[2008] Southcape Resort

[ecwinch]

No, just trying to counter the effects of your perpetual spin machine.

You leave Sou13 these posts that are borderline threatening, i.e.

"Your actions will be brought up to the advisory committee."
"..and it will, along with all of her comments and actions."

When you are the one that is unjustly benefiting from an unconscionable contract that would be unlikely to remain intact if the owners challenged it. But to preclude that from occurring, you ignore the by-laws to prevent the owners from communicating with each other. And then you repeat second-hand information that she is "harassing people at the resort", to cast her in an unfavorable light.

This thread has gone on far to long for people not see things for what they are. Your spin machine does not prevent that.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Finally, this will be my last communication again with you Eric. If you'd like to continue communicating, buy a week, become an owner and perhaps you should actually read the documents before offering your pseudo-legal opinions of contracts you've never seen.

Sou13 wanted her questions, comments and opinions brought to the attention of the advisory committee and I've agreed. I've only said that they will be presented with everything, including both her criticisms and her actions. All owner concerns will be discussed with the advisory committee as they are with the trustees. Only you could turn that into problem. Talk about spin . . .

 

[Fig]

Finally, this will be my last communication again with you Eric. If you'd like to continue communicating, buy a week, become an owner and perhaps you should actually read the documents before offering your pseudo-legal opinions of contracts you've never seen.

Sou13 wanted her questions, comments and opinions brought to the attention of the advisory committee and I've agreed. I've only said that they will be presented with everything, including both her criticisms and her actions. All owner concerns will be discussed with the advisory committee as they are with the trustees. Only you could turn that into problem. Talk about spin . . .

Hey, while we've got you on the line here Cliff, care to comment on why your broker's license was suspended in Massachusetts?

Real Estate Sales & Brokers Broker

125373 CLIFFORD HAGBERG HYANNIS, MA License Suspended

Licensing Board: Real Estate Sales & Brokers
License Type: Broker
License Number: 125373
Status: License Suspended

We are all just a little curious here.

 

[ecwinch]

Finally, this will be my last communication again with you Eric. If you'd like to continue communicating, buy a week, become an owner and perhaps you should actually read the documents before offering your pseudo-legal opinions of contracts you've never seen.

Cliff, as usual you are wrong. I have thoroughly read the Master Deed and Declaration document.

And trust me, I have given a lot of thought to buying a week and filing a pro se action. But the first thing your attorney would assert is that I purchased with full knowledge of the situation. Judges do not like plaintiffs that seek out injury.

And that I am offering "pseudo-legal" opinions is comical coming from someone who says that a state statute can be ignored on the basis of the "federal privacy laws". That is almost like those guys who refuse to file tax returns because income taxes violates the US constitution. If you think there is a conflict between Section 32 and these "federal privacy laws", then go to court and obtain an injunction against Sou13's request for the Members register. If it is such a slam dunk, a judge should be able to decide it in 10 minutes. He would look at the state statute and these "federal privacy laws" and make a decision. Federal law trumps state law, so it should be pretty simple. Then your denial would be legal, as it is protected by court order. If the law is so clear, then it is an easy action, particularly against a Pro Se defendant.

But you will not do that, because he would rule against you. Because it is specifically authorized under Section 32. Because the members register contains the same information that is on PTA rosters and the phone book. I guess most schools and the phone company are violating these "federal privacy laws". Someday ask your lawyer to explain "federal privacy laws" to you. They apply to banks and finance companies. The Federal Privacy Act only applies to government agencies. Only in your "pseudo-legal" world can you violate the by-laws and state statute on that basis. Your day will come. The case in California is making it through the appeal system. Eventually it will end this "privacy laws" fraud you developers hide behind.

And you have made that statement before (last post). I think it is as truthful as most things you say. Anytime the spin machine gets going, you feel the need to respond to those that try to dispel it's effect.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Finally, just so people will realize that, while you sound good, you really don't know what you're talking about, I will make the following points.

