First Lawsuit filed against Viking Ship LLCs / PCCs

[ronparise]

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?

Posted at 7:46 east coast time... whats that? almost 2 am in Hawaii

Boca...are you up early Wednesday morning or is it still Tuesday night for you? Do you ever sleep?

 

[BocaBum99]

Posted at 7:46 east coast time... whats that? almost 2 am in Hawaii

Boca...are you up early Wednesday morning or is it still Tuesday night for you? Do you ever sleep?

It's Wed morning for me. I was on the East Coast for 10 days and got stuck on EDT.

 

[Carolinian]

HOA's need to be proactive in helping their members to have venues to sell their weeks. I was surprised how effective simple things like a sales and rental page on the resort website and in the resort newsletter, and a bulletin board near check-in where members can post weeks for sale, for rent, or wanted to buy, can be. I am also surprised when I see an HOA not providing these outlets for members, as they cost the HOA very little money.

When I was on my HOA board, one thing we did regularly with HOA inventory was to use it for ''door prizes''. Everyone who paid their m/f on time was eligible to submit their name for a ''door prize'' drawing as was everyone who sent a proxy in for the annual HOA meeting. Everyone who submitted their name for the drawings ''won'' a week. Every time we had from 4 to 8 ''winners''. The theory was that people are suspicious of something offered for free and they are reluctant to take it, but if they win a prize, they are more likely to go for it. Many of those who submitted their names for drawings were people who already owned to use in the off season or shoulder season, and they often requested another week either side of the one they already owned.

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]

HOA's need to be proactive in helping their members to have venues to sell their weeks. I was surprised how effective simple things like a sales and rental page on the resort website and in the resort newsletter, and a bulletin board near check-in where members can post weeks for sale, for rent, or wanted to buy, can be. I am also surprised when I see an HOA not providing these outlets for members, as they cost the HOA very little money.

When I was on my HOA board, one thing we did regularly with HOA inventory was to use it for ''door prizes''. Everyone who paid their m/f on time was eligible to submit their name for a ''door prize'' drawing as was everyone who sent a proxy in for the annual HOA meeting. Everyone who submitted their name for the drawings ''won'' a week. Every time we had from 4 to 8 ''winners''. The theory was that people are suspicious of something offered for free and they are reluctant to take it, but if they win a prize, they are more likely to go for it. Many of those who submitted their names for drawings were people who already owned to use in the off season or shoulder season, and they often requested another week either side of the one they already owned.

I agree. There are so many HOAs that don't do anything to help owners move their unwanted weeks that they need to revisit their mission.

 

[VegasBella]

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.

Exactly.

It's also in the interests of the owners who don't want out. Finding buyers helps everyone.

When I was shopping I was surprised by how UNhelpful most resorts were. Unless they had a developer or resales office they were basically no help in finding weeks for sale. It's so easy to just keep a list but most resorts won't.

 

[dougp26364]

The Ridge in Lake Tahoe seems to have their act together as far as helping their owners who want to get out. Every time we've been there they have, in their units, an advertisement concerning the availability of resale weeks. It's actually a pretty good advertisement as the prices appear reasonable (if you're not shopping E-bay) and the resort is well maintained.

Why HOA's at sold our resorts can't assist in facilitating resales is beyond me. Simply put out the offer that resales are available to your guests, have a closiong company that works well with the HOA's and maybe have a couple of members of the staff trained on the paperwork involved to change a deed and there you have it. A simple way to A) help your owners and B) reduce defaults at your resort.

Those that remain under developement will, of course, have to have some sort of arrangement with the developer who is in active sales. It still seems to me that it would be best to take back unwanted weeks and add them back into developer inventory to be resold at a profit for the developer.

HOA's will have to get more creative in their approach. Calling owners lazy dead beats who have a contractual obligation really doesn't seem to be working. Southwind managements solution of slapping a huge future MF deposit of $1,500 is only incentive for owners needing to get out to just stop paying, creating another expense of foreclosure AND finding a way to get those weeks into new owners hands.

To believe that everyone cares about the potential ding on their credit rating is foolhardy. When you're in a bad financial position it doesn't matter. Just getting through the week, month and/or year is often more important than worrying about the possiblity that a timeshare HOA might put a bad mark on your credit rating.

