Need advice on a big mess

[madxxdog]

RE

I think we are going to try a deed in lieu of... with a detailed letter reminding them of their fraudulent activity during this whole mess in the hopes that they will just want to make this all go away. A protracted legal battle is not in my parents best interest. Even if they win... unless they could get a judgement that the resort would have to pay their legal fees they still end up losing. Lawyers are not cheap and this kind of thing could take a while to get into a court room.

 

[mrrick]

You need to see the original contract and the "new" one sent by the resort...

This is the crux of it. Until you see the contract(s), there is no point in speculating. The AG doing nothing in the face of one copy of a contract being altered just doesn't add up.

 

[RMitchell]

I have never seen anything as crooked as the timeshare business...nothing. They have you completely in their control and I would never even think about getting into this again if I can ever get out. I wouldn't consider a timeshare if they paid the maintenance fee 100 years in advance. To even think this stupid business is not called out on fraud and everyone is put in prison amazes me. I’ve talked at least 10 people out of this junk at the “resort” and at work.
Slimeball is way to complementary for a TS sales employee.

 

[theo]

A final thought...

I think we are going to try a deed in lieu of... with a detailed letter reminding them of their fraudulent activity during this whole mess in the hopes that they will just want to make this all go away. <snip>

In your written communications with the resort formally requesting their acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, you might also consider mentioning (...and please note that I used the word mention --- not the word threaten...) that local media outlets might well be interested in knowing about (and potentially making a news story out of) the facility's alleged practice of unilaterally and improperly altering copies of contract documents after their execution and signature.

This prospective "leverage" would, of course only be of potential concern to the facility if they are still involved in developer-direct sales. If the place is aready "sold out", then they wouldn't likely care much (...if at all) about any such "media coverage". So, if the place is sold out then this idea promptly loses its' merit.

Just thinking out loud --- not rendering legal advice.

 

[kayaker]

I have never seen anything as crooked as the timeshare business...nothing. They have you completely in their control and I would never even think about getting into this again if I can ever get out. I wouldn't consider a timeshare if they paid the maintenance fee 100 years in advance. To even think this stupid business is not called out on fraud and everyone is put in prison amazes me. I’ve talked at least 10 people out of this junk at the “resort” and at work.
Slimeball is way to complementary for a TS sales employee.

RMitchell, your response does not help madxxdog with his problem, but is sooooo right. I agree w/you completely.

 

[Ridewithme38]

IF you father has the original contract that stipulates no MF, this is the most Valuable TS in existence...i don't know why people are telling you to give it up...there is NO WAY i would give this up! If it wasn't christmas time i'd offer you $1000 for it right now!

Truthfully, would ANY of you say no to buying a TS with a contract Stipulation that you'll NEVER have to pay a MF???

 

[Rent_Share]

IF you father has the original contract that stipulates no MF, this is the most Valuable TS in existence...i don't know why people are telling you to give it up...there is NO WAY i would give this up! If it wasn't christmas time i'd offer you $1000 for it right now!

Truthfully, would ANY of you say no to buying a TS with a contract Stipulation that you'll NEVER have to pay a MF???

Three years ago while using the facility current management discovered they were not paying maint. fees. By the end of the day they were told they would have to pay maint. fees or leave. My dad was furious so they decided to leave and have not been back.

Windsham is not honoring the original contract - We are assuming the contract allows for a change in mainytenance fees -

If you are so sure offer the OP $ 1.00 since they just want out

 

[Ridewithme38]

Windsham is not honoring the original contract - We are assuming the contract allows for a change in mainytenance fees -

If you are so sure offer the OP $ 1.00 since they just want out

I'm not sure, i'd have to see the contract...But IF it does say that they don't have to pay MF's ever, this timeshare is the most valuable Timeshare ever...i wouldn't give it up till i knew for sure

Seriously, would you EVER give up a TS with a contract guaranteed NO maintenance fees ever? Its like being handed a lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it, sure the guy that gave it to you could have faked it and it not have any value, but wouldn't you want to make sure first?

 

[theo]

Interesting logic...

I'm not sure, i'd have to see the contract...But IF it does say that they don't have to pay MF's ever, this timeshare is the most valuable Timeshare ever...i wouldn't give it up till i knew for sure

Seriously, would you EVER give up a TS with a contract guaranteed NO maintenance fees ever? Its like being handed a lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it, sure the guy that gave it to you could have faked it and it not have any value, but wouldn't you want to make sure first?

Have you bothered to read all of the details provided by the OP in the very first post within this thread?

