# VRI bill arrived



## Corky (Nov 20, 2009)

Just received my VRI bill for Cape Cod Holiday Estates.  The charges include operating costs, tax, capital improvement, AND a special assessment for a grand total of $2,795!!!!!

Are they kidding??

Can someone tell me what capital improvements are vs. special assessment - adding insult to injury.

Any outraged owners out there like to comment?


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 20, 2009)

Capital improvements includes such things as replacing all the sewer lines
@ a resort or they are adding or upgrading roads/highways, side walks, at the resort.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 20, 2009)

What were last years MFs?  That MF times 52 weeks a year is over $145,000 per unit.  _*WOW!*_  I hope you were sitting down when you read that. 

Figured you call the resort for an explaination. RCI lists this as a Silver Crown resort and you are 3 miles from the beach. How many units are there?


----------



## dmbrand (Nov 20, 2009)

I am not an owner, but have read other threads involving resorts in the Cape Cod area that are incurring their own special assessments.  After doing a little digging via google, it appears that their is a major sewer/septic project for all of the Cape to protect the waters surrounding it.  

....or, I am completely wrong!  At any rate, I feel bad for anyone opening up an unexpected bill such as yours.

This website seems to have some good info....
http://www.capekeepers.org/


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 20, 2009)

*Sewers are on the way*



dmbrand said:


> I am not an owner, but have read other threads involving resorts in the Cape Cod area that are incurring their own special assessments.  After doing a little digging via google, it appears that their is a major sewer/septic project for all of the Cape to protect the waters surrounding it.



There is one coming but it has been planned for years (for example the Cove @ Yarmouth already has a $500,000 environmental fund set aside to pay for it when/if it occurs in 2013 as promised).  I doubt they would be special assessing now for that.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 20, 2009)

Keep in mind that VRI is not the bad guy here.  VRI does as the HOA directs, and if they are setting aside money for some big projects, the decision wasn't made without a great deal of thought and anguish.  

Being on a board of a timeshare will really open your eyes.


----------



## e.bram (Nov 21, 2009)

Time to bail out. Not on the beach! Even a summer unit would not bring that amount, resale.I kick myself in the butt because I didn't bail out on Oceancliff when their SA was levied


----------



## Holly (Nov 21, 2009)

Great...I just bought Cape Winds.


----------



## chriskre (Nov 21, 2009)

In my VRI resort FLB we had a special assessment of  about $950 after a hurricane.  I thought that was bad but this place must have no reserves.

I must say that after the assessment the resort is really nice now.
I have enjoyed staying there since and was the first to break in my unit 
after the remodel which was great.  

Made me feel I got my moneys worth.   Hope that makes you feel better.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 21, 2009)

*You have to look at the history*



chriskre said:


> In my VRI resort FLB we had a special assessment of  about $950 after a hurricane.  I thought that was bad but this place must have no reserves.



When you see a special assessment - especially a huge one- it is a clear indication that past management/Boards did not properly fund operations and/or reserves.  Often you will see it happen when a new management steps in and they have to try to fix years of neglect and underfunding.  The worst, IMO, is when the same management that helped create the problem is left in charge to "handle" the fix. Usually they aren't capable of that work or they would have handled it properly to begin with. Of course there can be the occasional situation where a management has recommended funding and collection levels that would support the resort but were ignored by a Board that insists on holding down fees. That is often a very false economy and ends up in the type of massive special assessment we may be seeing here.  

All properties require adequate ongoing operational funds as well as reasonable collection of future funding for upgrades, maintenance and repairs. Refusing to acknowledge those needs or stretching the existing buildings, furnishings and fixtures beyond reasonable life spans doesn't save money it leads to large, one time (or, in extreme cases of poor planning multiple large) assessments to rebuild. 

In many cases it is not the current Board or Management that is at fault but years of bad management, all too often Developer based management that hold fees artificially "low" to spur sales,  that finally cannot be ignored any longer if the resort is going to remain viable. Yes it makes the current management and Board look like the heavies but they are really only doing the work at the going cost that must get done.


----------



## chriskre (Nov 21, 2009)

Seems like a condo problem everywhere these days.  I live in a condo and we have a 100K deficit and no one wants to cut back services or lay any workers off.  I don't know how long we can continue but people just love to put their head in the sand and not deal with the issues.  We have 10 delinquent owners owing more than 100K and we are almost powerless to do anything until the banks foreclose on them which they seem to not be doing these days.  

 I know it's frustrating for me because I am on the board and I'm the heavy when it comes to bringing to light reality.  Everyone thinks I'm being unreasonable because I want to cancel the pool service and have an employee go to the pool store and take a water sample with him.  I used to have a house with a pool and I did this myself so I don't see the big deal.   The community did manage to listen when it came to painting and we saved $100K and only spent 10K by paying the employees we already have a little extra to paint.  

I guess when we have no water and the trash is piling up the chutes then they'll vote to do the hard things that need to be done to get our budget back in line with reality.  

It's not easy these days.  No one wants to face reality.  I'm afraid with so many timeshares that I own I may become a victim of more than one poorly managed resort or the victim of the economy when no one wants to pay their maintenace fee bills.  I can only hope for the best.   I guess we're all in the same boat.


----------



## GordonH (Nov 22, 2009)

At CCHE this has nothing to do with sewers, etc.
For the last few years the MF has been just short of $700.  The buildings have been kept in a reasonably good state of repair, but the BOD wants to do a complete remodeling job, presumably to make it more attractive for exchanges, which it already is.  It is a MAJOR overhaul.
The resort has been in operation for about 25 years and for most of that time has been run by the owners.
VRI may not be the heavy in this, but I bet they put the bug in the ears of the BOD.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Nov 22, 2009)

IMHO - one strength that VRI brings when it is brought on board as a management company is a realistic assessment of reserves funding.  VRI has lots of experience managing resorts, and they have a good idea of what the expected life is for various facilities and the replacement costs.

In almost all cases VRI will report that reserves have been significantly underfunded.

At that point it is up to the Board to decide how to respond.  Some boards stick their heads in the sand. Some boards shoot the messenger.  Some boards examine the VRI report carefully and decide where they agree and where they disagree.  

But in the end it's the board's decision as to how to resond.

***

Also, as others have mentioned, the fee you receive is not set by VRI.  It's set by the Board of Directors for the resort.  VRI is not assessing you the amount in your statement; your resort - and the Board elected by you and your fellow owners - establishes the amount. 

If you have a beef, it should be directed to your board and not to VRI.


----------



## e.bram (Nov 22, 2009)

BAIL!!! No sense putting good money after bad especially if you don.t have a prime red week. You can take the SA moiney and buy an oceanfront T^S. See  if the BOD will tell you how many units the HOA now owns and what it will own after SA. All thev money in the world will not put the TS on the ocean where the value of Cape Cod lies. 


ps: This SA will cause a lot of owners to bail out leaving the rest with higher MF. Good luck.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 22, 2009)

*It all depends how you "walk"*



e.bram said:


> BAIL!!! No sense putting good money after bad especially if you don.t have a prime red week. You can take the SA moiney and buy an oceanfront T^S.



With VRI watching the store I can guarantee that the OP can't just "walk away" from the resort by simply stopping payments without the appropriate serious consequences. If they sell it, pay someone who accepts it or give it away to a new owner then "walking away" would be fine as someone picks up the responsibility.


----------



## jbercu (Nov 22, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> With VRI watching the store I can guarantee that the OP can't just "walk away" from the resort by simply stopping payments without the appropriate serious consequences. If they sell it, pay someone who accepts it or give it away to a new owner then "walking away" would be fine as someone picks up the responsibility.



Don’t walk away!  Ask the Board to take your unit back.

They will gladly take it back, and then give it to VRI or more correctly VRI DEVELOPMENT & SALES INC. (VDS).   VDS will sell it to the VI club and it is a WIN WIN for everybody.