1. The resort documents do not address owners having access to information about other owners at all. If you had read them, you would already know this. About this and other issues you've commented on, you either didn't read them fully or you didn't understand them. I have no idea which is correct. Perhaps you could correct me and tell me where in the documents this issue is covered? There are a number of areas that are addressed by the documents where you've offered your opinions and your opinions are simply wrong.

2. I agree that it's a matter for the courts and, what you don't seem to know is, we are already in court for a determination as to what needs to be done. You and I actually agree that going to court is the correct procedure. Far from believing a judge will rule against the resort's position, we are confident that our position will be upheld and there is precedent, you just don't seem to be aware of that. You are also unaware of the fact that our position is being supported by almost every other resort and management company in Massachusetts. It's not just us. An injunction against Sou13 would mean nothing as the matter needs to be decided definitively. I would suggest that even you would agree with the actions of management and the trustees in letting a court make the decision. I have never said that state laws should be ignored. Only that, when there are laws that conflict, a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction would help the trustees in meeting their fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of all owners.

3. Despite your claim, I have no record of Sou13 making a formal request for the information.

4. It's not just the federal privacy laws, it involves state privacy laws, FTC regulations and others as well. Chapter 183B was written well before there were problems with identity theft, etc. and it needs to be updated.

5. Since you are not an attorney, how could your legal opinions be anything other than the opinions of a lay person? If you were an attorney, you might not be so profligate with your comments. I do agree that you toss out legal jargon that gives the appearance of being an "expert" but you are often simply wrong.

6. We are not in violation of any state or federal statute other than this issue and, as I've stated, we're asking the court for direction and a ruling on what should be done - an action of which I expect you would approve.

7. You also seem unaware of the fact that the condominium documents were written prior to the enactment of 183B and are therefore grandfathered.

8. Your comparison with the phone book is just to silly to even warrant comment. Go ahead and ask a school for the information about their students and see what they tell you. Better yet, ask your bank for the information about their other depositors. Really, go ahead and give it a try and let me know where you get.

9. The problem you can't seem to get over is that I do tell you the truth. You then obscure the truth by raising side issues, offering opinions about issues you know nothing about and generally giving readers the impression that your comments actually have some sort of legal force and effect when they don't.

I respond when you, Sou13 and others make statements that are untrue and/or misleading. I find it particularly disturbing to have someone like you, who is not even an owner, offering opinions that are simply untrue and/or uniformed. Those are the areas where I post in order to let people know what the facts really are.

 

[Fig]

"I would suggest that even you would agree with the actions of management and the trustees in letting a court make the decision. I have never said that state laws should be ignored."

In this case the "management" and "trustees" are not what they are at most resorts. They are you and a few other people who have gotten over a million dollars by some estimates by allowing/promoting the tangled mess of Festiva Resorts and Outfield Marketing with the blessing of "management" and/or "trustees" who are, in some cases, interchangable entities who pocket the proceeds, to get owners to actually pay to give up their deeds. By stalling through court action you can continue to sell points at thousands a pop. This is where the real money is made...you have not made much money according to legal documents selling inventory as you often say is the plan...yet you, Steve, and Tom "trustees and management" have pocketed a hefty sum off of points...to the extent you can hold off giving over a list, the income continues. Your attempt to bolster your privacy concerns by having other "owners" post here about privacy issues, who none other the TUG board owner traced to your IP address, spoke volumes about how you operate, Cliff.

 

[ecwinch]

Here is my response to your points:

Finally, just so people will realize that, while you sound good, you really don't know what you're talking about, I will make the following points.

1. The resort documents do not address owners having access to information about other owners at all. If you had read them, you would already know this. About this and other issues you've commented on, you either didn't read them fully or you didn't understand them. I have no idea which is correct. Perhaps you could correct me and tell me where in the documents this issue is covered? There are a number of areas that are addressed by the documents where you've offered your opinions and your opinions are simply wrong.

