Legal Question- Can Resorts Require Copy of ID to Complete an Ownership Transfer

[lizfox]

I recently sold a timeshare that is managed by Monarch. The closing company found out AFTER my buyer's deed was recorded that Monarch requires a copy of a photo ID for all of the Grantee's listed on the deed before they will complete the ownership transfer.

The problem is, the people who purchased this timeshare from me have not responded to our attempts to get a copy of the their ID's after many, many attempts to contact them.

The big issue with this is that my buyer's are now the legal owner of this timeshare because their deed has been recorded. However, I am still the owner according to the resort because they don't have copies of my buyer's photo ID.

Any suggestions on what I should do about this issue?

Thanks in advance to everyone for any help you can give me!

 

[Bill4728]

For a TS to belong to someone, two things must happen.
- The deed be transferred and recorded
- The resort must acknowledge the new owner as the true owner.

If you're saying that the resort is not going to acknowledge the new owner without a copy of that person picture ID then the resort will not acknowledge the new owner as the true owner.

Sorry

PS if the TS is not deeded then only the second step is needed.

 

[geekette]

Closing company needs to send certified mail to new owners with this request. Closing company neglected to follow the rules, they are the ones that should make this right.

Resort can do whatever it wants, they are not at fault.

Closing company needs to be very sure that the new owner understands that they are not owners as far as Monarch is considered until they comply.

 

[pacodemountainside]

If this is like Wyndham where deeded ownership with County Clerk is separate from usage rights you do have a problem. Buyer owns and is member of HOA.

However, if reservations/usage Rights are separate then you still own and are liable for MF.

If buyer paid say $1,000 then when he wants to use will produce driver's license.

If you gave away and paid closing costs and buyer has changed mind you need to consult an attorney.

 

[lizfox]

Thanks for the reply Bill. My thinking and logic on this is that the rules for a resort cannot take legal precedence over a legally recorded deed.

I am not the legal owner of this timeshare anymore. Therefore, just because the resort has their own requirements to complete a resort ownership transfer doesn't mean I'm still the legal owner of this timeshare.

We have sent the resort a copy of the recorded deed and the resort transfer fee. They now have proof that I no longer legally own this timeshare. I can't imagine that the resort can legally not complete this resort ownership transfer just because they don't have a copy of the Grantee's ID!

Please note that I am NOT an Attorney so this is my opinion on this issue. Anyone out there who is an Attorney who can give us some legal information on this issue? This would be greatly appreciated!

 

[lizfox]

I do want to make it clear to everyone that the closing company is NOT at fault. The closing company sent an email to Monarch requesting what was needed to complete a resort ownership transfer. Monarch responded that a copy of the recorded Grant Deed and the $100 resort transfer fee was required. The closing company sent this information to Monarch. After this information was sent, Monarch called the closing company and told them they need a copy of a driver's license for both Grantee's!

 

[AwayWeGo]

Legally Recorded Is As Legally Recorded Does.

My thinking and logic on this is that the rules for a resort cannot take legal precedence over a legally recorded deed.

In addition to the deed, there are underlying condo documents on file with all the other official real estate records of the county. The condo documents govern the operation of the timeshare from payment responsibilities & use rules to ownership transfer requirements.

If the timeshare says freshly deeded new owners have to pay $100 resort transfer fee, chances are the timeshare is not making that up arbitrarily. More likely, that's what it says in the official governing condo documents, which typically are included by reference in all the individual deeds, same as if a big bulky printed copy were physically appended.

As for the I.D. issue, that may or may not be spelled out in the condo documents. Regardless, with all the schemes afloat out there to duck timeshare ownership responsibilities by deeding units to phantom owners, Viking Ship LLCs, & I don't know what-all, it is only prudent & reasonable for timeshare resorts to make sure that new owners are the real deal before finalizing transfer of ownership.

