# Special Assessment Fee @ Pollard Brook



## Finley

I would like to hear from other owners @ Pollard Brook regarding the recent special assessment fee we have just been handed.  The letters have been sent but I haven't received mine yet.  I just happened to see the charge on my account and researched it to find out what it was.  $419.34 because they can't sell a completely new resort they built across the street, South Mountain!  Have others experienced this type of thing at their resort?


----------



## DonM

Finley said:


> I would like to hear from other owners @ Pollard Brook regarding the recent special assessment fee we have just been handed.  The letters have been sent but I haven't received mine yet.  I just happened to see the charge on my account and researched it to find out what it was.  $419.34 because they can't sell a completely new resort they built across the street, South Mountain!  Have others experienced this type of thing at their resort?



Are you a points owner or weeks? I own a week at Pollard. This is the first I've heard of this assessment. I don't understand how a developer/ manager of a resort can charge a deeded owner for unsold units at a different (affiliated) resort?

I have no privileges at South Mountain- why should I pay for their unsold units? Maybe *points ownership *has privileges at South Mountain and has to pay not for unsold units, but to cover the maintenance fees by a lesser number of owners?


----------



## Bwolf

I disagree with the OPs statement, DonM.

I too am a weeks owner.  I have an owner's account at the InnSeason website.  The reasons for the assessment are listed there.  I'd suggest you check it out.

We have been owners since 1998.  That is 11 years without an assessment.  That seems pretty good, to me.  

Believe me, I'm not an apologist for the management of Pollard Brook.  I once sent Ducharme a two page letter filled with facts, not falsehoods and innuendo.  He acted upon that.  Nevertheless, I'd still like to smash in the faces of two people who work there.

Let's try to keep any discussion to the facts.


----------



## DonM

Bwolf said:


> I disagree with the OPs statement, DonM.
> 
> I too am a weeks owner.  I have an owner's account at the InnSeason website.  The reasons for the assessment are listed there.  I'd suggest you check it out..



I did check out the website and I see the same $419.34 assessment for my 1 bedroom week. I did not see the OP's reason for the assessment- but rather a general statement about wanting to continue to upgrade and the cost of living etc. I hope that the 2 and 3 bedroom week owners are paying a higher assessment. Anyone know for sure?



Bwolf said:


> We have been owners since 1998.  That is 11 years without an assessment.  That seems pretty good, to me.



Well I'm not sure I agree. I think assessments should be for *extraordinary* events, and not for ongoing upgrades. e.g. put in a new pool, or a tornado destroyed the property above the insured value- that would be a better reason for an assessment IMHO

don


----------



## Bwolf

Don:  As a 2 bedroom owner, I'm paying more than you.

You are probably right about extraordinary events, but that isn't how it has worked with the assessments I've paid at my other two timeshares.

At each of these, we've paid for what you call on-going upgrades through an assessment.  So, it happens.

Each of these two timshares is different from PB in one significant way.  Each has a board of directors elected by owners.  PB is still under developer control.  Three of the five board members are management.  The two "owner representatives" are probably hand-picked patsies.  So, I'm alert to the possibility of shenanigans.  

I can't really complain about the "on-going upgrade" assessment at my Sanibel Beach Club unit because we actually enjoyed the benefits of it before paying.  Our building was the first to get the new screens, sliders, and windows.  We were the first to use them, and they were very nice.  Our belief is they will help keep yearly MFs down by reducing electrical use when air conditioning is on.

My view of the PB assessment, at least at this moment, is that it may  reduce costs in the future by reducing heat/cool loss in the winter and summer.  More to the point, it is probably necessary to upgrade some of the older buildings, including the one in which my room is located, in order to keep the Premier Resort designation.

Did management screw-up?  A resounding yes.
Are we paying for it? Another resounding yes.
Will we benefit? Yes.  Our rooms are among the nicest I've seen anywhere, and much better than rooms at some Premier resorts that get that designation for the on-site amenities, not the rooms.  Keeping the Premier designation gets us very good trades.

So, I may not be happy with it but I'm not going to make false and spurious claims about why the assessment happened.


----------



## DonM

Bwolf said:


> Don:  As a 2 bedroom owner, I'm paying more than you..



That's only fair- I'm glad to hear it.



Bwolf said:


> You are probably right about extraordinary events, but that isn't how it has worked with the assessments I've paid at my other two timeshares.
> 
> At each of these, we've paid for what you call on-going upgrades through an assessment.  So, it happens.



I currently only own at one other t/s- Paniolo Greens in Hawaii- I've owned it since 1998, and they have a separate capital improvement fund (mandated by state law)- the last time I looked there was a fund balance of over $18K per unit, and the units have been updated regularly. All this with a relatively low mf for Hawaii of under $700 per 2 bedroom unit. 



Bwolf said:


> Each of these two timshares is different from PB in one significant way.  Each has a board of directors elected by owners.  PB is still under developer control.  Three of the five board members are management.  The two "owner representatives" are probably hand-picked patsies.  So, I'm alert to the possibility of shenanigans.



That says a lot.




Bwolf said:


> So, I may not be happy with it but I'm not going to make false and spurious claims about why the assessment happened.



Agreed



Thanks BWolf for the info

don


----------



## Bwolf

Sure thing, Don.


----------



## Finley

Thanks for the replies, folks!  Here is the actual letter on the website under Pollard Brook.  There are other pieces of info on there specific to this as well.  It's 7/10 and I still haven't received the letter via mail.  Yes, the letter indicates they need the monies to continue with the upgrades.  The Maintenance Fee letter addresses this every single year and it goes up every year to account for these.  But the letter goes into the financial burden that Southern Peaks which I am assuming is South Mountain has created and this is the real issue, I think.  No one else is being assessed this in the 7 resorts of InnSeasons.  And I am a deeded, one week, one bedroom owner.  The SOP's etc. say they can charge for upgrades etc. to your specific unit and common area. The state RSA's support this as well.  But is it legal to do it because of over development and the fact that poor management decisions have put Pollard Brook at risk as a result?  They call this whole thing:  Pollard Brook Resort, Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook, LLC in the letter, I've never seen that referenced on anything I have.  I bought in 1995.  There were 2 buildings and they never indicated they were planning the massive expansions they have done.  Read and interpret for yourselves....I am consulting the AG's office and that will answer my questions I hope.

July 1, 2009

Dear Pollard Brook Owners,

Today’s general economic environment has taken a toll on the operations of Pollard Brook Resort, as it has with many businesses. The good news is that your Board of Advisors two individual owners to ensure that owner’s interests are represented, has been working on a long-term plan for the resort which includes focus on operating efficiencies and upgrades of the facilities. Unfortunately, in the short term the cash that your Association requires to operate and upgrade the facilities is in short supply, and an additional assessment on the ownership of each Pollard Brook unit is required to operate the property properly and fund your capital reserve requirements.

Like other industries that rely on periodic payments by consumers, your owners association has experienced an increase in the number of owners who default, and this reduces the cash available to operate the resort. The Association and its management company work with owners to assist them in meeting their commitments, and the vast majority of our more than 6,000 owners pay their assessments in a timely manner, but collection default percentages are up an average of 5% over the budgeted amount. Previous years have trended up an average of 2% over budget, but the 5% figure presents a significant increase. The Association and its management employ a variety of collection agents and processes to collect these funds, but in the present environment the cost of pursuing claims against these owners through foreclosure or similar actions would significantly diminish the net revenue obtained. Although some of that is expected to be recovered, this assessment seeks to provide approximately half that amount for current year operations.

The economy and lending conditions have also had a substantial impact on the current developer of Pollard Brook Resort, Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook, LLC, and its ability to meet its commitments for the payment of assessments on the nearly 1,200 unsold intervals it owns at Pollard Brook. In the past, it was able to meet those commitments by renting those units and, if necessary, supplementing any deficiency from other funds. Unfortunately, the rentals generated from those intervals have fallen far short of what is required to make up for these shortfalls and the downturn in the economy has impaired its ability to make supplemental payments.

Although Southern Peaks intends to continue to work to sell the remaining intervals at the resort and to meet all current and future obligations to the resort and to the Pollard Brook Homeowners Association, the region’s economic conditions simply do not permit it to do so at this time. Southern Peaks’ sales are down nearly 70% compared to two years ago, and a key line of financing that it had relied upon to meet other obligations has not been renewed. Southern Peaks has told the Board that it continues to seek new sources of financing and qualified institutional purchasers for the unsold intervals, and believes its prospects are good. Unfortunately, no such solution is likely to be completed in time to address our immediate cash requirements.

Finally, although nearly $1,000,000 has been spent over the past 5 years on repairs, upgrades and improvements to the original five phases of the resort and to the Common Areas, we have not had sufficient funds to bring the older units up to the quality level that Pollard Brook owners expect, and to address some of the major repairs needed to the older infrastructure, such as the swimming pool. We have included in this assessment approximately $1,200,000 to address these issues and to make sure the Association has sufficient reserves to address future reserve and replacement costs. A description of the items to be paid for from these additional reserves is enclosed and available online.

We, as members of the Board of Advisors for the Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association, understand that this additional assessment comes as an unwelcome obligation, at a time where finances are stretched. We have directed the management company to offer a range of payment options, including a monthly payment option, and to be as flexible and accommodating as possible in its efforts to collect the funds from every owner. We will also work diligently with the Association’s CPA firm and management staff to ensure that every dollar is spent only on the specific items outlined herein. We have also directed management to give owners tools to track the resort’s financial and operational progress, as described below.

In an effort to lessen the impact of this supplemental assessment, you may elect a single payment with a 10% discount, a 2-payment option with a 5% discount or a small initial payment with the balance paid over an 18 month period. Please see the enclosed invoice for your specific payment options.

To assist you in tracking the results of this project, we will be posting overviews and updates of the refurbishments into an information library within the on-line owner’s area of the InnSeason website, www.InnSeason.com.  If you have not yet created an on-line account, please take this opportunity to do so now as it is the best and most current source of information about your resort, and on-line communications are far more cost effective than printed and mailed documents. Registration is simple; just visit www.InnSeason.com and click on ‘Log in” in the upper right corner. In the near future, the monthly financial statements for the Association that are provided to the Board will be posted online, as will be the annual statements prepared by the Association CPA firm, Shepherd & Goldstein, LLP. 


If you have questions regarding this assessment or to discuss your payment options, please call InnSeason Management’s Owner Services department at 877-553-0681. Should a representative be unavailable to take your call, voice messaging is available and a management representative will gladly return your call.

This was not an easy decision for your Board to make, but after reviewing all the facts and exploring options, the final decision was based on what is best for the Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association in the long term. Your Board and Management are confident that the supplemental assessment made by each interval owner will be rewarded not only by refurbished units and a renewed resort, but by increased resale values, improved ability to acquire good exchanges as a result of higher exchange company ratings, and increased owner enjoyment and pride of ownership. Thank you for your support!

By direction of the Pollard Brook Board of Advisors, InnSeason Management, Inc. Managing Agent for the Pollard Brook Condominium Unit Owners Association

CC: Bill Scanzani, President, Owner Representative
Joanne Nichols, Secretary, Owner Representative
Dennis Ducharme, Treasurer
William Curran, Director
Scott Macgregor, Management Representative


----------



## Bwolf

Finley:

Yes, I've read the letter and the FAQs and other information at the website.

Consulting the AG is good.  Let us know what he says and if you need support.


----------



## ecwinch

Not an owner, just an interested bystander.

Just some friendly advice, but I think you need to obtain a complete copy of the governing documents for this resort. This would be the Declaration/Master Deed document, a copy of the most recent Public Offering Statement, and a copy of the by-laws for the timeshare owners association or HOA.

I think the key question to be asked is, what steps are being taken in regard to the developer not paying m/f on their units?  I understand the explanation given in the letter, but the key question is what is the Developers obligation to pay the m/f on the unsold inventory? If they have a contractual obligation to pay m/f on unsold inventory, and are in arrears on those payments, what steps are being taken by the HOA to address the situation?

I understand the letter to say that the developer is trying to find other financing, and it certainly is prudent to allow them some latitude in that process. But if their failure to pay their m/f is the major reason for the shortfall, then you need to make sure that the HOA is protecting the interests of the owners.  Clearly given the number of units the developer holds, I would question what is the main reason for the assessment. Is it delinquent owners or a delinquent developer. If the latter, then you need to make sure that the HOA is developing a plan to foreclose on the developers interests in the event that the developer continues to fail to meet their obligations.


----------



## Bwolf

Eric:  The developer controls the board, three votes to two, and the two "owner representatives" are probably hand-picked patsies that vote with management.

There is no board elected by the owners.  There isn't even an election for the two patsies.

There are other complications.  PB was first developed by someone else and bought by Dennis Ducharme (out of bankruptcy, I think) who did a good job resurrecting it.  I'm not sure what rights the original owners have and if they differ from the rights of those of us who bought after Dennis took over.  When we bought, fixed week, fixed unit was the rule.

Also, a few years ago, Dennis and William Curran pooled resources and created InnSeason Resorts with a POINT SYSTEM.  So, we now have points owners with their particular rights and obligations.

That said, your advice is solid and I appreciate it.  I'm glad the OP followed-up with the AG and hope he keeps going in that direction.  I'll help where I can.

My wife and I have had certain experiences with PB, most good, some bad, and the opinion we have now is that management wants to keep all owners at arms length, doesn't want any owner's groups to form, and wants to keep an iron-grip on the management of the company and all financial matters.

It is possible the structure of InnSeason and the other "entities" mentioned in the letter is Ponzi-like and won't pass muster if the appropriate authorities step in and look around.  It is also possible things are on the up-and-up and any investigation will establish that.

I hope we actually get an impartial review of the assessment and the management of PB, Inn-Seasons, and the other entities.

And again, eric, your other posts reveal you are a really decent person with good thoughts and advice and I appreciate your comments here.


----------



## ecwinch

Bwolf said:


> Eric:  The developer controls the board, three votes to two, and the two "owner representatives" are probably hand-picked patsies that vote with management.
> 
> There is no board elected by the owners.  There isn't even an election for the two patsies.
> 
> There are other complications.  PB was first developed by someone else and bought by Dennis Ducharme (out of bankruptcy, I think) who did a good job resurrecting it.  I'm not sure what rights the original owners have and if they differ from the rights of those of us who bought after Dennis took over.  When we bought, fixed week, fixed unit was the rule.
> 
> Also, a few years ago, Dennis and William Curran pooled resources and created InnSeason Resorts with a POINT SYSTEM.  So, we now have points owners with their particular rights and obligations.
> 
> That said, your advice is solid and I appreciate it.  I'm glad the OP followed-up with the AG and hope he keeps going in that direction.  I'll help where I can.
> 
> My wife and I have had certain experiences with PB, most good, some bad, and the opinion we have now is that management wants to keep all owners at arms length, doesn't want any owner's groups to form, and wants to keep an iron-grip on the management of the company and all financial matters.
> 
> It is possible the structure of InnSeason and the other "entities" mentioned in the letter is Ponzi-like and won't pass muster if the appropriate authorities step in and look around.  It is also possible things are on the up-and-up and any investigation will establish that.
> 
> I hope we actually get an impartial review of the assessment and the management of PB, Inn-Seasons, and the other entities.
> 
> And again, eric, your other posts reveal you are a really decent person with good thoughts and advice and I appreciate your comments here.



I completely understand that these type of actions are very difficult. My advice basically was that the first step is to fully understand your rights and the relative obligations of the Developer. The governing documents outline those rights and obligations.

Even with a developer controlled board, a diligent group of owners who fully understand their rights, and take the proper steps to assert them, can be helpful. 

If those rights/obligations are not be observed, then following due process to assert those rights can be a relatively low cost way of managing the situtation. Does that mean that the Developer controlled BoD suddenly starts looking out for the owners interests? No.

But it removes the " we did not know about.... " defense that the BoD. It is far to easy for a BoD to do that.

I think putting the BoD on notice that there is group of owners that are diligently reviewing their actions and is aware of their rights, can be a positive influence on the process. 

Far to often in these types of cases, people just want to complain about the problems, and do not want to invest the time and energy to understand their rights and to follow the due process that might change the situation. I am not saying that is the case here, just making a general observation.

It starts with simple things, like understanding your right to obtain and review the minutes of BoD meetings, your rights to attend BoD meetings, and your rights to inspect the records of the timeshare. These are the starting points for putting the association on notice that they cannot make decisions unilaterally. And you might be amazed at what you will find.

Just some general food for thought. I am interested in owner advocacy issues, and that is the only reason I bring it up.


----------



## AJS

July 11, 2009


Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association
33 Brookline Road
Lincoln, NH 03251
Board of Advisors
Mr. Bill Scanzani, President

CC: Joanne Nichols, Secretary
      : Dennis Ducharme, Treasurer
      : William Curran, Director
      : Scott Macgregor, Management Representative

I was quite surprised to receive the letter of July 1, 2009 from the Board of Advisors and the accompanying special assessment. I was quite dismayed to read the reasons for the special assessment.

Basically, the reason articulated are (1) a high percentage of the 6000 owners not paying maintenance fees (2)the Developer, Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook, LLC, not able to pay its maintenance fees on nearly 1200 unsold intervals and (3) $1,2000,000 to address major repairs.

The special assessment should raise $3,000,000 if compared to the 2009 published budget for annual maintenance fees. What needs to be published to the owners is how this $3 million will be used and how and when it will be recovered from delinquent owners and from the Developer. 

Specifically, what is the total maintenance fee delinquency for 2009, and for previous years, due to the 6000 intervals owned by buyers of a interval unit? Of the 6000 owners, how many are delinquent?

What is the 2009 maintenance fee delinquency owed by the Developer for its 1200 intervals? What is the delinquent amount, if any, from previous years? Is the Developer going to pay the special assessment on its 1200 unsold units?  What is that amount?

The letter says that nearly $1,000,000 has been spent on repairs and improvements over the past 5 years,. Yet, the special assessment seeks $1,200,000 to be spent in 12-24 months. This appears to be gross mismanagement. Why were these repairs and improvements not included  in the 2009 budget and previous year budgets? The purpose of an annual budget and a management company contract is to ensure that such situations don't occur. If the money is to be spent over 12-24 months,  will that reduce the 2010 and 2011 maintenance fees, and by how much?

The Board of Advisors must publish a detailed schedule of where this money will be used and the money owed by delinquent owners and the Developer. The information provided at this point completely inadequate and has a “fishy”smell.

Three members of the Board of Advisors are part of the Developers company. It's easy to see that a 3-2 vote can be achieved to benefit the Developer. Much of the reason for the special assessment seems to  be due to the Developer not meeting its obligations and the Developer's management company failing to budget properly in 2009 and previous years. How convenient to simply say “ I can't meet my obligations” and pass the problem to owners who do pay and who expected all was well. 
I think the questions asked in this letter to the Board of Advisors and answers, must be speedily posted on the website for all owners to see and understand. I also expect you, as President of the Board, to promptly respond to me.


----------



## kgusta

*Your letter to Pollard Brook*

I was furious when my husband and I received this special assessment charge.  I hope if all of the owners stick together we can get some results in our favor.  Your letter was great.  I will be checking for updates.  Thank you!


----------



## Finley

*Pollar Brook follow up*

FYI to the PB Owners - I did send off the materials to the AG's office.  I included the only copy of the governing materials provided to me, Public Offering, Bylaws etc.  Of note, the initial paperwork referenced PB as Loon Resorts, I believe.  Then amendments were issued and referred to it as PB.  That would support the previous post that Dennis Ducharme perhaps "saved" this project from bankruptcy.  For all we know however, additional changes to these documents have been made, yet not provided to the owners, which was one of my questions to the AG.  "Does PB have a legal requirement to notify us when changes are made?"  Are these not legal documents?  I appreciate Eric's advice and comments.  I am trying to understand my rights and "do something" and not just complain.  I posted a blog on PB's website asking how we as owner's can get a vote, vote on who "our" reps are etc.  I sincerely want to know as it says in those documents as an owner I get 1/52 voting rights.  My post was never listed, but I received the confirmation from Wordpress it was received and confirmed the message as required.  It is clear PB will not allow anything controversial to be on their website.  Fiscal responsibility is vital and I am not in favor of a "buy-out" for PB's Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran.  I will note any additional information I receive from the AG's office on this site.  However, it may benefit all of us if others also send in a complaint to their office.


----------



## kgusta

Hello,
I am definately not going to pay this until more research is done.  I don't think getting flat screen tv's should be listed under their "extraordinary circumstance".  Their list upgrades are absolutely rediculous.


----------



## Bwolf

Finley:  I asked a question very early on.  My question never appeared.  The answer, such as it is, does appear.

Go to assessments letter, scroll down, click on comments.  This is the answer:

I believe Alicia in accounting has responded to your question. To be an owner representative you just submit your name to the General Manager…and when the next Board comes up, he will make sure you have the appropriate nomination forms.
 	Comment by capecodblogger — July 8, 2009 @ 5:26 pm


-------------------



BTW, I'm sending you a pm with my email address.  If you send me a copy of your letter, I'll send something similar to the MA AG.  HQ of InnSeasons is here, and I reside here, so I think the MA AG should get involved.


Thanks.


----------



## ecwinch

Finley said:


> For all we know however, additional changes to these documents have been made, yet not provided to the owners, which was one of my questions to the AG.  "Does PB have a legal requirement to notify us when changes are made?"  Are these not legal documents?  I appreciate Eric's advice and comments.



I have never seen your governing documents, so I can only provide a general answer. The governing documents for timeshares typically have at least two major parts. First is the Declaration document. It can have different titles - Declaration of Vacation Ownership or Master Deed, or something similar. This is main document - it outlines the rights/obligations you acquired when you purchased your timeshare ownership, and the rights/obligations of the developer (also known as the Declarant). The rules vary greatly based on the state and what is in the document, but generally speaking this document is difficult to modify, and usually require changes be approved by a vote of members other than the declarant. It essentially is your bill of rights.

Then you will have the By-Laws of the Timeshare Owners Association or HOA. They describe the rules and regulations of how the owners association will be governed and operate. This document is generally easier to modify.

You also may have other documents that are important, like the management agreement, between the HOA/TOA and the managing entity. They are the legal contract for the day to day operation of the resort.

You also will have a Public Offering Statement or Report. This is not a governing document, but is a document that most states require to be provided by developer. It is basically a disclosure statement, and only summarizes important information from the Declaration, the By-Laws, and the any applicable state statute. 

Of all of these documents, the Declaration document is the most important. It describes your rights and obligations. It essentially forms the contract that outlines your ownership. The provisions of this document, take precedent over any other document other than state statute. 

If you have any electronic copies of these documents, I would love to take look at them. 

If you do not have electronic copies I would encourage you to try to obtain them. I have found that owner advocacy groups operate best when everyone has the opportunity to refer back to the governing documents in the discussions.

I think the letter that AJS sent is a great first step. I would further encourage you to obtain copies of the minutes from any and all BoD meetings under your right to inspect the records of the corporation. Timeshares are typically organized as non-profit corporations, and you will have separate rights as members under the corporations code of the applicable state. The right of inspection is one of these key rights.

It will benefit the effort if all concerned owners make a complaint to the AG. But the AG complaint will be more meaningful if you can specifically outline the wrong being committed, rather than just a general recap of the situation. The more detail you give them the easier it is for them to understand the problem.


----------



## sarahlovesmickey

I am appaulled about this "Special Assessment Fee" document. I have spoken to 3 seperate people with the InnSeason Resort company; however, I have not had really any of my questions answered. No where in the contract that my husband and I signed does it mention this fee. I was told "it is in the bi-laws". I never received a copy of these "bi-laws" nor did I sign them. I am going to contact the Better Business Bureau, but also may contact the AG's office, as I think this is a violation of my contract. I pay my maintenence fees, which by the way, have gone up tremendously since my husband and I became members many years ago. 

I am not a happy camper.  But, I think that there is power in numbers, so maybe if we all call and express our disagreement, something will give. I hope that people aren't actually paying these. I feel like it's a bailout of some type and I am not about to dish my hard earned money out to buy new curtains and flat screen tvs for the units.  UGH!


