# Point at Poipu & Diamond Resorts Int'l



## Kauai Kid

Here is a posting I received 12/30/11 that may be of interest to those owning at the Point.  Remember, I am not the source of the info but only passing it on.

Let the lights shine brightly.     Sterling

Diamond Resorts responds in dispute with timeshare owners

Submitted to The Garden Island newspaper in Hawaii

The following information was provided to The Garden Island Newspaper some time ago.  The fight is ongoing and COPP’s voice is getting louder.

LIHU‘E — In a wry turn of events, the Concerned Owners of The Point at Poipu (“COPP, LLC”, formerly “CDOPP”), a vacation owners group that was threatened with a lawsuit by the developer/management company of The Point at Poipu in March of last year, is now itself preparing a lawsuit against this corporate giant, Diamond Resorts International, Inc. (“DRI”), one of the largest hospitality companies in the world.  There has been an intense struggle between DRI and many upset vacation owners at the resort in Kauai who have owned there long before DRI ever showed up.  Many of these owners are alleging that they have been deceived by DRI , that DRI has serious conflicts of interest in Board decisions and does not recuse itself, that there is a shocking lack of disclosure of essential information, that it has been non-compliant with Hawaii Revised Statutes and that the resort is generally mismanaged.

The initial grassroots efforts of  this owners group was spearheaded by former President of CDOPP, Rich Batchelder, who retired from the group in October of this year, leaving the group floundering.  Unwilling to give up, members of CDOPP recruited a new, energized board to help them.  According to Keith Paulsen, the new President, it was a Facebook page designed by one of the vacation owners, Tammy Sona, which helped revitalize the group.  This Facebook page now gave members a way to communicate with each other where there had been none before.  Sona currently plays a pivotal role as one of the new board members of the owners group that is now called “COPP, LLC.”  The address of the Facebook page that she created is:  http://www.facebook.com/pointatpoipu.

Meanwhile, the next DRI atrocity was foisted on all of the vacation owners at The Point at Poipu when they were informed in October 2011 of a $65 million assessment to repair damages to the resort from water intrusion.  This outrageous price tag would be paid for by the vacation owners and in part by DRI.  To illustrate, an owner that holds a vacation interest for two weeks a year is expected to pay, by January 1, 2012, more than $6,300, consisting of maintenance fees and the first-year water intrusion assessment fees.  Further, this entire amount would have to be paid by February 1, 2012, in order to avoid:  “…the following:

a. A one-time late charge equal to 5% of the delinquent amount.

b. An interest charge of 12% per annum from the due date.

c. General Excise Tax (GET) of 4.16666% on all of the above charges.

d. Owner will suffer suspension of use rights.

e. All future reservations will be cancelled and owner will be required to re-book the reservation and will be subject to first come, first served availability.”



If the account is not paid in full or not operating under a payment plan by February 15, 2012, “…the account will be submitted for collection action resulting in additional collection fees.”   If the account is not paid by March 15, 2012, “Your Board of Directors may request any necessary actions to collect outstanding assessments.  Actions may include but are not limited to the following:



1.  Submit a delinquent account to an attorney.

2.  Engage a professional collection agency.

3.  Record a claim of assessment lien.

4.  Foreclose on the claim of assessment lien.

5.  Institute a small claims suit or legal action.



All related costs for the above, including General Excise Tax (GET) of 4.16666%, will be added to the delinquent member’s account.”

Tammy Sona speaks for many vacation owners when she says, “A great number of our owners are retired now, having spent many years working hard so they could enjoy their senior years vacationing in Kauai.  This assessment is such a hardship on these owners, not just the ones that are retired, and some will be forced to surrender their deeds or be foreclosed on.  This just isn’t right, it’s not the way you treat people.”

Vacation owners were notified of all this in October 2011, giving them THREE MONTHS NOTICE to come up with thousands of dollars for an unexpected assessment.  To add fuel to the fire, two informational meetings were held on October 19, 2011, in Irvine, California, and on October 20, 2011, in San Francisco, California, just days after the assessment fees were announced.  Most vacation owners, of course, would not be able to attend these meetings on such short notice and at their expense.  NO informational meetings about the water intrusion problem have taken place at the resort!

The vacation owners have been led to believe that DRI has performed its due diligence regarding the $65 million assessment.  To the contrary, DRI will not release pertinent information such as the consultants’ reports, engineers’ and architects’ reports, insurance policies and other documents that would help to justify this huge expense.  COPP, LLC, does not dispute that some of the work is necessary, but it wants the opportunity to bring in an independent third party to assess the situation.  “With many of our members having backgrounds in the construction-related industries, we’re not about to accept this without some degree of scrutiny” asserts Paulsen.  DRI insists that the insurance company denied the claim for the damage, but no one except DRI has seen the denial letter.  DRI has created a website for vacation owners’ perusal regarding the water intrusion problem, but nothing of real substance can be found there.

Former Diamond Resorts International Executive Vice President and General Counsel Elizabeth Brennan was quoted in a March 1, 2010, Garden Island article that stated “…the few members of the concerned owners group are not representative of the ownership of this resort and their satisfaction level.”  The disgruntled owners group, renamed COPP, LLC (Concerned Owners at the Point at Poipu) has grown to well over 1,000 determined owners looking for changes to the operations and management of the resort.

Members of COPP, LLC, who have been interested in running for a position on one of the resort’s Boards of Directors have been denied by DRI their request for the resort’s membership list, needed to gain support for their candidacy by contacting other owners.   This denial, both at The Point at Poipu and at the Kaanapali Beach Club in Maui, is contrary to the laws of Hawaii and to the resorts’ organizational documents.  Section 514A-83.3 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes requires the board of directors to provide an ownership list to any owner for the use of soliciting votes.  

The management and corporate administration fees at The Point at Poipu that were $721,262 in 2007 have increased to $3,265,745, budgeted for 2012--over a 353% increase during this short timeframe.  The DRI executives would like us to believe that the Board of Directors (consisting of a majority of DRI employees or relatives of DRI employees) voted for these increases independent of their association with DRI.  

DRI’s Vice President of Association Administration, Linda Riddle, was quoted in an earlier article, “If they aren’t happy, they could vote us out. They have the power to do that.”  COPP, LLC, members disagree.  “If it was that easy, it would be done immediately,” said Paulsen, “but without the membership list everyone knows that it’s virtually impossible to campaign for office, and DRI wants it that way.”  

Paulsen adds “with control of the boards, including the Hawaii Collection Board of Directors, the vacation owners are at the mercy of this corporate giant.  It’s really a David versus Goliath situation but this is a determined group of owners that are not going to stop fighting no matter who is running the show.  I think they are underestimating the strength of the membership and the power of the internet.”  Members of COPP, LLC, have been very active on the internet and others have helped support their efforts.

COPP, LLC, registration grows on a daily basis and it is a very simple registration process.  Hawaii Collection members can also register by inputting their account number followed by “HC” to identify that they are a points collection member.  

The Hawaii Collection consists of The Point at Poipu in Kauai, The Kaanapali Beach Club in Maui, the Polo Towers Villas in Las Vegas, and the Sedona Summit Resort in Sedona, AZ.  Members of the Hawaii Collection are also charged a portion of the assessment based on the amount of points they own, whether or not they have ever used or plan to use the resort in Kauai.

Brennan and Riddle said the proscription elsewhere in 514A against directors voting on an issue in which they have a conflict of interest could apply to developer reps and deeded owners alike, and said they do not believe there are conflicts of interest when the boards vote on budgets that include fees that impact the company’s bottom line.  To that Sona replied, “This statement made by DRI is almost comical.  Do they really think people are that stupid?   They want us to believe that their employees are going to bite the hand that feeds them, seriously?”

DRI’s tactics have demonstrated its intention to completely take over the Point at Poipu.  It has encouraged vacation owners to surrender their deeds in exchange for membership and points in its vacation club.  It recently offered some vacation owners a reduced Water Intrusion Assessment if they would give up their deeds for points and then buy additional points in the vacation club.  What DRI is not disclosing is that owners who surrender their deeds lose all voting rights and no longer have any say about how the resort is run.  COPP, LLC, intends to discourage vacation owners at the Point at Poipu from surrendering their deeds.  It fully intends to keep working diligently to reclaim its resort from DRI.

For more information on the concerned deeded owners, visit www.poipuowners.org.


----------



## nlions

IMHO as one of those impacted by Diamond's no longer secret agenda related to the Point of Poipu resort, I received a very threatening email from Diamond’s attorneys as they attempt to squash those of us who would attempt to make their business practices visible. The one point not mentioned anywhere, but very telling on the Diamond’s press releases is that Linda Riddle, the VP of Diamond often quoted, has her mother on the board as a “independent” board member. And it is that board of 5 people including 2 DRI employees and Cleana Dean (Riddle’s mother) who voted not to publish the list of owners to any owner seeking office. This screams conflict of interest and/or collusion and the owners, who have been awakened, need to have their rights given back to them. The challenge is to get owner control of the board away from Diamond before their agenda is completed and without the list of owners to engage when running for the board that becomes nearly impossible. They don’t want anything to stop people from booking into Point of Poipu (could they be using this $69M damage assessment to make improvements along the way??) and they don’t care if people can’t afford this assessment because they will just take ownership defaults back into inventory and sell them again (making double dipping the preferred sales technique). They put themselves in a bottom line win/win situation no matter what happens owners be damned.


----------



## singlemalt_18

nlions said:


> ...Diamond's no longer *secret agenda* related to the Point of Poipu resort... away from Diamond *before their agenda is completed*...



This just in...

