Resort illegally rents owned unit.

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

Carry it to the extreme. Give my condo away?

As I mentioned above, I don't have the covenants and restrictions that went with the original purchase of our unit. I would not be the least surprised, however, if the covenants and restrictions included:

1. either a description of the timeshare program set up by the developer or integration of such a document into the covenants and restrictions.

2. procedures within the covenants and restrictions by which the timeshare program can be modified.

3. a provision stipulating that usage of the unit is subject to the provisions of the timeshare program as that document may be amended from time to time in accordance with the covenants and restrictions.

I know that if I were setting up a timeshare program I would include such language in the covenants and restrictions.

If language such as this exists it seems to me that the owners at a resort could institute various policies for no shows, provided, of course, that such modifications to the timeshare program are made in accordance with provisions of the timeshare program.

**********

I know of another resort that was sold with seasonal restrictions (floating seasons) that modified the program to make the resort year round float (no seasonal distinctions). I'm very sure that change was made without redeeding every unit in the property. (The resort did this because as a measure to make offseason weeks more attractive; the high season owners went along with the change because maintenance fees were getting too high due to the increasing number of foreclosed units.)

I respectfully disagree. Unless it is spelled out in the covenants that are part of the purchase / ownership agreement the resort / management has ZERO right to rent / occupy a fixed week/unit when an owner doesn't show up. If that were the case then a whole ownership condo Association could make a "rule" that if a condo isn't occupied they can rent it or give it away unless the owner lets them know the exact dates they plan to be in the unit. Ridiculous? Of course. But a fixed week timeshare ownership is no different. The buyer/owner has an absolute right of ownership / occupancy for X days in X unit - the Association / Management has NO RIGHT to appropriate it in any way shape or form unless that was specifically agreed to by the owner. For that week the owner is the only rights holder as long as fees are current. A rule imposed (which may or may not be known) is not adequate while a covenant, although also possibly ignored, is binding on the owner. I've never seen such wording in a purchase agreement / covenant but they may exist. Any Association unilaterally taking control of a fixed week / unit without that in the covenants would lose a challenge (and deserve to).

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

If that were the case then a whole ownership condo Association could make a "rule" that if a condo isn't occupied they can rent it or give it away unless the owner lets them know the exact dates they plan to be in the unit.

I don't think the situation is at all comparable. To the best of my knowledge, no whole ownership condo arrangement integrates a timeshare program into it's covenants and restrictions.

I think it can happen with a timeshare if there is a provision in the deeds and restrictions that creates a mechanism by which it can happen.

[1950bing Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close 1950bing]

Another timeshare ownership perk !

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

Ah... Westgate!

Not your most ethical business going in Florida...

[dougp26364 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close dougp26364]

Ah... Westgate!

Not your most ethical business going in Florida...

Sort of explains a lot doesn't it. Not only is this one of the worst companies to deal with, if the OP decides to take legal action he'll have to stand in line behind all the others wanting a piece of Westgate.

[Jya-Ning Silver Contributor Find all posts View Profile Close Jya-Ning]

Resort is Westgate Vacation Villas, and week is wholly owned. I have found nothing in any document to deny our exclusive right to occupy. Have had extended correspondence with resort management, but so far they have failed to offer either a credible explanation or acceptable compensation.

FL AG link
Florida Attorney General - AG Office and Phone Numbers

BBB
BBB of Central Florida: Home

I don't believe you have too much level against them, since they depend on it cost more to fight your right. However, if you can not find it in any document you have, you may want to ask them to send you the copy of document that allow them to rent out your unit. And you can ask FL AG to see if they do be able to do it or not under your situation. Chances are, you may find they do.

By skip 2009 MF, I believe they will gladly take your unit, than try to sue you to recover whatever image loss they have.

After you read through all they have, you can decide what to do.

Jya-Ning

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

I have never owned at a resort anywhere or been aware of any resort in my area that tries to impose such a policy.

Resort management is there to serve the owners, not deprive them of their property rights. If management tries to ''monetize usage'' by excluding a lawful owner, then it is time to change management.

