• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 27 years!

    Join tens of thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG started 28 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Check out our happy birthday post here: Happy Birthday TUG!
  • TUG is asking for recent reviews of older resorts, earn a free year membership!

    Read more here
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $17,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $17 Million dollars
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

ARDA and ARDA-ROC Oppose Legislation Proposal [SC "TIMESHARE OWNERS PROTECTION ACT"]

jbercu

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
152
Reaction score
2
Points
228
Location
Alamo, CA
ARDA and ARDA-ROC Oppose Legislation Proposing Voluntary Surrender of Timeshare Interests (HB 4259)

http://www.ardaroc.org/roc/legislative-issues/issues.aspx?id=5163

This bill was introduced in South Carolina as part of the "TIMESHARE OWNERS PROTECTION ACT".

The full bill follows. There are very important concepts in the bill such as:
"The highest and best use of a valueless timeshare is in the hands of the timeshare association, which is in the best position to restore its value."


Thanks,


A BILL

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, TO ENACT THE "TIMESHARE OWNERS PROTECTION ACT" BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 32, TITLE 27 SO AS TO PROVIDE A CITATION, TO STATE THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, TO PROVIDE NECESSARY DEFINITIONS, AND TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES THROUGH WHICH TIMESHARE OWNERS MAY SURRENDER INTERESTS IN A TIMESHARE.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Chapter 32 of Title 27 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Article 5
Timeshare Owners Protection Act
Section 27-32-510. This article must be know and may be cited as the 'Timeshare Owners Protection Act'.

Section 27-32-520. The purposes of this article are to recognize that:

(1) free market principles require the free flow of capital and assets for market forces to work properly;

(2) current timeshare law is inconsistent with free market principles because the free flow of assets is one-sided because timeshare associations enjoy nonjudicial foreclosure rights over timeshare owners who do not pay their annual maintenance fees, but owners of valueless timeshares have no way to transfer their timeshare back to the timeshare association when it does not fulfill its duties of minimal care;

(3) market forces cannot work properly on an asset that is not transferable; and

(4) the highest and best use of a valueless timeshare is in the hands of the timeshare association, which is in the best position to restore its value.

Section 27-32-530. As used in this article:

(1) 'Managing entity' means the person who manages the affairs of a vacation timesharing plan.

(2) 'Timeshare association' means the association comprised of all owners of timeshare interests in a vacation timesharing plan.

(3) 'Timeshare interest' means an ownership interest in a vacation timesharing plan.

(4) 'Timeshare owner' means the owner or owners of a timeshare interest.

Section 27-32-540. A timeshare owner may surrender a timeshare interest to the timeshare association if:

(1) the timeshare interest is free of a mortgage lien;

(2) the timeshare owner does not have any outstanding debt to the timeshare association;

(3) all owners of the timeshare interest must agree to surrender the timeshare interest, which may not be divided through surrender;

(4) all owners of the timeshare interest have been the record owners of the timeshare interest for at least three consecutive years;

(5) the timeshare owner has advertised the timeshare interest for sale:

(a) for at least twelve consecutive months;

(b) on at least one website that is dedicated to timeshare advertising and can document through an independent third party at least one hundred thousand unique visitors each month or 1.2 million unique visitors each year during the months the timeshare interest is for sale; and

(c) at a sale price that is no more than the timeshare interest's lowest annual maintenance fee during the months the timeshare interest is advertised for sale; and

(6) the timeshare owner did not sell the timeshare interest as evidenced by:

(a) not having received a bona fide purchase offer for the timeshare interest for a net amount of at least fifty percent of the total maintenance fees charged for the timeshare interest during the most recent calendar year by the timeshare association after twelve consecutive months of the advertising; or

(b) if having received an offer, the buyer failed to close the transaction as attested by a closing agency licensed in the state where it is located.

Section 27-32-550. A timeshare owner meeting the requirements of Section 27-32-540 may surrender his timeshare interest to the timeshare association after delivering the following to the timeshare association by certified mail or an equivalent private delivery service:

(1) a sworn statement attesting that the requirements of Section 27-32-540 have been met; and

(2) thirty days written notice that the timeshare interest will be surrendered to the timeshare association.

