[2008] Southcape Resort

[Sou13]

Don't go away, you haven't addressed all of my concerns!

I've raised a lot of concerns that haven't been addressed. Where to begin?

Let's begin with the Board of Trustees. Show me the BOOK and PAGE to back up your contention that presently there is no need for an election because presently owners have no right to a seat on the Board.

Oh, and please don't pull a fast one by doing away with the link. I've downloaded my copy and hope everyone reading this has done so as well. But it makes it so much easier to open it and refer to it without having to bring it with me everytime I log on.

Did I put my money on Michigan State for nothing? You can post here while your girlfriend is preparing dinner!

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Sorry Sou13, I've told you that I won't and can't comment on legal matters and that includes referring you to sections in legal documents. As my attorney would say, the documents speak for themselves.

I also don't appreciate your implication that I might "pull a fast one". I've referred owners with questions to that site, that's why the site is there.

Finally, I'm glad you picked Michigan State, just remember who told you and yes, I do accept gratuities.

Finally, your comments about my girlfriend and my wife are out of line. Sandcastle was my ex-wife's favorite resort and the post you are referring to is years old. I am now divorced and I do have a girlfriend and that's the last I'll say about my personal life.

 

[Sou13]

Tune in tomorrow

Sorry Sou13, I've told you that I won't and can't comment on legal matters and that includes referring you to sections in legal documents. As my attorney would say, the documents speak for themselves.

I also don't appreciate your implication that I might "pull a fast one". I've referred owners with questions to that site, that's why the site is there.

Finally, I'm glad you picked Michigan State, just remember who told you and yes, I do accept gratuities.

Finally, your comments about my girlfriend and my wife are out of line. Sandcastle was my ex-wife's favorite resort and the post you are referring to is years old. I am now divorced and I do have a girlfriend and that's the last I'll say about my personal life.

Then the new web page will include the link to the outdated Master Deed?

I didn't bet on Michigan State, only hoped that you wouldn't have to prepare dinner for the whole month!

The comment on the "girlfriend" may have been out of line, it was meant to point out that (years ago?) your "wife's" favorite resort was Sandcastle, but didn't exclude the possibility that Southcape is yours?

I'll have to wait until tomorrow to look up the BOOK and PAGE that gave me the impression that owners should by now have a right to one seat on the Board. I have to catch a bus home in time to see who gets booted off Dancing With the Stars. That's my exciting personal life .

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Have fun, Sou13. I hope it's one of the Steve's!!

 

[ecwinch]

I'll have to wait until tomorrow to look up the BOOK and PAGE that gave me the impression that owners should by now have a right to one seat on the Board.

Sou13 - check Book 3526, Page 112, Article III, Section 3.1, paragraph c. I cannot tell you what it says, as that might be a crime.


And Cliff, do you really expect us to believe that you made this sizeable investment without knowing anything about what you were buying. Give us more credit than that.

No one is asking for a legal opinion.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Believe me, Eric, I know exactly what I'm doing.

Sou13 was asking me to point to a specific section in one specific legal document wherein certain legal rights might identified. Please refer to my previous post and understand that there is no single controlling document. Had I referred her to a specific section, it might be construed that I am implying that that section is the controlling one and I won't get into that situation. She has access to the documents just as I do. If she wants a legal opinion, she certainly has the right to hire her own attorney who will, I'm sure, advise her. In the alternative, she can read the documents just as I have done and come to her own conclusions. For me to do anything more might be the unauthorized practice of law and that is still a crime. You are absolutely correct in pointing that out and that's why I won't do what you just did and what Sou13 has done.

I won't dodge any issue or question other than those of a legal nature. I've stated that from the beginning and my position has not and will not change.

 

[ecwinch]

Please refer to my previous post and understand that there is no single controlling document.

Is this statement not a legal opinion .... ie. that there is no single controlling document. And you know the fallacy of that statement.