I also would not want be renting such a week. All an ower has to do is go to the courthouse, get a certified copy of his deed, swear out a trespassing warrant in front of a magistrate, and send the police out to arrest the occupants. With the magistrates I knew when I was practicing law in eastern North Carolina, IMHO having such a warrant issued would be a slam dunk with a certified copy of the deed from the Register of Deeds in hand, and once a warrant is issued, the police would have no choice but to arrest them. Then the occupants would have to post a bond and appear in court. And I suspect that a criminal court judge would look at only two documents, the covenants and the deed, and a likely part of the conditions of unsupervised probation would be restitution of the value of the week to its owner.

If OBX timeshares started pulling such a stunt, it would probably be like the summer that the first real swimming pool opened on Ocracoke Island. The court docket in Hyde County was flooded with trespassing cases by the pool's owner who kept an eagle eye out for tourists from other motels using his pool. Many out of state tourists simply skipped bail. Those that showed up were convicted and given unsupervised probation. Those skipping bail could get a rude awakening if they later are driving anywhere in NC and stopped for a traffic violation, as when the officer runs their name, the outstanding order for arrest for failure to appear will show up and they will find themselves arrested again with a much larger bond to post the second time around.

Getting your own lawyer and going to civil court is not the only way to handle it. Swearing out a criminal warrant and letting the local prosecutor do it for you is another. It is unlikely that those in the criminal justice system would understand floating weeks, but with a fixed week it is really a pretty simple concept for them to grasp.

Now management would have its own problems. If there is no legal basis for what they are doing, they could be looking at a criminal charge of Obtaining Property or Money by False Pretenses. Unlike trespassing which is a minor misdemeanor, False Pretenses is a felony which can carry prison time. Of course, as a felony, a victim cannot just go before a magistrate and swear out a warrant like they can for a misdemeanor. They have to make a police report and have the police investigate. Most police investigators I have worked with would almost certainly suggest to the manager to make full restitution to the victim so that they could encourage the victim to accept that and let it go.

Truth be told, many resorts have a similar policy... Units that are unoccupied at the check-in deadline may be "accidentally" given away, placed into a rental pool, or even in some cases deposited with an exchange system for some type of limited exchange value certificate. The resort management simply tries to monetize the usage in any way possible. Whether it is legal or not doesn't ever seem to be big concern, as the few owners that are affected by such a policy aren't much of a risk.

Sure they can complain or raise a little fuss at the check in desk- but initiate a law suit? These are people that weren't organized or careful enough to confirm their vacation reservations prior to travel- the chances of them funding and establishing a law suit must seem pretty slim to the developer's risk assessment attorneys!

While this situation is certainly unfortunate for the OP- it's a good reminder for other owners to ALWAYS CALL AND CONFIRM prior to travel!

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

Can't say I agree.

To cut-and-dry of a position for the real world.

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

You posted while I was composing.

Mr. Sleaze has the right to do anything he wants.

Resort is Westgate Vacation Villas.

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

The Westgate saga will never end until The King moves on

Ah... Westgate!

Not your most ethical business going in Florida...

DId I miss where the resort was identified as Wastegate? OF COURSE they would try to pull this AND, if that is the resort involved, there is NO covenant provision to allow it (just like most ownerships prior to 2005 DO NOT have ROFR yet they claim to hold it). This is the same bunch that will charge $500+ to "upgrade" a week that they sold as equal to all others and assign a different week than what you own as FIXED DEEDED to II if you request a deposit (fortunately RCI does NOT allow that to occur). They live on the ragged edge of illegality and, as shown by prior convictions, are caught at times. Doesn't stop them though. So if it's Wastegate then PLEASE go after them in every way possible & hope to get them convicted - again!

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Every declaration of covenants I have ever seen has a provision for amendments. The problem is that every one I have ever seen also makes it so difficult to amend the covenants that no one ever seems to try, one exception being that for developers during buildout there are sometimes streamlined requirements. Often amendments require a supermajority of all owners, something that is almost impossible to get. I have even seen one that required a signature of each owner in that supermajority on a written document.

