• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $23,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $23 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

New florida bill SB932: non-consumer friendly Timeshare law changes

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
23,292
Reaction score
9,079
Location
Florida
House Bill 453 / Senate Bill 932 seems to have a good bit of contentious issues within it as it relates to timeshares....

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=53409

Description: Revises provisions relating to timeshares, including amendments made to timeshare instrument, public offering statements, release of certain escrow funds, real estate licensure requirements, multisite timeshare plans, substitutions & deletions of component site accommodations or facilities, etc.

this is a link to the full text...its some 40 pages long

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0932&Session=2015


Sign the online petition against the bill!

https://www.change.org/p/florida-governor-veto-senate-bill-932-florida-timeshare-act
 
Last edited:

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
23,292
Reaction score
9,079
Location
Florida
start at line 503 seems to indicate a provision to allow a timeshare to be terminated with only a 60% vote from homeowners...vs a unanimous one.

sorry, cutting and pasting from that document is pretty impossible.
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
23,292
Reaction score
9,079
Location
Florida
I did read some folks claiming that this bill removes a number of rights and protections for owners...but I admit im not as versed in "legalese" to figure out what was added or removed from this bill to make that claim?
 

theo

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
9,077
Reaction score
2,349
Location
New England Coast
I did read some folks claiming that this bill removes a number of rights and protections for owners...but I admit im not as versed in "legalese" to figure out what was added or removed from this bill to make that claim?

Adequately versed in "legalese" and owning several Florida timeshares, I will certainly go through this material with a fine tooth comb and with great interest when I have a chance, but today is a "moving day" with several days on the road thereafter before next settling in.

Without even reading a single word however, the first question to enter my mind is who is actually behind the legislative proposal --- and why? :ponder:
 

Talent312

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
17,810
Reaction score
7,653
Resorts Owned
HGVC & GTS
...the first question to enter my mind is who is actually behind the legislative proposal --- and why?

My first guess would be one or more TS developers who made campaign contributions to its sponsors. From what I've observed, very little gets done in the Florida legislature without someone greasing the wheels. Legislators are not above introducing bill written by industry insiders.
<just a bit jaded>
.
 

Bwolf

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
900
Reaction score
129
Location
MA
My first guess would be one or more TS developers who made campaign contributions to its sponsors. From what I've observed, very little gets done in the Florida legislature without someone greasing the wheels. Legislators are not above introducing bill written by industry insiders.
<just a bit jaded>
.

So, I wonder which TS developer in Florida stands a reasonable chance of getting a 60% vote to dissolve and which timeshare that might be?

Looking forward to Theo's upcoming analysis.
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
23,292
Reaction score
9,079
Location
Florida
this was sent to me as the specific breakdown of why this should NOT pass...note that this is an independent opinion:

Issues in Order of Priority – HB 453 – Civil Justice Subcommittee Major Issues and corresponding page/line numbers

Lines 125 – 130 open the door to “substantial compliance” being enough to enforce the timeshare instrument and allows for “violations” to be immaterial, non-actionable and non-rescission worthy.

Lines 427 – 430 empower the developer to make unilateral substitutions or deletions of inventory without a quorum vote or a consultation of owners. The deleted language in

Lines 430-437 remove the court’s supervision of such activity, which circumvents checks and balances.

Lines 665 – 669 further removes this voting requirement and court oversight for substitution or deletion of accommodations or facilities. In our opinion, this is unconstitutional because it limits access to courts and violates the due process rights of existing owners, who lose the benefit of the bargain they received when they purchased initially.

Lines 519-544 provide that the term of a timeshare plan may be extended or terminated at any time by a vote or written consent, or a combination thereof, of a majority of all the voting interests in the timeshare plan. These statutory changes allow the timeshare industry more flexibility in controlling the property interests and use rights of the existing and prospective purchasers so as to allow for overselling, improper substitution of accommodations to increase occupancy of the collective timeshare properties, and in sum, a reduced benefit of the bargain. In our opinion, this is a due process issue in violation of the Constitution because it allows for the taking away of contractual, bargained for rights, after the fact, without compensation.

