First Lawsuit filed against Viking Ship LLCs / PCCs

[JudyS]

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

"Plagues of appreciation" means lots and lots of appreciation -- just like plagues of locusts means lots and lots of locusts! I meant to say plagues, really!

(OK, I meant to say "plaques of appreciation.")

 

[JudyS]

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. .....

John, I generally avoid being argumentative, but you are "trying to have it both ways" here.

Either collection action by a resort has a serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, or it doesn't.

If collection action by a resort has a serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, then some financially struggling owners will be serious hurt if they cannot do a deedback to get out from under the MFs, as I described previously.

If collection action by a resort has no serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, then it won't deter owners from becoming delinquent. In that case, why object to the proposal that Boca made (and I seconded), that resorts be forbidden from reporting delinquent MFs to credit agencies?

 

[JudyS]

....
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. ....

There are many things in timesharing that are "first come, first served," yet are considered to treat owners equally. Reservations are a good example. So, I'm not convinced that limiting the number of deedbacks per year would constitute treating owners unequally.

At any rate, Boca's plan (raising the fee for a deedback until the number of deedbacks reaches a manageable level) ensures treating all owners equally.

John, you seem to agree that some resorts need to close. My impression, though, is that closing a resort is often impossible, for reasons I gave in my post from a few days ago. (Basically, it's often impossible to achieve a supermajority because many owners can not be reached.) A number of Tuggers here are proposing a combination of deedbacks and bankruptcy as a way to make it easier to close a resort. Since you don't like this approach, could you comment on how owners can close non-viable resorts? Do you have any ideas, not involving deedbacks, that would make the process quicker and easier?

 

[JudyS]

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.

I agree that relying on one study can be risky. Howerver, I don't see much incentive for ARDA to lie here. The study ends up saying that more HOA-Controlled resorts should have resale programs. How is that to the developers' advantage?

And, IIRC, the study was done by academics, not ARDA employees. Not a guarantee of honesty (let alone accuracy), but it is some protection against fraud.

Also, let me relate my personal experience with one of my resorts. I asked if they could help me sell my week. They said yes, they work closely with a realtor who helps owners sell their weeks. Well, I called the realtor, and they charge a minimum $2,000 commission, and require an exclusive listing agreement for a minimum of two years! I have been trying to give away this week for over a year. I've found no takers with a $0 purchase price, and weeks like mine get no buyers when listed at $0 on eBay, so I'm very skeptical of any realtor's ability to sell this for $2000. (There are some fixed summer weeks at this resort that are worth real money, but mine is off-season.) If I listed with this realtor, then finally found someone to take the week for $0, I'd owe the realtor $2000.

I also have a week at a second resort listed right now for free w/free closing, on the TUG bargain board, no takers. Again, the resort has a realtor for owners who want to get rid of their weeks. Here, the fee the owner has to pay is $500. That's a more reasonable fee, but since my MFs are less than $200 a year (I own an every-other-year week), it's still not worth it.

A third resort where I owned works with a realtor who charges about $470 to owners who give a week away. I was able to give my week away on my own, paying only about $125 in closing fees instead.

I suppose all of these resorts would say they help owners sell their weeks, but I wouldn't call it very helpful.

I do own at another resort that lets owners list available weeks in the quarterly newsletter, for a fee of about $25 per issue. That's more helpful, although still a bit pricey if a takes a year or more to "move" your week.

 

[Carolinian]

Developers always want to blame someone else.

I agree that relying on one study can be risky. Howerver, I don't see much incentive for ARDA to lie here. The study ends up saying that more HOA-Controlled resorts should have resale programs. How is that to the developers' advantage?

And, IIRC, the study was done by academics, not ARDA employees. Not a guarantee of honesty (let alone accuracy), but it is some protection against fraud.

Also, let me relate my personal experience with one of my resorts. I asked if they could help me sell my week. They said yes, they work closely with a realtor who helps owners sell their weeks. Well, I called the realtor, and they charge a minimum $2,000 commission, and require an exclusive listing agreement for a minimum of two years! I have been trying to give away this week for over a year. I've found no takers with a $0 purchase price, and weeks like mine get no buyers when listed at $0 on eBay, so I'm very skeptical of any realtor's ability to sell this for $2000. (There are some fixed summer weeks at this resort that are worth real money, but mine is off-season.) If I listed with this realtor, then finally found someone to take the week for $0, I'd owe the realtor $2000.