The remaining owners pay for the resort improvement and get a better resort, VRI gets a nice profit on the sale of your unit, VI Club members get more units in their club, and VRI gets a non-cut lifetime management contract at your resort.
It was already done at Riverview and The Cove @ Yarmouth on Cape Cod and everybody is happy.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 22, 2009)

*Fact or possibility?*



jbercu said:


> Don’t walk away!  Ask the Board to take your unit back.
> 
> They will gladly take it back, and then give it to VRI or more correctly VRI DEVELOPMENT & SALES INC. (VDS).   VDS will sell it to the VI club and it is a WIN WIN for everybody.
> 
> ...



Are you sure that the resort is accepting weeks back at this time - especially if there is a SA pending? VI stopped taking weeks into their system over a year ago (don't need more inventory) at the Cove and another resort I know they had been taking.  It is true that the program helped everyone as, at least at The Cove @ Yarmouth. It has helped get all the always tough to sell blue week time sold and placed with paying owners, thus eliminating one of the big issues with seasonal area resorts.  And they did it by being creative, giving value to time that usually has none (and without involving RCI/II or other resorts to get unfair trades to create artificial value) so this has been an extremely positive program.  If it is underway at CCHE then by all means do what you feel serves you best but if not you can be sure that VRI is doing their best to work with the Board and get value for owners as well as a beautiful resort owners want to use and that has a great trade value.   That type of progressive management is what VRI does extremely well.


----------



## e.bram (Nov 22, 2009)

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Only smoke and mirrors can give value to off season non oceanfront Cape Cod.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 22, 2009)

*Making everyone have value should be the goal. Not to disband timeshare as a concept*



e.bram said:


> You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Only smoke and mirrors can give value to off season non oceanfront Cape Cod.



It can never be a summer, prime time value anymore than my Wastegate can be a desirable organization/resort to own. But it (and Wastegate) can be a value for the amount of money paid annually thus helping to preserve the owners value and the financial stability of the resorts - a true win for everyone that I would think you would applaud rather than denigrate. Unless all you want to do is try to say any timeshare has no value in which case proving that they do disproves your theory.  If that's the case sorry to disappoint you!


----------



## Corky (Nov 22, 2009)

I'm conflicted because I love the resort.  It isn't beach front but only 3 miles from the beach, plus each unit is a stand alone house.

The units need some upgrading but not a TOTAL overhaul as proposed. 

My fear is that the dependable owners will have to bail out due to this high assessment, leaving CCHE and VRI with more delinquent units.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 22, 2009)

Corky said:


> I'm conflicted because I love the resort.  It isn't beach front but only 3 miles from the beach, plus each unit is a stand alone house.
> 
> The units need some upgrading but not a TOTAL overhaul as proposed.
> 
> My fear is that the dependable owners will have to bail out due to this high assessment, leaving CCHE and VRI with more delinquent units.



I'll throw in one more though based on those comments. 

I have lived through three very similar (for those times) high SA's at resorts we loved. In all cases after we got over the shock (and yes, disappointment) over the extra cost the end results were greatly improved resorts and, to my surprise, virtually no drop off in owner payments due to those SA's.  Long term all three have been a positive and fees have stabilized after the work was done. In at least two cases the resort has been careful to plan for future improvements to avoid anymore SA's, while the third (under Developer rather than owner control) has yet to prove they learned a lesson.  If they have then all three will be well worth the costs.


----------



## TREE (Nov 22, 2009)

*Cape Cod Holiday Estates Bill / Special Assessment*

Corky and Others,


We are Members of Cape Cod Holiday Estates....About two weeks ago we got a letter as usual from the codo board. It did mention doing a total overhaul of the units. 
We shot off an email right away, due to the fact that we want to know was this just a thought , was this something we voted on? We were not asked to vote. We got a response...we have sent your concerns to the board and you will receive a response...we did this 3 times now and still as of Today No Response.

The information for example they had in there was 8,000 dollars to paint the inside of each and every unit. Thats 8,000 each unit. My husband a painter and last year we painted our house inside and out for 3,000 dollars. Right away we knew 8,000 just to paint inside one unit is way way too much money. 

Also let me tell you that each year, same thing we would get a review of the year just as we did two weeks ago and It would list this is why your fee is going up AGAIN.... And it showed the improvements. In 25 years we have totally rebuilt almost these units. IT's been mattresses, to curtins, to microwaves, to decks...the list goes on and on..and to be honest they we would go down there and see now difference and the answer would be well we are doing it over the year so your unit may be done at a later date, etc.

SO, to tell us now we need a major overhaul after we have been paying and told update have been done year after year is the sin on their part. Also their update are almost a wish list, they asked if we wanted to vote on one thing, should we take out the sliders in the units and replace them with sliders or would we like to see a picture window.

Hey when people are at war, some are not working, taxes are going up just to live in our home...do we really care.......leave the sliders that are there!

If this were for roads or a natural disaster I could maybe see it, But this is a total makeover for a unit I use once a year. Would we all love to totally do our homes over right now.

My concern is that members are not organizing and asking questions. Someone needs to. 
I wonder Corky what you will do..?

Thanks
Tree
tree1a@aol.com


----------



## e.bram (Nov 22, 2009)

Yup. Wonder why it takes $100,000.00 to do a $25,000.00 renovation? Who is hiring the contractors? Been there, had it done to me. Only good thing is that they sprung it on you before '10 MF. Walkers can save both.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 22, 2009)

*Double check that one. It can't be that high.*



TREE said:


> The information for example they had in there was 8,000 dollars to paint the inside of each and every unit. Thats 8,000 each unit. My husband a painter and last year we painted our house inside and out for 3,000 dollars. Right away we knew 8,000 just to paint inside one unit is way way too much money.



Read it again or ask the Board to clarify that line item. It almost has to be an error or a misread of the budgeted amount. That CANNOT be correct (if it is then you have a real valid complaint and should question the whole renovation very closely!)


----------



## jbercu (Nov 22, 2009)

Corky said:


> I'm conflicted because I love the resort.  It isn't beach front but only 3 miles from the beach, plus each unit is a stand alone house.
> The units need some upgrading but not a TOTAL overhaul as proposed.
> My fear is that the dependable owners will have to bail out due to this high assessment, leaving CCHE and VRI with more delinquent units.



Been there, had it done to me.

VRI has a lot of experience with this method of renovations.  The percentage of defaulting units has already been projected.  Does it matter if the painting is $4000 and everyone pays, or $8000 and only 50% of the owners pay?  The remodel will be completed and successful, and it will leave CCHE with high assessments and more delinquency.
If you walk, you most likely will have two options or a combination of both:

1) You will be able to buy a unit back for $1 on e-bay, you most likely will be the only bidder, after the remodel is complete.

2) You will be able to rent the unit for half the annual dues, after the remodel.


----------



## susette (Nov 26, 2009)

*I am NOT Paying this Special Assessment*

I just got my Cape Cod Holiday Estates bill and its also $2795, with no explanation as to the Special Assessment. 

So I called and the desk clerk said I should have received a letter last month explaining the charges. 

I never received a letter, and I did not authorize this fee. I told him that the fee was more than my mortgage and I was not going to pay it. He told me to write the board. 

Here is what I think...

CCHE is SUPPOSED to have a money reserve in place to pay for condo upgrades and any other required maintenance, including road work etc. 

Where is the reserve?  What have they spent our money on?

Every year they hit us with a bill for a special assessment. This is either the most expensive condo complex in the U.S. or our money is being sadly mismanaged.  

My unit is suppose to have 50 owners.  That means they just billed over $140,000 alone for my unit as part of this special assessment. Even if 30 of those owners have defaulted, they are trying to receive over $58,000 for my unit this year. 

I am ABSOLUTELY not paying this bill. And I don't think anyone else should pay their bills either.  

