[2008] Southcape Resort

[NEVMSLLC]

LOL, what you're looking for in representation couldn't be done even by George Washington. Perhaps you should learn in more detail how the exchange system works to see what it takes to get a prime week in a prime location.

 

[ecwinch]

LOL, what you're looking for in representation couldn't be done even by George Washington. Perhaps you should learn in more detail how the exchange system works to see what it takes to get a prime week in a prime location.

Cliff,

I respect what you have to say about timeshare development, but I think there are a lot of people on TUG that would take exception to your statements on what it takes to get a prime week in a prime location.

I am going to assume you mean either something like a holiday 4th of July week rather a prime week in the summer, or you are referring to a prime week at a smaller resort that you are affiliated with.

For instance we are going to a 5-star resort on Captiva Island over Thanksgiving this year. We do not own there.

 

[ecwinch]

There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is it eliminates the need for foreclosure if an owner refuses to pay maintenance fees. The cost of foreclosure can often exceed the value of the week so many resorts are stuck in a limbo if an owner refuses to pay.

No one has ever been able to convince me that a deed protects an owner any better than a beneficial interest in a trust, for example.

These two statements seem to conflict with each other. As you note in the first statement, a deeded week provides the owner with more legal protections against foreclosure. The increased cost is due to the legal process the resort/HOA has to go through based on real estate law. You always are going to have more rights regarding tangible/real property, over a "membership" in something.

 

[e.bram]

NEVM:
But I with other tax(MFs) paying citizens(owners) could vote George Washington(BOD) out, if I did not care for his(their) representation. We can't vote you out(like King George). SC owners need to have a TEA PARTY.

 

[e.bram]

You acn be a happy owner of a SC week 19 2br unit for a $1.00 on Ebay.
.
NEVM: You could make easy big bucks and sell it for $5000.00+ bucks.

 

[Sou13]

You are kidding, aren't you?

"If you really want, I can still make arrangements for you to have a membership in the Festiva Adventure Club. Just let me know and I'll make it happen."
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84127&goto=newpost

ROFLOL! Mr. Hagberg, I've been wondering whether you have me confused with someone else. You couldn't seriously make such a suggestion if you've "read all my posts" as you claim you have!

Here's what happens when unwary deeded owners get suckered into convering to Festiva points:

The other odd highlight was when one very loud man verbally protested that a woman who was repeatedly asking many questions prior to the alloted time was in attendance at the owners meeting- he pointed out hat as she had bought into "Festiva Adventure Club" she had no business being there with owners. While his point was technically correct, she up and left and I think everyone was embarassed for this poor lady who fell victim to the Outfield Marketing people by deeding her units to Festiva and buying into their club.
After being there for three hours I left after the business portion of the meeting but before the Q & A time. That was about 4 or 5 hours ago....they're probably still doing questions and answers now! http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82489&page=2

Festiva is not going to "get the upper hand" at Southcape. If you really want, I can still make arrangements for you to have a membership in the Festiva Adventure Club. Just let me know and I'll make it happen.

 

[Sou13]

Now whose leg are you trying to pull?

"If I were to dual affiliate the resort with both II and RCI would you still say it's "just adding another legal entity to deal with" or would you congratulate me for providing owners with more options on taking their vacations? Why is Festiva any different than II or RCI? It's just another option."

Now whose leg are you trying to pull? Southcape Resort is already affiliated with both II and RCI and it was optional. The only difference was that your choice of II or RCI depended upon whether you owned in Southcape I or Southcape II, and now I'm not even so sure about that!

I've been searching online for Southcape owners who are trying to either sell or rent their weeks and found one who owns in Southcape I but claims that he belongs to RCI. That's a new one for me! I let my five-year membership in II expire because I never got any use out of it other than a bill and lots of promotions trying to convince me to upgrade to II Gold membership.

E.bram

Festiva points are no different than RCI Points, Bluegreen Points or any other points system. They're really not for everyone. However, for those owners who can benefit from a points system, Festiva actually has one of the better ones in the industry. I have no idea whether points would work for Sou13 or not. I've been a member of RCI Points since they were first offered and I love it. I'll be joining Festiva personally before much longer as well. The way I choose to use my vacation time works perfectly with points. This is not the case for every owner. The increased flexibility is only one of the potential benefits. I know a lot of points owners with different systems and almost all of them are very happy with the points product.