Section 27-32-560. (A) A timeshare owner meeting the requirements of Section 27-32-550 is considered to have transferred the timeshare interest to the timeshare association upon delivering to the timeshare association:

(1) a quit claim deed if the timeshare interest is deeded;

(2) a signed statement relinquishing all rights to the ownership of the timeshare interest and membership in any related club, trust or other organization;

(3) a limited power of attorney naming the timeshare association or the managing entity as attorney-in-fact, and directing the attorney-in-fact to remove the member from any trust, lease agreement, or other organization setup as part of a vacation timesharing ownership plan so as to divest the owner of any rights or responsibilities related to the vacation timesharing ownership plan; and

(4) the annual maintenance fee, if it is due within thirty days of the notice of surrender provided pursuant to Section 27-32-550.

(B) In response to a surrender made pursuant to this article, the timeshare association and its managing entity, if any:

(1) shall accept the surrender of the timeshare interest from the timeshare owner;

(2) shall, within thirty days of receipt, properly transfer the ownership of the surrendered timeshare interest through the appropriate applicable means including recording of the quit claim deed, if proper, using the limited power of attorney to execute documents the timeshare association requires to memorialize and complete the transfer of the timeshare interest from the timeshare owner to the timeshare association or the timeshare association's assign;

(3) shall remove the timeshare owner from the list of members and any other task required by the vacation timesharing ownership plan for the removal of an owner or member within thirty days; and

(4) may not charge the timeshare owner who has surrendered a timeshare interest any fee or charge associated with the surrender, except when the timeshare owner fails to provide documentation required by this section.

Section 27-32-570. A timeshare owner who has surrendered the timeshare interest to the timeshare association pursuant to Section 27-32-550 and relinquishes all rights to the ownership and use of the timeshare interest is relieved of all requirements and duties of ownership of the timeshare interest, including financial responsibility for assessments or other obligations of members.

Section 27-32-580. (A) The timeshare association and the managing entity and its agent of record, individually, after having received a surrendered timeshare interest pursuant to this article:

(1) shall update records of the timeshare association to remove the timeshare owner from the rolls of the association, club, trust or other organization setup as part of the vacation timesharing ownership plan, including the recording of the quit claim deed, if required, within thirty days after receiving the items required under Section 27-32-540(A) from the timeshare owner of record;

(2) shall not engage in communications or authorize others to engage in communications designed to dissuade the timeshare owner from proceeding with surrendering the timeshare interest, except if such communication is in writing, at any time after having received the notice required under Section 27-32-550; and

(3) shall not send a bill, engage a collection agency, or in any other way attempt to collect money from a former timeshare owner who has surrendered the timeshare interest pursuant to this article.

(B)(1) When a timeshare owner of record gives the timeshare association or managing entity notice, if any, of a violation of the provisions of this article and the violation is not remedied within thirty days after receiving the notice, the timeshare owner of record may bring an action to:

(a) obtain a declaratory judgment that their actions are in compliance with the provisions of this article and they have surrendered their timeshare interest;

(b) enjoin a timeshare association or managing entity, if any, that is violating the provisions of this article; and

(c) recover the greater of actual damages, if any, or two thousand dollars, and also recover attorney fees and court costs for the action it brought against the timeshare association, managing entity, or their agents that violate the provisions of this article.

(2) These rights exist whether or not the timeshare owner has an adequate remedy at law.

(C)(1) The Real Estate Commission is responsible for the enforcement and implementation of the provisions of this article and the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, at the request of the commission, shall prosecute a violation of the provisions of this article.

(2) The commission also shall promulgate regulations for the implementation of the provisions of this article, subject to the Administrative Procedures Act.

(3) The provisions of this section do not limit the right of an individual surrendering a timeshare interest to bring a private action to enforce the provisions of this article.

Section 27-32-590. The timeshare association or its managing entity, if any, must make known the option of surrender with all requirements in writing to all timeshare owners in an annual notice."

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

----XX----
 

Ken555

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
12,336
Reaction score
4,038
Points
698
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
This looks to be a fabulous law for the consumer, so of course ARDA is against it. It includes the ability to sue the timeshare if they pursue collections on a transferred deed performed under this law up to $2000 + costs.


Sent from my iPad
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
19,219
Reaction score
4,478
Points
899
Location
Florida
color me surprised that ARDA (in all its flavors) would be against something that benefits owners at the expense of developers!

everyone feel good about that "voluntary" $5 donation on your annual MF bill today?
 
