# Developer Bankruptcy: What a mess at French Quarter in Branson



## dougp26364

I've been following postings on Redweek.Com in their forums about the bankrutcy of the developer of French Quarter Resort in Branson, MO. All I can say is what a mess and what a lousy job of keeping owners informed by the HOA. 

It appears the bankruptcy has settled. From reading the posts on Redweek it appears there are problems with clear title to many of the units. The developer just didn't process them when a sale was made, thus, owners may not have clear title. 

Then there are the owners in building 8, which was the last building built. The land under building 8 was used as security for loans. The new owner of that land is claiming that those who purchased units in building 8 own nothing. If I understand this correctly, he's saying they're not owners, own nothing, have no rights and are due no refunds of purchase prices. There is someone on Redweek who states he is a S. Carolina attorney representing a couple who purchased a unit in building 8 with title insurance and is asking anyone who may have knowledge contact him.

At any rate it appears FQ may become a poster child of how badly things can go wrong, even if you purchased direct from a developer. Some of those units were rather expensive 4 bedroom units sold as little as a few years back. I'd hate to think about the complications of owners who borrowed money at a very high rate of interest and now own nothing.

We own a unit in building 2 at FQ. There is no loan against the unit and we'ver received reasonable usage from it. While I'm not overly worried about the financial aspect of this resort imploading upon itself right now I am concerned about the future of this resort. It would be great if the HOA would keep owners better informed on what is or what might happen. 

Currently, the resort is being managed by Southwind, which is the management arm for Spinnaker Resorts. Others at FQ have posted that Spinnaker salesmen can't even offer FQ owners the opportunity to "upgrade" to a new unit at one of Spinnakers resorts. IMHO that was not a good sign.

The HOA's last comment was they believed that once the bankruptcy was settled, they'd be able to straighten out the title issues. For those who bought from the developer this is likely to be easier. For those who purchased resale it might have been a good idea to pay for the title insurance. 

I don't know how this will all pan out but, it is one huge mess. At this point I'm almost sorry we own at the resort even though we enjoy our stays there and the resort has remained well maintained. We have a vacation stay planned there for September. Normally I don't plan on doing updates but this trip could be an exception. Not that I'd really trust a salesmen 100% with anything they'd tell me but, it'd be interesting to see what they had to say.


----------



## Maple_Leaf

*Spinnaker?*



dougp26364 said:


> Currently, the resort is being managed by Southwind, which is the management arm for Spinnaker Resorts. Others at FQ have posted that Spinnaker salesmen can't even offer FQ owners the opportunity to "upgrade" to a new unit at one of Spinnakers resorts. IMHO that was not a good sign.



My understanding is that Southwind manages this resort, but Spinnaker doesn't own it.  So I wonder why there would be any Spinnaker salesmen there.


----------



## dougp26364

Maple_Leaf said:


> My understanding is that Southwind manages this resort, but Spinnaker doesn't own it.  So I wonder why there would be any Spinnaker salesmen there.



We had purchased a resale week at Grand Regency several years ago. When we stayed there, we took the tour to get a better handle on how the system worked. At that time whomever was managing FQ was also managing GR. We liked the units, the grounds and the location at FQ we eventually purchased a unit there. 

On our first stay at FQ we took the owners update tour again. At that time, the sales staff was selling both FQ and Palace View, which was managed by Southwind or Spinnaker. There was also a Spinnaker sign up at GR when it looked as if they migh continue construction at that site. There has been some sort of relationship between Southwind, FQ and GR for a number of years.

The problem is the HOA does about as poor of a job as possible keeping owners informed about what it going on. I use to go to owners updates just to get the salesmens take on the activities but, I came to the conclusion much of what they knew was made up as they went. Since my wife hates sales tours and since I don't really enjoy being lied too (Disney's coming to Branson. A law was passed saying no more new timeshare builds in Branson and inventory will run out this year so buy now), I hate to go to them anymore. Besides the lies, I can't really trust anything I'm told about the extent of the damage the bankruptcy will cause FQ owners.

The best I can tell is that resale buyers might find they don't have clear title. Without title insurance they could find they own nothing. If they bought resale for very little money, this could be a good thing. If they bought retail and still owe money on the loan this could be devistating. At this point I'm not certain I have clear title to my ownership but, I'm not to worried about it as losing my ownership wouldn't kill us and this could be an easy out. We really own more timeshares than we need and decreasing it by one EOY ownership would be fine by us. Especially if we don't have to do anything.


----------



## timeos2

Being resale or retail would have zero impact on the deeded rights or lack thereof.  If the resale buyer didn't get a legally binding deal when they bought an existing ownership then the original buyer didn't have one either. 