 

[Rent_Share]

334 Posts in a single thread and Wyndham hasn't made a change that impacted mega renters.

 

[VegasBella]

From a 2012 study about HOA-controlled resorts:
"The data from the study suggests that the HOAs and owners need assistance with rental and resale programs to help utilize the intervals and to keep maintenance fee payments current. Only 60% of HOAcontrolled resorts indicated a rental program to help rent intervals owned by the HOA, and even less (54%) indicated a rental program to help owners. Resale assistance
is even lower than rental assistance. Only 44% of the HOA-controlled resorts reported having a resale program to help owners, with only about one in four (or 28%) of the HOA-controlled resorts reported having a resale program to help owners. Resale prices for intervals owned by the HOAs are well below the market pricing for new intervals—again suggesting a need for assistance to the HOA and owners with the resale process." [...]

"The data from this study suggests that there is a need for assistance to HOAs with both the rental and the resale process."

Study link: http://www.arda.org/uploadedFiles/ARDA/HOA_Outreach/A Study of HOA-Controlled Resorts.pdf

 

[Beefnot]

Only 44% of the HOA-controlled resorts reported having a resale program to help owners intervals held by the HOA, with only about one in four (or 28%) of the HOA-controlled resorts reported having a resale program to help owners.

Either my reading comprehension is failing me or this sentence was misworded.

 

[Carolinian]

ARDA is a developer promotion entity, and will always try to make the developers look better. I would not trust anything coming out of them.

From a 2012 study about HOA-controlled resorts:
"The data from the study suggests that the HOAs and owners need assistance with rental and resale programs to help utilize the intervals and to keep maintenance fee payments current. Only 60% of HOAcontrolled resorts indicated a rental program to help rent intervals owned by the HOA, and even less (54%) indicated a rental program to help owners. Resale assistance
is even lower than rental assistance. Only 44% of the HOA-controlled resorts reported having a resale program to help owners, with only about one in four (or 28%) of the HOA-controlled resorts reported having a resale program to help owners. Resale prices for intervals owned by the HOAs are well below the market pricing for new intervals—again suggesting a need for assistance to the HOA and owners with the resale process." [...]

"The data from this study suggests that there is a need for assistance to HOAs with both the rental and the resale process."

Study link: http://www.arda.org/uploadedFiles/ARDA/HOA_Outreach/A Study of HOA-Controlled Resorts.pdf

 

[ronparise]

ARDA is a developer promotion entity, and will always try to make the developers look better. I would not trust anything coming out of them.

Sometimes whats good for the Developers is good for the HOA's is good for the owners..our interests do sometimes align

 

[bogey21]

I agree. There are so many HOAs that don't do anything to help owners move their unwanted weeks that they need to revisit their mission.

FWIW 3 of the 4 Independent HOA controlled Resorts that did Deed Backs for me have active sales programs. I don't know if the 4th does or doesn't.

George

 

[VegasBella]

Carolinian, The study is making the same point you have already made here in this thread: that HOAs can and probably should be more involved in rentals and resales. It just has more data to back up the point, that all.

 

[timeos2]

Wow Judy, great thoughts. Lets look at them point by point (and I hope you realize I'm not saying I'm the expert or have the answers. Far from it. I'm saying there are many sides, many situations and regardless of how you see things taking a black & white, firm line in the sand is never the proper answer. What may be a perfect solution in a given case can be 100% wrong for many others. With that in mind here we go)

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 how do we define "many" owners? A simple majority? A super majority? Those that pay vs those that don't? At the vast majority of resorts, even those in serious trouble, usually the majority (as in 70%+) are paying thus it has to be assumed they want the resort to continue to exist. Fair?

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.

My interests from day one on an HOA Board was to make the resort all it could be for the absolute minimum reasonable amount possible. When I started I never realized how important resale could be as I was still a relative newbie assuming that roughly 50% or more of the purchase price would be the norm for resales. And in fact for nearly a decade that was the case. It all changed 6-8 years ago and is still in flux. The lack of a stable and predictable resale market hurts everyone even the finest, top name resorts.

Naturally every owner's needs must be considered. And those looking to sell must be helped. But they cannot be guaranteed a resale on their timeline. It cannot be a given or it will grow out of control. Think it through and you'll realize why. (Hint: Even those who have no desire to sell start considering it once fees rise due to deed backs which become unpaid fees which are picked up by the remaining owners. Now they suddenly see a reason to "get out" - they are guaranteed that so they go, more unpaid, more fees.....).

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.

