First Lawsuit filed against Viking Ship LLCs / PCCs

[Beefnot]

There could maybe be a party where everyone says say goodbye, and the owners could (voluntarily) chip in and buy the HOA Board members plagues of appreciation. Maybe the owners would treat Board members to a vacation somewhere else the next year.

I guess that would clearly demonstrate just how much appreciation the owners had for the board.

 

[Tia]

Interesting thread. I own a owner controlled resort where majority of ts owners mostly don't bother to vote, typical. Timeshare owners did at one time unite and ousted the developer, but it took lots of effort + money and then they all went back to sleep. There are 4 HOA's in this one resort. My HOA has 8 whole condo owners who have 52 votes each and they vote onto my HOA board who they want, because regular ts owner do not vote. Regular ts owners wanting to sit on the HOA don't have a chance. The whole condo owners got interior renovations several years ago outside what the condo documents appear to allow and our board justified it as they needed to blah blah

The only resale tool right now at my resort is a sheet of HOA owned units given out on check in. It was recently reported at a owners gathering at the resort that "units are being sold for token amounts to bring in new owner's who will be generating maintenance fees".

 

[Ridewithme38]

The only resale tool right now at my resort is a sheet of HOA owned units given out on check in. It was recently reported at a owners gathering at the resort that "units are being sold for token amounts to bring in new owner's who will be generating maintenance fees".

IMO, even just a list given out at check in would be an amazing improvement for most timeshares....i'm still a timeshare newbie but have stayed at about a dozen different timeshare and i've never gotten that

 

[timeos2]

There have been several suggestions here to deal with this. Deedbacks could be limited to a certain number per year, first come first served, with other owners placed on a waitlist. Or, a resort could use Boca's suggestion of a "dutch auction" where deedbacks go to owners who pay the highest amount. (I'm not sure most owners would agree to or even understand a dutch auction, but requiring payment of two or three year's MFs for a deedback would have a similar effect.)

I have to respond to this, the others I have to read over to see if it adds anything to the discussion to reply.

This comment touches on the faulty process used to determine that offering so called deedbacks is a viable and fair method to use to combat ownership abandonment.

Think about it. How is owner #21 (assuming an arbitrary figure of 20 deedbacks per year) any different than owner #1 at a resort that says "we can't take deedebacks"? Both now are supposedly without a way to get out of the ownership.

It really shows that regardless of method(s) there are a finite number of ownerships that can be resold in any given amount of time. Shortcutting the process by having the majority of owners pick up the fees for those who aren't willing or able to wait for their ownership to have a taker regardless of price doesn't solve anything it just moves to a larger group who has to pay the cost.

Asking owners to hang in and pay UNTIL there is a buyer/taker for their time isn't unreasonable. Once an HOA/Resort has an outlet for owners to sell they have an "out" - the time it takes for it to happen cannot be known and shouldn't be guaranteed by other owners.

That doesn't even get into the requirement to treat all owners equally. Simply saying that only 20 can be accepted isn't a fair cutoff if the 21st and other owners requesting a deedback meet all the requirements that the 20 owners blessed with a free turn in did. It is unfair treatment and could subject the Board to a lawsuit they may lose.

No matter how many years of estimated fees are required to "qualify" an owner to deedback there still remains no promise that by the time those funds run out there will in fact be a new, paying owner in place.

Requiring an Association to accept deedbacks is not a viable option. If it is in the best interest of the resort to do so (in the best judgement of the sitting Board & management) then they should be able to do so (and they can if they meet all other rules such as equal treatment for all owners). But if it isn't in the best interest of the resort then by law they must be able to say no and (hopefully) offer other methods for an owner to be out of an unwanted ownership.

 

[timeos2]

I would say that having a foreclosure on one's credit report can be a huge deal. For starters, many insurance companies use credit ratings to determine fees. If I had a foreclosure, my auto & home insurance would go up by at least $1000 a year, and probably not come back down for several years. Many employers use credit reports to decide whom to hire. Someone may need to refinance a HELOC or other large loan soon, and be unable to do so if they had a foreclosure. A serious hit to one's credit report can start a downward spiral that ends in bankruptcy or even homelessness.

