First Lawsuit filed against Viking Ship LLCs / PCCs

[vacationhopeful]

You do realize that such movement of inventory helps the owners at the resort because those fees go toward maintenance fees that would have otherwise gone unpaid. Occupancy is a good thing at these resorts.

Inventory that moves this way does not go to the general public. Only members who have paid a rather sizable membership fee have access to it. Therefore, it does not deteriorate the value of the resort.

Actually, the one list I saw was units sold to Canadian travel agency who re-rented these bulk sale units and offered to persons who I know. And everything was 45% or more OFF what the MFs would have been for the owners. That price list was WHAT the Canadian agency was offering - I don't know WHAT they paid per week. I can't imagine the HOA was getting more than $150 for PRIME Feb & Mar Snowbird weeks in South Florida. And this was for page after page of dates, units, and several resorts.

 

[Carolinian]

While you may have your opinions about Denise, you should reveal your own motivations on PCC's. You have admitted before that your timeshare business, which deals with only one timeshare brand, buys some of its inventory from PCC's. Thus it is to your own business benefit that PCC's remain in business. Since you only buy and sell one brand, what happens to timeshares outside that brand means little to you.

One other prolific pro-PCC poster here also has a business relationship with them. It is easy to see where some posters bread is buttered.

She is not hard headed about it at all. She wants Viking Ships gone and she wants responsible, maintenance fee paying owners to be responsible for their own exit plan and if they can't find it, she wants them held in indentured servitude toward the other owners until they die or go bankrupt. Her position is very clear. John has the exact same opinion.

There is going to be an avalanche of owner pushback on HOAs who do not provide a reasonable exit plan for owners who want a reasonable way out. I expect lots of law suits against HOAs.

 

[Carolinian]

That clearly does NOT help members, especially if it was a floating week resort.

Actually, the one list I saw was units sold to Canadian travel agency who re-rented these bulk sale units and offered to persons who I know. And everything was 45% or more OFF what the MFs would have been for the owners. That price list was WHAT the Canadian agency was offering - I don't know WHAT they paid per week. I can't imagine the HOA was getting more than $150 for PRIME Feb & Mar Snowbird weeks in South Florida. And this was for page after page of dates, units, and several resorts.

 

[ronparise]

While you may have your opinions about Denise, you should reveal your own motivations on PCC's. You have admitted before that your timeshare business, which deals with only one timeshare brand, buys some of its inventory from PCC's. Thus it is to your own business benefit that PCC's remain in business. Since you only buy and sell one brand, what happens to timeshares outside that brand means little to you.

One other prolific pro-PCC poster here also has a business relationship with them. It is easy to see where some posters bread is buttered.

This was directed at Boca. but could just as easily been directed at me..Different brand, but I am a buyer . and yes I buy from PCCs...But I would buy from anyone... I will get my butter from whoever offers it to me at the best price

If its clear to you that Boca is a buyer of his his favorite brand, and its clear that Im a buyer of my favorite brand, it should also be clear to the HOAs.

There is no reason for the PCCs to be involved either with Bocas brand or mine. The HOAs could just refer their owners to us... but they dont

They take the same position as John and Denise and say "thats not our job" ..so .enter the PCCs

John and Denise dont say it directly but the end result of their position is what keeps the PCCs in business.

When an HOA helps an owner (deadbeat or otherwise) move their timeshare to stronger hands instead of a PCC they are helping all their members. Creating a viable secondary market for their product is nothing but good management. If a developer is involved its should be easy. If there is no developer they need to find someone like Boca or me

 

[timeos2]

There is no reason for the PCCs to be involved either with Bocas brand or mine. The HOAs could just refer their owners to us... but they dont

They take the same position as John and Denise and say "thats not our job" ..so .enter the PCCs

John and Denise dont say it directly but the end result of their position is what keeps the PCCs in business.