I also have a week at a second resort listed right now for free w/free closing, on the TUG bargain board, no takers. Again, the resort has a realtor for owners who want to get rid of their weeks. Here, the fee the owner has to pay is $500. That's a more reasonable fee, but since my MFs are less than $200 a year (I own an every-other-year week), it's still not worth it.

A third resort where I owned works with a realtor who charges about $470 to owners who give a week away. I was able to give my week away on my own, paying only about $125 in closing fees instead.

I suppose all of these resorts would say they help owners sell their weeks, but I wouldn't call it very helpful.

I do own at another resort that lets owners list available weeks in the quarterly newsletter, for a fee of about $25 per issue. That's more helpful, although still a bit pricey if a takes a year or more to "move" your week.

 

[timeos2]

John, I generally avoid being argumentative, but you are "trying to have it both ways" here.

Either collection action by a resort has a serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, or it doesn't.

If collection action by a resort has a serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, then some financially struggling owners will be serious hurt if they cannot do a deedback to get out from under the MFs, as I described previously.

If collection action by a resort has no serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, then it won't deter owners from becoming delinquent. In that case, why object to the proposal that Boca made (and I seconded), that resorts be forbidden from reporting delinquent MFs to credit agencies?

Judy - Just trying to be honest with the potential impact. The naked truth is that the threat of the negative impact on a credit score, and the perception an owner has of it, are far greater than the actual damage such a mark may cause. Especially if the mark is only for past due fees not a mortgage, personal loan (which most timeshares are) or a foreclosure.

And that is assuming the collection people even follow through and place the negative report with the various credit reporting systems. A surprising number don't.

So bottom line is that an owner who decides to stop paying the fees due on a paid up timeshare is taking a risk of a potential credit hit. It may or may not happen. If it goes on long enough it may become a foreclosure on the ownership. That too may or may not be reported. If it is reported the foreclosure is the worse of the two as a potential lender may or may not take a close look at what it was for and the amount. If they do look close and see it's for a few thousand dollars and is a timeshare the impact can be little to nothing. Or if the credit worthiness of the applicant is already borderline it may in fact push it negative & cause a loan denial. That is the risk.

But it is not a guarantee of a negative. And may be worth taking vs paying thousands to some crooked PCC/Viking Ship operation that may or may not protect from the same ultimate result. If I were in the situation I'd risk the credit hit vs paying a scammer money to "be rid" of a timeshare. But that is a decision each owner has to make for themselves.

 

[timeos2]

There are many things in timesharing that are "first come, first served," yet are considered to treat owners equally. Reservations are a good example. So, I'm not convinced that limiting the number of deedbacks per year would constitute treating owners unequally.

At any rate, Boca's plan (raising the fee for a deedback until the number of deedbacks reaches a manageable level) ensures treating all owners equally.

John, you seem to agree that some resorts need to close. My impression, though, is that closing a resort is often impossible, for reasons I gave in my post from a few days ago. (Basically, it's often impossible to achieve a supermajority because many owners can not be reached.) A number of Tuggers here are proposing a combination of deedbacks and bankruptcy as a way to make it easier to close a resort. Since you don't like this approach, could you comment on how owners can close non-viable resorts? Do you have any ideas, not involving deedbacks, that would make the process quicker and easier?

Sure - the way some have done it recently. Get the owners together in owners meetings, get the Board and Management to agree that it is the best path. Put a plan together to get the word out to other owners that it is the preferred outcome and why. Hold a vote & hopeful get the dsired result. It is all provided for in the rules and documents - just follow the procedure. Bankrupting the resort is another way - and gets the owners attention that action is needed. In either choice the weeks that are in the hands of unresponsive PCC's or in abandoned Viking Ships are impediments to accomplishing a shutdown not a help. All that is needed is owner interest in shutting down or a significant delinquency that makes it a fairly obvious choice.

 

[Carolinian]

I was surprised as John's quote, too.