----------



## ecwinch

sarahlovesmickey said:


> I am appaulled about this "Special Assessment Fee" document. I have spoken to 3 seperate people with the InnSeason Resort company; however, I have not had really any of my questions answered. No where in the contract that my husband and I signed does it mention this fee. I was told "it is in the bi-laws". I never received a copy of these "bi-laws" nor did I sign them. I am going to contact the Better Business Bureau, but also may contact the AG's office, as I think this is a violation of my contract. I pay my maintenence fees, which by the way, have gone up tremendously since my husband and I became members many years ago.
> 
> I am not a happy camper.  But, I think that there is power in numbers, so maybe if we all call and express our disagreement, something will give. I hope that people aren't actually paying these. I feel like it's a bailout of some type and I am not about to dish my hard earned money out to buy new curtains and flat screen tvs for the units.  UGH!



If you bought resale, you usually would not have received a copy of the by-laws and other governing documents. If you bought from the developer, you definitely should have received a copy of these documents. The disclosure on assessments would also likely be in the Public Offering Statement you should have received. In most states, the rescission clock does not start ticking until you receive the Public Offering Statement.

You do not sign the by-laws or declarations. In most states you sign the Public Offering Statement, and in their will usually be a statement that you received the documents in question. 

The problem with not paying the assessment is the you will lose usage of your timeshare.


----------



## DonM

I bought resale maybe 5 years ago or so. I received a package of documents that are stapled together called *Vacation Ownership Condominimum Documents Pollard Brook.*

The documents are unsigned sample agreements dated 1989. They include *The Public Offereing Statement; Pollard Brook, A Condominimum Declaration Pursuant to RSA 356-B-*(this is subdivided into Title l Disclosure Pursuant to RSA 356-B:16 and Title ll By Laws of the Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association and Title lll Timeshare Management); *Pollard Brook Condominimum Timeshare Rules & Regs; Offer & Contract to Purchase*

If I can help lookup something, I'd be happy to accomodate

don


----------



## Finley

Those are all the documents I also have with a few more.  Copies were sent to the AG's office with my concerns.  The signing and attestation to those documents was done on the NCR paper called Owners Declaration-bright yellow color..."I acknowledge receipt of a copy of P & S Agreement and PO Statement under two separate items.  It doesn't reference Bylaws however.  All of ours were in a spiral bound booklet provided at the time of purchase in 1995.  Look on page 19 of the Pollard Brook, A Condominium Declaration - it speaks to Special Assessments there.  The NH RSA's also speak to it in the same fashion.  It says the charges must be associated specifically to the unit for his period of occupancy and it lists the specific items/areas but of course says "is not limited to".  I am not a lawyer so don't know how to make sense of this type thing that always seems to leave a little wiggle room.  That's where I am hoping the AG's office can help.  Our maintenance fees should cover the the items they are speaking of, I believe the bulk of what we are being asked to cover is more so related to the bad debt they speak of.  Also of note to some pehaps, many of my documents speak to Billy Curran as the developer.


----------



## Bwolf

Finley said:


> Also of note to some pehaps, many of my documents speak to Billy Curran as the developer.



From the InnSeason website:
             InnSeason Resorts         
                      Developers William E. “Billy” Curran and Dennis M. Ducharme joined forces in 1987             to create New England’s first “branded” vacation ownership development company,             InnSeason Resorts“. Ducharme and Curran share over 20 years of development and marketing             experience in New England, with their respective companies and own resorts in Massachusetts,             New Hampshire and Maine. With the creation of the Northeast’s first homegrown brand             of resort hotels, the two entrepreneurs introduced their own styles of expertise             into what is still a burgeoning vacation ownership-resort development landscape.
                      Billy Curran is the Chief Executive of InnSeason Resorts, and President of Curran             Management Services, Inc., the largest vacation marketing company in the Northeast.             A sales and marketing executive for over 25 years, he has developed resorts on Cape             Cod and Maine over the past decade.
                      Dennis Ducharme is President of InnSeason Resorts, and has developed several resorts             on Cape Cod, including the Cove at Yarmouth, New England’s largest purpose-built             vacation ownership resort. In 1994, he began the re-development of Pollard Brook             Resort at Loon Mountain, at that time his seventh hotel project. Plans for the future             include continued development in Lincoln NH as they continue the multi-million dollar             redevelopment of the Old Franconia Mill, and continued expansion of InnSeason Resorts             Pollard Brook. They are looking at other locations in New England for development             opportunities, as they simultaneously pursue relationships outside of the Northeast,             allowing them to offer InnSeason Vacation Club members more options in their vacation             planning.
----------------------------


What is interesting to me about the above statement is that we bought in 1998 and Dennis has been the lead for Pollard Brook.  I don't remember exactly when they rolled out the InnSeason Brand, but it was after 2000 and they made a big deal about it, implying the partnership of Curran and Ducharme was something new.  Obviously, it wasn't if they joined forces in 1987.


What appears to be deceit may be traced back to at least 1987.


----------



## rockhill30

This is the first I have heard of the assessment, too.  I did not receive a letter, and when I log in to my account the balance is $0.00.  I do see this on the innseason website which gives tremendous comfort:

Great News! Installment payment options available for this Special Assessment.


----------



## Finley

Interesting - I guess they are only hitting us as "owners" as opposed to the points folks.  Do you pay a maintenance fee annually as we do?


----------



## rockhill30

I'm not a points owner.  I own an odd year week and an even year week.  Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.


----------



## Bwolf

rockhill30 said:


> I'm not a points owner.  I own an odd year week and an even year week.  Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.



They are always administratively challenged.


----------



## sarahlovesmickey

rockhill30 said:


> I'm not a points owner.  I own an odd year week and an even year week.  Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.



I think they're just intellectually challenged.


----------



## Finley

rockhill30 said:


> I'm not a points owner.  I own an odd year week and an even year week.  Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.


As I continue to try to sort this out, I posed a series of questions to Mr. Bourassa, PB GM and he has responded as following answers.  I will add, each time I have contacted him, he has responded within 24 hours, which is appreciated.  
Q.  Who was hit with these charges?  
A.  "If an owner purchased from us in 2008 or 2009 they did not receive and assessment as they, in most likelihood, have not even stayed here yet or perhaps have only recently visited for the first time.  We did not think it fair to assess brand new owners for that reason.  Your contact may also have had a bad address or just hasn’t received the notice yet as well."

Q.  It doesn't appear South Mountain folks have an assessment placed on them.  Is this being rolled out at different times?  Can you share with me the differences of who/why some are being hit and not others?  
A.  "South Mountain and the other 6 InnSeason Resorts are separate entities unto themselves.  There ownership base is separate from ours and each other unless a few of our owners also purchased at the other resorts."

Q.  Can you also share with me what exactly what Southern Peaks is? 
A.  "Southern Peaks is the development entity who owns the rights to develop this property and who therefore owns the unsold inventory."  

Q.  And also how many timeshare intervals are we talking about at PB?  The site says there are 133 rooms at PB, is that all timeshares so 6916?   When Dennis did the Announcement on your appointment, he indicated there were 10,000 timeshare owners at PB.  Yet the letter indicates 6000 owners. 
A.  "I guess the 10,000 number represents some public relations exuberance as your number of 6900 is much closer to reality." 

Q.  What exactly comprises PB - how many buildings, units, etc.    I noted another article about the design of a new building Sabbaday Brook Lodge.  Did that project start?
A.  "We have 6 buildings total.  The Sabbaday Brook Lodge someday would be the7th but that project was delayed indefinitely far before the recession even hit as we need to sell down the remaining intervals here prior to any major expansion.      

Q.  And how does the RiverWalk project factor in?   
A.  "Riverwalk is a project that our developer is looking at here in Lincoln with private investors and unrelated to this property.  You also should know that when the developer builds a new building here on our premises, he does so exclusively with his own funding and no HOA funds are used."

Comment by me:  I've been doing a ton of research on this entire thing and it really appears Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran bit off more than they can chew with the last two endeavors and PB was/is being used as a "cash cow" for them.  I appreciate you can't comment on this last statement but please do share with me the facts as requested above. 
A.  "All I can say is that expansion plans typically start 2-3 years before construction due to architectural plans, local and state approvals, financing, environmental assessments and the like.  Then the build-out can take a year or more with extensive site work and utilities etc.  The last building built here was our Jackman Building in 2005 when the economic indicators were very strong and existing sales were booming."


----------



## Bwolf

Well, Finley, Bourassa's comments are interesting.

My letter to the NH AG in support of yours but also raising questions regarding the tangled web of interlocking entities is in the mail.

Given that Bourassa is answering your questions, and no questions are being answered at the website except for my initial one, would you ask Bourassa these two questions?

1) Does Southern Peaks also own the rights to develop South Mountain and/or Riverwalk?

To my way of thinking, if Southern Peaks has a hand in all three developments, then South Mountain should also be subject to an assessment.  Since Riverwalk doesn't exist, there is no one to assess.

2) What specific provision of any of the documents related to my ownership at Pollard Brook gives you the right to levy a special assessment?

I'm still unclear as to which provision is in play.


----------



## ecwinch

Sorry to butt in again. If you find my posts distracting, let me know.

I do not understand the logic of who received the special assessment. His reply indicated that certain owners were not subject to it, since they just purchased. How does that matter?

At the end of the day, every owner is a member of a non-profit corporation. You cannot treat members differently. The special assessment should have been levied on all registered owners based on the effective date of the assessment. 

I also would ask for a detailed break-down on special assessment, and if the BoD is going to initiate foreclosure proceedings on those units who are in arrears on m/f . Specifically the developer inventory.


----------



## Finley

ecwinch said:


> Sorry to butt in again. If you find my posts distracting, let me know.
> 
> I do not understand the logic of who received the special assessment. His reply indicated that certain owners were not subject to it, since they just purchased. How does that matter?
> 
> At the end of the day, every owner is a member of a non-profit corporation. You cannot treat members differently. The special assessment should have been levied on all registered owners based on the effective date of the assessment.
> 
> I also would ask for a detailed break-down on special assessment, and if the BoD is going to initiate foreclosure proceedings on those units who are in arrears on m/f . Specifically the developer inventory.


I would agree Eric.  I've never actually even stayed there and have been an owner since '95.  I use it to exchange only so I should be exempt too!    I assure you, I will continue to request information.  They have posted a listing of projects on our Owner's Inn but not costs.  The developer is none other than Southern Peaks and who owns it, Dennis Ducharme - PB's owner.  Hmmmm....


----------



## sarahlovesmickey

I also have never stayed there. We have been owners since 2002 and own 1 week, odd years, but we always exchange.


----------



## dreamWeaver

Finley,
We received the special assessment on Monday.  I feel very fortunate to have found this thread.  I have read through all the documentation provided to us when we bought in 98.  We are concerned about whether we are becoming victims of poor management.
We appreciate the time and effort you have already spent.  
We would like to support you by sending a letter to the AG.  
I have a good idea of what points I need to make, but would appreciate it, if I could see a copy of your letter.


----------



## sarahlovesmickey

dreamWeaver said:


> Finley,
> We received the special assessment on Monday.  I feel very fortunate to have found this thread.  I have read through all the documentation provided to us when we bought in 98.  We are concerned about whether we are becoming victims of poor management.
> We appreciate the time and effort you have already spent.
> We would like to support you by sending a letter to the AG.
> I have a good idea of what points I need to make, but would appreciate it, if I could see a copy of your letter.



I agree with you dreamWeaver.  I want to also send information to the AG's office. I know that I need to make copies of everything we recieved when we bought ours, but I am at a loss as to what information should go into the letter to them.  I did make a report to the BBB, but I don't know if I can take the info. I gave them and put it into letter form for the AG's office.  I want to get this done ASAP.  I need help...


----------



## Bwolf

Eric:  There is no logic to any of this, which is the most upsetting part of it.  Assessing some owners and not others?  Ridiculous.
Several different entities owning or managing Pollard Brook.  Ridiculous.

My letter to the Consumer Fraud Office emphasized the various entities: South Mountain LLC, Mountain Lodge, Loon Mountain, InnSeason Resorts, etc., some of which are not even mentioned in my governing documents.  

If enough people raise the issue of possible consumer fraud, the office must act.

For those who are thinking of sending a letter to the Consumer Fraud Office, get a copy of Finley's letter and attach it to your letter.  Finley sent copies of the governing documents already, so there's no need to send them again.


----------



## Finley

*Letter to NH AG's Office re:  Special Assessment*

To assist with others who may want to also contact the NH AG's Office and as Bwolf suggested the Consumer Fraud Office, here is the letter I sent:

July 8, 2009
Consumer Protection & Antitrust Burean
NH Attorney General's Office
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH  03301

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you to seek your assistance with InnSeasons Resort, Pollard Brook - a condominium development and subsequent time share.  We have been issued a "Special Assessment" and I am questioning their right to require we as owners be responsible for this debt they have incurred as a result of poor development planning and economic conditions that have left these units unsold and others foreclosed.

I recently went on-line and noted a charge posted to my account, an assessment fee of $419.42.  Not understanding what this was I contacted the facility.  I did receive a reply from Joel Bourassa, General Manager.  This communication is attached.  Upon further site searching, I was able to locate the letter Mr. Bourassa referenced but I have yet to receive anything in the mail.  The letter is attached as printed from the website.  I was surprised that a fee could be levied to an account before notification has even been sent as was the case here.  As a result of this unexpected fee, I cannot use my time share until this is paid even though I paid my maintenance fees and placed it on deposit in the Spring to use elsewhere this Fall.

We have never been subject to a "Special Assessment" with this facility however, have experienced sudden excessive increases in the Maintenance Fees when monies were needed for added or unexpected repairs.  I can appreciate these types of unexpected circumstances.  My concerns with the Special Assessment is that the letter and other documentation on their website states this is as a direct result of poor economic conditions due to continued development and their inability to seel the inventory and increased foreclosures of such moreover than expenses directl related to this specific resort.  It appears they have compromised our capital expense fund as a result of this continued development.  And this has been a trend for two years which was never communicated to us as owners.

When we purchased Pollard Brook, there were two buildings.  There are now, I believe, six buildings on that site.  I've continually expressed concern regarding the massive development to no avail.  Their continued expansion to yer another location, South Mountain is what seems to have created the major financial burden.  Based on my Public Offering Statement, Condominium Declaration, Rules & Regulations, Purchase Agreement, Deed, Management Contract and Budget (copies attached) that I was given when we purchased the unit, I do not see where there is a provision for them to be able to assert this financial burden on us as owners of Pollard Brook especially when they indicate the losses are from an entirely new development, South Mountain.  There are seven facilities within InnSeasons, yet we at Pollard Brook are the only ones hit with this burden.

The RSA below seems to support my thinking that any Special Assessment should be solely reated to our facility and its specific common areas:  Quoted - NH RSA 356-B:45 Liabilities for Common Expenses 

Another concern I have is, as an "owner", we have never been consulted on projects of any nature, asked to vote on any matters, been advised on any meetings and virtually been kept in the dark about any of the development, changes in programs or financial matters regarding this facility.  We simply get a balance sheet, of which last year's indicated everythng was going along just fine, with a bill for our Maintenance Fee.  2008's was $499.00 for the upcoming year 2009.  It appears by the manual referenced above, that Ido have a vote and should be able to participate in the process of these decisions.  If they have updated/revised these documents, would they not be required to notify their owners and send updated copies?

Can you advise me on our rights and their to:  Impose such additional charges not directly related to the owned units and the Board's responsibility to communicate with its owners regarding impending financial difficulties, new developmentswhich will impact owners expenses as a result, and just overall changes to what we "purchased"?

Thank you very much for your time and any assistance / direction you can provide


----------



## Finley

*Other Fact re:  PB*

I have done additional research and put together some paperwork regarding the relationship of Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran throughout these years which I believe is concerning.  I think they have established LLC's and various companies to keep the money and relationships moving such that a direct connection cannot be associated to each development.  However, when they are the owners and developers of each, how can we be confident of this?  Quick example from the letter:

Dennis Ducharme – Is listed as “Treasurer” in the cc of the letter.  He is listed on the website as the President Inn Season Resorts, also listed in other published areas as “Directs Southern Peaks Resorts, LLC”, and also listed as “President and Owner of Southern Peaks Resorts, LLC” in other sources.  Essentially, as president and/ or owner of all entities and member / treasurer of the Board, when the letter states “Southern Peaks has told the Board” – who/what is this referencing?  It appears he speaking of and to himself?  He is the developer based on his titles and what Mr. Bourassa stated.  So he is responsible for the debt.  I have numerous other titles and company changes that I have found by comparing all my documents over the years.  It's really a piece of work!


----------



## ecwinch

Bwolf said:


> Eric:  There is no logic to any of this, which is the most upsetting part of it.  Assessing some owners and not others?  Ridiculous.
> Several different entities owning or managing Pollard Brook.  Ridiculous.
> 
> My letter to the Consumer Fraud Office emphasized the various entities: South Mountain LLC, Mountain Lodge, Loon Mountain, InnSeason Resorts, etc., some of which are not even mentioned in my governing documents.
> 
> If enough people raise the issue of possible consumer fraud, the office must act.
> 
> For those who are thinking of sending a letter to the Consumer Fraud Office, get a copy of Finley's letter and attach it to your letter.  Finley sent copies of the governing documents already, so there's no need to send them again.



In regard to how the special assessment is being handled, it is absolutely rediculous, and most likely not in compliance with the by-laws of the association. The provisions for assessments should be specifically outlined in your governing documents.

In regard to the corporate structure, I doubt there is much there to complain about. A multi-entity corporate structure is fairly common-place in situations like this. You generally will always have three entities - the non-profit corporation that represents homeowners association, the managing entity (Manager), and the developer. And the it is not uncommon for real estate developers to have multiple layers and holding companies involved. 

And your situation is probably complicated by the different types of ownership. So their might be a separate entity that represents the fixed week owners, and one for the points owners, and maybe any fully-owned units (if they exist). This is fairly commonplace.

I would suggest that any correspondence with the AG needs to be focused on the key issues:

1) that you are being subjected to a special assessment due to other members and the developer not meeting their contractual obligation to pay their share of the expenses
2) that the special assessment is not being shared by all members
3) that the BoD has unilaterally decided to exclude certain members from the special assessment, in effect creating two classes of membership
4) that the BoD is not taking appropriate action to foreclose on the non-contributing members
5) that the majority of the BoD members are employees of the Developer, and that the inherent conflict of interest involved might have prevented the BoD from adequately protecting the interests of all the members in their decisions

I would continue to question Mr. Bourassa, on the items above to document each item above. Then after I have gathered that information, I would send a letter to the BoD outlining my concerns. If I did not receive an acceptable response, I then would craft a demand letter to the BoD requesting action be taken.

Then I would file a complaint with the AG. A complaint would go further, if you have exhausted all avenues for resolving this issue. This is where understanding the governing documents come into play. Being able to specifically cite where they are not in compliance, forces the BoD to provide a more through response.

JMO - I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.


----------



## Carolinian

Directors also have a fiduciary duty to members, and they have a conflict of interest in their connection to the developer.  A sweetheart deal on developer arrearages could really get stinky in court.  A owner or group of owners could likely file a corporate derivative lawsuit against the directors on behalf of the interests of the corporation and force them to do right.

I wonder if the developer has a mortgage on its interest in the developer weeks.  If so, an HOA could file a foreclosure action for unpaid m/f's which would likely trigger the lender paying them to avoid loosing its collateral and then going after the developer to recoup.  If there is a mortgage, it would increase the HOA's ability to play hardball with the developer, if you can get homeowner control.




ecwinch said:


> I completely understand that these type of actions are very difficult. My advice basically was that the first step is to fully understand your rights and the relative obligations of the Developer. The governing documents outline those rights and obligations.
> 
> Even with a developer controlled board, a diligent group of owners who fully understand their rights, and take the proper steps to assert them, can be helpful.
> 
> If those rights/obligations are not be observed, then following due process to assert those rights can be a relatively low cost way of managing the situtation. Does that mean that the Developer controlled BoD suddenly starts looking out for the owners interests? No.
> 
> But it removes the " we did not know about.... " defense that the BoD. It is far to easy for a BoD to do that.
> 
> I think putting the BoD on notice that there is group of owners that are diligently reviewing their actions and is aware of their rights, can be a positive influence on the process.
> 
> Far to often in these types of cases, people just want to complain about the problems, and do not want to invest the time and energy to understand their rights and to follow the due process that might change the situation. I am not saying that is the case here, just making a general observation.
> 
> It starts with simple things, like understanding your right to obtain and review the minutes of BoD meetings, your rights to attend BoD meetings, and your rights to inspect the records of the timeshare. These are the starting points for putting the association on notice that they cannot make decisions unilaterally. And you might be amazed at what you will find.
> 
> Just some general food for thought. I am interested in owner advocacy issues, and that is the only reason I bring it up.


----------



## Carolinian

If the developer claims it cannot pay the regular maintenance fee, how is it going to pay the special assessment?  Or is it even being charged the special assessment?


----------



## Bwolf

Eric and Carolinian:  Very good points.  I don't think we differ much.  The various entities are too numerous to be the triumvirate you mention, Eric, and none of them represent the interests of the timeshare owners.  They all represent the interests of Ducharme and Curran, in various ways and forms.  Loosely, and perhaps not quite accurately stated, Finley seems to be emphasizing the multiplicity of DEVELOPER entities.  I am not only emphasizing that, but also the possibility of fraud.  Why are there multiple entities owned or controlled by just two people when one or two would do?  Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, and other criminals spring to mind.  

Carolinian seems to have hit it on the head and I wish I'd been able to think it through and state it as clearly in my letter as he did in his post.  The directors are not showing any fiduciary responsibility to the timeshare owners.  Period.  The responsible timeshare owners who have owned for years and pay their MFs and believed it when they were told "everything is rosy" are now being asked to pay a special assessment that some owners and the developer are apparently not paying.

So, what is your definition of fraud?


----------



## ecwinch

Bwolf said:


> Eric and Carolinian:  Very good points.  I don't think we differ much.  The various entities are too numerous to be the triumvirate you mention, Eric, and none of them represent the interests of the timeshare owners.  They all represent the interests of Ducharme and Curran, in various ways and forms.  Loosely, and perhaps not quite accurately stated, Finley seems to be emphasizing the multiplicity of DEVELOPER entities.  I am not only emphasizing that, but also the possibility of fraud.  Why are there multiple entities owned or controlled by just two people when one or two would do?  Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, and other criminals spring to mind.
> 
> Carolinian seems to have hit it on the head and I wish I'd been able to think it through and state it as clearly in my letter as he did in his post.  The directors are not showing any fiduciary responsibility to the timeshare owners.  Period.  The responsible timeshare owners who have owned for years and pay their MFs and believed it when they were told "everything is rosy" are now being asked to pay a special assessment that some owners and the developer are apparently not paying.
> 
> So, what is your definition of fraud?



Actually real estate development projects typically have multiple entities involved for a variety of reasons  i.e. to limit liability, different equity structures, etc.  You may draw a different conclusion.

And it is commonplace for the developer to own the managing entity, and to even have the managing entity be a separate corporation.

I do not think the AG is going to see the corporate structure as evidence of fraud or criminal intent.

You have a similar challenge regarding proving the BoD is violating their fiduciary responsibility. The actions of a non-profit BoD are protected by the "business judgement rule". Basically it says that the presumption exists that the actions of the BoD are motivated by their duty to protect the interests of the organization. It essentially puts the burden of proof on party that seeks to challenge a decision of the BoD.

That being said, the fact that only certain members are subject to special assessment is good indicator of a problem. But you would need more information before pressing that case. Their could be a really good reason why the assessment is not being paid by all members. That fact is the starting point of inquiry that needs to be made and I would have all the information before I went to the AG. 

Keep in mind that the AG gets complaints from consumers all the time, and they have resource constraints like all government agencies. JMO - but I think you will get further by giving them a complete concise complaint that demonstrates your actions to resolve the problem.