While this isn't a forum on the benefits/detriments of points, I would point out that Festiva points at Southcape are optional, just like the choice of whether to join II or RCI or neither. No one is being forced to join points in any way at all. From a resort management perspective, we don't care if people join Festiva or not. There is neither an advantage or disadvantage to the resort. It's merely a question of personal preference depending on how you want to take your vacations.

If I were to dual affiliate the resort with both II and RCI would you still say it's "just adding another legal entity to deal with" or would you congratulate me for providing owners with more options on taking their vacations? Why is Festiva any different than II or RCI? It's just another option.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

At Southcape, units 1 - 31 are affiliated with II and units 32 - 55 are affiliated with RCI. I only want all owners to have a choice of either exchange company. Do you not think that's a good idea?

 

[Sou13]

Not the way you're proposing to change things!

If units 1-31 are already affiliated with II how will we now be able to join RCI? The option of joining II for units 32-55 is available only by converting deeds to membership in the Festiva Adventure Club . . . truth or "untruth"? (I'll have to wait until tomorrow to view your reply to this one, so please take your time and answer other questions such as those posed by Russ45).

 

[NEVMSLLC]

I want to affiliate the entire resort with both exchange companies so owners can freely chose between them.

I'll answer any questions that I can answer you should already know that.

Finally, believe me, i don't have you confused with anyone.

 

[Scpe]

I want to affiliate the entire resort with both exchange companies so owners can freely chose between them.

NEVMSLLC

Hello,

For what it is worth I was at Southcape recently and met with the NEVS (or Outfield Marketing) representative for the new Festiva points system being sold. This guy clearly stated that RCI was out and that the only choice would be II and Festiva. He went as far as to to show us the past two years of RCI catalogs to illustrate how more resorts are leaving RCI each year. Regarding units 32-55, it looks like that if they desire to participate in an exchange program they will have to join the Adventure Club provided by Festiva. As Sou13 indicated, this would mean converting their deed to a membership -- at a cost of approximately $3095.00 (3300 minus the 400 assessment if already paid, + 195 application/filing fee).

 

[SCapeOwnersRUS]

Wow if this can be proven it may be of Interest to The Attorney Generals Office

NEVMSLLC

Hello,

For what it is worth I was at Southcape recently and met with the NEVS (or Outfield Marketing) representative for the new Festiva points system being sold. This guy clearly stated that RCI was out and that the only choice would be II and Festiva. He went as far as to to show us the past two years of RCI catalogs to illustrate how more resorts are leaving RCI each year. Regarding units 32-55, it looks like that if they desire to participate in an exchange program they will have to join the Adventure Club provided by Festiva. As Sou13 indicated, this would mean converting their deed to a membership -- at a cost of approximately $3095.00 (3300 minus the 400 assessment if already paid, + 195 application/filing fee).

If this can be proven it may be something that should be called to the attention of The Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
There has NEVER been a satisfactory answer regarding the interwoven relationship and agenda of NEVS Outfield and Festiva

 

[Scpe]

If this can be proven it may be something that should be called to the attention of The Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
There has NEVER been a satisfactory answer regarding the interwoven relationship and agenda of NEVS Outfield and Festiva

Hi,

Just to expand on the identity of the gentleman we met with, he stated he worked for NEVS, however he did not have a business card indicating that. He did give us a generic business card belonging to Outfield Marketing LTD that only states the business name, not his or anyone else's name.

Paul

 

[SCapeOwnersRUS]

Attorney General?????

Hi,

Just to expand on the identity of the gentleman we met with, he stated he worked for NEVS, however he did not have a business card indicating that. He did give us a generic business card belonging to Outfield Marketing LTD that only states the business name, not his or anyone else's name.

Paul

Underscores the possibility of looking into with the Attorney General ?

 

[Sou13]

AG question

"Underscores the possibility of looking into with the Attorney General?"
Are you interested in looking into this?

A Southcape owner who has contacted the Massachusetts AG's office has advised me that complaints have to be in writing and that if the AG gets enough of them some action is more likely to be taken.

However, there has to be some violation of some statute in order for some action to be taken.

Here's what happened in MO:

An Equivest/Peppertree owner received the information from the Missouri Attorney General in the mail. Here is a recap:


State of Missouri v Festiva Resorts, LLC / A Nevada Limited Liability Company.

The first few pages include the Introduction; Parties; Venue; Jurisdiction; etc., and the complaint was raised under that State's Merchandising Practices Act.

The report goes to identify the specifics of that Act which were violated.

