First Lawsuit filed against Viking Ship LLCs / PCCs

[TUGBrian]

Mr Fried runs a closing company...i doubt he is being charged as an individual owner.

 

[e.bram]

Carolinian:
How could you tell who is not going to answer. The plaintiffs might finding themselves looking at counter suits by lawyer owners and knowledgeable Pro Ses complicating their intentions.

ps It has happened to me(property damage case), where large law firms were begging me for dismissals, because their legal expenses could not justify continuing the litigation considering the amount of money involved. For me it was entertainment even if I lose (cheaper than a sports camp)

 

[Rent_Share]

Never meant to imply URI was an individual owner, just that he's been discussed good and bad for the last 7 years.


I was just taking note that I noticed there were only Liquidation Companies and their apparent owners named, however the suit was filed (as all are) to allow the amendment and inclusion of unlimited additional defendants if found during discovery.

Just seemed off that 280 posts later Boca was coming back to comment on the original suit

 

[TUGBrian]

oh....i certainly read the plantiff list to include pccs, bogus LLC's, as well as title/transfer/closing companies that all had a hand in the transfer to the viking ships.

 

[BocaBum99]

Never meant to imply URI was an individual owner, just that he's been discussed good and bad for the last 7 years.


I was just taking note that I noticed there were only Liquidation Companies and their apparent owners named, however the suit was filed (as all are) to allow the amendment and inclusion of unlimited additional defendants if found during discovery.

Just seemed off that 280 posts later Boca was coming back to comment on the original suit

My comments were aimed at demonstrating that Carolinian's claim that targeting original owners to get a "scalp" is not bearing out in the lawsuit that is the subject of this thread. And, that even if the original owners were indeed eventually identified as defendants that it would NOT be to hold them up as a threat to other owners wanting to pursue the same path.

I stand by my assertion that attempting to obtain such a scalp is a moronic legal strategy that would result in a public relations nightmare for those pursuing it. So far, I see mostly other posters who agree with my assertion that it's a bad idea. I don't see anyone else who believes it's a good idea. If I missed your support, please identify yourself. I'd like to see who thinks this is a good idea vs. not.

 

[TUGBrian]

Id have no problem going after an owner that willingly went thru with a transfer knowing it was going to be abandoned.

That said, i find it highly unlikely that most have any idea.

with THAT said, I find it very likely that at least a small % do...and dont care.

 

[BocaBum99]

Id have no problem going after an owner that willingly went thru with a transfer knowing it was going to be abandoned.

That said, i find it highly unlikely that most have any idea.

with THAT said, I find it very likely that at least a small % do...and dont care.

Given your statement, do you believe that suing the owner along with the PCC with the intent to find a "scalp" using the process for attempting to get a default judgement is a good legal strategy on behalf of the HOA/management group?

 

[TUGBrian]

depends on the resorts stance on taking units back.

if someone simply didnt want to pay anymore (vs not being able to...and or making no attempts to legitimately sell)...I dont blame the HOA one bit for raking them over the coals.

its hard to make blanket statements like that with a yes or no answer....as in with all situations involving timeshare "it depends"

 

[vacationhopeful]

...if someone simply didnt want to pay anymore (vs not being able to...and or making no attempts to legitimately sell)...I dont blame the HOA one bit for raking them over the coals.

its hard to make blanket statements like that with a yes or no answer....as in with all situations involving timeshare "it depends"

Sue everyone else you could be accuse of picking on a "class" of "people". Settling agreements can be closed - hence, you can settle for $100 or $10,000, your personal choice for individual cases.

 

[BocaBum99]

depends on the resorts stance on taking units back.

if someone simply didnt want to pay anymore (vs not being able to...and or making no attempts to legitimately sell)...I dont blame the HOA one bit for raking them over the coals.

its hard to make blanket statements like that with a yes or no answer....as in with all situations involving timeshare "it depends"

Fair enough. I believe it will be a bad strategy because I believe it will be used against the HOA/management company as I have stated positioning them as anti-owner. I believe this to be true whether or not the owner knew that they were transferring it into Viking Ship which even you acknowledge is a small percent of owners.

It would be similar to discussing a legitimate topic about race and then subjecting yourself to being labelled a racist when you actually are just raising a valid point. It's better to simply avoid the topic altogether.

 

[Beefnot]

Id have no problem going after an owner that willingly went thru with a transfer knowing it was going to be abandoned.

That said, i find it highly unlikely that most have any idea.

with THAT said, I find it very likely that at least a small % do...and dont care.

