Widow, timeshare wage war over last condo standing

[MouseOfCards]

Interesting read:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-westgate-resorts-last-condo-standing-20160526-story.html

 

[bumbershoot]

I absolutely adore Julieta Corredor now. Yo go, girl. And I love that her son backs her up.

 

[hardis5]

A big business essentially trying to bully the last homeowner to sell. Would be sad to see her forced to sell due to the damage Westgate Resorts contractor did to her property. Hopefully the family will not cave to the developers wants.

 

[jessicaerv]

Okay, so it's not about the money. What's it about then? The son didn't mention anything about WHY she would be holding out. Nobody's stayed at the property in years.

Like Judge Judy says, "Don't piddle on my leg and tell me it's raining." It's ALL about the money.

However, I'm not siding with the developer here. They could stand to cough up a lot more dough for this woman and her property.

 

[tjkraz]

According to the article, "no one in the family has stayed overnight at the home for several years." This doesn't sound like an "Up" situation to me. If the woman hasn't stayed there in several years thru age 81, there doesn't seem to be much emotional attachment.

They've offered her more than twice market value, and every other owner in the complex accepted some form of buy-out.

I'm not a fan of big business bullying the little guy but this reads like a cash grab to me. More power to 'em...the family is welcome to hold out for more cash if they see fit. Make the developer fix any damage and get all of their permits in order. But I don't read this as them having ANY intention of ever using the condo again. Either the buyout price will rise or the developer will just build around it. No sympathies here for either side.

About 2 miles up the road from our house is a sprawling open air shopping / dining complex with movie theaters, hotels, residential and so on which opened about 12-15 years ago. Sitting on one awkward corner of the property is a small house--probably less than 1000 sq ft--with a large sign that reads "For Sale - Lowest Price Ever!" That for sale sign has been on the house since we moved into the area more than 6 years ago. That's the risk you take when you hold out in a situation like this.

 

[supersnoop]

Okay, so it's not about the money. What's it about then? The son didn't mention anything about WHY she would be holding out. Nobody's stayed at the property in years.

Like Judge Judy says, "Don't piddle on my leg and tell me it's raining." It's ALL about the money.

However, I'm not siding with the developer here. They could stand to cough up a lot more dough for this woman and her property.

They've offered her more than twice market value, and every other owner in the complex accepted some form of buy-out.

They say she paid $153k, but the developer says it's worth $65k. And they've offered up to $150k. So, I'd say it's still about the money.

 

[hardis5]

Tear down the entire complex around her unit and the value of the last remaining unit would surely drop. I wonder what the value of the new units being built in tower right behind her by Westgate would equate to? I would guess a tad more than $150K.

Everything always boils down to $ but why should someone give up or be forced from their property if not wanting to sell? Contractors know the law and I'd question they even being allowed to restrict access around her property as they have and undertake demolition of adjacent units that threatens the use of her unit. I would not want to stay there knowing what they've done to risk her property (and we do not know the reasons she or family have not stayed there) but accepting whatever the developer offers without question so they can build what they want is being bullied.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Tear down the entire complex around her unit and the value of the last remaining unit would surely drop.

Exactly this. By buying everything around her and tearing it down, and also causing damage to her property, they're depreciating her asset.

It sounds very much like they're operating outside of regulation in a number of ways to bully her. She may be digging in just because she's being bullied. I know a LOT of people like that. Try to strong-arm them, and they will dig in and resist.

 

[tjkraz]

Tear down the entire complex around her unit and the value of the last remaining unit would surely drop.

But they offered her double the average price of other units.

I wonder what the value of the new units being built in tower right behind her by Westgate would equate to? I would guess a tad more than $150K.

Probably. But Westgate is investing $24 million to build a new complex. Unless there are other buyers willing to pay more than $150K, the property isn't worth more than $150k.

Exactly this. By buying everything around her and tearing it down, and also causing damage to her property, they're depreciating her asset.

Causing damage to her property is obviously improper, along with restricting access or any other unseemly actions. The article states that the construction company's insurance information was provided to address any potential damage claims.

But it's well within Westgate's rights to buy up the surrounding property. The article claims that the average sale price for surrounding condos was $69k. She was offered $150k. That doesn't sound like bullying to me. Properties are valued at what others are willing to pay...and the average going rate is $69k.

It sounds very much like they're operating outside of regulation in a number of ways to bully her. She may be digging in just because she's being bullied. I know a LOT of people like that. Try to strong-arm them, and they will dig in and resist.

Keeping it is certainly her prerogative. But the risk is that Westgate will develop around her property, potentially leaving it valueless. It's a 30+ year old condominium which the family has not been using. Other units in the development were described as "moldy and rotting." I hope the owners are prepared to continue paying taxes, utilities and other upkeep maintain the unit...which they are not using and refuse to sell.

 

[Dean]

Maybe they should hold out for a replacement within the new complex, but make yearly cost control part of the deal. Basically an owners unit like a number of timeshares have that I know of. In the end Westgate will get it and if they get double what they paid and what it was worth when this all started, it won't be worth the hassles they've gone through.

 

[MouseOfCards]

She may be digging in just because she's being bullied. I know a LOT of people like that. Try to strong-arm them, and they will dig in and resist.

That's a good point!

 

[supersnoop]

But they offered her double the average price of other units.

Which was still less than she paid for it.

 

[ScubaCat]

The developer should throw in 100 SSR points just sweeten the deal. Once they sign the papers, reveal that the DVC contract was bought resale and is not entitled to perks. Then demolish the property.

 

[bumbershoot]

Nobody's stayed at the property in years.

Not staying there *overnight* doesn't mean that no one is enjoying, or trying to enjoy, the property.

Little old ladies often just want what they want. Want what they had. Don't want that to go away.

My MIL has kept insurance policies because they were set up by her husband. Doesn't matter if they are appropriate for her needs; he started them and she wants...nay, needs, to keep them.

This company is doing wrong things. They deserve to be called out on it.

 

[tjkraz]

Which was still less than she paid for it.

Not every property appreciates in value. Other condos were described as "moldy and rotting" and the inference is that they were condemned.

Not staying there *overnight* doesn't mean that no one is enjoying, or trying to enjoy, the property.

True enough. However the interviewer--and the owner's son--had ample opportunity to build more of an "abused property owner" narrative. But they didn't do so. If they were using the condo a dozen times per year for day trips, it would have been easy enough to include that detail.

The article makes vague mention of the property being used to house children and grandchildren on family trips during bygone years. But in lieu of any present-day specifics, it reads like a condo that's been abandoned.

Little old ladies often just want what they want. Want what they had. Don't want that to go away.

My MIL has kept insurance policies because they were set up by her husband. Doesn't matter if they are appropriate for her needs; he started them and she wants...nay, needs, to keep them.

This company is doing wrong things. They deserve to be called out on it.

The owner is certainly entitled to do whatever she wishes. But consider the cause and effect here. Both parties admit that offers were made. These offers would have preceded any surrounding demolition or construction barricades. The owner didn't reject an offer because her condo was damaged...the damage occurred after she rejected the offer.

This is going to end one of two ways:

1) The owner will keep the condo indefinitely and developer will build around the one plot of land.
2) The owner will sell...likely for more than $150k.

My money is on the latter.