Deed-Backs

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Sure, don't make it easy an owners who are stuck with worthless, but expensive, timeshares.

That would not be consistent with one of the most disliked industries in existence.



Time for change, folks, if you wanna survive.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

Making it hard on the honest, 90%+ of owners who pay according to the rules and abide by the agreements, who also own expensive to purchase and now mostly worthless at resale timeshares, forcing them to cover for those that decide not to pay on what they accepted by their voluntary purchase is a sure way to preserve and protect the resorts. No way.

I don't see that as an acceptable "change". I'm betting the majority of owners don't see it as a good move either. If not then please put me first on the deed back list as I see the end of all condos if that is made acceptable.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

You're still copping out on the industry not providing an acceptable exit policy.

It's time to think differently.

[Ridewithme38 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Ridewithme38]

Making it hard on the honest, 90%+ of owners who pay according to the rules and abide by the agreements, who also own expensive to purchase and now mostly worthless at resale timeshares, forcing them to cover for those that decide not to pay on what they accepted by their voluntary purchase is a sure way to preserve and protect the resorts. No way.

I don't see that as an acceptable "change". I'm betting the majority of owners don't see it as a good move either. If not then please put me first on the deed back list as I see the end of all condos if that is made acceptable.

How old are you Timeos2? I'm still young and have a steady job, so i can't see a time where i'm retired and on a fixed income, its a long way away....But i thought you were older then me...With medical costs and property taxes going up yearly, most of the baby boomers are hitting a point in their life where every cent matters....i don't think its a matter of people deciding not to pay...i think its a matter of being able to afford heart medicine or pay a MF

While i kinda agree that that deedbacks shouldn't be available for anyone who just wants to walk away...if you have a good valid reason, it should be an option

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

Older than I want to be - but still kicking!

Not looking for any sympathy but just stating facts. I turned 61 this year so I'm almost to where I thought I'd retire in 3-4 more years (around 65) and start to really travel the world. Instead 4 years ago I was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and had to have my esophagus & 2/3 of my stomach removed, underwent two years of radiation treatment & am now on my 4th year of chemo. Thankfully while I still have a few cancer "spots" they are now controlled & I'm considered to be in remission with the ongoing treatment every three weeks.

What that meant was my income was cut to 1/3 of what I earned in 2008 in 2011. It meant I had to go on medicare & SS disability thus raising my previously low (as in $100-$200 year) medical expense to over $7500 in co-pays alone (still a bargain as my overall medical bill since June 2008 is approaching $750,000 if I have the bills added up correctly). What I'm saying is both my ability to travel and income have changed dramatically in ways I never expected.

We owned 8 weeks (some in points) in 2008. I quickly decided we needed to downsize so I started offering them for sale. Today we own 2. So I had what I would consider to be legitimate reasons to ask for deed backs but I never even considered it. I figured someone would want the weeks we enjoyed and, despite low resale prices, they did. It took 2 years to move all 6. The remainder (2) I could easily sell today but we want them. Who knows what they will be worth tomorrow but opening the flood gates to anyone who wants to turn their ownership in because their life changed but doesn't want to do the legwork to sell what they bought just doesn't get my sympathy. And wouldn't raise the value.

If they truly can't pay, prove it by going through the prescribed process, and then face foreclosure / deed back I'm OK with it. They really are in trouble & need an out. The documents say the other owners agree to that.

They never agreed to just accepting time back because the owner wants to give it up or claims hardship. Prove it & we'll take it back. Otherwise, as Judge Marilyn says "It's just flappin' gums". Harsh, but the 90% need to be protected not the minority that want (often an easy) out.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Older than I want to be - but still kicking!

Not looking for any sympathy but just stating facts. I turned 61 this year so I'm almost to where I thought I'd retire in 3-4 more years (around 65) and start to really travel the world. Instead 4 years ago I was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and had to have my esophagus & 2/3 of my stomach removed, underwent two years of radiation treatment & am now on my 4th year of chemo. Thankfully while I still have a few cancer "spots" they are now controlled & I'm considered to be in remission with the ongoing treatment every three weeks.

What that meant was my income was cut to 1/3 of what I earned in 2008 in 2011. It meant I had to go on medicare & SS disability thus raising my previously low (as in $100-$200 year) medical expense to over $7500 in co-pays alone (still a bargain as my overall medical bill since June 2008 is approaching $750,000 if I have the bills added up correctly). What I'm saying is both my ability to travel and income have changed dramatically in ways I never expected.