----------



## Finley

ecwinch said:


> Actually real estate development projects typically have multiple entities involved for a variety of reasons  i.e. to limit liability, different equity structures, etc.  You may draw a different conclusion.
> 
> And it is commonplace for the developer to own the managing entity, and to even have the managing entity be a separate corporation.
> 
> I do not think the AG is going to see the corporate structure as evidence of fraud or criminal intent.
> 
> You have a similar challenge regarding proving the BoD is violating their fiduciary responsibility. The actions of a non-profit BoD are protected the "business judgement rule". Basically it says that the presumption exists that the actions of the BoD are motivated by their duty to protect the interests of the organization. It essentially puts the burden of proof on party that seeks to challenge a decision of the BoD.
> 
> That being said, the fact that only certain members are subject to special assessment is good indicator of a problem. But you would need more information before pressing that case. Their could be a really good reason why the assessment is not being paid by all members. That fact is the starting point of inquiry that needs to be made and I would have all the information before I went to the AG.
> 
> Keep in mind that the AG gets complaints from consumers all the time, and they have resource constraints like all government agencies. JMO - but I think you will get further by giving them a complete concise complaint that demonstrates your actions to resolve the problem.



Eric - You are correct in point needing to be succinct and valid in letters to the AG's office.  Unfortunatley, I came across much of the additional pieces of information after my the initial letter to the AG's office was sent.  I still think there is value in pointing out the conflicts of interest as these companies were developed well after the resurrection of PB.  The Board structure is protected by what is clearly stated stated in the Declaration.  Although, I cannot believe the State would allow such in a condo document filing as it clearly is not in the interest of the owners.  If there are indeed 6000 owners as stated, we need to figure out how to reach as many as possible and get a clear understanding of who was/is being hit.  But how on earth do we do that?  I've posted here and on the complaints board as well.  Where else are folks discussing timeshares?  Thoughts????


----------



## ecwinch

Finley said:


> Eric - You are correct in point needing to be succinct and valid in letters to the AG's office.  Unfortunatley, I came across much of the additional pieces of information after my the initial letter to the AG's office was sent.  I still think there is value in pointing out the conflicts of interest as these companies were developed well after the resurrection of PB.  The Board structure is protected by what is clearly stated stated in the Declaration.  Although, I cannot believe the State would allow such in a condo document filing as it clearly is not in the interest of the owners.  If there are indeed 6000 owners as stated, we need to figure out how to reach as many as possible and get a clear understanding of who was/is being hit.  But how on earth do we do that?  I've posted here and on the complaints board as well.  Where else are folks discussing timeshares?  Thoughts????



I think the special assessment is enough for the AG to potentially take action on. Dragging everything else in just obscures the main issue.

I think this is the best forum of discussing these type of issues. You benefit from a wider range of experiences when the discussion is on TUG.

Right now, I do not think you need a large number of owners, but it would not hurt to start laying the groundwork focused on building a list of concerned owners. If the resort has a forum, that might be a starting point. Next would be determining if the by-laws allow you to obtain a list of members.

Right now, I think one owner can do a lot in terms of just gathering information. Mr. Bourassa is providing you with information, and I would work that channel. I would ask pointed questions about the special assessment, who is paying it, how was the amount determined, who is not paying it, etc. One key fact would be what part of the assessment is attributable to non-payment by owners vs non-payment by the developer.

Then, when or if that information source stops flowing, I would exercise my right to the inspect the records of the corporation. 

Based on what I determined from those inquiries, I would then probably be sending a letter to the BoD. But that would determine what I learned from my other inquiries.


----------



## AJS

rockhill30 said:


> I'm not a points owner.  I own an odd year week and an even year week.  Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.



When did you purchase your weeks?


----------



## AJS

ecwinch said:


> I think the special assessment is enough for the AG to potentially take action on. Dragging everything else in just obscures the main issue.
> 
> I think this is the best forum of discussing these type of issues. You benefit from a wider range of experiences when the discussion is on TUG.
> 
> Right now, I do not think you need a large number of owners, but it would not hurt to start laying the groundwork focused on building a list of concerned owners. If the resort has a forum, that might be a starting point. Next would be determining if the by-laws allow you to obtain a list of members.
> 
> Right now, I think one owner can do a lot in terms of just gathering information. Mr. Bourassa is providing you with information, and I would work that channel. I would ask pointed questions about the special assessment, who is paying it, how was the amount determined, who is not paying it, etc. One key fact would be what part of the assessment is attributable to non-payment by owners vs non-payment by the developer.
> 
> Then, when or if that information source stops flowing, I would exercise my right to the inspect the records of the corporation.
> 
> Based on what I determined from those inquiries, I would then probably be sending a letter to the BoD. But that would determine what I learned from my other inquiries.



I think the key questions that need answers are:
1) What is the total dollar amount expected to be raised by the special assessment?
2) How many interval owners are delinquent? What is the amount of delinquency for 2009, for 2008 and previous years? When will foreclosure action begin so that this money can be recovered?
3) Are all interval owners, both weeks and points, being assessed the special assessment? Are any interval owners excepted from the assessment and what is that number of owners?
4) How much is the Developer delinquent in 2009 maintenance fees on how many intervals? How much for 2008 and previous years?
5) Is the Developer being assessed the same amounts on each interval owned for this special assessment? How many intervals? When is the Developer paying the special assessment?
6) What section in what document permits the Board of Advisors to implement special assessments? What document permits the Board of Advisors to assess some owners and not others.
7) With the Developer not paying annual maintenance fees, and possibly not paying the special assessment, what actions are being taken by the Board of Advisors to protect owners from default by the Developer on either or both the unpaid maintenance fee amount or the unpaid special assessment.
8) Where and when is the mext Board of Advisors meeting?

Perhaps anyone in contact with PB personnel could ask these question and fill in the answers as we find out. I think answers to these questions might give us the ammunition we need with the AG of NH.

I also think we should get a good representation of owners to attend the next Board of Advisors meeting.


----------



## dreamWeaver

I have been going through the "Public Offering" document and "By Laws of Pollard Brook", which I received in 1998.

Some statements, which appear as if they are not being followed (maybe they have been modified by the board).  I will follow each with it's related question.  Finley are you willing to include these with your own questions.  You seem to have someone who is answering your questions, where I have not begun a conversation with anyone at Pollard Brook yet.  I wanted to get my facts straight first.

1. 
Public Offering - (d) Purchasers of timershare intervals will pay to the association to e collected by the manager an annual maintenance fee as provided by the projected budget.  Except in extraoridinary circumstances, the annual maintenance feel shall be the only charge the purchaser must pay in addition to the purchase price and closing costs associated there with.
Question:
What were the exraordinary circumstances?

2. 
By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part II Board of Directors
(vii) May purchase such equipment and other personal property as is necessary to properly accomplish the purposes of the Association, except that board should have no power to expend in excess of $4,000 in any one (1) year for the acquisition of personal property or for capital improvements w/o majority vote of members present and voting at a duly held meeting of the members association.
Questions:
How much are they spending in one year?  Where are the meeting minutes from the approval of this?
Can we see the operating budget for this year and the last two?
Note: The last operating budget I received was the year I purchased my unit.

3. 
By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part IV Meetings
Section 1
(c) The president, with in (30) days of said meeting shall cause a copy of the minutes there of, including the budget adopted thereof to be mailed to each member.
I received the special assesement in mail, but have never received a copy in the mail of the operating budget.
Questions:
Can we receive (in mail) the future annual meeting minutes and operating budgets for each year going forward?
Note:  The annual meeting according to the 1998 By Laws is held:
"... on the Saturday in November immediately preceding Thanksgiving Day at 1PM in the Conference Center in the Village af Loon Mountain in Lincoln, NH, or at such other time, which shall not be more then twenty (20) days before or after said date, or at such other place as the board shall direct. ..."

4.
By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part VI Accounting -
5. Special Assessments 
(a) Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him, which shall be billed to him as a special assessment.
(b) Expenses billable as special assessments include, but *are not limited to,*, the cost of repairing damamge done to" ... "during a use period other then ordinary wear and tear.

Comment:  The items our $419. bill are supposed to cover do not seem to fit this discription, with the exception of the phrase "are not limited to".
Question:  Based on the definition of Special Assessment within the "By Laws" is it possible that the bill has been miss labeled?

5. 
By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part VI Accounting -
4. Maintenace Fees
(a) Each member including the partner is w/ respect to any unit owned by it, whether or not it is completed and ready for use or occupancy, shall be assessed prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.

If the answer to question 4 is yes, then -
This bill would seem to be have missed the due date for the maintenance fee.
Will this be addressed at the next annual meeting?
Where and exactly when will the next annual meeting be held?
Why are  some units exempt from paying as seems to be the case?
When all units are billed will our share of the burden be lowered?

Regards


----------



## Bwolf

Let's see.  We've questioned the validity of the special assessment.  We've pointed out that it is hard to know which entity runs Pollard Brook and which entity is short on money.  We've suggested the money might be misused by being diverted to an entity controlled by Ducharme and Curran.  We've pointed out that the board that approved this letter is controlled by management, three votes to two.  We've pointed out that we've never had a vote in anything, not even the election of the two "owners representatives" on the board.  We've pointed out that some owners seem to be exempt, which is not proper.

That is the essence of my letter, and I believe of Finley's letter.  It all starts with the assessment, and flows from there.  

I believe Finley is still questioning Bourassa since he will answer.  Answers at the website stopped after my initial question.  BTW, my question never appeared, only the answer, such as it was.

We can send a letter to the Board, but it is a foregone conclusion how it will answer.  3 votes to 2, and the 2 are hand-picked patsies.  Probably a 5-0 vote in favor of the assessment.  

However, the Consumer Fraud Agency may ask if we've sent such a letter, so doing so and having the letter and answer ready to show consumer fraud makes sense.

Getting the word out to other owners involves asking Pollard Brook for the mailing list.  There are other threads and also a discussion in back issues of Timeshare Today about the difficulty of getting one.  Here, it is in the interests of those who levied the special assessment not to give it to those of us who are questioning the assessment.  Nonetheless, perhaps we should ask for the mailing list.


----------



## Carolinian

You need to read the laws of the state where the timeshare is located to learn your rights as an owner.  Every state I am aware of has provisions in its non-profit corporation law, under which HOA's are organized, that establish a right of members to 1) inspect and copy the list of members, and 2) examine and copy many corporate records, including finanical records.

You need to research this for your state, and write a demand letter to the corporate officers demanding to inspect and copy these records.  In your letter describe all categories of records just as they are set out in the statute.  If management starts stonewalling, you will know there is something there they do not want you to see.  With a list of members, you can start making contacts to set up a Concerned Owners group to try to bring about reform.





Finley said:


> Eric - You are correct in point needing to be succinct and valid in letters to the AG's office.  Unfortunatley, I came across much of the additional pieces of information after my the initial letter to the AG's office was sent.  I still think there is value in pointing out the conflicts of interest as these companies were developed well after the resurrection of PB.  The Board structure is protected by what is clearly stated stated in the Declaration.  Although, I cannot believe the State would allow such in a condo document filing as it clearly is not in the interest of the owners.  If there are indeed 6000 owners as stated, we need to figure out how to reach as many as possible and get a clear understanding of who was/is being hit.  But how on earth do we do that?  I've posted here and on the complaints board as well.  Where else are folks discussing timeshares?  Thoughts????


----------



## AJS

dreamWeaver said:


> I have been going through the "Public Offering" document and "By Laws of Pollard Brook", which I received in 1998.
> 
> Some statements, which appear as if they are not being followed (maybe they have been modified by the board).  I will follow each with it's related question.  Finley are you willing to include these with your own questions.  You seem to have someone who is answering your questions, where I have not begun a conversation with anyone at Pollard Brook yet.  I wanted to get my facts straight first.
> 
> 1.
> Public Offering - (d) Purchasers of timershare intervals will pay to the association to e collected by the manager an annual maintenance fee as provided by the projected budget.  Except in extraoridinary circumstances, the annual maintenance feel shall be the only charge the purchaser must pay in addition to the purchase price and closing costs associated there with.
> Question:
> What were the exraordinary circumstances?
> 
> 2.
> By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part II Board of Directors
> (vii) May purchase such equipment and other personal property as is necessary to properly accomplish the purposes of the Association, except that board should have no power to expend in excess of $4,000 in any one (1) year for the acquisition of personal property or for capital improvements w/o majority vote of members present and voting at a duly held meeting of the members association.
> Questions:
> How much are they spending in one year?  Where are the meeting minutes from the approval of this?
> Can we see the operating budget for this year and the last two?
> Note: The last operating budget I received was the year I purchased my unit.
> 
> 3.
> By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part IV Meetings
> Section 1
> (c) The president, with in (30) days of said meeting shall cause a copy of the minutes there of, including the budget adopted thereof to be mailed to each member.
> I received the special assesement in mail, but have never received a copy in the mail of the operating budget.
> Questions:
> Can we receive (in mail) the future annual meeting minutes and operating budgets for each year going forward?
> Note:  The annual meeting according to the 1998 By Laws is held:
> "... on the Saturday in November immediately preceding Thanksgiving Day at 1PM in the Conference Center in the Village af Loon Mountain in Lincoln, NH, or at such other time, which shall not be more then twenty (20) days before or after said date, or at such other place as the board shall direct. ..."
> 
> 4.
> By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part VI Accounting -
> 5. Special Assessments
> (a) Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him, which shall be billed to him as a special assessment.
> (b) Expenses billable as special assessments include, but *are not limited to,*, the cost of repairing damamge done to" ... "during a use period other then ordinary wear and tear.
> 
> Comment:  The items our $419. bill are supposed to cover do not seem to fit this discription, with the exception of the phrase "are not limited to".
> Question:  Based on the definition of Special Assessment within the "By Laws" is it possible that the bill has been miss labeled?
> 
> 5.
> By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part VI Accounting -
> 4. Maintenace Fees
> (a) Each member including the partner is w/ respect to any unit owned by it, whether or not it is completed and ready for use or occupancy, shall be assessed prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
> 
> If the answer to question 4 is yes, then -
> This bill would seem to be have missed the due date for the maintenance fee.
> Will this be addressed at the next annual meeting?
> Where and exactly when will the next annual meeting be held?
> Why are  some units exempt from paying as seems to be the case?
> When all units are billed will our share of the burden be lowered?
> 
> Regards



It seems to me that the Board cannot levy a special assessment for in excess of $4000 with a vote of the members. 
This is not mislabeled. Your maintenance fee was due in January. This is a special assessment.


----------



## Bwolf

Carolinian said:


> You need to read the laws of the state where the timeshare is located to learn your rights as an owner.  Every state I am aware of has provisions in its non-profit corporation law, under which HOA's are organized, that establish a right of members to 1) inspect and copy the list of members, and 2) examine and copy many corporate records, including finanical records.
> 
> You need to research this for your state, and write a demand letter to the corporate officers demanding to inspect and copy these records.  In your letter describe all categories of records just as they are set out in the statute.  If management starts stonewalling, you will know there is something there they do not want you to see.  With a list of members, you can start making contacts to set up a Concerned Owners group to try to bring about reform.



I was hoping that the Consumer Fraud office might be able to point us to the relevant laws as you describe, Carolinian, but I may be reading too much into the role and function of said office.  Maybe I'll undertake this research.


----------



## AJS

AJS said:


> I think the key questions that need answers are:
> 1) What is the total dollar amount expected to be raised by the special assessment?
> 2) How many interval owners are delinquent? What is the amount of delinquency for 2009, for 2008 and previous years? When will foreclosure action begin so that this money can be recovered?
> 3) Are all interval owners, both weeks and points, being assessed the special assessment? Are any interval owners excepted from the assessment and what is that number of owners?
> 4) How much is the Developer delinquent in 2009 maintenance fees on how many intervals? How much for 2008 and previous years?
> 5) Is the Developer being assessed the same amounts on each interval owned for this special assessment? How many intervals? When is the Developer paying the special assessment?
> 6) What section in what document permits the Board of Advisors to implement special assessments? What document permits the Board of Advisors to assess some owners and not others.
> 7) With the Developer not paying annual maintenance fees, and possibly not paying the special assessment, what actions are being taken by the Board of Advisors to protect owners from default by the Developer on either or both the unpaid maintenance fee amount or the unpaid special assessment.
> 8) Where and when is the mext Board of Advisors meeting?
> 
> Perhaps anyone in contact with PB personnel could ask these question and fill in the answers as we find out. I think answers to these questions might give us the ammunition we need with the AG of NH.
> 
> I also think we should get a good representation of owners to attend the next Board of Advisors meeting.



Does anyone have other facts that we need to obtain? How do we get these answers??


----------



## Carolinian

AJS said:


> Does anyone have other facts that we need to obtain? How do we get these answers??



Look at the non-profit corporation laws of NH for the method by which members can examine and copy the financial records, and membership list, of the HOA.  Send a demand letter to the appropriate corporate officer(s) of the HOA by registered mail making a demand to see those records, specifically reciting everything that statute allows you to see and copy.

In most states there is a state agency, in addition to the Consumer Protection Division of the state AG (whose duties are more general), which specifically oversees timeshares, including HOA's and developers.  In North Carolina, it is the Real Estate Commission, as it is in many states, but I do not know about NH.  A call to the Real Estate Commission there could probably answer the question of whether it is them or someone else.  Whoever it is, they need to be brought into the process.  Copy your demand letter for corporate records to them.  Also, direct all your other complaints to them, as well as the AG.

Trying to make homeowners cover for a deadbeat developer is just outrageous, and their use of a conflict of interest controlled HOA board to do it makes it even worse.


----------



## Finley

*Meeting Minutes & Meeting Schedule*

In my e-mail dialogue with Joel Bourassa I requested these and he responded in the affirmative that they were being sent.  I'll keep you posted.  I will also post these pointed questions to him and indicate they are the composition of several member's.  I'm happy to share what I get from him / PB as I get it.

In regards to Eric's statements regarding non-profit HOAs, I am not sure if that would be addressed in the NH State RSA's if referenced but this supported the fee structure I referenced in my letter so there may well be more to support other aspects too:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/356-B/356-B-mrg.htm

TRADE AND COMMERCE
CHAPTER 356-B
CONDOMINIUM ACT


----------



## ecwinch

AJS said:


> It seems to me that the Board cannot levy a special assessment for in excess of $4000 with a vote of the members.
> This is not mislabeled. Your maintenance fee was due in January. This is a special assessment.



I do not think it prohibits a special assessment in excess of $4000 for operational expenses. 

It clearly states that a vote is required for assessments over $4000 pertaining to  "acquisition of personal property or for capital improvements". It is silent on special assessments for other reasons - like a shortfall in revenues.


----------



## Carolinian

Where you need to look for the right to inspect and copy records is not in the Condominium Act, it is in the non-profit corporation act.  This right exists for all members of any type of non-profit corporation, not just timeshares.

Looking up laws applicable to timeshare can be a pain because they are usually in several places.  One is the Uniform Condominium Act, which most if not all states have.  For timeshares organized before that act was adopted, many but not all aspects of the older condominium law, which in North Carolina is the Unit Ownership Act, still apply.  Then there are usually some timeshare related provisions in the real estate sales laws and these often go beyond just real timeshare sales.  And importantly, since HOA's are organized as non-profit corporations, there is the non-profit corporation laws.




Finley said:


> In my e-mail dialogue with Joel Bourassa I requested these and he responded in the affirmative that they were being sent.  I'll keep you posted.  I will also post these pointed questions to him and indicate they are the composition of several member's.  I'm happy to share what I get from him / PB as I get it.
> 
> In regards to Eric's statements regarding non-profit HOAs, I am not sure if that would be addressed in the NH State RSA's if referenced but this supported the fee structure I referenced in my letter so there may well be more to support other aspects too:
> 
> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/356-B/356-B-mrg.htm
> 
> TRADE AND COMMERCE
> CHAPTER 356-B
> CONDOMINIUM ACT


----------



## Carolinian

ecwinch said:


> I do not think it prohibits a special assessment in excess of $4000 for operational expenses.
> 
> It clearly states that a vote is required for assessments over $4000 pertaining to  "acquisition of personal property or for capital improvements". It is silent on special assessments for other reasons - like a shortfall in revenues.



Special assessments should NOT be for operational expenses.  If that is the excuse for a special assessment, it indicates gross mismanagement, and it indicates a crying need for a change in management.  Putting the developers m/f responsibility on the back of the individual owners is just appalling.  THis is one developer who needs to be shown the door and the sooner the better.


----------



## ecwinch

Carolinian said:


> Special assessments should NOT be for operational expenses.  If that is the excuse for a special assessment, it indicates gross mismanagement, and it indicates a crying need for a change in management.  Putting the developers m/f responsibility on the back of the individual owners is just appalling.  THis is one developer who needs to be shown the door and the sooner the better.



Put yourself in the shoes of a BoD member that steps into a situation like this - where there is a real shortfall in revenues vs expenses. How would you solve that problem?

Here is one option:

I would first probably do a detailed analysis of your expenses. That would find some savings that you could implement without decreasing services. But that likely only realize a small reduction in expenses. Then you would need to either do a special assessment, borrow money, or reduce services. Each option has certain challenges. I can see how a special assessment would be a viable option. I would not like doing it, but I can see how I would vote to have one done.

You are making the assumption that they have not already done this or something similar. We do not know that.


----------



## Carolinian

Having served for seven years on an HOA BoD, I can tell you that if the problem is on the income side, as it is in this case, we would look first at how to pry the money out of the deadbeat(s) and if not foreclose on their weeks so we could try to get them into the hands of someone who would pay.  Fortunately, the resort where I served on the board had already kicked out the developer, taken ownership of its remaining developer weeks, and wholesaled them to a reseller which had sold them on to new owners some years before I was first elected to the board, so I have never had to deal with a deadbeat developer.  Of course, before the homeowners dealt with the developer, they first had to take control of the HOA board away from it, followed by taking away resort management.

The first step is get control of the HOA.  The second is to figure out the pressure points on the developer.  It is the developer which should either be cutting its other expenses or borrowing money to pay what it owes, not using its conflict of interest control of the HOA BoD to foist their debts onto other members.  What is needed is a homeowner controlled board that will be tough enough to hammer the deadbeat developer until it either pays up or relinquishes its weeks.

How is it fair that individual owners should have to pay a SA to cover the butt of a deadbeat developer?




ecwinch said:


> Put yourself in the shoes of a BoD member that steps into a situation like this - where there is a real shortfall in revenues vs expenses. How would you solve that problem?
> 
> Here is one option:
> 
> I would first probably do a detailed analysis of your expenses. That would find some savings that you could implement without decreasing services. But that likely only realize a small reduction in expenses. Then you would need to either do a special assessment, borrow money, or reduce services. Each option has certain challenges. I can see how a special assessment would be a viable option. I would not like doing it, but I can see how I would vote to have one done.
> 
> You are making the assumption that they have not already done this or something similar. We do not know that.


----------



## ecwinch

Carolinian said:


> Having served for seven years on an HOA BoD, I can tell you that if the problem is on the income side, as it is in this case, we would look first at how to pry the money out of the deadbeat(s) and if not foreclose on their weeks so we could try to get them into the hands of someone who would pay.  Fortunately, the resort where I served on the board had already kicked out the developer, taken ownership of its remaining developer weeks, and wholesaled them to a reseller which had sold them on to new owners some years before I was first elected to the board, so I have never had to deal with a deadbeat developer.  Of course, before the homeowners dealt with the developer, they first had to take control of the HOA board away from it, followed by taking away resort management.
> 
> The first step is get control of the HOA.  The second is to figure out the pressure points on the developer.  It is the developer which should either be cutting its other expenses or borrowing money to pay what it owes, not using its conflict of interest control of the HOA BoD to foist their debts onto other members.  What is needed is a homeowner controlled board that will be tough enough to hammer the deadbeat developer until it either pays up or relinquishes its weeks.
> 
> How is it fair that individual owners should have to pay a SA to cover the butt of a deadbeat developer?



All very valid points, and a solid long-term strategy. 

But in the real world, resorts have bills to pay. The process you articulate might take more time then they have. 

How would an owner or exchanger respond if they showed up at the resort, and there was minimal staff due to payroll not being met. Or services were slashed to a minimum due to cash-flow problems.