You are right that it's a mess.  I'd hate to be an owner there or have the risk of payment demands for fees / taxes that I may not even have a right to use. Truly a mess.  Worse than most Developer bankruptcies it sounds like. Good luck to all you owners. That's some Annual Meetings I'd be SURE to plan on attending.


----------



## dougp26364

timeos2 said:


> Being resale or retail would have zero impact on the deeded rights or lack thereof.  If the resale buyer didn't get a legally binding deal when they bought an existing ownership then the original buyer didn't have one either.
> 
> You are right that it's a mess.  I'd hate to be an owner there or have the risk of payment demands for fees / taxes that I may not even have a right to use. Truly a mess.  Worse than most Developer bankruptcies it sounds like. Good luck to all you owners. That's some Annual Meetings I'd be SURE to plan on attending.



What's been told to owners is that they're hoping to get clear titles once the bankruptcy is closed and, supposedly it has been closed (not sure since the HOA remains silent). For developer purchasers it should be one stop shopping. For resale buyers it could be a nightmare depending on how many times the week has been sold and re-sold. I can't imagine being the third or fourth purchaser of a week and it turns out the original developer purchaser never had clear title executed.

I'm not certain attending the annual meeting would do much good. Like I've said, the HOA has been silent on the subject. They tell everyone they have very little or no information. Google searches have turned up very little information on the subject as well.


----------



## Maple_Leaf

*I learn something new every day*



dougp26364 said:


> On our first stay at FQ we took the owners update tour again. At that time, the sales staff was selling both FQ and Palace View, which was managed by Southwind or Spinnaker. There was also a Spinnaker sign up at GR when it looked as if they migh continue construction at that site. There has been some sort of relationship between Southwind, FQ and GR for a number of years.



I found this warning on Ebay to not buy at French Quarter from SPINNAKER!  However, Spinnaker doesn't even identify FQ as one of their resorts in Branson on their website.  Interesting.


----------



## dougp26364

Maple_Leaf said:


> I found this warning on Ebay to not buy at French Quarter from SPINNAKER!  However, Spinnaker doesn't even identify FQ as one of their resorts in Branson on their website.  Interesting.



I believe it's because they only manage the property. They also manage Grand Regency @ Thousand Hills in Branson. Both, I believe, were tied to the developer of FQ. Southwind took over management of both GR and FQ when the original developer filed chapter 7 bankruptcy. Both resorts have been better managed since Southwind Management took over. Neither resort has made any significant upgrades since the bankruptcy filing. If memory servce me correctly, the HOA stated they would maintain but not significantly ugrade until the dust settled and we all knew where we stood. No sense in tossing good money after bad I suppose. 

The resort has been maintained. I would like to see some upgrades to the bedding in the units. They could also use a little updating, although the decor really hasn't become dated yet.


----------



## flexible

*CNBC's American Greed: GREEDY MESS @ French Quarter Resort in Branson, MO*



dougp26364 said:


> I've been following postings on Redweek.Com in their forums about the bankrutcy of the developer of French Quarter Resort in Branson, MO. All I can say is what a mess and what a lousy job of keeping owners informed by the HOA.
> 
> It appears the bankruptcy has settled.



Doug,

I feel sorry for any timeshare owner impacted by this mess. http://www.fqresort.com/ sure looks like a nice swimming pool and the kind of resort I would enjoy staying at.

Maybe I could understand this thread better after watching an upcoming AMERICAN GREED on CNBC. Can someone tell them they have potential viewers for a show like "*GREEDY MESS @ French Quarter Resort in Branson, MO*"?


----------



## glypnirsgirl

I went to US Pacer and looked up what I believe is the bankruptcy filing. This looks like a strategic bankruptcy to me.

It appears that Regions Bank had an UNRECORDED Deed of Trust securing a note of over $800K. By filing the bankruptcy, French Quarter prevented Regions Bank from being able to file the Deed of Trust. 

Looking at the schedules, it appears that the company was close to solvent even with the Deed of Trust. 

They also owe a chunk of change for Missouri taxes.

elaine


----------



## timeos2

dougp26364 said:


> What's been told to owners is that they're hoping to get clear titles once the bankruptcy is closed and, supposedly it has been closed (not sure since the HOA remains silent). For developer purchasers it should be one stop shopping. For resale buyers it could be a nightmare depending on how many times the week has been sold and re-sold. I can't imagine being the third or fourth purchaser of a week and it turns out the original developer purchaser never had clear title executed.
> 
> I'm not certain attending the annual meeting would do much good. Like I've said, the HOA has been silent on the subject. They tell everyone they have very little or no information. Google searches have turned up very little information on the subject as well.