And trust me, I do believe you know exactly what you are doing. You would not have made that investment without knowing the legal basis of your control. No single controlling document would leave the issue of your control up in the air. Not a sound business decision. And I sense you do not leave things to chance.

And you know I am not interpreting the law, or giving legal advice. She asked what part of the document pertained to owners electing a trustee.

It sounds like you are attempting to discourage owners from reading the by-laws and discussing the contents. For if one was to say to another, look at section IV, they would be committing a crime.

As a lawyer who sent me a PM about this thread said - quit trying to hide behind the law.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

If I were attempting to discourage owners from reading the by-laws, why would I publish them on the internet and make them available to any owner who asks for them??

 

[ecwinch]

If I were attempting to discourage owners from reading the by-laws, why would I publish them on the internet and make them available to any owner who asks for them??

No. I give you points for that. But since you have brought up the "unauthorized practice of the law" issue multiple times, it appears that you want to discourage owners from talking about them.

But I also know that everything in business is done for a purpose. It serves your purpose to some extent or it would not have been done.

ps. love the highlight on owner. Think I will start doing that for DEVELOPER.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

LOL, Eric,works for me! I'm not trying to discourage owners from talking about anything. I'm just not going to do it.

The unauthorized practice of law issue is one I take very seriously. If others don't, that's not my problem.

 

[e.bram]

What is illegal about discussing a legal document between two persons. It is only illegal for a non lawyer to REPRESENT a person in a legal a legal matter and be paid for it. Discussions by two or more persons is not illegal.
Selling an winter inland Cape Cod TS for $8000.00???. It is easier to walk on water!!!

 

[Carolinian]

A number of the resorts on the OBX require owners to vote on the resort budget which includes m/f and on any special assessment. That is the best protection members can have. Indeed, at one resort a few years ago, a member thought the board was being too conservative, and made a motion to increase the m/f with the money going into reserves. The motion passed overwhelmingly.

Having management, developer, or sales represented on the board is a huge conflict of interest. Management and sales are hired help and should not be approving their own recommendations

Hi Sanford

I try the best I can to explain things but there are some things I simply cannot discuss, particularly in a public forum. My track record is easy to trace with a simple Google search on my name and you can find out my history and what I believe in. If people chose to think I'm lying for some reason, I can't do anything about that. I'm not, but I also can't prove a negative.

1. Why would it be inappropriate for a member of one of the top sales and marketing organizations in the country to be a board member of a resort that desperately needs sales and marketing? We have NEVS inventory and delinquent inventory that has to be sold and will be sold. I would hope that Southcape owners would feel comforted knowing that there are true professionals involved.

2. There is no role for Festiva other than as an exchange company. There are protections in place to prevent what happened at other resorts I just can't discuss an agreement that has a confidentiality clause.

3. No one is taking anyone's timeshare away. Owners who join Festiva deed their weeks to Festiva because they believe that the Festiva points program will benefit them. No one has to or is being forced to join Festiva (or RCI or II for that matter). The gains are obvious. Festiva gets new members and access for their members to a beautiful resort on Cape Cod. Outfield gets a commission for handling sales. NEVS makes money by selling the weeks they have purchased. The resort benefits by generating more maintenance fee income. Everyone wins.

4. There is no lack of full disclosure, that's why I'm here to answer questions. I can't give legal opinions unlike other posters on this site. It's called the unauthorized practice of law and it's a crime. I can't comment on or publish contracts that have confidentiality clauses. Festiva is independent and has no interest in NEVS or Outfield. NEVS has no interest in Festiva or Outfield. Outfield has no interest in Festiva but does have an interest in NEVS.

The true agendas are also simple. Festiva wants a Cape Cod resort for their members and to have new members. Outfield wants to sell the NEVS and delinquent weeks. NEVS wants to sell its weeks. I want to manage the property for the benefit of all the owners. There really is no conspiracy, hidden agenda or other scheme. If all parties do the best things they can to benefit the resort as a whole, all will make money, including the resort. The owners will have a fully renovated resort, little or no delinquency, a modern management system, fully subscribed maintenance fees and financial stability.