Specifically,

a, It was considered that Festiva falsely promised consumers that Defendant would sell consumers' currently owned time share at a different resort to induce consumers to purchase a tie share from Defendant;

b, Misrepresenting to consumers that Defendant would sell consumers' currently owned time share at a different resort to induce consumers to purchase a time share from Defendant;

c, Falsely promising consumers that if they purchased a time share from Defendant, Defendant would assist consumers in renting the purchased time share at the Cabins at Green Mountain thus inducing consumers to purchase a time share from Defendant;

d, Misrepresenting to consumers that if they purchased a time share from Defendant, Defendant would assist consumers in renting the purchased time share at the Cabins at Green Mountain thus inducing consumers to purchase a time share from Defendant;

e, Falsely promising consumers that Defendant would "take back" consumers time share at Cabins at Green Mountain if consumers were not satisfied to induce consumers to purchase time share from Defendant;

f. Misrepresenting that Defendant would "take back" consumers time share at Cabins at Green Mountain if consumers were not satisfied to induce consumers to purchase time share from Defendant;

g, Giving consumers the false impression that if they purchased a time share from Defendant they could easily book condominiums in desirable locations at desirable rates when same was not true.

h, Misrepresenting the ability and ease with which consumers would be able to obtain various travel services after purchasing a time share from Defendant;

i, Misrepresenting the prices or terms at which consumers would be able to obtain travel servies after purchasing a time share from Defendant;

j, Engaging in the unfair practice of failing to give the consumers adequate time to examine the material and documents related to the time share prior to the consumers purchase of the time share;

k, Employing the unfair practice of imposing an extremely short time limit on consumers' purchasing decisions, such as requiring a decision before the consumer left the sales presentation, thereby creating an artificial sense of urgency. When coupled with Defendants' high pressure tactics, this practice has the effect of causing consumers to be likly to make a hasty decision on a majoy purchase;

In conclusion, As a direct result of Defendant's Merchandising Practices Act violations consumers have sustained in excess of $200,000.00 in damages in out of pocket losses which Defendant Festiva Resorts, LLC has converted to its own use and benefit, and, if not enjoined will convert funds of other victims in Missouri and nationwide using the same forbidden merchandising practices. Defendant's actions also taint the reputaiion of the Branson area and damage to reputable time share vendors in the Branson ares.

So there you have it. The representatives of Festiva promised the sun, the moon and the stars and told every kind of lie they could think of at the time to make a sale.

This entire document is about 25 pages long.

Now online...

http://clubhause.com/manila/gems/home/avc.pdf

http://clubhause.com/manila/gems/home/petition.pdf

( You'll need adobe reader...
http://get.adobe.com/reader )

Underscores the possibility of looking into with the Attorney General ?

 

[Rebecca]

Cliff - No response to my request?

I've said right from my very first post that I will not discuss legal issues, period, and I meant it. If there are questions other than legal ones, I'm happy to answer them, otherwise, you can ask away but this is not the forum to address those issues and I won't be baited into it.

I find it curious that, with all of the issues facing Southcape, not one owner has asked questions about them, nor has a single owner asked what they can do to help.

The question of trustees, etc. hasn't changed in twenty years and it's no different now, except that there are new trustees who actually want to fix the problems. Not one question about what's gone on the past twenty years with the former developer. Not one question about how did the resort get into this situation and what is being done to correct the neglect of the last twenty years.

I guess the owners who haven't cared the last twenty years still don't care what happened and what's being done to fix things. We do have real issues at the resort and I'd like to talk about them and I do want input from owners about what needs to be done to fix things. I'm just not going to respond to name calling, libel and innuendo.

So let's go, folks. If you really do care about the resort, let's have a discussion about Southcape.

And by the way, Fig, I'm not the least bit anxious to get rid of Eric. I have a lot of respect for him and I respond to him even though he's not an owner. I do that for one reason, he actually listens and, even though we don't always agree, I think we at least respect each other enough to try and understand the differing viewpoints. If we had more owners like Eric, I'd be delighted. Now if we could only focus on the problems facing Southcape . . .

Hi Cliff,

I am happy to learn that you are still available to answer questions. I am, however, dismayed to see that you haven't given me the courtsey of an answer to my questions. As I previously stated, I understand and respect that you do not wish to answer legal questions, and I didn't actually pose any legal questions, however, as my parents are owners, and I will be an owner when I inherit from them, I do have some legal concerns over the status of the title of the condominium. It is for that reason that I asked, and am still asking, who is the attorney for the association, so that I may direct my legal questions to them.

