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

[travelbuff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DeniseM]

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]

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]

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]

As a jointly owned condo - not as a timeshare.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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

 

[jerseygirl]

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]

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]

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]

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

it is though, right?