5. Festiva didn't raise maintenance fees, I recommended them and the board approved. The resort has been running at an operating deficit for years with virtually no reserves and to allow that situation to continue would have been financially irresponsible. The special assessment was recommended by me and approved by the board. Come to the resort and see the problems that were never addressed first hand. I'd love to show any owner around so they can see for themselves. A full presentation will be made at the annual meeting. What happened with Festiva at other resorts is not happening at Southcape. Period.

 

[Carolinian]

I've raised a lot of concerns that haven't been addressed. Where to begin?

Let's begin with the Board of Trustees. Show me the BOOK and PAGE to back up your contention that presently there is no need for an election because presently owners have no right to a seat on the Board.

Oh, and please don't pull a fast one by doing away with the link. I've downloaded my copy and hope everyone reading this has done so as well. But it makes it so much easier to open it and refer to it without having to bring it with me everytime I log on.

Did I put my money on Michigan State for nothing? You can post here while your girlfriend is preparing dinner!

Resorts where the HOA board is not turned over to owners are ones I avoid like the plague. Owners SHOULD be in control. Too often developers and subsequent developers wear out their welcome by trying to hang on forever. At four resorts I have owned at, three in NC and one overseas, the members had to band together and push the developer out. At one, the battle went all the way to the state Supreme Court, but members won at every level. The financial situation at all of those resorts improved substantially after a member-elected board took over.

 

[Carolinian]

You need to form a concerned owners group and elect officers. There are resorts in the UK where governing documents give owners no power but the owners have formed associations to push for things that will benefit owners. Such a group hopefully will find a way to end this developer dictatorship.

Sou13 - I think you are on the right track. The way the documents are structured, NEVS might never give up control of the resort.

If you refer to Article V, Section 2.a, you will see that NEVS will retain at 51% of the control until all 132 units are constructed. If I understood the previous post about the township seizing some lots, is it even possible for SC to build 132 units?

And given what I have read in the Sandcastle thread, I see a number of similarities. I particularly like the comments that their is no reason for the HOA to form, since the trust is still under developer control and they would have nothing to vote on.

One have to wonder if there is not a pattern here that NEVS is exploiting - i.e. take over incomplete resorts that are still under developer control, and have owners pay to improve the property.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Eric

Two people can discuss legal issues, but they cannot discuss them in a public forum with third parties. Problem is, far more than that has been going on here. Opinions on legal documents have been offered by non-lawyers to an entire group. Legal conclusions have been drawn by non-lawyers and published to the group. Actions based on non-lawyer interpretations of the documents have been urged.

How about the fact that I sell delinquent weeks at Brewster Green as high as $18,000 and the Ponds at Foxhollow as high as $22,000? I say again, maybe I could benefit your resorts as well?

Cliff

BTW, I keep seeing posts by non-southcape owners. Are there any actual owners that have a question?

 

[e.bram]

NEVMSLLC:
Representation is the issue not discussion. Polititions discuss legal issues all the time in front of large groups, no problem. Also inteview and talk radio and television shows do it too.
Obferscation(sp?) and opaqueness is the issue here for non conmunication.

 

[Fig]

Outfield Marketing

I guess what bothers me most is the assumption that what I am doing, NEVS is doing and Outfield is doing is automatically wrong and not in the best interests of all the owners without a single shred of evidence to support the claim.
Cliff

I didn't have to look too far to find references to Outfield Marketing and why people might have issues with their practices.

This is a restort manager commenting on Outfield on no less than than the home page of the resort website who felt the need to bold her comments.