Even a independent BoD will have to find a way to bridge the revenue shortfall. 

I would not make the special assessment the key issue. I would make the assumption that the resort has cash-flow issues, and needs the revenue to make it through the year.

First, I would focus on it not being applied to everyone equally. And then on what actions are being taken to foreclose on those who are not paying m/f. To get there I would fully understand the developers contractual obligation to pay the m/f. 

Some resorts have developer contracts that allows the developer to either pay m/f on held inventory OR make up any shortfall in the operational budget. If this situation is due to the latter, and the assessment is due to the developer's inability to make up that shortfall, then a different strategy would need to be used. A breach of contract suit to terminate the developers rights, rather then foreclosing.


----------



## dreamWeaver

AJS said:


> It seems to me that the Board cannot levy a special assessment for in excess of $4000 with a vote of the members.
> This is not mislabeled. Your maintenance fee was due in January. This is a special assessment.




Our maintenance fee was due in October and has been paid.  This past year the due date for the maintenance fee was moved from January to October.  Maybe they were experiencing a short fall then?
Are you a PB owner and was your m/f due in October?
I was expressing a belief that they called it a special assessment, because that is the type of fee they can charge anytime.  The definition of special assessment in the By Laws of Pollard Brook sounded like the SA was for unexpected (non wear and tear) damages to an owners unit during their use interval.  
I plan to pay the fee.  I don't want to see PB go under, because that will impact my interest as well as the developers.  It will benefit us as owners if the condition of the units is maintained and we can retain membership to an exchange program.
Am I angry about the special assessment?  Yes.
But I don't think we have enough information yet.
I think Eric has made some very good suggestions.


----------



## AJS

ecwinch said:


> All very valid points, and a solid long-term strategy.
> 
> But in the real world, resorts have bills to pay. The process you articulate might take more time then they have.
> 
> How would an owner or exchanger respond if they showed up at the resort, and there was minimal staff due to payroll not being met. Or services were slashed to a minimum due to cash-flow problems.
> 
> Even a independent BoD will have to find a way to bridge the revenue shortfall.
> 
> I would not make the special assessment the key issue. I would make the assumption that the resort has cash-flow issues, and needs the revenue to make it through the year.
> 
> First, I would focus on it not being applied to everyone equally. And then on what actions are being taken to foreclose on those who are not paying m/f. To get there I would fully understand the developers contractual obligation to pay the m/f.
> 
> Some resorts have developer contracts that allows the developer to either pay m/f on held inventory OR make up any shortfall in the operational budget. If this situation is due to the latter, and the assessment is due to the developer's inability to make up that shortfall, then a different strategy would need to be used. A breach of contract suit to terminate the developers rights, rather then foreclosing.



Re foreclosing on the owners that have not paid the maintenance fee, the assessment letter days "the developer at some time in the future would begin foreclosure proceedings, and a portion of the funds recovered would be used to cover unpaid maintenance fees" Why would the developer foreclose? He has no financial interest. Its the unit owners association who has the financial interest and the legal ability to foreclose. It should be foreclosing, selling the units, paying the dekinquent fees with the proceeds, and using any excess to fund the reserve. The developer has NO, repeat NO interest in seeing units on the market when he still has over 1000 to sell. He has no legal right to initiate foreclosure proceedings. The developer, as the management company, might do so at the request of the owners association, but has no right to monies recovered.


----------



## AJS

It's clear that PB has a cash flow problem. It's important to distinguish between cash needed to run the resort and cash needed by the Developer to expand, buy land, etc.

When we paid our 2009 maintenance fee, we recieved a budget for 2009. I don't have one handy. How much was shown on it as income from maintenance fees?? I assume it was around $3M. Can anyone tell me what that amount was?

If PB is short of cash because owners did not pay their maintenance, that amount of cash has to come from some place. It's appropriate to do  a special assessment to cover it. However, when this money is recovered, either paid or units foreclosed and sold, it should reduce our future maintenance fee because it is additional to a budgeted years income.

PB apparently is also short the maintenance fees owed by the Developer. Again, this is needed cashflow to operate, and has to come from someplace. The Developer doesn't have it and can't get his normal financing, so where does it come from? Special assessment. However, this is a debt to be recovered through collection or foreclosure of units, just as the delinquent owner above. The problem with this, however, is that the Developer has a 3-2control of the Board's decisions. So he can vote to essentially make us his "lender" vs. getting the money from the bank (which apparently won't renew his line) at no interest. So, it's really a loan to the Developer that we are paying. It is a debt that, when repaid in the future, is extra cashflow for those years, and should reduces the normal $500+/_ maintenance fee appropriately. I would worry about non payment, brush it under the rug, and we never see a maintenance fee reduction. Write it off as uncollectable.

We need to know the $ amount of these two cash shortages. Let's estimate it at $500,000. Thats less than $100 per owner getting hit with the special assessment. So, where is the rest of the money going?  I'm estimating the special assessment will raise $3M. That leaves $2.5M. It's certainly gross mismanagement and lousy budgeting if $1.2 M is needed for improvements to PB properties, above the money already included for same in 2009, 2008, etc budgets. But it's possible. So, again, special assessment. Not really the Developer's responsibility, but the Board of Advisors and the management company who should have been on top of it,

Still leaves $1.3M unaccounted for. Is the Developer getting any of this for other projects and using us as as a "lender" ( at no interest) because he can't get financing from a bank? This would be fraud and deception. With a 3-2 control of the Board, he would be making a very favorable loan to himself, and not revealing to us the true purpose of the special assessment. We also would have no collateral and possibly no recovery. One would hope that the independant accounting firm would see through this little sceme if it happened.

It's really important the we see a true breakdown of how the $3M will be spent, that it is all spent on PB needs, that it reduces our future maintenance fees appropriately, and that all $3M is recovered either as debts collected or accounted for if extraordinary PB improvements. None of it should be usable by the Developer for other projects for which he needs a source of financing.


----------



## ecwinch

AJS said:


> Re foreclosing on the owners that have not paid the maintenance fee, the assessment letter days "the developer at some time in the future would begin foreclosure proceedings, and a portion of the funds recovered would be used to cover unpaid maintenance fees" Why would the developer foreclose? He has no financial interest. Its the unit owners association who has the financial interest and the legal ability to foreclose. It should be foreclosing, selling the units, paying the dekinquent fees with the proceeds, and using any excess to fund the reserve. The developer has NO, repeat NO interest in seeing units on the market when he still has over 1000 to sell. He has no legal right to initiate foreclosure proceedings. The developer, as the management company, might do so at the request of the owners association, but has no right to monies recovered.



To me this sounds like the developer has financed the purchase of those units, and is attempting to foreclose on the units. So those owners are probably behind on both m/f and loan payments. Typically the developer would be forced to foreclosed, and then bring the units current on their m/f. 

That is completely separate from what I think is the real reason for the assessment - that the developer is not able to pay their m/f. As you mention in your subsequent post, you should not be in effect lending the developer money to meet his contractual obligations.

If they cannot meet their obligations, then the BoD should be looking to terminate the developer contract.


----------



## Finley

*Previous Maintenance Fees*

2009 - $3,887,318 income / expenses
Revenue:
Assessment Income Operating    2,908,823
Assessment Income Reserves       434,024
Rental Income                           145,688
Interest/Reinstate/Bad Debt Recov 50,807
Telephone Income                         2,730
Houskeeping Income                     36,612
Internet Income                             7,905 
Miscellaneous Income                   300,730

Expenses:
Wage & Benefits                       1,688,740
Operating Expense                       839,239
Admin & General                          631,313
Reserves                                    390,621
Bad Debt                                    334,285
Depreciation                                  3,120

Amount set aside in the "reserves" $390,621 amount set aside for Bad Debt Expense $334,285 (is this to write off the amount or fees associated to collect).  

Clearly a concern is that the types of improvement that they state need done, are not unexpected or sudden things.  So I think the beig question is why were they not "saving" for this from the reserves.  Of my $499.00 maintenance fee, $411 is for "operating expenses of which the vast majority of that is the salaries/benefits.  Only $70 bucks goes into the reserves with $18.00 for property taxes.  (Of note, the manager is paid per his contract a percentage of the total of the maintenance fees.)

2008's fees are similar with $3,868,910 and I can go back as far as 1994 as I have all my records.  Nothing jumps out and they are standard balance sheets (of course).  They have changed their billing timeframes, twice that I noted.  Neither of which is the billing period stated our owners documents.  

None of the cover letters or statements ever indicate there is a problem.  That in and of itself, is a problem.  If this was a bad debt issue, it has been coming on for a while as the economy hit the skids.  Still the big issue, why were we not kept apprised and then suddenly hit with the fee and no real explanations.

So is there lack of planning and forsight in many areas yes, but again you can't fire the developer who is also the owner and there in lies a huge problem for all of us.  If folks want to save $40 any pay the thing now, or set up the payment plans etc. so be it.  And well understood, but this is not something that should go away regardless.  I don't believe for one minute PB will go under.  Dennis & Billy have far too much invested in Lincoln, NH for that to happen.  But I am now concerned that this will happen again.

We do need to demand more specific information about the function of the various Boards (HoA & BoD) and its members as well as the finances of the overall resort and how it gets tied to the others.  I think the reality of getting this as honest information is questionable at best however.


----------



## AJS

Finley said:


> 2009 - $3,887,318 income / expenses
> Revenue:
> Assessment Income Operating    2,908,823
> Assessment Income Reserves       434,024
> Rental Income                           145,688
> Interest/Reinstate/Bad Debt Recov 50,807
> Telephone Income                         2,730
> Houskeeping Income                     36,612
> Internet Income                             7,905
> Miscellaneous Income                   300,730
> 
> Expenses:
> Wage & Benefits                       1,688,740
> Operating Expense                       839,239
> Admin & General                          631,313
> Reserves                                    390,621
> Bad Debt                                    334,285
> Depreciation                                  3,120A
> 
> Amount set aside in the "reserves" $390,621 amount set aside for Bad Debt Expense $334,285 (is this to write off the amount or fees associated to collect).
> 
> Clearly a concern is that the types of improvement that they state need done, are not unexpected or sudden things.  So I think the beig question is why were they not "saving" for this from the reserves.  Of my $499.00 maintenance fee, $411 is for "operating expenses of which the vast majority of that is the salaries/benefits.  Only $70 bucks goes into the reserves with $18.00 for property taxes.  (Of note, the manager is paid per his contract a percentage of the total of the maintenance fees.)
> 
> 2008's fees are similar with $3,868,910 and I can go back as far as 1994 as I have all my records.  Nothing jumps out and they are standard balance sheets (of course).  They have changed their billing timeframes, twice that I noted.  Neither of which is the billing period stated our owners documents.
> 
> None of the cover letters or statements ever indicate there is a problem.  That in and of itself, is a problem.  If this was a bad debt issue, it has been coming on for a while as the economy hit the skids.  Still the big issue, why were we not kept apprised and then suddenly hit with the fee and no real explanations.
> 
> So is there lack of planning and forsight in many areas yes, but again you can't fire the developer who is also the owner and there in lies a huge problem for all of us.  If folks want to save $40 any pay the thing now, or set up the payment plans etc. so be it.  And well understood, but this is not something that should go away regardless.  I don't believe for one minute PB will go under.  Dennis & Billy have far too much invested in Lincoln, NH for that to happen.  But I am now concerned that this will happen again.
> 
> We do need to demand more specific information about the function of the various Boards (HoA & BoD) and its members as well as the finances of the overall resort and how it gets tied to the others.  I think the reality of getting this as honest information is questionable at best however.



Thanks for the 2009 budget info.

I assume the $334K is 2009 maintenance fees that are assessed but not collected. Interesting that bad debt recovery is only $50K. That would mean that over 500 interval owners are delinquent in paying. That, however, could include the Developer.

What were the bad debt expense and income numbers for 2008, 2007, 2006? Have they gone up dramatically?

At this point, all of PB is developed I think. It's in maintenance mode. The Developer has 1200 intervals to sell. He is like any other owner. He pays a maintenance fee on his units, collects the profit from units that are sold, maybe finances some sales to new owners. 

The maintenance fee income is spent per the budget, which is approved by the Unit Owners Association Board of Advisors and spent by the management company that the Board of Advisors contracts (which is the Developer's company). But the Developer really has no financial interest that is different than what we as owners have. I think the Board of Advisors could fire the current mamagement company and run the resort with a different company. Won't happen though because of the Board makeup.

What's really mysterious is the sudden need to do $1.2M in improvements. You are correct in that these should be year to year improvements approved by the Board of Advisors and budgeted year to year. What has happened to be so urgent six months after the last budget approval that now $1.2 M is needed ( above the budget)?

As I said in my earlier post, we need the Board of Advisors to, in detail, give the owners information about owner delinquencies, developer delinquencies, 2009 budget shortfall because of delinquencies, details of the "sudden" improvements needed above the budget, and a complete breakout of how much money the special assessment raises and where it will be used. I find it very "fishy" that the Developer controls the Board and can vote to speciall assess the owners, making us his "lender" to raise enough money to pay his maintenance dues.


----------



## Bwolf

This discussion seems to have veered from the intended purpose of banding together to get to the truth of the situation, so I'm not going to respond to several of the posts above that may be misdirected.  Waste of time and effort.

I have sent Timesharing Today an email asking if the publisher is aware of this problem, if we might get it in the magazine, and what the cost would be for TST to send one of its "bulletin" emails to its membership so we might reach more Pollard Brook owners.

Finley:  I think you and I should continue our email communications and expand the list to include those PB owners who ask to join it.  

My plan is to pay the assessment while I get the 10% reduction while continuing to pursue the truth -- The truth is out there -- for all you X-files fans.  It may take years to get this sorted out.


----------



## Bwolf

AJS:  Pollard Brook is not yet complete.  I believe Sabbaday Lodge is still to be built.  Approved, but put on hold.


----------



## ecwinch

Finley said:


> 2009 - $3,887,318 income / expenses
> Revenue:
> Assessment Income Operating    2,908,823
> Assessment Income Reserves       434,024
> Rental Income                           145,688
> Interest/Reinstate/Bad Debt Recov 50,807
> Telephone Income                         2,730
> Houskeeping Income                     36,612
> Internet Income                             7,905
> Miscellaneous Income                   300,730
> 
> Expenses:
> Wage & Benefits                       1,688,740
> Operating Expense                       839,239
> Admin & General                          631,313
> Reserves                                    390,621
> Bad Debt                                    334,285
> Depreciation                                  3,120
> 
> Amount set aside in the "reserves" $390,621 amount set aside for Bad Debt Expense $334,285 (is this to write off the amount or fees associated to collect).
> 
> Clearly a concern is that the types of improvement that they state need done, are not unexpected or sudden things.  So I think the beig question is why were they not "saving" for this from the reserves.  Of my $499.00 maintenance fee, $411 is for "operating expenses of which the vast majority of that is the salaries/benefits.  Only $70 bucks goes into the reserves with $18.00 for property taxes.  (Of note, the manager is paid per his contract a percentage of the total of the maintenance fees.)
> 
> 2008's fees are similar with $3,868,910 and I can go back as far as 1994 as I have all my records.  Nothing jumps out and they are standard balance sheets (of course).  They have changed their billing timeframes, twice that I noted.  Neither of which is the billing period stated our owners documents.
> 
> None of the cover letters or statements ever indicate there is a problem.  That in and of itself, is a problem.  If this was a bad debt issue, it has been coming on for a while as the economy hit the skids.  Still the big issue, why were we not kept apprised and then suddenly hit with the fee and no real explanations.
> 
> So is there lack of planning and forsight in many areas yes, but again you can't fire the developer who is also the owner and there in lies a huge problem for all of us.  If folks want to save $40 any pay the thing now, or set up the payment plans etc. so be it.  And well understood, but this is not something that should go away regardless.  I don't believe for one minute PB will go under.  Dennis & Billy have far too much invested in Lincoln, NH for that to happen.  But I am now concerned that this will happen again.
> 
> We do need to demand more specific information about the function of the various Boards (HoA & BoD) and its members as well as the finances of the overall resort and how it gets tied to the others.  I think the reality of getting this as honest information is questionable at best however.



You might dig into the misc income a little bit further. That number looks large in relation to the overall income. Depreciation also looks small for a real estate project. 

Based on the review of the governing documents, have you identified the provisions that apply to the developers obligation to pay m/f on their inventory?


----------



## ecwinch

Finley said:


> In my e-mail dialogue with Joel Bourassa I requested these and he responded in the affirmative that they were being sent.  I'll keep you posted.  I will also post these pointed questions to him and indicate they are the composition of several member's.  I'm happy to share what I get from him / PB as I get it.
> 
> In regards to Eric's statements regarding non-profit HOAs, I am not sure if that would be addressed in the NH State RSA's if referenced but this supported the fee structure I referenced in my letter so there may well be more to support other aspects too:
> 
> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/356-B/356-B-mrg.htm
> 
> TRADE AND COMMERCE
> CHAPTER 356-B
> CONDOMINIUM ACT



Unfortunately, unlike most states, NH does not have specific statutes that apply to time-share projects. So the Condominium Act is the area of NH that will apply to the situation here. Here at the links to the portion of the statute on Google that is book marked and searchable:

http://law.justia.com/newhampshire/codes/nhtoc-xxxi/nhtoc-xxxi-356-b.html

And here are the provisions that apply to the disclosures when selling land in NH:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/356-A/356-A-mrg.htm


----------



## MAM1

This assessment was a shock!  If you find out anything, would appreciate learning what out options are.  Has the AG suggested anything to date?


----------



## Bwolf

Not yet, MAM1.


----------



## Carolinian

There should also be substantial late fees from the developer.  Do not forget those.  Also what is the policy for other owners on interest on unpaid m/f?  That interest rate should also be applied to the developer, and may be higher than what a bank would charge him.  If the directors do not handle all of this in a commercially reasonable manner as they would with any other owner, they may have some personal liability.

To get the full financial story, someone is going to need to send a demand letter to inspect and copy the records and then make a trip to the resort to do so.





AJS said:


> It's clear that PB has a cash flow problem. It's important to distinguish between cash needed to run the resort and cash needed by the Developer to expand, buy land, etc.
> 
> When we paid our 2009 maintenance fee, we recieved a budget for 2009. I don't have one handy. How much was shown on it as income from maintenance fees?? I assume it was around $3M. Can anyone tell me what that amount was?
> 
> If PB is short of cash because owners did not pay their maintenance, that amount of cash has to come from some place. It's appropriate to do  a special assessment to cover it. However, when this money is recovered, either paid or units foreclosed and sold, it should reduce our future maintenance fee because it is additional to a budgeted years income.
> 
> PB apparently is also short the maintenance fees owed by the Developer. Again, this is needed cashflow to operate, and has to come from someplace. The Developer doesn't have it and can't get his normal financing, so where does it come from? Special assessment. However, this is a debt to be recovered through collection or foreclosure of units, just as the delinquent owner above. The problem with this, however, is that the Developer has a 3-2control of the Board's decisions. So he can vote to essentially make us his "lender" vs. getting the money from the bank (which apparently won't renew his line) at no interest. So, it's really a loan to the Developer that we are paying. It is a debt that, when repaid in the future, is extra cashflow for those years, and should reduces the normal $500+/_ maintenance fee appropriately. I would worry about non payment, brush it under the rug, and we never see a maintenance fee reduction. Write it off as uncollectable.
> 
> We need to know the $ amount of these two cash shortages. Let's estimate it at $500,000. Thats less than $100 per owner getting hit with the special assessment. So, where is the rest of the money going?  I'm estimating the special assessment will raise $3M. That leaves $2.5M. It's certainly gross mismanagement and lousy budgeting if $1.2 M is needed for improvements to PB properties, above the money already included for same in 2009, 2008, etc budgets. But it's possible. So, again, special assessment. Not really the Developer's responsibility, but the Board of Advisors and the management company who should have been on top of it,
> 
> Still leaves $1.3M unaccounted for. Is the Developer getting any of this for other projects and using us as as a "lender" ( at no interest) because he can't get financing from a bank? This would be fraud and deception. With a 3-2 control of the Board, he would be making a very favorable loan to himself, and not revealing to us the true purpose of the special assessment. We also would have no collateral and possibly no recovery. One would hope that the independant accounting firm would see through this little sceme if it happened.
> 
> It's really important the we see a true breakdown of how the $3M will be spent, that it is all spent on PB needs, that it reduces our future maintenance fees appropriately, and that all $3M is recovered either as debts collected or accounted for if extraordinary PB improvements. None of it should be usable by the Developer for other projects for which he needs a source of financing.


----------



## Carolinian

You also need to look up the non-profit corporation laws which govern many of the operations of the HOA.  That is where you find the mechanism to get the financial records and membership list.




ecwinch said:


> Unfortunately, unlike most states, NH does not have specific statutes that apply to time-share projects. So the Condominium Act is the area of NH that will apply to the situation here. Here at the links to the portion of the statute on Google that is book marked and searchable:
> 
> http://law.justia.com/newhampshire/codes/nhtoc-xxxi/nhtoc-xxxi-356-b.html
> 
> And here are the provisions that apply to the disclosures when selling land in NH:
> 
> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/356-A/356-A-mrg.htm


----------



## Finley

Carolinian said:


> You also need to look up the non-profit corporation laws which govern many of the operations of the HOA.  That is where you find the mechanism to get the financial records and membership list.


There are none that apply.  As Eric mentioned, we have a bit of a different structure here in NH.  Only the Condo Act and the Unit Ownership of Real Property (from 1965) have regs that apply to "timeshares" and / or HOA's.  They both support the same line of law that "profits and expenses are shared among the owners"...That is not an avenue to explore.  But there are certainly many others that I have already addressed.  I posed all the questions from the various remarks here to the GM however, have not received a response yet.


----------



## Carolinian

Finley said:


> There are none that apply.  As Eric mentioned, we have a bit of a different structure here in NH.  Only the Condo Act and the Unit Ownership of Real Property (from 1965) have regs that apply to "timeshares" and / or HOA's.  They both support the same line of law that "profits and expenses are shared among the owners"...That is not an avenue to explore.  But there are certainly many others that I have already addressed.  I posed all the questions from the various remarks here to the GM however, have not received a response yet.



I have never seen an HOA that is not organized as a non-profit corporation.

I have never seen a state that does not have non-profit corporation laws.

The non-profit corporation laws will never likely mention the word ''timeshare'' but it does not have to.  The HOA is a non-profit corporation, so it is subject to the non-profit corporation laws.


----------



## ecwinch

Finley said:


> There are none that apply.  As Eric mentioned, we have a bit of a different structure here in NH.  Only the Condo Act and the Unit Ownership of Real Property (from 1965) have regs that apply to "timeshares" and / or HOA's.  They both support the same line of law that "profits and expenses are shared among the owners"...That is not an avenue to explore.  But there are certainly many others that I have already addressed.  I posed all the questions from the various remarks here to the GM however, have not received a response yet.



Finley,

In your governing documents, you should have a copy of Articles of Incorporation for the Non-profit corporation. 

There almost always has to be one for a common interest development. Some legal entity needs to hold represent the legal rights and common ownership of the timeshare. This non-profit corporation typically then serves as legal structure for the home-owners association. In order to do things like open bank accounts, sign contracts for management of the resort, hire employees, etc, there has to be a legal entity formed. 

So your legal rights/obligations are formed by in main areas;

#1 - The Governing documents (Declaration, and By-Laws)
#2 - NH state statute pertaining to Condo's
#3 - NH state statute pertaining to Non-profit Corporations. These rights extend to you also.

When you join a home-owners association, you are essentially becoming a member in an underlying non-profit corporation. Beyond the rights from #1 and #2 above, you have separate rights as a member of that non-profit corporation.

In NH it appears those organizations are formed under this provision of state statute and are called voluntary corporations.

http://law.justia.com/newhampshire/codes/nhtoc-xxvii/nhtoc-xxvii-292.html

Anywhere in your paperwork, so see references to the Articles of Incorporation or Chapter 292.  Typically is in the beginning of the Declaration document.


