• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Special Assessment Fee @ Pollard Brook

AJS

newbie
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Hampshire
I do not know if there is another set of documents that has not been seen or Joel is not completely informed.

I am looking at the Declaration document titled:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finley

newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Points
161
Location
New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Pollard Brook
I received a follow up e-mail from Joel after he had sent the initial message. He corrected his financials:
I was reviewing the email I sent you yesterday and I found I inadvertently had some numbers incorrect. The total amount of the assessment billing was actually just shy of 2.1 million (not 1.6). The breakdown would be $885,000 for operational costs and 1.2 million for capital improvements. These numbers have to presume a breakdown on how many people will choose each of the three payment options (discounts) and it has to presume a default rate so, at the end of the day, the final numbers could differ to some degree. Sorry for any confusion.

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

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

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

Interpretation anyone?
 

AJS

newbie
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Hampshire
I received a follow up e-mail from Joel after he had sent the initial message. He corrected his financials:
I was reviewing the email I sent you yesterday and I found I inadvertently had some numbers incorrect. The total amount of the assessment billing was actually just shy of 2.1 million (not 1.6). The breakdown would be $885,000 for operational costs and 1.2 million for capital improvements. These numbers have to presume a breakdown on how many people will choose each of the three payment options (discounts) and it has to presume a default rate so, at the end of the day, the final numbers could differ to some degree. Sorry for any confusion.

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

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

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

Interpretation anyone?

Findley
I think you should follow up with him while he seems willing to provide info.
Q1- What documents specify the 80%? The documents provided owners say declarant cannot exceed 5 years from the date of filing. They also specify that when the declarant has sold 3/4 of the units, owners control the HOA.
Q2 - Specifically answer whether points owners are recieving the special assessment. If not, why not?
Q3 - All owners share equally in maintenance fee assessments and special assessments. What section of the Condo declaration or the by-laws permits the Board of Advisors to do otherwise?
Q4 - What is the current dollar amount, not percentage, of maintenance fee delinquencies for both owners and the Developer?
Q5 - What is the dollar amount of the special assessment being levied against the Developer. Is that amount included in the $ 2.1M you specified in your last email?
Q6 - What is the total dollar amount owed by the Developer for both delinquent maintenance fees and special assessment?
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
mass
I'm not quite understanding but I'm owner of timeshare and get assessment fee from pollarbrooke. I want to join the dispute on assessment fee. Pls let me know if I need to do anything. Thank you. :ponder:
 

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
I don't know where that 80% rule comes from however, one of the question I posed to the HOA before I received Joel's reponses was based on the following NH State RSAs:
Section 356-B:36 Control by the Declarant.

I. The condominium instruments may authorize the declarant, or a managing agent or some other person or persons selected or to be selected by the declarant, to appoint and remove some or all of the officers of the unit owners' association or its board of directors, or both, or to exercise powers and responsibilities otherwise assigned by the condominium instruments and by this chapter to the unit owners' association, the officers, or the board of directors. But no amendment to the condominium instruments shall increase the scope of such authorization if there is any unit owner other than the declarant, and no such authorization shall be valid after the time limit set by the condominium instruments or after units to which 3/4 of the undivided interests in the common areas appertain have been conveyed, whichever occurs first. The time limit initially set by the condominium instruments shall not exceed 5 years in the case of an expandable condominium, 3 years in the case of a condominium containing any convertible land, or 2 years in the case of any other condominium.

II. If entered into during the period of control contemplated by paragraph I, no management contract, lease of recreational areas or facilities, or any other contract or lease executed by or on behalf of the unit owners' association, its board of directors, or the unit owners as a group, shall be binding after such period of control unless then renewed or ratified with the consent of unit owners of units to which a majority of the votes in the unit owners' association appertain.

III. If the unit owners' association is not in existence or does not have officers at the time of the creation of the condominium, the declarant shall, until there is such an association with such officers, have the power and the responsibility to act in all instances where this chapter requires action by the unit owners' association, its board of directors, or any officer or officers.

IV. This section shall be strictly construed to protect the rights of the unit owners.

Interpretation anyone?

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

So here is my opinion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is my analysis.
 