While a timeshare is a property like any other condo or home a foreclosure for unpaid fees, not a defaulted mortgage, isn't likely to be the serious credit hit a foreclosure for any defaulted mortgage or personal loan would be. In fact a foreclosure for unpaid fees may not even be reported.

So there is a slight risk in allowing a default to reach the point of foreclosure but it is relatively small. Also realize that when things reach that point many Associations, to save themselves the cost of a foreclosure, MAY offer a deed in lieu option even if they previously didn't accept a so called deedback. A deed in lieu usually state's that despite the collection efforts (failed or it wouldn't be in potential foreclosure) and the pending foreclosure action facing the owner the resort will accept the deed back in lieu of all future payments and often throws in the bone to the owner that if they get the deed then they will NOT report the debt to any credit agencies. Thus what the owner had always wanted - to turn the ownership in legally without cost and without a credit hit - might very well occur despite the initial refusal to take a deedback. In many cases I suspect this is what actually occurs when people report they had to try "many times" or speak to "many people" to get the resort to take a deed into the Association name.

The difference is that by that time the Management/Association has been convinced that the owner truly cannot or will not pay the fees due regardless of any and all pressure they can put on by collections. As the option the resort faces then, but not when the collections process hasn't occurred yet, is the need for a costly foreclosure. They are willing to write off the fees (or sometimes require that they get them up to date but waive late fees, interest, etc) then accept the deed in lieu of all future payments. As many have noted there is a point where it is better (thus "in the best interest of the resort") to have control of the ownership rather than risk it being recovered only through a costly foreclosure. There are many reasons that skipping that collections step is not in the best interest of the resort and thus simply automatically offering a deedback or deed in lieu is not a proper move. Again, each case needs to be looked at, where the process stands needs to be looked at and the crucial test of "best interest of the resort" must be met. A blanket "take them all" requirement would eliminate those important options and hurt, not help, resorts in the important collection process.

Shortcutting or short circuiting the designed process, or attempting to avoid it by a Viking Ship type operation, just muddles what is a clearly defined procedure that in fact ALWAYS offers an owner a way out. It just may not be on their timeline or terms. Nothing wrong with that as that risk comes alongwith a every contract signed.

 

[Ridewithme38]

doesn't the collection process itself put a big hit on someones credit score....couple hundred point hit is my understanding...

That's why foreclosures are so bad, they aren't just stand alone events, the collects and reports of late payment combine to make it devistating

 

[timeos2]

doesn't the collection process itself put a big hit on someones credit score....couple hundred point hit is my understanding...

That's why foreclosures are so bad, they aren't just stand alone events, the collects and reports of late payment combine to make it devistating

They can. But many resorts do not report delinquent fee collection efforts (although they can). Sometimes it's more work than it is worth to do so. A foreclosure, even for fees, is more likely to be reported to the credit agencies.

 

[BocaBum99]

I have to respond to this, the others I have to read over to see if it adds anything to the discussion to reply.

This comment touches on the faulty process used to determine that offering so called deedbacks is a viable and fair method to use to combat ownership abandonment.

Think about it. How is owner #21 (assuming an arbitrary figure of 20 deedbacks per year) any different than owner #1 at a resort that says "we can't take deedebacks"? Both now are supposedly without a way to get out of the ownership.

It really shows that regardless of method(s) there are a finite number of ownerships that can be resold in any given amount of time. Shortcutting the process by having the majority of owners pick up the fees for those who aren't willing or able to wait for their ownership to have a taker regardless of price doesn't solve anything it just moves to a larger group who has to pay the cost.

Asking owners to hang in and pay UNTIL there is a buyer/taker for their time isn't unreasonable. Once an HOA/Resort has an outlet for owners to sell they have an "out" - the time it takes for it to happen cannot be known and shouldn't be guaranteed by other owners.