I simply cannot understand why so many HOA Boards seem to think that being incognito and ignoring owners inquiries is a good management plan. Our two Boards have the reverse philosophy and try to go overboard with detailed information to the point where some owners say they are swamped. But it has been very effective as owners seem to feel a part of the property and not just see it as an annual bill to be paid.  

As far as the deeds at FQ actually the resale buyers might well be in a better spot than the retail ones. Any question of the validity of the deed would be at the original retail level. After that any resale was likely handled correctly to pass the ownership - if it existed - to the next buyer. If the originals are cleaned up then the subsequent deeds are OK. But if the original was faulty the original owner and possibly the last buyer of a resale are at risk - but it all stems from the clouded retail sale. Resale has no bearing on it.  And if the resale buyer had a warranty deed they may get their money back! The retail buyer, with a warranty deed, might too but probably only if the deed was properly recorded. Since that appears to be the hang up they might not even with a warranty deed as officially the deed doesn't actually exist. 

As has been said, what a mess. But resale buyers aren't at any greater risk and may in fact be better protected.


----------



## dougp26364

flexible said:


> Doug,
> 
> I feel sorry for any timeshare owner impacted by this mess. http://www.fqresort.com/ sure looks like a nice swimming pool and the kind of resort I would enjoy staying at.
> 
> Maybe I could understand this thread better after watching an upcoming AMERICAN GREED on CNBC. Can someone tell them they have potential viewers for a show like "*GREEDY MESS @ French Quarter Resort in Branson, MO*"?



You've done better than I have. They changed the location of the webpage and I had not found this new page. 

What surprised me most was seeing photo's I had taken of the resort used on their photo's section of their page. The funny thing is, I don't recall giving them persmission to use my photo's or selling them the rights to use my photo's. Good thing I'm not a proffesional photographer bent on making a case for copyright infringement.


----------



## ace2000

dougp26364 said:


> You've done better than I have. They changed the location of the webpage and I had not found this new page.
> 
> What surprised me most was seeing photo's I had taken of the resort used on their photo's section of their page. The funny thing is, I don't recall giving them persmission to use my photo's or selling them the rights to use my photo's. Good thing I'm not a proffesional photographer bent on making a case for copyright infringement.


 
They really used your photos?  That's hilarious.  I'm not sure if I'd be flattered or mad.


----------



## dougp26364

ace2000 said:


> They really used your photos?  That's hilarious.  I'm not sure if I'd be flattered or mad.



Let's just say I'm not to pleased. They could have at least contacted me about using my photos. I'm relatively easy to deal with and I'm not very demanding. 

Here's a link to my photo web page. http://dougp26364.smugmug.com/Trave...anson/20714676_z5H9Bd#!i=1646136037&k=3fGbx5p .

Look at the pictures on FQ's website, then look at my photo album. I think it will be easy to see which photo's they used. If you look at photo #8, the exact same cars are in the stalls as is in the photo on FQ's webpage. On page 2 photo #3 is the photo they're using on their home page.


----------



## scootr5

Heck, it looks like all of the photos they used are yours!


----------



## Beefnot

Holy crap, those are absolutely your photos.  This would appear to be copyright infringement.  It wouldn't hurt to have a brief convo with an attorney to discuss the situation, options and implications.  Although...if French Quarter is as shadily managed as it seems, it wouldn't be surprising if you were subsequently countersued for stealing their photos.


----------



## csxjohn

dougp26364 said:


> Let's just say I'm not to pleased. They could have at least contacted me about using my photos. I'm relatively easy to deal with and I'm not very demanding.
> 
> Here's a link to my photo web page. http://dougp26364.smugmug.com/Trave...anson/20714676_z5H9Bd#!i=1646136037&k=3fGbx5p .
> 
> Look at the pictures on FQ's website, then look at my photo album. I think it will be easy to see which photo's they used. If you look at photo #8, the exact same cars are in the stalls as is in the photo on FQ's webpage. On page 2 photo #3 is the photo they're using on their home page.



You actually copyrighted your photos?

I email photos to resorts, bars, bands, and all over facebook and I used to tell them that "I own these photos and you have my permission to use them anyway you want."

I did this so the pics could be shared without anyone worrying about copyrights or things like that.  I like it when I see my snapshots showing up in various places.


----------



## Beefnot

csxjohn said:


> You actually copyrighted your photos?
> 
> I email photos to resorts, bars, bands, and all over facebook and I used to tell them that "I own these photos and you have my permission to use them anyway you want."
> 
> I did this so the pics could be shared without anyone worrying about copyrights or things like that.  I like it when I see my snapshots showing up in various places.