Last edited:

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
Follow-on and suggestions

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

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

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

Bwolf

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
898
Reaction score
125
Points
404
Location
MA
I think we've gone full circle. The situation isn't legal. However, the Fraud Protection and anti-consumer bureau doesn't really care.

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

AJS

newbie
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Hampshire
Grafton County records are on line. www.nhdeeds.com/grafton
Click on Search County Records.
Select Index, Grantor=Pollard , city=Lincoln. All of the Pollard Brook recordings can be viewed.There is the original filing in book 1836, page 0763.
There are 9 amendments. Book 2593, page 0627 shows the 8 previous amendments and the ninth. This ninth amendmend was done on Oct 10, 2001.

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

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

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

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
There are many filings recorded under Southern Peaks. Some of the more pertinent are the names of owners on recorded deeds, the assignment of many mortgages they hold to a lender ( Resort Funding Inc), Book 2791 page
0912 on the Declaration of Condominium South Mountain. There is probably something filed that go back to Southern Peaks takeover from Mountain Lodge in 2004 and that may shed some light on new bylaws or a new Condo Declaration filed at that time. Need to spend some more time looking through thevarious filings.

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

I will take a look.

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

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

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

Bwolf

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
898
Reaction score
125
Points
404
Location
MA
Grafton County records are on line. www.nhdeeds.com/grafton
Click on Search County Records.
Select Index, Grantor=Pollard , city=Lincoln. All of the Pollard Brook recordings can be viewed.There is the original filing in book 1836, page 0763.
There are 9 amendments. Book 2593, page 0627 shows the 8 previous amendments and the ninth. This ninth amendmend was done on Oct 10, 2001.

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

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

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


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

Very good research, AJS.
 

Finley

newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Points
161
Location
New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Pollard Brook
This is very interesting. Joel told me that we had all the amendments.
Obviously not. So, we are being mislead or lied to in order to protect the developer's interests.

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

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

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

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

AJS

newbie
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Hampshire
Hi All - Boy this is as clear as mud isn't it? I did view the records in those listings AJS. Those amendments appear to me to be the building plan amendments filed, not bylaws. Which makes sense with all the additions they have made since I bought in '95. Joel did state that other "amendments" had been made specific to the new units but in terms of the owners documents, we do have them all. It's hard to be clear about the terms and what they apply to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bwolf

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
898
Reaction score
125
Points
404
Location
MA
Well, AJS, I agree with you.

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

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

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

Get ready for a very long, tough battle.
 

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
This is very interesting. Joel told me that we had all the amendments.
Obviously not. So, we are being mislead or lied to in order to protect the developer's interests.

Very good research, AJS.

Or Joel is misinformed.

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

nor am I suggesting that Joel is stupid.
 

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
The original Condo Declaration was filed and recorded at Grafton County by The Village at Loon Mountain, the Declarant, a limited partnership, in book 1836, page 763 in October 1989. There have been nine amendments since then, all recorded. Look at book 2593, page 627.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By jove, I think you have got it!
 

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
The plot thickens. Their is a corporate filing for the HOA.

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

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

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

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

Ducharme, Curran, and McGregor.

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

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
From the State Sec web site, it looks like

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


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


3/12/2007 Reinstatement

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

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

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

I am sure there are others.

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

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

dryden

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
192
Reaction score
1
Points
378
Location
nj
how many years?

over how many years are they imposing the SA?
 

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
over how many years are they imposing the SA?

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

dreamWeaver

newbie
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NH
Small Blessings

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

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

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

dreamWeaver

newbie
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NH
Answers from Ducharme

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



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



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


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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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



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



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



Thank you.



__________________________

Dennis M. Ducharme, RRP

Board of Directors
 

dreamWeaver

newbie
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NH
Finley,

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

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

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
Finley,

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

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

Keep in mind:

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

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

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


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

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,120
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
There is one thing that is troubling me. The documents we have seen so clearly refute the statements the Developer is making.

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

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

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

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

AJS

newbie
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Hampshire
From the State Sec web site, it looks like

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


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


3/12/2007 Reinstatement

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

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

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

I am sure there are others.

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

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

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