First Lawsuit filed against Viking Ship LLCs / PCCs

[timeos2]

of course some developers will take back SOME weeks (ones that are valuable to them and provide a guaranteed profit in rental or resale)...

that doesnt address the problem, as those folks could easily sell their weeks on the resale market as it is (albeit at a loss...but at least they could sell).

I want to see a major resort take back weeks that are worth garbage in the resale market....i mean flat garbage $1 seller paying all closing costs and still not getting a nibble garbage.

diamond would be a fabulous example.

How I wish there were a "Like" button here!

 

[Beefnot]

How I wish there were a "Like" button here!

You mean a "like...but with caveats" button. As long as that major resort is still in developer sales.

Either way, you have come a long way in your thinking on this issue over the last year or so. Sometimes, revolution requires evolution.

 

[timeos2]

The bylaws say the HOA blocks usage by owners delinquent, they are entitled/obligated to rent and apply the rent to the delinquency.

What happens when the week cannot be rented at any price . . . .

Then the fees collected (as rent) come up short. That's when the other owners have to make it up (delinquent fees or bad debt). Usually even the worst weeks can be rented for a day or two - if even that can't be done then you have a highly seasonal resort that needs to look at options to shut down in those non-demand periods. The Association needs to get creative and propose answers (all of which will probably be higher fees but it opens the door to discussions and best options that all can agree to accept).

 

[timeos2]

You mean a "like...but with caveats" button. As long as that major resort is still in developer sales.

Either way, you have come a long way in your thinking on this issue over the last year or so. Sometimes, revolution requires evolution.

I enjoy Board meetings, meeting owners, talking timeshare with anyone willing to do so around the pool, TUG,owner updates,etc - thats how I learn and hear of different ideas from all sources. You never know where the next good idea might come from. Closing your mind does not lead to realistic answers or different solutions. Understanding all sides can help to find the best compromise that does the job. Seldom is one view going to be the best answer to it all.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Captive HOAs Represent Timeshare Companies. Independent HOAs Represent Owners.

Have you been reading this thread?

Been paying attention & following along the best I can.

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

 

[Scott W]

I enjoy Board meetings, meeting owners, talking timeshare with anyone willing to do so around the pool, TUG,owner updates,etc - thats how I learn and hear of different ideas from all sources. You never know where the next good idea might come from. Closing your mind does not lead to realistic answers or different solutions. Understanding all sides can help to find the best compromise that does the job. Seldom is one view going to be the best answer to it all.

Timeos2,

Have you encouraged your HOA(s) to get in touch with the LTRBA? Perhaps they could arrange an agreement with a broker and the owners at the resort(s). From what I can tell the owners don't pay anything upfront, and then pay a commission when a new buyer is found. I could be wrong, but I'm assuming the broker's commission would be lower than what a PCC/Viking Ship would charge.

 

[tschwa2]

Timeos2,

Have you encouraged your HOA(s) to get in touch with the LTRBA? Perhaps they could arrange an agreement with a broker and the owners at the resort(s). From what I can tell the owners don't pay anything upfront, and then pay a commission when a new buyer is found. I could be wrong, but I'm assuming the broker's commission would be lower than what a PCC/Viking Ship would charge.

Brokers aren't going to be any more likely to get timeshares worth $1 or less into the hands of MF's paying owners than anyone else. And I don't think most would think it worth their time to take multiple listings for worthless timeshares for the minimum commission.

 

[timeos2]

Timeos2,

Have you encouraged your HOA(s) to get in touch with the LTRBA? Perhaps they could arrange an agreement with a broker and the owners at the resort(s). From what I can tell the owners don't pay anything upfront, and then pay a commission when a new buyer is found. I could be wrong, but I'm assuming the broker's commission would be lower than what a PCC/Viking Ship would charge.

At both resorts we have licensed bonded brokers that handle resales for owners for no upfront fees - strictly commission on completion of the sale. Thank you for posting that as I'm sure there are resorts that don't have anyone that does that.