Without (I hope) sounding like a know-it-all or whatever term you may wish to use here is a prime example of those not dealing with an operation directly get the wrong impression. It only takes a few emails, phone calls or personal contacts with owners who really need to sell (or at least sure have a very convincing story that they do) to know that not every request for a deed back is a lazy bum that picked up a resale for a dollar, used the free prepaid fees and now wants to turn it in free. Far from it. Most are long term owners who, when you look at the records, bought a decade or more back, usually at retail and may have thought all these years they had an appreciating asset. Not everyone is TUG savvy.

I can say with 100% conviction that the Board's I serve on, and myself personally, feel the pain of these owners. It is often heartbreaking to tell them we have no way to sell the ownership that they don't also have. We must put the burden on them to find that buyer as if we don't the burden falls on all the other owners - it would be THEM if they aren't successful at a sale - with even higher fees. The vast majority get it and agree they will work with us to find a buyer. Yes, work with the Association as we do not stand in the way of a resale and are ready and willing to do anything and everything we can short of taking on the fees to get a buyer for each and every ownership. It is to everyone's advantage to do so.

We set up free listings, we offer lists of resales to anyone that ask's (we cannot approach them - the sales presence on site prohibits that) and recently we contracted with a bonded, licensed reseller (no up front fees of any kind) to actively market the ownerships at off site locations. We are doing everything we can think of to create a market and sell the now unneeded ownerships to new owners. We have held raffles to give away ownerships, advertised in our newsletters of the great values available to current owners and their friends & families. We have moved many many ownerships using those methods, eBay, TUG and other sites. There is only so much we can do.

And also remember that a benefit to one owner has to be offered to all. So if we say that a paid up ownership can be turned in then every owner has that same opportunity. Who pays for the last one? If so many want out why not hold the vote to terminate the resort? That makes far more sense than a slow, inevitable death by some individuals getting out for free while others get stuck with the bills until they too finally give up. That's why there are methods to terminate a resort if the time comes.

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.

As mentioned above all of that & more has been done & is being done. What if those methods cannot move the amount of annual "churn" of owners we see? Not even Marriott when they handle owner resales can guarantee an owner the time will sell within XXX years. They have to hang in & pay until a buyer is found. It can be years literally. All we ask is that the owner remain until best efforts of everyone finds a taker for that time. We don't set a minimum, we don't put up roadblocks we just want a new owner in hand (a sale or gift or whatever). Not an noncollectable black hole of additional expense to foreclose. That is never our desire although it sometimes comes to that.

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.)

Spend money to find new owners? How? With a sales force? We would do it in a heartbeat if we could - we cannot sell on site. We have tried to find outside resellers and recently did, but it isn't easy if you cannot actively sell to those staying at the resort - the amount of sell through is low compared to the inventory available. There is no magic bullet to make buyers line up for ownerships no matter how low fees may be, how nice the area / resorts are - there are far more timeshares for sale than there are buyers. Period.

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.

More than anything else it is that "tone" of blame the HOA/ Board that makes me see red. I'm sure there are Boards / Associations / Managements that do not do the right thing and need to be prodded or worse. (In fact I know of some). But there are those that are doing all they can and they still cannot, in the course of meeting the 1st commandment of HOA existence "Do that only which is in the best interest of the Owners" take on unwanted inventory and force the costs onto owners that neither want it nor can afford it. They are not coldhearted bastards that take glee in making an owner squirm when an overdue notice is sent. They do understand that a vast majority of owners will be rightfully outraged if their fees rise by $10 or more next year because the Board acted to bail out the small amount of owners who desired (and that includes those that TRULY TRULY need it) to be free of the obligation.

It is not black and white, good or bad, right or wrong - it is a decision that each resort must seriously look at and act to the very best way they can to help every owner. As you say we Board members serve because we want to see our resorts thrive and our owners happy. We do it for free. We didn't plan on being sales groups and in fact are often prohibited from offering mass amounts of resales.

If that makes me or the resorts I work with heartless and blind to those looking to sell I guess that's how it is. I don't see it that way but everyone is free to take their own stance. The owners I meet each year at the Annual Meetings seem to be OK with our approach and ultimately it those owners, not the BBS community at large, that we Board members and management answer to.

Is this good for another 300 replies?

 

[BocaBum99]

Carolinian, The study is making the same point you have already made here in this thread: that HOAs can and probably should be more involved in rentals and resales. It just has more data to back up the point, that all.