When an HOA helps an owner (deadbeat or otherwise) move their timeshare to stronger hands instead of a PCC they are helping all their members. Creating a viable secondary market for their product is nothing but good management. If a developer is involved its should be easy. If there is no developer they need to find someone like Boca or me

I am more than happy to recommend you or Boca to an owner of your preferred brands looking to sell. Why not? You aren't, to my knowledge, planning any Viking ship operation and, based on the presented tales of sales and or rentals, apparently keep fees paid up to your HOA's so you can do business. A perfect set up IMO. I know of owners at my resorts that hold multiple weeks that they regularly rent. I point anyone asking about a sale to them as well.

A healthy HOA is a critical factor in a healthy resort. I know that any HOA buried in non-performing ownerships is fighting a no win battle. At both my resorts there have been periods of time when collections were at or below 50% in the middle of a year. Anyone that recommended a sell off at that point in time may have had a case. Instead I saw the owners that did pay pull together, get independent and reliable management in place, raise money needed to improve the facilities and turn the resorts around in less than 5 years. It wasn't because they took the easy way out and said we'll take back the deed from any owner thats worried and wants out - it was because they enforced the collection rules and made it a desirable ownership again. They also found options for those looking to sell but it was NOT to accept the obligation of future fees onto the backs of those loyal owners who paid to get through those tough times.

One last time. An Association MUST have in place a way for every owner to be able to sell their time if needed. There are always ways to get out of future fees that do not require a PCC, Viking Ship or any other sabotage of the proper procedures called for in the resort documents and State regulations. The Association has no requirement or obligation to accept ownerships into it's name on demand. Once they offer a safe outlet to sell (one that requires no up front fee and that has a proven sales record) finding a buyer is up to the existing owner, not the Association. The Association needs to focus on the reasons they exist. Make sure every owner is treated equally, collect every dollar due, operate and maintain the resort for the owners. There are no sales in that list and there never was meant to be by design.

Owners may need to become involved and push for tough things like rewrites to documents written 20 years ago under far different circumstances. They may need to become creative along with their management to handle off season times and the "new" ways people vacation. They need to work with Developers / on site sales groups to help establish a resale market for THEIR resort as someday they too are likely to need to sell. Far to many want the gravy then simply throwaway the leftovers by leaving them to someone else to discard properly. Take the responsibility of ownership from start to finish as you would any other property and the system works exactly as it was designed to. Despite the active efforts of Developers and others to distort it.

I'm not for having a perpetual, no way out ownership of any timeshare. But if an Association is doing their job correctly there is no need for heavy handed and unworkable edicts such as they MUST accept deeds into their name. There are other options and owners need to work at those not at trying to beat the system. Proponents of easy shortcuts to get out will never get my backing.

 

[Tia]

The vast majority of owners are unresponsive to requests for proxies, votes, etc.

Yep so so true. Maybe a phone call campaign to inform them would help but even then....

 

[Ridewithme38]

I'm not for having a perpetual, no way out ownership of any timeshare. But if an Association is doing their job correctly there is no need for heavy handed and unworkable edicts such as they MUST accept deeds into their name.

But thats what i think you are missing, the MAJORITY of HOA/POA/BOD's are NOT doing their jobs correctly....There would be NO $1 timeshares if they were

 

[DeniseM]

Couple of things:

In my posts, I was primarily responding to some posts in which Viking Ships were described as "providing a valuable service," and expecting someone to perform their contractual obligations was described as "cruel."

In a nutshell:

-HOA's/BOD's cannot accomplish what they are being asked to do, under the current laws which are completely slanted in favor of the developer.

-I support legislation the requires the developer to provide an effective exit program to owners who want out of their timeshares.

-I do not support legislation that forces HOA's to take back deeds, with no regard to their capacity to do so. In a perfect world, HOA's and developers would work together to sell excess inventory.

-I do not support legislation that gives deadbeat owners a free ride. I understand that some owners may need to get rid of their timeshares, and they should cover the costs - not other owners.