"From the Management Office....the sales staff of Outfield Marketing who have made some false statements about Peppertree Maggie Valley during the sales presentation. Two of the statements being made are that “Peppertree Maggie Valley is not in good financial condition” and that “Peppertree Maggie Valley is going to go out of business” if the owners do not convert their week to the Festiva Adventure Club. These statements simply are not true. Peppertree Maggie Valley is in excellent financial health and is not in any danger of going out of business."

http://www.peppertreemv.com/owner.htm

More info from other forums documenting Outfield reps statements:

"Within the next few years Outfield Marketing will work with Festiva and would convert all of the Festiva resorts to the point system. “100%”

http://www.timeshareforums.com/foru...10-festiva-goes-points-charges-thousands.html

And another forum:

"He talked to us like we were stupid. He pretty much told us our maintenance fees would go up to over 2000.00 if we stay where we are and pretty much called us stupid for doing so!!!!! He was very rude and aggravated with us and kept trying to sell his point and pointing out he does not get a commission but is doing this for us so we can save money. My husband had to ask him to leave our home for he was getting out of hand!!!!!"

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopi...e_Vac_Club_Any_feedback-Branson_Missouri.html


I'll stop here at one resort and two major forums outside of TUG. A few bad apples? Hmm....

 

[wmauryd]

Cape Cod inland, Cape Cod off-season, recreationally deprived

I would agree with E.Bram that there's a premium on oceanfront and also summer season. The resale and rental pricing drops for the fall, winter and spring seasons. I can't help wonder what the occupancy and rental stats are at Southcape for those three seasons. It can't be zero occupancy, so it must be partial occupancy. And if its partial occupancy, then is it cost effective to for the resort to remain open year-round? And why are renters and owners coming? Is there enough financial ballast to float the resort's budget? There's probably mixed views but it would be interesting to see the numbers.

But I disagree about inland resorts having no appeal. Of all the Cape timeshare resorts, the three in Mashpee are by far the most heavily surrounded by forest and conservation land. A fourth resort, Brewster Green, is walking distance to Nickerson Park, with one-of-kind bike and walking paths through pine forests. All four of these inland resorts have hiking trails just outside ones door, with many more a short drive away. For canoes and kayaks, Southcape is in close proximity to fabulous waterways including Popponesset Bay and Mashee River, Child's River and Waquoit Bay. You could market the resort just to kayakers. Southcape has, by far, the best grocery and mall shopping on the Cape-- Roche Brothers and Mashpee Commons.

It may be true that the Cape has oceanfront resorts, but I wouldn't shout too loud about it. If I'm correct, all of the oceanfront resorts have floor plans this size a small studio apartment. Southcape's units have full kitchens and three times the square footage of these motel-conversion resorts dotting Vineyard and Nantucket Sound. When you're bringing kids, it's nice to arrive and have that extra space, full kitchen, and extra baths that SC offers.

The real trajedy of one particular US president serving in the early 60's, with his Hyannis compound not quite on the Atlantic or bay front, was that he was recreationally deprived, and he knew it. So when he signed CCNS into existence, he did the right thing for his countrymen by including the Atlantic coastal shore within park boundaries. He left Nantucket Sound and Vineyard Sound shorefront out of the park boundaries, because we all agree they are not National Seashore material, leaving these areas to timeshare developers and others. He certainly didn't make Hyannis into national park status. And with global sea levels slowly rising and redrawing coastal areas, the resorts on these shores could become valuable locations for boat moorings and lobster traps. This process may be happening sooner than we want it to.

I don't mean to knock E.Bram's resort in Falmouth-- It appears to have water front on both sides-- I can think of worse places to be. But staying among Cape Cod's breezy forests is not all that bad either.

 

[Sou13]

You should be writing for the Southcape homepage!

I don't mean to knock E.Bram's resort in Falmouth-- It appears to have water front on both sides-- I can think of worse places to be. But staying among Cape Cod's breezy forests is not all that bad either.

Wow! You found even more things to love about Southcape Resort than I have in nearly a quarter of a century, and you're posting from California!

