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

[Dave H]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bankr63]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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]

I consider lawyer jokes to be fair comment. Salty

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

 

[bankr63]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

Starwood Vistana Options

I emailed Denise the information

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

 

[travelbuff]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

 

[travelbuff]

Proxy Letter

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.)