Yes, I am hard headed about things like personal financial responsibility, and I have no sympathy for people who make bad financial decisions, and expect to be bailed out at the expense of others.

 

[Ridewithme38]

-I support legislation the requires the developer to provide an effective exit program to owners who want out of their timeshares.

I don't really understand this....This example doesn't exactly fit 100%...But it's the comparision i see in my head

If you go to the used car dealer and buy a car...Then because of finances or defects have to return that car....You believe, that car should be returned to the manufacturer not to the dealer?

Don't forget, a lot of timeshares are 30-40 years old now, with deeds that have had a half dozen names on them...the Developer hasn't seen these ownerships in a decade...being resale and since you guys keep insisting that 'the owners are the HOA' This is like buying from the used car Dealership(HOA) and returning to the Manufacturer(developer)

 

[timeos2]

But thats what i think you are missing, the MAJORITY of HOA/POA/BOD's are NOT doing their jobs correctly....There would be NO $1 timeshares if they were

If that were the case, I'm not accepting that it is as the vast majority of $1 timeshares are either the bad part of highly seasonal resorts OR the bloated inventory of megaresorts that are 10 times the size they should have been, then those BOD's should be voted out! If the rules are being followed the owners can do so and should.

Of course what you'll likely find is the vast majority of $1 timeshares are those that have Developer management that thwart the rules. They hold enough power of votes to hold on to the control and od as is best for the Developer not the individual owners. We saw that in many of the ownerships we had thus we cut from a peak of 9 down to 2 - both fully owner controlled. Only one went for the $1 (Wastegate) despite the bad management situations but it did take over 3 years to do. Sure we could have used a $2000+ Viking ship or PCC to get out quicker but that wouldn't have been right. While we waited for the buyer we used, banked or rented the time and eventually got enough value out to feel OK about it. We didn't use any deed backs either (don't even know if we could have - didn't ask).

I do feel that the problems we are discussing - lack of resale value, lack of a vibrant resale market, low rental values - all revolve around a common issue. Developers that have twisted the industry into a money machine for themselves at the expense of the individual owners it was meant to serve. Also the exchange companies have distorted values but owners have to bear some of the blame for that as buying to trade up was a major factor in decimating the value of ownership vs trade/rental costs.

If you find you don't have the collective power as owners to vote out your BOD/Management if needed then my advice is dump that ownership. It will not serve you well in the long run as that is not the situation envisioned by the majority of documents and policies used to create the resorts. It likely means you are just an ATM for the Developer as they operate things anyway they like as long as they make their money. Owning at such a resort can be extremely frustrating and costly - or worse. It's a key reason why $1 timeshares exist.

 

[timeos2]

I don't really understand this....This example doesn't exactly fit 100%...But it's the comparision i see in my head

If you go to the used car dealer and buy a car...Then because of finances or defects have to return that car....You believe, that car should be returned to the manufacturer not to the dealer?

Don't forget, a lot of timeshares are 30-40 years old now, with deeds that have had a half dozen names on them...the Developer hasn't seen these ownerships in a decade...being resale and since you guys keep insisting that 'the owners are the HOA' This is like buying from the used car Dealership(HOA) and returning to the Manufacturer(developer)

Does the dealer have no choice but to take it back? Of course not, but that is what a REQUIRED deed back rule for HOA's would say.

If a Developer still plays a role in a resort (by being management or having on site sales) then yes, they should also have to supply a resale program (not necessarily BUY back ownerships) for owners looking to sell. In no case should an HOA - or Developer - be told they must accept a week back. There is no precedent for that type of requirement. Once an outlet is provided the fact that it may take time to find a willing buyer is simply part of the process.

It is that guarantee of a buyer - apparently on the sellers time line and demand - that cannot exist regardless of who the proposed "last resort" seller may be. It is not up to to others to bail any owner out of an unwanted ownership they willingly purchased. Just like no one can force a dealer to take back a car (lemon laws are a rare exception). Why timeshare is supposed to different than anything else that exists makes no sense.