As to timeshare foreclosures being reported, that is not like the collections reporting where the HOA would have to make a report to a Credit Reporting Agency. Foreclosures are picked up directly by agents for the Reporting Agencies who note judgments and foreclosures directly from courthouse records. It ends up in the ''public records'' portion of the credit report which is far more damaging than the tradelines portion where a mere bad debt would be,

I remember one incident related by a fellow HOA board member at another resort over a foreclosure which had really screwed up one of their members on something where approval was denied for credit due to the foreclosure. He called and cussed out the resort manager to a fare-the-well. The funny thing was that this resort did not think it worth the annual fees to be a member of a credit reporting agency to be able to make reports, so they never had. The foreclosure had been picked up by the Credit reporting agencies own people from the courthouse.

John, I generally avoid being argumentative, but you are "trying to have it both ways" here.

Either collection action by a resort has a serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, or it doesn't.

If collection action by a resort has a serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, then some financially struggling owners will be serious hurt if they cannot do a deedback to get out from under the MFs, as I described previously.

If collection action by a resort has no serious impact on delinquent owners' credit, then it won't deter owners from becoming delinquent. In that case, why object to the proposal that Boca made (and I seconded), that resorts be forbidden from reporting delinquent MFs to credit agencies?

 

[timeos2]

Also, let me relate my personal experience with one of my resorts. I asked if they could help me sell my week. They said yes, they work closely with a realtor who helps owners sell their weeks. Well, I called the realtor, and they charge a minimum $2,000 commission, and require an exclusive listing agreement for a minimum of two years! I have been trying to give away this week for over a year. I've found no takers with a $0 purchase price, and weeks like mine get no buyers when listed at $0 on eBay, so I'm very skeptical of any realtor's ability to sell this for $2000. (There are some fixed summer weeks at this resort that are worth real money, but mine is off-season.) If I listed with this realtor, then finally found someone to take the week for $0, I'd owe the realtor $2000.

.

And how is it BETTER to hurt everyone else involved and enrich an unrelated third party scumbag running a PCC / Viking Ship by $2000-$3000 to MAYBE get you out? Paying an earned commission of $2000 to find a new, paying owner who wants the week and will pay the fees benefits everyone.

Sorry but this is a great example of "me first thinking". You don't like having to be inconvenienced for up to 2 years while a legitimate sale is made but will pay pay the same $2000+ to someone who gets you "out" quick! Never mind that it hurts everyone else you would be happy and the scum enriched & happy so screw the other owners who pay for your happy ending.

This is exactly the thought process that makes the PCC/VS world such a negative and attracts the scum that run it. If the true reason those that support the VS types have is to give owners a way out then that is exactly what the HOA did by setting up the relationship with a commissioned broker. But it isn't to your liking so you'd choose the easy way and blame the HOA. Yikes. Very troubling.

 

[JudyS]

And how is it BETTER to hurt everyone else involved and enrich an unrelated third party scumbag running a PCC / Viking Ship by $2000-$3000 to MAYBE get you out? Paying an earned commission of $2000 to find a new, paying owner who wants the week and will pay the fees benefits everyone.

Sorry but this is a great example of "me first thinking". You don't like having to be inconvenienced for up to 2 years while a legitimate sale is made but will pay pay the same $2000+ to someone who gets you "out" quick! Never mind that it hurts everyone else you would be happy and the scum enriched & happy so screw the other owners who pay for your happy ending.

This is exactly the thought process that makes the PCC/VS world such a negative and attracts the scum that run it. If the true reason those that support the VS types have is to give owners a way out then that is exactly what the HOA did by setting up the relationship with a commissioned broker. But it isn't to your liking so you'd choose the easy way and blame the HOA. Yikes. Very troubling.

John, you have seriously misjudged me here. I brought up the $2000 commission as an example of a case where a resort wasn't doing all it could to help owners sell. (I would have greatly preferred a free or low-cost listing in the resort's newsletter instead.) That was all I meant. I never said the $2000 commission (which I would have to pay even if I found the "buyer" myself) was a worse value than paying $2000 to a PCC. I think they are both poor values. There is no way I would pay $2000 to a PCC to get rid of that week.