"Secret memo discovered from the offices of DRI shows plans to take over the world!"

Today Point at Poipu, tomorrow the world... Oh please, enough with the big evil Diamond conspiracy nonsense.  The P@P may be a nice resort, but why would Diamond ONLY have evil designs on the owners there and NOT on the rest of the owners at Diamond resort properties around the globe?

Or do some people actually believe they do and this is just the beginning?  And of what exactly... an attempt to take over the timeshare market?  Is this supposed to be their secret business strategy?  _There may well be quite a bit of buyers remorse in the offices of DRI upon getting a taste of the lemon they bought into._  Does anyone think they would have willingly taken over the Point if they had known it was not much more than a house of cards?  Oh yeah, it really doesn't have any real structural problems, huh?

The more the "Angry" folks want to make this all about the big bad Diamond wolf, the more ridiculous this all becomes.  Along with the rewards of ownership, also comes the risks.


----------



## MichaelColey

Has there every been an assessment ANYWHERE that was this large?  I'm not an owner, so I don't have a horse in this race, but it certainly doesn't sound right to me.  What could possibly cost $65 million to repair?  It seems like you could rebuild the entire resort for that much money.


----------



## dougp26364

singlemalt_18 said:


> This just in...
> 
> "Secret memo discovered from the offices of DRI shows plans to take over the world!"
> 
> Today Point at Poipu, tomorrow the world... Oh please, enough with the big evil Diamond conspiracy nonsense.  The P@P may be a nice resort, but why would Diamond ONLY have evil designs on the owners there and NOT on the rest of the owners at Diamond resort properties around the globe?
> 
> Or do some people actually believe they do and this is just the beginning?  And of what exactly... an attempt to take over the timeshare market?  Is this supposed to be their secret business strategy?  _There may well be quite a bit of buyers remorse in the offices of DRI upon getting a taste of the lemon they bought into._  Does anyone think they would have willingly taken over the Point if they had known it was not much more than a house of cards?  Oh yeah, it really doesn't have any real structural problems, huh?
> 
> The more the "Angry" folks want to make this all about the big bad Diamond wolf, the more ridiculous this all becomes.  Along with the rewards of ownership, also comes the risks.



Actually, I believe that trust ownership was set up so that the trust, which tends to act at the direction of the management/developer, is in fact set up to maintain control over resorts. Management contracts at resort seem to me to be a lucrative deal. Why lose the management contract if you can keep control of the voting rights indefinately through trust based ownership.

Look at how DVC is set up. Maybe I'm wrong but DVC appears to maintain total control over it's product and resorts. There's little chance that any DVC developer resort will ever leave DVC unless DVC wants to get rid of it. When DVC decided to leave I.I. and go with RCI, DVC members didn't appear to have any say in the matter.

So, Sunterra with it's trust based ownership was, IMHO, setting itself up to be the perpetual management company for all the resorts it had developed. The problem was they couldn't manage the business and went bankrupt. It's my opinion that the trust ownership set up originally by Sunterra is what attracted DRI to purchase Sunterra. 

As you can see, shaking off a management company is tough enough let alone shaking off a management company that has enough voting rights via a trust ownership base to control the HOA/BOD.


----------



## amycurl

I'm not an owner, but I have been following the threads, and it appears to me, that they *are* rebuilding the resort for the $65 million. 

DRI seems to have an effective business model--for DRI. Take over struggling resorts, increase MF to bring the resorts up to a higher standard, and then  finish selling unsold units, plus all the additional, now up-graded units from owners that the higher MFs forced out. DRI gets to profit from selling units in a newly-refurbished resort, but with current owners shouldering the vast majority of the costs (certainly cheaper than developing new, high-end properties to sell.) It's all perfectly legal (and profitable,) and if you're an owner that can afford the higher MF, you get to stay in a nicer resort. If not, well....

All of this has made me very happy to own in a small, owner-controlled HOA.


----------



## amycurl

And I agree as well about the Trust apparently designed to keep the management developer-based in perpetuity.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

dougp26364 said:


> Actually, I believe that trut ownership was set up so that the trust, which tends to act at the direction of the management/developer, is in fact set up to maintain control over resorts. Management contracts at resort seem to me to be a lucrative deal. Why lose the management contract if you can keep control of the voting rights indefinately through trust based ownership.



I concur, though I would add that the trust makes sense for DRI as a business model on multiple levels, not just for controlling the resort.

******

The model that they are working from is creating a branded name for timeshare vacation ownership.  Anyone who invests in creating a brand is going to insist on being able to control the brand - that's axiomatic.  So as long as the resort carries the name, they owner of the brand will want control of the product.  Embassy tried franchising the name, but for various reasons that didn't work.  

******

Another part of the business model is capturing the evenue that owners would otherwise be giving to an exchange company. So you set up a mini-system where owners can stay in multiple locations, and charge an annual club membership fee that essentially offsets the RCI or II membership fee.  So now the developer has captured money that is otherwise going to RCI.

*****

So the trust system lets the developer create a branded mini-system of resorts, control the operation of the resorts that are part of the mini-system, create a product they can push on the sales floor as a premium product, and capture a greater share of the members vacation spending.


----------



## artringwald

dougp26364 said:


> Actually, I believe that trut ownership was set up so that the trust, which tends to act at the direction of the management/developer, is in fact set up to maintain control over resorts



I've also suspected that the trust was set up to be able to oversell properties. Why would an Hawaiian trust include two properties that aren't even in Hawaii? Now you have twice as many people fighting to reserve the prime weeks. Laws were passed to require that each deed be assigned to a unit, even if the usage was floating, to prevent companies from overselling. The trust is a convenient way to get around the law. When we bought our week in 2004, no one could reserve more than 12 months ahead. Why is the trust allowed to book 13 months in advance? With the trust gaining a higher percentage of the weeks, deeded owners are becoming powerless to do anything about it.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

artringwald said:


> I've also suspected that the trust was set up to be able to oversell properties. Why would an Hawaiian trust include two properties that aren't even in Hawaii? Now you have twice as many people fighting to reserve the prime weeks. Laws were passed to require that each deed be assigned to a unit, even if the usage was floating, to prevent companies from overselling. The trust is a convenient way to get around the law. When we bought our week in 2004, no one could reserve more than 12 months ahead. Why is the trust allowed to book 13 months in advance? With the trust gaining a higher percentage of the weeks, deeded owners are becoming powerless to do anything about it.



I don't think the Trust can oversell - the number of points available to be sold in the trust has to equal the number of points associated with the deeds in the trust.  That is covered in the outside auditors report.  

As to why there are non-Hawaii resorts in the "Hawaii" trust - that's an outgrowth of the situation that Sunterra never added the Hawaii resorts to their US collection, in large measure I understand because they wanted to keep the Hawaii properties as "premium" locations.  So after Sunterra bought out the other partners at those two locations they put the two Hawaii properties into a separate trust - the Hawaii trust.  

When DRI arrived on the scene, they already had Polo Towers and they wanted to keep the idea of a "premier properties" collection.  So they added the two other properties as they felt those were premier properties that fit better with the Hawaill collection than with the other US Collection properties.  They continue to market the Hawaii Collection as the "upscale" properties trust.

******

The 13-months deal was something that bothered me for some time until Jamie Shigeta and Patti Ornellas one time walked me through how the process works.  I was concerned that if Trust owners were able to reserve at 13 months, wouldn't trust members wind up taking more than their fair share of the prime units at prime time - I could easily see, for example, allof the Christmas and New Years ocean front units being reserved at 13 months by Trust members, so that when the 12-month window opened for deeded owners there would be nothing left for them to reserve at those peak times.

But the way the system was set up, for each given week the available units were split between the Club and deeded owners in relation to the split in ownership between those two groups.  Club members were then allowed to reserve only from Club allocation; deeded owners were only able to reserve from the deeded allocation.  So while Club owners were able to reserve 13 months in advance, they can only book the portion already allocated to the Club.


----------



## dougp26364

While a trust, or even a mini system, can't oversell one particular resort, it can create the illusion that everyone has equal access to any one particular resort or resort area. HGVC does this perfectly when selling their Orlando and Vegas timeshares, but promising those who buy into those resorts that getting into Hawaii is as easy as falling off a turnip truck. 

They don't oversell a resort. They oversell the idea that everyone has easy access to particular resorts, particular style units (selling a smaller package but promising you can save/borrow from another years usage) and easy access to the highest demand weeks in the most difficult places to exchange into.

Now, having said that, I'm going to add that DRI's system has given us easier access into resorts they manage than either HGVC or Marriott, so I'm not trying to pick on them. They provide a strong, quality product that for all intents and purposes delivers on their promises. I like the product.

P@P is a unique situation and I don't envy DRI's position. The problem was created by former management. DRI is restricted by the contractual obligations to maintain the contractual obligations set in place by a former developer and they are responsible to maintain the resort for the owners of the resort. Failure on either front can put them in a position where they can be held liable.

They're not in a great position from a popularity standpoint. They are, however, likely on excellent legal standing. I fear a small group of owners with misguided intention will cost every single owner of the resort even more in costs.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

dougp26364 said:


> While a trust, or even a mini system, can't oversell one particular resort, it can create the illusion that everyone has equal access to any one particular resort or resort area. HGVC does this perfectly when selling their Orlando and Vegas timeshares, but promising those who buy into those resorts that getting into Hawaii is as easy as falling off a turnip truck. …



One of the benefits of the various DRI "Collections" (or Trusts) is to minimize precisely that problem.  By buying into the trust that has the resorts a particular buyer wants to visit, the buyer gets the home collection preference to reserve in that resort. Whether that was part of the rationale for creating the trusts I can't say, but the sales force certainly pitches that aspect of the trust ownerships.