To be honest, I am starting to think we are being scammed by this Board. They overcharge us every single year and I am so tired of it.

GETTING AN ATTORNEY
What i am going to do is call my father tomorrow. He is an an attorney in Massachusetts and lives on the Cape. I'm also asking for an itemized statement of exactly where our money has gone in 2009. 

If anyone has any information about this Special Assesment, or CCHE budget these past few years and would like to share it with me, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'll send it to my father.  

AND if this Board has been ripping us off by overcharging us, or using our money inappropriately, I am taking that information direct to the MA Attorney General's office.

Any information you have would be greatly appreciated. My email is eurotraks@yahoo.com

Thanks,
Sue


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 26, 2009)

I have read this thread several times now and I have concluded that it's takes a very knowledge person to be on a t/s board.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 26, 2009)

*Rare case that VRI hasn't got the Board to pass along the needed information*



pedro47 said:


> I have read this thread several times now and I have concluded that it's takes a very knowledge person to be on a t/s board.



It seems this Board isn't doing a good job of communicating what is going on at the resort and why these fees are being charged. This is item one on any successful operation and in handling the never pleasant situation that any special assessment brings up.  Open and frank communication of all available information is crucial to minimizing complaints and getting owner input and buy in.  I'm surprised that apparently this Board hasn't done all it can to make this an open and interactive process.  Big mistake.  When owners have to come to TUG to attempt to get answers something is seriously amiss with the process.


----------



## susette (Nov 26, 2009)

*CCHE Members - Let's Organize*

I think it was TREE who said that the CCHE members should get together and request an explanation.  I completely agree.

I have serious concerns that we have a Board that does not communicate and instead sends us a $2800 bill and just expects us to pay for it. WHO DOES THAT?

Shouldn't we have been allowed to vote on this total renovation?  Where is the transparency for these SA? I feel like this board has never been communicative.  

To be honest here, I own the first week of January. My week is NEVER going to be worth very much.  I only have it in case I want to visit my family once in awhile. So paying this SA is really not in my best interest. Nobody is ever going to want to trade or buy my week.

At this point I really just want to get rid of my unit but I can't figure out how.  I don't want to default on it, but I don't want this hassle anymore. There are much cheaper beach-front condos out there than CCHE.  

Short of giving this until to someone about to declare bankruptcy, I don't know how to get rid of it. I already tried to sell it and nobody would buy it. 

Any advice is appreciated.

Sue


----------



## susette (Nov 26, 2009)

*Calling an Attorney*

sorry, this was a duplicate.


----------



## Shiz (Nov 29, 2009)

e.bram said:


> BAIL!!! No sense putting good money after bad especially if you don.t have a prime red week. You can take the SA moiney and buy an oceanfront T^S. See  if the BOD will tell you how many units the HOA now owns and what it will own after SA. All thev money in the world will not put the TS on the ocean where the value of Cape Cod lies.
> 
> 
> ps: This SA will cause a lot of owners to bail out leaving the rest with higher MF. Good luck.



Surfside is a nice property, but don't act all high and mighty. Those units are tiny, and anyone with a large family can tell you the value of the larger houses. 

The fact you keep suggesting bailing on VRI and going down to Surfside/Captains Quarters makes you sound like one of the slimey sales employees that InnSeason is known for.


----------



## susette (Dec 1, 2009)

*called my attorney*

Considering the next meeting is Dec 3, and I have been told I cannot allow a proxy to sit in on the meeting, I have called my attorney. 

I'm very concerned about the lack of communication by the board to unit owners who do not live in the MA area.  He is looking into the Board's requirements and responsibilities regarding communication to unit owners, and this renovation and S.A. 

I'll let you know if anything turns up.

S


----------



## susette (Dec 1, 2009)

*When was the Owner's Vote for this Renovation?*

This is to all the CCHE unit owners out there. Do you happen to know when the owners vote for this renovation took place?? 

I don't recall voting on this, but apparently this decision was made some time ago. Anyway, if anyone can tell me when this vote took place, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks
Susette


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 1, 2009)

*No owner vote required*



susette said:


> This is to all the CCHE unit owners out there. Do you happen to know when the owners vote for this renovation took place??
> 
> I don't recall voting on this, but apparently this decision was made some time ago. Anyway, if anyone can tell me when this vote took place, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> ...



You appear to be under the impression that the owners are required to vote on a renovation or special assessment or both. That is not the case. You are entitled to vote for your Board representatives who have the right to decide on the need for renovations, improvements, budgets, special assessments, etc.  If you don't agree with what they decide you can vote new Board members in.  Unless the Board decides to hold an owner vote they are not required to do so.  It's like your government vote. You vote for the representatives and they decide what to tax you. They don't have to go back to you for an approval.


----------



## susette (Dec 1, 2009)

oops I have that wrong. I'm not sure if its MA Law or in the CCHE Board rules. But apparently, the CCHE Board was supposed to put this to a vote.


----------



## Corky (Dec 7, 2009)

Any word on how the CCHE meeting went?


----------



## Vaca720 (Dec 8, 2009)

The board decided to go ahead with renovations as planned. They did however vote that the special assessment payment could be deferred until July or even until January 2011 (with a $40 fee).


----------



## Corky (Dec 8, 2009)

Thank you for the update.  Just to be clear, does that mean that the entire special assessment can be deferred until Jan 2011 for a fee of $40? 

So, as long as we pay our regular maintenance fees we will be permitted to use our units?

Do you know if there was a heated argument at the meeting or any consideration of scaling down the cost of the renovations?


----------



## Vaca720 (Dec 9, 2009)

Yes, the first installment would be $460 Jan 2011 and the subsequent years would be $420. The regular maintenance fee can be set up on payment plans as well so that's a good option to spread it all out. 

There was discussion on revising the renovation plan but they had already hashed it out in so many meetings prior.


----------



## Corky (Dec 9, 2009)

Thanks.  That delay provides some breathing room.

I'm still not convinced all the renovations are necessary or that the best price was found.  Seems excessive.


----------



## palmtree7339 (Dec 11, 2009)

*Susette, you are incorrect.*



susette said:


> oops I have that wrong. I'm not sure if its MA Law or in the CCHE Board rules. But apparently, the CCHE Board was supposed to put this to a vote.



Susette, your assumption is incorrect.
The Board indeed does has the fiduciary authority and responsibility to act in behalf of the owners, which they did. A S.A. does not require a vote of the owners for implementation. This is clearly legal in Mass. and also virtually everywhere else in the US. It also is clearly stated in the condo documents that you should have received upon purchase of your unit at CCHE.  I hope this info finally clears up this matter, in your mind.
You sound as if you would like to understand further details on this renovation project, especially as to why it was deemed absolutely necessary for the Board to proceed at this time.
In addition to the numerous mailings, with photo's attached, which were sent to you and all other owners, prior to receiving the S.A. notice and
billing, you are entitled to contact the CCHE Board, the Resort Gen. Mgr.,  the Management Co., VRI., or all three.
They will be most pleased to have the opportunity to answer all of your inquiries. You can also contact me, and I will be sure to respond to you.
Hope this helps you.

Palmtree7339, TUG Member.


----------



## CharlesS (Dec 11, 2009)

*What about a proxy?*



susette said:


> Considering the next meeting is Dec 3, and I have been told I cannot allow a proxy to sit in on the meeting, I have called my attorney.
> S


Any follow up on the proxy question?  I have used a proxy at a different resort HOA with no problems.

Charles


----------



## palmtree7339 (Dec 11, 2009)

*Proxies attending CCHE Bd. Mtg's*

Owner are entitled and welcomed to attend every CCHE Bd. Mtg. as well as the Annual Owners Mtg.. Proxies are not owners. Simple as that.


----------



## e.bram (Dec 12, 2009)

BAIL!, BAIL! BAIL!. Most of the units will not be worth anything even after the renovation.