How about trade-ins? When the owner "trades in" their old no-value property for a new property from the developer and signs over a power-of-attorney to the developer to sell it on their behalf, and then the developer dumps it to the "PCC" to dispose of it, who should be accountable if and when it ends up in a so-called viking ship?

 

[TUGBrian]

im not terribly interested in hashing out every possible scenario...thread is already over 300 replies long.

my stance is if the owner was informed about the property to be abandoned and still moved forward...they deserve whatever they get.

im not here to argue how you prove "informed" or not...you all are adults and can draw your own conclusions on what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Ridewithme38]

i
im not here to argue how you prove "informed" or not...you all are adults and can draw your own conclusions on what is right and what is wrong.

I think that right there is the point....even the courts are going to have trouble proving who was 'informed' and who wasn't....IMO, it would take an extremely unusual situation for a lawyer to prove that...

Even if TUGBrian gave his Timeshare to a PCC, sure they can prove he knows what PCC's ARE and what they do.....But how can they prove that he knew the company he was dealing with was going to do that....

Not all resale companies that charge you to take your property are automatically going to dump it....No one REALLY knows which ones will and which ones won't with what properties

 

[Rent_Share]

Not all resale companies that charge you to take your property are automatically going to dump it....No one REALLY knows which ones will and which ones won't with what properties

But none of the companies that charge will tell you if you have one of the few with value.

 

[Ridewithme38]

But none of the companies that charge will tell you if you have one of the few with value.

There you go, so no one knows if the company they give their timeshare to will dump them ina Viking ship or try to sell them. That solves the conspiracy to defraud case.

 

[ampaholic]

There you go, so no one knows if the company they give their timeshare to will dump them ina Viking ship or try to sell them. That solves the conspiracy to defraud case.

Actually there never was such a case - it was one poster's opinion only.

You are right, Ride - that thought is thoroughly hashed out.

 

[Carolinian]

This is clearly a different legal strategy, as the plaintiffs here are not among those quoted in the Timesharing Today article.

My comments were aimed at demonstrating that Carolinian's claim that targeting original owners to get a "scalp" is not bearing out in the lawsuit that is the subject of this thread. And, that even if the original owners were indeed eventually identified as defendants that it would NOT be to hold them up as a threat to other owners wanting to pursue the same path.

I stand by my assertion that attempting to obtain such a scalp is a moronic legal strategy that would result in a public relations nightmare for those pursuing it. So far, I see mostly other posters who agree with my assertion that it's a bad idea. I don't see anyone else who believes it's a good idea. If I missed your support, please identify yourself. I'd like to see who thinks this is a good idea vs. not.

 

[Carolinian]

Actually it is not an opinion by anyone. It is the statement of intent from multiple timeshare management companies in an article in Timesharing Today magazine.

Actually there never was such a case - it was one poster's opinion only.

You are right, Ride - that thought is thoroughly hashed out.

 

[Carolinian]

But none of the companies that charge will tell you if you have one of the few with value.

Good point. If the victim timeshare owner has a valuable week, the PCC's lie and tell them it has no value, so they can make even more money by selling it. In criminal law, this is called False Pretenses, and it is a felony. If the timeshare owner victim has a week where the resort will take a deedback, the PCC's also lie and claim otherwise.

This is why some state Attorneys General have been successful in banning some PCC's from their states, imposing civil fines on them, and compelling them to make restitution to their victims. It would be better if the AG's started referring them for prosecution criminally as well, but I suspect that is what is held over the PCC's that are caught to get them to agree to the ban, the fine, and the restitution.

 

[Ridewithme38]

All of those things you listed before further the belief that charging the previous owners can not be a possible legal stance

Good point. If the victim timeshare owner has a valuable week, the PCC's lie and tell them it has no value, so they can make even more money by selling it. In criminal law, this is called False Pretenses, and it is a felony. If the timeshare owner victim has a week where the resort will take a deedback, the PCC's also lie and claim otherwise.

This is why some state Attorneys General have been successful in banning some PCC's from their states, imposing civil fines on them, and compelling them to make restitution to their victims. It would be better if the AG's started referring them for prosecution criminally as well, but I suspect that is what is held over the PCC's that are caught to get them to agree to the ban, the fine, and the restitution.

 

[Centurion]

Shocking that Jonathan Gibbs and Christine Gibbs of Preferred Transfers and click2rank are not listed on this complaint.