----------



## Finley

*NH AG's Office Response*

Per their paralegal, Pamela Meyer, "The Bureau is unable to pursue your individual complaint.  However, you may wish to explore all available private remedies with your own attorney.  The information provided will be kept in our files to help the Bureau monitor trends in business practices and determine priorities in our enforcement efforts and legislative recommendations."

This says to me, one voice out of 6000 owners isn't enough.  If others are concerned about this assessment and the potential for more, the lack of communication as required by the RSA's regarding Association agendas and meeting notices being sent etc. I would encourage you to send your concerns directly to Pamela to include in the overall file.  The file no. is 200978395.


----------



## Bwolf

*Referred to the Board and Legal Counsel*

Joel Bourassa sent comments I sent to him via email to the Association's Board and Legal Counsel for their input.

More later.


----------



## Carolinian

If that legal counsel is also legal counsel for the developer, you should point out that conflict of interest to the attoney with a copy to the State Bar.




Bwolf said:


> Joel Bourassa sent comments I sent to him via email to the Association's Board and Legal Counsel for their input.
> 
> More later.


----------



## Bwolf

Carolinian said:


> If that legal counsel is also legal counsel for the developer, you should point out that conflict of interest to the attoney with a copy to the State Bar.




Thanks Carolinian, I'll check into that.  First though, I need to find out who is legal counsel for the board and for the developer.  Funny how names don't get mentioned.


----------



## NH Girl

*My Pollard Brook week is next week*

Hi all
I've been following the threads for the past week and have dug out all my original documentation from when I bought in 1998.  I have talked with other persons with a week at Pollard Brook (they are points owners) and they did not receive the assessment (which sounds illegal but perhaps since we are the "owners" and they don't own anything (other than points), this is the developers way of getting out of any committment for the future and, if there's a declining number of actual owners the costs for fees will climb every year.  Our unit has had minimal work done on it in the 10 years we've occupied it (and we go every year).  I see nothing extraordinary to allow them to charge a special assessment (bad management decisions is not extraordinary circumstances in my opinion).  I would like to join any forum, class action suit, signature sheet, letter writing campaign etc.  

I am also up there next week.  I was thinking of sitting in the lobby on Sunday and targeting the 50 or so names that are up on the board each year and handing out something to them in the "common area".  

Anything in particular I should hit upon?  Or pass out?


----------



## Bwolf

NH Girl:  I can't think of anything to recommend right now.  I agree that points owners should be charged the assessment.  They are owners; they simply own in a different manner.  I wonder if they even pay maintenance fees?  Perhaps you should ask your friends?

Your post does suggest one thing though.  For every points owner, there should be a week and a room assigned, in the sense that if they oversell points they won't have enough rooms available.  That isn't likely to happen anytime soon, because they continue to construct more buildings.  At the moment, the new building is on hold, but the developer has admitted a surplus of rooms anyway.

When they went to the vacation club points concept, they apparently didn't think it through.

This keeps looking like a long, slow, slog, that won't get any help from the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau.  It appears to be a Fraud Protection and Anticonsumer Bureau more interested in protecting entities that encourage the Tourist Industry in New Hampshire.

I'm going to stop now and let others who are part of a developing action say what they are willing to say.


----------



## ecwinch

NH Girl said:


> Hi all
> I've been following the threads for the past week and have dug out all my original documentation from when I bought in 1998.  I have talked with other persons with a week at Pollard Brook (they are points owners) and they did not receive the assessment (which sounds illegal but perhaps since we are the "owners" and they don't own anything (other than points), this is the developers way of getting out of any committment for the future and, if there's a declining number of actual owners the costs for fees will climb every year.  Our unit has had minimal work done on it in the 10 years we've occupied it (and we go every year).  I see nothing extraordinary to allow them to charge a special assessment (bad management decisions is not extraordinary circumstances in my opinion).  I would like to join any forum, class action suit, signature sheet, letter writing campaign etc.
> 
> I am also up there next week.  I was thinking of sitting in the lobby on Sunday and targeting the 50 or so names that are up on the board each year and handing out something to them in the "common area".
> 
> Anything in particular I should hit upon?  Or pass out?



Just a general observation. 

Points owners typically do pay dues, but on an individual basis frequently do not pay assessments. The reason has to do with the way points programs work. A points program is typically made up of a bunch of weeks at different resorts. Members either buy points directly or exchange their deeded week into the points program. In the latter case, then the points program becomes responsible for m/f and assessments on that week. Since pts programs typically are made up of different weeks from different resorts with different m/f, they combine all those costs together plus the administrative fees for pts programs. Those combined costs are then shared by all the points owners as monthly dues.

This has the affect of shielding them from special assessments, as the assessment are blended into all the other reoccurring costs. Since it is unlikely that all the resorts in the pts programs will have assessments at the same time, there is a sort of cost-averaging effect on special assessments.

Now this does not mean that assessments are not levied and collected on the underlying weeks that are in the points program. They just are not levied on the individual owners. So the points owner would not normally get the special assessment bill. It would go to the points program, and the increase would increase their dues for the next billing cycle. And since it shared over many more owners, the increase might be relatively small.

This averaging of m/f and assessments is one advantage of points programs over weeks. That the pooling of weeks from different resorts, averages out the associated costs and shields the owner from a huge increase in costs.

So going to to BWolf 'spoint, the total number of points in the system should be equal to the number of weeks held by the points program times the number of points assigned to each week held. So to some degree there is a unit and week assigned to each owner.


----------



## Bwolf

Eric:  So now we need to know if the points program at PB is averaged over all InnSeason Resorts or simply at PB.  You may be dead-on, because there is an InnSeason Vacation Club.  To my way of thinking, that entire club should be charged a fair amount of the assessment and let it be spread amongst all points owners at all resorts.  After all, they have the potential of enjoying the facilities, so let them help pay for the assessment.
To me, this points program is yet another example of faulty thinking, self-delusion, and mis-management on the part of the developer.


----------



## ecwinch

NH Girl said:


> Hi all
> I've been following the threads for the past week and have dug out all my original documentation from when I bought in 1998.  I have talked with other persons with a week at Pollard Brook (they are points owners) and they did not receive the assessment (which sounds illegal but perhaps since we are the "owners" and they don't own anything (other than points), this is the developers way of getting out of any committment for the future and, if there's a declining number of actual owners the costs for fees will climb every year.  Our unit has had minimal work done on it in the 10 years we've occupied it (and we go every year).  I see nothing extraordinary to allow them to charge a special assessment (bad management decisions is not extraordinary circumstances in my opinion).  I would like to join any forum, class action suit, signature sheet, letter writing campaign etc.
> 
> I am also up there next week.  I was thinking of sitting in the lobby on Sunday and targeting the 50 or so names that are up on the board each year and handing out something to them in the "common area".
> 
> Anything in particular I should hit upon?  Or pass out?



In actions like this it is always helpful to build a list of concerned owners. A list with e-mail addresses would be optimal. In fact e-mail is probably more important than the physical address. That is always a great starting point.

I would put together some form of signature sheet with name, e-mail, phone. Some heading of "Concerned Owners at Pollard Brook", and some legalese that the information provided will only be used to communicate information of owner interest regarding the Pollard Brook Resort Unit Owners Association.

I say a list, because people like to see that others are getting involved also.


----------



## ecwinch

Bwolf said:


> Eric:  So now we need to know if the points program at PB is averaged over all InnSeason Resorts or simply at PB.  You may be dead-on, because there is an InnSeason Vacation Club.  To my way of thinking, that entire club should be charged a fair amount of the assessment and let it be spread amongst all points owners at all resorts.  After all, they have the potential of enjoying the facilities, so let them help pay for the assessment.
> To me, this points program is yet another example of faulty thinking, self-delusion, and mis-management on the part of the developer.



I kinda thought through that - not knowing if it was single resort pts program or not. From the website I had the impression that it was a multi-resort program.

Regardless, the core point remains the same. Even if it was a single resort, points owners would not get a special assessment bill. It would go to the points program, and get blended into the next billing. If so, they should see a sizable spike in their next bill, but the pts program could average that out over a number of months or defer collecting it until year end (less likely).

But since they have already unilaterally decided certain owners are exempt from the assessment, it is entirely possible that they did the same for the points owners. My original point was that the pts owners not receiving a special assessment bill is not an indication that they are exempt. Since the pts program received the bill on their behalf. Or should have. It should be on the list of things needing to be investigated.


----------



## NH Girl

*points owners*

A friend of mine has the points, Pollard Brook is "home", and it equals a week every odd year.  Pays maintenance fees as well (and has paid them).  Has NOT received any letter.  I suspect by listening to all of these posts that the people who received them are in the original sections (Mt. Washington and Mt Liberty) (I am in Mt Liberty) and that these are not extraordinary events or special assessments, it's more likely called not putting enough of the yearly maintenance fees in a capital reserve to cover the costs needed to do regular maintenance on the property and they are only assessing it on the owners of that older section.  For those who own, what section are you in?  

I have also written my congressman.

NH Girl


----------



## Finley

NH Girl said:


> A friend of mine has the points, Pollard Brook is "home", and it equals a week every odd year.  Pays maintenance fees as well (and has paid them).  Has NOT received any letter.  I suspect by listening to all of these posts that the people who received them are in the original sections (Mt. Washington and Mt Liberty) (I am in Mt Liberty) and that these are not extraordinary events or special assessments, it's more likely called not putting enough of the yearly maintenance fees in a capital reserve to cover the costs needed to do regular maintenance on the property and they are only assessing it on the owners of that older section.  For those who own, what section are you in?
> 
> I have also written my congressman.
> 
> NH Girl


NH Girl - Indeed only those of us who are owners were assessed and if you bought before 2008, per Joel the GM.  The concern, it specifically states in our Bylaws that they must spread the expenses for common area work amongst all owners if they owned at the time of the expense incurred.  Well, this is the interesting part....there have been no expenses incurred yet.  This is all hypothetical in costs of what they want to do to update/upgrade specific areas.  It IS mismanagement of our maintenance fees because they have not done due diligence in putting aside the monies for the types of things that all buildings need upkeep regarding, roofs, electrical systems, pool repairs etc.  I did send a letter to the HOA regarding of all these concerns I just stated and a few others....I have sent copies of my unanswered e-mails to the Joel and this letter to the AG's office.  I strongly invite and encourage for others to send them their concerns as well.  It states in the opening page of our Condo paperwork that they are the folks to write to so, please write them and use my file #200978395.  (But great for engaging your congressman)  If we can put enough pressure on them to make PB do the right thing on this, that is all I will request.  Everyone should share in these costs.  I've no doubt this stuff needs done, my issue is for us to be hit blindly by it due to their lack of financial management.  No additional building should be started until all of these are sold, depsite having the approvals to do so.  And they need to advise us of their meetings and send minutes as is also required in our Bylaws and the state RSA.  Additionally, we need more transparency in who our HOA is, what are our voting rights as owners etc.  We, as owners, need to do a better job of keeping them "honest".  I certainly have not, until now!  I will keep folks posted as I continue my dialogue with the HOA, the GM and the AG.  In terms of what could you do, ask them for a mailing list of other owners...tell them you want to plan a party and invite them all!


----------



## NH Girl

*Signature Form*

_Concerned Owners at Pollard Brook_

_The information provided will only be used to communicate information of owner interest regarding the Pollard Brook Resort Unit Owners Association_.

Did you receive a special	
assessment letter July 1st?

Y/N 	                                       Name		                            Email						Phone

______	______________________    __________________________________________   _____________________

So Eric, would something like this work, with several signature lines?  If so, what weeks do any of the others have so we can gather information?  There is strength in numbers!


----------



## ecwinch

NH Girl said:


> _Concerned Owners at Pollard Brook_
> 
> _The information provided will only be used to communicate information of owner interest regarding the Pollard Brook Resort Unit Owners Association_.
> 
> Did you receive a special
> assessment letter July 1st?
> 
> Y/N 	                                       Name		                            Email						Phone
> 
> ______	______________________    __________________________________________   _____________________
> 
> So Eric, would something like this work, with several signature lines?  If so, what weeks do any of the others have so we can gather information?  There is strength in numbers!



I think that is a great start. 

Finley is on the right course. In the short term there likely is little that might done to have an immediate impact. But having a group of owners providing oversight on their decisions is key starting point as just knowing that they are being watched can yield results.


----------



## dreamWeaver

NH Girl said:


> _Concerned Owners at Pollard Brook_
> 
> _The information provided will only be used to communicate information of owner interest regarding the Pollard Brook Resort Unit Owners Association_.
> 
> Did you receive a special
> assessment letter July 1st?
> 
> Y/N 	                                       Name		                            Email						Phone
> 
> ______	______________________    __________________________________________   _____________________
> 
> So Eric, would something like this work, with several signature lines?  If so, what weeks do any of the others have so we can gather information?  There is strength in numbers!



I have the week of August 24.  I will be there and would be glad to try and gather additional names during my week.  
Woodland units are also being asked to pay this special assessment.

I plan to send my letter to the AG this week.


----------



## Bwolf

Woodlands owners also received the assessment, NH Girl.  It looks like the assessment was pro-rated to the age of the building.  Also, buyers since 2008 are probably points purchasers, which may help to explain their exclusion.

I'll be unavailable until sometime Wednesday.  Lisa and Eric have something cooking, NHGirl and dreamweaver have something cooking, and I have two things cooking.

One is the referral to the board and lawyer of comments I made to Joel.

The other is Timesharing Today is getting involved.  I apologized to Shep in an email for some rather nasty comments I made, and I'll apologize in this public forum as well.  If anyone wants to follow-up with Shep, please do so.


----------



## sarahlovesmickey

Boy has this thread expanded since I last checked it.  Are most people here paying the fee but still investigating? I am thinking that I am going to have to do this...but, I am not done. I am interested in being on a list as well, because I think there is something sketchy going on here.


----------



## Finley

sarahlovesmickey said:


> Boy has this thread expanded since I last checked it.  Are most people here paying the fee but still investigating? I am thinking that I am going to have to do this...but, I am not done. I am interested in being on a list as well, because I think there is something sketchy going on here.


I have paid the fee and am certainly continuing to address the issues.  As I told Joel, if I am going to be held even more financially accountable to support PB then they need to be more accountable to me as well.  

They are not following their Bylaws nor the RSA's and the only way that will change is if we as owners, express our concerns to them and potentially others (AG's office for example) to make them do so.  They have not been held accountable since they opened this back up in 1994/1995.  They are still using the exact same legals docs etc. yet so much has changed.  We, as owners need to pay attention as we are the ones that are stuck with the ramifications as we are now seeing....

Another resort did a similar thing and the owners were outraged thus the resort, although temporarily, recinded the special assessment.  
http://www.raintreelistens.com/answers/ 

This supports my theory in the power is with the owners but only if they speak up and unite in the cause....


----------



## Finley

To those interested parties, Joel Bourassa has answered my e-mail and responded to the questions that were posted by others.  Hopefully the formatting comes through as his answers are in RED.  I will say, I am as confused as ever....Perhaps Eric can assist with making sense of this HOA structure.  It appears he is saying since 80% of the units were never sold (how could they be when the kept building from day one) so they didn't ever really need to put a HOA into play.  The RSAs speak to control by declarant but I am not sure if that is what they are trying to use as their support for this....it indicates 3/4 of the units which is 75%.....Happy Reading!

My initial e-mail sent to him (twice to get a response) -
I have compared all the legal documents I was given when we purchased this unit and the "structure" of the company (ies) has clearly changed considerably.  How do we as owners stay on top of this and isn't there a legal requirement to advise us of these changes?    My documents start out with the Village at Loon Mountain then it becomes Mountain Lodge Development.   Nothing was ever sent indicating that these documents should now reflect or indicate InnSeasons Resort is actually Mountain Lodge as appears to be the case.  Yet, I find Mountain Lodge still listed as a company in business with revenues etc.  The letter was the first reference to Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook, LLC.  and I am still not sure the difference in it versus Southern Peaks Resort Development.  And of course, we have Inn Seasons Management, Inc. It's a very concerning chain to be honest considering the following.  I agree with you that the documents certainly are in need of an update.  The confusion in the documents partly stems from the fact that the resort was originally “whole ownership” prior to it becoming a timeshare resort under subsequent ownership(s).  As for notification to the owners, quite frankly I am unsure if there are any legal requirements. Unless significant changes are made that directly affect ownership interests, it is my understanding that there was no need for a re-write.  There have been six amendments along the way centered on the addition of new development (buildings).


By way of a quick history, the Village of Loon was the original owner and developer from 1989-91.  They ran into financial trouble and the resort was pretty dormant from 1991-93 until Mountain Lodge Development purchased it at a bank auction in September 1993.  Sales resumed in 1994.  Mountain Lodge (Dennis Ducharme and Keith Carlson) operated, developed and sold intervals up until 2004.  At that time Southern Peaks resorts (Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran) purchased the developing rights from Mountain Lodge.  InnSeason Resorts is the brand umbrella of the 7 NE resorts which are managed by InnSeason Management (a separate entity).  


The constant names in all of these various "companies" are Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran.  How can we as owners be assured that development and management are being facilitated in the best interest of us as PB owners as opposed to them and their various companies?  Further, how can we be assured the financial lines are as clear and separate as you would like for us to believe.  During the development and first 80% of the subsequent sales, a Board really doesn’t come into play. But, it is still in the developer’s interest to run an efficient operation as Sales and the Developer are dependent on one another.  Only once about 80% of the inventory is sold does the representative HOA Board comes into play.  Right now, as you know, there is an interim Board of Advisors which will be followed this fall by a full-fledged Board of Directors made up of owners elected by owners.  Having said that, the developer can also be part of the Board as, in our case, he has some 1,100 intervals of interest of his own.


The letter references the developer, the developer you indicated is Southern Peaks and yet Dennis Ducharme is the owner and president of both, Southern Peaks and PB.  And he is also listed on the cc as the "Treasurer".  So is he not speaking *of* himself and essentially *to* himself in this statement “Southern Peaks has told the Board”...  Yes, in essence that is what he is doing but a developer can do this up until the 80% sell out rate is reached as I explained above.  Once the Board of Directors comes into play, the resort truly falls under the HOA who are essentially controlling their own destiny as the interval sales are nearing maturation. 


You stated "The last building built here was our Jackman Building in 2005 when the economic indicators were very strong and existing sales were booming."  So the 1200 unsold are units are predominately from that expansion project?  And for 4 years, nothing has been said of the undue financial burden this might create?  No, there are unsold intervals in all phases of the property.  There are some great peak weeks for sale and also many less-desirable weeks that are more difficult to sell as peak inventory dwindles.


Based on our maintenance fees, I am concerned that very little has been set aside for these types major renovations.  I have all the balance sheets from 1994 to present.  Last year $70.00 was put into the maintenance fund. At that rate, you are not even raising a half a million if all 6000 owners paid it.  I know others pay more and probably some pay less but regardless, you aren't getting to the 1.2.  The projects listed are projects that "suddenly" need done in 12-24 months, there would be/should have been some planning.  So how did this exactly happen in these last few months?  The pool needing refaced is a perfect example and something that very well should have been accounted for. I own one thus I know the maintenance/costs involved.  This is simply then, fiscal mismanagement.  I for one, would have accepted that reasoning far better than the poorly written letter blaming all sorts of confounding issues as it does.  No one is taking responsibility here, yet we have to come up with the bail out.  Who's to say it doesn't happen again and again.  Years of maintenance deferrals from Mountain Lodge Development have left the present management company catching up since 2004-05.  I believe there was around $800,000 in deferred maintenance from the previous regime.  One thing we are going to do, going forward, is to pay for a complete reserve study to determine just how much we should put away annually for future capital expenditures (a capital reserve fund).  This will also spell out to the owners what is coming in future years by way of improvements and the cost commitment for the improvements.  No surprises this way aside from unforeseen acts of nature or catastrophic equipment failure (blown engine in the plow truck etc).


Here is a look at the reserves allocated since InnSeason Management took over:



Year
 Reserves
 Change

2005
  $                62,437 
 0%

2006
  $              150,930 
 41%

2007
  $              206,744 
 73%

2008
  $              536,744 
 39%

Change from 2005 to 2008

 88%


 

The Board is comprised with three members of "InnSeasons" and two owner representatives.  And this is really a concern.  We as owners do not have fair representation and no line of communication as I stated earlier.  I've yet to receive the minutes I requested.  By the way, our Bylaws state, we are to receive copies each year from the annual meeting sent with the maintenance fee billing.  There were no minutes as there weren’t any annual meetings as we were in the aforementioned development/sales stages.    


And who is capecodder who posts comments on the website? (Joyce Vechione, our blog manager at the Corporate Offices). They have only indicated one comment was made, I made a comment/question and posted it to the site, accepted the Wordpress e-mail, and yet never received a reply nor was the question posted.   



Below are questions others have and I stated I would share them with you:



Comment:  The directors are not showing any fiduciary responsibility to the timeshare owners. Period.



I think the key questions that need answers are:
1) What is the total dollar amount expected to be raised by the special assessment?  1.6 million, after bad debt, is anticipated,   $1,000,000 to 1.2 million for capital and the rest for operational cash flow
2) How many interval owners are delinquent?  11% typically in a normal economy but 19% default at this point - What is the amount of delinquency for 2009, for 2008 and previous years? When will foreclosure action begin so that this money can be recovered?  Rental income, interest income, bad debt recovery are ultimately written off but still often collected going forward – we don’t stop.   Delinquency is up and previous year’s collections are down a bit.  Our two collection agencies average about a 60% collection rate which is pretty strong.3) Are all interval owners, both weeks and points, being assessed the special assessment? Are any interval owners excepted from the assessment and what is that number of owners?  Persons who purchased in 2008 or this year to date are excluded as they probably have not even had a chance to use their purchases yet.  We wanted to be fair to that small group.  I am unsure how many people that represents but the number is pretty small.
4) How much is the Developer delinquent in 2009 maintenance fees on how many intervals? How much for 2008 and previous years?  I believe the total number is in the vicinity of $400,000 representing around 1,100 intevals.
5) Is the Developer being assessed the same amounts on each interval owned for this special assessment?  He is being assessed the same as all owners based on the unit size.  How many intervals? When is the Developer paying the special assessment?  At some point, the developer will, in all likelihood, sign a Promissory Note making any future sales payable back to the HOA for money due.
6) What section in what document permits the Board of Advisors to implement special assessments? What document permits the Board of Advisors to assess some owners and not others. 



Title II, By-Laws of the Pollard Brook Unit Owners' Association, Part VI Accounting, Section 5 Special Assessments, states:

a. Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him, which shall be billed to him as special assessments. 

b. Expenses billable as special assessments include, but are not limited to, the costs of repairing damage done to the condominium unit, equipment, and furnishings during the use period, other than ordinary wear and tear: telephone charges over and above the basic charges; and such other services rendered during the use period at the request of the owner or guest not included as an item in the budget. 

Title III, Timeshare Management, Part III Management, Section 5 Special Assessments, states:

Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him. These expenses include, but are not limited to, the expense of repairing damage done to the condominium unit, equipment, and furnishings during the use period assigned to him, other than ordinary wear and tear: telephone charges over and above the basic charges; and such other services rendered during the use period at the request of the owner or a guest not included as an item in the budget. 
7) With the Developer not paying annual maintenance fees, and possibly not paying the special assessment, what actions are being taken by the Board of Advisors to protect owners from default by the Developer on either or both the unpaid maintenance fee amount or the unpaid special assessment.  Good question and we trust that won’t happen.  Perhaps some type of secured collateral not related to this property would be in order but it is premature to speculate at this point.  The Board of Directors would have to address this if it seemed like it was a possibility going forward.  Incidentally, if the Developer did go bankrupt, the bank would take his unsold Pollard intervals and find a company to try to sell them.  In the meantime, that bank would be on hook for the maintenance fees etc.

8) Where and when is the next Board of Advisors meeting?

November 7 from 11-1 here in Lincoln, specific location to be determined.


----------



## Bwolf

That is some post, Finley.

As I see it, the developer admits to being delinquent.