Per paragraph 11. Books, accounts, and RECORDS of the Interval Ownership Program shall be open to inspection...

The members register is clearly a record of the Interval Ownership Program that is subject to inspection.

2. I agree that it's a matter for the courts and, what you don't seem to know is, #1) we are already in court for a determination as to what needs to be done. You and I actually agree that going to court is the correct procedure. Far from believing a judge will rule against the resort's position, we are confident that our position will be upheld and #2) there is precedent, you just don't seem to be aware of that. #3) You are also unaware of the fact that our position is being supported by almost every other resort and management company in Massachusetts. It's not just us. An injunction against Sou13 would mean nothing as the matter needs to be decided definitively. I would suggest that even you would agree with the actions of management and the trustees in letting a court make the decision. I have never said that state laws should be ignored. Only that, when there are laws that conflict, a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction would help the trustees in meeting their fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of all owners.

1. I think that is great that you are seeking an opinion on that issue. I do not see a case in the MA system right now, so what venue are you pursuing this action in?
2. The only current precedent in the US is in FL, and is specific to FL timeshare law that the members register cannot be shared. MA does not have that prohibition against release. If you have another case that I have missed, please provide the specifics.
3. Of course other developers would support your position. They have a vested interest in doing so, just as credit companies resisted the recent lending reform. What is that indicative of?

3. Despite your claim, I have no record of Sou13 making a formal request for the information.

No member has ever requested the members register or it is that have not made a "formal" request? I seem to recall Sou13 posting that she has attempted to inspect the members register. Have you specified the process for a formal request?

4. It's not just the federal privacy laws, it involves state privacy laws, FTC regulations and others as well. Chapter 183B was written well before there were problems with identity theft, etc. and it needs to be updated.

Can you cite one specific law that conflicts with the clear language of Section 32?

7. You also seem unaware of the fact that the condominium documents were written prior to the enactment of 183B and are therefore grandfathered.

The fact that Southcape was formed prior to the enactment of 183B does not mean you are exempt from all provisions of the statute. Specifically it says:

"this chapter does not invalidate or otherwise affect rights or obligations vested under said chapter one hundred and eighty-three"

And in a similar case where a party suggested that 183B did not apply (SMUGGLERS' BEACH RESORT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE ROTHCHILD GROUP, INC) the MA Court of Appeals said:

The Condominium was technically established under G.L. c. 183A, as it predates the enactment of G.L. c. 183B. Accordingly, it is governed by both statutes.

Not that is was exempt from 183B. If your attorney is telling you it is blanket immunity, then you need new counsel. For instance, you cannot violate the provisions of 183B related to timeshare sales on the basis that you are "grandfathered" in. Section 32 is the same. The case you want your lawyer to review is Tiffany v. Sturbridge Camping Club, Inc.

Regardless, the inspection rights were already in your Declaration prior to 183B.

8. Your comparison with the phone book is just to silly to even warrant comment. Go ahead and ask a school for the information about their students and see what they tell you. Better yet, ask your bank for the information about their other depositors. Really, go ahead and give it a try and let me know where you get.

That is correct, a school would not give a student list out to non-students. That is the important distinction here, as the request is from other members. That and the rest of your argument seems like a strawman. For I never suggested that a bank would give out depositor information.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Once again, Eric, you misquote me and then attack me on the misquote. Not fair! I said that the resort was grandfathered, not exempt from 183B.

There can be an honest disagreement about what represents a record of the resort and that is why we're asking a court for a ruling. For example, we could not allow owners to inspect employee records as that would be unlawful. We are not making the determination, we're asking for the court to do that.

I do not have the exact hearing date handy but I believe it's sometime this May. None of the other resorts that support our position have a developer. They are ALL sold out resorts and either self managed or managed by a professional management company. We haven't even spoken to other developers about the issue.