Last edited:

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
19,219
Reaction score
4,478
Points
899
Location
Florida
that appears to be a proposed bill for the state of SC only.

although many bills begin in states and are merely adopted by other states if they are popular/successful etc.
 

Ken555

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
12,336
Reaction score
4,038
Points
698
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
color me surprised that ARDA (in all its flavors) would be against something that benefits owners at the expense of developers!

everyone feel good about that "voluntary" $5 donation on your annual MF bill today?

Brian,

Perhaps you should write in favor of the legislation.


Sent from my iPad
 

pedro47

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
16,514
Reaction score
5,461
Points
948
Location
East Coast
Suggestion, every owner of a timeshare in the state of SC should write a letter to the state in favor of this bill.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
34,887
Reaction score
8,312
Points
1,049
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott's Grande Vista
Marriott's Harbour Lake
SVV - Bella
SVV - Key West
The problem with this law though is that the HOA (timeshare association) is the one that has to take the deeds back. The HOA is the other owners, not some big corporation. What will a bill like this do for owners that don't surrender their weeks back? Their MFs go up.

Another issue is, what will the upfront advertising fee companies be like when a bill like this passes. They will tout that for only a couple thousand you can advertise through them and if it doesn't work out they will help you surrender the week in the end, for an extra fee. All for something you could do for near free on your own. Except that you have to advertise on a site that gets 1.2MM unique views per year. Sound like the upfront fee companies may be behind the lobbying on this one.

Some laws have unintended consequences.
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
2,938
Reaction score
1,466
Points
298
Location
Colorado
The problem with this law though is that the HOA (timeshare association) is the one that has to take the deeds back. The HOA is the other owners, not some big corporation. What will a bill like this do for owners that don't surrender their weeks back? Their MFs go up.
There is no easy answer. HOAs are already voluntarily taking back some deeds, depending on individual circumstances, and involuntarily taking back foreclosures, refusals by heirs, and are stuck with Viking Ship deeds in limbo.

With too many timeshares, there is no value for the HOA to restore. These timeshares are already on the path to implosion as MFs increase and more owners want out. If enacted, this bill gives these owners an exit option and just accelerates the schedule for the unavoidable demise of the timeshare plan.

Section 27-32-520 recognizes the market realities that many HOAs want to ignore for as long as possible.

As with any legislation, there will be winners (those who want to be free of their valueless timeshare) and losers (the HOAs and those owners who want the timeshare to continue).
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
19,219
Reaction score
4,478
Points
899
Location
Florida
upfront fee and PCCs already use this in their strategies for dumping unwanted timeshares.

its not uncommon at all for a viking ship entity to contact a resort and flat out tell them if they dont deed these back (in many cases even demanding payment to do so)...they will just be abandoned.
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
2,938
Reaction score
1,466
Points
298
Location
Colorado
Another winner might be companies, such as Wyndham, that can skim the cream of the resorts that are forced into bankruptcy, picking them up on the cheap, rehabbing the resort, if needed, then reselling it anew as retail points packages.
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
19,219
Reaction score
4,478
Points
899
Location
Florida
I would get behind legislation that forces resorts to at least have an OPTION to relinquish or end ownership of all other options have been exhausted.

Sadly however I feel that nowhere near 100% of the people who would jump at the chance to take part in a forced deedback at their resort....have even made any effort whatsoever to investigate the resale market and or attempt to give their timeshares away through valid and proven methods.

again, the solution is not more laws...but more education.
 

Ken555

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
12,336
Reaction score
4,038
Points
698
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
The problem with this law though is that the HOA (timeshare association) is the one that has to take the deeds back. The HOA is the other owners, not some big corporation. What will a bill like this do for owners that don't surrender their weeks back? Their MFs go up.
Yes. I consider this to be the responsibility of the HOA in that the HOA should either provide valuable services that owners are willing to pay for (ie. a nice resort, etc) or they will go under. This law should encourage HOAs to expedite owner transfers, find new owners for HOA owned weeks that are returned under this law, and treat owners as owners (unlike many HOAs).

Also, don't forget that many HOAs already pay for owners that don't pay their MF.