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

 

[Fern Modena]

Liz,
You can (try to) deed the timeshare to Mickey Mouse, or anybody else you want to, but just because you do so does not mean that you no longer own it. For you to no longer own it, the resort has to accept the deed, and it appears that it has not done this. You have choices now...get the closing company to send the potential new owners a certified letter telling them that if they don't provide Photo ID in a timely manner (state number of days). If they don't respond, you still own it. You can then hire an attorney to write an email to the timeshare saying that they didn't tell the closing company of this, if this is true, and that therefore they need to release you from ownership. With an attorney's letter. they just might. Or not. Good luck.\

Fern

Thanks for the reply Bill. My thinking and logic on this is that the rules for a resort cannot take legal precedence over a legally recorded deed.

I am not the legal owner of this timeshare anymore. Therefore, just because the resort has their own requirements to complete a resort ownership transfer doesn't mean I'm still the legal owner of this timeshare.

We have sent the resort a copy of the recorded deed and the resort transfer fee. They now have proof that I no longer legally own this timeshare. I can't imagine that the resort can legally not complete this resort ownership transfer just because they don't have a copy of the Grantee's ID!

Please note that I am NOT an Attorney so this is my opinion on this issue. Anyone out there who is an Attorney who can give us some legal information on this issue? This would be greatly appreciated!

 

[bogey21]

I do want to make it clear to everyone that the closing company is NOT at fault. The closing company sent an email to Monarch requesting what was needed to complete a resort ownership transfer. Monarch responded that a copy of the recorded Grant Deed and the $100 resort transfer fee was required. The closing company sent this information to Monarch. After this information was sent, Monarch called the closing company and told them they need a copy of a driver's license for both Grantee's!

I'm not smart enough to know where this stands or where it will come out. My gut tells me the key to Seller being off the hook is how the $100 was handled by Monarch. If Monarch cashed the check, it should be between Monarch and the Buyer. Hey Mr. Buyer, you own the Week, you owe the MFs, but you can't use until you send me ID.

George

 

[bogey21]

Liz,
For you to no longer own it, the resort has to accept the deed, and it appears that it has not done this.

See my previous post. If Resort cashed the $100 check for the transfer fee, I would argue until the day I die that the transaction is complete and that I no longer own the Week.

George

 

[brigechols]

I think this topic was discussed before on Tug. IIRC, a driver's license is necessary to ensure compliance with the US Patriot's Act.

 

[pacodemountainside]

See my previous post. If Resort cashed the $100 check for the transfer fee, I would argue until the day I die that the transaction is complete and that I no longer own the Week.

George

Not sure what leads you to believe check was cashed.

In my experience when one send checks and documents and there is a problem, everything comes back with form letter citing deficiency.

If went to a lock box where bank clerks do deposit all checks I would imagine company could make claim was not a legally binding transaction by authorized individual!

May have to roll over in your grave!

*******


Yes, this has been flogged at length in several threads!

 

[richardm]

Deeded weeks at Monarch Grand Vacations

I'm down with the flu today so if this response makes no sense please accept my apologies in advance..

The buyer could simply have changed their mind and are using this transfer requirement as a way out of their purchase. Deeded ownerships at MGV have severe restrictions when resold. The buyer does not get access to all the resorts in the system, but only the home deeded resort.

The non-deeded ownerships receive usage rights at all affiliated resorts when resold.

If this resale restriction was disclosed to the buyer, you can probably sue for performance- although that may cost more than simply throwing it back up on eBay again.

 

[lizfox]

My $100 check has not been cashed yet.

Plenty of resorts out there do NOT require a copy of an ID to complete a resort transfer. I was just informed by an employee at Monarch that this is a requirement that is enforced by board resolution and they won't complete the resort transfer without ID's for all new owners! I do have proof in writing that Monarch never listed this as a requirement to complete an ownership transfer,and that they didn't inform the closing company of this requirement until AFTER my buyer's deed was recorded.

