which I have come to utilize and greatly appreciate:

In the upper left hand corner of this page you will see a "button" entitled User CP (presumably stands for Control Panel). When you click on that button, you are brought to a page on which you can enter specific TUG user names to "ignore". Upon doing so, the posts of the lucky winner(s) will never be seen again when you log in to TUG in the future.

It's wonderful. Just saying....

 

[Passepartout]

Reading this thread is like watching a train wreck- you know what's gonna happen, but keep watching anyway!

Jim Ricks

 

[kool_kat]

So the idea of forcing someone to take your deed is probably out. Maybe one of you can start a company that accepts deeds for a fee, then rents out the units for the maintenance fee. But as stated above, a shell company that accepts deeds is a fraud and will be ineffective.

Thank goodness for the substance over form doctrine which allows the courts to go after these ridiculous schemes.

 

[FrugalFrank]

Intriguing concept,

and I thank OP for the posing the question as it has evoked many varied and worthwhile opinions. I must also say that it is unfortunate that no one has weighed in on this issue that is, or was formerly on the developer/builder side.

I think that it boils down to this: Although there may not have been an explicit agreement by the TS purchaser on the resale market, or the giftee, taking ownership (deed recorded by county, and owner of record change recognized by the resort) does carry an expectation to abide by the terms and conditions of the association. The property taxes must be paid by each owner, and the association fees must also be shared equally.

While one may not have willfully and knowingly obliged themself to abide the T&C yet there are consequences that attach for non-payment of fees which are probably legally enforceable.

Perhaps interested parties might concact the Attorney General's office in their TS ownership state posing the identical question. Response should be free of charge.

 

[e.bram]

FrugalFrank is right, it could be a capitol crime. Or maybe the state could get a restraining order forbidding the miscreant from ever purchasing a TS again and forfeiting any TS already owned.

 

[DowneastMaine]

What happens if I just quit paying my maintenance fees?

Hi All,

Has anyone ever heard that the resort can also, after a foreclosuer, send your default judgment to the IRS and unearned income.

So, now you have credit reporting and the balance that you have to pay the government.


Let me know if you have ever heard of this.

Thanks