 

[Ridewithme38]

IMO, the HOA BOD have a responsibly to the rest of the ownership to maintain and keep the resort updated, if an HOA BOD is doing their job, no TS should be 'seasonal'...If even a single week is available for $1 they are failing in that duty, this is why i believe they should have to take deed backs...It is directly through their inaction or intentional neglect these ownerships have no value...

 

[timeos2]

IMO, the HOA BOD have a responsibly to the rest of the ownership to maintain and keep the resort updated, if an HOA BOD is doing their job, no TS should be 'seasonal'...If even a single week is available for $1 they are failing in that duty, this is why i believe they should have to take deed backs...It is directly through their inaction or intentional neglect these ownerships have no value...

When a BOD has control over weather and seasons in general it will be big news indeed. Asking for things that are beyond pie in the sky as a base need will never work.

Yes, a good BOD will work to have resort features that make the off season times more desirable thus increase demand and fees but it cannot ever make every week equal. Cannot be done. It is unrealistic and unfair to even suggest it could.

Beach resorts are perhaps the most vulnerable of all. The very thing that makes them super in demand 8-12 weeks per year - the weather and beach - is a major drawback the rest of the year. Few want to visit a blustery, cold, damp beach side resort out of season no matter what features they may choose to offer. If closing isn't an option those weeks are always going to be a very tough sell especially if fes are required to be equal for all ownerships. That is not the HOA's fault it is a poor decision (likely to make money) by the original developer. They need to mitigate it as best they can but no Association can make a seasonal beach resort a 52 week a year high demand destination. Be real.

 

[Ridewithme38]

If any other business in the world was profitable only 12 weeks a year....They wouldn't last a year...If the HOA BOD can't make up for off time through enhanced ammenities...the resort isn't worth saving and should be shut down

Massanutten is a resort built on a ski mountain....Yet somehow, they have managed to make it a 4 seasons resort...Smugglers notch....Etc...It CAN be done, those that aren't doing it need to be thrown out on their 'butts' or the resort needs to be shut down

 

[timeos2]

If any other business in the world was profitable only 12 weeks a year....They wouldn't last a year

So it is the owners choice. Do they support the costs needed to exists for those 12 weeks and be so-so the remainder or do they sell out? The $1 resales have no real bearing - they are just a by product.

 

[vacationhopeful]

That clearly does NOT help members, especially if it was a floating week resort.

These were points and fixed week resorts - and my vocabulary of "sold" was regarding a LONG LIST of weekly unit RENTALs - one time usage - to the Canadian travel agency. It was to me, a dumping of USABLE & desirable vacation stays for members of the points system. These were Feb and Mar dates mostly 1 and 2 bdrs with a few studios. Goal was what? -- to get new sales prospects? And as to WHY this was a Canadian based company - harder to track the cash for the HOAs? Less likely their points owners would be offered this inventory for so much less than MFs?

 

[Ridewithme38]

So it is the owners choice. Do they support the costs needed to exists for those 12 weeks and be so-so the remainder or do they sell out? The $1 resales have no real bearing - they are just a by product.

They can't sell out, most HOA BOD's have avoided fighting documents creating by the developers to make it next to impossible to close a TS...a small number of others have actually voted in, without the consent of all owners, to have the plan run forever...

The fact that the HOA BOD's through the inactivity of letting illegal condo doc's stay on the books or the activity of putting their members into bondage through timeshare plans that can't end is more evidence of just how at fault they are.

 

[gnorth16]

Would it be viable to try to migrate to a mixed use resort, where the sell full ownerships such that people are basically buying second homes. Maybe these full ownership sections would receive reduced services (e.g., monthly vs. weekly housekeeping, no front desk support, etc), so their MFs would be lower and more attractive for such an arrangement.

I have seen these in Orlando, however the monthly HOA fees are above $500. I have seen them go for under $30,000 but the HOA fees are too high to make it worthwhile.