That doesn't even get into the requirement to treat all owners equally. Simply saying that only 20 can be accepted isn't a fair cutoff if the 21st and other owners requesting a deedback meet all the requirements that the 20 owners blessed with a free turn in did. It is unfair treatment and could subject the Board to a lawsuit they may lose.

No matter how many years of estimated fees are required to "qualify" an owner to deedback there still remains no promise that by the time those funds run out there will in fact be a new, paying owner in place.

Requiring an Association to accept deedbacks is not a viable option. If it is in the best interest of the resort to do so (in the best judgement of the sitting Board & management) then they should be able to do so (and they can if they meet all other rules such as equal treatment for all owners). But if it isn't in the best interest of the resort then by law they must be able to say no and (hopefully) offer other methods for an owner to be out of an unwanted ownership.

You need to just stop. All of your arguments are just plain wrong. Attitudes such as yours put the timeshare industry where it is today... in zombie land. Yes, it's your attitude that prevents a solution from being adopted. It is complete and utter nonsense that 100% of resorts cannot have some type of deedback program.

100% of resorts can and should have some type of deed back program. I want for it to be law that they have some type of program. They can define it any way they want. Worst case is create a holding company and have the HOA subsidize that company for a while using justification of money saved vs. foreclosure and abandoned timeshares in Viking ships. Very easy to do the business case on this one.

You need to throttle back demand for deedbacks? Then increase the number of years of future maintenance fees that need to be provided. There will be an equilibrium point at which people will not take the deedback option.

Many resorts need to go out of business. When they have control of the deeds, it is much easier to dissolve the timeshare plan. If the resort cannot move deeds, it should go out of business rather than forcing owners who want out to subsidize owners who don't.

The PCCs took the pressure off the HOAs. They were easy targets because of how they did business. With them gone, HOAs will only need to look into a mirror to see who is the problem.

 

[timeos2]

You need to just stop. All of your arguments are just plain wrong. Attitudes such as yours put the timeshare industry where it is today... in zombie land. Yes, it's your attitude that prevents a solution from being adopted. It is complete and utter nonsense that 100% of resorts cannot have some type of deedback program.

100% of resorts can and should have some type of deed back program. I want for it to be law that they have some type of program. They can define it any way they want. Worst case is create a holding company and have the HOA subsidize that company for a while using justification of money saved vs. foreclosure and abandoned timeshares in Viking ships. Very easy to do the business case on this one.

You need to throttle back demand for deedbacks? Then increase the number of years of future maintenance fees that need to be provided. There will be an equilibrium point at which people will not take the deedback option.

Many resorts need to go out of business. When they have control of the deeds, it is much easier to dissolve the timeshare plan. If the resort cannot move deeds, it should go out of business rather than forcing owners who want out to subsidize owners who don't.

The PCCs took the pressure off the HOAs. They were easy targets because of how they did business. With them gone, HOAs will only need to look into a mirror to see who is the problem.

Right back at ya!

You need to just stop. All of your arguments are just plain wrong. Attitudes such as yours put the timeshare industry where it is today... in trouble due to defaults. Yes, it's your do it at others expense that prevents a true solution from being adopted. It is complete and utter nonsense that 100% of owners cannot take legal steps to find a proper owner for their timeshare if they no longer have use for it. Or take the steps needed to terminate an unwanted resort.

The resorts exist because agreements were entered into by free thinking adults that agreed to legally binding terms. They may have foolishly listened to a slick sales person but in any case agreed to be part of a system. No one forced them to buy in nor can they hold them in the system against their will. They always have legal ways out.

You need to sell a week? Reduce the price. You own a week that is "unsellable"? Then go to the resort & take the necessary steps to close it. It's right there in the documents how you do it. If it is the best choice then make your case and convince a majority to do so.

Don't take the easy and likely illegal way out by creating purposely camouflaged ownerships in the hope you can get away without handling your obligations as agreed. Complain all you want and do anything legal you can. And don't get on your highhorse when those that honor the rules demonize those that don't. Life is tough that way.