This whole concept of taking someone's week reeks of lack of fundamental due process. At a minimum due process would require a notice of a specific taking of a specific year's week and an opportunity to be heard BEFORE they could take the week to do something else with it. There is simply not time in these policies to afford notice and an opportunity to be heard. By the time a resort did that, the week would be over.

While general due process requirements would impact every timeshare, at least in the US, some states have even more specific due process requirements set out by statute that apply to HOA's, including timeshare HOA's. North Carolina's statute on this issue passed the legislature a few years ago after a couple of newspapers ran major stories on abuses by subdivision HOA's and it was drafted broadly enough to include timeshare HOA's. The Real Estate Commission was caught flatfooted, having been told the bill was not going to go anywhere. I read the story that the bill had passed in the morning paper and called the Commission's lobbyist who assured me the bill was not going to come out of committee. I told him to read the paper, it had not only come out of committee but passed. This bill sets very specific notice requirements, and very specific periods before action can be taken. Indeed now resorts have to be careful to jump through the proper hoops or they may find that they cannot exclude an owner who has not paid his maintenance fee from using his week. Under this statute, any resort which tried to impose the policy described by the OP would be dogmeat.

There has been talk of trying to get some amendments to this law but nothing has happened that I am aware of. The timeframes established may be okay for a subdivision HOA but are very difficult for timeshare HOA's. Even with the reasonable timeframes I have heard discussed for amendments to this law to make it workable for timeshare HOA's, the scheme described by the OP would not work.

As I mentioned above, I don't have the covenants and restrictions that went with the original purchase of our unit. I would not be the least surprised, however, if the covenants and restrictions included:

1. either a description of the timeshare program set up by the developer or integration of such a document into the covenants and restrictions.

2. procedures within the covenants and restrictions by which the timeshare program can be modified.

3. a provision stipulating that usage of the unit is subject to the provisions of the timeshare program as that document may be amended from time to time in accordance with the covenants and restrictions.

I know that if I were setting up a timeshare program I would include such language in the covenants and restrictions.

If language such as this exists it seems to me that the owners at a resort could institute various policies for no shows, provided, of course, that such modifications to the timeshare program are made in accordance with provisions of the timeshare program.

**********

I know of another resort that was sold with seasonal restrictions (floating seasons) that modified the program to make the resort year round float (no seasonal distinctions). I'm very sure that change was made without redeeding every unit in the property. (The resort did this because as a measure to make offseason weeks more attractive; the high season owners went along with the change because maintenance fees were getting too high due to the increasing number of foreclosed units.)

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

This whole concept of taking someone's week reeks of lack of fundamental due process. At a minimum due process would require a notice of a specific taking of a specific year's week and an opportunity to be heard BEFORE they could take the week to do something else with it. There is simply not time in these policies to afford notice and an opportunity to be heard. By the time a resort did that, the week would be over.

Due process. Such a quaint concern in our current judicial system for all except those accused or convicted of a crime!!!!

[mike823367 Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close mike823367]

The resort, Westgate, is not so much clamming up as telling contradictory stories When we were denied access to our unit we asked to speak to a Manager. A lady came from the back office to say that the occupants of the unit were installed for the entire week and could not be contacted, "possibly for several days". She offered no explanation for the situation, but offered us a $100.00 reduction in or fees, presumably as compensation. In subsequent correspondence with the Resort Operations Manager, it was stated that no such reduction could be offered, and that the unit was occupied owing to an overlap in resevations, presumably involving the previous week's occupants. An offer of a free additional week's use of a unit was made, which is of no value to us since we reside in the UK and have timeshare weeks at other resorts which more than meet our vacation needs. in making these offers it seems that Westgate accept that they have acted wrongly, but will not accept the financial consequences of their actions.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

I would formally complain to the Florida Real Estate Commission and the Consumer Protection Division of the Florida Attorney General.