Once again, I've never claimed exemption from 183B only grandfathering. I am familiar with both the Smuggler's case and the Tiffany case. FYI the association attorney is not telling us that we are "exempt" and don't have to hand out the owner information. He says that with the conflicting laws, we're liable to get sued no matter what we do. That is why we are asking for clarification from the courts so as not to expose the resort to additional liability.

I'm sorry to hear that privacy rights are not high on your list of priorities.

Goodbye, Eric

 

[ecwinch]

Once again, Eric, you misquote me and then attack me on the misquote. Not fair! I said that the resort was grandfathered, not exempt from 183B.

There can be an honest disagreement about what represents a record of the resort and that is why we're asking a court for a ruling. For example, we could not allow owners to inspect employee records as that would be unlawful. We are not making the determination, we're asking for the court to do that.

I do not have the exact hearing date handy but I believe it's sometime this May. None of the other resorts that support our position have a developer. They are ALL sold out resorts and either self managed or managed by a professional management company. We haven't even spoken to other developers about the issue.

Once again, I've never claimed exemption from 183B only grandfathering. I am familiar with both the Smuggler's case and the Tiffany case. FYI the association attorney is not telling us that we are "exempt" and don't have to hand out the owner information. He says that with the conflicting laws, we're liable to get sued no matter what we do. That is why we are asking for clarification from the courts so as not to expose the resort to additional liability.

I'm sorry to hear that privacy rights are not high on your list of priorities.

Goodbye, Eric

Cliff,

You consistently have presented this "Grandfathering" issue as the basis of for your actions. If not, then why even bring it up in response to my post in regard to owner rights to the member list.

And unfortunately your response is short on specifics. What is venue for the court action? And in a court action, both sides of the issue need to presented. So what party is presenting the other side in this court action?

Likewise, what is the specific conflicting law that prevents owner name, address, and phone from being disseminated to owners for the purpose of communicating with each other?

And please do not bring employee information into this conversation. Section 32 does not grant owners authority to access that information. You can comply with Section 32, and still maintain your policy on other data.

Nor should you assume I do not care about privacy rights. But we are talking about the each same information that is in the phone book (name, address, phone number). Does the phone book violate federal policy laws?

 

[Sou13]

Elizabeth NcNichols

Sou 13, thanks again for organizing old minutes and condo info. This latest one almost came close to resolving our questions about new owners, Trust, etc.

Just as a note, in the meeting minutes above, item # 3 mentions Elizabeth McNichols. She wrote most of the original Master Deed and Trust for Southcape.

We however, cannot hire her to help us because she is currently working with NEVS. That does not bode well for us.

It does make us realize that we will need some legal help to fight the battle.http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=717141&postcount=558

Thank you, ecwinch and Fig, for your contributions to this discussion.

I've been reviewing archives which I hope to make available to the advisory committee members, whoever they are (I neglected to ask Rosaleen).

The reason I'm citing JackB62's post is that one of the notes I made about the trustees' meeting minutes was that Elizabeth McNichols is no longer the resort's attorney. She has been replaced by Robert Bianchi. (I found an interesting photo of Elizabeth McNichols Dunning who looks too young to be the attorney cited above). She is still serving as the Clerk of the Corporation according to the results of the Corporations Search, and no Annual Report has been filed for 2009.

On the same page as JackB62's post above are posted minutes of trustees' meetings, minutes Rosaleen claimed not to have and appreciated being able to copy mine.

I'm assuming that the reason I had to be at the resort in order to "examine" the current trustees' meeting minutes was probably so that I wouldn't be able to post them here.

When I asked Rosaleen about the advisory committee, I reminded her that I had indicated that I was still interested in serving on the committee or as an advisor to the advisors.

If the advisors want to hear my version of what actually happened I will be happy to attend the meeting. If the woman enjoying the use of the pool hadn't claimed that her father had been appointed to the Board in December there would have been no reason for her to feel "uncomfortable" and I wouldn't have even asked Rosaleen to let me look over the trustees' meeting minutes, because she (Rosaleen) had told me that the advisory committee would be meeting April 10 and I had said that the advisors could review the minutes and I didn't need to.