 

[Rent_Share]

This was directed at Boca. but could just as easily been directed at me..Different brand, but I am a buyer . and yes I buy from PCCs...But I would buy from anyone... I will get my butter from whoever offers it to me at the best price

or me

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I will sell your Wyndham or Worldmark timeshare or take it myself.. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]My fee is $1000 including closing costs, transfer fees and commission[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Lets get started [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]call or write[/FONT]

A little ambiguous, if someone said take my 10,000 Worldmark Membership would you charge $ 1000 and pocket the $ 3,500 it could be sold for ?

 

[VegasBella]

Not if it's at a resort that no one wants to buy.

If that's the case then the resort has bigger problems than PCCs! They have a failing business model and should not continue to run as a timeshare. Making Viking Ships illegal will NOT save a failing business.

Exactly. Many do just that. But that isn't enough for the "we need out yesterday & you'll do it for me' group. Nothing short of a 100% return of the developer sales price would be enough for them - and they'd want appreciation on top I'm sure!

Hmmm... funny but I don't think that PAYING a PCC to take a timeshare off your hands is an owner saying that "Nothing short of a 100% return of the developer sales price would be enough". These people want out. All they want is a way out that won't hurt their credit.

When an HOA helps an owner (deadbeat or otherwise) move their timeshare to stronger hands instead of a PCC they are helping all their members. Creating a viable secondary market for their product is nothing but good management.

Yup.

, the MAJORITY of HOA/POA/BOD's are NOT doing their jobs correctly....There would be NO $1 timeshares if they were

I'm not sure I would go that far but I agree that if there aren't buyers for a property then that's a sign there's a problem with management.

Yes, I am hard headed about things like personal financial responsibility, and I have no sympathy for people who make bad financial decisions, and expect to be bailed out at the expense of others.

The thing is, though, that unloading an unwanted timeshare to a PCC can often be a GOOD financial decision.

Other owners at your resort(s) have zero responsibility to subsize your vacations. ZERO. If their ownership has no value to them, it has no value to them, period. And they should get rid of the liability however they can. That's a smart financial move.

If they chose to simply not pay rather than transfer to a PCC the end result would be the same. There's no difference between regular individual defaults vs Viking Ship defaults to a resort's financials. This is not a "bail out." That's not what's happening here.

What's happening is that resorts that can't find buyers are FAILING businesses. They are doing something wrong and need to change. Until they change, side businesses like PCCs will scoop up some profits from these failing businesses' inefficiencies.

 

[ronparise]

Beach resorts are perhaps the most vulnerable of all. The very thing that makes them super in demand 8-12 weeks per year - the weather and beach - is a major drawback the rest of the year. Few want to visit a blustery, cold, damp beach side resort out of season no matter what features they may choose to offer

This should be an easy fix

If only 12 weeks out of the year have value, Then the association should go after the owners of the other 40 weeks and take them back.

Lets assume mf to be $700 a week or $36400 per year per unit (700x 52)
So now the owners of the 12 weeks will have their mf increased to where it belongs... $3000

 

[Carolinian]

There are lots of things that impact the value of timeshare, many of which are outside the control of the HOA BOD. One obvious one is the state of the overall economy. Another would be major disasters. Katrina impacted the value of NO timeshares for a period in its aftermath.

Another is changes by exchange companies. RCI's mass rentals to the general public create massive competition for individual timeshare owners who want to read their weeks, and indeed for the HOA in renting HOA inventory, and this has damaged its value.

Also changes in exchange programs impact the desirability and thus value of certain timeshare. Chrsytal deHahn, founder of RCI instituted the 45-day window and RCI heavily promoted it, but Wyndham later downgraded and ultimately destroyed it. That change decreased the value of off season weeks, not something that the HOA had any control whatsoever over. Again, in instituting the TPU ''Points Lite'' system, RCI shuffled the deck yet again and degraded the value of some weeks and resorts, and also stuck that right under everyone's nose. Some owners who primarily exchange and had their trading power gored suddenly wanted out alrhough they had been satisfied up until that time.