Lines 795 – 800 open the door to nondisclosure of lack of utilization of timeshare for purchaser (i.e. the term the accommodation is actually available) as immaterial. This allows for violations of this section to be permissible as immaterial and non-actionable. By allowing these changes, the legislature is allowing other statutes already in existence to be violated.

Pg. 34 – Lines 861 – 865 allows the timeshare instrument to control the right to consent of purchasers to these substitutions, which are unforeseeable and not contemplated by the purchaser at the time of purchase. Purchasers will contract away rights before realizing they had them.

Pg. 34 – Lines 869 – 880 seems like an attempt at limiting the unilateral substitution rights of the developer, but the developer can work around with a quorum vote. Pg. 35 continues with different levels of stringency depending on the level of unilateral control of the developer, managing entity and common ownership or control. All of these factors are able to be worked around by the developer or managing entity because Lines 909 – 913 take away all the supposed rights inured to the purchasers by stating “This subparagraph does not apply if the timeshare instrument provides that purchasers do not have the right to consent to any proposed substitutions. 5. This paragraph does not apply if the proposed substitution is approved in advance pursuant to paragraph (f).” Paragraph (f) on page 36-37 then states that “The person authorized to make substitutions may make unlimited substitutions in a given year without compliance with paragraphs (d) and (e) if a proposed substitution is approved in advance by a majority of purchasers of the multisite timeshare plan voting in person or by proxy at a meeting called for that purpose, provided that at least 25 percent of the total number of purchasers cast votes.” So this negates all of the statutory language preceding that seemingly protects purchasers, by permitting the developer to gain prior approval to “proposed” substitutions (meaning the substitution proposed will not have to comply with the substitution actually made).

Backtracking to the middle of page 36, lines 920 – 926: this paragraph puts the onus back on the purchasers to then affirmatively file a written objection within 21 days after the notice of substitution (which is certain not to comply with the “proposed” substitution).
Page 38 – Lines 967 – 975 state that as long as the “person authorized to make substitutions’ (i.e. the developer) fully complies with these provisions (easily done by negating the rights of purchasers via the timeshare instrument, proposing a favorable substitution, then altering it to be more favorable to the developer), the trustee may convey title to any accommodations and facilities that have been designated or approved for substitution without any further vote or other authorization of the purchasers of the multisite timeshare plan. This writes around a trustee’s duty of loyalty to the purchasers and puts control in the hands of the developer.
Lines 861 – 975 allow the timeshare instrument (contract) to control over statute by allowing the developer unilateral substitution rights over the consent of purchasers. These sections also allow a trustee to violate statutorily mandated fiduciary duties under §736.08.

Lines 113-114 remove the resort’s delivery requirement to provide amendments to the public offering statement (POS) for a component site of a nonspecific timeshare plan.

Lines 548 – 580 are especially onerous as they allow for the transfer of all personal customer information of hotels or other properties that are converted to timeshare by way of managing entity changes. This gives the timeshare resort free, targeted leads by way of the change in managing entity without concern for whether those previous customers would consent to such sharing of their personal information. Section (c) also provides for a pass-through of all costs associated with the transfer of this information to the purchasers as a common expense of the timeshare plan.

Line 705 states that Section 721.54 will be repealed. This means that it is no longer a violation to represent to a purchaser of a nonspecific multisite plan that the term of purchaser’s plan is longer than the shortest term of availability. For example, this permits a resort to sell two weeks of inventory when only one week is actually available.

Lines 745-747 will raise taxes on existing timeshare owners by expanding the definition of “common expenses” under the statute.
Lines 849 – 855 open the doors for resort location transfers, leaves the definition of “improved” open to interpretation (i.e. Is a suite in a somewhat less desirable location an “improvement” to the bargained for room in Orlando?)

Lines 993 – 996 allow for the one to one requirement to be expanded to apply across all multi-site accommodations, rather than just at the one bargained for property.
 

Jason245

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
176
I guess Somebody needs to build an addition to their imitation French palace in the least expensive way possible.
 

Jason245

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
176
So, I wonder which TS developer in Florida stands a reasonable chance of getting a 60% vote to dissolve and which timeshare that might be?

Looking forward to Theo's upcoming analysis.