 

[DeniseM]

Maybe it is time for some of our timeshare friends or active Real Estate agents in the timeshare business to pipe up on the issue(s) raised by vacationhopeful.

That describes MANY of the posters in this thread.

 

[kenie]

Are all LLC's essentially Viking ships or do some individuals hold their timeshares in an LLC?

 

[timeos2]

Are all LLC's essentially Viking ships or do some individuals hold their timeshares in an LLC?

There are a few legitimate owners that have placed timeshares in trusts. It usually has to do with a family dynamic or, in a case like Wyndham, to have a way to transfer rights that cannot be sold.

With that said the vast majority of timeshares found deeded to a trust the past few years have tended to be delinquent thus they appear to be placed there with abandonment as the plan. Especially true for the trusts with many weeks from a single or many resorts placed into them.

 

[Ridewithme38]

There are a few legitimate owners that have placed timeshares in trusts. It usually has to do with a family dynamic or, in a case like Wyndham, to have a way to transfer rights that cannot be sold.

With that said the vast majority of timeshares found deeded to a trust the past few years have tended to be delinquent thus they appear to be placed there with abandonment as the plan. Especially true for the trusts with many weeks from a single or many resorts placed into them.

I thought i remember someone once mentioning putting their wyndham timeshare into an LLC to avoid guest certificates....I don't remember if this was just an idea someone had, or if they had already done it though

 

[ronparise]

Are all LLC's essentially Viking ships or do some individuals hold their timeshares in an LLC?

So far, everything I own (timeshares) is held by me personally. However I recently created two LLCs. one to hold the timeshares and the other to manage my timeshare rental business..anything new that I buy will go into the holding company. Over time I will be creating more holding companies and will be moving what I hold personally into one or the other of the holding companies (over time because most of what I have is Wyndham, and at $299 a pop its too much to do all at once)

Why am I doing this? Its just good business

 

[Carolinian]

IMO, even just a list given out at check in would be an amazing improvement for most timeshares....i'm still a timeshare newbie but have stayed at about a dozen different timeshare and i've never gotten that

You seem to stay mostly at developer run resorts, and you will never get such a list at one of those. They have sales weasels who want to pounce on you instead.

 

[Carolinian]

These PCC companies change names daily, there is no way some timeshare newsletter is up to date enough to name every pcc company who only intent is to default on the ownership....and if the owner uses a company not named, who tells them they 'don't do that' then there is no way he could have known otherwise

They do not have to list them by name, just describe the business practice - wanting the member to pay them a wad of money to take a week off the members hands.

 

[Carolinian]

I have actually done foreclosures when I used to practice law, and that includes HOA foreclosures. When there is a question of title, every foreclosure attorney I know lists everyone who might possibly have an interest as a party to the foreclosure. Even if you have title insurance, and most resale timeshares do not, it will not stop the foreclosure attorney from listing you as a party in the proceeding.

You are correct that most registers of deeds will record deeds that have mistakes or are not valid. Some timesharers have a false sense of security that their deed is okay because it was recorded and accepted by a resort. Not so.

Also, anyone who stands up in open court and says ''f you, judge'' is going to go to jail for contempt of court, even if they are there on a civil matter. I have never heard anyone do exactly that, but one time I was in court, a defendant said ''s--k my d--k'' in a low voice he did not intend the judge to hear, but he did and asked ''what did you say?'' so the defendant said it louder and got 60 days for contempt, whereupon he said it twice more and got 60 more days on each of those.

You've been saying that for 2 years, heck, the first deed i purchased has the name of the wrong resort on it, it was accepted by the county and Wyndham just fine...these title companies have insurance that cover Errors & Omissions, all that happens in the case of a mistake on a title is it gets rewritten and resubmitted, you don't magically not own something!

The fact is, unless the owner stands up in front of a judge and say 'f you judge i hate them timeshare companies, i wanted to mess them up anyway i could so i told the pcc to dump my timeshare' there will NEVER be an issue with a previous owner

 

[Carolinian]

You seem to gloss over proving intent, California's bad check laws include a burden of proving intent, consequently almost every law enforcement agency considers a dishonored check an issue for the parties to litigate in civil court.