Your odd presumption seems to be that that this (or any other) owner can somehow force the facility to allow permanent and unfettered access and use of the facility without paying any maintenance fees, based upon the content of some laughably bogus contract content. With no such magical timeshare ownership in existence anywhere else on the planet, one would be very hard pressed to get any judge to rule in favor of any owner's permanent free use and access. Moreover, the facts presented by the OP in post #1 clearly state that the actual owner (his father) was essentially already forced off the property some years ago after not paying any maintenance fees.

In the final analysis, the very notion of any deeded timeshare ownership with no maintenance fees (...forever, no less) is clearly just preposterous in the first place. If you think that you could somehow prevail differently on the original bogus contract content, then perhaps you should offer to accept the ownership from the OP's Dad. Please let us know later how you subsequently make out if / when you attempt to occupy the facility without ever paying any maintenance fees.

I'll look for you on the 6 o'clock news --- with all the other "Occupy XYZ" protesters being legally and forcibly evicted from assorted locations "XYZ".

 

[Ridewithme38]

A contract is a contract Theo, IF the contract stats no MF and was initialed and signed by both the salesman and the buyer, it is absolutely legally enforceable....if it doesn't say that, well thats a whole different issue

Throwing the father out of the room IMO isn't proof of anything legally binding...things like this happen all the time illegally

I think you guys should really be asking what specifically the contract says before throwing away a winning lotto ticket

 

[timeos2]

But a contract, to be enforceable, has to have a benefit to both sides. In a case like this unless the seller, the developer, prepaid years or an agreed flat amount for all future fees due to the Association there was no benefit to the Association and thus its unlikely they would have to honor any such "agreement" or contract. There is no contract with the Association that exists only to operate & maintain the resort for the owners - maybe there is one with (the likely long gone) Developer but that is another lawsuit with an unknown outcome.

While finding an altered contract seems to be a smoking gun - and it may be in a case against the developer - it likely has little or no value in a claim against the Association and they control access to the use time. That is why the AG said there was no case. If the OP can get the resort to accept the week back and cancel any past fees and future fees due they have done well. The time to fight the "life use, no fees" was years ago when the Developer was still on site and may have wanted to settle to avoid bad press or shutdown of sales. Far too late now.

The contract is worth the paper it's on and little more now.

 

[ronparise]

Have you bothered to read all of the details provided by the OP in the very first post within this thread?

Your odd presumption seems to be that that this (or any other) owner can somehow force the facility to allow permanent and unfettered access and use of the facility without paying any maintenance fees, based upon the content of some laughably bogus contract content. With no such magical timeshare ownership in existence anywhere else on the planet, one would be very hard pressed to get any judge to rule in favor of any owner's permanent free use and access. Moreover, the facts presented by the OP in post #1 clearly state that the actual owner (his father) was essentially already forced off the property some years ago after not paying any maintenance fees.

In the final analysis, the very notion of any deeded timeshare ownership with no maintenance fees (...forever, no less) is clearly just preposterous in the first place. If you think that you could somehow prevail differently on the original bogus contract content, then perhaps you should offer to accept the ownership from the OP's Dad. Please let us know later how you subsequently make out if / when you attempt to occupy the facility without ever paying any maintenance fees.

I'll look for you on the 6 o'clock news --- with all the other "Occupy XYZ" protesters being legally and forcibly evicted from assorted locations "XYZ".

either the op is right or the op is wrong about what the contract says

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.


I think Ride has proved that the op is wrong about his fathers contract. If the op is right Ride is also right.

However I dont think Ride is arguing for the purchase of this timeshare; rather, I think he is engaging in a rather sophisticated argument to make a point that Theo seems to have missed

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

since it is not possible to have a timeshare without maintenance fees, the ops claim that his father has such a contract, must be false (QED by Ride)

[Political comments deleted.]

 

[bogey21]

But a contract, to be enforceable, has to have a benefit to both sides. In a case like this unless the seller, the developer, prepaid years or an agreed flat amount for all future fees due to the Association there was no benefit to the Association and thus its unlikely they would have to honor any such "agreement" or contract.

The contract (whatever it says) was between the Seller and the Purchaser. Both benefited. The Seller was paid and the Purchaser received ownership of the Week on terms acceptable to him. At that point the Association presumably didn't exist. Seems to me the key is how the Association was formed and whether the documentation at the time of the sale spelled out that there would be an association and if so, what its powers would be.

George

 

[pedro47]

But a contract, to be enforceable, has to have a benefit to both sides. In a case like this unless the seller, the developer, prepaid years or an agreed flat amount for all future fees due to the Association there was no benefit to the Association and thus its unlikely they would have to honor any such "agreement" or contract. There is no contract with the Association that exists only to operate & maintain the resort for the owners - maybe there is one with (the likely long gone) Developer but that is another lawsuit with an unknown outcome.