----------



## palmtree7339 (Dec 12, 2009)

*E.Bram, you are mistaken.*

E.Bram,

I do not understand your logic in recommending to CCHE owners, of which you happen not to be, to "bail", rather than support their BOD in the ongoing efforts to maintain and improve their vacation property.

Within 5 years, all 32 individual homes, each about 30 years old, will be virtually brand new, from the exterior walls inward.

What is to be gained by owners bailing? By walking away and not paying their MF & SA, they lose their interest in a Premier vacation Resort, located in a fabulous spot on Cape Cod, which has received Gold and Silver Crown Award designations from RCI EVERY YEAR since 1985, the year the developers turned the property over to the owners elected Board of Directors, (who, by the way, happen to have currently 3 Bd. members with the experience of serving during this entire 25 year period).

The answer is that such owners will lose the opportunity of being able to continue to enjoy the greatly improved facility. The unit will be foreclosed upon, will be rented to others with the rental income going to the Resort, or will be sold to interested buyers. All owner exchange privileges will be terminated as well.

The owner gains nothing.  

As a non-owner at CCHE, you can be somewhat excused for not recognizing the full value of ownership at Holiday Estates.

I happen to be an owner since 1985, and would hope that fellow owners disregard your comments to "bail".

Palmtree7339


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 12, 2009)

*Don't let the whining win*



palmtree7339 said:


> E.Bram,
> 
> I do not understand your logic in recommending to CCHE owners, of which you happen not to be, to "bail", rather than support their BOD in the ongoing efforts to maintain and improve their vacation property.
> 
> Palmtree7339



Palmtree - Take the comment for what it is. Some tend to be very negative about the whole timeshare world and try to make others pay for the mistakes they feel they made.  While each owner has to decide what is best in a given situation for them a post like that, which is not unique to this thread but is representative of an anti-owner/resort attitude posted at every opportunity by some, really doesn't carry much weight with owners. They know what they have and how hard it is to keep things looking good. Most will realize that an owner Board is working for them and will support the efforts. I hope your resort does see the improvements planned and that your owners continue to enjoy great vacations at a resort they love.


----------



## e.bram (Dec 12, 2009)

CCHC will be available on Ebay for a $1.00 even after the renovation and will make even harder(if not impossible) to sell with SA hanging over it now. Onlyowners who will benefit(maybe) are prime week owners(26-33). They probably compose the BOD and are for it. The property has more value if liquidated and made ito full ownership units.


----------



## JACKJMP (Dec 13, 2009)

*Cape Cod Holiday Estates S A*

HERE IS WHAT THE BOD SENT BACK TO US.
Dear Cape Cod Holiday Estates Owner,



This letter is to make you aware that your board of trustees recently met and discussed at length the input and concerns brought forth by owners in regards to the special assessment. The amount of the assessment will not be changed but they did all agree to defer the payment to allow owners more time to pay. Owners now have the option of deferring the first payment ($420) until July of 2010 or until January 2011 with an additional $40 fee on the first payment ($460). They understand that the delay in getting the special assessment mailing out and then the billing was short notice for 2010. Your regular maintenance fee of $695 is due in January as normal unless payment arrangements have been with the resort or VRI. 

THIS DOES NOT LOOKS TO ME LIKE HELP. IT LOOKS LIKE $80.00 INTEREST BY DEFERRING PAYMENTS THE FIRST YEAR!
WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM HERE? BOD OR VRI?
                                                JACK


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 13, 2009)

*The problem isn't the who but what is needed.*



JACKJMP said:


> THIS DOES NOT LOOKS TO ME LIKE HELP. IT LOOKS LIKE $80.00 INTEREST BY DEFERRING PAYMENTS THE FIRST YEAR!
> WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM HERE? BOD OR VRI?
> JACK



If the payment is delayed for only those owners that choose that option there is a cost. The "problem" isn't with either party you name as VRI is merely implementing the policy/decisions of the Board. The need for a SA is the underlying problem but once it's needed its needed - there is never a good time or amount. The Board has done what they can to lessen the impact, but it's still going to be due.


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 13, 2009)

*Make it better and enjoy*



e.bram said:


> CCHC will be available on Ebay for a $1.00 even after the renovation and will make even harder(if not impossible) to sell with SA hanging over it now. Onlyowners who will benefit(maybe) are prime week owners(26-33). They probably compose the BOD and are for it. The property has more value if liquidated and made ito full ownership units.



The suggestion that owners bail and then buy back in once the resort goes to whole ownership, even if that could be done (unlikely) the bottom line cost would be FAR more than the current plan represents. Truly ludicrous. What the owners need to do now is to concentrate on getting their resort back in shape and protecting what they have already spent.  Support the Board and the resort if you wish to protect your investment.


----------



## jbercu (Dec 13, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> When you see a special assessment - especially a huge one- it is a clear indication that past management/Boards did not properly fund operations and/or reserves.  Often you will see it happen when a new management steps in and they have to try to fix years of neglect and underfunding.  The worst, IMO, is when the same management that helped create the problem is left in charge to "handle" the fix. Usually they aren't capable of that work or they would have handled it properly to begin with. Of course there can be the occasional situation where a management has recommended funding and collection levels that would support the resort but were ignored by a Board that insists on holding down fees. That is often a very false economy and ends up in the type of massive special assessment we may be seeing here.
> 
> All properties require adequate ongoing operational funds as well as reasonable collection of future funding for upgrades, maintenance and repairs. Refusing to acknowledge those needs or stretching the existing buildings, furnishings and fixtures beyond reasonable life spans doesn't save money it leads to large, one time (or, in extreme cases of poor planning multiple large) assessments to rebuild.
> 
> In many cases it is not the current Board or Management that is at fault but years of bad management, all too often Developer based management that hold fees artificially "low" to spur sales,  that finally cannot be ignored any longer if the resort is going to remain viable. Yes it makes the current management and Board look like the heavies but they are really only doing the work at the going cost that must get done.





palmtree7339 said:


> ...the year the developers turned the property over to the owners elected Board of Directors, (who, by the way, happen to have currently 3 Bd. members with the experience of serving during this entire 25 year period).
> Palmtree7339





timeos2 said:


> What the owners need to do now is to concentrate on getting their resort back in shape and protecting what they have already spent.  Support the Board and the resort if you wish to protect your investment.



John:
Can you clarify after finding out that the majority of the Board has been in place for 25 years you would still recommend support of the Board?  Based on your earlier post I thought you would recommend getting rid of the Board.
Also, I still believe that it is the Board responsibility to plan not only the remodel, but also how to deal with the owners that either cannot afford the S.A or no longer want to be members.
The discussion about “Bailing” would be more meaningful if the recommendation was to bail on this Board.  Why would anybody buy this resort even for $1 if the Board remains the same, is beyond me.
Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me.


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 13, 2009)

*What is the history?*



jbercu said:


> John:
> Can you clarify after finding out that the majority of the Board has been in place for 25 years you would still recommend support of the Board?  Based on your earlier post I thought you would recommend getting rid of the Board.
> Also, I still believe that it is the Board responsibility to plan not only the remodel, but also how to deal with the owners that either cannot afford the S.A or no longer want to be members.
> The discussion about “Bailing” would be more meaningful if the recommendation was to bail on this Board.  Why would anybody buy this resort even for $1 if the Board remains the same, is beyond me.
> Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me.



This one gets to be a tough call if the primary goal is to place blame. I don't know how many Board members there are - do the 3 - 25 year members represent the majority? If so it may be time (past time) to vote them out. Maybe. Have they been the majority all that time or did the developer hold the control? Are they now making up for their own poor decisions to hold down fees too long and not plan for required upgrades or did they try to make changes that got voted down or overruled? Too many unknowns for me to make a call like that. If someone can post a bit more of the history and how things got to this point it would be helpful. 