California is one of those places where the law is often rather bizarre. There is no such problem in North Carolina, and not only are bad checks routinely prosecuted, and convicted, as criminal misdemeanors, but they can be and sometimes are prosecuted as the felony of False Pretenses.

Besides, we are not talking about criminal prosecution of those using PCC's but civil lawsuits (like the way those California bad checks are handled). There are various levels of intent required to be proved even in criminal law, as there are specific intent crimes that require a higher level of proof, and general intent crimes, which require a lesser level. Sometimes the standard is what a defendant either knew or should have known. For example, the circumstances under which someone buys property may put an individual on notice that it is likely stolen even if he has no actual knowledge that it is, and the fact that he should have known it from the circumstances is all that has to be proved.

 

[Carolinian]

ARDA is a developer organization, and often produces questionable statistics that somehow serve developers interests. I would not trust ARDA any rather than I could throw them. ARDA prefers that resorts be run under developer dictatorship than under homeowner democracy. Most member-controlled resorts in my area have programs to assist members in selling weeks, so I find these numbers to be typical ARDA fantasy. Oh, and ARDA's European equivalent, RDO, is even worse.

Beefnot then rephrased the quote:
"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."

I want to emphasize what Beetnot said. The chart Beefnot posted (which is from the ARDA study that Vegasbella cited) shows that only 44% of HOA-controlled resorts have a resale program in place to sell HOA-owned intervals, and only 28% of HOA-controlled resorts have a resale program in place to help owners sell their intervals.

 

[Carolinian]

Except for a few of the older resorts, many Wyndham HOA's are fronts for the developer. Look at who actually serves and you will find it is employees and other creatures of the developer. This is a huge conflict of interest and ought to be prohibited by law. These are what I refer to as ''developer dictatorships''

Nice post. I think many HOAs are like legislators, they exist to continue their existence. I think too many of them are locked into a mind-set that they get to dictate what is right, and everybody else had better fall in line. I also see lots of complaints about Wyndham & other big companies whose HOAs seem to exist to "preserve their brand". It's time the HOAs really did exist to serve the owner's needs.

I'll happily grant you that it serves no one for an HOA to just allow a resort to fail, and that an HOA can't be all things to all owners. Do any of the HOAs have annual meetings where items like updates or renovations are proposed, discussed & voted on? HOAs have gotten a bad rap for a reason, and I think that more accessible, responsible HOAs get better compliance from their owner/members.

 

[Carolinian]

As to checks and balances, the biggest one in a member-run resort is voting for the HOA board members, and some also provide that the members also have to adopt the HOA budget. Most, if not all, states provide that most resort records have to be made available for members to inspect and copy, with sufficient advance notice. This includes board minutes, financial records, and the membership list. The last is particularly important as it gives members the opportunity to support rival candidates if the existing board is out of line or not following members wishes.

Another avenue of approach is legal liability. Every HOA I know maintains board member liability insurance, so if the board commits malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, they can be sued and the insurance has to pay the judgment. If they do not have that insurance, they can be sued personally.

I'm new to the timeshare thing, so please bear with me. In AZ about 20 years ago there was a rash of lawsuits against HOAs that run Condos. The gist of the litigation was that the HOA "Boards" in question were hiring "management companies" or contractors owned by family or friends that were charging outrageous rates, depleting cash reserves for unnecessary and sometimes fraudulent "repairs", and refusing to deal with legit homeowner complaints. It did some significant re-shaping of the HOAs are regulated.

I get that you sign a contract and you should have to honor it. So here are my questions.... What checks and balances exist to make sure the HOAs are dealing honestly with the owners? What recourse do owners have in case of bad faith by HOA or their management? Are the HOA's "books" ever open to the owners? With a house or condo, you can sell it & walk away. The level of deflation of value on a timeshare makes selling it much more difficult. I'm not sure any individual "1st owner" (they bought from the resort) has ever turned a profit on what they bought. In the traditional real-estate market, you can sue over misrepresentation of the property. I've never heard of this happening the timeshare world, yet fraudulent misrepresentations abound.