 

[JudyS]

It is simply incredible how those that are at best on a fringe of an industry, or perhaps a tiny owner in one, can be the do all and be all experts on how things have been, are, should and will be. Those actually running the day to day operations and handling the legalities, rules, regulations, lawsuits, regulatory filings, dealing with owners, clients, developers, banks, States and more naturally have no clue what goes on. How could they? ...

John, I'm not saying that I or any other "tiny owner" has more expertise than you do. However, I certainly think you may have a different goal than many "tiny owners" do. Your goal seems to be to keep your resort going. One the other hand, it seems many owners at your resort have the goal of getting out, even if this means the resort will eventually fail. (If your resort has few owners who want out, then offering to take deedbacks would not be a problem, since there wouldn't be many deedbacks.)

So, it appears your interests (goals) may differ from the interests of many owners at your resort. This is a serious problem, because the role of an HOA Board is to represent the owners' interests. And this means trying to represent the interests of all owners -- including those who want out.

I know that you are very dedicated to your resorts, but in your posts I don't see any concern for the owners who want out. Instead, I see insults -- that such owners are too "lazy" to find someone to take their week. If the HOA can't find people to take the weeks, how can you expect individual owners to find someone? The HOA has many lists of people who might want to buy a week, or another week, at the resort: A list of all the owners, a list of everyone who has exchanged into the resort, a list of everyone who has rented from the resort -- individual owners have access to little or none of this. An HOA also can institute day use and then advertise day use to people in the local area, and can put up signs at the resort saying weeks are available.

I understand that many HOAs can not legally sell units (especially to non-owners), but there's nothing stopping resorts from compiling a list of owners who want to give units away, and then sending out mailings to anyone who might want a week, informing them of the existence of the free weeks and giving the contact information of owners who want to give a week away.

If a resort has 500 owners who want out of their week, which makes more sense: the resort looks for people to take some weeks, or each of those 500 owners each has to "reinvent the wheel" and research how to get rid of a timeshare (while having no access to the guests at the resort, who are most likely to want to buy a week)?

The idea that "it's not the HOAs job to find new owners" makes no sense to me. The HOA's job is to represent the owners' interests. If many owners want out, then that is their interest and it is the HOA's job to help them. I would also argue that it is cost-effective for an HOA to spend money on finding new owners because this helps avoid defaults. (Depending on resort size, this could take the form of hiring a real estate agent to work on-site, spending money on mailings, having an office staffperson whose job is to give advice to owners who want to sell, etc.)

I don't like the anti-HOA Board tone of this thread. I think timeshare owners need to keep in mind that Board members are almost always volunteers, and are doing their work because they truly care about the resort. However, when a prominent HOA Board member starts talking about "tiny owners" and "lazy owners," it fans the flames of anti-HOA sentiment.

 

[BocaBum99]

John, I'm not saying that I or any other "tiny owner" has more expertise than you do. However, I certainly think you may have a different goal than many "tiny owners" do. Your goal seems to be to keep your resort going. One the other hand, it seems many owners at your resort have the goal of getting out, even if this means the resort will eventually fail. (If your resort has few owners who want out, then offering to take deedbacks would not be a problem, since there wouldn't be many deedbacks.)

So, it appears your interests (goals) may differ from the interests of many owners at your resort. This is a serious problem, because the role of an HOA Board is to represent the owners' interests. And this means trying to represent the interests of all owners -- including those who want out.

I know that you are very dedicated to your resorts, but in your posts I don't see any concern for the owners who want out. Instead, I see insults -- that such owners are too "lazy" to find someone to take their week. If the HOA can't find people to take the weeks, how can you expect individual owners to find someone? The HOA has many lists of people who might want to buy a week, or another week, at the resort: A list of all the owners, a list of everyone who has exchanged into the resort, a list of everyone who has rented from the resort -- individual owners have access to little or none of this. An HOA also can institute day use and then advertise day use to people in the local area, and can put up signs at the resort saying weeks are available.

I understand that many HOAs can not legally sell units (especially to non-owners), but there's nothing stopping resorts from compiling a list of owners who want to give units away, and then sending out mailings to anyone who might want a week, informing them of the existence of the free weeks and giving the contact information of owners who want to give a week away.

If a resort has 500 owners who want out of their week, which makes more sense: the resort looks for people to take some weeks, or each of those 500 owners each has to "reinvent the wheel" and research how to get rid of a timeshare (while having no access to the guests at the resort, who are most likely to want to buy a week)?