Also, Mountain Lodge (Ducharme and Carlson) sold to Southern Peaks (Ducharme and Curran).  

Later, Joel admits that:  Years of maintenance deferrals from Mountain Lodge Development have left the present management company catching up since 2004-05. I believe there was around $800,000 in deferred maintenance from the previous regime.

Excuse me, but isn't Ducharme of the first part the Ducharme of the second part?  Curran simply bought out Carlson.  Ducharme has been mis-managing Pollard Brook since Mountain Lodge.

--------------------------------

Here is my little tidbit.  According to Joel, 


The legal counsel for the Developer is:

John Funk
Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell
214 North Main St.
Concord, NH 03302

The Association Board does not have its own legal counsel.


----------



## AJS

Finley said:


> To those interested parties, Joel Bourassa has answered my e-mail and responded to the questions that were posted by others.  Hopefully the formatting comes through as his answers are in RED.  I will say, I am as confused as ever....Perhaps Eric can assist with making sense of this HOA structure.  It appears he is saying since 80% of the units were never sold (how could they be when the kept building from day one) so they didn't ever really need to put a HOA into play.  The RSAs speak to control by declarant but I am not sure if that is what they are trying to use as their support for this....it indicates 3/4 of the units which is 75%.....Happy Reading!
> 
> My initial e-mail sent to him (twice to get a response) -
> I have compared all the legal documents I was given when we purchased this unit and the "structure" of the company (ies) has clearly changed considerably.  How do we as owners stay on top of this and isn't there a legal requirement to advise us of these changes?    My documents start out with the Village at Loon Mountain then it becomes Mountain Lodge Development.   Nothing was ever sent indicating that these documents should now reflect or indicate InnSeasons Resort is actually Mountain Lodge as appears to be the case.  Yet, I find Mountain Lodge still listed as a company in business with revenues etc.  The letter was the first reference to Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook, LLC.  and I am still not sure the difference in it versus Southern Peaks Resort Development.  And of course, we have Inn Seasons Management, Inc. It's a very concerning chain to be honest considering the following.  I agree with you that the documents certainly are in need of an update.  The confusion in the documents partly stems from the fact that the resort was originally “whole ownership” prior to it becoming a timeshare resort under subsequent ownership(s).  As for notification to the owners, quite frankly I am unsure if there are any legal requirements. Unless significant changes are made that directly affect ownership interests, it is my understanding that there was no need for a re-write.  There have been six amendments along the way centered on the addition of new development (buildings).
> 
> 
> By way of a quick history, the Village of Loon was the original owner and developer from 1989-91.  They ran into financial trouble and the resort was pretty dormant from 1991-93 until Mountain Lodge Development purchased it at a bank auction in September 1993.  Sales resumed in 1994.  Mountain Lodge (Dennis Ducharme and Keith Carlson) operated, developed and sold intervals up until 2004.  At that time Southern Peaks resorts (Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran) purchased the developing rights from Mountain Lodge.  InnSeason Resorts is the brand umbrella of the 7 NE resorts which are managed by InnSeason Management (a separate entity).
> 
> 
> The constant names in all of these various "companies" are Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran.  How can we as owners be assured that development and management are being facilitated in the best interest of us as PB owners as opposed to them and their various companies?  Further, how can we be assured the financial lines are as clear and separate as you would like for us to believe.  During the development and first 80% of the subsequent sales, a Board really doesn’t come into play. But, it is still in the developer’s interest to run an efficient operation as Sales and the Developer are dependent on one another.  Only once about 80% of the inventory is sold does the representative HOA Board comes into play.  Right now, as you know, there is an interim Board of Advisors which will be followed this fall by a full-fledged Board of Directors made up of owners elected by owners.  Having said that, the developer can also be part of the Board as, in our case, he has some 1,100 intervals of interest of his own.
> 
> 
> The letter references the developer, the developer you indicated is Southern Peaks and yet Dennis Ducharme is the owner and president of both, Southern Peaks and PB.  And he is also listed on the cc as the "Treasurer".  So is he not speaking *of* himself and essentially *to* himself in this statement “Southern Peaks has told the Board”...  Yes, in essence that is what he is doing but a developer can do this up until the 80% sell out rate is reached as I explained above.  Once the Board of Directors comes into play, the resort truly falls under the HOA who are essentially controlling their own destiny as the interval sales are nearing maturation.
> 
> 
> You stated "The last building built here was our Jackman Building in 2005 when the economic indicators were very strong and existing sales were booming."  So the 1200 unsold are units are predominately from that expansion project?  And for 4 years, nothing has been said of the undue financial burden this might create?  No, there are unsold intervals in all phases of the property.  There are some great peak weeks for sale and also many less-desirable weeks that are more difficult to sell as peak inventory dwindles.
> 
> 
> Based on our maintenance fees, I am concerned that very little has been set aside for these types major renovations.  I have all the balance sheets from 1994 to present.  Last year $70.00 was put into the maintenance fund. At that rate, you are not even raising a half a million if all 6000 owners paid it.  I know others pay more and probably some pay less but regardless, you aren't getting to the 1.2.  The projects listed are projects that "suddenly" need done in 12-24 months, there would be/should have been some planning.  So how did this exactly happen in these last few months?  The pool needing refaced is a perfect example and something that very well should have been accounted for. I own one thus I know the maintenance/costs involved.  This is simply then, fiscal mismanagement.  I for one, would have accepted that reasoning far better than the poorly written letter blaming all sorts of confounding issues as it does.  No one is taking responsibility here, yet we have to come up with the bail out.  Who's to say it doesn't happen again and again.  Years of maintenance deferrals from Mountain Lodge Development have left the present management company catching up since 2004-05.  I believe there was around $800,000 in deferred maintenance from the previous regime.  One thing we are going to do, going forward, is to pay for a complete reserve study to determine just how much we should put away annually for future capital expenditures (a capital reserve fund).  This will also spell out to the owners what is coming in future years by way of improvements and the cost commitment for the improvements.  No surprises this way aside from unforeseen acts of nature or catastrophic equipment failure (blown engine in the plow truck etc).
> 
> 
> Here is a look at the reserves allocated since InnSeason Management took over:
> 
> 
> 
> Year
> Reserves
> Change
> 
> 2005
> $                62,437
> 0%
> 
> 2006
> $              150,930
> 41%
> 
> 2007
> $              206,744
> 73%
> 
> 2008
> $              536,744
> 39%
> 
> Change from 2005 to 2008
> 
> 88%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Board is comprised with three members of "InnSeasons" and two owner representatives.  And this is really a concern.  We as owners do not have fair representation and no line of communication as I stated earlier.  I've yet to receive the minutes I requested.  By the way, our Bylaws state, we are to receive copies each year from the annual meeting sent with the maintenance fee billing.  There were no minutes as there weren’t any annual meetings as we were in the aforementioned development/sales stages.
> 
> 
> And who is capecodder who posts comments on the website? (Joyce Vechione, our blog manager at the Corporate Offices). They have only indicated one comment was made, I made a comment/question and posted it to the site, accepted the Wordpress e-mail, and yet never received a reply nor was the question posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Below are questions others have and I stated I would share them with you:
> 
> 
> 
> Comment:  The directors are not showing any fiduciary responsibility to the timeshare owners. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the key questions that need answers are:
> 1) What is the total dollar amount expected to be raised by the special assessment?  1.6 million, after bad debt, is anticipated,   $1,000,000 to 1.2 million for capital and the rest for operational cash flow
> 2) How many interval owners are delinquent?  11% typically in a normal economy but 19% default at this point - What is the amount of delinquency for 2009, for 2008 and previous years? When will foreclosure action begin so that this money can be recovered?  Rental income, interest income, bad debt recovery are ultimately written off but still often collected going forward – we don’t stop.   Delinquency is up and previous year’s collections are down a bit.  Our two collection agencies average about a 60% collection rate which is pretty strong.3) Are all interval owners, both weeks and points, being assessed the special assessment? Are any interval owners excepted from the assessment and what is that number of owners?  Persons who purchased in 2008 or this year to date are excluded as they probably have not even had a chance to use their purchases yet.  We wanted to be fair to that small group.  I am unsure how many people that represents but the number is pretty small.
> 4) How much is the Developer delinquent in 2009 maintenance fees on how many intervals? How much for 2008 and previous years?  I believe the total number is in the vicinity of $400,000 representing around 1,100 intevals.
> 5) Is the Developer being assessed the same amounts on each interval owned for this special assessment?  He is being assessed the same as all owners based on the unit size.  How many intervals? When is the Developer paying the special assessment?  At some point, the developer will, in all likelihood, sign a Promissory Note making any future sales payable back to the HOA for money due.
> 6) What section in what document permits the Board of Advisors to implement special assessments? What document permits the Board of Advisors to assess some owners and not others.
> 
> 
> 
> Title II, By-Laws of the Pollard Brook Unit Owners' Association, Part VI Accounting, Section 5 Special Assessments, states:
> 
> a. Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him, which shall be billed to him as special assessments.
> 
> b. Expenses billable as special assessments include, but are not limited to, the costs of repairing damage done to the condominium unit, equipment, and furnishings during the use period, other than ordinary wear and tear: telephone charges over and above the basic charges; and such other services rendered during the use period at the request of the owner or guest not included as an item in the budget.
> 
> Title III, Timeshare Management, Part III Management, Section 5 Special Assessments, states:
> 
> Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him. These expenses include, but are not limited to, the expense of repairing damage done to the condominium unit, equipment, and furnishings during the use period assigned to him, other than ordinary wear and tear: telephone charges over and above the basic charges; and such other services rendered during the use period at the request of the owner or a guest not included as an item in the budget.
> 7) With the Developer not paying annual maintenance fees, and possibly not paying the special assessment, what actions are being taken by the Board of Advisors to protect owners from default by the Developer on either or both the unpaid maintenance fee amount or the unpaid special assessment.  Good question and we trust that won’t happen.  Perhaps some type of secured collateral not related to this property would be in order but it is premature to speculate at this point.  The Board of Directors would have to address this if it seemed like it was a possibility going forward.  Incidentally, if the Developer did go bankrupt, the bank would take his unsold Pollard intervals and find a company to try to sell them.  In the meantime, that bank would be on hook for the maintenance fees etc.
> 
> 8) Where and when is the next Board of Advisors meeting?
> 
> November 7 from 11-1 here in Lincoln, specific location to be determined.



Interesting responses. 
I think Inn Seasons is only the management company (conveniently a separate company owned by the same individuals who own Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook LLC). I don't think it has anything to do with the special assessment except that it should have been on top of maintenance requirements and not let this get to a special assessment.

Sounds like the legal filings support the fact that the Developer has total control until 80% of the intervals are sold, and then an owner elected Board of Advisors will control. This is not unusual in a condo project. The Developer, however, must adhere to the legal filings, including his obligation to pay annual maintenance fees on his intervals and pay the special assessment on his intervals

The reserve buildup to $536 K is good. There really needs to be a reserve data analysis done by a company that has expertise in this area so the annual maintenance fee reflects what the 2-5-10-20 year cash needs are an an annual basis. Joel said they are planning on doing this.

No minutes to the Board of Advisors meetings?!?! Very questionable. Even if the Board of Advisors is an appointed Board. they have to keep minutes and provide to owners when requested, An AG question??

Regarding Q1 -- how can only $1.6M be anticipated? 6000 interval owners plus 1100 Developer units is 7100x $420 =$2.9M. $1.6M would mean only 3800 interval owners are expected to pay. Need more details from Joel.

Regarding Q2 - he did not answer the question as to what is the current delinquency amount. Need Joel to elaborate.

Regarding Q4 - ne did not answer. Need to know how much for 2009, how much for previous years. Joel needs to give exact details

Regarding Q5 - VERY TROUBLING. "At some point...." That means the Developer has no current committment to paying the special assessment. He is using us owners as a piggy bank! This is really an AG issue.

Finley, can you press Joel for more details on these issues/

Good job in getting this much.


----------



## ecwinch

I do not know if there is another set of documents that has not been seen or Joel is not completely informed.

I am looking at the Declaration document titled:

Pollard Brook, A Condominium Declaration Pursuant to RSA 356-B.

This is the legal document that was filed with the state to create the Condominum project. It was recorded in the County of Grafton on December 8, 1989.

It has no mention or provision that states that the HOA does not form until the Developer sells 80% of their units. Nor one that says that the Board Of Directors does not form until 80% of the units are sold. It clearly states that Developer Control ceases no later than 5 years after the document is filed. This is in Title 2, Part II, paragraph 2.

The public offering statement that was provided in 1994, in paragraph 5, clearly outlines that the purchaser is required to belong to the Unit Owner's Association, and receives a vote at any meeting of the Association.

These are the documents that were provided to you when you purchased. If there are other documents that trump these, there was a legal requirement to provide them to you at the time of purchase.

The possibility does exist that these documents were amended, but that amendment requires a vote by the membership.

Something is not right. The document that supports Joel's statement that the developer remains in control until 80% of the intervals are sold needs to be located. A small voice tells me it does not exist.


----------



## AJS

ecwinch said:


> I do not know if there is another set of documents that has not been seen or Joel is not completely informed.
> 
> I am looking at the Declaration document titled:
> 
> Pollard Brook, A Condominium Declaration Pursuant to RSA 356-B.
> 
> This is the legal document that was filed with the state to create the Condominum project. It was recorded in the County of Grafton on December 8, 1989.
> 
> It has no mention or provision that states that the HOA does not form until the Developer sells 80% of their units. Nor one that says that the Board Of Directors does not form until 80% of the units are sold. It clearly states that Developer Control ceases no later than 5 years after the document is filed. This is in Title 2, Part II, paragraph 2.
> 
> The public offering statement that was provided in 1994, in paragraph 5, clearly outlines that the purchaser is required to belong to the Unit Owner's Association, and receives a vote at any meeting of the Association.
> 
> These are the documents that were provided to you when you purchased. If there are other documents that trump these, there was a legal requirement to provide them to you at the time of purchase.
> 
> The possibility does exist that these documents were amended, but that amendment requires a vote by the membership.
> 
> Something is not right. The document that supports Joel's statement that the developer remains in control until 80% of the intervals are sold needs to be located. A small voice tells me it does not exist.



You are correct. We need to ask Joel which of the legal filings support his statement that the Developer controls until 80% are sold vs. the Condo Declaration you stated above.
Finley - could you add that question in an email to Joel along with my other questios re greater details needed?


----------



## Finley

I received a follow up e-mail from Joel after he had sent the initial message.  He corrected his financials:
I was reviewing the email I sent you yesterday and I found I inadvertently had some numbers incorrect.  The total amount of the assessment billing was actually just shy of 2.1 million (not 1.6).  The breakdown would be $885,000 for operational costs and 1.2 million for capital improvements.   These numbers have to presume a breakdown on how many people will choose each of the three payment options (discounts) and it has to presume a default rate so, at the end of the day, the final numbers could differ to some degree.  Sorry for any confusion.

He has invited that I call him or he is happy to continue via e-mail.  I like e-mail as it allows me to share his comments with you verbatum.  But I may call just to get a sense of his sincerity of cooperativeness. 

I don't know where that 80% rule comes from however, one of the question I posed to the HOA before I received Joel's reponses was based on the following NH State RSAs:
Section 356-B:36 Control by the Declarant. 

    I. The condominium instruments may authorize the declarant, or a managing agent or some other person or persons selected or to be selected by the declarant, to appoint and remove some or all of the officers of the unit owners' association or its board of directors, or both, or to exercise powers and responsibilities otherwise assigned by the condominium instruments and by this chapter to the unit owners' association, the officers, or the board of directors. But no amendment to the condominium instruments shall increase the scope of such authorization if there is any unit owner other than the declarant, and no such authorization shall be valid after the time limit set by the condominium instruments or after units to which 3/4 of the undivided interests in the common areas appertain have been conveyed, whichever occurs first. The time limit initially set by the condominium instruments shall not exceed 5 years in the case of an expandable condominium, 3 years in the case of a condominium containing any convertible land, or 2 years in the case of any other condominium. 
* Hasn't the “Control by Partnership” provision expired?  Based on the filing, the 5 years has – has the ¾ undivided interest in the common areas ownership interest?   Perhaps this is where they are getting the 80% which should be 75% and how do you ever prove this when they have continued to build additional units w/o having all interest sold in the various buildings.  Is this per building or for overall PB?  I don't know....*
   II. If entered into during the period of control contemplated by paragraph I, no management contract, lease of recreational areas or facilities, or any other contract or lease executed by or on behalf of the unit owners' association, its board of directors, or the unit owners as a group, shall be binding after such period of control unless then renewed or ratified with the consent of unit owners of units to which a majority of the votes in the unit owners' association appertain. 
    III. If the unit owners' association is not in existence or does not have officers at the time of the creation of the condominium, the declarant shall, until there is such an association with such officers, have the power and the responsibility to act in all instances where this chapter requires action by the unit owners' association, its board of directors, or any officer or officers. 
*And since 1994 Dennis Ducharme has....*
*  IV. This section shall be strictly construed to protect the rights of the unit owners. *

Interpretation anyone?


----------



## AJS

Finley said:


> I received a follow up e-mail from Joel after he had sent the initial message.  He corrected his financials:
> I was reviewing the email I sent you yesterday and I found I inadvertently had some numbers incorrect.  The total amount of the assessment billing was actually just shy of 2.1 million (not 1.6).  The breakdown would be $885,000 for operational costs and 1.2 million for capital improvements.   These numbers have to presume a breakdown on how many people will choose each of the three payment options (discounts) and it has to presume a default rate so, at the end of the day, the final numbers could differ to some degree.  Sorry for any confusion.
> 
> He has invited that I call him or he is happy to continue via e-mail.  I like e-mail as it allows me to share his comments with you verbatum.  But I may call just to get a sense of his sincerity of cooperativeness
> 
> I don't know where that 80% rule comes from however, one of the question I posed to the HOA before I received Joel's reponses was based on the following NH State RSAs:
> Section 356-B:36 Control by the Declarant.
> 
> I. The condominium instruments may authorize the declarant, or a managing agent or some other person or persons selected or to be selected by the declarant, to appoint and remove some or all of the officers of the unit owners' association or its board of directors, or both, or to exercise powers and responsibilities otherwise assigned by the condominium instruments and by this chapter to the unit owners' association, the officers, or the board of directors. But no amendment to the condominium instruments shall increase the scope of such authorization if there is any unit owner other than the declarant, and no such authorization shall be valid after the time limit set by the condominium instruments or after units to which 3/4 of the undivided interests in the common areas appertain have been conveyed, whichever occurs first. The time limit initially set by the condominium instruments shall not exceed 5 years in the case of an expandable condominium, 3 years in the case of a condominium containing any convertible land, or 2 years in the case of any other condominium.
> * Hasn't the “Control by Partnership” provision expired?  Based on the filing, the 5 years has – has the ¾ undivided interest in the common areas ownership interest?   Perhaps this is where they are getting the 80% which should be 75% and how do you ever prove this when they have continued to build additional units w/o having all interest sold in the various buildings.  Is this per building or for overall PB?  I don't know....*
> II. If entered into during the period of control contemplated by paragraph I, no management contract, lease of recreational areas or facilities, or any other contract or lease executed by or on behalf of the unit owners' association, its board of directors, or the unit owners as a group, shall be binding after such period of control unless then renewed or ratified with the consent of unit owners of units to which a majority of the votes in the unit owners' association appertain.
> III. If the unit owners' association is not in existence or does not have officers at the time of the creation of the condominium, the declarant shall, until there is such an association with such officers, have the power and the responsibility to act in all instances where this chapter requires action by the unit owners' association, its board of directors, or any officer or officers.
> *And since 1994 Dennis Ducharme has....*
> *  IV. This section shall be strictly construed to protect the rights of the unit owners. *
> 
> Interpretation anyone?



Findley
I think you should follow up with him while he seems willing to provide info.
Q1- What documents specify the 80%? The documents provided owners say declarant cannot exceed 5 years from the date of filing. They also specify that when the declarant has sold 3/4 of the units, owners control the HOA.
Q2 - Specifically answer whether points owners are recieving the special assessment. If not, why not?
Q3 - All owners share equally in maintenance fee assessments and special assessments. What section of the Condo declaration or the by-laws permits the Board of Advisors to do otherwise?
Q4 - What is the current dollar amount, not percentage, of maintenance fee delinquencies for both owners and the Developer?
Q5 - What is the dollar amount of the special assessment being levied against the Developer. Is that amount included in the $ 2.1M you specified in your last email?
Q6 - What is the total dollar amount owed by the Developer for both delinquent maintenance fees and special assessment?


----------



## ownertimeshare

I'm not quite understanding but I'm owner of timeshare and get assessment fee from pollarbrooke. I want to join the dispute on assessment fee. Pls let me know if I need to do anything. Thank you.


----------



## ecwinch

Finley said:


> I don't know where that 80% rule comes from however, one of the question I posed to the HOA before I received Joel's reponses was based on the following NH State RSAs:
> Section 356-B:36 Control by the Declarant.
> 
> I. The condominium instruments may authorize the declarant, or a managing agent or some other person or persons selected or to be selected by the declarant, to appoint and remove some or all of the officers of the unit owners' association or its board of directors, or both, or to exercise powers and responsibilities otherwise assigned by the condominium instruments and by this chapter to the unit owners' association, the officers, or the board of directors. *But no amendment to the condominium instruments shall increase the scope of such authorization if there is any unit owner other than the declarant, and no such authorization shall be valid after the time limit set by the condominium instruments or after units to which 3/4 of the undivided interests in the common areas appertain have been conveyed, whichever occurs first.* The time limit initially set by the condominium instruments shall not exceed 5 years in the case of an expandable condominium, 3 years in the case of a condominium containing any convertible land, or 2 years in the case of any other condominium.
> 
> II. If entered into during the period of control contemplated by paragraph I, no management contract, lease of recreational areas or facilities, or any other contract or lease executed by or on behalf of the unit owners' association, its board of directors, or the unit owners as a group, shall be binding after such period of control unless then renewed or ratified with the consent of unit owners of units to which a majority of the votes in the unit owners' association appertain.
> 
> III. If the unit owners' association is not in existence or does not have officers at the time of the creation of the condominium, the declarant shall, until there is such an association with such officers, have the power and the responsibility to act in all instances where this chapter requires action by the unit owners' association, its board of directors, or any officer or officers.
> 
> IV. This section shall be strictly construed to protect the rights of the unit owners.
> 
> Interpretation anyone?



I will give it a go. Again, I am not a lawyer. I am studying to be a paralegal, and have completed some coursework in contract law as part of my business degree. Extensive experience in reading and drafting contracts. I have been studying timeshare law, and case law in this area.

So here is my opinion:

Section I clearly states that the law allows a developer to control a project for a specific period of time. This is permitted, as the number of owners is small, and the developer has a larger financial interest in the project  while it is under construction/expansion. As they control the majority interest in the underlying corporation. 

This section recognizes that the developer control will logically expire. And sets forth the statutory limit of that control. Those conditions above are:

_The time limit initially set by the condominium instruments shall not exceed 5 years in the case of an expandable condominium..._

For an expandable condominium, the statute sets the limit of developer control to be 5 years. This is also the time limit stated in the PB Declaration document, Title II, Section II, Paragraph 2.

_But no amendment to the condominium instruments shall increase the scope of such authorization if there is any unit owner other than the declarant, and no such authorization shall be valid after the time limit set by the condominium instruments or after units to which 3/4 of the undivided interests in the common areas appertain have been conveyed, whichever occurs first._

The time limit as outlined in the declaration can be amended, but not after any units have been sold. Also any amendment cannot extend the time limit beyond what is contained in the condominium instruments (the PB declaration). So it can be shorten, but not extended.

Section II states that agreements between the HOA and the developer, have to be ratified by the members, once the resort comes out of developer control. This has significant implications, if it is found that the developer is still in control - which Joel admits to in his correspondence.

Section III is moot as the HOA is formed. The Public Offering Statement for PB discloses that the purchaser is joining the HOA. Correspondence is going out from the HOA. The HOA is the only body with legal authority to assess members.