If the main goal is to get the resort back into shape then the proper moves are being made. Then it's a question of the owners trusting the current Board to see it through correctly.  They already made the tough, and always unpopular, decision to have the needed assessment - now they should be actively doing all they can to sell it as the best choice for owners and to get owner support both in words and dollars. It is NOT the time to go into hiding or to simply say "we can do it and we did".  It can be defended as a requirement to keep the resort viable and they should be out in the open beating the drum. 

If this Board doesn't have the support of the owners then vote them out. Doesn't change the assessment or the need for it but it would put fresh eyes and perhaps a different approach in charge going forward. Once this money is spent and the resort back up to standards the Board needs to be proactive in keeping ahead of future issues so it never happens again.  If they don't have the backbone to do that then get one that does. 

Dealing with the owners that can't afford the SA or just want out doesn't really fall to the Board to handle. If owners do want out they need to find a buyer or to arrange to give it away for the cost of the SA - or whatever they can work out.  For those that can't afford it it's no different than taxes. You owe it and no one but you the owner has the responsibility of seeing that it gets paid or you lose the property.  That's the  obligation you take on when you decide to buy real estate / timeshares. You don't have it just when you and the resort/home are in good times.  It is still there to be handled good times or bad for either or both sides.


----------



## JACKJMP (Dec 13, 2009)

*CCHE Conversion & SA*

My Real Problem With CCHE Is 2 Years Ago Resort Went From A Weeks Resort To A Points Conversion Resort-cost To Do It $3500+
Why ? Who Was To Benefit  CCHE Or VRI?  Did We Vote On This?
Now The SA. Who Is To Benefit And Did We Vote On This?
Can The BOD Do Whatever They Want?
What Is Next?     Jack


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 13, 2009)

*Points are just another exchange*



JACKJMP said:


> My Real Problem With Cche Is 2 Years Ago Resort Went From A Weeks Resort To A Points Conversion Resort-cost To Do It $3500+
> Why ? Who Was To Benefit  Cche Or Vri?  Did We Vote On This?
> Now The Sa. Who Is To Benefit And Did We Vote On This?
> Can The Bod Do Whatever They Want?
> What Is Next?     Jack



A "conversion to points" has nothing to do with the daily operation/cost of a timeshare. It is strictly another exchange option just like being affiliated with RCi. II - whoever.  The cost goes to whoever has the contract to sell points at that resort. The resort itself may or may not get any of that money. It would have nothing whatsoever to do with the need for the SA. 

In fact, done correctly, points have been a way to stabilize resorts - especially highly seasonal areas- by getting value back for owners that see none if they try to only do week for week trades. After investing in the conversion cost and the fact that points are much easier to obtain trades for (you can adjust your request or your points or both to fit what you own as well as borrow, rent or pool points) the owners are much more likely to pay their fees.  

Can the BOD do whatever they want? Of course not. But they can and should do what they are authorized to do which includes collecting whatever the amount needed to operate and maintain /upgrade the resort requires. They can also decide to allow more options to owners - such as the ability to use RCI Points - as that is strictly a voluntary item.  Most would argue against limiting owner choices vs giving them as many as possible which allowing points as well as multiple exchange affiliations does.  I find Boards that choose to limit owners choices to be the heavy handed groups not those that open up a number of owner options.


----------



## e.bram (Dec 13, 2009)

Timeos2:
What investment are we talking about protecting here. Most of the TS units will never be worth more than a Dollar(maybe less or negative)no matter what is done(area to seasonal). Paying the SA is just throwing good money after bad! If an owner can't comfortably afford it in this economy and their financial condition, they shouldn't. If that happens a lot the mfs will go up so high that this TS could be doomed as a TS, but liquidated for whole ownership, with the proceeds divided equally among all unit owners.A good deal for all except maybe the few prime week owners(25-33). what is best for the majority should prevail.This option should be presented to the owners for a vote.


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 13, 2009)

*They can't sell and they can't let it fall apart.*



e.bram said:


> Timeos2:
> What investment are we talking about protecting here. Most of the TS units will never be worth more than a Dollar(maybe less or negative)no matter what is done(area to seasonal). Paying the SA is just throwing good money after bad! If an owner can't comfortably afford it in this economy and their financial condition, they shouldn't. If that happens a lot the mfs will go up so high that this TS could be doomed as a TS, but liquidated for whole ownership, with the proceeds divided equally among all unit owners.A good deal for all except maybe the few prime week owners(25-33). what is best for the majority should prevail.This option should be presented to the owners for a vote.



I'm not in total opposition to that but you have to realize that getting the necessary vote (most likely a super majority of 70-80%) to vote for it is almost impossible. That would be true for any weeks the developer still controls (which may by itself kill any possibility of a successful vote) and it is highly unlikely that anyone who just paid to buy into points would turn around and vote to risk a sell out that may or may not occur.  

The reality is that this is a very seasonal timeshare. Everyone that bought there knew that (or should have). The best they can do is make it the best it can be and get the value out as use. That is all anyone can expect from most timeshares. They do not follow the rules of real estate as there are too many restrictions for them to show the increased value of the property in a liquid form that can translate to return to owners. 

In hindsight the set up of most timesharing may be too restrictive and not a particularly wise way to develop and sell property. Look at the near disaster the obviously beneficial move of Summer Bay in Las Vegas created - they nearly blew a tremendous upgrade by bickering over the value. Then there is the more real estate based collapse of "Briny Breezes" where trailer owners were to get a windfall but things got delayed, the economy collapsed and now they own what they always had. No instant millionaires.   But since timeshare exist and have many owners it behooves us to find ways to maximize the value, not to try to destroy it.    A good Board will try to protect the resort and the owners as best they possibly can.


----------



## e.bram (Dec 13, 2009)

Timeos2:
GM and Chrysler were more and longer established that most TSs and look what it took to save them. Maybe some TSes need the same to save the facility. Once having millions of owners(analog TS owners) they now have two(the USA and UAW). TSes should shrink their ownerships to whole ownerships, and do it before it is too late and the suffer the fate of GM and Chrysler share and bondholders. Most CCHE units will never have any value as TSes no matter what improvements are done. END OF STORY!!!
With the BOD picking the contractors the value for dollar won't be there either. Somebody will get fat from the construction job.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Dec 13, 2009)

As a VRI resort, any owner who converted to RCI Points now has HOME GROUP RESORT priority at other VRI resorts at month 11 vs the masses of other RCI Points owners who can only exchange into the other resorts at month 10. There is also the VRI*ety exchange platform among many of the other VRI managed resorts.

Education and learning is critical to use any TS system for exchanging, whether it is RCI, II, Redweek, SFX, Wyndham, etc. for the best outcome for the TS owner.  I know I am on TUG to learn as much as possible.


----------



## Vaca720 (Dec 14, 2009)

CCH has 7 trustees. A few are original board members, a couple are within the past 5 years or so and a couple are within just the past year. Every year there is an election with incumbents or new candidates for the board. There is a mailing on such that is sent out every year prior to the annual homeowners meeting with this information including incumbent/candidate profiles and ballot forms.


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 14, 2009)

*The owners seem to support the Board. Keep them talking & sell the work needed*



Vaca720 said:


> CCH has 7 trustees. A few are original board members, a couple are within the past 5 years or so and a couple are within just the past year. Every year there is an election with incumbents or new candidates for the board. There is a mailing on such that is sent out every year prior to the annual homeowners meeting with this information including incumbent/candidate profiles and ballot forms.



So there are 3 original members but they are not the majority.  Sounds like owners are satisfied with them and have had the chance to vote them off if they felt that was needed.  This backs up my original thought that the Board should have owner support as they try to turn things around.  I'd guess that in the past there has been a great reluctance to raise the needed fees - especially for reserves - that now are coming due.  If you divide the current number over those years you'd find a much more palatable per year amount BUT that was never paid so think of it as deferred payment. All those years the existing resort features were being used up or wearing out now they need to be replaced and the money to pay for it has to be raised from - you got it - the owners that got the use benefits through use or trade over those years. 