Hint... they built a copy of the french palace of Versailles...
 

alwysonvac

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
16,447
Reaction score
4,227
Location
New Jersey
Resorts Owned
WORLDMARK, HGVC, VISTANA

SOLD (DVC, FSRC)
Thanks for the update :)

Found a March 12 Orlando Sentinel Article - http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-timeshare-bill-20150312-story.html


Florida bill to loosen cap on time-share fees draws critics

"A bill making its way through the Florida Legislature that would loosen a cap on timeshare assessment fees and make it tougher for buyers to get out of contracts has drawn criticism from time-share owners' attorneys and advocates.

State Rep. Eric Eisnaugle, R-Orlando, and state Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, are sponsoring the legislation, which makes a number of technical changes to the Florida Vacation Plan and Timesharing Act.

The lawmakers and the industry's trade association, the American Resort Development Association, describes the legislation as a bill that modernizes state law. Gregory Crist, chairman and CEO of the National Timeshare Owners Association, sees it otherwise.

"This is a developer-sponsored bill that strips away at consumer-protection mechanisms," Crist said.

The House version of the bill (HB 453) passed the government operations appropriations subcommittee Tuesday; the Senate version (SB 932) passed the regulated industries committee Wednesday. In an email, Eisnaugle said the updates provide protections for consumers, including giving owners more control by allowing them to terminate or extend a time-share plan on a 60 percent vote.

The American Resort Development Association donated a little less than $500,000 in Florida for the 2014 election cycle, records show. That included $5,000 to Eisnaugle's Committee for Justice and Economic Freedom PAC, more than $300,000 to the Republican Party of Florida and about $150,000 to the state's Democratic party.

Eisnaugle's PAC also received $10,000 from Orange Lake Resort Alliance last year. Orange Lake Resorts is a time-share company that operates under the Holiday Inn brand. "We regularly contribute to both charitable and political causes that impact our communities and our business," an Orange Lake spokeswoman said in an email.

The Walt Disney Co., which has a time-share business at its resorts, said it supports the industry's position but is not actively lobbying for the bill.

The legislation would remove property taxes and certain types of common-area expenses from a current 125 percent cap on annual increases in assessment fees that consumers pay.

"I don't see the logic in creating the exceptions which would allow greater increases," Scott Smith, an assistant professor of hospitality at University of South Carolina, said in an email. "This could harm the image of the industry and remove one of the best selling points for time-shares, which is that they are 'affordable.'¿¿"

The bill's proponents say it will help operators of multisite time-shares recoup the costs of expenses out of their control, including taxes, emergency repairs and improvements approved independently by a particular property's board.

Meanwhile, attorneys and time-share owners have questioned a provision that reduces liability for time-share developers if they make errors in contracts. Errors or omissions that are considered "nonmaterial" would not allow purchaser-cancellation rights after 10 days. Stargel said the legislation is meant to keep time-share owners from getting out of their contracts by finding minor flaws in them. It is meant to cover only technicalities, she said, not major problems.

"Some attorneys were making a cottage industry, if you will, of helping people get out of contracts," she said.

Last month, some members of a House civil justice subcommittee expressed concern that there is no clear definition of "nonmaterial." That kind of murkiness will "lead to increased litigation," said attorney Patrick Kennedy, who represents time-share consumers."
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
23,292
Reaction score
9,079
Location
Florida
I would really like to know if arda or the developers mentioned in this article were the force behind it being presented by the representative.

Its pretty common that those entities listed above make those donations to florida politicians year after year....vs it having to do with this particular bill. If you note it does not specifically claim that any of the entities listed in the article are behind this particular bill, just a note that they donate money to various florida political campaigns.

I do agree that the part about increasing the cap on special assessments is absurd...and in no way benefits owners....as well as screams something developers/ARDA would think up to try to pass in a "consumer focused" law change.
 
Last edited:

BocaBoy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
5,335
Reaction score
419
Location
Wisconsin
Resorts Owned
Grand Chateau
Several of the provisions in this bill seem to me to be very technical and make sense. Some provisions may be bad. I am NOT saying it is a good bill...I don't have nearly enough knowledge to conclude that, but I don't think the overall bill is as onerous as most posters here seem to assume.
 