That is my analysis.


----------



## ecwinch

*Follow-on and suggestions*

The legal status of the PB Unit Owners Association needs to be determined. This should have been incorporated as a corporation - usually a non-profit - under NH law. 

Also note that Joel mentions this 80% requirement. But in terms of percentage of units sold, the statute only outlines 3/4 or 75% as being the requirement - even if the time limit had not expired.

This makes me question how knowledgeable Joel is on the legality of the situation.


----------



## Bwolf

I think we've gone full circle.  The situation isn't legal.  However, the Fraud Protection and anti-consumer bureau doesn't really care.

We need to look after our own interests, as best we can.  There is some effort in that direction.


----------



## AJS

Grafton County records are on line. www.nhdeeds.com/grafton
Click on Search County Records.
Select Index, Grantor=Pollard , city=Lincoln. All of the Pollard Brook recordings can be viewed.There is the original filing in book 1836, page 0763.
There are 9 amendments. Book 2593, page 0627 shows the 8 previous amendments and the ninth. This ninth amendmend was done on Oct 10, 2001.

Even more interesting is Selecting Index=Southern Peaks, city=Lincoln
The town of Lincoln has filed over 120 liens(one per unit owned) for unpaid 2009 taxes against Southern Peaks, approx $60k. They also have filed 2009 tax liens against Ducharme/Curran for over 30 properties for approx $15K and tax liens against Ducharme/Macgregor for 9 units for approx $5K. My guess is that every property at Pollard Brook has a 2009 tax lien against it. So we know $80-90 K of the special assessment is not for maintenance, but for thr Developer to pay the 2009 property taxes!!!

There are many filings recorded under Southern Peaks. Some of the more pertinent are the names of owners on recorded deeds, the assignment of many mortgages they hold to a lender ( Resort Funding Inc), Book 2791 page
0912 on the Declaration of Condominium South Mountain. There is probably something filed that go back to Southern Peaks takeover from Mountain Lodge in 2004 and that may shed some light on new bylaws or a new Condo Declaration filed at that time. Need to spend some more time looking through thevarious filings.

Eric - if you scan look thru the various Pollard Brook and Southern Peaks filings, you may spot something.


----------



## ecwinch

AJS said:


> There are many filings recorded under Southern Peaks. Some of the more pertinent are the names of owners on recorded deeds, the assignment of many mortgages they hold to a lender ( Resort Funding Inc), Book 2791 page
> 0912 on the Declaration of Condominium South Mountain. There is probably something filed that go back to Southern Peaks takeover from Mountain Lodge in 2004 and that may shed some light on new bylaws or a new Condo Declaration filed at that time. Need to spend some more time looking through thevarious filings.
> 
> Eric - if you scan look thru the various Pollard Brook and Southern Peaks filings, you may spot something.



I will take a look.

Keep in mind, that even if another Declaration was located, if would not be material

A declaration can be modified, but only by a vote of 2/3 of the members. Title I, paragraph X, on page 0771.

Nor can any modification be legal if it failed to conform to state statute.


----------



## Bwolf

AJS said:


> Grafton County records are on line. www.nhdeeds.com/grafton
> Click on Search County Records.
> Select Index, Grantor=Pollard , city=Lincoln. All of the Pollard Brook recordings can be viewed.There is the original filing in book 1836, page 0763.
> There are 9 amendments. Book 2593, page 0627 shows the 8 previous amendments and the ninth. This ninth amendmend was done on Oct 10, 2001.
> 
> Even more interesting is Selecting Index=Southern Peaks, city=Lincoln
> The town of Lincoln has filed over 120 liens(one per unit owned) for unpaid 2009 taxes against Southern Peaks, approx $60k. They also have filed 2009 tax liens against Ducharme/Curran for over 30 properties for approx $15K and tax liens against Ducharme/Macgregor for 9 units for approx $5K. My guess is that every property at Pollard Brook has a 2009 tax lien against it. So we know $80-90 K of the special assessment is not for maintenance, but for thr Developer to pay the 2009 property taxes!!!
> 
> There are many filings recorded under Southern Peaks. Some of the more pertinent are the names of owners on recorded deeds, the assignment of many mortgages they hold to a lender ( Resort Funding Inc), Book 2791 page
> 0912 on the Declaration of Condominium South Mountain. There is probably something filed that go back to Southern Peaks takeover from Mountain Lodge in 2004 and that may shed some light on new bylaws or a new Condo Declaration filed at that time. Need to spend some more time looking through thevarious filings.
> 
> Eric - if you scan look thru the various Pollard Brook and Southern Peaks filings, you may spot something.




This is very interesting.  Joel told me that we had all the amendments.
Obviously not.  So, we are being mislead or lied to in order to protect the developer's interests.

Very good research, AJS.


----------



## Finley

Bwolf said:


> This is very interesting.  Joel told me that we had all the amendments.
> Obviously not.  So, we are being mislead or lied to in order to protect the developer's interests.
> 
> Very good research, AJS.


Hi All - Boy this is as clear as mud isn't it?  I did view the records in those listings AJS.  Those amendments appear to me to be the building plan amendments filed, not bylaws.  Which makes sense with all the additions they have made since I bought in '95.  Joel did state that other "amendments" had been made specific to the new units but in terms of the owners documents, we do have them all.  It's hard to be clear about the terms and what they apply to.

I've asked Joel about the "80% rule", how the points system works there - what do those folks pay etc., and if any taxes are owed on PB as there appeared to be taxes owed by Southern Peaks - and was that Southern Peaks at PB, LLC or Southern Peaks Development....remember there are two however, they are both owned by Dennis.

Of note also, MacGregor is the VP of InnSeasons.  Now is that InnSeasons at PB or InnSeasons the branding company of the entire 7 resorts.

This is the stuff we need real legal help with....searching the filed documents and making sense of them, how they may apply, who the players are and in what capacity at the time of references and filing etc.


----------



## AJS

Finley said:


> Hi All - Boy this is as clear as mud isn't it?  I did view the records in those listings AJS.  Those amendments appear to me to be the building plan amendments filed, not bylaws.  Which makes sense with all the additions they have made since I bought in '95.  Joel did state that other "amendments" had been made specific to the new units but in terms of the owners documents, we do have them all.  It's hard to be clear about the terms and what they apply to.
> 
> I've asked Joel about the "80% rule", how the points system works there - what do those folks pay etc., and if any taxes are owed on PB as there appeared to be taxes owed by Southern Peaks - and was that Southern Peaks at PB, LLC or Southern Peaks Development....remember there are two however, they are both owned by Dennis.
> 
> Of note also, MacGregor is the VP of InnSeasons.  Now is that InnSeasons at PB or InnSeasons the branding company of the entire 7 resorts.
> 
> This is the stuff we need real legal help with....searching the filed documents and making sense of them, how they may apply, who the players are and in what capacity at the time of references and filing etc.



The original Condo Declaration was filed and recorded at Grafton County by The Village at Loon Mountain, the Declarant, a limited partnership, in book 1836, page 763 in October 1989. There have been nine amendments since then, all recorded. Look at book 2593, page 627. 

When I purchased at Pollard Brook in 2001, I was given a yellow binder that had this Condo Declatation and seven of the amendments. It also had a Public Offering statement show, by that time, that the Declarant was Mountain Lodge Development Inc. That must have the result of Curran/Ducharme purchasing the development from the bank at auction.

The Grafton County records show that warranty deeds have been issued and recorded continuoously by Mountain Lodge Development, the last being April 2009.

Mountain Lodge, in the beginning of 2006, granted Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook LLC a number of interval weeks apparently for Southern Peaks to sell. Warranty deeds issued and recorded by Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook LLC seem to have started in January 2006 (in addition to onging recordings by Mountain Lodge) The last recorded deed issued by Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook was July 1, 2009. About 40 have been recorded in 2009. So both are issuing deeds for sales at Pollard Brook.

There is a new condo declaration files in book 2971, page 912, for Inn Seasons South Mountain where the Declarant is Southern Peaks Resorts LLC. Note the difference. Two separate LLC's.

There seems to be no filing of a Condominium Declaration for Pollard Brook other than the original 1989 filing and the nine amendments. I think Eric is correct that the Declarant was supposed to turn over the development to the Unit Owners Assoc either after 5 years or when 75% of the intervals were sold. He obviously has not done that. We need to pin Joel down on the 80% sold issue and why thE Declarant, Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook LLc has not turned control of the Association over to the owners.

I think we as owners have never questioned this before, and Curran/Ducharme have taken advantage to do as they want. Not saying what they have done is bad or wrong over the past years after they purchased. 

I do think that their using a special assessment to cover their maintenance delinquencies and financing problems is WRONG and possibly a fraudulent action. I think their using the owners as their "personal piggy bank" is WRONG. I think having no legal documents signed by the Board of Advisors and filed that commits the Developer to pay his delinquencies and special assessment is WRONG. I do think that all owners, Weeks and Points, have to share equally in the special assessment as they do in the normal annual maintenance fee assessments.


----------



## Bwolf

Well, AJS, I agree with you.  

Most everyone at TUG knows how helpful TimeSharing Today has been in the RCI Battle and others.

TimeSharing Today is going to help out with Pollard Brook.  We are likely to get support from TUG as well.  It takes time for things to develop.

I'd suggest everyone who is not a member join TUG.  Everyone who does not subscribe should join TimeSharing Today.

Get ready for a very long, tough battle.


----------



## ecwinch

Bwolf said:


> This is very interesting.  Joel told me that we had all the amendments.
> Obviously not.  So, we are being mislead or lied to in order to protect the developer's interests.
> 
> Very good research, AJS.



Or Joel is misinformed. 

Hanlon's razor: Do not invoke conspiracy as explanation when ignorance and incompetence will suffice, as conspiracy implies intelligence.

nor am I suggesting that Joel is stupid.


----------



## ecwinch

AJS said:


> The original Condo Declaration was filed and recorded at Grafton County by The Village at Loon Mountain, the Declarant, a limited partnership, in book 1836, page 763 in October 1989. There have been nine amendments since then, all recorded. Look at book 2593, page 627.
> 
> When I purchased at Pollard Brook in 2001, I was given a yellow binder that had this Condo Declatation and seven of the amendments. It also had a Public Offering statement show, by that time, that the Declarant was Mountain Lodge Development Inc. That must have the result of Curran/Ducharme purchasing the development from the bank at auction.
> 
> The Grafton County records show that warranty deeds have been issued and recorded continuoously by Mountain Lodge Development, the last being April 2009.
> 
> Mountain Lodge, in the beginning of 2006, granted Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook LLC a number of interval weeks apparently for Southern Peaks to sell. Warranty deeds issued and recorded by Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook LLC seem to have started in January 2006 (in addition to onging recordings by Mountain Lodge) The last recorded deed issued by Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook was July 1, 2009. About 40 have been recorded in 2009. So both are issuing deeds for sales at Pollard Brook.
> 
> There is a new condo declaration files in book 2971, page 912, for Inn Seasons South Mountain where the Declarant is Southern Peaks Resorts LLC. Note the difference. Two separate LLC's.
> 
> There seems to be no filing of a Condominium Declaration for Pollard Brook other than the original 1989 filing and the nine amendments. I think Eric is correct that the Declarant was supposed to turn over the development to the Unit Owners Assoc either after 5 years or when 75% of the intervals were sold. He obviously has not done that. We need to pin Joel down on the 80% sold issue and why thE Declarant, Southern Peaks at Pollard Brook LLc has not turned control of the Association over to the owners.
> 
> I think we as owners have never questioned this before, and Curran/Ducharme have taken advantage to do as they want. Not saying what they have done is bad or wrong over the past years after they purchased.
> 
> I do think that their using a special assessment to cover their maintenance delinquencies and financing problems is WRONG and possibly a fraudulent action. I think their using the owners as their "personal piggy bank" is WRONG. I think having no legal documents signed by the Board of Advisors and filed that commits the Developer to pay his delinquencies and special assessment is WRONG. I do think that all owners, Weeks and Points, have to share equally in the special assessment as they do in the normal annual maintenance fee assessments.



By jove, I think you have got it!


----------



## ecwinch

The plot thickens. Their is a corporate filing for the HOA.

Date: 7/31/2009 	  Filed Documents
(Annual Report History, View Images, etc.) 	
Business Name History
Name	Name Type
POLLARD BROOK UNIT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION	Legal
Non-Profit Corporation - Domestic - Information
Business ID:	143111
Status:	Good Standing
Entity Creation Date:	5/16/1989
Principal Office Address:	33 Brookline Road
Lincoln NH 03251
Principal Mailing Address:	No Address
Expiration Date:	Perpetual
Last Annual Report Filed Date:	3/12/2007 8:00:00 AM
Last Annual Report Filed:	2005
Registered Agent
Agent Name:
Office Address:	No Address
Mailing Address:	No Address

Here is the link. The filings they have made are available (click on Filing Documents link at the top of the page).

https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?391100

And check out the Directors that are filling the three BoD positions:

Ducharme, Curran, and McGregor.

There seems to be some issue regarding the corporate charter lapsing. Let me research that angle.


----------



## ecwinch

From the State Sec web site, it looks like

5/16/1989	Creation Filing 
2/1/1996	Withdraw/Dissolve/Cancel
2/1/2001	Withdraw/Dissolve/Cancel


7/3/2001	Reinstatement
3/1/2006	Admin Dissolution/Suspension


3/12/2007	Reinstatement

It looks like they keep getting dissolved for failing to file annual reports. Then they file to be reinstated.

But is inconvertible proof that they are ignoring the by-laws of the Declaration. In a number of regards:

1) Failing to hold the annual meeting as outlined in the By-Laws
2) Failing to obtain member approval of HOA budget as required in the By-Laws
3) Failing to hold proper elections 

I am sure there are others.

So now, the major issue is determining what they feel their justification for the 80% rule is from. For if you prove they knowingly are acting to illegally retain control of the HOA, then that the door opens on criminal issues and potential mail fraud 

And you have further basis for claims as they are violating Corporate law by creating a separate class of members that are not subject to the special assessment.


----------



## dryden

*how many years?*

over how many years are they imposing the SA?


----------



## ecwinch

skinut said:


> over how many years are they imposing the SA?



IMO - it is hard to say. Since the assessment is due in part to the developer not paying m/f, it is hard to predict if another SA will be required next year. If the developers condition does not approve.


----------



## dreamWeaver

*Small Blessings*

We definitely need to keep ourselves informed of what is happening going forward.

We have been lulled into a sense of false security, by the fact the maintenance fees were still less then renting the place for a week and we had never been sent a special assessment before.

The small blessing I believe is that perhaps the developer did not intend to take advantage of our tendencies to pay all our debts.  (At least that is those of us who are not behind on our fees.)  But it feels like that is what is now happening due to their money problems.


----------



## dreamWeaver

*Answers from Ducharme*

Thanks for the email. I will do my best to answer your questions here.



QUESTION:  The assessment letter says: "...Nearly $1,000,000 has been spend over the past 5 years".  That would be a minimum of $200,000 a year.  The By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part II Board of Directors item (vii) states "May purchase such equipment and other personal property as is necessary to properly accomplish the purposes of the Association, except that board should have no power to expend in excess of $4,000 in any one (1) year for the acquisition of personal property or for capital improvements w/o majority vote of members present and voting at a duly held meeting of the members association."  Can I have a copy of the minutes from the meeting where expenditure of amounts in excess of 199,999 was approved?



ANSWER:  The section in the same documents that authorize the management company to do this is as follows:


Title II, By-Laws of the Pollard Brook Unit Owners' Association, Part VI Accounting, Section 5 Special Assessments, states:

a. Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him, which shall be billed to him as special assessments.

b. Expenses billable as special assessments include, but are not limited to, the costs of repairing damage done to the condominium unit, equipment, and furnishings during the use period, other than ordinary wear and tear: telephone charges over and above the basic charges; and such other services rendered during the use period at the request of the owner or guest not included as an item in the budget.

Title III, Timeshare Management, Part III Management, Section 5 Special Assessments, states:

Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him. These expenses include, but are not limited to, the expense of repairing damage done to the condominium unit, equipment, and furnishings during the use period assigned to him, other than ordinary wear and tear: telephone charges over and above the basic charges; and such other services rendered during the use period at the request of the owner or a guest not included as an item in the budget.



As part of our due diligence in implementing this assessment,  the management company's legal counsel, as well as the NH Attorney General's Office reviewed this action prior to its implementation.



QUESTION: 2. The By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part IV Meetings Section 1 states

"(c) The president, with in (30) days of said meeting shall cause a copy of the minutes there of, including the budget adopted thereof to be mailed to each member".

I received the special assessment in mail, but have never received a copy in the mail of the operating budget.

Questions: Can we receive (in mail) the annual meeting minutes and operating budgets for each year going forward?



ANSWER:  Yes, you can (and will) receive this information going forward.  I have attached the latest Board of Advisor minutes for your review.  



CONCLUSION: Although your questions are excellent, it is important for you to know that until recently, the Board consisted of only the developer, and its appointees.  The developer owned the majority of the intervals, and consequently the majority of the votes for any action.  During development stage, and during the first 80% of the sales, a Board is not required.  As soon as over 80% of the inventory was sold, it was then that a Homeowners' Association (HOA) was required.  Currently, there is an interim Board of Advisors, which is the first step in constituting a full-fledged HOA, with its attendant Board of Directors, made up of owners elected by other owners.  Having said that, in the future, the developer will continue to be an active member of the Board, because the developer continues to own approximately 1100 intervals at the property, with the same number of votes in any Board election.



Thank you.



__________________________

Dennis M. Ducharme, RRP

Board of Directors


----------



## dreamWeaver

Finley,

I think we need to take Joel's statements with a grain of salt..

The Board is comprised with three members of "InnSeasons" and two owner representatives. And this is really a concern. We as owners do not have fair representation and no line of communication as I stated earlier. I've yet to receive the minutes I requested. By the way, our Bylaws state, we are to receive copies each year from the annual meeting sent with the maintenance fee billing. 
There were no minutes as there weren’t any annual meetings as we were in the aforementioned development/sales stages. ​I received the meeting minutes from Dennis Ducharme for 10/7/2008 and 3/11/2009 and Joel was in attendance at both meetings.


----------



## ecwinch

dreamWeaver said:


> Finley,
> 
> I think we need to take Joel's statements with a grain of salt..
> 
> The Board is comprised with three members of "InnSeasons" and two owner representatives. And this is really a concern. We as owners do not have fair representation and no line of communication as I stated earlier. I've yet to receive the minutes I requested. By the way, our Bylaws state, we are to receive copies each year from the annual meeting sent with the maintenance fee billing.
> There were no minutes as there weren’t any annual meetings as we were in the aforementioned development/sales stages. ​I received the meeting minutes from Dennis Ducharme for 10/7/2008 and 3/11/2009 and Joel was in attendance at both meetings.



Keep in mind:

AG offices, typically do not review special assessments. That is a business activity. 
The Board of Advisors has no legal authority.

Regardless of what Dennis says, you have an HOA that is not complying with the by-laws of the HOA. Even if the developer control provisions were still in effect, you have Title II, Part IV, Section 1 (b) of the By-Laws that addresses the purpose of the annual meeting:

_(b) At the annual meeting, the Association shall elect directors and officers as required by these By-Laws, *consider and vote upon the operating budget for the coming year*, and transact any other business of the Association.
_

Even if he has the right to control the BoD (which he does not), how is this provision of the by-laws being met?


----------



## ecwinch

There is one thing that is troubling me. The documents we have seen so clearly refute the statements the Developer is making.

I can understand how someone could lie about it, but who would be so stupid as to lie when the documents are so readily available.

So I checked NH law again and the Declaration again. I cannot find anything that supports what they are saying.

In other cases, I have seen the developer make the statement that the Declaration was filed before the current law was in affect.

The NH statutes that apply here, Section 356-B, were enacted in 1977. So PB cannot be grandfathered in under some previous law.


----------



## AJS

ecwinch said:


> From the State Sec web site, it looks like
> 
> 5/16/1989	Creation Filing
> 2/1/1996	Withdraw/Dissolve/Cancel
> 2/1/2001	Withdraw/Dissolve/Cancel
> 
> 
> 7/3/2001	Reinstatement
> 3/1/2006	Admin Dissolution/Suspension
> 
> 
> 3/12/2007	Reinstatement
> 
> It looks like they keep getting dissolved for failing to file annual reports. Then they file to be reinstated.
> 
> But is inconvertible proof that they are ignoring the by-laws of the Declaration. In a number of regards:
> 
> 1) Failing to hold the annual meeting as outlined in the By-Laws
> 2) Failing to obtain member approval of HOA budget as required in the By-Laws
> 3) Failing to hold proper elections
> 
> I am sure there are others.
> 
> So now, the major issue is determining what they feel their justification for the 80% rule is from. For if you prove they knowingly are acting to illegally retain control of the HOA, then that the door opens on criminal issues and potential mail fraud
> 
> And you have further basis for claims as they are violating Corporate law by creating a separate class of members that are not subject to the special assessment.



In the 2007 report filed at the state, officers of Pollard Brook Units Owners association are Ducharme (Pres), Curran(VP) and Macgregor(TREAS). No mention of the other "owner reps" on the Board. Scanzani was named on the special assessment letter as President??? Since they last filed with the state, lots of strange things going on. New Board members, new titles ??? I wonder if the "New Board" isn't just an attempt to make the special assessment look  legitmate. The special assessment letter with Ducharme shown as President would smell worse than last weeks garbage. So, dress it up with a non-Inn Seasons President. This really smells!!


----------



## ecwinch

AJS said:


> In the 2007 report filed at the state, officers of Pollard Brook Units Owners association are Ducharme (Pres), Curran(VP) and Macgregor(TREAS). No mention of the other "owner reps" on the Board. Scanzani was named on the special assessment letter as President??? Since they last filed with the state, lots of strange things going on. New Board members, new titles ??? I wonder if the "New Board" isn't just an attempt to make the special assessment look  legitmate. The special assessment letter with Ducharme shown as President would smell worse than last weeks garbage. So, dress it up with a non-Inn Seasons President. This really smells!!



It is simple.

The developer has crafted this Board of Advisors to give the appearance of a governing body that has owner involvement. They have no legal authority under the by-laws. It is an illusion.

The by-laws call for a three person Board of Directors that will govern the Unit Owners Association. 

That Unit Owners Association is formed as a non-profit corporation under NH law. It is governed by the Board of Directors listed on the 2005 annual report. Each of you are members of that corporation based on your unit ownership.

The Unit Owners Association is the only body that has any legal authority. The other is a ruse.


----------



## AJS

dreamWeaver said:


> Finley,
> 
> I think we need to take Joel's statements with a grain of salt..
> 
> The Board is comprised with three members of "InnSeasons" and two owner representatives. And this is really a concern. We as owners do not have fair representation and no line of communication as I stated earlier. I've yet to receive the minutes I requested. By the way, our Bylaws state, we are to receive copies each year from the annual meeting sent with the maintenance fee billing.
> There were no minutes as there weren’t any annual meetings as we were in the aforementioned development/sales stages. ​I received the meeting minutes from Dennis Ducharme for 10/7/2008 and 3/11/2009 and Joel was in attendance at both meetings.



Who was in attendance at these meetings? Does either set of minutes address the special assessment that we all first saw on July 10??


----------



## AJS

ecwinch said:


> It is simple.
> 
> The developer has crafted this Board of Advisors to give the appearance of a governing body that has owner involvement. They have no legal authority under the by-laws. It is an illusion.
> 
> The by-laws call for a three person Board of Directors that will govern the Unit Owners Association.
> 
> That Unit Owners Association is formed as a non-profit corporation under NH law. It is governed by the Board of Directors listed on the 2005 annual report. Each of you are members of that corporation based on your unit ownership.
> 
> The Unit Owners Association is the only body that has any legal authority. The other is a ruse.



Eric - are you suggesting that the Unit Owners Association formed under the bylaws (having three members) is different than the Board of Advisorsdetailed in the special assessment letter?