The study does more than that. It shows just how widespread the problem is in the industry HOAs. They suffer through 8-10 years of PCCs many of whom scam their owners and nearly half of the HOAs still do nothing about it.

Had the HOAs been more proactive 8-10 years ago in fostering an active resale and rental market for their intervals along with a simlpe deedback program, the PCC market would not be anywhere near the problem it is today for them.

Sadly, when the PCCs are gone, the problem will be even worse because those owners who did find an exit through PCCs will no longer have an outlet other than rage at the HOAs and lawmakers for making their timeshares more of a life sentence than a real life sentence. At least with a criminal life sentence, you have a chance for parole. Your timeshare is the only thing that is until death do you part.

 

[timeos2]

By the way, my neighbor has a boat (or car, or cottage- it's something) we have enjoyed in the past but now he no longer finds it useful and it is costing money to just store it on the trailer. He cannot find a buyer so I guess all the neighbors should pay each month to let him be out from under it. He's a really nice guy and used to share it with us regularly, but his job hours were cut and now he can't afford it. Oh, if we don't want it that doesn't matter. Our tax bills will have the charge now as someone has to pay. He won't have to pay as he no longer wants it and has says he wants us to have the obligation now. He really is a nice fellow.

It is like a life sentence for hm if he has to keep paying as he paid off the loan and paid all the maintenance for many years. Now he just can't do it anymore, but no one wants to buy his boat! It's well maintained but it is 40' long and is very expensive to operate and maintain. It really is only fair all the neighbors pay now as he is done with it and no longer can afford it.
I knew we'd all agree. The poor guy just wants out. It would be totally unfair to make him find a buyer before he walks away from it.

Right?

 

[Beefnot]

By the way, my neighbor has a boat (or car, or cottage- it's something) we have enjoyed in the past but now he no longer finds it useful and it is costing money to just store it on the trailer. He cannot find a buyer so I guess all the neighbors should pay each month to let him be out from under it. He's a really nice guy and used to share it with us regularly, but his job hours were cut and now he can't afford it. Oh, if we don't want it that doesn't matter. Our tax bills will have the charge now as someone has to pay. He won't have to pay as he no longer wants it and has says he wants us to have the obligation now. He really is a nice fellow.

It is like a life sentence for hm if he has to keep paying as he paid off the loan and paid all the maintenance for many years. Now he just can't do it anymore, but no one wants to buy his boat! It's well maintained but it is 40' long and is very expensive to operate and maintain. It really is only fair all the neighbors pay now as he is done with it and no longer can afford it.
I knew we'd all agree. The poor guy just wants out. It would be totally unfair to make him find a buyer before he walks away from it.

Right?

Are you serious about this analogy between an HOA/Owners and neighbors whose friend has a boat? I thought you were smarter than this.

 

[timeos2]

Are you serious about this analogy between an HOA/Owners and neighbors whose friend has a boat? I thought you were smarter than this.

Really? It is too nonsensical when it's a boat (or cottage or car) yet it makes sense because it's a timeshare?

Of course I used it to show how ridiculous the "they have a right to get out" or "since they can't sell you are responsible" arguments are. It's easy to see when it's a boat but somehow seems reasonable when it's a timeshare. It's not.

 

[VivianLynne]

Really? It is too nonsensical when it's a boat (or cottage or car) yet it makes sense because it's a timeshare? ...

John, I read your earlier post and KNEW what you were getting at. The difference to MOST people is, timeshare resorts are another LARGE business getting over on working folk or older people or their family or their neighbor. Give the Joe/Mary/Igor/Maria a break - help them out as they themselves WANT the security that THEY would be bailed out also.

As a nonprofit entity (notice, I did not use the word business), there are RESERVES, but NOT a PROFIT bucket. Reserves in timeshares are for the unforeseen -- natural disasters, broken water chillers, broken water mains or a refurnishment in 3 years. Dang, the resort managers can not even sell the underlying real estate or take a (bridge or equity) loan out on the resort.

Say the average resorts has 7500 intervals - sold out with a MF average of $800 each interval. Right now 20% of the intervals are NON-Paying. That is 1500 units equal $1,200,000 lost MFs. That is $200 per paying interal increase (25% of the $800 MFs). From what I am reading, that 20% non-paying is getting fairly COMMON.

