Original Message:
Revisiting the facts may be in order here.... (by Carvan A.):
Ken,
In my opinion, you are the most literate and knowledgeable of those who frequently post on this site. I respect the opinions you express and think each is well reasoned and supported by the facts. I think anyone who joust with you does so at his/her peril. I am by nature and experience a consumer advocate and will always err on the side of the consumer and maybe I did so here but I think the developers and owners associations can take care of themselves and typically have deep pockets to do so.
I will humbly try to address each of the points you make.
1. Let's start with thefact that Johnd did NOT sell his timeshaere for $300 good and valuable consideration --- he instead PAID intrepid trustee "warrenf" $300 to put the timeshare into the name of warrens' bogus "trust".
My response to 1.
JohnD does not specifically say he paid the Warren Trust $300 to take the timeshare . He may have implied it but he did not say it. He did specifically say that the trust bought his unit. See his Oct 23 post where he says, "Well he did buy my unit". That statement is not true unless he received some consideration from the trust. I took him at his word. He later says on 11-7 that "Nothing can be done to those who sell to him. I checked with my lawyer." So twice he said he sold the unit.
2. I don't believe that anyone here has ever stated (or even remotely implied) that Johnd was "guilty" of anything, including criminal fraud. I suggest you read the posts more carefully...
My response to point 2.
You said on 10-25 that ". . .a deed created under knowingly and willfully fraudulent circumstances . . ." is a fraudulent act. Your prior posts on this and other topics lead me to believe you are an attorney or have a legal background. If true, you know that a deed is not "created" until it is executed or signed by the grantor. Your sentence stated or at least implied, in my opinion, that one who knowingly signs a fraudulent deed (JohnD) is guilty of fraud.
3. Speaking only for myself, I saw and clearly stated (and I gladly assert here once again) that a deed knowingly and deliberately prepared under the guise of a phony, non-existent "trust", created on paper solely to evade resort fee collection efforts, would at some point be discovered and determined to be invalid and void.
My response to point 3.
You are assuming and maybe correctly that the trust was a shell or alter ego of someone named Warren. Someone, either the trust or JohnD, notified the resort of the change in ownership and they according to JohnD changed their ownership records removing JohnD as owner. I personally think a deed transferring ownership to a trust or corporation places a burden on the resort to verify that the trust or corporation is not a sham. The resort's failure to do any due diligence on a questionable grantee coupled with JohnD's insistence that he was unaware of my fraudulent activity frees John of any future obligation to the resort. If in the future, the sham trust fails to pay MFs, the resort must look to the owner of record to collect. Once they discover the trust is a sham, then, in my opinion, they must make an effort to pierce the trust veil and go after Warren personnally. I think that any effort to collect from JohnD should be met with an agressive suit or counter-suit as appropriate because JohnD is free of any wrong doing based on the limited facts he discloses.
4. Personally, I see "WarrenF", the proud creator of the bogus "trust", who has previously and openly proclaimed in several forum posts his premeditated plan and intent to "stiff" resorts for all past, present and future maintenance fees, as being the one and only person in this matter being of criminally fraudulent intent (and, for that matter, specific overt acts clearly demonstrating actual fulfillment of that intent). To my knowledge, even after re-reading all posts in this thread, NO ONE has stated or implied in any way that Johnd shares that same dubious criminal status.
My response to point 4.
We are in agreement that Johnd does not "share that same dubious criminal status". We possibly disagree as to whether the resort can set aside the deed and come after JohnD.
All the above facts now more correctly summarized than in your inaccurate "recap" version of events and prior statements, let's cut right to the chase of the real issue:
Do you acknowledge that Johnd, despite having PAID "warrenf" $300, is NOT relieved of personal responsibility for his (JohnD's) unpaid fees when the "new" deed (with warrenf's bogus, shell "trust" as the grantee) is subsequently found to be invalid and void, albeit "officially recorded"? That's a simple, very straightforward question.... Last edit by ken1193 on Nov 14, 2008 09:29 AM.
My response to your last paragraph.
I acknowledge that any unpaid MFs that accrued prior to the transaction are still an obligation of JohnD. I do not agree that JohnD may be liable for future fees based on the facts disclosed by JohnD. Your position would place any timeshare seller in the position of guaranteeing that his buyer has noble motives and also guraranteeing that he, the grantor, would pay all future MFs if somewhere down the line the resort discovers that the buyer whose name they have now placed on their ownership rolls was not so noble after all. Such a requirement would freeze the resell of timeshares other than those done by legitimate closing firms.