----------



## ecwinch

AJS said:


> Eric - are you suggesting that the Unit Owners Association formed under the bylaws (having three members) is different than the Board of Advisorsdetailed in the special assessment letter?



Yes. The Board of Directors that is authorized by your by-laws is only legal governing body at the resort. 

The Board of Advisors has NO authority under NH law or the by-laws. They have no legal basis for their existence. It would be like you sending out a letter as the Board of Owners or President of the PB Owners Committee.

The Declaration is the legal document that authorizes the creation of the PB Unit Owners Association.  That UOA then is legally incorporated under NH state law, and is governed by the by-laws. In turn the By-Laws authorize the UOA to be governed by the Board of Directors. 

But the developer has decided to stick the Board of Advisors out there as puppets - IMO. There is nothing in the by-laws to authorize them, nor are they granted any powers under the by-laws. Any authority they have is illusionary.

Ask Dennis for the by-laws of the Board of Advisors.

Edit: Just to be clear, everyone who owns a unit is a member of the Unit Owners Association.


----------



## AJS

dreamWeaver said:


> Thanks for the email. I will do my best to answer your questions here.
> 
> 
> 
> QUESTION:  The assessment letter says: "...Nearly $1,000,000 has been spend over the past 5 years".  That would be a minimum of $200,000 a year.  The By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part II Board of Directors item (vii) states "May purchase such equipment and other personal property as is necessary to properly accomplish the purposes of the Association, except that board should have no power to expend in excess of $4,000 in any one (1) year for the acquisition of personal property or for capital improvements w/o majority vote of members present and voting at a duly held meeting of the members association."  Can I have a copy of the minutes from the meeting where expenditure of amounts in excess of 199,999 was approved?
> 
> 
> 
> ANSWER:  The section in the same documents that authorize the management company to do this is as follows:
> 
> 
> Title II, By-Laws of the Pollard Brook Unit Owners' Association, Part VI Accounting, Section 5 Special Assessments, states:
> 
> a. Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him, which shall be billed to him as special assessments.
> 
> b. Expenses billable as special assessments include, but are not limited to, the costs of repairing damage done to the condominium unit, equipment, and furnishings during the use period, other than ordinary wear and tear: telephone charges over and above the basic charges; and such other services rendered during the use period at the request of the owner or guest not included as an item in the budget.
> 
> Title III, Timeshare Management, Part III Management, Section 5 Special Assessments, states:
> 
> Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him. These expenses include, but are not limited to, the expense of repairing damage done to the condominium unit, equipment, and furnishings during the use period assigned to him, other than ordinary wear and tear: telephone charges over and above the basic charges; and such other services rendered during the use period at the request of the owner or a guest not included as an item in the budget.
> 
> 
> 
> As part of our due diligence in implementing this assessment,  the management company's legal counsel, as well as the NH Attorney General's Office reviewed this action prior to its implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> QUESTION: 2. The By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part IV Meetings Section 1 states
> 
> "(c) The president, with in (30) days of said meeting shall cause a copy of the minutes there of, including the budget adopted thereof to be mailed to each member".
> 
> I received the special assessment in mail, but have never received a copy in the mail of the operating budget.
> 
> Questions: Can we receive (in mail) the annual meeting minutes and operating budgets for each year going forward?
> 
> 
> 
> ANSWER:  Yes, you can (and will) receive this information going forward.  I have attached the latest Board of Advisor minutes for your review.
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION: Although your questions are excellent, it is important for you to know that until recently, the Board consisted of only the developer, and its appointees.  The developer owned the majority of the intervals, and consequently the majority of the votes for any action.  During development stage, and during the first 80% of the sales, a Board is not required.  As soon as over 80% of the inventory was sold, it was then that a Homeowners' Association (HOA) was required.  Currently, there is an interim Board of Advisors, which is the first step in constituting a full-fledged HOA, with its attendant Board of Directors, made up of owners elected by other owners.  Having said that, in the future, the developer will continue to be an active member of the Board, because the developer continues to own approximately 1100 intervals at the property, with the same number of votes in any Board election.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________
> 
> Dennis M. Ducharme, RRP
> 
> Board of Directors



Ducharme's answers don't make sense to me.
How does his answer to Q1 make sense to anybody?? Unless i'm reading it incorrectly, it addresses an assessment to an individual owner using his/her week(s) who damaged the unit, ran up telephone charges, or requested special services. How do we get from this to the special assessments we now have??? I simply don't believe the AG reviewed anything. Print your email from Ducharme and send it to the AG asking confirmation that they reviewed the special assessment prior to it being sent to owners.

His CONCLUSION is again the 80% position. This has no basis per the Condo Declarations filed with Grafton County and which we recieved when we bought. It says a maximun of 5 years or 75% sold. The Declaration was filed and recorded in 1989!!


----------



## AJS

ecwinch said:


> Yes. The Board of Directors that is authorized by your by-laws is only legal governing body at the resort.
> 
> The Board of Advisors has NO authority under NH law or the by-laws. They have no legal basis for their existence. It would be like you sending out a letter as the Board of Owners or President of the PB Owners Committee.
> 
> The Declaration is the legal document that authorizes the creation of the PB Unit Owners Association.  That UOA then is legally incorporated under NH state law, and is governed by the by-laws. In turn the By-Laws authorize the UOA to be governed by the Board of Directors.
> 
> But the developer has decided to stick the Board of Advisors out there as puppets - IMO. There is nothing in the by-laws to authorize them, nor are they granted any powers under the by-laws. Any authority they have is illusionary.
> 
> Ask Dennis for the by-laws of the Board of Advisors.
> 
> Edit: Just to be clear, everyone who owns a unit is a member of the Unit Owners Association.



Eric - so the non profit corporation that is called Pollard Brook Unit Owners Associationthat filed with the state of NH on 3/12/07 with Ducharme as Pres, MacGregor as Treas, and Curran as Secy is the legit Board odf Directors required by the Condo Declaration and bylaws??   and this Board of Advisors putting out the special assessment showing Stanzani as President is a Ducharme creation with no legal standing??


----------



## ecwinch

AJS said:


> Eric - so the non profit corporation that is called Pollard Brook Unit Owners Associationthat filed with the state of NH on 3/12/07 with Ducharme as Pres, MacGregor as Treas, and Curran as Secy is the legit Board odf Directors required by the Condo Declaration and bylaws??   and this Board of Advisors putting out the special assessment showing Stanzani as President is a Ducharme creation with no legal standing??



Yes. But I do not know who created it. But under the by-laws it does not exist.


----------



## ecwinch

AJS said:


> Ducharme's answers don't make sense to me.
> How does his answer to Q1 make sense to anybody?? Unless i'm reading it incorrectly, it addresses an assessment to an individual owner using his/her week(s) who damaged the unit, ran up telephone charges, or requested special services. How do we get from this to the special assessments we now have??? I simply don't believe the AG reviewed anything. Print your email from Ducharme and send it to the AG asking confirmation that they reviewed the special assessment prior to it being sent to owners.
> 
> His CONCLUSION is again the 80% position. This has no basis per the Condo Declarations filed with Grafton County and which we recieved when we bought. It says a maximun of 5 years or 75% sold. The Declaration was filed and recorded in 1989!!



Also, note his statement that the BOA: "know that until recently, the Board consisted of only the developer, and its appointees" 

Why - I think it because they needed some stooges to make this all look kosher. 

I like the idea of sending the e-mail to the AG. I would put a cover letter on it highlighting the applicable text though.

Something like:

_NH Attorney General's Office,

I am writing to you in regard to an e-mail communication I recently received from Mr. Dennis Ducharme regarding a special assessment levied on members of the Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association. Mr. Ducharme is a member of the Board of Directors, Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association. In the text of Mr. Ducharme reply to my inquiry, Mr. Ducharme indicates that the NH State Attorney General's office reviewed the special assessment before it was levied. 

I would like to verify this information to be true. A copy of the entire e-mail communication is attached. 

The Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association is a non-profit corporation incorporated in New Hampshire with offices at XXXXX. As a Condominium association, the Pollard Brook Unit Owners Associated is regulated under the provisions of RSA 356-B. 

I would appreciate your prompt reply in this matter.

Sincerely_


----------



## Bwolf

ecwinch said:


> Or Joel is misinformed.
> 
> Hanlon's razor: Do not invoke conspiracy as explanation when ignorance and incompetence will suffice, as conspiracy implies intelligence.
> 
> nor am I suggesting that Joel is stupid.




There is nothing in my original statement to suggest conspiracy.  Nothing at all.

We are being mislead or lied to in order to protect the developer's interests.  This statement is supported by the posts preceding and following it.

Here's an example, from a post of yours, Eric:

There is one thing that is troubling me. The documents we have seen so clearly refute the statements the Developer is making.

I can understand how someone could lie about it, but who would be so stupid as to lie when the documents are so readily available.

So I checked NH law again and the Declaration again. I cannot find anything that supports what they are saying.
-----------------------------------------------

So, Eric, the bottom line is, if you are going to work with me, don't misrepresent what I say again.  Understood?

FWIW, I'm making progress getting help from TST.  To get this done, we need to pull together, not separately.

Once TST is fully on-board, we will get some very good advice on how to proceed.  That is the advice we'll need to follow.  Or, I'll go my own way with TST while the rest of you vent on this thread without accomplishing anything.


----------



## ecwinch

No offense intended. 

Thanks


----------



## Bwolf

ecwinch said:


> No offense intended.
> 
> Thanks




OK.  I'll let it go.


----------



## Bwolf

*TimeSharing Today*

OK, here is what TST sent in their Important News & Information email just received.  This is listed under "Resort Issues."  So, get the word out to owners you know.  Send all the information you have to TST.  They are great at handling issues like this.  FWIW, at my request, another poster here provided some of the sentences in the statement attributed to me.  That poster is free to take credit for them.

*Pollard Brook-Lincoln,         NH *
"While there are         many issues, the following appear to be key to me. All communications we         have received since 1998 indicated that Pollard Brook was well managed         and fiscally sound. Now, in 2009, we get hit with an assessment. Many of         the uses for the assessment, called "capital projects," are         simply maintenance fee "on-going upgrade" items, not         legitimate assessment charges. Clearly, Polard Brook has not been         well-run. No financials supporting the assessment were provided and all         references to special assessments in the Bylaws and the NH State         Condominium Act are in reference to expenses that have been incurred,         not a wish list of projects desired to be done. 

Based on information         gathered after the fact, the owner and developer (who are one and the         same) has not done his fiduciary duty in ensuring adequate funds were         maintained in the capital reserves to keep Pollard Brook at a five star         level and we as owners were not aware of the financials of the resort as         the annual reports have indicated a different picture. 
To add insult to injury,         some owners, but not all, are now being asked to foot the bill. It         appears to be illegal to charge some, but not all owners, the         maintenance fee. It is my belief that all registered owners at the time         of the assessment, weeks as well as points, long-time owners and recent         purchasers, should pay the assessment. I've raised this issue with the         General Manager of Pollard Brook and he has referred it to the         Developer's hand-picked, controlled Board and the Developer's         Lawyer. 

The developer owns many         unsold units at the resort but apparently isn't going to pay the         maintenance fee. He expects to issue an IOU and pay later. This hardly         seems fair. Finally, it appears the Developer has remained in control of         Pollard Brook far longer than the law allows. There is a         "Board," but it is composed of three members of management and         two "owner representatives" who are hand-picked by management,         not elected by the owners of units. There is no Home Owner's Association         (HOA) elected by the owners of units and weeks at Pollard Brook from a         ballot of self-nominated, fellow owners."
        Bruce Wolf  (A recent subscriber to TimeSharing Today) 

There has         also been a         considerable amount of owner commentary on TUG about Pollard         Brook. We would like to hear from other owners about what they are         experiencing.   TimeSharing Today will then contact the developer for         a reply and details.         We will publish an article in the printed edition. If you have         additional comments, email  staff@tstoday.com         Subject: Pollard Brook


----------



## AJS

ecwinch said:


> Also, note his statement that the BOA: "know that until recently, the Board consisted of only the developer, and its appointees"
> 
> Why - I think it because they needed some stooges to make this all look kosher.
> 
> I like the idea of sending the e-mail to the AG. I would put a cover letter on it highlighting the applicable text though.
> 
> Something like:
> 
> _NH Attorney General's Office,
> 
> I am writing to you in regard to an e-mail communication I recently received from Mr. Dennis Ducharme regarding a special assessment levied on members of the Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association. Mr. Ducharme is a member of the Board of Directors, Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association. In the text of Mr. Ducharme reply to my inquiry, Mr. Ducharme indicates that the NH State Attorney General's office reviewed the special assessment before it was levied.
> 
> I would like to verify this information to be true. A copy of the entire e-mail communication is attached.
> 
> The Pollard Brook Unit Owners Association is a non-profit corporation incorporated in New Hampshire with offices at XXXXX. As a Condominium association, the Pollard Brook Unit Owners Associated is regulated under the provisions of RSA 356-B.
> 
> I would appreciate your prompt reply in this matter.
> 
> Sincerely_



Dreamweaver -- Really like Eric's suggested letter to the AG. Hope you will send it ASAP


----------



## AJS

dreamWeaver said:


> Finley,
> 
> I think we need to take Joel's statements with a grain of salt..
> 
> The Board is comprised with three members of "InnSeasons" and two owner representatives. And this is really a concern. We as owners do not have fair representation and no line of communication as I stated earlier. I've yet to receive the minutes I requested. By the way, our Bylaws state, we are to receive copies each year from the annual meeting sent with the maintenance fee billing.
> There were no minutes as there weren’t any annual meetings as we were in the aforementioned development/sales stages. ​I received the meeting minutes from Dennis Ducharme for 10/7/2008 and 3/11/2009 and Joel was in attendance at both meetings.



DreamWeaver - Would really like to know the names of the people attending the 10/7/08  and 3/11/09 meetings. Anyway you could also share the minutes? I really wondering what this "Board of Advisors" is, when it was formed, and if it has any legal basis to send out a special assessment letter . Seems that it doesn't! The Condo Declarations and the bylaws state that the Unit Owners Assoc Board of Directors ( not a Board of Advisors) is a three member Board. The last filing with the Secretary of State on 3/12/07 has Ducharme, MacGregor, and Curran as the Directors. So how and when did this five member "Board of Advisors" get formed and does it have any legal basis?


----------



## Finley

Yes, I would also like copies of the minutes.  I will continue to work with Joel and you can continue to work with Dennis.  I will keep a record of these contradications to further the cause.  Joel did say there was going to be elections held at the November meeting.  I'll be quite interested to see how / if we as owners get notified.  I didn't ask him, but with still 1100 units unsold and their magic 80% rule, why are they suddenly moving in this direction?


----------



## Finley

For those who are still interested in this issue and others identified with Pollard Brook, we have established a HOA User group for Pollard Brook on http://www.timeshareforums.com/

I would encourage you to sign up on the site, it's free. 
Then once you have received the return e-mail and accepted you can request to join the group.  (Similar process as with TUGGBBS)

http://www.timeshareforums.com
Click 2nd tab, "User CP" toward the upper left corner
Click Group Memberships under NETWORKING
Join Pollard Brook Homeowners Group

The moderator has to accept you into the group. 
Once that is done, you would
Log on, go to Forum Navigation drop down, then HOA Forums, Pollard Brook.

All future discussion, action etc. will occur there. I hope you will join us as we have discovered quite a bit about the operation of Pollard Brook and the special assessment as well as the HOA (or lack thereof). We as owners need to be involved to protect our interests. 

Just think, that maintenance fee bill will be coming out next month too!

Thanks to TUGGBBS to helping me get the initial messages out there....


----------



## Finley

*Pollard Brook Update*

Hi Folks - For those still interested and not on the TST site, PB has now posted the meeting of the BOD on their website.  They have also updated their FAQs based on comments from this string of messages.  It's always good to confirm what one suspects.  

Elections will be taking place at the "annual meeting" that appears has never been held before.  Information should be forthcoming from our esteemed leaders at PB regarding time, place etc.  It would be advantageous for all to educate themselves of the FACTS prior to and attend as time would allow.
Best to All ~


----------



## kgusta

*Pollard Brood Assessment Fee*

Has anyone heard anything from the Attorney Generals office regarding this situation?  Please advise.  Thanks


----------



## wphillips

*Has there been any progress on this issue?*

I have not paid my fee and now have a combined bill for the Special Assessment and my regular Maintenance Fee.


----------



## Allen Davis

An interesting part of Pollard Brook is the division within the resort. I had owned a unit in the "float" section which was not part of the InnSeason community. The unit I had I gave to my son 2 years ago who is now trying to give it away. The transfer fee went from $75.00 to $400.00 and so far no explanation. He just paid off the "special" assessment fee.
I noted yesterday that all the liens against Southern Peaks were paid off by Oct 5, 2009. Coincidence???  Is it legal to charge presnt owners special fees to pay off the developers bad debts??


----------



## Jack__

*Pollard Brook Ducharme*

I had never noticed it before reexamining all my doccuments.

My annual deeded unit was purchased in Nov 1995. I paid cash to pollard brook and got all my paperwork or so I thought.

Ducharm was president... 

Today searching in Grafton county records for my deed's recording I could not find it in 1995-1996. Expanding the search I located it in Sept 1998. Three years after my purchase.

Checking for my copy, I found it was infact recorded three years after the fact. 

My thoughts immediately settled that the only reason that would be so is because the president and developer used this three year period to get a float from the bank by showing it unsold. I can think of no other reason why thy waited three years.... three years to record it when they had full payment. The only other senario I can think of is to hide it from the IRS. Either way or even for something that hasnot crossed my mind, it can only be illegal. 

Makes me wonder more what is going on now!


----------



## jccmm27

*Special Assessment*

Well, I finally gave up.  After getting no where with Pollard Brook we have finally decided to sell our $14000 (as they said it was worth) for what we owe on our 2010 maint fee of $626.00 and the special assessment so we have lost everything. Thank you Pollard Brook.I hope all of your board members are taken care of comfortably.
Joanne Davis


----------



## Finley

*So sorry for the late posters*

Hi All - Wish I could say or do more.  I surely tried...if there is new interest, several of us are still watching and waiting for an opportunity to prove all we know and pursue options.  As nothing will change, I can assure you of that.  At the very least, be sure to vote and/or attend the annual meetings if you are unhappy with what is going on.  We can't change the past, but we can protect our investment and ensure our property and monies are protected.  If you have been able to sell your units - good for you.  Most folks can't give the darn things away!


----------



## mac-18

*Special assessment fees*

Hello, all 
1st of all, I would like to apologize to all of you owners that I'm late to the table for this challenge. I like so many others have had severe financial hardships spanning 3+ years now. My circumstance has left me scrambling to pay my bills at times & totally neglecting others. One of my neglected bills was my July 2009 PB bill. (I know I'm Way Late, sorry to all). My M/F's & Special assessment totaled $932.46. When my wife & myself purchased this unit, we were under the impression that we would only have to pay the little mortgage we took out & yearly M/F's. Not to mention we are an outdoors family, so being in the mountains for a vacation was an excellent deal, we thought. After the 1st time we used our Deeded Float Week (week 20 but can be floated, depending on availability, or so we were led to believe never tried) we knew things weren't the way they were advertised to us. We had a good family time, but haven't used it again in the 7+ years. In the meantime the M/F's have gone up ( ill be it mostly reasonable increases), Now the Special assessment fee of $419.42. Like I said I'm late to the party but now I want to be involved to resolve this "FEE" to our resort. I have contacted the Massachusetts A.G.'s consumer complaint & mediation hot-line, was given some decent directions to head towards. If your own personnel research has come to any fruition please pass it along. I plan on doing some research on my own as time permits, now that I realize what a problem this has become and what a shady scheme to raise finances. I look forward to hearing from you all. Thank you for allowing me to come into this situation late & allowing my participation. Have a good day.


----------



## Finley

We tried the NH AG's office.  Without showing actual harm done, we have no grounds.  Others tried the MA AG as well and didn't really get anywhere either.  Of note, the next board meeting is in Concord:
3/24/10 Wednesday 10 AM – 12 PM: Pollard Board Meeting

At the offices of Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell
214 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03302

Any and all owners are welcome to attend these meetings per our Bylaws. 

I also noted that you can now donate your timeshare on Billy's other endeavor:  www.sellmytimesharenow.com

Might be an option for some...Good Luck!


----------



## mac-18

Thank you for the update Finley. Is there a figure on how many people or owners that actually paid this "Special Assessment Fee"? Thank you again.


----------



## Finley

Refer to the www.innseason.com website / owner services section.  If you aren't currently set up with a log on, I would encourage you to set up an account to access this section.  They are trying to do a better job of putting pertinent information out there.  I have made several complaints and subsequent requests for improvements about the site to allow us as owners access to more information so do check it pretty regularly.  Under the Information Library the 2009 financial statement is posted.  It indicated that fees collected from the SA are: $1,186,677 with $55,373 from reserves (not sure what that is though) for a total of  $1,242,050.  In terms of percentage of owners who paid it, it's not indicated for the SA however the page notes 77% of the maintenance fees have been paid.


----------



## mac-18

*As owners Do we?*



I have a couple questions, maybe someone has already researched?


Do we as owners,  Have the right, to form our own governing body, ( owners union if you will)?

Do we as owners, Have access to the actually CPA's report on the upgrades & or actual truthful reasons for the "Special Assessment"?

Are we as owners, Have the right, as a whole,( owners union if you will), to approve or decline certain upgrades?

Do we as owners, have the right to look at & examine the receipts for where our HOA monies as it is spent?

Do we as owners, have the right to look at & examine our maintenance fee & or HOA bank account?


----------



## Bwolf

mac-18 said:


> I have a couple questions, maybe someone has already researched?
> Do we as owners,  Have the right, to form our own governing body, ( owners union if you will)?
> 
> Do we as owners, Have access to the actually CPA's report on the upgrades & or actual truthful reasons for the "Special Assessment"?
> 
> Are we as owners, Have the right, as a whole,( owners union if you will), to approve or decline certain upgrades?
> 
> Do we as owners, have the right to look at & examine the receipts for where our HOA monies as it is spent?
> 
> Do we as owners, have the right to look at & examine our maintenance fee & or HOA bank account?



mac-18:

Some of us have a group going, but we have no power.

It is possible that if truthful reasons come out, developers go to jail.

We have no rights as owners except to vote in an election where the developer controls the majority of votes.  Approve or decline upgrades, no. 

We should have the right to examine how our monies are spent, but good luck trying.

The developer believes he releases enough information to satisfy point 5.


----------



## mac-18

*A couple more comments*


A couple more comments,
All the paperwork that I have either says "Inn Season Resorts, POLLARD BROOK, The Northeast Experience." or just "Inn Season Resorts, The Northeast Experience." 
The checks that I make out are payable to "Pollard Brook HOA", yet the HOA is still management controlled, Thus leaving "the deeded owners" with no actual say in matters.
The "Inn Season Resorts, POLLARD BROOK" Welcome book, States on Chapter 2, page 7, Title 11 "Resale of interests", Subsection D "Purchasers of timeshare intervals will pay to the association, to be collected by the manager, an annual maintenance fee as  provided in the projected budget  attached hereto. Except in extra ordinary circumstances, the annual maintenance fee shall be the only charge the purchaser must pay in addition to the purchase price and closing costs associated therewith." 
Based on the previous statement, Can "Pollard Brook" prove to us that this is an extra ordinary circumstance? 
These are just my thoughts for today. I will reply &/ or post more as I come across more information. Thank you all for your time & effort put into this gripe with "OUR" resort. 

MAC-18


----------



## mac-18

*Thank you for the update*

Reply from Bwolf in regards to "As owners Do we?" post from mac-18, See above post.
"mac-18:

Some of us have a group going, but we have no power.

It is possible that if truthful reasons come out, developers go to jail.

We have no rights as owners except to vote in an election where the developer controls the majority of votes. Approve or decline upgrades, no.

We should have the right to examine how our monies are spent, but good luck trying.

The developer believes he releases enough information to satisfy point 5."

That's really a an unfortunate place to be & seems to be extremely unfair. I'm going to keep digging when I have the time. Thank you again!!

mac-18


----------