We owned 8 weeks (some in points) in 2008. I quickly decided we needed to downsize so I started offering them for sale. Today we own 2. So I had what I would consider to be legitimate reasons to ask for deed backs but I never even considered it. I figured someone would want the weeks we enjoyed and, despite low resale prices, they did. It took 2 years to move all 6. The remainder (2) I could easily sell today but we want them. Who knows what they will be worth tomorrow but opening the flood gates to anyone who wants to turn their ownership in because their life changed but doesn't want to do the legwork to sell what they bought just doesn't get my sympathy. And wouldn't raise the value.

If they truly can't pay, prove it by going through the prescribed process, and then face foreclosure / deed back I'm OK with it. They really are in trouble & need an out. The documents say the other owners agree to that.

They never agreed to just accepting time back because the owner wants to give it up or claims hardship. Prove it & we'll take it back. Otherwise, as Judge Marilyn says "It's just flappin' gums". Harsh, but the 90% need to be protected not the minority that want (often an easy) out.

Certainly you have my heartfelt sympathy, and understanding, but that is a pretty tough standard you are holding other owners to.

Hopefully you can understand that.

But, I do understand why it would skew your thinking . . . "If I can do it, so can they."
- - - - - -
Of course, I probably would not feel the way I do . . . not have the grounds to feel that way . . . if the industry was not what it is . . . saying or doing whatver they need to say or do to create the forever legal obligation that some are so fond of referring to, then, when someone wants to find a way out of that obligation, as everyone eventually will, they say, "That's not our problem. Our job is to collect money from you and nothing else," which you have well expressed.
- - - - - -
Is it not like the foreclosure situation, that millions of people had the same legal obligation, but, when the value of what they were paying for fell far below what they were paying, they walk. If millions do that regarding the house over the heads of them and their family, why would they hesitate doing it for something as frivolous as a timeshare?

The HOA has nowhere near the clout of Bank of America, or Wells Fargo, or Countrywide, or . . . so what makes them think hatefulness, scare tactics and threats will work? Don't you think HOAs would learn from home lenders, that after spending beaucoup bucks trying to force people to live up to their obligations, they wind up getting the houses back, only to get pennies on the dollar for them, if that.

So, why not come up with a better method to take them back, without all the expense and hatefulness, which further villifies timeshares?

There's gotta be a better way.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

when someone wants to find a way out of that obligation, [

I meant to say, "when someone no longer has a need or use for their timeshare."

[Will Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Will]

John, you say you want to protect the 90% from the 10%. If this is your objective I think you are straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. As one of the 90%, I do not think that my interests are well served by a system that provides no reasonable way for people to exit. What this does is set up a dynamic where 2% or so can panic and disrupt the entire market, in other words, what has happened in the last few years, though it is destined to become much worse. Restoring market confidence will bring about a more liquid market where people will buy and sell again. Locking people into their obligations forever will create a climate where not enough new people are willing to buy. Really, why would any reasonable person want to buy now, when there is a risk that they could never sell. They see thousands of unwanted units dumped on ebay for a dollar with no takers, and PCC's charging thousands to people desparate for any solution. These thousands of unwanted units are not the market is a whole, but by perpertuating this problem, they define the market and will continue to do so. Until this problem is fixed, the timeshare market will be in a steady decline. If the problem can be addressed, timeshares will be around for a long time, because they represent a very viable economic concept.

You may be trying to penalize the people who want to "escape their obligations". But your approach is penalizing the market and the rest of us much more.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

As always, Will says it better.

I corrected my wording precisely because of the "people wanting to escape their obligation" issue that always seems to come up. That's not the issue. But it clouds the issue.

Which is . . . not having a way to get rid of them when you are done with them.

If you wanna use personal example, we have not tried to escape our obligation for more than 20 years. We are not low-life sleazes looking to stick it to the 90%.

We, simply, are done with them . . . & no way out.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

As I said. There is a way. It's documented, it's clear & all they have to do is follow the rules & prove it's a hardship & not a simple "want to get out" situation and the process relieves them of the burden & the other owners agree to accept it.