Under U.S. law, a copyright exists inherently.  No one needs to "copyright" anything.  As long as it is an eligible piece of intellectual property, the copyright already exists.  So the thing is, copyright protection.  One must be able to prove that they are the creator of the work and own or control the copyright (copyrights can be sold/transferred or licensed). 

I suppose there are certain actions (like in your example) that effectively waive copyright protections.


----------



## dougp26364

csxjohn said:


> You actually copyrighted your photos?
> 
> I email photos to resorts, bars, bands, and all over facebook and I used to tell them that "I own these photos and you have my permission to use them anyway you want."
> 
> I did this so the pics could be shared without anyone worrying about copyrights or things like that.  I like it when I see my snapshots showing up in various places.



You haven't had to copyright individual photo's for years. Copyright laws apply as soon as you take the picture. Proving these are my photo's is relatively easy.

I'm not so upset that they used them. I'm more upset that they used them without asking my permission or offer to remiburse even a token amount. 

These were not professionally done and there are enough flaws I'm amazed they choose them for their website. If I'd have known they wanted photo's for their website, I'd have used my tripod and taken a little more time with my settings. One things for certain, I'd have used a better lens than the ultra cheap 18X55mm that came with my first DSLR.


----------



## csxjohn

Thank you both for educating me on the copyright issue.  I knew I own the photos I take but did not know I also have a copyright on them.


----------



## Ridewithme38

There are some question about 'fair use' and 'public domain' of photo's and other works once they have been published online, but in general things are you hold the copyright

The problem with photo sharing sites like that, ALOT have it in their Terms of Service that they own the rights to all work published on their site, I think TUG owns the rights to everything we write on it....so before I consulted a lawyer, i'd check your photo sharing sites TOS


----------



## bogey21

glypnirsgirl said:


> It appears that Regions Bank had an UNRECORDED Deed of Trust securing a note of over $800K. By filing the bankruptcy, French Quarter prevented Regions Bank from being able to file the Deed of Trust.



Is it possible then that this bankruptcy is for the benefit of owners?

George


----------



## dougp26364

Ridewithme38 said:


> There are some question about 'fair use' and 'public domain' of photo's and other works once they have been published online, but in general things are you hold the copyright
> 
> The problem with photo sharing sites like that, ALOT have it in their Terms of Service that they own the rights to all work published on their site, I think TUG owns the rights to everything we write on it....so before I consulted a lawyer, i'd check your photo sharing sites TOS



This is true but, someone had to give permission and someone had to have been paid. What do you think the odds are that Smugmug was contacted about releasing the rights to my photo's to be used on FQ's webpage?

I'll start by asking FQ to provide the release to use these photo's. If they don't have one, they'll need to get one, either from me or from Smugmug.


----------



## ace2000

Doug, what if a TUG member would like to use your photos for one of their rental ads, would you be open to that?  Or perhaps you'd just like for us to let you know in some way.

I've rented about 5 of my timeshares within the last 5 years, so I'm not a heavy hitter, but I thought about seeing if you had any good pictures that I could post.  You've got pictures of just about every timeshare I own.  I didn't do it, but I'll admit I thought about it.

Just curious, if you want to be compensated for that.  I'd understand either way.


----------



## dougp26364

ace2000 said:


> Doug, what if a TUG member would like to use your photos for one of their rental ads, would you be open to that?  Or perhaps you'd just like for us to let you know in some way.
> 
> I've rented about 5 of my timeshares within the last 5 years, so I'm not a heavy hitter, but I thought about seeing if you had any good pictures that I could post.  You've got pictures of just about every timeshare I own.  I didn't do it, but I'll admit I thought about it.
> 
> Just curious, if you want to be compensated for that.  I'd understand either way.



I have been and have given premission in the past. SFX has used some of my photo's for their online directory.

Edit: I sent you a PM


----------



## dougp26364

Had a good conversation this afternoon with Southwind Management:

As to my pics, I have a bigger problem. Seems they obtained them from various sales sites around the internet. I guess it's time to step up to a higher level of membership with Smugmug to prevent the theft of my photo's for commercial use. I'm not a hard guy to get along with. It's just not nice to use someone else's work without permission. Now that they know, things have been worked out. 

I really just wanted to put photo's up for timeshare users to view. I never thought I'd have a problem with people using my photo's without permission. To be honest, I've never thought they were that good and definately not professional quality. 

As to FQ and GR, all I can say is what a mess but, it's not as bad as it could be for most and it's worse that it should be for others.

It's something of a tangled web with family members involved, a son who thought he could do it better than his dad, being wrong about that, being bailed out by dad once or twice before dad allowed him to flop and, now we're in bankruptcy.