When I visited Southcape Resort for the first time back in the 80s when Condo I was still in development and the first three units were demo units, I fell in love with the place. Over the years I worried about those pinewoods being developed but was reassured that they were protected.

For reasons that Developer Hagberg speculated over the telephone with me, Barth and Woods never sold out their inventory because they didn't want to give up control of the Resort. Truth or "untruth"?

BTW the reason "Cliff" refers to me as "she" is that he knows who I am and why I am so concerned about the presence of Outfield Marketing in the marketing plan at Southcape. I've had my own brush with Outfield Marketing and am biting my fingertips from spewing out the whole truth here.

I am still available to serve on that advisory group and have already suggested that much of it could be done online. This discussion may be proving my point.

Here's my first suggestion for the new kids on the block: Refer them here and encourage them to share their thoughts.

As for those Southcape owners who are reticent to post here, it looks to me as though they are afraid of being shot or shouted down. But this discussion was never meant to preclude non Southcape owners. It began as a timeshare owner looking for info because he was considering buying a week at Southcape. He has decided against it and bought elsewhere.

 

[Fig]

Selling an winter inland Cape Cod TS for $8000.00???. It is easier to walk on water!!!

You can get them much cheaper...just got this email from Ebay on Southcape.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270367276324&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123

 

[ecwinch]

Two people can discuss legal issues, but they cannot discuss them in a public forum with third parties. Problem is, far more than that has been going on here. Opinions on legal documents have been offered by non-lawyers to an entire group. Legal conclusions have been drawn by non-lawyers and published to the group. Actions based on non-lawyer interpretations of the documents have been urged.

Cliff,

As you know, this issue would be governed at the state level, and the laws vary from state to state. I do not want to hijack the thread, but here is the applicable Texas statue. I will not further my unauthorized practice of law by telling you what it says, but will let the documents speak for themselves.

The practice of law is defined by statute and by case law. Section 81.101 of the Texas Government Code states:

(a) In this chapter the "practice of law" means the preparation of a pleading or other document incident to an action or special proceeding or the management of the action or proceeding on behalf of a client before a judge in court as well as a service rendered out of court, including the giving of advice or the rendering of any service requiring the use of legal skill or knowledge, such as preparing a will, contract, or other instrument, the legal effect of which under the facts and conclusions involved must be carefully determined.

(b) The definition in this section is not exclusive and does not deprive the judicial branch of the power and authority under both this chapter and the adjudicated cases to determine whether other services and acts not enumerated may constitute the practice of law.

(c) In this chapter, the "practice of law" does not include the design, creation, publication, distribution, display, or sale, including publication, distribution, display, or sale by means of an Internet web site, of written materials, books, forms, computer software, or similar products if the products clearly and conspicuously state that the products are not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. This subsection does not authorize the use of the products or similar media in violation of Chapter 83 and does not affect the applicability or enforceability of that chapter.

Other posters reside in other states, where the applicable laws would be different. Damn. That might have been an opinion. Whoops.

 

[ecwinch]

You can get them much cheaper...just got this email from Ebay on Southcape.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270367276324&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123

So tempting. Then I could discuss the documents. Of course we would have to ask all the rest of you to leave the thread. It would just be us "owners" and the DEVELOPER.

 

[Sou13]

Thank you, Eric!

Sou13 - check Book 3526, Page 112, Article III, Section 3.1, paragraph c. I cannot tell you what it says, as that might be a crime.
No one is asking for a legal opinion.

I have no problem with quoting it here:

When unit owners other than the Declarant or its successor own fifteen percent (15%) or more of the beneficial interest, they shall be entitled to elect at least one trustee.

That's not practicing law without a license, that's reading the law and trying to figure out what it's supposed to mean. I read it as meaning that the Developer no longer owns 51% of the units and it's time for the owners to occupy more than "advisory" status. But, that's my reading of it, not a legal one, and these matter can be discussed in a public forum. There are even legal forums online if I'm not mistaken.