The only downside is they cannot sell or even solicit on site as the developer holds those rights and won't handle resales.

 

[Tia]

... Closing your mind does not lead to realistic answers or different solutions. Understanding all sides can help to find the best compromise that does the job. Seldom is one view going to be the best answer to it all.

 

[Scott W]

Brokers aren't going to be any more likely to get timeshares worth $1 or less into the hands of MF's paying owners than anyone else. And I don't think most would think it worth their time to take multiple listings for worthless timeshares for the minimum commission.

Tschwa2,

You might be right as I don't know what the minimum commission would be for resale brokers. Are these timeshares priced at $1 or less because that is their true value, or is it because these resorts/weeks are no longer being properly marketed?

 

[Scott W]

At both resorts we have licensed bonded brokers that handle resales for owners for no upfront fees - strictly commission on completion of the sale. Thank you for posting that as I'm sure there are resorts that don't have anyone that does that.

The only downside is they cannot sell or even solicit on site as the developer holds those rights and won't handle resales.

I see, you own at resorts where the developer is still active. Is it safe to assume that the resale brokers that your resorts work with are primarily web-based?

 

[ronparise]

Tschwa2,

You might be right as I don't know what the minimum commission would be for resale brokers. Are these timeshares priced at $1 or less because that is their true value, or is it because these resorts/weeks are no longer being properly marketed?

Im not Tschwa2 but I do have a comment.....I think the answer to your question is YES...Some timeshares are priced at a dollar or less because thats their true value and because they are no longer being properly marketed.

What we need is a "blue book" of timeshare values, like the used car dealers have. and to continue the used car analogy, we need a CarMax for used timeshares

 

[AwayWeGo]

Stacking The Deck.

I see, you own at resorts where the developer is still active.

Sold out resorts, that is, where the developer is still active -- & a fine kettle of fish it is when the developer holds onto exclusive on-site selling rights even though the resort itself is long since sold out.

While the timeshare company keeps on selling club memberships & points & deed to units at other resorts, the independent sold-out timeshare HOA is blocked from putting on any kind of on-site activity to sell its own foreclosed units or to market resale units on behalf of existing owners who want to sell.

Just another way the deck is stacked in favor of timeshare companies & against the interests of regular walking-around timeshare owners & their representatives at owner-controlled independent resorts.

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

 

[Beefnot]

Sold out resorts, that is, where the developer is still active -- & a fine kettle of fish it is when the developer holds onto exclusive on-site selling rights even though the resort itself is long since sold out.

While the timeshare company keeps on selling club memberships & points & deed to units at other resorts, the independent sold-out timeshare HOA is blocked from putting on any kind of on-site activity to sell its own foreclosed units or to market resale units on behalf of existing owners who want to sell.

Just another way the deck is stacked in favor of timeshare companies & against the interests of regular walking-around timeshare owners & their representatives at owner-controlled independent resorts.

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

A great example of a circumstance in which the requirement for the developer to have some sort of deedback program would make sense.

 

[timeos2]

A great example of a circumstance in which the requirement for the developer to have some sort of deedback program would make sense.

Absolutely. This is one answer that truly would help virtually all timeshare resales, resorts and help create a market with reasonable values for "used" ownerships.

Making Developers / Active Sales groups handle resales (at a commission of course) would mean they have to deal with the fact that a "new" timeshare is no different than a "used" resale. They are physically the same buildings, resorts, units. Now that most Developers are selling club type or points they are adding value by allowing what amounts to an internal exchange system. It seldom involves new buildings or properties but is mostly a bundling of older properties under a single banner. If the resales got included it could offer a new level of value - even new buyers could get in at lower rates but still have the newer bells and whistles. It would make selling new time a bit tougher but overall it could be handled and everyone made happy. They just lose the ability to bash resales as a reason to buy "new". No loss really.

