Forum Home» Praise, Vent & Warnings

Death doesn't bring an end to timeshare fee - Page 2

New Post Advanced Search

Death doesn't bring an end to timeshare fee

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Praise, Vent & Warnings
34 replies 11.7K views
24

Replies

  • zzzLazyDaisyzzzLazyDaisy Forumite
    12.5K posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    very interesting - it's got me wondering though - if someone leaves you something in a will (like a timeshare) can you simply refuse to accept it or are you stuck with it and possibly a lot of hassle thereafter?

    You can refuse it.
    I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.
  • kwakskwaks Forumite
    494 posts
    I have used Forest Hills a few times fo day visits, actually not a bad place, however they may want to take a lead from the owners of Loch Rannoch timeshares.

    Fed up with constant rises in maintenance fees, the owners there effectively forced MacDonald resorts out of the management.
  • I was unemployed for 18 months , and trying to save money I tried to give my timeshare back to Diamond Resorts as I could not afford the maintenance payments they said I was unable to do that and also said I have the timeshare for pertuity. So I decided not to pay the fees but yesterday I recieved a letter from an outside debt agency saying that they have bought the debt off Diamond Resorts. I just dont know what to do PLEASE HELP . I am back in work now but feel trapped .
  • brettctabrettcta Forumite
    4.4K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    so, basically, you were told you couldn't stop paying but decided to do so anyway?
    helpful tips
    it's spelt d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y
    there - 'in or at that place'
    their - 'owned by them'
    they're - 'they are'
    it's bought not brought (i just bought my chicken a suit from that new shop for £6.34)
  • terrywterryw Forumite
    4.4K posts
    Part of the Furniture
    ✭✭✭✭
    the_apple wrote: »
    I was unemployed for 18 months , and trying to save money I tried to give my timeshare back to Diamond Resorts as I could not afford the maintenance payments they said I was unable to do that and also said I have the timeshare for pertuity. So I decided not to pay the fees but yesterday I recieved a letter from an outside debt agency saying that they have bought the debt off Diamond Resorts. I just dont know what to do PLEASE HELP . I am back in work now but feel trapped .

    Sorry about your predicament.

    There is a very long thread about Diamond Resorts at
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1120715&highlight=diamond+resorts

    worth having a read through here.

    bw regardless
    "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools"
    Extract from "If" by Rudyard Kipling
  • edited 19 July 2011 at 5:00PM
    fluffnutterfluffnutter Forumite
    23.2K posts
    edited 19 July 2011 at 5:00PM
    I think anyone who inherits an estate which includes one of these shitty things should cease paying and let whichever tosspot company it is take them to court. Writing something on a contract, e.g. you owe me a million pounds forever, doesn't make it fair nor legal.

    I bet it's not legal anyway but people continue anyway because they become bamboozled and intimidated by the companies that operate these ridiculous schemes. I'm no lawyer but I bet there's some technicality essentially along the lines of contracts like these ceasing to be binding once you're dead because if they continue, essentially you're agreeing to something that you can't possibly have any control over or be involved with. You can't just lumber your inheritors with your contract.

    I certainly wouldn't continue paying for something I don't use, nor would I view it my responsibility to sell something so inherently troublesome and worthless. I'd go to court and fight it every step of the way. If people stood up to these ridiculous sharp practices, companies would have to stop ripping people off.
    "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.
  • AzariAzari Forumite
    4.3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    I think anyone who inherits an estate which includes one of these shitty things should cease paying and let whichever tosspot company it is take them to court. Writing something on a contract, e.g. you owe me a million pounds forever, doesn't make it fair nor legal.

    I bet it's not legal anyway but people continue anyway because they become bamboozled and intimidated by the companies that operate these ridiculous schemes. I'm no lawyer but I bet there's some technicality essentially along the lines of contracts like these ceasing to be binding once you're dead because if they continue, essentially you're agreeing to something that you can't possibly have any control over or be involved with. You can't just lumber your inheritors with your contract.

    I certainly wouldn't continue paying for something I don't use, nor would I view it my responsibility to sell something so inherently troublesome and worthless. I'd go to court and fight it every step of the way. If people stood up to these ridiculous sharp practices, companies would have to stop ripping people off.

    In practice, a solicitor would almost certainly be able to tell you in advance what the decision of the court would be.
    There are two types of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate information.
  • fluffnutterfluffnutter Forumite
    23.2K posts
    Azari wrote: »
    In practice, a solicitor would almost certainly be able to tell you in advance what the decision of the court would be.

    Probably. But that's an interesting point... why do people ever lose then? ;)
    "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.
  • AzariAzari Forumite
    4.3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Probably. But that's an interesting point... why do people ever lose then?

    People lose either because they insist on pursuing unwinnable cases or because there is some question as to how the law applies to some specific case.

    In this instance, however, it's all very cut and dried. Either such a term is valid or it isn't. Once a court has decided that (and any appeals have played out), the matter is settled.

    There is almost certainly some legal mechanism to deal with a liability in perpetuity since no estate, however large, can pay off something that carries on indefinitely and the matter must have come up many times in the past when a landlord leaves a property occupied by a sitting tenant.

    Consulting a solicitor is definitely the way forward in this instance.
    There are two types of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate information.
  • fluffnutterfluffnutter Forumite
    23.2K posts
    Azari wrote: »
    There is almost certainly some legal mechanism to deal with a liability in perpetuity since no estate, however large, can pay off something that carries on indefinitely and the matter must have come up many times in the past when a landlord leaves a property occupied by a sitting tenant.

    I agree. Personally I can't believe that people haven't challenged this (and won) before. But then it is just some old article from the Mail so no doubt it's just a bit of chuntering nonsense.
    "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support