HOA's have been faced with lots of challenges not of their own making. Some have done better jobs than others in meeting those challenges. HOA's need to build replacement markets, which means introducing their members who exchange to other exchange companies, dual affiliating with II and making them aware of the independent exchange companies. It also means identifying own-to-use markets for their off season weeks. I have given several examples on other threads of resorts in my area, and in the UK doing just that.

IMO, the HOA BOD have a responsibly to the rest of the ownership to maintain and keep the resort updated, if an HOA BOD is doing their job, no TS should be 'seasonal'...If even a single week is available for $1 they are failing in that duty, this is why i believe they should have to take deed backs...It is directly through their inaction or intentional neglect these ownerships have no value...

 

[BocaBum99]

While you may have your opinions about Denise, you should reveal your own motivations on PCC's. You have admitted before that your timeshare business, which deals with only one timeshare brand, buys some of its inventory from PCC's. Thus it is to your own business benefit that PCC's remain in business. Since you only buy and sell one brand, what happens to timeshares outside that brand means little to you.

One other prolific pro-PCC poster here also has a business relationship with them. It is easy to see where some posters bread is buttered.

I do it every time you ask. I am a Bluegreen specialist and a licensed real estate broker. I buy, rent, sell, broker and trade Bluegreen timeshares. Many organizations, some of whom are PCCs, send me inventory. Actually, in most cases, I do not know their business model for acquiring it because they don't tell me. I think more of them are trade in/travel clubs than PCCs. I am widely known in the industry as the Bluegreen specialist. Just about everyone comes to me eventually when they want to move Bluegreen properties in bulk. That is why I know something about what they do. Most of the time, I get them from individuals. Sometimes, I get them out of LLCs.

When I talk to the owners who are liquidating their timeshares, I cannot describe to you their joy at being relieved of their future obligations. This is how I know that the PCCs are providing a valuable service.

What I am is the market maker for Bluegreen timeshares. I help provide liquidity for people who want to move them. Now that Bluegreen is exercising ROFR, it is becoming much easier to move them. In fact, really cheap inventory is getting much harder to find which means that prices should start increasing.

I would like to help other HOAs by doing for them what I do for Bluegreen. I know it is what the industry needs. But, I cannot do it unless the resorts also do the right things. I am advocating what I believe will help the industry in the long run become healthy.

 

[Carolinian]

There are a number of those on the Outer Banks, all originally sold that way by the developer:
Hatteras High - mostly wholeownership, whole owners control the HOA but are fairly benigh to timesharers
Windjammer - set up to give timesharers a hammerlock on control of the HOA, and they are fairly benigh to whole owners
Dunes South - math should favor timesharers, but actually dominated most of the time by whole owners who get all their proxies in; terrible former management company stayed in control by playing up to whole owners, until some of whole owners on board discovered that management company screwups were costing them, too, at which point they fired management company.
Bodie Island Beach Club - wholeowners joined former developer in campaign to oust the timesharers, and the malfeasance of wholeowner board members helped them pull it off. Those board members were lucky they were not sued for what they did, but timesharer lawsuits to try to save the timeshare ate up their legal fund.

Based on the experiences of Bodie Island Beach Club and Dunes South, I would not be too keen to own at a mixed use resort.

Would it be viable to try to migrate to a mixed use resort, where the sell full ownerships such that people are basically buying second homes. Maybe these full ownership sections would receive reduced services (e.g., monthly vs. weekly housekeeping, no front desk support, etc), so their MFs would be lower and more attractive for such an arrangement.

 

[DeniseM]

This should be an easy fix

If only 12 weeks out of the year have value, Then the association should go after the owners of the other 40 weeks and take them back.

Lets assume mf to be $700 a week or $36400 per year per unit (700x 52)
So now the owners of the 12 weeks will have their mf increased to where it belongs... $3000

Hey Ride - You hear that - he is talking about your beach ownership!