----------



## singlemalt_18

A trust by its very nature is an ownership and control entity, and it is that by design.  It can certainly be argued that the Trust structure has some pros and cons.  Some who may is a bit more old school or purist, seem to focus on the cons.  It is NOT inherently a bad thing though.  As someone who has served on boards, and has also had to deal with individual's expectations and demands, I think it has some merit.  Obviously, you want a good Trustee.  It is worth repeating that in terms of this disaster at the Point, the trust structure worked as it was supposed to - minimizing costs through ownership in it.

If THAT however is what the legal fight is going to be about, it is a loser.  If not, the facebook alliance seems to be little more than a place to foster victim status for people who are upset with the whole thing.  Most of the comments there are aimed at "getting rid of Diamond" with the notion that this is all somehow their doing.  If you stop and think about it, who would want to own in a system in which you would NEED to have a majority of a crowd like that to make decisions and get anything accomplished.  A limited control structure is actually for the benefit of everyone, because the alternative is chaos.  

Hey, my SA was paid... LAST YEAR! :rofl:  In FULL NO LESS!

We have a trip to the Cape planned for May, and a trip to Gatlinburg and Murrells Inlet in the fall.  I have no time for secret agendas and conspiracies.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

singlemalt_18 said:


> A trust by its very nature is an ownership and control entity, and it is that by design.  It can certainly be argued that the Trust structure has some pros and cons.  Some who may is a bit more old school or purist, seem to focus on the cons.  It is NOT inherently a bad thing though.  As someone who has served on boards, and has also had to deal with individual's expectations and demands, I think it has some merit.  *Obviously, you want a good Trustee.* _[snip]_



With the Hawaii trust (and probably the others as well) the trustee has almost no responsibilities other than holding the deeds. The entire operation of the trust is conducted by the Trust manager, under the direction of the Board of Directors of the Trust.

The Trust manager just happens to be .... Diamond Resorts.  (I know that must come as a shock to some of you!!!!).

******

When it comes time to cast the trust's votes for the resort Boards of Directors, guess who casts the trust votes???  I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.   

If you combine the trust ownership bloc with the amount of inventory actually owned by DRI, it's clear that the control of the resort is firmly in the hands of DRI,  Efforts spent trying to mobilize non-Trust owners to vote changes on the Board are almost certainly doomed to fail.


----------



## dougp26364

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> One of the benefits of the various DRI "Collections" (or Trusts) is to minimize precisely that problem.  By buying into the trust that has the resorts a particular buyer wants to visit, the buyer gets the home collection preference to reserve in that resort. Whether that was part of the rationale for creating the trusts I can't say, but the sales force certainly pitches that aspect of the trust ownerships.



If not for turning over my voting rights and the additional trust management fee, the trust ownership might have been of some interest to us. Because of the voting power the trust enjoys 

I'm not certain that keeping our voting rights is really all that important anymore. The trust has enough power to veto owners who hold onto their individual deeded week voting rights. It seems to me that the P@P owners are experiencing that first hand.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

dougp26364 said:


> If not for turning over my voting rights and the additional trust management fee, the trust ownership might have been of some interest to us. Because of the voting power the trust enjoys
> 
> I'm not certain that keeping our voting rights is really all that important anymore. The trust has enough power to veto owners who hold onto their individual deeded week voting rights. It seems to me that the P@P owners are experiencing that first hand.



Doug - as soon as I figured out how the trust fit into the scheme of things I concluded that the right to vote that I had as a deeded owner was now meaningless.  At that point it was a decision as to whether we wanted to continue to be in bed with Sunterra (and later Diamond) at Poipu, or cut the ties and move on to something else.  Hindsight is wonderful isn't it.  I'd love to figure out how to package it and sell it at the time it's needed.  

We retained the deeded week because I felt that when we wanted to sell, it would be easier to sell a stand-alone deeded float-float week than a stand-alone trust ownership.  If we owned something like a garden view unit or partial ocean view we likely would have surrendered the deed.


----------



## artringwald

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> But the way the system was set up, for each given week the available units were split between the Club and deeded owners in relation to the split in ownership between those two groups.  Club members were then allowed to reserve only from Club allocation; deeded owners were only able to reserve from the deeded allocation.  So while Club owners were able to reserve 13 months in advance, they can only book the portion already allocated to the Club.


Are Club weeks available to deeded owners after there's less than 10 months and vice versa? I'm a deeded owner, but I pay an annual fee to be part of the Club. Does that mean I'm in the pool with the trust owners? If so, if I quit the Club, would I get back in the pool with the deeded owners?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

artringwald said:


> Are Club weeks available to deeded owners after there's less than 10 months and vice versa?


Unless they've totally reworked the inventory control system in recent years, the answer is "No".  Deeded owner inventory and club inventory are kept almost entirely separate from each other.  I say "almost entirely" because in practice there has been a minor amount of swapping between the two that was needed to keep things straight.  For example, I'm pretty sure there were times when the Ohana department at the resort has done week for week swaps with Club inventory to fulfill a deeded owners request when there wasn't a deeded unit available in their ownership class on the dates that they wanted, but it appeared that there was surplus for those dates in the Club inventory.

It's best to think of the Club as simply an owner at the resort who happens to own multiple units at the resort - just like someone who might own five or six weeks and visits the resort several times during the year.  The Club gets to reserve inventory that squares up with whatever happens to be with whatever is in their ownership portfolio.  At the resort inventory control level, they simply allocate to the Club time at the resort that matches what the Club owns.  Once the inventory has been assigned to the Club it is only available to Club members, and how the Club chooses to allocate that time is the Club's business, not the resorts.  

Similarly the inventory that remains after assigning Club inventory is available to deeded owners, and the Club can't tap into that or there will be an imbalance in inventory. In the same way deeded owners can't tap into Club inventory without similarly creating an imbalance.


artringwald said:


> I'm a deeded owner, but I pay an annual fee to be part of the Club. Does that mean I'm in the pool with the trust owners? If so, if I quit the Club, would I get back in the pool with the deeded owners?


I'm inferring from that comment that you paid the fee to join the Club and to use your deeded week in the Club with Club points.  (I hope you also got a grandfathering letter.)

In that case you are in the pool with the Club owners.  If you read through the paperwork with your deal, you should find a document that is a revocable assignment of the reservation rights for your deed the Club. With that piece of paper in effect, you no longer can use your deed to reserve from the deeded owners pool - instead the reservation right for your deed is now assigned to the Club.  

That assignment should be revocable, meaning that at any time you can regain that deeded owner reservation right.  As soon as you do so, the points from that week will no longer be part of the Club and you will have to pony up money again to get back into the club.

If you have a trust ownership as well, that trust ownership can remain in the Club even after you remove the deeded week from the Club as long as that Trust ownership was the primary vehicle for getting you into the Club (which is almost always the case when a deeded week owner is part of the Club).


----------



## timeos2

dougp26364 said:


> If not for turning over my voting rights and the additional trust management fee, the trust ownership might have been of some interest to us. Because of the voting power the trust enjoys
> 
> I'm not certain that keeping our voting rights is really all that important anymore. The trust has enough power to veto owners who hold onto their individual deeded week voting rights. It seems to me that the P@P owners are experiencing that first hand.



With an Association that is properly managed & operated to the original intent of the documents and not to some perverted interpretation by a Developer looking to hang around far too long then keeping control of your voting rights is critical. An agreement that the trust/developer will vote their proxies with the majority of independent votes keeps the Board truly independent & able to do whats best for the resort not the corporate bottom line.  If joining any Club or trust requires giving up that right that then joining is a big mistake IMO.


----------



## artringwald

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I'm inferring from that comment that you paid the fee to join the Club and to use your deeded week in the Club with Club points.



Thanks for the clarification. When we bought in 2004, Sunterra paid the fee to join the club. I just took the time to read the 40 some pages of the club documents :zzz:, and now understand what you were saying. I assume that I'm in the same club as the trust, but I can only book 12 months out, and trust members can book 13 months out. I am allowed to cancel at any time. 

Some interesting clauses in the club rules:
- Occupants are not allowed to use the accommodations for any "immoral purpose whatsoever". 
-  The club management can add, delete, or change the rules at any time.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

artringwald said:


> Thanks for the clarification. When we bought in 2004, Sunterra paid the fee to join the club.


Ok - so Sunterra sold you a deeded ownership, and membership in the Club was packaged with the sale.   


artringwald said:


> I just took the time to read the 40 some pages of the club documents :zzz:, and now understand what you were saying. I assume that I'm in the same club as the trust, but I can only book 12 months out, and trust members can book 13 months out. I am allowed to cancel at any time.


There is only one club - there's not a different club for each trust.  

The club as a whole obtains inventory in accordance with the reservation rights that have been assigned to the club by members as a condition of joining the Club.  The club then gives its members the Home Resort/Home Collection advantage to its members in accordance with that members ownership package.

As a deeded owner you have Home Resort Advantage, which is 12 months in advance of check in.


