I do not fee l proven hardship is needed. The proposed legislation states " ... paying the termination fee determined in accordance with the regulations". So just like any other well written contract the provider needs to make allowances for the contract end of life. I live in Ontario and bought into GeoPremier. 30 years ago, it was great when they had 9 locations and I could choose any floating week as per my agreement. Well they declined and eventually sold to Saphire and now I have 2 resorts and it's near impossible to book a spot in either. I'm happy to say sorry but this agreement is no longer of value to me, so I'm ready to take the exit clause, but there is none.
What makes you think they would be cheap? If the land (and possibly structures) are desirable, a competent HOA would negotiate a fair price. The independent I was in folded about five years before the sunset clause by a member vote and sold out to Vacay. (It seems like the HOA got a good price. The unit I bought for $1500 in 2010 netted me $5500 in 2020 or 2021.)
What? Some poor retired widow who spent her life waiting tables and was never able to build a retirement plan, and is scrimping to survive on the Canadian equivalent of Social Security is supposed to pay a tax to bail out profligate young person who couldn't be bothered to read a contract before signing it? Transfer payments like that (robbing Peter to pay Paul) make me sick.
I was in this situation. I was given my in-laws' timeshare when it was Fairfield and had a great internal exchange program. There were no fees and you had access to the every site. They mailed you a gorgeous color catalog of the choices each year and there was good availability. Wyndham bought Fairfield and gradually choked it off. They reduced the available sites, eventually to only the undesirable properties. The fees went from $0 gradually to $100 or so. They stopped sending the catalog and made it very difficult to determine which properties were available online. Eventually that program was cancelled. I called Wyndham; they transferred the call to the HOA where my deed was. I told the lady who answered that we had never been to the home resort--my MIL had bought because of the exchange program. The promise that was made at purchase had been broken and I wanted out. She immediately, without argument, responded that if I sent a check for $150, their attorney would send me quitclaim papers. If I signed and returned them, I would be out.
there absolutely are unsellable timeshares yes.
You apparently didn't read the proposed law or article. They are only looking at this forced exit for timeshares that have been owned for more than 25 years. So the people wanting out are probably also older people scrimping to survive on a fixed budget and CPP (Canada Pension Plan). It is very doubtful there are young people who failed to read a contract trying to get out of their timeshare from 25 years ago. The problem is that the HOA is also a form of government. Government over a small plot of land and owners instead of a provincial population. I am all for legislation making it easier for a timeshare to dissolve and sell itself. That isn't what the province is proposing. They want to force timeshares back on to HOAs driving up the costs. Ontario apparently has made it difficult to foreclose and dissolve a timeshare. That is what they need to fix and this legislation does nothing to address that.
I'll agree with most of what you are saying. The part that I quoted from you and highlighted is where I'm a little unsure. Unless I missed it, the proposed law does not address who must take ownership. Some are assuming that it is the respective HOAs. Some are assuming it's "the resort". Some are assuming it's the TS company. Some are assuming it's the developer. Then there are some who are clueless but only, to their delight, hear "owners can just give unwanted TSs back".
Yes there are. Owners at Carriage Hills were PAYING people to take it off their hands and still couldn't because it was cheaper to rent than pay maintenance fees.
Well, that is the big question. For a system still in active sales like Marriott, Hilton or something similar, going back to the developer is a possible solution. However, a problem with a timeshare where someone has owned for 25 years is that this is a small independent there there is no developer around. The "resort" can't take it back because the resort isn't an entity. The resort is the HOA. For old independent timeshares, there is no timeshare company anymore and the timeshare company and developer is probably one in the same. A timeshare is a deed to real estate. That deed lives on after the owner doesn't want it. It has to go back to someone. The question is who. There are really only two options; the developer or the HOA. In many cases the developer is long gone from the resort. If the developer still exists but no longer involved with the resort, should they have to take back deeded weeks that they sold 25 years ago?
Carriage Hills is a good example of where this law is useless. The Ontario legislature needs to make it easier and cheaper for HOAs to foreclose with no risk of a credit hit from foreclosure. They also need to make it easier and cheaper for a timeshare to dissolve itself. These could truely help with problems related to old, aging independent timeshares that are no longer viable. The proposed legislation just exacerbates the problem.
Yes, I'm agreeing with you. This subject has been debated here on TUG a number of times for a number of years now of whether or not "resorts" should be forced to take back unwanted TSs. It's just that now, a certain government is finally proposing this. But, for the reasons that you and many other TUGgers mention, it's not feasible because it's too complicated as to who should have to take over ownership of unwanted TSs. Unfortunately, the law makers who are proposing this law and the voters who are applauding them for this do not seem to understand these points.
Totally agree--all timeshare companies should have an written exit policy on timeshare exit options if the timeshare is paid off and will
I disagree. If the resort is well run, there will be a resale market. If it's poorly run, it needs to be dissolved. Our HOA could not legally own units. Wyndham bought many of them and paid the maintenance fees on their units. But that also gave them too much control. It was untenable all around. We still did the democratic thing and allowed everyone a vote to keep part or sell all. Sell all won. It was all handled fairly through the courts and I was more than happy with the outcome.
There are certain weeks at certain resorts that simply have no resale value. Especially in highly seasonal locations. When you have an entire season of owners that don’t see value then the resort no longer works. I agree it should be dissolved but that process is fraught with issues too.
That's exactly it in a nutshell. I believe the timeshare model only really works when there is 365 day demand. Canada with its mud seasons before and after winter just makes it undesirable for too much of the year
I get what you're saying and don't disagree that the owners in such a case like this should be given such an option. However, such a proposal is still failing to address the complex question, If an owner has a right to "annul the contract", who has to take over ownership? If a contract for deeded property is annulled, someone else or another party has to take over ownership.
Yes, I totally agree. Unfortunately, the proposed law (which is the subject of this thread) seems to be saying "resorts must take back unwanted TSs from owners" rather than the more feasible "resorts should offer a legitimate exit solution for owners".
I just think it’s wrong that it’s So hard to get rid of an unwanted timeshare. And at least my association doesn’t do “deedbacks”. I just feel like why Does it have to be so hard? We’re just locked in forever!I admit I am not fluent in the application of Canadian laws and this appears to only really impact Ontario vs all of Canada? but I like that its even being proposed! would like to shake the hand of whatever politician is spearheading this particular initiative!
Ontario Newsroom
news.ontario.ca
Ontario Newsroom
They do. It's called selling or at least, giving it away. Unfortunately, because many of these TSs have a zero or negative resale value, it's hard to sell or give away.