Please understand, I am trying to get a handle on Southcape from the ground up. I would love to know about the maintenance issues and what exactly the assessment is being used for. I was hoping that there would be a detailed explaination of these items, the 2008 budget, and the 2009 budget at the owners meeting.

Therefore my questions remain:
1) who is the condo association attorney?
2) will there be at attorney at the association?

Thanks,
Rebecca

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Hi Rebecca

I do hope you'll understand why I won't identify the association's attorney in a public forum. My concern is that they may be inundated with questions from owners and, to have them respond individually could end up being a huge expense for the association. I will discuss the issue with them and see what solutions they might suggest.

There are no plans for an attorney to be at the owner's meeting as there is nothing on the agenda that will require their attendance.

Cliff

 

[ecwinch]

Hi Rebecca

I do hope you'll understand why I won't identify the association's attorney in a public forum. My concern is that they may be inundated with questions from owners and, to have them respond individually could end up being a huge expense for the association. I will discuss the issue with them and see what solutions they might suggest.

There are no plans for an attorney to be at the owner's meeting as there is nothing on the agenda that will require their attendance.

Cliff

Cliff,

I fully understand the need to control costs, and that the association attorney cannot be expected to respond to any question that a owner might raise.

However, you previously stated that the association's attorney reviewed the transfer of control from the previous developer to NEVS. I assume that they billed the association for the time required to review the Master Deed. Was their a work product from this review?

Likewise, there are numerous questions about the legality of NEVS not paying m/f on the units they own. As part of the review, has the association attorney rendered a legal opinion on that issue?

I am not asking for you to answer any legal question. Just in your role as Trustee, do you know if their is work product produced by the association attorney on these issues.

Thanks

 

[NEVMSLLC]

While the association attorney has reviewed everything, there is no written opinion.

This is the last time I will address any legal question.

 

[e.bram]

First. Any legal opinion by NEVM hired atty would state the interpretation of the ruling legal issues would be for their benefit. Some "Happy Owners" have to chip in and hire their own atty to analyse the issues for their behalf. Perhaps start a legal action which thru discovery get answers to all the questions being posed here ,in writing and sworn to.
The "Happy Owners" need to start a tea party to stop being taxed without their representation(only Cliff's as stated in a previous post)
If some "Happy Owners" know of or can find help from a law school legal clinic, they should try that approach, rather than the atty gen.
Most law schools have lrgal clinic where they use law students under guidance of a professor to help people with public interest legal problems. I think this might be an interesting case for them.

 

[ecwinch]

While the association attorney has reviewed everything, there is no written opinion.

This is the last time I will address any legal question.

So how did they provide their legal opinion - was it a high-five or a thumbs up?

I recommend a group of owners send a letter to the trustee's asking that a legal opinion on the non-payment of m/f be obtained from the association attorney, with a cc: to the respective attorney. It probably will not accomplish much, but down the road it might demonstate the intent of the respective parties. It will also put the association attorney on notice that their is a question on the legality of the m/f. Down the road, they will not be able to claim ignorance.

Cliff - I know you do not want answer legal questions, but you really are eroding the trust you want to foster. You will not answer legal questions, nor will you put owners in contact with the party that can answer the questions. Nor do you seem to be willing to have the association attorney provide any answers to the owners. This only leads in one direction, the owners banding together to have outside counsel review the deed and provide a opinion. If everything is legal as you maintain, this review should already have been done by the association attorney, and a written opinion easily obtained. The association is paying the expenses of the attorney. What are they paying for? It all gives the appearance that there is something to hide.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

There are legal opinions and they have been reviewed by the association's attorney. It made no sense to pay the association attorney to offer an opinion again when he agreed with the other opinions.

This is no different than it's been for almost 30 years. NEVS assumed the same developer and declarant rights that have been in existence for all that time. Further, the bank's attorney signed off as well or the bank would not have financed the purchase. In all, four different law firms have reviewed the documents and there is no disagreement between them. NEVS has developer and declarant rights.

As I've stated repeatedly, everyone has ignored the fact that NEVS has assigned the rental income from its weeks to the association in lieu of maintenance fees. This is something that NEVS absolutely did not have to do. The assumption that NEVS is in some way hurting the association is completely untrue.