Now in retrospect those smaller increases that would have put the money in the bank for the work don't look so bad but the chance & time to do that is now gone. They need the money NOW to do the work NOW - and will hopefully realize going forward that fees need to really reflect the true cost of resort operation, upgrades and maintenance. I bet they see that clearly and won't make the same mistakes again.  It isn't uncommon, no one wants it to happen but once it does it has to be addressed. Deferring collections are easy when things "look fine" but when they suddenly don't anymore and the funds aren't there what should have been planned work becomes effectively an emergency.  Special assessments are meant to cover that when it happens.


----------



## palmtree7339 (Jan 30, 2010)

*CCHE $8,000 Painting Contract Clarified.*



timeos2 said:


> Read it again or ask the Board to clarify that line item. It almost has to be an error or a misread of the budgeted amount. That CANNOT be correct (if it is then you have a real valid complaint and should question the whole renovation very closely!)



After reading your post, I decided to inquire as to the $8,000 cost attributed to painting the interior of one unit at CCHE, since I too felt that this cost was excessive, on its face.

The facts are that the painting contractor charged this amount for the following, in addition to the obvious interior wall painting:

The finish work on sheetrock and the skylights, the relocation of all of the wall switches and outlets, the den slider trim inside and outside, the kitchen wallpapering, the painting of the new interior doors, the painting of the exterior where the den slider was replaced by a picture window, and the painting of the entire front exterior of the home, where the new picture window replaced the old floor to ceiling slider, in order for the new lumber to match.

So, as anyone should readily see, owners and others should not jump to false conclusions until they have all of the facts presented to them.

CCHE owners should expect more renovation details in the next edition of the Resort Newsletter.

I hope the above clarifies the issue of
the painting expense.

Palmtree


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 30, 2010)

*More than it would have seemed*



palmtree7339 said:


> The facts are that the painting contractor charged this amount for the following, in addition to the obvious interior wall painting:
> 
> The finish work on sheetrock and the skylights, the relocation of all of the wall switches and outlets, the den slider trim inside and outside, the kitchen wallpapering, the painting of the new interior doors, the painting of the exterior where the den slider was replaced by a picture window, and the painting of the entire front exterior of the home, where the new picture window replaced the old floor to ceiling slider, in order for the new lumber to match.
> 
> So, as anyone should readily see, owners and others should not jump to false conclusions until they have all of the facts presented to them.



Obviously far more work than what "interior painting" would seem to usually include. In fact it seems like it was mislabeled as "painting" as that is the smallest part of the work.  Now the number makes sense but it didn't as it showed up on a simple budget summary. 

Thanks for the informative update.


----------



## susette (Feb 5, 2010)

*CCHE Special Assessment Violates Rules of Condo Trust*

Hi Folks,

I obtained a copy of Cape Cod Holiday Estates (CCHE) Master Deed and Condominium Trust this week.  Section 5 of the Condominum Trust might be of particular interest to anyone who thinks the Special Assessment for condo renovations should not be allowed 

Well, YOU ARE RIGHT! Because VRI and the Trustees have violated the rules of the condominium trust, which specificially state the Trustees must get approval in writing by 75% of the cono Unit Owners.  To get approval, they should have sent all of us forms in the mail to SIGN!  I received no such form, and i never agreed to this assessment.

For your convenience, I have typed up Section 5 of the Condominum Trust, which pertains to this Special Assessment. Here it is.....

On Page 17 of the Condo trust, under "Section 5. Rebuilding and Restoration, Improvements", paragraph B, the document reads 

"If and whenever the Trustees shall propose to make any improvements to the common areas and facilities of the Condominium, or shall be requested in writing by the Unit Owners holding twenty-five (25%) percent or more of the beneficial interest in this trust to make any such improvements, the Trustees shall submit to all Unit Ownsers (a) a form of agreement (which may be in several counterparts) specifying the improvement or improvements proposed to be made and the estimated cost thereof,and authorizing the Trustees to proceed to make the same, and (b) a copy of hte provisions of Section 18 of said Chapter 183A. Upon (a) receipt by the Trustees of such agreement signed by the Unit Owners holding seventy-five (75%) percent or more of the beneficial interest or (b) the expiration of ninety (90) days after such agreement was first submitted to the Unit Owners, whichever of said (a) and (b) shall first occur, the Trustees shall notify all Unit Owners of the aggregate percentage of beneficial interest held by Unit Owners who have signed such agreement. If such percentage exceeds fifty (50%) percent, the Trustees shall proceed to make the improvement or improvements specified in such agreement.

c: Notwithstanding anything in the preceeding Paragraphs A and B contained, (a) in the event that any Unit Owner or Owners shall by notice in writing to the Trustees dissent from any determination of the Trustee with respect to the value of the Condominium or any other determination or action of the Trustees under this Section 5, and such dispute shall not be resolved within thirty (30) days after such notice, then either the Trustees or the dissenting Unit Owner or Owners may submit the matter to arbitration, and for that purpose (1) arbitrator shall be designated by the Trustee, one (1) by the dissenting Unit Owner or Owners and a third by the two arbitrators so designated, and such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of the American Arbitration Association, and (b) the Trustees shall not in any event be obliged to proceed with any repair, rebuilding or restoration, or any improvement, unless and until they have received funds in the amount equal to the estimate of the  Trustees of all costs therof."

My attorney is reviewing the Master Deed and Condo Trust this week. 

Your comments are most welcome. Thanks!

Susette


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 5, 2010)

susette said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> I obtained a copy of Cape Cod Holiday Estates (CCHE) Master Deed and Condominium Trust this week.  Section 5 of the Condominum Trust might be of particular interest to anyone who thinks the Special Assessment for condo renovations should not be allowed



State and /or Federal laws / regulations take precedence over documents. Most States, I believe Mass is among them, have laws that require Condo/Timeshare Associations to maintain the project and to raise any funds needed to do so from the owners. Even if that requires a Special Assessment. In that case the need for the owners to vote on it would be overruled by the State requirement that the Board/Association take the proper measures to fund the preservation and upkeep of the property. They could still choose to have a vote of owners but it most likely is not required.


----------



## jbercu (Feb 6, 2010)

timeos2 said:


> State and /or Federal laws / regulations take precedence over documents. Most States, I believe Mass is among them, have laws that require Condo/Timeshare Associations to maintain the project and to raise any funds needed to do so from the owners. Even if that requires a Special Assessment. In that case the need for the owners to vote on it would be overruled by the State requirement that the Board/Association take the proper measures to fund the preservation and upkeep of the property. They could still choose to have a vote of owners but it most likely is not required.



In all states, Federal and State Law take precedence over documents, in cases where big government is necessary. In issues of health, safety, security, discrimination, free speech, placement of solar power equipment, placement of dishes to receive TV/Radio signal … Federal and state laws take precedence. I do not know of any state of federal laws that dictate how often Timeshare units interiors should be painted, or when flat screen TV’s should be installed.  Furthermore, any language in the association documents that are out of sync with the State and Federal laws need to be updated as soon as new laws are adopted at the state and federal level that make the documents unenforceable.
If the quoted document is the current document, either the Board is not following association procedures, or the Board is grossly negligent in not having the association documents in sync with state and federal laws.  Is there any part of the remodel that can be considered an emergency health or safety issue?
Thanks


----------



## susette (Feb 6, 2010)

*CCHE SP Violates Rules of Condo Trust AND MA Law*



timeos2 said:


> State and /or Federal laws / regulations take precedence over documents. Most States, I believe Mass is among them, have laws that require Condo/Timeshare Associations to maintain the project and to raise any funds needed to do so from the owners. Even if that requires a Special Assessment.