----------



## pseda

singlemalt_18 said:


> This just in...
> 
> "Secret memo discovered from the offices of DRI shows plans to take over the world!"
> 
> Today Point at Poipu, tomorrow the world... Oh please, enough with the big evil Diamond conspiracy nonsense.  The P@P may be a nice resort, but why would Diamond ONLY have evil designs on the owners there and NOT on the rest of the owners at Diamond resort properties around the globe?
> 
> Or do some people actually believe they do and this is just the beginning?  And of what exactly... an attempt to take over the timeshare market?  Is this supposed to be their secret business strategy?  _There may well be quite a bit of buyers remorse in the offices of DRI upon getting a taste of the lemon they bought into._  Does anyone think they would have willingly taken over the Point if they had known it was not much more than a house of cards?  Oh yeah, it really doesn't have any real structural problems, huh?
> 
> The more the "Angry" folks want to make this all about the big bad Diamond wolf, the more ridiculous this all becomes.  Along with the rewards of ownership, also comes the risks.



Might want to do your homework for going off on the people with the legitimate complaints. Check out Diamond Resort Issues in Britain.


----------



## desolate sheila

*Very Lucky you!*



singlemalt_18 said:


> A trust by its very nature is an ownership and control entity, and it is that by design.  It can certainly be argued that the Trust structure has some pros and cons.  Some who may is a bit more old school or purist, seem to focus on the cons.  It is NOT inherently a bad thing though.  As someone who has served on boards, and has also had to deal with individual's expectations and demands, I think it has some merit.  Obviously, you want a good Trustee.  It is worth repeating that in terms of this disaster at the Point, the trust structure worked as it was supposed to - minimizing costs through ownership in it.
> 
> If THAT however is what the legal fight is going to be about, it is a loser.  If not, the facebook alliance seems to be little more than a place to foster victim status for people who are upset with the whole thing.  Most of the comments there are aimed at "getting rid of Diamond" with the notion that this is all somehow their doing.  If you stop and think about it, who would want to own in a system in which you would NEED to have a majority of a crowd like that to make decisions and get anything accomplished.  A limited control structure is actually for the benefit of everyone, because the alternative is chaos.
> 
> Hey, my SA was paid... LAST YEAR! :rofl:  In FULL NO LESS!
> 
> We have a trip to the Cape planned for May, and a trip to Gatlinburg and Murrells Inlet in the fall.  I have no time for secret agendas and conspiracies.



How fortunate to be able to pay your assessment in full LAST YEAR! Woe to the rest of us. My question is, "how did you get into Murrells Inlet?". I tried for four years, twelve months in advance, and never could get a reservation.


----------



## Kauai Kid

nlions said:


> IMHO as one of those impacted by Diamond's no longer secret agenda related to the Point of Poipu resort, I received a very threatening email from Diamond’s attorneys as they attempt to squash those of us who would attempt to make their business practices visible. The one point not mentioned anywhere, but very telling on the Diamond’s press releases is that Linda Riddle, the VP of Diamond often quoted, has her mother on the board as a “independent” board member. And it is that board of 5 people including 2 DRI employees and Cleana Dean (Riddle’s mother) who voted not to publish the list of owners to any owner seeking office. This screams conflict of interest and/or collusion and the owners, who have been awakened, need to have their rights given back to them. The challenge is to get owner control of the board away from Diamond before their agenda is completed and without the list of owners to engage when running for the board that becomes nearly impossible. They don’t want anything to stop people from booking into Point of Poipu (could they be using this $69M damage assessment to make improvements along the way??) and they don’t care if people can’t afford this assessment because they will just take ownership defaults back into inventory and sell them again (making double dipping the preferred sales technique). They put themselves in a bottom line win/win situation no matter what happens owners be damned.



If possible, how about posting some of that threatening letter?

Mahalo,  Sterling


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

nlions said:


> The challenge is to get owner control of the board away from Diamond before their agenda is completed and without the list of owners to engage when running for the board that becomes nearly impossible.


If you're interested, I can post a listing of the owners of ~45% of the deeds at Point at Poipu.


----------



## timeos2

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> If you're interested, I can post a listing of the owners of ~45% of the deeds at Point at Poipu.



I hope he gets the message.


----------



## singlemalt_18

desolate sheila said:


> How fortunate to be able to pay your assessment in full LAST YEAR! Woe to the rest of us. My question is, "how did you get into Murrells Inlet?". I tried for four years, twelve months in advance, and never could get a reservation.



Sheila – Fortunately the SA for us was at the trust rate of about 17 cents/point.  It did result in doubling our fees for 2012, but we only needed to come up with an additional $1,800 and NOT $5,900 or more; amounts less than $2,000 were due in full this first year.  We were not at all happy about it, but as I have said before, timeshare is a love/hate thing.  There is a great line by Meryl Streep as she is dying of cancer in _One True Thing_ that I think is a great rule for life and it goes something like this:

_"It is so much easier to be happy about all of the things you have, instead of being miserable about the things you do not have, *or perceive that you do not have*." _(empahasis mine - I love that part!)

As for Murrell’s Inlet, we were looking ahead about 10 months, and there were ONLY two dates available, so we quickly booked the single.  I suppose there is some limited availability because it is only an “affiliate” resort.  Based on what you have experienced, I’m glad we took the opening!  There was plenty of availability of every size unit in Gatlinburg which made it easy to select a consecutive week, and put together a great trip.  



pseda said:


> Might want to do your homework for going off on the people with the legitimate complaints. Check out Diamond Resort Issues in Britain.



Please, go right ahead and explain to everyone how all of the dots are connected, and how the PR disaster in the UK and the assessment at Poipu are part of a deliberate and coordinated strategy by DRI.  If they are truly out to methodically break the law and victimize members and owners, enquiring minds need to know.


----------



## dougp26364

If DRI really wanted to us the SA to take over P@P, then why have they suspended (or at least that's what's been reported on one of these P@P threads) the loss mitigation department and the deed back program? Heck, if they wanted to take back all those weeks, all they'd have to do is open the door and allow them to flood back in. 

Instead they've suspended the deed back program. If you ask me, DRI doesn't appear to want the additional inventory but would prefer to have the owners keep their ownership.

I don't think there's a lot of back room planning or conspiracy here. I think there's a huge water intrusion problem that was ignored by all past management companies and DRI is stuck holding the bag.


----------



## singlemalt_18

dougp26364 said:


> If you ask me, DRI doesn't appear to want the additional inventory but would prefer to have the owners keep their ownership.
> 
> I don't think there's a lot of back room planning or conspiracy here. I think there's a huge water intrusion problem that was ignored by all past management companies and DRI is stuck holding the bag.



Bingo!

_"Hold your cards please, bingo has been called... hold your cards, bingo has been called."_


----------



## Kauai Kid

dougp26364 said:


> If DRI really wanted to us the SA to take over P@P, then why have they suspended (or at least that's what's been reported on one of these P@P threads) the loss mitigation department and the deed back program? Heck, if they wanted to take back all those weeks, all they'd have to do is open the door and allow them to flood back in.
> 
> Instead they've suspended the deed back program. If you ask me, DRI doesn't appear to want the additional inventory but would prefer to have the owners keep their ownership.
> 
> I don't think there's a lot of back room planning or conspiracy here. I think there's a huge water intrusion problem that was ignored by all past management companies and DRI is stuck holding the bag.



A picture is worth a thousand words DRI.  How about one single picture showing how bad the water intrusion is?  How about a report by a certified engineering firm showing how bad the water intrusion is?

I was at the Point for 2 weeks in Dec 2011 and I sure didn't see any HUGE WATER INTRUSION PROBLEM.  

A few door frames that needed to be sandblasted and repainted.  

One remote wall where the stucco was buckling.

No evidence of mold or mildew.

A couple years ago on the top floor one ceiling had evidence of a roof leak. 

I want independent confirmation. I don't trust DRI or anyone taking money out of my accounts with no proof there even is a problem.  

Prove it DRI!   

Sterling


----------



## artringwald

Kauai Kid said:


> A picture is worth a thousand words DRI.  How about one single picture showing how bad the water intrusion is?  How about a report by a certified engineering firm showing how bad the water intrusion is?
> Sterling



I too would like to see a copy of the report. For what it's worth, the slides from the presentation to owners did include pictures.


----------



## singlemalt_18

*DRI is their own enemy as well.*

*DRI exhibits no signs of competency *in the areas of satisfaction after the sale, customer relations, and PR.  That being said, I think they likely screwed up calling this thing “water intrusion”; the name itself may be causing confusion.

From what I have read, the issue is not about leaking water, but rather it is about compromised structural integrity as a result of long term exposure to the moisture and salt content inherent in the tropical climate.  It may be more about lab analysis than photos I think, although the presentation has plenty of pics.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Kauai Kid said:


> A picture is worth a thousand words DRI.  How about one single picture showing how bad the water intrusion is?  How about a report by a certified engineering firm showing how bad the water intrusion is?
> 
> I was at the Point for 2 weeks in Dec 2011 and I sure didn't see any HUGE WATER INTRUSION PROBLEM.
> 
> A few door frames that needed to be sandblasted and repainted.
> 
> One remote wall where the stucco was buckling.
> 
> No evidence of mold or mildew.
> 
> A couple years ago on the top floor one ceiling had evidence of a roof leak.
> 
> I want independent confirmation. I don't trust DRI or anyone taking money out of my accounts with no proof there even is a problem.
> 
> Prove it DRI!
> 
> Sterling


First let me say that I too would like to more info.  I think it would be a great idea to have a copy of the report at the resort, available for guests to review.  Or have the consultant provide a PDF version of the report and make that available.

That being said, if true the damage report answers some questions I've had for some time. Namely why I've seen exterior rust stains around the tops of foor frames that are seeming protected from the rain.  I'm thinking of the unit doors in the corridors on levels two and three of Buildings 2 and 4, where we've stayed.  That would be on the side of the building away from the water, in a walkway that is covered but open on one side, but the top of the door frame is up quite high where it is extremely well protected from the weather. 