Let me explain what I see as the problem here. When I was in the clubhouse I noted that when people sign the pool sign-in book they may not have to identify themselves at the desk before using the pool. If that's the case, anyone from the area could be enjoying the use of the pool! A few years ago I had asked whether my son's family could use the recreational facilities and had been told that I would have to add his name to my deed in order for them to do that. So now we have a woman, whose father has converted his deed to Festiva points, signing in to use the pool, citing her father as an owner. Is this one of the "changes" being explained in the meetings with Mike?

 

[ecwinch]

Silence is Gooden

Once again, Eric, you misquote me and then attack me on the misquote. Not fair! I said that the resort was grandfathered, not exempt from 183B.

I do not have the exact hearing date handy but I believe it's sometime this May. None of the other resorts that support our position have a developer. They are ALL sold out resorts and either self managed or managed by a professional management company. We haven't even spoken to other developers about the issue.

Goodbye, Eric

When faced with specific questions for details to support their statements, spin machines usually seize up.

For instance, if asked what venue and date a certain event is scheduled for.
For someone with knowledge of the event, you think that would be easy information to obtain. Unless you did not want people to know about the event.

Because maybe they are attempting to resolve this issue in venue other than the court of their peers.

Hmmm... in what other venue can someone change the law without have to appear in court?

 

[Sou13]

Change of date?

Last I've heard, the hearing was scheduled for a date in April, but knowing what connections NEVMSLLC and Co. have, it's probably been postponed. The Sandcastle owners seem to be privy to more info about this than I am.

 

[Sou13]

Festiva complaints

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=880561#post880561

For reasons to fight NEVS/Festiva/Outfield Marketing, read this!

 

[Sou13]

Still no report for 2009

Elizabeth McNichols is still serving as the Clerk of the Corporation according to the results of the Corporations Search, and no Annual Report has been filed for 2009.

 

[Sou13]

1990 budget found

Going through the archives I found a 1990 budget that I was unable to post here because of the inability to post columns. The reason I'm bringing it to the attention of Southcape owners and hopefully to the attention of the advisory committee is that in 1990 there were 2,200 members paying Maintenance Fees!

NEVS claims to be in the process of turning the owners' association over to the owners, but is actually engaged in turning control of the resort over to the Festiva Resorts Adventure Club.

A recent check of the deeds being converted to Festiva turned up a puzzling case of a summer week deeded from Festiva to NEVS. If Festiva owned it, according to Rosaleen Cassidy, the MF and SA were paid by Festiva. But now that NEVS owns it, no MF will be paid for that week. Since NEVS owns it, it should not be available for points members and should be available for rental, the income from which should go to the owners association.

I hope that the advisory committee will be diligent in holding NEVS and NEVMS accountable for its actions in making it next to impossible for the resort to be controlled by weeks owners.

 

[Sou13]

My version for the advisory committee

"We don't sell weeks, we sell points"

It's been a year since my close call with Greg Hughes at Southcape Resort and I'm back from my 4-day stay. Here's the latest:

There's a big sign in the clubhouse next to the reception area that gives the impression that if you make an appointment with "owner services" in Unit 32 there are weeks for sale at Southcape and Sandcastle Resorts. The Sandcastle weeks are supposed to be available for the "balance owed" or something to that effect. Because I didn't check in on Saturday, I wasn't offered a $50 gift card at check-in for making an appointment. But Frank in owner services was able to squeeze me in Friday morning, and when he learned that I knew about New England Vacation Services and the FAC he didn't put me through any presentation, just answered or tried to answer my questions.

The first question was, how much are they asking for a week, to which the reply is that they don't sell weeks, they sell points. I hope I get this right because Frank is going to check up on my report. So here goes and you can decide what to make of it:

"Nobody is selling deeded weeks anymore. The United States is the only country where you can buy a deeded week that you own forever. At most you can own a week for 30 years. The timeshare deeded weeks have gone out like the VCR and I won't sell you a VCR either."