WRONG! John, I'm sorry but you really need to start looking up facts before giving your opinion or bad advice. The Massachusetts law is quite clear and can be found at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/183a-18.htm.  

Here is what it says:

"Chapter 183A: Section 18. Improvements; costs

Section 18. (a) If fifty per cent or more but less than seventy-five per cent of the unit owners agree to make an improvement to the common areas and facilities, the cost of such improvement shall be borne solely by the owners so agreeing.

(b) Seventy-five per cent or more of the unit owners may agree to make an improvement to the common areas and facilities and assess the cost thereof to all unit owners as a common expense, but if such improvement shall cost in excess of ten per cent of the then value of the condominium, any unit owner not so agreeing may apply to the superior court of the county in which the property is located, on such notice to the organization of unit owners as the court shall direct, for an order directing the purchase of his unit by the organization of unit owners at fair market value thereof as approved by the court. The cost of any such purchase shall be a common expense. "

Again, CCHE has completely violated MA state law and their own Condominium Trust by proceeding with this $3 Million renovation without permission of the Unit Owners.

Susette


----------



## susette (Feb 6, 2010)

jbercu said:


> Is there any part of the remodel that can be considered an emergency health or safety issue?
> Thanks



Jberg,

Good question! I took a tour of CCHE's premises and one of the condo units last weekend. To be honest, except a little wear and tear, the place looks great! There is absolutely nothing wrong with CCHE. Also, anything wrong enough to constitute an emergency health or safety issue would (or should have)  shut down the place. But they are open for business and even offered to rent me a unit for the night. 

So to answer your question, the Condo Trust is in synch with MASS law, and CCHE has completely ignored both when they decided to completely remodel the facilities, at the prompting of VRI. As a result, I believe they have violated the law.

I also plan to take steps to rectify this situation for ALL CCHE unit owners. But I don't want to get ahead of myself. 

I will post more information this topic and CCHE / VRI once I create a new website for CCHE owners (only) called www.ccheowners.com.  I should have the site online by the end of the week. 

Please check the web address in the next few days. Again it will be www.ccheowners.com

Thanks!
Susette


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 6, 2010)

*They aren't putting in a water park!*



susette said:


> Section 18. (a) If fifty per cent or more but less than seventy-five per cent of the unit owners agree to make an improvement to the common areas and facilities, the cost of such improvement shall be borne solely by the owners so agreeing.



COMMON areas. Those are NOT the units themselves but the shared areas common to all. The BOD is not looking to change the common areas but the basic resort elements - the sections they are charged with maintaining for the 50+ individual week owners. Different animal. That section applies to things like deciding to add a new pool - that would require an owner vote. Not upgrade & maintenance to the units. 

You of course can interpret the laws any way you want but, based on 20+ years of timeshare operations (not pure condo ownerships which, due to both operational as well as ownership differences would tend to be handled differently) the Board has acted within the law. Anyone can challenge it as you may have decided to do, but I'll place my bet that ultimately the BOD actions will stand. Time (and expenses) will tell.


----------



## susette (Feb 6, 2010)

*CCHE and MA Law*

Then the MA law definitely applies here. This Special Assessment included improvements to all common areas and facilities:

- upgrades to all units
- Community Center Mechanical
- Community Center Furniture
- Lodge Building Equipment and Furniture
- Indoor Pool and Building
- Grounds, Roads and General Property


----------



## susette (Feb 6, 2010)

*Paid Ringers on this board*

John Chase,

Its not clear to me why you insert your opinion on any complaint against a management company or condo association. Who is your employer?


----------



## susette (Feb 6, 2010)

CCHE owners,

There are also several clauses in the MA law that states that the cost of any renovations to the Units cannot exceed 10% of value of property without 75% of Owner's approval. I think this Special Assessment of $3.5 million far exceeds 10% of the value of CCHE, but I have to wait for the valuation to come through before I can speculate on that legal requirement. 

Looking forward to finding out this information! Will post to the website as soon as I receive confirmation.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 6, 2010)

*Management shill? I think not.*



susette said:


> John Chase,
> 
> Its not clear to me why you insert your opinion on any complaint against a management company or condo association. Who is your employer?



Me. I retired after 30 years in local government and have operated my own computer company since 1986 - full time since 2002. 

Having served on timeshare boards since 1998, having gone through the incredible process of fighting to get control of an Association from a Developer and seeing exactly how the legal system / State impacts Associations I have a hands on experience to draw on. I shudder when I see naive assumptions by well meaning owners who think they can selectively read laws/documents and know how things work. Most Associations docs are hundreds of pages, the laws made up of many intertwined statutes and sections.  There are no simple, absolutes - mostly gray areas open to interpretation. Management companies as well as Developer tend to be far more "in tune" with realities than the casual owner who first gets involved when something like a special assessment stirs things up. It is just fact that the owners tend to lack the background needed to fully understand the situation. 

I applaud those who choose to become involved but they need to get up to speed and not assume they know it all from a quick perusal of things. And they need to realize that costs add up quick both for the challengers who are on their own and that as owners they pay for the Association to handle the legal challenges. Again, thats just the way it is.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 6, 2010)

*It is a term that carries a meaning.*



susette said:


> The MA law seems pretty clear John, and applies to Improvements to common area and facilities, not just common areas.



You are absolutely correct that it is clear. The term "common area & facilities" carries a specific, legal definition. It is NOT the individual, deeded units that make up the Association and its owner/members. It is the areas/facilities owned & shared by them - and only those areas.   You are trying to take a term and apply it to the wrong part of the resort.  Ask your legal council what it means if you are uncertain.


----------



## susette (Feb 6, 2010)

*CCHE SA includes common areas*



timeos2 said:


> You are absolutely correct that it is clear. The term "common area & facilities" carries a specific, legal definition. It is NOT the individual, deeded units that make up the Association and its owner/members. It is the areas/facilities owned & shared by them - and only those areas.   You are trying to take a term and apply it to the wrong part of the resort.  Ask your legal council what it means if you are uncertain.



John, this renovation includes ALL facilities on the CCHE premises. I thought you somehow knew that. Sorry for the confusion.

Here is what he project includes:
- upgrades to all units
- Community Center Mechanical
- Community Center Furniture
- Lodge Building Equipment and Furniture
- Indoor Pool and Building
- Grounds, Roads and General Property

and a ton of money on Inflation and "unforseen"

Are we on the same page now??


----------



## susette (Feb 6, 2010)

timeos2 said:


> Me. I retired after 30 years in local government and have operated my own computer company since 1986 - full time since 2002.
> .



So who pays you to monitor this board and subdue the Unit Owners when they get restless?


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 6, 2010)

*SA never pleasant for anyone*



susette said:


> John, this renovation includes ALL facilities on the CCHE premises. I thought you somehow knew that. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Here is what he project includes:
> - upgrades to all units



That would be one part of the total. And separate from any calculation of % for common area expenditures. 



susette said:


> - Community Center Mechanical
> - Community Center Furniture
> - Lodge Building Equipment and Furniture
> - Indoor Pool and Building
> ...



Start the calculations & percentages again for these as at least some, maybe most, are in fact what would be termed "common area's". 

As part of the proper SA there usually needs to be a detailed budget. That should spell out how much the units are chewing up in $$ - likely the majority of the total - as well as the true common stuff. If the common areas reach the maximum then a vote would be required. But its all based on valuation as you mentioned and that too is a flexible amount subject to change. 

Knowing the management group involved and how they tend to err on the side of caution, not taking chances on legal challenges, I'll bet they made sure to dot the i's and cross the t's on the project & funding. Just a feeling as I have not even glanced at the details.  

No resort or Board wants a Special Assessment so when one is done usually there are real needs. If not it deserves to be scuttled.