It is already closing in on 20% --- and the resorts are renting these out for just about ANY money they can get. They are bleeding and after 6-8 years of "things NOT improving, but getting worse" and cutting back (including staff & maintenance & replacement items) ... it is not a pretty thing to hear the staff talk openly about low morale. Staff who cared about their owners, their resorts and liked their jobs, are so concerned about their paychecks and medical insurance ... I usually only see this level of fear in business environments which HAVE filed for backruptcy.

Just my experiences ....

 

[Beefnot]

Really? It is too nonsensical when it's a boat (or cottage or car) yet it makes sense because it's a timeshare?

Of course I used it to show how ridiculous the "they have a right to get out" or "since they can't sell you are responsible" arguments are. It's easy to see when it's a boat but somehow seems reasonable when it's a timeshare. It's not.

Has nothing to do with a boat or a timeshare per se. It is the silliness of your analogy that is at issue. There is no fiduciary responsibility nor legal beneficial interest between your neighbors and your property. Your neighbors have no ownership interest in your boat, nor are they on the Board of You.

 

[timeos2]

Has nothing to do with a boat or a timeshare per se. It is the silliness of your analogy that is at issue. There is no fiduciary responsibility nor legal beneficial interest between your neighbors and your property. Your neighbors have no ownership interest in your boat, nor are they on the Board of You.

And the owners of a timeshare have no legal or beneficial interest in the property you ownas a timeshare owner - that 1/52nd is the same as a boat. It stands alone as an ownership / deed/ agreement / contract / property the buyer accepted and agreed to the terms. That includes paying for the fees just as they knew they had to pay for the upkeep, operation of that boat.

You try to make it sound like a timeshare is somehow different than any other property. Newsflash - it's not. It is yours to use, not the communities, and yours to properly dispose of. They don't owe you a sale of your boat or of your timeshare. People here seem to want to make timeshares somehow unique in all the world of property ownership and rights. It isn't so. No amount of rhetoric will change that simple fact.

The are closest to a traditional condo or a home in an HOA. Would you say that it is expected that the other members of a condo's HOA or a homeowners group MUST take back the deed to a condo or home that will not sell? Of course not. A timeshare is 1/52nd of that condo, nothing more, nothing less. The rules don't magically change because the slice is smaller.

 

[K2Quick]

By the way, my neighbor has a boat (or car, or cottage- it's something) we have enjoyed in the past but now he no longer finds it useful and it is costing money to just store it on the trailer. He cannot find a buyer so I guess all the neighbors should pay each month to let him be out from under it. He's a really nice guy and used to share it with us regularly, but his job hours were cut and now he can't afford it. Oh, if we don't want it that doesn't matter. Our tax bills will have the charge now as someone has to pay. He won't have to pay as he no longer wants it and has says he wants us to have the obligation now. He really is a nice fellow.

It is like a life sentence for hm if he has to keep paying as he paid off the loan and paid all the maintenance for many years. Now he just can't do it anymore, but no one wants to buy his boat! It's well maintained but it is 40' long and is very expensive to operate and maintain. It really is only fair all the neighbors pay now as he is done with it and no longer can afford it.
I knew we'd all agree. The poor guy just wants out. It would be totally unfair to make him find a buyer before he walks away from it.

Right?

Sorry but that's a pretty silly comparison. A boat can easily be sold to another party, sold for scrap, or given away. A mud week at timeshare in Breckenridge not so much.

 

[K2Quick]

People here seem to want to make timeshares somehow unique in all the world of property ownership and rights. It isn't so.

If you can't admit that a timeshare ownership isn't unique among other asset classes, there's no point in even discussing this with you.

 

[Beefnot]

If you can't admit that a timeshare ownership isn't unique among other asset classes, there's no point in even discussing this with you.

I would be okay even if he didn't acknowledge that. But to be stuck on stupid with an analogy between a co-owned asset and an asset fully owned by an individual is what makes me incredulous.

 

[Beefnot]

You try to make it sound like a timeshare is somehow different than any other property.

No I'm not. I was not disputing the asset itself. I was disputing the analogy about ownership and fiduciary responsibility.

The are closest to a traditional condo or a home in an HOA. Would you say that it is expected that the other members of a condo's HOA or a homeowners group MUST take back the deed to a condo or home that will not sell? Of course not. A timeshare is 1/52nd of that condo, nothing more, nothing less. The rules don't magically change because the slice is smaller.

You are shadowboxing. What does the size of the slice or whether owners must take back something have to do with comparing a co-owned real asset to a wholly owned boat? Don't change the subject of debate from your silly analogy.