The idea that "it's not the HOAs job to find new owners" makes no sense to me. The HOA's job is to represent the owners' interests. If many owners want out, then that is their interest and it is the HOA's job to help them. I would also argue that it is cost-effective for an HOA to spend money on finding new owners because this helps avoid defaults. (Depending on resort size, this could take the form of hiring a real estate agent to work on-site, spending money on mailings, having an office staffperson whose job is to give advice to owners who want to sell, etc.)

I don't like the anti-HOA Board tone of this thread. I think timeshare owners need to keep in mind that Board members are almost always volunteers, and are doing their work because they truly care about the resort. However, when a prominent HOA Board member starts talking about "tiny owners" and "lazy owners," it fans the flames of anti-HOA sentiment.

Nice post!

Just think what would happen if that same resort sued the owner who paid a PCC to get out of their timeshare to get a default judgement to hang their scalp at the front desk of the resort. That same owner never missed a maintenance fee payment. What do you think would happen to owner's opinion of the HOA?

 

[dougp26364]

Having not read every single post,I'm still going to toss out my thoughts.

1. Regardless of the outcome, I'm glad to see the lawsuit. If they win, it stops this model of abandonment. If they lose it should force HOA's to rethink what to do when an owner wants out. Losing could open the floodgates to legal owner abandonment without fear of ruining thir credit. Pay a fee and forget it.

2. It seems tome that HOA's will have to prove there was an intent to defraud.

3. So long as the PCC's were ma,ing a"legitimate" attempt (define legitimate) to sell or give away the property, it might be more difficult to prove fraud.

4. The fact a PCC repeatedly sets up a buisness model that has gone bankrupt every time it's been established could be grounds for proving fraud. To knowingly set up buisness that will fail with the intent of collecting profits on the front end and disposing of those profits before the bankruptcy seems reasonable enough evidence to suggest fraud.

In the end this lawsuit needed to be filed. It will either be buisness as usual for the HOA's or they'll need to get creative with owners who find themselves holding worthless timeshares needing to get rid if them. The situation may be getting close to hitting critical mass.

 

[ronparise]

John, I'm not saying that I or any other "tiny owner" has more expertise than you do. However, I certainly think you may have a different goal than many "tiny owners" do. Your goal seems to be to keep your resort going. One the other hand, it seems many owners at your resort have the goal of getting out, even if this means the resort will eventually fail. (If your resort has few owners who want out, then offering to take deedbacks would not be a problem, since there wouldn't be many deedbacks.)

So, it appears your interests (goals) may differ from the interests of many owners at your resort. This is a serious problem, because the role of an HOA Board is to represent the owners' interests. And this means trying to represent the interests of all owners -- including those who want out.

I know that you are very dedicated to your resorts, but in your posts I don't see any concern for the owners who want out. Instead, I see insults -- that such owners are too "lazy" to find someone to take their week. If the HOA can't find people to take the weeks, how can you expect individual owners to find someone? The HOA has many lists of people who might want to buy a week, or another week, at the resort: A list of all the owners, a list of everyone who has exchanged into the resort, a list of everyone who has rented from the resort -- individual owners have access to little or none of this. An HOA also can institute day use and then advertise day use to people in the local area, and can put up signs at the resort saying weeks are available.

I understand that many HOAs can not legally sell units (especially to non-owners), but there's nothing stopping resorts from compiling a list of owners who want to give units away, and then sending out mailings to anyone who might want a week, informing them of the existence of the free weeks and giving the contact information of owners who want to give a week away.

If a resort has 500 owners who want out of their week, which makes more sense: the resort looks for people to take some weeks, or each of those 500 owners each has to "reinvent the wheel" and research how to get rid of a timeshare (while having no access to the guests at the resort, who are most likely to want to buy a week)?

The idea that "it's not the HOAs job to find new owners" makes no sense to me. The HOA's job is to represent the owners' interests. If many owners want out, then that is their interest and it is the HOA's job to help them. I would also argue that it is cost-effective for an HOA to spend money on finding new owners because this helps avoid defaults. (Depending on resort size, this could take the form of hiring a real estate agent to work on-site, spending money on mailings, having an office staffperson whose job is to give advice to owners who want to sell, etc.)

I don't like the anti-HOA Board tone of this thread. I think timeshare owners need to keep in mind that Board members are almost always volunteers, and are doing their work because they truly care about the resort. However, when a prominent HOA Board member starts talking about "tiny owners" and "lazy owners," it fans the flames of anti-HOA sentiment.

Thank you for this post. It says what Ive been thinking and havent been able to put into words. The best I have been able to do is to say its in the HOAs best interest to take deedbacks, but John dosent see that. Perhaps your well thought out, well worded post, will open his eyes.