The bad news is the owners of building 8 and those who bought preconstruction in building 9 own nothing. The construction company that built building 8 was never paid. Individuals involved with that filed a lien and eventually foreclosed. That building has been locked. Those owners never received a deed because the original developer never issued deeds. Thus, they're hanging out in the wind waiting to see what happens after the trustee sale. 

SWM has been working with those owners who were willing to continuing paying MF's by providing them with inventory to either use or exchange through RCI. Once the trustee sale is completed, this could change depending on who purchases the unsold inventory and who the management company is after the sale. Southwind is debating bidding on the unsold inventory. If they remain in control then they'll probably (no promises) work with the buyers of buildings 8 and 9 who have been paying MF's. How that will work is anyone's guess. Get credit for upgrading? Maybe the new owner(s) will buy building 8 back from the group that foreclosed? Be given unsold inventory in buildings 1-7? I'm purely speculating and the person I talked with didn't mention any of those options. He just said it's more likely that SWM would work with those who had worked with them in good faith. 

The remaining owners in buildings 1-7 have, or should have, deeds for their ownership. They'll only be affected by whomever buys the unsold inventory at the resort. Apparently that will be who decides who the new management company will be. 

The original sales office that burnt down wasn't owned by FQ. I had assumed there was cash problems when it burnt and wasn't rebuilt (ie: developer took the insurance money and ran). That wasn't necessarily the case since FQ LLC didn't own that property. I'm not certain how/why it was rebuilt and is being used as guest registration now. We didn't get into that in our converstaion and, to be honest, it doesn't matter to me.

The Copper Tree Hotel where FQ owners could rent rooms inexpensively, which was used as an incentive for people to buy, wasn't owned by the developer either. I know the sales department made it sound as if it was and that it'd always be there but, it wasn't. If you've been there recently you know that building has been razed. 

Grand Regency was brought into the bankruptcy because the original developer of FQ, who also had control of GR and had planned to build out that resort in the future, used unsold inventory there as collateral for loans that were involved in the bankruptcy. So GR was drug into this as well and that inventory is part of the trustee sale. 

The trustee hasn't been forthcoming with information to anyone. In fact, the trustee got into an issue with the court because he/she attempted to include assessts that could not be included in the sale. Specifically, land that had been foreclosed on and was no longer owned by the orignal developer. Some of that land had already been sold! This, of course, delayed settling the bankruptcy.

At this point SWM is anticipating the trustee sale being competed in 30 to 90 days. They have been holding off on filling positions because, if they lose the management contract for FQ and GR, they'll be overstaffed. They don't want to fill positions that might have to be eliminated in the next few months. 

Man is this a nasty bag of snakes or what? I suppose I'm glad I own in building 2 and don't have quite as much to worry about. I'll be glad when it's settled and done. At this point, I believe I'd just as soon have SWM continue to manage both properties vs starting anew with someone else. It's scary to think of a company like Westgate, Celebrity, Festiva et....taking over.


----------



## Beefnot

Doug, how were you able to work things out with the photos?  Had they paid some other company(ies) for your photos?  Was there a gentleman's agreement or formal contract on the use of your photos?


----------



## Beefnot

dougp26364 said:


> Man is this a nasty bag of snakes or what? I suppose I'm glad I own in building 2 and don't have quite as much to worry about. I'll be glad when it's settled and done. At this point, I believe I'd just as soon have SWM continue to manage both properties vs starting anew with someone else. It's scary to think of a company like Westgate, Celebrity, Festiva et....taking over.



Did you ever try to give away your unit?  Or do they have that $1,500 prepaid maintenance thing like Palace View also?


----------



## ace2000

dougp26364 said:


> I guess it's time to step up to a higher level of membership with Smugmug to prevent the theft of my photo's for commercial use.


 
How would the higher membership protect you?


----------



## Beefnot

On the smugmug home page, they say they have "Watermarking for piracy prevention".


----------



## dougp26364

ace2000 said:


> How would the higher membership protect you?





Beefnot said:


> On the smugmug home page, they say they have "Watermarking for piracy prevention".



After an online discussion with Smugmug, there's really no way to completely stop someone from using an image. There are way to make if inconvenient and less practicle. Watermarking is one of those methods. I guess I'll have to put those to use.


----------



## dougp26364

Beefnot said:


> Doug, how were you able to work things out with the photos?  Had they paid some other company(ies) for your photos?  Was there a gentleman's agreement or formal contract on the use of your photos?



The images they obtained were posted on other sites. Sites which are also using my photo's for commercial use without my permision (more work for me to do). I'll send them a count of my photo's and we'll go from there. It was not their intention to borrow without premission and once I was able to direct him to my site, it became obvious I was the owner of the photo's. 

No, they had not paid for the photo's nor had they obtained permission to use them. Yes it's a gentlemans agreement at this time. I tend to be trusting of people until given a reason not too.