Referring back to my concern that the Master Deed might not be so readily accessible online forever, I have to go into why I don't trust anything to be accessible online forever. The reason I don't "google" "Cliff Hagberg" is that I have problems as a result of Google crowding Yahoo! out of the search engine market, and a lot of it is in the name! Do you Yahoo!? I do!

 

[Sou13]

You can get them much cheaper...just got this email from Ebay on Southcape.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270367276324&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123

Visit seller's Store:
Cybernaut303 is in the Timeshare resale business:

Buy your TIMESHARE from the market leaders. With over 100 years of combined experience in the timeshare industry, our professional staff handles ALL the details of your purchase. Your closing and ESCROW is handled with a licensed, insured, and bonded title company. 100% Money Back Guarantee, if you are not completely satisifed ! Please, add us to your Favorite Sellers and come back soon. Thank you for visiting.

Notice the absence of color of week and that even the address of Southcape Resort is incorrect!

But while we're on the subject of timeshare resale, I had to save this quote from yesterday for lack of time:

I spoke with someone at www.ivsrealty.com about a month ago...they list a lot of the Cape Cod resorts. I was interested in the Sandcastle and was inquiring about resales. I was told that IVS realty bought all the unsold weeks and they were listing them on their website. He was supposed to call me back when he had all the weeks and their prices figured out. But now I'm not so sure I want another week there, if MFs are going up.
The owners did have a $100 assessment last year for upgrades to the roof, swimming pools, and tennis courts. I have not heard of any other assessments at this time.http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82489&highlight=Sandcastle

 

[tombo]

I didn't have to look too far to find references to Outfield Marketing and why people might have issues with their practices.

This is a restort manager commenting on Outfield on no less than than the home page of the resort website who felt the need to bold her comments.

"From the Management Office....the sales staff of Outfield Marketing who have made some false statements about Peppertree Maggie Valley during the sales presentation. Two of the statements being made are that “Peppertree Maggie Valley is not in good financial condition” and that “Peppertree Maggie Valley is going to go out of business” if the owners do not convert their week to the Festiva Adventure Club. These statements simply are not true. Peppertree Maggie Valley is in excellent financial health and is not in any danger of going out of business."

http://www.peppertreemv.com/owner.htm

More info from other forums documenting Outfield reps statements:

"Within the next few years Outfield Marketing will work with Festiva and would convert all of the Festiva resorts to the point system. “100%”

http://www.timeshareforums.com/foru...10-festiva-goes-points-charges-thousands.html

And another forum:

"He talked to us like we were stupid. He pretty much told us our maintenance fees would go up to over 2000.00 if we stay where we are and pretty much called us stupid for doing so!!!!! He was very rude and aggravated with us and kept trying to sell his point and pointing out he does not get a commission but is doing this for us so we can save money. My husband had to ask him to leave our home for he was getting out of hand!!!!!"

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopi...e_Vac_Club_Any_feedback-Branson_Missouri.html


I'll stop here at one resort and two major forums outside of TUG. A few bad apples? Hmm....

This is a response for FIG and not meant to be construed as a response to anyone else. Please don't respond to this post if you are not FIG. No one here should state or imply that this post is meant for anyone other than FIG unless you are a lawyer and can make a legal ruling on whether this is legally a response to multiple recipients!

Fig, surely you can't be listing bad reviews about the self proclaimed top sales company in the country.To be top rated the customer satisfaction numbers have to be very high. Did you overlook the 1000's of glowing reviews to find these negative experiences? These Outfielder's are true professionals who comfort owners at resorts with their pleasant visits and informative owner updates. Remember that one of these Outfield salesmen is a trustee at Southscape, and who could have a problem with that?

1. Why would it be inappropriate for a member of one of the top sales and marketing organizations in the country to be a board member of a resort that desperately needs sales and marketing? We have NEVS inventory and delinquent inventory that has to be sold and will be sold. I would hope that Southcape owners would feel comforted knowing that there are true professionals involved.