Frank is paid by Outfield Marketing to either sell me points for one of the weeks owned by New England Vacation Services or to tell me what a wonderful opportunity I will be missing if I don't convert my deeded week to points in the FAC. New England Vacation Services would supposedly be doing Southcape weeks owners a disservice if they hadn't made a deal with Festiva.

When you enter his office you see one of the beautiful wood-inlaid boat pictures that have been removed from units 1-31. According to Frank that was the only one that hadn't been damaged by guests' children.

Someone put notices under guests' doors for two or three weeks last summer. These notices cost Outfield Marketing big bucks in lost sales. I told Frank that this was all news to me but did ask him to make a copy of one for me, which he did.

According to Frank, there's a lot of misinformation on TUG and it's no longer worth the time to read our discussions. He finds them almost laughable.

I was completely unaware that only owners of units 1-31 have "float" weeks. Weeks in units 32-55 are all fixed weeks. Float weeks are a bad idea which is why units 32-55 are all fixed weeks and have a different master deed. The entire resort needs to be united under one master deed.

Festiva isn't about to "take over" Southcape and the whole idea of complaining to the Attorney General is unfounded according to Frank.

Here's the selling point that I can't comprehend. Southcape Resort has check-in on Saturday but if you are a Festiva points member you can stay from Friday to Sunday and if you reserve less than 30 days in advance you can stay more than 7 nights per year. The reason I argued with him about this is that in order for anyone to stay from Friday to Sunday, there have to be two weeks available and as the weeks get sold that is less likely to happen.

The before and after pictures that were on display at the owners' meeting are now on display in owner services. Everyone is so impressed with what a wonderful job New England Vacations Services has done at Southcape by assessing us for doing it! So New England Vacation Services bought 550 unsold weeks at Southcape Resort at a "fixer-upper" price and then charged the maintenance-fee-paying owners for fixing up their units! And the way they "convinced" weeks owners to convert to points was to tell them that they would not have to pay the special assessments that would have to be levied on weeks owners in order to do it.

Frank used a calculator and found that the owner of 6 float weeks got the best deal. Since this discussion is about what kind of offers weeks owners were being made I can finally report that there is only one base Festiva MF per member and the # of points owned determine what the MF will be per year. While six deeded weeks have six MFs the Festiva member pays one base MF which will be going up this year. The owner of the 6 weeks that were converted to Festiva points paid one conversion fee of $2990 and 6 processing fees of $195. No wonder she sold out to Festiva!

I have to submit this now and get back to it tomorrow. Meanwhile, comments and questions are appreciated.

I've been waiting for Southcape owners to post questions for the advisory committee which is scheduled to meet this Saturday (April 10). I'm hoping that this post will be on the same page as the previous concerns but if it isn't, please go back to the previous pages.

I don't know who complained that I was "harrassing" guests but want to explain why the "guest" who complained felt "uncomfortable."

"Someone put notices under guests' doors for two or three weeks last summer. These notices cost Outfield Marketing big bucks in lost sales. I told Frank that this was all news to me but did ask him to make a copy of one for me, which he did." (See quote from Post #320, November 28, 2009) Before heading for Southcape in February I made 50 copies of my revision of the notice that Frank copied for me, and decided to distribute them to owners only. In order to get them into the hands of owners, I had to approach guests and ask them whether they were owners. If they replied that they were exchanges or renters, I didn't give them a copy.

In the case of the "guest" who was reading a book by the pool, she replied that her father was an owner and that he was on the board of trustees! I definitely didn't want to give her a copy, but had to ask who her father is. When she told me his name, it didn't ring a bell which alarmed me because I wanted to know how her father got to be on the board. She told me that he had been appointed in December. That's when I told her that I was going to request to see the trustees meeting minutes, and went to catch Rosaleen before she left for the day.