When I've seen that, and I've seen it during multiple visits it's bugged me a bit.  Ultimately I figured that the salt air was just that corrosive, but it still bothered me that the staining wasn't solely next to metal door frame. The intrusion report has we wondering if I wasn't too dismissive of myself.  If in fact that staining and corrosion is caused by water traveling inside the walls that's a pretty significant situation.


----------



## singlemalt_18

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The intrusion report has we wondering if I wasn't too dismissive of myself.  If in fact that staining and corrosion is caused by water traveling inside the walls that's a pretty significant situation.



It is very interesting just how tricky a thing moisture can be, especially in terms of design.  I recently had to do some repair work on our roof because of water damage.  The damage was not from leaking, but rather inadequate ventilation.Once inside the attic crawlspace, the problem was obvious.  There was evidence of mold and mildew and there was a damp “feel” to many surfaces, but most obvious were* the little drops of water hanging on the tips of all of the shingle nails!*

We replaced some plywood and added some 2x4 braces for support, but we are looking into a few options to increase the airflow thru the existing ridge vent.  It will end up being a significant undertaking, and perfectly good shingles will need to be replaced once the modifications are done, and the roof gets put back together.

Unfortunately, I don't have anyone I can pass this expense on to!


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

singlemalt_18 said:


> It is very interesting just how tricky a thing moisture can be, especially in terms of design.  I recently had to do some repair work on our roof because of water damage.  The damage was not from leaking, but rather inadequate ventilation.Once inside the attic crawlspace, the problem was obvious.  There was evidence of mold and mildew and there was a damp “feel” to many surfaces, but most obvious were* the little drops of water hanging on the tips of all of the shingle nails!*
> 
> We replaced some plywood and added some 2x4 braces for support, but we are looking into a few options to increase the airflow thru the existing ridge vent.  It will end up being a significant undertaking, and perfectly good shingles will need to be replaced once the modifications are done, and the roof gets put back together.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have anyone I can pass this expense on to!


Unfortunately, the owners at Poipu don't have anyone they can pass the expense on to either.

Yeah - the water is tricky stuff.  Where the water becomes visible can be some distance away from where the intrusion is actually occurring.

In your case there are some other items to consider. Before I would assume your vent sizes are inadequate I would check some other items. First do you have soffit vents and might they be blocked? Since hot air rises and cold air sinks to keep ventilation in the attic, having both types of vents is optimal.

Another factor is what is the source of the moisture. Is is water vapar being carried from the heated spaces.  In that case a vapor barrier might help.  Do the bathroom ventilation fans exhaust to the roof or do they terminate inside the attic?  Or are the duct joints tight - or might they be leaking moist bathroom air into the attic?


----------



## artringwald

singlemalt_18 said:


> It is very interesting just how tricky a thing moisture can be, especially in terms of design.  I recently had to do some repair work on our roof because of water damage.  The damage was not from leaking, but rather inadequate ventilation.Once inside the attic crawlspace, the problem was obvious.  There was evidence of mold and mildew and there was a damp “feel” to many surfaces, but most obvious were* the little drops of water hanging on the tips of all of the shingle nails!*
> 
> We replaced some plywood and added some 2x4 braces for support, but we are looking into a few options to increase the airflow thru the existing ridge vent.  It will end up being a significant undertaking, and perfectly good shingles will need to be replaced once the modifications are done, and the roof gets put back together.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have anyone I can pass this expense on to!


We had a similar problem in our last house. We ended up installing a Wind Turbine Attic Ventilator and it pulled enough air up through the soffets that it keep the attic dry.


----------



## Kauai Kid

artringwald said:


> I too would like to see a copy of the report. For what it's worth, the slides from the presentation to owners did include pictures.



Thanks very much for the posting.  Finally, hard evidence that there is a real genuine problem.

Why didn't Diamond send this out to the owners months before the special assessment?  Would have gone down a lot easier.

You should have the corner office with the solid walnut desk and two secretaries at Diamond International.

Again, mahalo nui loa


Sterling


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Kauai Kid said:


> Thanks very much for the posting.  Finally, hard evidence that there is a real genuine problem.
> 
> Why didn't Diamond send this out to the owners months before the special assessment?  Would have gone down a lot easier.
> 
> You should have the corner office with the solid walnut desk and two secretaries at Diamond International.
> 
> Again, mahalo nui loa
> 
> 
> Sterling


FYI - that link was posted previously shortly after it became available, about the time the SA was announced.  I assumed that you were aware of it and were looking for something more.

As to lack of notice - well I suspect that's part of an underlying strategy of the Board.  I believe the timing of the announcement in relation to dues statement and the Board election was orchestrated.


----------



## gnorth16

FWIW, snowsun4ever has two for sale on eBay (one biennial) where the SA are paid with free closing.  In the ads it says that P@P has ROFR.  They may not be taking deeds back without the SA being paid, but my guess is that these ones wil be ROFR'd...  Very interested in bidding, but very cautious right now...


----------



## nlions

*Steve Nelson please provide any list you might have*

Not sure what your source is but anything is more than what DRI will provide


----------



## maciberkeley

*Bottom line*

OK, but what is the bottom line here? There are people needing to back out of these timeshares because of the major hit these assessments will cause. Is this a good time to pick one up, pay the fees but have a really nice unit? Or, better to stay out of the mess?


----------



## gnorth16

That is what I am wondering.  Free closing and almost a giveaway for a (or will be) completely new timeshare in HI.  My only concern is the possibility of another SA if too many people bail on their TS.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

nlions said:


> Not sure what your source is but anything is more than what DRI will provide


I'm not sure if these are the exact names on the deeds, but one should be able to make contact with the owners of these units at the addresses listed 

ownership totaling ~36% of deeded intervals at the resort
Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection Member Association
10600 West Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89135-1014​
ownership totaling ~10% of deeded intervals
Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection Development, LLC
c/o Customer Service
Diamond Resorts Financial Services, Inc.
3865 west Cheyenne Avenue
North Las Vegas, NV 89032​
That's it.  That an ownership list for ~45% of the units at the resort.


----------



## Kauai Kid

As a two week oceanfront owner at the Point at Poipu, I wouldn't advise anyone, except a politician, to buy anything that Diamond Resorts manages.

You are just asking for a headache and worse when dealing with Diamond.  

If you are looking for a bargain, check ebay, do your homework by reviewing TUG posts, and then purchase using a Hawaii escrow agency.   

Remember, I am entitled to my own opinion, be it right or wrong.


Sterling


----------



## winger

Kauai Kid said:


> As a two week oceanfront owner at the Point at Poipu, I wouldn't advise anyone, except a politician, to buy anything that Diamond Resorts manages.
> 
> You are just asking for a headache and worse when dealing with Diamond.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sterling


With the huge special assessment in play, I can fully relate to the position impacted owners have been placed under and understand there is undoubtly many very unhappy owners for this resort in particular (includes trust owners impacted by the SA).  However, to make this sort of blanket statment about DRI is somewhat irresponsible for those finding and using these short of internet postings.

I have had (and still do) have my 'gripes' about DRI, however we have been very satisfied with a few things the company has done (and is doing) as well. Just for some backgroud, I have also lived through a DRI SA myself (Polo Towers) so I am not out-of-touch with the current SA situation at Poipu.

DRI is not perfect (no company is), but they are making noticeable improvements (since the Sunterra buyout) on a few critical things that ARE important to me as an owner/Club member. These improvements include:
1) call center experience
2) quality of the resorts (at least those that are DRI-owned/managed) 
3) flexibility and general availability of availability (I am NOT referring to the affiliates)

One item high on my list of concerns is the relatively steep level of annual MF increases since the Sunterra buyout, especially during these tough economic times.  Although this is already probably an issue (with owners bailing ship), it could really get out of control fast (and sooner than later) and become a huge problem if not reined in.  IMO DRI should really assist, given their extensive background in the TS industry.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> That an ownership list for ~45% of the units at the resort.



From that you can work out what would be necessary to wrest control of the resort from DRI via Board elections.  

Replacing DRI would be a two-step process.  Step 1 would be for the Board of Directors to vote to put removal of DRI up for a vote of members.  (The Board does not have the power to unilaterally replace DRI - that move requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the deed holders.)

Of course the 45% of deeds I have listed above are going to vote in favor or DRI.  So to elect alternate directors requires a minimum of 82% of the non-DRI deeded owners to vote in favor of a different slate of directors, while *all* of the remaining 18% either abstain or fail to vote.   If as few as 5% of non-DRI deedholders decide to vote with DRI (which in my opinion is almost sure to happen), it is mathematically impossible for the remaining non-DRI deedholders to elect a different board.

******

This also assumes that only one slate of alternate candidates receives all of the non-DRI votes; if there are more candidates than there are openings and the non-DRI deedholders split votes among candidates, it quickly becomes impossible to win the election.    

In short, in the world of winning strategies, trying to change the board of directors at the resort by outvoting DRI ranks right with putting all your chips on the table on the river while holding deuces


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

BTW - yesterday I received in the mail a call for applicants to run for the Boards of Directors of the Poipu Point Vacation Owners Association and Association of Apartment Owners.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

dougp26364 said:


> If DRI really wanted to us the SA to take over P@P, then why have they suspended (or at least that's what's been reported on one of these P@P threads) the loss mitigation department and the deed back program? Heck, if they wanted to take back all those weeks, all they'd have to do is open the door and allow them to flood back in.
> 
> Instead they've suspended the deed back program. If you ask me, DRI doesn't appear to want the additional inventory but would prefer to have the owners keep their ownership.