----------



## glypnirsgirl

bogey21 said:


> Is it possible then that this bankruptcy is for the benefit of owners?
> 
> George



Probably not the owners. My guess that the benefit is to the shareholders. 


elaine


----------



## dougp26364

bogey21 said:


> Is it possible then that this bankruptcy is for the benefit of owners?
> 
> George





glypnirsgirl said:


> Probably not the owners. My guess that the benefit is to the shareholders.
> 
> 
> elaine



In this case the bankruptcy definately was not for the benefit of the owners. Brian Taylor ran it into the ground, borrowed money anywhere he could, was bailed out twice by his father and has now declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy which is for liquidation not reorganization. 

Those in the 800 building and those who purchased preconstruction in the 900 building (building's 8 and 9) are left owning nothing. Building 9 was never started and building 8 owners were never issued deeds or titles. 

Since this was an LLC I don't believe there were any shareholders so to speak.

The majority of owners should be safe, depending on who comes out as the management company for the resort. I can think of a few management companies I'd just as soon not have running one of my resorts.


----------



## BigRedOne

I see people talking about title insurance in this post and I think some may be miss-led.  Title insurance will not protect anyone that purchased a timeshare; it will only protect the bank that loaned money.  When you purchase title insurance it pays the lender any amount still owed and expires when the loan is paid off.  There are other types of insurance that protects the buyer but I don't think it is customarily sold.  I am also a bit surprised anyone has title insurance as it is not usually sold on timeshare purchases, but then again with the price the newer resorts are charging the banks may be requiring it.


----------



## SJR

*Do have an new info Doug?*

Doug,  Did you get any more info after your stay in Sept?  Just curious.  We own a tri-annual @ French Quarter and this is our year, so I called FQ to make sure we still own our timeshare there before I pay the maintenance fee.  Left a message for them to call me.  Was on hold for awhile and it kept saying I was 1st in line.  maybe they are not there on Saturdays.

I'm not even sure what building we own in.  The warranty deed refers to our unit being in French Quarter Condominium IV.  But then in the fine print of our contact agreement, there is a section #4 Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act that says ".......if the unit that is the subject of this contract is in Bldg one in French Quarter Condominium IV, containing units........" (and our unit is one that is listed) "and that construction has yet to occur"  So that doesn't make sense to me because when we were there in 2007 there were quite a few bldgs already constructed.  Why would bldg one not be constructed yet?   So are we in bldg 5 (IV) or one?  Too confusing.  And all the bankruptcy stuff we got would always say that if you were receiving this that you supposedly owned in bldgs 8 or 9.  I think that's what it said.

Let me know if you have any new info.  Oh and what does HOA stand for?  I'm new to this Forum.


----------



## BigRedOne

Has anyone made any progress on this dilemma?


----------



## Miss Marty

*HOA*

*
Homeowners' associations, or HOAs,* 

are formal legal entities created to maintain common areas; they have the authority to enforce deed restrictions. Most condominium and townhome developments, and many newer single-family subdivisions have HOAs, which are usually created when the development is built. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) are issued to each homeowner, and HOAs are established to ensure that they are adhered to in order to maintain the quality and value of the properties involved.


----------



## CO skier

BigRedOne said:


> I see people talking about title insurance in this post and I think some may be miss-led.  Title insurance will not protect anyone that purchased a timeshare; it will only protect the bank that loaned money.  When you purchase title insurance it pays the lender any amount still owed and expires when the loan is paid off.



It is "Title Insurance" not "Bank Loan Insurance."  Anyone can buy a title insurance policy on a timeshare and have it issued in their name -- even if paying cash.  The title insurance remains in effect for as long as you hold an estate or interest in the property and will typically cover:

1.  Title to the estate or interest described in the policy

2.  Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title.

3.  Lack of a right of access to and from the land.

4.  Unmarketability of such title.


Title insurance is cheap.  If you are paying more than a few thousand dollars cash for a timeshare, it is well worth the peace of mind.  If you are financing the purchase, the lender will likely require title insurance, and you as an individual can "piggy-back" on the policy for a nominal charge.

It seems as though more than a few "owners" at the resort in this thread wished they had title insurance (Items 1 and 4 above), depending on how much they paid for the timeshare.