You also seem to think the broker was somehow promising to find a new owner within two years in exchange for the $2000 commission. That was not the case. If no one took the week in two years, I wouldn't have to pay the commission -- but I would still be stuck with the week.

I have done deedbacks if the resorts allowed it, but I have *never* walked away from an ownership, in any form. (And, I think in each case that I did a deedback, the resort seemed happy to "retire" an older form of contract that they wanted to do away with. Both resorts that took my deedbacks were in solid financial shape. One was a developer who planned to resell the deeded-back weeks as points.)

Regarding the week where the resort's "help" involved a $2000 commission, I kept the week and kept paying my MFs. This year, I was able to rent the week for about 80% of the MFs, so I lost maybe $200 after paying PayPal and advertising fees -- a LOT less than $2000. My plan is to just hold on to the week (and pay my MFs) until I find a new, legitimate owner who wants it.

 

[JudyS]

Judy - Just trying to be honest with the potential impact. The naked truth is that the threat of the negative impact on a credit score, and the perception an owner has of it, are far greater than the actual damage such a mark may cause. Especially if the mark is only for past due fees not a mortgage, personal loan (which most timeshares are) or a foreclosure. ...

OK, so it seems you are saying that you want only the threat of damage to a delinquent owner's credit, while not actually causing damage to their credit.

I agree with Carolinian here -- this goal will be hard to achieve. If there is an actual foreclosure, that will do serious damage to the person's credit rating. And if the debt is turned over to an outsider collection agency, they will usually report to credit agencies, too. So, that leaves the resort in the position of making hollow threats, perhaps setting up a fake "collection agency" which is really just part of the resort. I'm not sure that would be effective.

 

[timeos2]

Judy please don't take this personal as I know you are using it for example not what happened. It makes a nice case study this way.

You also seem to think the broker was somehow promising to find a new owner within two years in exchange for the $2000 commission. That was not the case. If no one took the week in two years, I wouldn't have to pay the commission -- but I would still be stuck with the week.

I have done deedbacks if the resorts allowed it, but I have *never* walked away from an ownership, in any form. (And, I think in each case that I did a deedback, the resort seemed happy to "retire" an older form of contract that they wanted to do away with. Both resorts that took my deedbacks were in solid financial shape. One was a developer who planned to resell the deeded-back weeks as points.)

Again this points out the basic problem. NO ONE - not even the original developer - is guaranteed that a given week of ownership will sell. To say that an HO must provide that guarantee, which is what automatically accepting back an ownership is, is a benefit that was never offered and never anticipated by anyone. Yes there is a risk it won't sell - if it doesn't then you owe the fees until you lower the price or offer free prepayment of fees - something - to make it attractive enough to a new buyer to take it. Or you start working with the resort / other owners / Board / management to take the steps needed to disband the resort if too many weeks are no longer sellable. It is not up to the other owners to take it from you and let you off the hook as all that does is move the cost from you to them and THEY didn't agree to that anymore than you did.

Thus the fatal flaw with the "HOA must take deed backs" idea. It is creating a guaranteed market and sale that no one has a reasonable expectation of nor did they sign on to those terms as a potential seller OR ongoing owner. If things are really that bad disband. If not then there is a buyer at some price - you just have to find that sweet spot and do a legitimate transfer to such a buyer.

 

[TUGBrian]

sadly the fatal flaw in the "hoa wont accept deedbacks" is that they lose the weeks anyway...they lose the ability to rent them or resell them...they lose contact with the owner as the bogus LLC they end up in wont ever respond to contact attempts...etc etc.

surely there has to be a set of guidelines (and i really dont care if they vary from resort to resort as long as they are reasonable) to which an HOA can apply to all requests for an interval to be taken back.

if you dont meet the criteria (again, it has to be reasonable)...you dont qualify...and the reason should be explained to the owner.

if there are rules/regulations/stipulations/bylaws that are preventing this from happening, then they must be addressed asap...as even if this lawsuit or the new florida laws are a success...they wont make this problem go away any time soon.

 

[AwayWeGo]

What Oft Was Thought But Ne'er So Well Expressed.