Let's not forget that NEVS is in the process of correcting the problems and neglect of the past twenty years. For the first time, the resort has a balanced budget, association money is being kept in a local bank instead of a bank in NJ, we have a computer system that now actually works, repairs are being made to keep the resort from falling down, lawsuits with the town are being settled, the demand of the town for a sewage treatment plan has been removed, delinquent owners are being turned over to collections, the resort is no longer using next year's maintenance fees to pay current year expenses, wireless internet is being installed throughout the resort, the equipment in the fitness center that was falling apart has been replaced, a new website that will allow better owner communication will be up and running the next couple of weeks, for the first time in twenty years there are actual trustee meetings taking place, for the first time in twenty years the resort has a reserve account. There is more but I hope you get the idea that Southcape resort has never been in better shape and it's all because of NEVS.

 

[ecwinch]

There are legal opinions and they have been reviewed by the association's attorney. It made no sense to pay the association attorney to offer an opinion again when he agreed with the other opinions.

Then share the opinions the attorney reviewed. I think the owners have a legitimate right to question why NEVS is not paying m/f on their inventory. You have previously stated that you do want to answer that question, as it is a legal issue. And you will not provide any documentation that supports NEVS not paying m/f. How do you suggest that owners get a straight answer to this question? Are you suggesting that they just accept your word that you are not required to pay the m/f?

The fact that the previous developer did not pay m/f is not germane to the discussion. Should the owners ignore the situation because it has existed for so long? If so, then why not apply the same logic to the other owners who have not been paying m/f and have not been foreclosed upon like your stated plan.

NEVS has developer and declarant rights.

This is not in dispute, and is not the question at hand.

As I've stated repeatedly, everyone has ignored the fact that NEVS has assigned the rental income from its weeks to the association in lieu of maintenance fees. This is something that NEVS absolutely did not have to do. The assumption that NEVS is in some way hurting the association is completely untrue.

No one is ignoring this fact. There just is no documentation or guarantee that the association will receive revenue that equals the m/f's due on the units. I fully understand that you did not need to assign the rental income back to the association. You are not hurting the association, and you seem to be a more benevolent dictator then the previous one.

Let's not forget that NEVS is in the process of correcting the problems and neglect of the past twenty years. For the first time, the resort has a balanced budget, association money is being kept in a local bank instead of a bank in NJ, we have a computer system that now actually works, repairs are being made to keep the resort from falling down, lawsuits with the town are being settled, the demand of the town for a sewage treatment plan has been removed, delinquent owners are being turned over to collections, the resort is no longer using next year's maintenance fees to pay current year expenses, wireless internet is being installed throughout the resort, the equipment in the fitness center that was falling apart has been replaced, a new website that will allow better owner communication will be up and running the next couple of weeks, for the first time in twenty years there are actual trustee meetings taking place, for the first time in twenty years the resort has a reserve account. There is more but I hope you get the idea that Southcape resort has never been in better shape and it's all because of NEVS.

There is no doubt that you are on the right track and will improve the resort. Congratulations on doing so. Your position seems to be - "hey I am doing so much good, ignore the fact I am not paying m/f on my inventory". However you also know that once all those improvements have been made, your inventory will be much more valuable then it is today. So do not act as if your intentions are entirely altruistic.

And all the owners are asking for is an answer to why you are not paying m/f on your units. You can settle this issue very easily if you want to. So drop the "I get no respect" routine.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Did I touch a nerve with you Eric? What I'm telling you isn't a "routine", it's the truth.

If you agree that NEVS has developer and declarant rights, then NEVS is not obligated to pay maintenance fees. Period, end of issue.

You don't even have to believe me, you can look it up yourself.

 

[ecwinch]

Cliff,

You are not touching any nerves on my end. You are just proving that you do not want to answer the question and to prove that you are exempt from m/f.

I have looked it up, as have some of your owners. I can only find one questionable provision that supports your position. That you are exempt from capital assessments is clearly stated. Not so on expenses.

You do not seem to be able to substantiate your position, nor do you seem to want to put the issue to rest. One has to wonder why.

As I said before, your attitude on this issue can only lead in one direction - that the owners seek outside counsel. If in your role as Trustee you refuse to answer the question, or provide access to the legal opinions that support your answer, the owners really only have one course of action. And do you really want owners talking to an attorney at this point, when you can easily put this issue to rest if it so clear.

BTW - you should check to make sure your D&O policy is up to date - not that it will protect you from willful acts. You really should go back and read the Bluebeards case.

And to the owners, add the bank as a cc: to the letter requesting a legal opinion on the m/f. Lenders tend to get nervous in situations like this.