Doug - you should know better than to try to use facts and logic to counter a conspiracy theory.


artringwald said:


> Some interesting clauses in the club rules:
> - Occupants are not allowed to use the accommodations for any "immoral purpose whatsoever".
> -  The club management can add, delete, or change the rules at any time.


BTW - another interesting item in the Club rules is that Club members are prohibited from using their ownership for commercial purposes, and any ad for rental of a Club unit  is considered a commercial use.


gnorth16 said:


> FWIW, snowsun4ever has two for sale on eBay (one biennial) where the SA are paid with free closing.  In the ads it says that P@P has ROFR.  They may not be taking deeds back without the SA being paid, but my guess is that these ones wil be ROFR'd...  Very interested in bidding, but very cautious right now...


Since right now they are apparently unwilling to take deedbacks with all fees paid (including the SA) I don't think they're likely to exercise ROFR on any deal.

Of course to those who believe that DRI is secretly trying to take over the resort by forcing out existing owners, DRI's unwillingness to accept deedbacks is simply further evidence of DRI's plan to take over the resort by foreclosing on owners who default.  I suppose the logic would be that if DRI takes a deedback they can't foreclose, and that would thwart their plan to take over via foreclosure.


nlions said:


> The challenge is to get owner control of the board away from Diamond before their agenda is completed and without the list of owners to engage when running for the board that becomes nearly impossible.


As pointed out above there is virtually no chance of winning an election for new directors.  Having the list doesn't change that, and expending time and resources to obtain the list for purposes of electing different directors is, IMHO, a complete and utter waste of time and effort.

Of course, if the intent is to use the list for purposes other than soliciting proxies, that's a different matter.


----------



## Dollie

*FYI Some Numbers & ROFR*

*FYI - Some Numbers*

We bought 2 weeks at the Point in 2005 from the developer, Sunterra at that time.

*Maintenance Fee and % Change* 
*2005*   $0		Paid by developer, Sunterra
*2006*   $0		Paid by developer, Sunterra
*2007*   $1998		
*2008*   $2212	+10%	Under Diamond management
*2009*   $2828	+28%	
*2010*   $2828	0%	
*2011*   $2707	- 4%	
*2012*   $2707	0%	Without water intrusion assessment
*2012**$6243*	+ 131%	*$3536 for water intrusion assessment

When Diamond took over, there were two years with jumps in MF, then stabilization before the water intrusion assessment.   There are definite improvements and updates at the resort since Diamond took over, however, I do not know if they are “equivalent” to the amount of MF increases.

*FYI – ROFR*

According to our documentation, ROFR expires at the end of 2015, ten years after our purchase.


----------



## daventrina

Dollie said:


> *FYI - Some Numbers*
> When Diamond took over, there were two years with jumps in MF, then stabilization before the water intrusion assessment.   There are definite improvements and updates at the resort since Diamond took over,....


Remember that Sunterra didn't do a lot of maintenance and deferred  upgrades and repairs. One of the excuses was that the didn't want to spend any money in case Hilton picked up the resorts when they bought Embassy.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

daventrina said:


> Remember that Sunterra didn't do a lot of maintenance and deferred  upgrades and repairs. One of the excuses was that the didn't want to spend any money in case Hilton picked up the resorts when they bought Embassy.


Exactly what the resort manager in Ka'anapali said to me about eight years ago (during Sunterra days).


----------



## a1000monkeys

Just got this in my e-mail in box.  I'm assuming they didn't film him at the Point in Poipu:

How do you improve from really good to absolutely great?

How about sending the Boss to see how it's all working?

That's what we did at Diamond Resorts International®. Our Chairman and CEO, Stephen J. Cloobeck, is on the season premiere of UNDERCOVER BOSS on CBS, January 15.

We invite you to watch as Mr. Cloobeck goes undercover to explore every aspect of the Diamond experience, seeing what's good and what could be even better. As a result, we'll take everything he learns to make your vacation the ultimate hospitality experience—that's what "The Meaning of Yes®" culture is all about.

Watch as we discover what it takes to achieve a higher standard of excellence. We think you'll be entertained, fascinated and pleased to know what it's like to be a part of the Diamond family.

Remember to watch UNDERCOVER BOSS on CBS, Sunday, January 15, at 8pm/7pm CST. Please check your local listings to make sure you don't miss it!

The Diamond Resorts Hospitality Team


----------



## artringwald

'Undercover Boss' star finds appearance brings unwanted attention

According to the article, DRI has collected more than 63 percent of the first year's assessments. They were predicting 90 perecent.


----------



## artringwald

*FAQ from the Board of Directors*

I got email today referring me to the DRI HOA site, where I found this document.

The board might have reduced the bad reaction they got if they had distributed this information sooner.


----------



## pseda

singlemalt_18 said:


> Sheila – Fortunately the SA for us was at the trust rate of about 17 cents/point.  It did result in doubling our fees for 2012, but we only needed to come up with an additional $1,800 and NOT $5,900 or more; amounts less than $2,000 were due in full this first year.  We were not at all happy about it, but as I have said before, timeshare is a love/hate thing.  There is a great line by Meryl Streep as she is dying of cancer in _One True Thing_ that I think is a great rule for life and it goes something like this:
> 
> _"It is so much easier to be happy about all of the things you have, instead of being miserable about the things you do not have, *or perceive that you do not have*." _(empahasis mine - I love that part!)
> 
> As for Murrell’s Inlet, we were looking ahead about 10 months, and there were ONLY two dates available, so we quickly booked the single.  I suppose there is some limited availability because it is only an “affiliate” resort.  Based on what you have experienced, I’m glad we took the opening!  There was plenty of availability of every size unit in Gatlinburg which made it easy to select a consecutive week, and put together a great trip.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, go right ahead and explain to everyone how all of the dots are connected, and how the PR disaster in the UK and the assessment at Poipu are part of a deliberate and coordinated strategy by DRI.  If they are truly out to methodically break the law and victimize members and owners, enquiring minds need to know.



Why are the owners in both countries (US/UK) speaking out? Loss of rights and inability to be involved in making decisions affecting their ownership. Why, at the PP, will DRI not release for owner review; maintenance documents, engineer reports re: WI, insurance denial letter or an owners list? Tell me these factors aren't signs of poor management. We are the owners and they are our managers who have forgotten the proper order of things. There is a redweek blogger, documented on angry poipu owners on facebook, who in 2008 as an owner at KBC, clearly laid out the plan DRI had for its hawaii properties. You must read it.


----------



## Beefnot

The gripes with DRI remind me of elements of this businessweek article about a huge Las Vegas scam that got taken down.


----------



## gnorth16

artringwald said:


> 'Undercover Boss' star finds appearance brings unwanted attention
> 
> According to the article, DRI has collected more than 63 percent of the first year's assessments. They were predicting 90 perecent.



If that is the case, I will be watching from the sidelines and not picking up one of the "cheapies" of Ebay.  I fear of another assessment to make up for the short fall on the first round of assessment.  

Any info on ROFR by DRI on auctions on eBay?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

gnorth16 said:


> If that is the case, I will be watching from the sidelines and not picking up one of the "cheapies" of Ebay.  I fear of another assessment to make up for the short fall on the first round of assessment.
> 
> Any info on ROFR by DRI on auctions on eBay?


I would be surprised if DRI were exercising ROFR on any sales at the resort, considering that they are not accepting deedbacks.  Why would they pay money to acquire a deed when they can have one for free if they wanted it?


----------



## princessbethlina

*We kept our deed but aren't willing to pay the SA*



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> If you're interested, I can post a listing of the owners of ~45% of the deeds at Point at Poipu.



I was one of the deeded owners that was threatened by the sales people that we were doomed if we didnt give up the deed and exchange for points about 4 years ago.

I told them then they wouldn't see another $5k out of me until I saw them putting some money into units that would make me feel ok about bringing friends and family there.  And the points idea just didn't resonate with me. 

Now this whole crazy scam for the special assessment is just another way to line DRI executives pockets. They do not issue any guarantee that this is the one and only SA you'll receive. Why are people so gullible and just paying this?


----------



## Beefnot

princessbethlina said:


> I was one of the deeded owners that was threatened by the sales people that we were doomed if we didnt give up the deed and exchange for points about 4 years ago.
> 
> *I told them then they wouldn't see another $5k out of me until I saw them putting some money into units* that would make me feel ok about bringing friends and family there.  And the points idea just didn't resonate with me.
> 
> Now this whole crazy scam for the special assessment is just another way to line DRI executives pockets. They do not issue any guarantee that this is the one and only SA you'll receive. Why are people so gullible and just paying this?



They held up their end of the bargain, though not in the way you'd hoped...


----------



## dougp26364

princessbethlina said:


> I was one of the deeded owners that was threatened by the sales people that we were doomed if we didnt give up the deed and exchange for points about 4 years ago.
> 
> I told them then they wouldn't see another $5k out of me until I saw them putting some money into units that would make me feel ok about bringing friends and family there.  And the points idea just didn't resonate with me.
> 
> Now this whole crazy scam for the special assessment is just another way to line DRI executives pockets. They do not issue any guarantee that this is the one and only SA you'll receive. Why are people so gullible and just paying this?



So I'm a little confused. One the one hand, you acknowledge that Sunterrea failed to improve or even maintain the resort. On the other hand you feel you're being ripped off when the new management company comes in, discovers that Sunterra had badly neglected the resort (and kept MF's artifically low since they weren't fixing anything), and now you're mad at the new management for addressing and fixing the problems left by Sunterra?

If you ask me, it's Sunterra who lined their pockets with owners money by NOT maintaining the resort. DRI is just the messenger. What's that saying? Don't shoot the messenger?