Another issue is, what will the upfront advertising fee companies be like when a bill like this passes. They will tout that for only a couple thousand you can advertise through them and if it doesn't work out they will help you surrender the week in the end, for an extra fee. All for something you could do for near free on your own. Except that you have to advertise on a site that gets 1.2MM unique views per year. Sound like the upfront fee companies may be behind the lobbying on this one.
Only the ignorant would pay for these companies to list their week; after all these years, you'd think most would search online a little before spending a lot for such a purpose. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for those who make such bad decisions.

Some laws have unintended consequences.
Obviously, but I don't think the two consequences you mention here are that difficult to work around. Also, I think changing the law to allow returning a deed, after attempts to sell that fail, is better for all in the end.
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
19,219
Reaction score
4,478
Points
899
Location
Florida
sadly those "ignorants" are feeding said company's hundreds of millions of dollars a year combined....

the knowledgeable are the vast minority when it comes to timeshare ownership.
 

Ken555

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
12,336
Reaction score
4,038
Points
698
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
I would get behind legislation that forces resorts to at least have an OPTION to relinquish or end ownership of all other options have been exhausted.

Sadly however I feel that nowhere near 100% of the people who would jump at the chance to take part in a forced deedback at their resort....have even made any effort whatsoever to investigate the resale market and or attempt to give their timeshares away through valid and proven methods.

again, the solution is not more laws...but more education.
I'm confused. I read this proposed law and it requires the seller to attempt to resell the week before deeding it back to the HOA. It's quite similar to what you suggest here. What am I missing?
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
19,219
Reaction score
4,478
Points
899
Location
Florida
because as thats written, its literally useless...as 99% of companies that meet that ridiculously ambiguous criteria are upfront fee resale sites.

note the wording is "advertising company" heck even though folks who find TUG are literally inundated with the how to sell article (its linked no less than 5 times for a new member before an ad gets posted)....you still find people who list their timeshares for utterly absurd prices and are totally out of touch with the resale market...and these same people send me emails 12 months later saying "never got any interest in my ad on TUG, no need to renew" etc etc.

literally 99 times out of 100....these people are trying to get 50-90% retail for their resale timeshare...when there are a dozen other ads listed right next to theirs (or on ebay) for a dollar.
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
19,219
Reaction score
4,478
Points
899
Location
Florida
I like the idea...just not the execution.

but i could probably say that about every law ever written =)
 

Ken555

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
12,336
Reaction score
4,038
Points
698
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
You may be right that it is too restrictive on where to advertise. When I read it, I had thought eBay would count, but perhaps not. Yet, that's a relatively little tweak to a law...and given your position and TUG I would think a letter from you would be read by those interested in pursuing this law.

After so many years and ARDA's obvious bias, it's time for more consumer protection for timeshares. At least SC is trying to make an improvement.
 

csxjohn

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
6,541
Reaction score
128
Points
248
Location
North East Ohio
Resorts Owned
Tropic Shores, 2br X 3, Bluegreen Pts.
Another point I read is that in trying to sell for one year after owning for 3 yrs is that the asking price can't be more than one yrs MFs. That eliminates the ridiculous asking prices.

I believe the peeps too lazy to try to sell by themselves won't be helped by a law like this, they will still pay the PCCs to do it for them.
 

uscav8r

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
1,961
Reaction score
266
Points
194
Location
Virginia
ARDA and ARDA-ROC Oppose Legislation Proposal

The proposed legislation goes way too far in defining the seller's responsibilities and restricting asking prices to 1year of MF. Not all timeshares are worthless as this seems to claim. There are Hiltons, Starwoods, Marriotts, and even Wyndhams that are worth much more than 1year's MF. While these can certainly be moved, they are still much lower than what they were originally bought for from the developer. While eliminating nosebleed asking prices, they also prevent any attempt at asking for a reasonable offer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
19,219
Reaction score
4,478
Points
899
Location
Florida
an easy fix would be to use the same terminology the IRS uses in defining fair market value.
 

theo

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
8,715
Reaction score
1,810
Points
448
Location
New England Coast
<snip> "The highest and best use of a valueless timeshare is in the hands of the timeshare association, which is in the best position to restore its value." <snip>
I am pro-consumer and I certainly have no use or concern for the "bottom lines" of any of the big chains in the timeshare industry. I do not own any timeshares in SC --- never did and don't plan to in the future. Accordingly, even if passed, this SC-only proposed legislation would have absolutely no impact upon me personally.