NO ONE - not even the original developer - is guaranteed that a given week of ownership will sell. To say that an HO must provide that guarantee, which is what automatically accepting back an ownership is, is a benefit that was never offered and never anticipated by anyone. Yes there is a risk it won't sell - if it doesn't then you owe the fees until you lower the price or offer free prepayment of fees - something - to make it attractive enough to a new buyer to take it. Or you start working with the resort / other owners / Board / management to take the steps needed to disband the resort if too many weeks are no longer sellable. It is not up to the other owners to take it from you and let you off the hook as all that does is move the cost from you to them and THEY didn't agree to that anymore than you did.

Thus the fatal flaw with the "HOA must take deed backs" idea. It is creating a guaranteed market and sale that no one has a reasonable expectation of nor did they sign on to those terms as a potential seller OR ongoing owner. If things are really that bad disband. If not then there is a buyer at some price - you just have to find that sweet spot and do a legitimate transfer to such a buyer.

That's about the size of it.

Nobody likes being stuck with a valueless timeshare deed, specially not anyone who has to keep on paying the maintenance fees come what may even though the value of the week's resort accommodations may have sunk below the amount of the year's fee.

But that unfortunate situation is not the other owners' problem. Mandatory take-back requirements shift the responsibility in a grossly unfair way.

That's just the way it is.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[TUGBrian]

I guess i missed how there is simply no middle ground here.

owners saying HOAs must accept all weeks back
HOAs saying we dont want any weeks back

and when it comes down to it, noone is getting anything useful accomplished.

you simply cannot tell me that (barring other circumstances) taking back weeks for a significant fee is not a valid business practice....companies are making more money than most of us will see in 10 lifetimes doing it...with no end in sight.

I simply wont accept that all resorts cant come up with a legitimate solution for accepting weeks back from owners (that meet the proper criteria) for 3/5/7/10 years worth of maint fees paid.

its not a matter of principle...its a matter of money...arguing otherwise is absurd. This can be proven because every single one of you would take back ANY week if I offered to prepay upfront, the next 100 years of current maintenance fees. This is of course an absurd number that no owner will pay, but it proves that for enough money...anything can be accomplished.

there is a middle ground somewhere...and it will likely vary from resort to resort...but one cannot argue that it does not exist somewhere.

 

[VegasBella]

To say that an HO must provide that guarantee, which is what automatically accepting back an ownership is, is a benefit that was never offered and never anticipated by anyone. [...]
Thus the fatal flaw with the "HOA must take deed backs" idea. It is creating a guaranteed market and sale that no one has a reasonable expectation of nor did they sign on to those terms as a potential seller OR ongoing owner.

We're not saying that HOAs have to take deeds back "automatically" or unconditionally. We're saying that they should have a plan to deal with the fact that some owners will cease to pay their MFs. Part of that plan should include some reasonable method of accepting some deeds back. For all I care, they could charge owners to take the deeds back (something like 2-3 times MFs).

sadly the fatal flaw in the "hoa wont accept deedbacks" is that they lose the weeks anyway...they lose the ability to rent them or resell them...they lose contact with the owner as the bogus LLC they end up in wont ever respond to contact attempts...etc etc.

surely there has to be a set of guidelines (and i really dont care if they vary from resort to resort as long as they are reasonable) to which an HOA can apply to all requests for an interval to be taken back.

if you dont meet the criteria (again, it has to be reasonable)...you dont qualify...and the reason should be explained to the owner.

if there are rules/regulations/stipulations/bylaws that are preventing this from happening, then they must be addressed asap...as even if this lawsuit or the new florida laws are a success...they wont make this problem go away any time soon.

Exactly what Brian says.

HOAs cannot bury their heads in the sand. They MUST deal with this fact of life responsibily. That is their legal and ethical duty.

 

[timeos2]

sadly the fatal flaw in the "hoa wont accept deedbacks" is that they lose the weeks anyway...they lose the ability to rent them or resell them...they lose contact with the owner as the bogus LLC they end up in wont ever respond to contact attempts...etc etc.

surely there has to be a set of guidelines (and i really dont care if they vary from resort to resort as long as they are reasonable) to which an HOA can apply to all requests for an interval to be taken back.

if you dont meet the criteria (again, it has to be reasonable)...you dont qualify...and the reason should be explained to the owner.

if there are rules/regulations/stipulations/bylaws that are preventing this from happening, then they must be addressed asap...as even if this lawsuit or the new florida laws are a success...they wont make this problem go away any time soon.