----------



## dougp26364

SJR said:


> Doug,  Did you get any more info after your stay in Sept?  Just curious.  We own a tri-annual @ French Quarter and this is our year, so I called FQ to make sure we still own our timeshare there before I pay the maintenance fee.  Left a message for them to call me.  Was on hold for awhile and it kept saying I was 1st in line.  maybe they are not there on Saturdays.
> 
> I'm not even sure what building we own in.  The warranty deed refers to our unit being in French Quarter Condominium IV.  But then in the fine print of our contact agreement, there is a section #4 Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act that says ".......if the unit that is the subject of this contract is in Bldg one in French Quarter Condominium IV, containing units........" (and our unit is one that is listed) "and that construction has yet to occur"  So that doesn't make sense to me because when we were there in 2007 there were quite a few bldgs already constructed.  Why would bldg one not be constructed yet?   So are we in bldg 5 (IV) or one?  Too confusing.  And all the bankruptcy stuff we got would always say that if you were receiving this that you supposedly owned in bldgs 8 or 9.  I think that's what it said.
> 
> Let me know if you have any new info.  Oh and what does HOA stand for?  I'm new to this Forum.



We did not make it to FQ in Sept. secondary to illness. If your unit was in one of the effected buildings, you likely would have been notified by the bankruptcy court. There was no issues for owners in buildings 1 thru 5. 

HOA, Home Owners Association.

Southwind Management is now the permanent management company for FQ.

Grand Regency at Thousand Hills Resort is now managed by the same ownership group that manages the Colonade Resort.


----------



## dougp26364

BigRedOne said:


> Has anyone made any progress on this dilemma?



The bankruptcy is closed. Southwind is the management company for FQ. I have not idea what the situation is for owners in the one affected building and the building that was sold pre-construction but never built.


----------



## mcgregorlass

*Reservations...*

We have reservations to stay at the French Quarter for a week the end of April....will those reservations be secure?

Pat


----------



## dougp26364

> We have reservations to stay at the French Quarter for a week the end of April....will those reservations be secure?
> 
> Pat



Yes, your reservations are fine. 

The bankruptcy has been settled. The resort never closed it's door or, as far as I know, refused a guest or exchanger. The main thing affected was who managed the resort and of the buildings, one never built but had pre-construction contracts and another that was built and used as collateral for a loan. 

When the original developer deafaulted on the loan, the bank foreclosed on that one building and locked the doors. The owners of that building had never received titles or deeds for their weeks as I understand it. The last word I had directly from SWM was that they were allowing owners who wanted to maintain their ownership to pay MF's and were given a week from unsold/unused inventory in one of the other buildings, either for personal usage or exchange, with the promise they'd work with them should they be named the management company after the bankruptcy was closed.

Since I was not in the affected building or involved in the pre-construction sale for the building that was never built, I haven't recieved any information about what SWM has offered those owners. It's not something that concerns me and isn't something I've looked into or questioned. I've seen nothing posted by any of those owners. 

As an owner with a deeded week in building two, my ownership has continued as if nothing has ever happened. SWM was managing the resort during the bankruptcy but they weren't making improvements to the resort. They were essentially maintaining status quo. There are maintenance issues that should be addressed and, IMHO, a few upgrades that probably need to happen. The resort was still in very good shape the last time we were there but I noticed some railings around the pool/hot tubs that were in need or replacement and some of the furnishings in the units were getting a little worn and in need of replacement. I can't blame SWM or th HOA for not putting a lot into a resort that's in bankruptcy until they knew the outcome. What scares me is they weren't putting a lot of money into the cash reserve fund, probably over worries that fun may have been considered an asset that may have been attached in bankrupcy court. 

If you have reservations or an exchange at this resort, you don't have anything to worry about. The bankruptcy proceedings went on for maybe three years and there wasn't any issues reported with reservations or exchanges in all that time. I don't see why there would be an issue now.


----------



## mcgregorlass

Thanks Doug for your reply. We have never stayed there and are looking forward to it. We are Wyndham owners, so it will be a change for us. We have driven by the resort many times and it looks very nice. Thanks again for your reply and thorough explanation. Your help is appreciated.

Pat


----------



## SJR

dougp26364 said:


> We did not make it to FQ in Sept. secondary to illness. If your unit was in one of the effected buildings, you likely would have been notified by the bankruptcy court. There was no issues for owners in buildings 1 thru 5.
> 
> HOA, Home Owners Association.
> 
> Southwind Management is now the permanent management company for FQ.
> 
> Grand Regency at Thousand Hills Resort is now managed by the same ownership group that manages the Colonade Resort.