All that being said in preface, from the perspective of someone who works (as a unpaid volunteer) on a BoD / HOA of a (small, independent, non-chain affiliated) timeshare facility in a different state, I frankly have to scratch my head regarding this fuzzy and unfounded (blue highlighted above) proclamation / conclusion.

A BoD / HOA does not dictate or in any way influence the marketplace or current or future economic conditions. The baseless claim (highlighted in blue above) notwithstanding, what exactly does "restore its' value" mean in real, concrete, specific actions, particularly if / when the facility is already in very good condition, well maintained and well managed? I for one certainly have no idea regarding the logic or basis of this strange and unfounded statement and can't help wondering if the authors of this proposed legislation actually have any actual, substantive clue on that particular specific point themselves. :shrug:

There is certainly some admirable pro-consumer reasoning within this proposal, but I fail to see how "force feeding" unwanted timeshare ownerships of "weak weeks" down the throats of small, independent timeshare HOA's (who btw, did not sell that timeshare to its' current, previously-willing owner in the first place) is in any way good for either the facility or its' remaining, willing owners who will then be involuntarily forced to "carry" additional financial burden. That logic (and/ or the math) just plain doesn't work, frankly. How or why should it ever be a HOA responsibility to involuntarily take ownership of someone else's purchase, previously acquired of their own free will --- with no HOA involvement whatsoever? That's just deflecting personal responsibility and accountability for personal "ease and convenience" instead.

P.S. I am not at all surprised that ARDA would oppose this; the "D" in ARDA stands for Developer. Unlike the completely different situation at small independent facilities, I'd love to see only developers legislatively forced to later accept back that which they directly sold to unsuspecting and clueless buyers at grossly inflated prices.
 
Last edited:

csxjohn

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
6,541
Reaction score
128
Points
248
Location
North East Ohio
Resorts Owned
Tropic Shores, 2br X 3, Bluegreen Pts.
I think laws like this will speed up the inevitable, that is resorts that have no resale value for their units are eventually doomed as a timeshare entity.

Sooner or later the people that can't afford or don't want to keep paying the fees will get out leaving the rest with even higher fees. It's part of what we bought into, ownership with others, hoping they will all continue to pay.

Resorts with a large proportion of bad weeks will probably be the first to go.

I have no facts to back any of this up, just my thoughts written down.
 

ace2000

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
5,032
Reaction score
150
Points
348
I think laws like this will speed up the inevitable, that is resorts that have no resale value for their units are eventually doomed as a timeshare entity.

Sooner or later the people that can't afford or don't want to keep paying the fees will get out leaving the rest with even higher fees. It's part of what we bought into, ownership with others, hoping they will all continue to pay.

Resorts with a large proportion of bad weeks will probably be the first to go.

I have no facts to back any of this up, just my thoughts written down.
Timeshares will go the way of the economy. If the overall economy stays steady with no major downturns, then everything will probably be ok. If we hit another major downturn (which I think we will) that is similar or worse than the last one, then there will a major impact. Just my thoughts...
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
14,835
Reaction score
3,613
Points
999
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
Like a few others here, I don't think the answer is to force HOA's to assume in-arrears intervals or any which the owners are unable to sell because of supply/demand metrics. While it's true that the HOA's are already being assessed bad debt items from non-paying owners, it doesn't make any sense to me to open the floodgates allowing any owner to simply walk away. A certain amount of bad debt is unavoidable because of owners who are suffering legitimate financial difficulties; those who can still afford what they willingly bought should be held through normal foreclosure processes to honor their commitment to the rest of the owners.

I don't know what the answer is at resorts where the developer is no longer involved. But if a developer is still involved (such as at Marriotts, Starwoods, etc) at least as manager but especially if they're still selling either direct or through their own Resales operations, or if they're conveying intervals to a Trust, I'd like to see legislation that forces them (and not the HOA) to take back unwanted intervals. I wouldn't put a burden on them to actually buy back intervals; I'd be okay with a simple no-fee/reimbursement deedback operation.

IMO as written this legislation doesn't benefit the developers, managers, or owners. It's no surprise at all that ARDA and ARDA-ROC oppose it.
 
Last edited:
Top