 

[bogey21]

Isn't all this a warning that when one considers buying a Week he/she should check and see if Resort has an active Sales Program. I understand they can always decide to eliminate it. But when I decided to divest most of my TS portfolio the Resorts easiest to deal with (deed backs, etc.) were those with active Sales Programs.

George

 

[AwayWeGo]

Depends On Whose Sales Program It Is.

Isn't all this a warning that when one considers buying a Week he/she should check and see if Resort has an active Sales Program. I understand they can always decide to eliminate it. But when I decided to divest most of my TS portfolio the Resorts easiest to deal with (deed backs, etc.) were those with active Sales Programs.

The timeshare resort & the timeshare company are 2 different things, even when they're both operating in the same physical location.

It is possible -- not just possible but common -- for the timeshare company to be actively selling in a way that blocks the timeshare resort from doing any selling at all, not even a few units acquired via foreclosure or deedback.

And where the timeshare company is in active sales, it's a sure bet that all they're pushing is points & club memberships & their own deeds -- not resales.

So it goes.

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

 

[bogey21]

The timeshare resort & the timeshare company are 2 different things, even when they're both operating in the same physical location.

Before I divested the majority of my TS Weeks I owned Weeks at Pinecliff Village, Ruidoso, NM; Chateau Le Grand, Biloxi, MS; Emerald Seas, Deerfield Beach, FL; Peppertree by the Sea, N Myrtle Beach, SC; Berkshire Beach Club, Deerfield Beach, FL; just to name a few (there were others), where they would help you swap your Weeks for other dates, help you sell your Weeks, and in a couple of cases accept deed backs. It seemed to me in all cases there was one entity controlling the entire operation.

George

 

[Ridewithme38]

How about "Any entity who holds the exclusive rights and/or contractual obligation to sell on site, shall be required to take deedbacks."

This requires the developer to take deedbacks when they have a sales presence on site and the BOD to take deedbacks when they have the right to have a sale presence on site.

 

[timeos2]

How about "Any entity who holds the exclusive rights and/or contractual obligation to sell on site, shall be required to take deedbacks."

This requires the developer to take deedbacks when they have a sales presence on site and the BOD to take deedbacks when they have the right to have a sale presence on site.

Most Associations should be able to live with that.

 

[Ridewithme38]

Most Associations should be able to live with that.

Well, lets hope we can also get boca to agree to this, then we can write up a form letter to send to all developers and bod's along with a signed petition to our elected officials

If we are going to accomplish anything, we've got to start moving on this

 

[BocaBum99]

Well, lets hope we can also get boca to agree to this, then we can write up a form letter to send to all developers and bod's along with a signed petition to our elected officials

If we are going to accomplish anything, we've got to start moving on this

forget it. John supports it only because it excludes just about any HOA by simply claiming they don't have exclusivity.

I would support language that required any organization that is accountable for proposing and/or managing maintenance fee budgets to have a guaranteed deedback program that does NOT impact credit of owners who participate in it.

The reason for this approach is that the group with taxing power is the only one that can solve the problem. If the HOA wants the owners to be responsible for their own exit strategies, then they need to give up their right to collect maintenance fees because it is exactly their exhorbitant and unaffordable maintenance fee budgets that makes the resort worth zero.

Owners who are responsible for their own exit strategies should also have the ability to set their own maintenance fee budgets.

 

[timeos2]

Any entity that has active sales rights at a resort is required to offer owner resales.

Clear enough? If it's a developer they must - if it is the resort/HOA then they must. No on site sales or sales rights - no requirement. No resales then no on site sales.

Again, any resort that has on site sales should be OK with that.

 

[arlock]

Anyone know what happened with this case? All I could find was this:

http://eldocourtweb.eldoradocourt.org/documents/tentative_rulings/department_4/2014-01-24.pdf

 

[gkbiiii]

good question, I wonder who won?