Well, I never heard back from FQ when I left a message last time, so I called again today and was told that we bought into Bldg 9 and that the courts determined that people who bought into Bldg 9 no longer own anything.  He said that Spinnaker Resorts was offering some kind of special to help compensate those owners if we wanted to come down for a visit.  So I was thinking oh no, we're not paying any more money.  But he did not push the subject he immediately went on to ask me if I had the contact info for the Trustee Kevin Campbell.  He's the one that was listed on all the bankruptcy papers we received.  I really should have contacted him sooner to get more details.  But I seriously didn't think we were in Bldg 8 or 9.  None of our paperwork says that.  All I keep seeing is "French Quarter Condominium IV"  and then there was another section that mentioned Bldg 1 and our unit# was listed, so I thought, well maybe we are in Bldg 1 then.  I sent an email to Mr Campbell to see if anything can be done.  My husband wants proof that we did buy into Bldg 9 since none of our paperwork says that.  So just curious does anyone else's Warranty Deed or Sales Contract specifically say what Bldg you bought into?  Ours just mentions Unit# and Week # and French Quarter Condominium IV.


----------



## dwd53

We made a reservation at FQ June1-8, 2013 with no problems. The front desk set us up for an "Owners update" meeting with Spinnaker. We have a 2 BR unit. Bottom line: they offered us $11,500 "equity" towards their units at Palace View ($45,000). I only had to come up with $33,500 . They told us that after the judge rules in this case the owners could get nothing or possibly a small settlement of less than $2000. I passed on the deal.


----------



## tug1873

dwd53 said:


> We made a reservation at FQ June1-8, 2013 with no problems. The front desk set us up for an "Owners update" meeting with Spinnaker. We have a 2 BR unit. Bottom line: they offered us $11,500 "equity" towards their units at Palace View ($45,000). I only had to come up with $33,500 . They told us that after the judge rules in this case the owners could get nothing or possibly a small settlement of less than $2000. I passed on the deal.



Wow is that how much they charge? Palace View is easy to get someone to pay you to take it off their hands.  Someone paid me 4 years of maintenance fees to get rid of theirs to me.  I plan on using it for a while but thought I needed to pay $1500 to get rid of it. I guess I could just hang around the sales office offer it to them if their willing to prepay fees


----------



## dougp26364

dwd53 said:


> We made a reservation at FQ June1-8, 2013 with no problems. The front desk set us up for an "Owners update" meeting with Spinnaker. We have a 2 BR unit. Bottom line: they offered us $11,500 "equity" towards their units at Palace View ($45,000). I only had to come up with $33,500 . They told us that after the judge rules in this case the owners could get nothing or possibly a small settlement of less than $2000. I passed on the deal.




I really didn't expect great things from Spinnaker but to expect someone to plunk down another $33,500 for something that can be purchased for next to nothing is crazy. Since I ususally have my iPhone with me, I'm afraid I'd have had to have pulled up Place View resales and shown them the amount of money I could save by NOT taking their deal.


----------



## timeos2

dwd53 said:


> We made a reservation at FQ June1-8, 2013 with no problems. The front desk set us up for an "Owners update" meeting with Spinnaker. We have a 2 BR unit. Bottom line: they offered us $11,500 "equity" towards their units at Palace View ($45,000). I only had to come up with $33,500 . They told us that after the judge rules in this case the owners could get nothing or possibly a small settlement of less than $2000. I passed on the deal.



It is so sad that people fall for these "great offers". They make it sound so good when they know you could have it for free if you looked around. And it's almost every resort / sales group. No wonder timeshare has such a bad reputation.


----------



## dougp26364

timeos2 said:


> It is so sad that people fall for these "great offers". They make it sound so good when they know you could have it for free if you looked around. And it's almost every resort / sales group. No wonder timeshare has such a bad reputation.



The really sad part is that these owners often paid developer pricing originally, now Spinnaker wants to hit them for another unit at developer prices.

I haven't toured any resorts in Branson but it's hard to believe they're getting $45,000 for a unit. I guess if I want a good laugh maybe we should go to one next time we're in town.


----------



## kim.gr

*French Quarter and Spinnaker*

Spinnaker recently offered us a 1br bi annual for a good price.  According to them, this will combine with our French Quarter, giving us a 2 br on odd years and the 1 br on even years with them.  
They used scare tactics about FQ possibly comming after us for any other debts owed.  Supposably this is the only way out of the FQ mess.
Is this another scam to throw good money after bad, or legit?


----------



## dougp26364

kim.gr said:


> Spinnaker recently offered us a 1br bi annual for a good price.  According to them, this will combine with our French Quarter, giving us a 2 br on odd years and the 1 br on even years with them.
> They used scare tactics about FQ possibly comming after us for any other debts owed.  Supposably this is the only way out of the FQ mess.
> Is this another scam to throw good money after bad, or legit?



It's another scare scam. Most timeshare salesmen rely on this tactic to get someone to buy something else. 

It would not surprise me to see a special assessment at FQ. Spinaker did a marvelous job of barely maintaining the resort while they managed it during bankruptcy. Keep in mind it's the same company trying to get you to spend more money with them. Timeshare salesman are NOT to be trusted. They have no more information than you or I.


----------