Clean. Fair & established. No need to water it down or change it to fix a non-issue. If they just want out there are ways to do that without burdening the paying owners. The right tool for the job either way.

[Will Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Will]

non-issue?

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

As I said. There is a way. It's documented, it's clear & all they have to do is follow the rules & prove it's a hardship & not a simple "want to get out" situation and the process relieves them of the burden & the other owners agree to accept it.

Clean. Fair & established. No need to water it down or change it to fix a non-issue. If they just want out there are ways to do that without burdening the paying owners. The right tool for the job either way.

All we are saying is that it may be time for some more tools.

From another forum:

The next time any of you are in Branson, buy an issue of a local newspaper...... last weekend's edition had over 8 full pages of timeshare foreclosure notices. I counted approximately 20+- notices per page =160+-
for just that edition of the local paper.
Every edition, twice a week, has pages & pages of foreclosure notices...

[tonyg Goomba & Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close tonyg]

While I can see both points of view, I think there may be some resorts who could do the deed-backs successfully while others would be overwhelmed if they tried it. I'm not sure how easy the foreclosure procedure is in all states, but I know it is very easy in some. Sometimes foreclosure will result in an owner paying up and other times not-resulting in a non collectible amount.

[Will Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Will]

I can understand if one does not think that there is a problem in the first place, then it does not make much sense to try to figure out a solution. It sounds like that is where the disagreement starts. For those who do think that there is a problem, it is important to remember that the underlying premise of timeos2's argument is that the so-called problem is a non-issue.

Regarding those resorts that would be overwhelmed by deedbacks, perhaps that is a clue that that it is time to consider the dissolution option. I mean, really, if so many want out even though it means a total loss of their investment, there may be a question about the underlying economic viability of the resort that needs to be addressed.

Regarding legal impediments to the deedback option that were raised, two thoughts. First, who is going to sue to stop it? Second, if someone does, is a court really going to going to substitute its judgement for that of the HOA? A solid argument can be made that this falls within the discretion of management.

Finally, to JLB, our first disagreement. No worries, it was bound to happen. I simply do not agree that I said it best. I have been benefitting by your insightful and witty posts for a long time. In fact, I once benefitted a lot when you replied to a problem I had raised on a forum we both used to contribute to. I was very grateful.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Finally, to JLB, our first disagreement. No worries, it was bound to happen. I simply do not agree that I said it best. I have been benefitting by your insightful and witty posts for a long time. In fact, I once benefitted a lot when you replied to a problem I had raised on a forum we both used to contribute to. I was very grateful.

Now our second disagreement.

You say what I say much better, perhaps because of the lack of baggage.

It's easier to travel that way.



Because of the way this thread has gone, and the many years I have been on the Internet with T, and because I wish to be very delicate about his personal situation, and still say what I feel needs to be said, it is commendable for him to do what he has done, but a person with that mindset and personal experience and belief probably should not be calling the shots for all the other owners. I believe the bias would be too strong to be objective.

For everyone, there comes a time to accept accolades for a job well done and step aside.

Sorry T

&

It is not at all unlike another person on this forum who has strong criticism of the millions who have walked away from their homes. Some see financial obligations is strict black and white, when the overwhelming majority of others view them as what they are, financial decisions based on the perceived facts of the time, that change as facts change.

I listened to the interview with a minority American who kept paying on her house until she no longer could, because in her mind not paying was giving up on the American dream. Of course, she lost both her house and the money she kept paying (but kept her convictions) when her best bet at the American dream, given the new facts, would have been to stop paying sooner, kept that money, and bought something new for less.

If owning a timeshare was really that important, and someone owes $10,000 on one, would it not be wiser to stop paying on it and buy the same thing on eBay or directly from a PCC for a buck? Would it not be worth the sticks and stones thrown by an HOA to pocket ten thousand bucks?

That is the new set of facts.

For me, it is not like the owner is trying to get something for nothing. They are not trying to keep what they stop paying for. They are not being dishonest or disrespectful. They are being forthright and diligent. If the system wants to keep living in the past, with yesterday's facts, so be it.

How do we know this is not the beginning of the end of the concept of timesharing, and the time to start the reconversion process? Well, actually, that mighta been a few years back, when you look at the declining numbers.

Like in anything, though, I could be wrong, or, I could be right, and others could be wrong, or, everyone could be a little right and a little wrong.