It looks like I'm going to need to get an Attorney involved in this one.

 

[lizfox]

Rich,

I'm really sorry to hear you're down with the flu- hope you get better soon!

What you are saying does make some sense. I wouldn't have any issue with selling this timeshare again except for the fact that it doesn't have a clean title now that my buyer's deed has been recorded and I'm not legally the owner of this timeshare according to the recording records.

I am starting to suspect that my buyer's are illegal immigrants and don't have driver's licenses or passports. Of course I don't know this for a fact, but it is a possibility.

I know you're good at this stuff- what options do you think I have at this point?

 

[bogey21]

Not sure what leads you to believe check was cashed.

I had no reason to believe that check was or was not cashed. I said "If Resort cashed the check.'' I left the possibility open that they might not have.

George

 

[Talent312]

These days, a closer should ask for ID's from all parties to make sure it was not a fraudulent transaction, but that's water under the bridge.

I'd say that, becuz Monarch did not inform the closer of the ID requirement prior to receipt of the transfer pkg, and the closer did all that they were told to do at the time, Monarch could be sued to compel the transfer. The buyers could also be sued for their failure to do what is necessary to complete the transactions. "Sue the bastards." But, of course, the expense may not make this practical.

Sometimes, a threatening letter on an attorney's letterhead gets their attention.
.
.

 

[theo]

Yessa!

<snip>...just because the resort has their own requirements to complete a resort ownership transfer doesn't mean I'm still the legal owner of this timeshare.<snip>

<snip> ....I can't imagine that the resort can legally not complete this resort ownership transfer just because they don't have a copy of the Grantee's ID! <snip>

I am strongly inclined to agree, since there would seem (to me, anyhow) to be no legal basis on which a resort can just unilaterally dream up and impose its' own requirements, least of all after the fact. If in your shoes, I'd send a follow-up letter to the resort, formally reminding them that you have lawfully sold your timeshare, that a new, valid deed has been recorded and that you are no longer the owner --- also clearly stating that you are now done with the resort. I'd also cc: the buyer on the letter. If the buyer wants access to the week purchased, then it will be incumbent upon the buyer to comply with the Monarch "policy" (even if said "policy" may have no lawful basis in the first place). "Board resolution" may not cut much legal ice if / when challenged outside the context of a HOA meeting). Stated differently, I see it as the buyer and resort's problem to solve between themselves. You've done all you can (...or should) do from your end.

On one hand, I can certainly respect a resort HOA proactively seeking to protect itself against "sailing Viking Ships" becoming "owners". On the other hand, I have serious doubts that any resort can (lawfully) just unilaterally dream up and impose identification (or any other) requirements beyond preparation and recording of a valid new deed and the collection of a pre-identified transfer fee to internally process a change in ownership (even "transfer fees" are a form of "legal larceny", IMnsHO).

 

[Ron98GT]

I am strongly inclined to agree, since there would seem (to me, anyhow) to be no legal basis on which a resort can just unilaterally dream up and impose its' own requirements, least of all after the fact. If in your shoes, I'd send a follow-up letter to the resort, formally and clearly advising them that you have lawfully sold your timeshare, that a new deed has been recorded and you are no longer the owner, also clearly stating that you are now done with them. I'd also cc: the buyer on the letter. If the buyer wants access to the week purchased, then it will be incumbent upon the buyer to comply with the Monarch "policy" (even if said "policy" has no lawful basis in the first place. "Board resolution" may not cut much legal ice once challenged outside of HOA meetings). Stated differently, I see it as the buyer and resort's problem to solve between themselves.
You've done all you can (...or should) do from your end.

On the one hand, I can certainly respect a resort HOA proactively seeking to protect itself against Viking Ship "owners". On the other hand however, I have serious doubts that any resort can (lawfully) just unilaterally dream up and impose requirements beyond the preparation and proper recording of a valid new deed and the collection of a transfer fee.