Some people have their timeshares for years with no problems, and would like to continue, but health issues, job loss, death, and other factors outside their control can ruin it. When you die, your heirs should not be stuck with something they can't liquidate. They may not be able to make any money off of it, but it shouldn't cost them for years to come.

I think it would be in the best interest of resorts to accept deedbacks under certain conditions. I'm just throwing these suggestions out there for consideration, so let's not flame me, please.

1 - Current on fees
2 - owner 5 years or more
3 - pre-pay 1 years maintenance fee
4 - pre-pay closing & transfer costs

IMO, this helps the resorts by reducing the number of $1.00 timeshares available, helps the owners out of something they may not be able to afford any more, and gives the resorts more control over price. Now, if we added in some resort honesty in the first place, we would have less people wanting to do a deedback or recision simply because they felt they had been ripped off. I would also think that a reputation for honesty at the resort, coupled with property that was clean, well maintained, and well staffed, would translate into higher demand for that property across all selling mediums.

I think HOAs are scared that everyone will default/deedback. I think there are enough people who love their timeshares that it won't be that bad. Resorts definitely need much better PR, the kind that comes from happy owners, not slick salespeople.

 

[Ridewithme38]

Another avenue of approach is legal liability. Every HOA I know maintains board member liability insurance, so if the board commits malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, they can be sued and the insurance has to pay the judgment. If they do not have that insurance, they can be sued personally.

This isn't checks and balances, this is risk management, or a risk transfer technique. What the board is doing here is mitigating their risk of personal lawsuits and through the mitigation, they are eliminating the chance of them being personally responsible for their actions.

Basically, they are getting the insurance so they can screw they owners all they want and not have any personal responsibility for their actions.

 

[VegasBella]

Also, anyone who stands up in open court and says ''f you, judge'' is going to go to jail for contempt of court, even if they are there on a civil matter. I have never heard anyone do exactly that, but one time I was in court, a defendant said ''s--k my d--k'' in a low voice he did not intend the judge to hear, but he did and asked ''what did you say?'' so the defendant said it louder and got 60 days for contempt, whereupon he said it twice more and got 60 more days on each of those.

Ride's point was not about contempt. Sure, someone who uses profanity in court or who insults the judge may receive a punishment for contempt, but that was NOT the point. The point was that admitting intent to abandon timeshare property is still probably not going to result in penalties beyond foreclosure.

We already know this lawsuit described in the first post of this thread does NOT target individual owners. So why continue on this line of discussion?

Also, we don't even know what the complaint is. There is a very good chance, IMO, that this is not really going to do anything much in terms of regulating Viking Ships.

Most member-controlled resorts in my area have programs to assist members in selling weeks, so I find these numbers to be typical ARDA fantasy.

I don't doubt the study numbers. A lie like that would be extremely brazen since it wouldn't be too difficult to verify.

Plus many Tuggers here have explained that resorts they own or have looked into owning are not doing much to help owners rent or sell their weeks. My own experience in buying my timeshares led me to believe that most timeshares could use improvement in that area.

For example...
When we were interested in buying at Carlsbad Inn I emailed their sales team and explained that I would be in town and wanted to take a look around, possibly buy a unit. They never emailed me back. I had to go there in person.

When I called The Blue Whale and asked if they had any units for sale. They simply said NO. They did not give me a list of names and phone numbers, they did not suggest redweek.com or TUG. They just said NO.

This went on and on. NONE of the resorts I looked at (HOA-controlled resorts in the So Cal area) had any useful information on their websites about resales, even as mentioned above, the ones with full-on resales departments. It is very clear to me that the vast majority of timeshare HOAs need improvement in helping owners resell their units.

The ones we ended up buying were bought in no small part because the process was easy. I have to say that as a buyer, I vastly preferred dealing with a PCC than with the resorts or the individual owners. It was easy and fast, they use email and fax efficiently and aren't stuck in the 1950s, plus the price was the lowest. HOAs need to step it up.