----------



## palmtree7339 (Feb 6, 2010)

susette said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> I obtained a copy of Cape Cod Holiday Estates (CCHE) Master Deed and Condominium Trust this week.  Section 5 of the Condominum Trust might be of particular interest to anyone who thinks the Special Assessment for condo renovations should not be allowed
> 
> ...




CCHE Declaration of Trust, as amended on 4/21/95.

Susette,

You have quoted from the CCHE Trust Agreement, Sections 5.6.2 and 5.6.3, located on pages 16 & 17.

I would like to direct your attention to the previous section, Section 5.6.1.
on page 15.

It states:

Determination of Scope of Losses.

In the event of any casualty loss to the Trust property the Trustees shall determine......

It seems that the operative words are CASUALTY LOSS, which I would infer to mean losses to the Resort which could include Fire, Flood, Hurricane, Explosion, or even Earthquake, however remote that this would ever occur. 

The above subsections, of which you quote, in my view, would pertain to votes required by unit owners, only if any of the above disasters occurred at CCHE.

Susette, I would suggest you review
ARTICLE V, By-Laws, located on page 7.

Section 5.2 Powers of the Trustees.

The Trustees shall, subject to, and in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 183A and 183B,
have the absolute control, management and disposition of the Trust property.....as if they were the absolute owners thereof, free from the control of the Interval Owners....
with full power and uncontrolled discretion, subject only to the limitations of Chapter 183A and 183B.....without the necessity of applying to any court or to the Interval Owner
for leave to do so:

(a)  retain the Trust property, or any part or parts thereof, in the same form or forms of investment in which received or acquired by them so far and so long as they shall think fit......

Section 5.5.1  Reserve Funds (page 13).

.....The Trustees may.....set aside common funds of the Condominium
as reserve or contingent funds, and may use the funds so set aside.....for repair, rebuilding, or restoration of the Trust property, or for improvements thereto.....

Section 5.5.2.2 (page 13)

The Trustees shall have the authority and duty to levy and enforce the collection of general and special assessments for common expenses.....


Susette, neither you nor I are practicing attorneys, but we are both concerned that the BOD continues to follow the requirements as set forth in both the Declaration of Trust, as well as the Master Deed of the Cape Cod Holiday Estates Condominium Trust, and the statutes, Mass. 183A and 183B.

We differ, in that I believe that the BOD doing so, in conjunction with VRI, the Management Company.

You clearly do not believe so, as is your rightful opinion.

However, may I caution you, that some of your allegations, as stated in this thread, stating that the BOD has violated its fiduciary responsibilities, as well the provisions of the Trust Agreement and the Mass. State Statutes strikes me as quite extreme, unfounded, and certainly premature, since, as you stated, your attorney has not as yet rendered you an opinion, per your request.

Please attempt to restrain your charges of violations against the individuals serving in behalf of the CCHE owners, until you are in the position to legally substantiate them.

I shall look forward to the website for CCHE owners. This is a positive step, for which you should be commended.

Palmtree


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 6, 2010)

*Great book about condos/timeshares*



susette said:


> So who pays you to monitor this board and subdue the Unit Owners when they get restless?



Just a hard headed desire to see facts rather than the often emotional responses posted for general consumption. 

Again having lived through the nightmare of over 1000 owner emails / contacts to our Board in 2001 - and making sure each and every one got a personal reply from at least one Board member - I have seen the "this isn't legal, I refuse to pay, what right do you/the Board have to impose" arguments all too often. If those owners took the time to read what they accepted in those hundreds of pages of resort docs and State/Federal rules, regs and laws they would realize they aren't making a valid argument. There are procedures in place to prevent abuse and to make Boards/Management properly accountable. Every owner should be aware what they agree to by purchasing a condo/timeshare. Far too many never actually read the docs and very few the laws/regs and then are seriously surprised at what they have committed to. How much responsibility the Association Board takes on to keep the operation as good or better than day one and how they are legally required to collect, from the owners, to support it all. 

It is interesting reading. I am currently reading a book  on this very subject that would be extremely valuable to every timeshare owner to review. It spells out just how much control is vested in the Associations and how as an owner you are committed to paying the costs.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 6, 2010)

*I'm Waiting For The Movie Version To Come Out.*




timeos2 said:


> I am currently reading a book  on this very subject that would be extremely valuable to every timeshare owner to review. It spells out just how much control is vested in the Associations and how as an owner you are committed to paying the costs.


Any sections of the book that are specific to timeshares, as distinct from straight residential condominiums & various covenant & common ground neighborhoods ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 6, 2010)

AwayWeGo said:


> Any sections of the book that are specific to timeshares, as distinct from straight residential condominiums & various covenant & common ground neighborhoods ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Yes. The book was written by the named attorney's that won our case against the developer in 2001. Contact from them was how I found out about the book & now that I've read about 1/3 of it the application to timeshares is very clear.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 6, 2010)

*$10.99 (+ Shipping) From Half Dot Com.*




-- hotlinked --​
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## palmtree7339 (Feb 6, 2010)

*Timeos2, You are correct!*



timeos2 said:


> COMMON areas. Those are NOT the units themselves but the shared areas common to all. The BOD is not looking to change the common areas but the basic resort elements - the sections they are charged with maintaining for the 50+ individual week owners. Different animal. That section applies to things like deciding to add a new pool - that would require an owner vote. Not upgrade & maintenance to the units.
> 
> You of course can interpret the laws any way you want but, based on 20+ years of timeshare operations (not pure condo ownerships which, due to both operational as well as ownership differences would tend to be handled differently) the Board has acted within the law. Anyone can challenge it as you may have decided to do, but I'll place my bet that ultimately the BOD actions will stand. Time (and expenses) will tell.



Congratulations to you, Timeos2, for your accurate explanation to Susette,
as to the definition of "common areas". 

CCHE common areas are NOT
included in the current Renovation Project at CCHE, which is being funded by the S.A., contrary to Susette's continuous barrage of unfactual postings on this subject.

I now can only wonder as to what her motivations really are, for continuing to  repeat such false and misleading statements on this important issue, to the owners at CCHE.

Palmtree


----------



## palmtree7339 (Feb 6, 2010)

*Susette, you are wrong, AGAIN!*



susette said:


> Then the MA law definitely applies here. This Special Assessment included improvements to all common areas and facilities:
> 
> - upgrades to all units
> - Community Center Mechanical
> ...




Susette, 

Where did you come up with the above false and misleading information as to what is scheduled to be improved by the current CCHE 
Renovation Project. 

This posting of yours is total nonsense! 

On October 23rd., 2009, all CCHE owners received a mailing containing a comprehensive explanation as to what would be covered by the Special Assessment charge.

You were asked to "carefully read this important information".

Enclosed was a "summary of work to be completed".

It was broken down into 8 catagories:

1. Master Bathroom
2. Kitchen
3. Sun Room Slider
4. General Interior, (doors, sliders, 
    skylights, etc.)
5. Second Bath
6. Utility Closet
7. Furniture
8. Other, ( TV, stone walkway to front 
    door, exterior painting and repairs).

Also enclosed were colored photos, both before and after, of the interior of the units, based on the model that has already been renovated, Condo Unit #13.

NOWHERE in this mailing was there any proposed improvements to the CCHE common areas, as you have stated in your above posting.

I plan to notify TUG of your continuous
false and misleading statements, as contained in this thread, and to ask  TUG to take the necessary steps to prevent you from repeating your improper allegations directed towards
fellow Tuggers, as well as the Management Company, (VRI), and the Board of Trustees at CCHE.

Palmtree


----------



## TUGBrian (Feb 6, 2010)

susette said:


> So who pays you to monitor this board and subdue the Unit Owners when they get restless?



this is TOTALLY out of line.

I realize that you are upset over this issue, however being rude to a VOLUNTEER moderator who is taking their own free time to help you (even if it is in an educational way)...is completely uncalled for and will not be tolerated.


----------