Marriott required a copy of my drivers license and a copy of my wife's also. I freaked out when I first heard about this requirement. But when I went to the Marriott boards, here on TUG, and asked about it, everybody said that it was/is a requirement and they all had to do it. Not a big deal in the end.

From what I remember, the copies of the drivers licenses went to the specific resort/TS that I own and not to Marriott Vacation Club (MVC). Also, from what I remember, the transfer service didn't need it, nor did title, just Marriott.

 

[theo]

"Internal policy" vs. LEGAL requirement...

Marriott required a copy of my drivers license and a copy of my wife's also. I freaked out when I first heard about this requirement. But when I went to the Marriott boards, here on TUG, and asked about, everybody said that it was/is a requirement and they all had to do it. Not a big deal in the end.

From what I remember, the copies of the drivers licenses went to the specific resort/TS that I own and not to Marriott Vacation Club (MVC). Also, from what I remember, the transfer service didn't need it, nor did title, just Marriott.

Widespread acceptance does not constitute (or create) legal validity regarding the imposed requirement.

Maybe a harmless enough "policy", but still a "policy" which likely lacks any underlying legal basis.

 

[geekette]

Marriott required a copy of my drivers license and a copy of my wife's also. I freaked out when I first heard about this requirement. But when I went to the Marriott boards, here on TUG, and asked about it, everybody said that it was/is a requirement and they all had to do it. Not a big deal in the end.

From what I remember, the copies of the drivers licenses went to the specific resort/TS that I own and not to Marriott Vacation Club (MVC). Also, from what I remember, the transfer service didn't need it, nor did title, just Marriott.

Pardon my ignorance, but why 'freak out' over DL copy? they already have most of what's on it anyway.

 

[theo]

Pardon my ignorance, but why 'freak out' over DL copy? they already have most of what's on it anyway.

I certainly won't presume to answer for Ron, but will note for myself that in a time when identity theft is a leading (...and still growing) crime area, unnecessarily divulging personal info is simply not wise or prudent.
A little piece here, a little piece there --- and soon enough someone of ill intent one can assemble (...and then adopt) the identity of another, without their knowledge (initially, anyhow). It happens time and time again, every single day.

The problem with providing personal identifiers to any private entity is that you have no idea about their internal security awareness, measures or practices, or how many people might "handle" (or potentially misuse, or further circulate without your consent or knowledge) that personal information.

I have to provide my SSN to the IRS to file taxes, for example, but I certainly don't need or want to ever unnecessarily provide it to anyone in the historically less-than-reputable timeshare industry.

 

[csxjohn]

I wonder what they do when a person doesn't have a drivers license.

There was a poster earlier this year going to Williamsburg who lived in NYC and nobody in his party had one.

I hope the OP gets it sorted out.

 

[timeos2]

An Association has a legal right - usually spelled out in the documents - to establish transfer procedures. That can include a requirement to produce valid ID to complete a transfer. For far too long heavy handed groups like Wastegate, Marriott, Wyndham, DRI and others have used such requirements to inhibit the easy transfer of a resale. Now smart Associations are finally using those provisions to PROTECT owners by requiring that "buyers" prove who they are before allowing the transfer to take place. Good for them.

You may not like it as it does add yet another roadblock to ownership transfers but in this case it is both legal and in the majority of owners best interest. It hurts those it should as it is yet another protection against the scammers that want to place ownerships in Viking ship trusts or other ways to leave the other owners with their fees due. Slowly the back doors that allowed the so-called "rescue" operations to appear to be an answer are being closed. It is more and more important that you handle any sale/transfer legally and avoid any and all of the various schemes to get around a valid sale vs a dump on the other owners. The totally legal process exists - use it.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Passport, Please.

I wonder what they do when a person doesn't have a drivers license.

DMV in some states will issue a "walker" (i.e., non-driving) license, which satisfies requirements for a government-issued photo I.D. card.

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