It wasn't until the next day, after having the presence of mind to look at the pool sign-in book, that I discovered that her father had converted to Festiva just weeks earlier, which is why I raised the issue of "privacy rights" at Southcape.

 

[ecwinch]

When you convert to Festiva do you not have to give up your deed? Meaning FAC becomes the owner for that week/unit, the owner converting into FAC ceases to be an owner at Southcape.

As far I read the by-laws, a Director has be an owner at the Southcape. (Section 5).

 

[Russ45]

question

I've been waiting for Southcape owners to post questions for the advisory committee which is scheduled to meet this Saturday (April 10). I'm hoping that this post will be on the same page as the previous concerns but if it isn't, please go back to the previous pages.

I don't know who complained that I was "harrassing" guests but want to explain why the "guest" who complained felt "uncomfortable."

"Someone put notices under guests' doors for two or three weeks last summer. These notices cost Outfield Marketing big bucks in lost sales. I told Frank that this was all news to me but did ask him to make a copy of one for me, which he did." (See quote from Post #320, November 28, 2009) Before heading for Southcape in February I made 50 copies of my revision of the notice that Frank copied for me, and decided to distribute them to owners only. In order to get them into the hands of owners, I had to approach guests and ask them whether they were owners. If they replied that they were exchanges or renters, I didn't give them a copy.

In the case of the "guest" who was reading a book by the pool, she replied that her father was an owner and that he was on the board of trustees! I definitely didn't want to give her a copy, but had to ask who her father is. When she told me his name, it didn't ring a bell which alarmed me because I wanted to know how her father got to be on the board. She told me that he had been appointed in December. That's when I told her that I was going to request to see the trustees meeting minutes, and went to catch Rosaleen before she left for the day.

It wasn't until the next day, after having the presence of mind to look at the pool sign-in book, that I discovered that her father had converted to Festiva just weeks earlier, which is why I raised the issue of "privacy rights" at Southcape.

NEVS, MEVSM, Outfield, IVS and Festiva don't appear to be licensed as real estate brokers/firms according to the MA DOPL. How are real estate transactions being conducted?

 

[Fig]

NEVS, MEVSM, Outfield, IVS and Festiva don't appear to be licensed as real estate brokers/firms according to the MA DOPL. How are real estate transactions being conducted?

Well, it appears Cliff Hagberg can't legally broker any deals in Massachusetts since his license was recently suspended after "disciplinary action," which is interesting because he appears to be the only player who was licensed in MA.
http://license.reg.state.ma.us/pubL...s= B&license_number=000125373&color=red&lb=RE

 

[e.bram]

Innseason gave up managing and points converting a group of New England Tses. Maybe Hapsberg will do the same, when he figures out it is a losing endeavor in this economy with extremely seasonal TSes.

 

[Sou13]

According to the latest update to the Barnstable County Capeview Internet Access, the majority of the conversions were sold to Southcape owners who were visited in their homes. The conversions tally as of 3/11/2010 was more than 275. There have been no sales of weeks acquired by NEVS which means that more than 550 weeks are not paying MFs and SAs which puts the burden on the deeded owners for maintenance of the resort and the two units being used by NEVS for sales of conversions only.

The advisory committee, promised a year ago by NEVMSLLC in this discussion, is finally supposed to be meeting today. What purpose will be served by this meeting remains to be seen. I was not invited to be on the committee or to attend the meeting.

 

[ChrisH]

Court Date - Southcape Resort

FROM NEVMSLLC

"I agree that it's a matter for the courts and, what you don't seem to know is, we are already in court for a determination as to what needs to be done. You and I actually agree that going to court is the correct procedure. Far from believing a judge will rule against the resort's position, we are confident that our position will be upheld and there is precedent, you just don't seem to be aware of that. You are also unaware of the fact that our position is being supported by almost every other resort and management company in Massachusetts. It's not just us. An injunction against Sou13 would mean nothing as the matter needs to be decided definitively. I would suggest that even you would agree with the actions of management and the trustees in letting a court make the decision. I have never said that state laws should be ignored. Only that, when there are laws that conflict, a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction would help the trustees in meeting their fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of all owners."

