https://www.redweek.com/posting/R1228603
The relationship is perverse. You cannot simply leave, so there is zero reason for the timeshare company not to bleed you dry in fees. You can sell your share for $0 or even pay someone to take it, but the management company still gets their due. They are not like a landlord who would ever have to contend with an empty unit if they get too uppity.
> Here is an example as to why: $0 to buy, maint fee $1076
Prices can also be less than 0 USD.
Such negative prices do occur in an economy, for example to get free from obligations that accompany the object, which is the case here.
You can also do this if it's legal, but the court might not be favourable to you.
Yes. They will sue you in court. Then, when you don't answer and/or attempt to represent yourself, you will end up paying the default judgement. A judge isn't going to nullify a contract on their own. You have to explain to them why the contract is illegal, which is not as easy as everyone seems to think. That is what lawyers are paid to do.
You'd have a share of the claim on the value of the land.
Presumably everyone voted to tear it down because the building costs more to maintain as-is, than to tear down and rebuild.
It is also possible the condo voted to tear down the building and build new - if you owned the condo before you will have one again in 2 years, but you are required to live elsewhere in the mean time. (Million dollar condos in Iowa implies you can afford a second house/apartment, while in San Francisco it would not)
Generally, condo owners have an undivided interest in the land on which the property is built.
It shouldn't be possible to sign a contract that binds you to arbitrary amounts of future fees. When buying a property, you shouldn't be locked into doing whatever maintenance the co-property fancies unless you at least own a voting stake in that co-property. (And even then, only within reasonable limits.)
This is the same mentality that somehow sees student loans with >10% interest rate as anything but a symptom of a disfunctional economy.
At the very least, for cases like these, the government should tell scammers creating those constracts "You're free to put that ink on paper, but we're not going to use our monopoly on legitimate violence to enforce it".
In the US? Cable TV? Cell phone service? Restaurant bill?
Especially since all of the above listed things, but especially restaurants, have stated prices and often a means of negotiating them down or being entirely un-obligated if the providing party fails too severely.
And since, though not fully related, a restaurant can choose not to accept credit cards for instance, but there's often an obligation to state that clearly and visibly somewhere obvious beforehand, and always (in the US) an obligation to accept cash for debts owed in this manner.
However, this amount is almost always stated in the menu, so it isn't arbitrary. In fact, in each of the above cases, the amount you pay is almost never arbitrary, but based on usage or a preset price.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/sep/22/affordable-sha...
I think there is a difference between something that you dont know is a bad deal because it depends on future events (real estate market shifts or whatever) vs something that is a bad deal because you were mislead or didn't understand the contract.
If you take a risk and it doesn't work out - that is life. However that is a little different from the timeshare case, which seems less about risk and more about tricking people.
There are no end of issues with leasehold properties, but there is at least a way out if you decide you can't deal with the maintenance fees attached. You'll probably end up with a terrible credit record for defaulting on your mortgage, but at least you can get out.