----------



## Dollie

*Meet the Manager*

Just returned from the Point.  For those of you visiting there this year, I highly recommend that you attend the “Meet the Manager” meeting on Wednesday mornings at 9:30.  Jamie will go over the water intrusion presentation that is on the web and answer any questions you have.  She is excellent at this.  It is well worth the time.

On the other hand, when you arrive, as usual, they try to get you to sign up for an “update” and say they will answer your questions on the water intrusion.  This is the usual sale pitch.  We did not sign up for this “update” and people who attended it complained about it.


----------



## singlemalt_18

Dollie said:


> On the other hand, *when you arrive, as usual, they try to get you to sign up for an “update” *and say they will answer your questions on the water intrusion.  This is the usual sale pitch.  We did not sign up for this “update” and *people who attended it complained about it*.



Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

PRICELESS !!! :rofl:


----------



## Kauai Kid

Doug:  The problem with Diamond, in my opinion, is the way they went about notifying folks of the incredible special assessment.

Rather than a year ago sending out a notice something like "folks we have some terrible news.  There is significant damage that must be addressed and unfortunately it will cost a lot to make it right.  But it would be even more expensive to continue waiting.

We have attached some engineering analyses, photos, etc to show the extent of the problem.

We're sorry about this bad news and our best estimate at this time is the damage will be about $5000 payable over five years.  We will keep you updated monthly.

Signed Manny, Moe, Jack, Pete, and Dianna Board of Directors."

Here is how Diamond went about the special assessment.  "THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF $,6000/WK DUE IN 90 DAYS.  IF YOU DON'T PAY WE WILL RUIN YOUR CREDIT AND BREAK BOTH LEGS" AND MAKE YOU WIFE A WIDOW.  :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: 

Diamond has the manners of storm troopers.

Sterling


----------



## dougp26364

Kauai Kid said:


> Doug:  The problem with Diamond, in my opinion, is the way they went about notifying folks of the incredible special assessment.
> 
> Rather than a year ago sending out a notice something like "folks we have some terrible news.  There is significant damage that must be addressed and unfortunately it will cost a lot to make it right.  But it would be even more expensive to continue waiting.
> 
> We have attached some engineering analyses, photos, etc to show the extent of the problem.
> 
> We're sorry about this bad news and our best estimate at this time is the damage will be about $5000 payable over five years.  We will keep you updated monthly.
> 
> Signed Manny, Moe, Jack, Pete, and Dianna Board of Directors."
> 
> Here is how Diamond went about the special assessment.  "THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF $,6000/WK DUE IN 90 DAYS.  IF YOU DON'T PAY WE WILL RUIN YOUR CREDIT AND BREAK BOTH LEGS" AND MAKE YOU WIFE A WIDOW.
> 
> Diamond has the manners of storm troopers.
> 
> Sterling



I never said I agreed with how DRI presented the bill to owners. I only disagree when someone says it's a scam or it's DRI's fault. It's neither a scam or DRI's fault. The intrusion is a real problem that was all but ignored and allowed to grow worse by Sunterra. 

Everyone was happy when Sunterra kept MF's artificially low. Now they're all ticked off because Sunterra filed bankruptcy and left everyone else holding the bag. 

When DRI bought Sunterra out of bankruptcy, they didn't pick and choose which resorts they'd keep and which ones they'd dump. They took everyone. They took the good with the bad. Now owners want to blame DRI for Sunterra's failings? THAT'S what I can't understand. 

I suppose the ownes at the Pointe would have been much happier if DRI told them, "Hey, you have a nice resort in a great location but, there's to much damage to repair at reasonable cost and, well, Sunterra kind of screwed you over so, you're no longer part of the group. P@P owners, you're on your own. Deal with it how you see fit and best of luck." If they'd have done that, then they'd have been weasels for bailing out on the owners when times where tough. There would have been a group of owners lawyering up to force DRI to keep P@P in the system and they'd have been called cowards for cutting and runing on the properties that were to far gone to mess with. For DRI, this was a no win situation. 

Yes, I agree your HOA/BOD at the Pointe should have done a better job keeping owners updated and, yes I agree that DRI has a strong presence on that HOA/BOD. I'm not particulary pleased that they just sprung this on everyone but, that's not what most are complaining about and it's not what I was responding too. I was responding to a post saying the assesment was a scam and the DRI executives are just lining their pockets with money. Any reasonable person understand that is NOT true.

I also find fault with your engratiating DRI's SA bill with words that where obviously not part of the billing. I'm pretty certain they never said they'd break you legs, make your wife a widow et.... Drama does not make a point any better than straying from the facts.


----------



## singlemalt_18

dougp26364 said:


> ...then they'd have been weasels for bailing out on the owners when times where tough. There would have been a group of owners lawyering up to force DRI to keep P@P in the system and they'd have been called cowards for cutting and runing on the properties that were to far gone to mess with. For DRI, *this was a no win situation*.



Yes, the classic Kobayashi Maru.  I can't believe you wrote this!  Can I take the helm?

*Captains Log: stardate 14.724 – 7*

In an alternate universe somewhere, DRI never imposed the SA at the P@P.  In subsequent years the _head-in-the-sand approach _to the severe structural problems had become evident, and the viability of the resort was in serious question.  It was to become a complete and total loss.

Owners became livid; why wasn’t the property being properly maintained? A very disgruntled group attempted to organize legal action against DRI for lining their pockets with salaries and profits while neglecting their obligations to protect and maintain the owners’ interests.  Board members were accused of being “insiders” who helped kick the can down the road in the interest of not stirring up trouble.  There were even *rumors of secret insurance policies *that would make DRI come out the winner if the resort were to close and be torn down.

The owners were left holding the now empty bag.  (At least they had their voting rights!)

As attempts were made to compile a list of owners to take part in a lawsuit and an attempt a vote to keep the resort_ open_, they were met with a roadblock at every turn because the diabolical Steven J. Klingon and DRI would not comply with the owners’ demands.

++++++++++++

Sound familiar?  Different events yield the same outcome.

People don’t like bad news when it means money out of their pocket.  As long as sombody else pays its OK.  Give them a venue to solicit support for their grievances and you get an angry crowd.  Some talk as if the board should have chosen the equivalent of walking away from an underwater mortgage.  It’s sort of like the “if I can’t get my way then nobody should” attitude.  *By now everyone should have chosen to either suck it up and fork over the cash, or to quit and go home.  Can we get over it already?*

Voting rights and board representation (or now manners?) can be endlessly discussed, but it’s conjecture and speculation assuming that somehow a different outcome or reality would exist.  Hindsight is better than 20/20 when viewed thru the lens of would’a, could’a and should’a and it is the gentleman’s version of casting blame.  *Why should the presence of one or two different people on a board necessarily mean a different outcome?*

How many timeshare owners who post on this very forum are guilty of putting off maintenance on the homes or cars they own?  And how many when confronted with an issue on their home or car have chosen a quick fix or taken a shortcut rather than commence with a large unwanted expense?_ “Oh, I’ll just run on my spare for now because I would rather buy a new big screen TV this week instead of getting new tires.”_

We are all guilty and no amount of discussion or rationalization can put more tread onto old tires.  How many people who sit in board rooms all over have opted for the easier road on occasion by requiring more analysis or deliberation to then delay a difficult decision?  *Or to insure there were enough votes?* 

Avoiding conflict or anything unpleasant is human nature.  And humans first found it useful to point the finger at someone else a long time ago as they sat around in the close quarters of a cave after a big meal.  Italian cars, pedigree dogs, trophy wives, and timeshare…the costs of ownership sometimes outweigh the benefits. So what’s new?

FYI - Points can now be used to book a one bedroom at the Holodeck!  Free admission to Ten Forward is included but you’ll need to pay for your own drinks.


----------



## Tiger

It's interesting now that on Ebay quite a numper of Point weeks are being offered and bid on into the $ hundreds with all expenses paid including the special assesment.  It seems to me that new owners are willing to have some faith in the new order.  I have great sympathy for the current owners.   I have 6 weeks in a nearby resort and the concept of $36,000 in special assements is rather overwhelming.  Until the recent special assesment, while I viewed LBR as special I assumed a general equality in the two resorts.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Tiger said:


> It's interesting now that on Ebay quite a numper of Point weeks are being offered and bid on into the $ hundreds with all expenses paid including the special assesment.  It seems to me that new owners are willing to have some faith in the new order.  I have great sympathy for the current owners.   I have 6 weeks in a nearby resort and the concept of $36,000 in special assements is rather overwhelming.  Until the recent special assesment, while I viewed LBR as special I assumed a general equality in the two resorts.


A question worth considering is whether Poipu is a harbinger of what might lie ahead for LBR.  

I can't immediately recall the basic construction technology for the Coral, Alii, and Banyon buildings at LBR.  If any of them are 1990s era cladded woodframe, I would be quite anxious about what the condition is under the cladding.

I'm almost sure Like Lani is cladded wood frame.  If I owned in the Liki Lani building, I think I would be on pins and needles, pending results of an investigation.