The reason they are 'already going to court' is that NEVS LLC was summoned to court by a Southcape Owner, and certainly not because NEVS wants this determination made.

The case is scheduled for the Barnstable Superior Court on April 22nd, 2010 and not 'sometime in May'
at least that was the originally scheduled court date.

I'm am not a Southcape owner, however, this should be correctly posted here.

 

[Sou13]

Advisory Committee

Finally, this will be my last communication again with you Eric. If you'd like to continue communicating, buy a week, become an owner and perhaps you should actually read the documents before offering your pseudo-legal opinions of contracts you've never seen.

Sou13 wanted her questions, comments and opinions brought to the attention of the advisory committee and I've agreed. I've only said that they will be presented with everything, including both her criticisms and her actions. All owner concerns will be discussed with the advisory committee as they are with the trustees. Only you could turn that into problem. Talk about spin . . .

Here's all I could get from NEVMSLLC re the advisory committee:

The Advisory Committee did meet and there will be follow up meetings. No further notices for the Annual Meeting will be sent. The agenda for the Annual Meeting is set.

Clifford Hagberg
NEVMS, LLC​

 

[Sou13]

Answer from Mike

Today I called 1-508-477-4700 x 132 and my call was answered by “Mike” in “Owner Services” who told me that he had been away for two weeks but would be there for the rest of the year. Since NEVMSLLC didn’t answer my question about the daughter of a Southcape owner who had converted to the FAC, I put the question to Mike. Of course Mike wanted to sell me on all the benefits of converting a float week to Festiva points, but I had to remind him that I was paying for the call and wasn’t going to let him give his sales pitch on my dime. However, his answers have raised even more concerns for Southcape owners, especially float week owners. Here’s some of what he told me:

The right to enjoy the use of the resorts (both Sandcastle and Southcape) is one of the many “benefits” of converting to Festiva. This means that Southcape owners who convert to Festiva now have parking privileges at Sandcastle, which is a real boon for anyone trying to find parking in Provincetown.

At the same time, he couldn’t say whether deeded weeks owners have the same privileges. He did say that as more and more weeks get converted to Festiva points, the pool of weeks available to float week owners will shrink because converted weeks will be available to FAC members only.

Here’s my concern which I need to bring to the attention of the advisory committee. While Festiva pays the Community Association no more in maintenance fees and special assessments than weeks owners are paying, Festiva members get to enjoy more privileges than deeded weeks owners have.

While float week owners can no longer split weeks, Festiva members can, but the Community Association is NOT receiving the additional $50 for the housekeeping that split week owners are charged. If I’m mistaken about this, can the advisory committee to get the answer for me?

While float weeks owners have to reserve their weeks for the following year, the weeks that have been converted to the FAC are not available to them. But float weeks are float weeks! The float weeks that have been converted to Festiva points can’t be used until the following year! I could convert my deeded float week but it could have been reserved by another float week owner because I didn’t reserve the week that my deed says that I own. I’ve reserved a week for 2011 but if I were to convert to the FAC before using it, who would get the use of it? Shouldn’t it go back into the float week pool available to deeded owners who can’t reserve for 2011 until they’ve used the week they’ve reserved for 2010 (which could be the week that my deed says that I own)?

Mike tried to convince me that for the 3500 points my float week would get me I'd be able to stay at Southcape 4 times (16 days) instead of one week. I find that hard to believe. I guess it’s possible if I want to stay at Southcape in January when there's nobody there and the pool might not even be open!

Southcape deeded weeks owners, will you please come forward and post your reactions to these concerns?

 

[e.bram]

Deeded weeks owners because if float weeks owners bail due to a conflict of interest, deeded weeks owners will have to pick up the tab(for unpaid MFs).