2 Special Assessments in 1 Year?

Can anyone tell me if it's legal for an association to collect the yearly fees from timeshare owners, assess everyone 2 months later for $275, then another assessment a couple of months later for another $235? The first assessment was used for changing the sliding glass doors on units, and the second was for cost overruns and unexpected expenses.

pattip11 wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it's legal for an association to collect the yearly fees from timeshare owners, assess everyone 2 months later for $275, then another assessment a couple of months later for another $235? The first assessment was used for changing the sliding glass doors on units, and the second was for cost overruns and unexpected expenses.

Is it legal? Yes, absolutely (don't shoot the messenger). Is it also indicative of incompetent management? Yes.

Special assessments are often an unwelcome fact of life in timeshare ownership. Hurricane (or other storm) damage, deterioration from age, fire, flooding all cost money to repair. Insurance doesn't cover routine maintenance matters and deductibles are often huge, even when insurance eligibility applies.

That said, however, a well managed facility tries to have adequate "reserves" on hand to cover some unexpected expenses. Competent identification (and handling) of maintenance fees help make that happen. Less well managed facilities may boast of low maintenance fees, but they also don't have a dime on hand for unexpected expenses. In other instances, such as the "back to back" special assessments which you have evidently just encountered, there may have been (and there may still be) an "inappropriate" association between the management and the repair contractors (no-competitive-bid relatives or friends, maybe even outright kickbacks under the table). "Cost overruns" in so short a time period obviously raises questions about those bids and their associated (then increased) contract figures. This is not intended to disparage your particular resort, of course, since you haven't identified it and I have no idea what it may be. My input is just a generalized description of some assorted explanatory possibilities --- admittedly none of which are very palatable or make the "double hit" any easier to accept.

Long answer to a short question, but yes, it's legal --even if it's also entirely unwelcome.....