While finding an altered contract seems to be a smoking gun - and it may be in a case against the developer - it likely has little or no value in a claim against the Association and they control access to the use time. That is why the AG said there was no case. If the OP can get the resort to accept the week back and cancel any past fees and future fees due they have done well. The time to fight the "life use, no fees" was years ago when the Developer was still on site and may have wanted to settle to avoid bad press or shutdown of sales. Far too late now.

The contract is worth the paper it's on and little more now.

This is a mess and why timeshare sale staff should not sell t/s to anyone over 66 years old with out legal assistance being provide for the senior.

 

[timeos2]

The contract (whatever it says) was between the Seller and the Purchaser. Both benefited. The Seller was paid and the Purchaser received ownership of the Week on terms acceptable to him. At that point the Association presumably didn't exist. Seems to me the key is how the Association was formed and whether the documentation at the time of the sale spelled out that there would be an association and if so, what its powers would be.

George

That is absolutely correct. The contract is between the buyer and the seller (the Developer). The Association, which with any condo/timeshare is formed when the project is established and released for sale, got ZERO dollars of what was paid by the buyer. That is why, unless specific agreements & payments were made to cover a "no fee ever" sale, the Association isn't party to any such arrangement or contract. They certainly may have a great case against that Developer (lots of luck tracking THAT legal entity down now) but they have no claim against the Association which is only doing what they are chartered and must by law enforce. Collect the fees & operate/ maintain the resort for the owners it represents.

This is a great example of older people being taken advantage of as well as why a "clear cut case" in the law may not be so clear after all. It stinks beyond a doubt. But that doesn't mean the OP parents or any future buyer gets use with all fees waived. Isn't going to happen. They are best off now if they can get the right to walk away with past payments covered and no future payments due. Still a sad case.

 

[teepeeca]

Of course, one would have to see the original contract, to see what it actually says. It "might be" that the father "remembers" what the salesman agreed to do, BUT, the contract actually says something else.

Another thought. Had the parents been using the timeshare "for free", for several years, and nobody objected? Was the current association "in place" during that time? If so, it could be said that the association "agreed" to the provisions in the original contract, that there would be usage "for free", with no maintenance fees payable.

The "benefit" the association received would have been paid to them, by the developer, from "excess funds" originally paid by the purchasers, for the "free of mx fees" language in the contract.

Tony

 

[Talent312]

I suspect that the OP was told its hopeless on the basis that:
-- There's a clause in the contract somewhere that says their ownership is subject to the power of the HOA to manage the resort under the terms of the declarations of record; or
-- The Deed says that, and under property law in that state, a deed supercedes whatever was said in a sales contract, so by agreeing to the terms of the deed, they waived rights under their contract.

... jus' sayin'.

Despite the armchair quarterbacking here, the only way to get competent legal advice is to consult an attorney licensed to practice law in S.C., show him a copy of the unaltered contract, if they have one, a copy of the new one, and ask him or her for an opinion.

It may be $$ down a rat-hole, but perhaps they could raise some sand.

 

[Ridewithme38]

Well, Ellington at Wachesaw Plantation in S.C. is definatly now a timeshare company i will never deal with....If they aren't willing to honor a contract, i don't see how they can expect anyone that buys off of them to honor the contracts either...

 

[theo]

The bottom line...

None of us here can possibly know or confirm what the original sales contract documents actually contain, or if all of the pertinent documents are still available for examination and comparison now, 4 or 5 years later.

Even absent questioned document comparison (...and regardless of law degrees or state bar memberships), we can all likely agree that NO owner, current or future, was ever going to (...nor ever will) get "permanent, no maintenance fees use and access" to this (...or to any other) deeded timeshare property, regardless of what the original and / or any subsequently altered sales documents might state or suggest to the contrary. The very concept just makes no sense, flying directly in the face of both financial logic and basic reality.
The undeniable fact is that there is no "timeshare tooth fairy", bogus contract content notwithstanding.

 

[alohakevin]

But the fact the timeshare company sent my parents an altered copy of the original contract document is troubling to say the least.

It sounds like a good idea if they had legal counsel. The resort is trying to play hardball and will get away with it unless they are called on it. If the change to the original agreement wasn't mutual it's fraud pure and simple, not to mention your parents have been denied services due them under the original agreement. Just a suggestion check out legalshield.com to contact an attorney for a reasonable rate

 

[dryden]

so what happened?

It's like a book without an ending! I'm rooting for the parents...

 

[e.bram]

Residents of a cemetery get free use.

 

[mrrick]

Does the OP have any further information to share now that he's spent some time with his folks and has seen the contract(s)?

 

[RX8]

Does the OP have any further information to share now that he's spent some time with his folks and has seen the contract(s)?

He hasn't been logged in since December 14th