 

[Carolinian]

This isn't checks and balances, this is risk management, or a risk transfer technique. What the board is doing here is mitigating their risk of personal lawsuits and through the mitigation, they are eliminating the chance of them being personally responsible for their actions.

Basically, they are getting the insurance so they can screw they owners all they want and not have any personal responsibility for their actions.

Directors and officers liability is common in corporations, not just timeshare HOA's (which are non-profit corporations). One trick to get your manager covered, too, is to make him / her an assistant secretary or assistant treasurer. That way if the manager embezzles (it happens), the HOA gets reimbursed.

 

[Carolinian]

Well, it is not just my own area, but resorts that were owner controlled that I have exchanged into in the UK and Germany have also had places for members to post resales, rentals, weeks wanted, etc.

And somebody going behind ARDA would be quite time consuming. ARDA's studies apparently use samples, and how samples are constructed can skew the results tremendously. I remember back when I was on my HOA board and someone mentioned an ARDA survey on something that did not ring right. Our manager got curious and called around to the other resorts on the Outer Banks to ask if anyone had been contacted on this survey and nobody had. The results painted with a broad brush which purported to include us, but they did not bother to talk to anyone in our area. That experience has taught me to take ANY ARDA survey with a grain of salt.

Maybe you missed my post, as to individuals being defendants, but there was an article in Timesharing Today magazine some months ago about several major timeshare management companies that had announced and put their members of on notice that they would sue individual members for fraudulent conveyance if they ditched their week with a PCC. The lawsuit in this thread involves different plaintiffs, and so it is not part of that effort. We will just have to wait and see what that other set of potential plaintiffs does and when.

If I were advising an HOA that wanted to play hardball on this, I don't think I would go the fraudulent conveyance route. In North Carolina, most deeds from members into the Viking ships are fatally defective and so do not transfer title in the first place. (Some other states may have other defects, particularly where PCC's use POA's as part of the transfer) I would just simply advise the member that legally they still own the week and rather than foreclose, I would sue them for money owed in North Carolina, and after getting judgment proceed to collect on the judgment. While I tend to support deedbacks for those who approach HOA's with legitimate problems - health, age, financial distress, etc., I do NOT have the same sympathy at all for those who use Viking ships, and support nailing their hides to the wall.

Ride's point was not about contempt. Sure, someone who uses profanity in court or who insults the judge may receive a punishment for contempt, but that was NOT the point. The point was that admitting intent to abandon timeshare property is still probably not going to result in penalties beyond foreclosure.

We already know this lawsuit described in the first post of this thread does NOT target individual owners. So why continue on this line of discussion?

Also, we don't even know what the complaint is. There is a very good chance, IMO, that this is not really going to do anything much in terms of regulating Viking Ships.





I don't doubt the study numbers. A lie like that would be extremely brazen since it wouldn't be too difficult to verify.

Plus many Tuggers here have explained that resorts they own or have looked into owning are not doing much to help owners rent or sell their weeks. My own experience in buying my timeshares led me to believe that most timeshares could use improvement in that area.

For example...
When we were interested in buying at Carlsbad Inn I emailed their sales team and explained that I would be in town and wanted to take a look around, possibly buy a unit. They never emailed me back. I had to go there in person.

When I called The Blue Whale and asked if they had any units for sale. They simply said NO. They did not give me a list of names and phone numbers, they did not suggest redweek.com or TUG. They just said NO.

This went on and on. NONE of the resorts I looked at (HOA-controlled resorts in the So Cal area) had any useful information on their websites about resales, even as mentioned above, the ones with full-on resales departments. It is very clear to me that the vast majority of timeshare HOAs need improvement in helping owners resell their units.

The ones we ended up buying were bought in no small part because the process was easy. I have to say that as a buyer, I vastly preferred dealing with a PCC than with the resorts or the individual owners. It was easy and fast, they use email and fax efficiently and aren't stuck in the 1950s, plus the price was the lowest. HOAs need to step it up.