Last edited:

BocaBoy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
5,335
Reaction score
419
Location
Wisconsin
Resorts Owned
Grand Chateau
I do agree that the part about increasing the cap on special assessments is absurd...and in no way benefits owners...

What about the case where something extreme happens and a major cost needs to be incurred to keep up the property's value? Wouldn't the current cap prevent this necessary expense? I think this provision could indeed benefit owners in such an extreme case. If not an extreme case, it would appear to me that the current cap is already so high that few if any normal increases would ever exceed it. The owners' Board of Directors has to approve these increases.
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
23,292
Reaction score
9,079
Location
Florida
I am sure 90% of the bill is just fine, and perhaps useful to all parties....as is with most forms of legislature written....the concerns are only with a few of the more dubious items thrown in to alter current existing laws.

Boca:

I dont believe thats written anywhere in the current law...and provisions for "extreme happenings" fall under insurance.

as it was specifically written, they appear to want to exclude tax increases and other KNOWN expenses from the 125% limit.
 

Larry M

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
315
Reaction score
176
Location
Raleigh, NC
I don't think so

start at line 503 seems to indicate a provision to allow a timeshare to be terminated with only a 60% vote from homeowners...vs a unanimous one.

sorry, cutting and pasting from that document is pretty impossible.

Umm, Brian, that 60% vote only applies if the timeshare documents do not have a requirement specified.

501 Section 4. Section 721.125, Florida Statutes, is created to
502 read:
503 721.125 Extension or termination of timeshare plans.—
504 (1) Unless the timeshare instrument provides otherwise, the
505 vote or written consent, or both, of at least 60 percent of all
506 of the voting interests in the timeshare plan may extend or
507 terminate the term of a timeshare plan at any time. If the term
508 of a timeshare plan is extended pursuant to this section, all
509 rights, privileges, duties, and obligations created under
510 applicable law or the timeshare instrument continue in full
511 force to the same extent as if the extended termination date of
512 the timeshare plan were the original termination date of the
513 timeshare plan. If a timeshare plan terminates pursuant to this
514 section, the termination has immediate effect pursuant to
515 applicable law and the timeshare instrument as if the effective
516 date of the termination were the original date of termination.
 

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
23,292
Reaction score
9,079
Location
Florida
I had read that...made me wonder how many resorts dont have that stipulation at all?

if the % is very low...then thats a trivial modification.
 

Bloodmb

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Baton Rouge
Fla. Timeshare legislation

Would this bill allow Wyndham to secure inventory from deeded points in Fla. to prop up Club Wyndham Access inventory which they may be desperate for?
 

slgibbs1

newbie
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Location
Kissimmee FL
I sent the following email to my Florida state Senator and my State Representative


House Bill 453 / Senate Bill 932 seems to have a good bit of contentious issues within it as it relates to timeshares. But overall, it favors the developers at the expense of timeshare owners. Timeshare owners make a large yearly contribution to the economy of the state. To gouge these timeshare owners so the extremely rich developers can buy another yacht is penny wise and pound foolish. In the long run, it will hurt the state.
 

BocaBoy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
5,335
Reaction score
419
Location
Wisconsin
Resorts Owned
Grand Chateau
...provisions for "extreme happenings" fall under insurance......as it was specifically written, they appear to want to exclude tax increases and other KNOWN expenses from the 125% limit.
Insurance only covers things like hurricanes, vandalism, etc. It doesn't cover a rotting structure. And why shouldn't the amount of any tax increases be passed on to the owners? And it is the OWNERS' Board that determines the fees and assessments. Again, I am not saying it is a good bill, only that most of it doesn't seem all that awful either.
 

BocaBoy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
5,335
Reaction score
419
Location
Wisconsin
Resorts Owned
Grand Chateau
As a side comment not directly related to anything specific in this bill, I am frequently amazed on TUG by the number of people who think that there is nothing that makes sense for both developers and owners, and that everything between them is inherently adversarial. I have owned Marriott timeshares for almost 28 years and I find that most things that are good for one are also good for the other. It is the similar to a unionized company, where the two sides have much more in common to agree on than to disagree on. The union (think owners) needs a healthy company, and the company (think developers) needs workers who feel their needs are being seriously considered. One does not work without the other.
 
Top