----------



## Kauai Kid

dougp26364 said:


> I never said I agreed with how DRI presented the bill to owners. I only disagree when someone says it's a scam or it's DRI's fault. It's neither a scam or DRI's fault. The intrusion is a real problem that was all but ignored and allowed to grow worse by Sunterra.
> 
> Everyone was happy when Sunterra kept MF's artificially low. Now they're all ticked off because Sunterra filed bankruptcy and left everyone else holding the bag.
> 
> When DRI bought Sunterra out of bankruptcy, they didn't pick and choose which resorts they'd keep and which ones they'd dump. They took everyone. They took the good with the bad. Now owners want to blame DRI for Sunterra's failings? THAT'S what I can't understand.
> 
> I suppose the ownes at the Pointe would have been much happier if DRI told them, "Hey, you have a nice resort in a great location but, there's to much damage to repair at reasonable cost and, well, Sunterra kind of screwed you over so, you're no longer part of the group. P@P owners, you're on your own. Deal with it how you see fit and best of luck." If they'd have done that, then they'd have been weasels for bailing out on the owners when times where tough. There would have been a group of owners lawyering up to force DRI to keep P@P in the system and they'd have been called cowards for cutting and runing on the properties that were to far gone to mess with. For DRI, this was a no win situation.
> 
> Yes, I agree your HOA/BOD at the Pointe should have done a better job keeping owners updated and, yes I agree that DRI has a strong presence on that HOA/BOD. I'm not particulary pleased that they just sprung this on everyone but, that's not what most are complaining about and it's not what I was responding too. I was responding to a post saying the assesment was a scam and the DRI executives are just lining their pockets with money. Any reasonable person understand that is NOT true.
> 
> I also find fault with your engratiating DRI's SA bill with words that where obviously not part of the billing. I'm pretty certain they never said they'd break you legs, make your wife a widow et.... Drama does not make a point any better than straying from the facts.



Doug I modified my post so those with no sense of humor will see the guy laughing hysterically will realize it is all a joke (except for the part about ruining your credit)

Laugh, you'll live longer. 

Sterling


----------



## nightnurse613

Hmm, the water intrusion problem at Sedona Golf Resort was handled by DRI in a completely different manner - although it probably involved considerably less funding....


----------



## dakotafamily

This may not be the correct thread to be using but would it be a bad time to buy into the Hawaiian Collection? I don't know if the special assesment would have much to do with new owners. Thanks.


----------



## Beefnot

nightnurse613 said:


> Hmm, the water intrusion problem at Sedona Golf Resort was handled by DRI in a completely different manner - although it probably involved considerably less funding....



There was a water intrusion problem at another resort? Eh, I smell a rat.


----------



## Tiger

The construction at LBR is mostly concrete.  The lower two floors were wiped out by Iniki then reconstructed.  Over the last 4 years we have had an issue with construction, particularly in the Alii building.  The rebar was starting to be  affected near the surface,  It was discussed through the newsletters and repairs in the hundreds of thousands $ were done.  I believe pictures are posted on the LBR website.  Complete upgrades new floors, new bathrooms, granite countetops etc.  are being done over a 5 year period in Alii, a multimillion $ project, financed by a bank loan and paid through maintenance fees.


----------



## dougp26364

singlemalt_18 said:


> Yes, the classic Kobayashi Maru.  I can't believe you wrote this!  Can I take the helm?
> 
> *Captains Log: stardate 14.724 – 7*
> 
> In an alternate universe somewhere, DRI never imposed the SA at the P@P.  In subsequent years the _head-in-the-sand approach _to the severe structural problems had become evident, and the viability of the resort was in serious question.  It was to become a complete and total loss.
> 
> Owners became livid; why wasn’t the property being properly maintained? A very disgruntled group attempted to organize legal action against DRI for lining their pockets with salaries and profits while neglecting their obligations to protect and maintain the owners’ interests.  Board members were accused of being “insiders” who helped kick the can down the road in the interest of not stirring up trouble.  There were even *rumors of secret insurance policies *that would make DRI come out the winner if the resort were to close and be torn down.
> 
> The owners were left holding the now empty bag.  (At least they had their voting rights!)
> 
> As attempts were made to compile a list of owners to take part in a lawsuit and an attempt a vote to keep the resort_ open_, they were met with a roadblock at every turn because the diabolical Steven J. Klingon and DRI would not comply with the owners’ demands.
> 
> ++++++++++++
> 
> Sound familiar?  Different events yield the same outcome.
> 
> People don’t like bad news when it means money out of their pocket.  As long as sombody else pays its OK.  Give them a venue to solicit support for their grievances and you get an angry crowd.  Some talk as if the board should have chosen the equivalent of walking away from an underwater mortgage.  It’s sort of like the “if I can’t get my way then nobody should” attitude.  *By now everyone should have chosen to either suck it up and fork over the cash, or to quit and go home.  Can we get over it already?*
> 
> Voting rights and board representation (or now manners?) can be endlessly discussed, but it’s conjecture and speculation assuming that somehow a different outcome or reality would exist.  Hindsight is better than 20/20 when viewed thru the lens of would’a, could’a and should’a and it is the gentleman’s version of casting blame.  *Why should the presence of one or two different people on a board necessarily mean a different outcome?*
> 
> How many timeshare owners who post on this very forum are guilty of putting off maintenance on the homes or cars they own?  And how many when confronted with an issue on their home or car have chosen a quick fix or taken a shortcut rather than commence with a large unwanted expense?_ “Oh, I’ll just run on my spare for now because I would rather buy a new big screen TV this week instead of getting new tires.”_
> 
> We are all guilty and no amount of discussion or rationalization can put more tread onto old tires.  How many people who sit in board rooms all over have opted for the easier road on occasion by requiring more analysis or deliberation to then delay a difficult decision?  *Or to insure there were enough votes?*
> 
> Avoiding conflict or anything unpleasant is human nature.  And humans first found it useful to point the finger at someone else a long time ago as they sat around in the close quarters of a cave after a big meal.  Italian cars, pedigree dogs, trophy wives, and timeshare…the costs of ownership sometimes outweigh the benefits. So what’s new?
> 
> FYI - Points can now be used to book a one bedroom at the Holodeck!  Free admission to Ten Forward is included but you’ll need to pay for your own drinks.



A Star Trek Comparisson? Really?

Let's keep this short. 

Sunterra didn't keep up their resorts. They didn't collect enough in cash reserves for repairs. Sunterra failed, filed bankruptcy and they are no more. 

New management would have a choice. Continue as was or make changes. DRI made changes. 

Everything else is just a distraction.


----------



## Beefnot

Wasn't some of the consternation the lack of transparency by DRI?


----------



## Poobah

*DRI Public Relations*

I sort of agree with most of the posts. The problem is that VOA Board/DRI blew the PR piece of this big time. They did what they had to do to keep P@P from deteriorating even more, they just handled very,very poorly.

What bothers me is that it reflects an attitude that is certainly not in the spirit of "ohana." One hopes that it reflects an inept/naive rollout strategy profered by the VOA Board/DRI. It is hard to believe that the VOA Board/DRI believed that the approach was a winner and that the Owners and the Trust would just stand up and cheer the action.

One hopes that it doesn't actually reflect an VOA/DRI "attitude" that they have no accountability to the Owners or to the Trust, who actually own the resort. 

This is turning out to be a PR disaster for DRI. The credibility of the VOA Board as a representative of the owners is pretty low. I mean, even CBS was asking questions. 

The resort needed the repairs; if this had been handled in a more professional manner the VOA Board would have been heros. Instead, as the saying goes "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory."

Looking forward to being at the annual meeting on 20 March. Wouldn't miss it for the world!

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## daventrina

I really think that they expected to be able to have the responsible parties to pick up most if not all of the tab. So.. by the time that didn't pan out... it was a real mess with no easy way out. 

As far as owners having to pick up the tab for defaulted weeks ... for that to happen wouldn't those weeks/points have to be owned by the association? If those units go back to the developer, wouldn't the developer be responsible for the costs related to those weeks?

On a good note.... Somewhere in Diamonds documentation I found a new note in one of their FAQs where empty weeks that are rented that are owner weeks the money goes to the association, as it should. It was not that way with Sunterra.

The Tahoe Resort is having construction issues too.  Fortunately the issue was discovered in time and the contractor is picking up the entire tab for the repair.



Poobah said:


> I sort of agree with most of the posts. The problem is that VOA Board/DRI blew the PR piece of this big time. They did what they had to do to keep P@P from deteriorating even more, they just handled very,very poorly.
> Cheers,
> Paul


----------



## timeos2

daventrina said:


> As far as owners having to pick up the tab for defaulted weeks ... for that to happen wouldn't those weeks/points have to be owned by the association? If those units go back to the developer, wouldn't the developer be responsible for the costs related to those weeks?
> 
> On a good note.... Somewhere in Diamonds documentation I found a new note in one of their FAQs where empty weeks that are rented that are owner weeks the money goes to the association, as it should. It was not that way with Sunterra.
> 
> .



You can't have it both ways. IF the Developer takes the foreclosed or deed back weeks & pays the fees then any rentals belong to them as they paid the fees & have the use / rental rights like any other owner.

Or if the Association has the title then the other owners have to cover the fees & any rental of that time belongs to them (the resort/Association).


----------



## daventrina

timeos2 said:


> You can't have it both ways.


Unless you are Sunterra:ignore:


----------



## winger

daventrina said:


> ...
> 
> The Tahoe Resort is having construction issues too.  Fortunately the issue was discovered in time and the contractor is picking up the entire tab for the reybpair.



What issues?


----------



## timeos2

daventrina said:


> Unless you are Sunterra:ignore:



Maybe that's why they went bankrupt twice and are no longer with us?


----------



## daventrina

winger said:


> What issues?


Exterior water penetration. So they are refacing the buildings.


----------



## dag2

*Point @ Poipu VOA and AOAO annual meeting*

I just received a ballot for the P@P Vacation Owners Association and Association of Apartment Owners.  Any input on who I should vote for?


----------