One correction Brian - the resort CAN rent the weeks. They always have that right once they are delinquent. They do not have to have the deed in their name to do so. If they want they can never act to foreclose and just rent indefinitely while showing the owner as delinquent (and potentially reporting to the credit agencies an every increasing debt unpaid).

 

[timeos2]

We're not saying that HOAs have to take deeds back "automatically" or unconditionally. We're saying that they should have a plan to deal with the fact that some owners will cease to pay their MFs. Part of that plan should include some reasonable method of accepting some deeds back. For all I care, they could charge owners to take the deeds back (something like 2-3 times MFs)..

You are trying to reinvent what already exists. They do have a plan to deal with unpaid owners. Collection -if it fails foreclosure. Remember too when the point of foreclosure occurs they can still offer to accept a deed back thus avoiding the cost to them and the negative credit report to the former owner. And that may make perfect sense to do if things reach that point. The deeds are then "back" like it or not and it meets the terms every owner agreed to when they bought. They do NOT have to say, on the owners terms / time frame, "we'll take it back from you if want". That was never agreed to by anyone.

 

[timeos2]

I simply wont accept that all resorts cant come up with a legitimate solution for accepting weeks back from owners (that meet the proper criteria) for 3/5/7/10 years worth of maint fees paid.

its not a matter of principle...its a matter of money...arguing otherwise is absurd. This can be proven because every single one of you would take back ANY week if I offered to prepay upfront, the next 100 years of current maintenance fees. This is of course an absurd number that no owner will pay, but it proves that for enough money...anything can be accomplished.

there is a middle ground somewhere...and it will likely vary from resort to resort...but one cannot argue that it does not exist somewhere.

And again you make a great point but it doesn't have to be in support of a resort accepting deed backs. " but it proves that for enough money...anything can be accomplished." that includes the original owner SELLING it to a new owner rather than an HOA taking it!

 

[TUGBrian]

i agree...if one has made no legitimate effort to sell...they have no leg to stand on wanting the resort to take it back.

 

[bogey21]

I know it is not common wisdom but I see the possibility of Resorts suing those who paid PCCs to take Weeks off their hands. I think it may start with suits against those who paid the PCC money and signed Powers of Attorney rather than those whose deeds were actually transferred out of their hands.

George

 

[dougp26364]

sadly the fatal flaw in the "hoa wont accept deedbacks" is that they lose the weeks anyway...they lose the ability to rent them or resell them...they lose contact with the owner as the bogus LLC they end up in wont ever respond to contact attempts...etc etc.

surely there has to be a set of guidelines (and i really dont care if they vary from resort to resort as long as they are reasonable) to which an HOA can apply to all requests for an interval to be taken back.

if you dont meet the criteria (again, it has to be reasonable)...you dont qualify...and the reason should be explained to the owner.

if there are rules/regulations/stipulations/bylaws that are preventing this from happening, then they must be addressed asap...as even if this lawsuit or the new florida laws are a success...they wont make this problem go away any time soon.

I would like to think that either 1 or 2 years worth of MF's and the title be clear of any remaking debt would be reasonable. DRI's loss mitigation unit requires the next years MF's be paid......if they even agree to the deedback at all and they certainly don't make this department known to owners.

Spinnaker just makes it more difficult to sell a unit be requiring a $1,500 advance fee payment, made out to Spinnaker, accompany any deed transfer to another owner (not a deed back).

 

[dougp26364]

I had one of these transfer companies call me today, wanting us to attend one of their traveling road show seminars. I really wanted to mention the lawsuit, but the kid who was doing such a poor job reading from the script probably wouldn't have cared anyway.

 

[Beefnot]

TUGBrian, please do not insert sensible reason into this emotional debate.

 

[Ridewithme38]

This is starting to just sound like a power struggle...Some want the owners to have power over how they get rid of what they own....others want the BOD of the HOA to have that power....

When you cast a very wide net on this...it comes down to trust and faith in your resorts BOD of your HOA....Most people have lost faith in these 'officials'....So i'm wondering...do we REALLY need a representative BOD or can timeshares work as true democracies?