Poipu Point - Walk away from ownership?

[Carolinian]

You know, one confidence builder for the membership that DRI just could try is to voluntarily hand over control of the HOA BOD to the members. That should give them more faith in things getting done properly.

From the prospective of an outsider looking at the situation I see a hugh problem with the number of Owners who decide that paying the amounts assessed (regular and special) will be a hardship and will choose to default. IMO this could bring the whole thing down. Sure, DRI can chase the defaulters and ultimately collect a decent portion of the money but at a large cost. Again IMO, even if they eventually collect a significant portion of the regular and special assessments getting enough cash in a timely manner is going to be a big time problem.

George

 

[timeos2]

I cannot speak for others Iv_Maui, however for your 1. payments over the project duration would help as would payment into a trust (too many unknowns to risk my money on others' defaults), 2. yes to this one with better PR from DRI and HOA and 3. I was not aware of; it is undemocratic and unfair to the individual owners and favours the block votes, however it is perhaps irrelevant to the present situation (given that DRI does not seem to have caused the water problem as they inherited it, and they, albeit in a heavy handed manner, have accepted their responsibility as managers to fix the problem (from what I have seen in these posts.) I would however like to see proportional representation on the HOA. 63% of owners do not seem to have a voice in anything.

• 1 - What good would a trust do? The money would still have to be used ASAP to get the project underway & as soon as that money is spent if the next round doesn't come in as planned then the whole thing is at risk of collapse. A trust gets you no benefit I can see.
• 2 - Naturally it is always better that the Board/Association/DRI communicate more but how will that change the message? There is a serious structural and facade problem that has been simmering for years without repair. Now it has a price tag to correct.
• 3 - Any change to the percentage required to change anything about the governing documents has to require a super majority as the owners (at least in theory) purchased based on those facts. Plus the 63% HAVE a voice - their vote - the majority of which have done exactly zero to use that power. That isn't DRI's fault nor does it require any change to the documents.

 

[bogey21]

• 1 - What good would a trust do? The money would still have to be used ASAP to get the project underway & as soon as that money is spent if the next round doesn't come in as planned then the whole thing is at risk of collapse. A trust gets you no benefit I can see.

• 
  
  Again, I am an outsider looking in thus have no stake in this. But what if one of the provisions of the Trust was that nothing could be spent until a certain threshold of dollars had been collected in each round?
  
  George

 

[dougp26364]

• 1 - What good would a trust do? The money would still have to be used ASAP to get the project underway & as soon as that money is spent if the next round doesn't come in as planned then the whole thing is at risk of collapse. A trust gets you no benefit I can see.
• 2 - Naturally it is always better that the Board/Association/DRI communicate more but how will that change the message? There is a serious structural and facade problem that has been simmering for years without repair. Now it has a price tag to correct.
• 3 - Any change to the percentage required to change anything about the governing documents has to require a super majority as the owners (at least in theory) purchased based on those facts. Plus the 63% HAVE a voice - their vote - the majority of which have done exactly zero to use that power. That isn't DRI's fault nor does it require any change to the documents.

This is problem #1 for owners. If the majority doesn't like the direction DRI is going, then VOTE! Personally, since S. Cloobeck came back in and took over, I've been happy with the direction of DRI. But then again, I purchased into DRI for the quality and fully expect the quality to be maintained. I also expect the MF's stay within reason but not to the point my ownerships aren't maintained. I've had issues with DRI but those were when Mr. Cloobeck had taken a less active position with DRI and I was watching my ownerships decrease in quality (again, IMHO). I also watched the HOA decrease cash reserves to dangerously low levels in order to keep owners happy. This resulted in a SA of over $1,000 for most Suite's owners because the money wasn't there when the units needed refurbishment after approx. 15 years. I NEVER want to see the HOA fail to plan for necessary future refurb's again.

I believe what we're seeing is a very vocal minority. Sure I'd be ticked to get such a huge bill on short notice but, the work is going to have to be done no matter who the management company might be. DRI inherited this long standing problem from the former management company, who apparently did nothing. It sure would have been less expensive had the problem been addressed years ago when it became apparent there was a water intrusion issue.

Yes the assessment is huge. Yes I'd have been shocked and would have difficulty finding a way to pay such a large assessment. But I wouldn't go blaming DRI. At least not in this case. DRI is mearly the messenger. It does no good to shoot the messenger. Right now, it does no good to change the messenger either. The problem, and the expensive solution, will still exist. In the end any owner will still be stuck holding the bag and would have no matter WHO the management company might be.

 

[lv_maui]

Special assessment

Not exactly on point, but I heard that Diamond is purchasing the assets of Pacific Monarch out of their Bankruptcy. Sounds like a pre-arranged BK with a concurrent sale.

 

[lv_maui]

Is it confirmed - Pacific Monarch has biled Bankruptcy

Not exactly on point, but I heard that Diamond is purchasing the assets of Pacific Monarch out of their Bankruptcy. Sounds like a pre-arranged BK with a concurrent sale.

CAse #11-24270 in Central California filed on 10/25.

I hear that Diamond is buying certain assets.

 

[billstellar]

• 1 - What good would a trust do? The money would still have to be used ASAP to get the project underway & as soon as that money is spent if the next round doesn't come in as planned then the whole thing is at risk of collapse. A trust gets you no benefit I can see.
• 2 - Naturally it is always better that the Board/Association/DRI communicate more but how will that change the message? There is a serious structural and facade problem that has been simmering for years without repair. Now it has a price tag to correct.
• 3 - Any change to the percentage required to change anything about the governing documents has to require a super majority as the owners (at least in theory) purchased based on those facts. Plus the 63% HAVE a voice - their vote - the majority of which have done exactly zero to use that power. That isn't DRI's fault nor does it require any change to the documents.

You are of course correct as the Trust funds would be released as work is done, and yes the work has to be done. However in the worst case a Trust keeps the money for the purpose for which it was paid, and in the case of a company failing the money in the Trust is not part of the company's assets. If there are major defaults then those who stay in the game have a measure of protection. With regard to voting I agree we are a silent majority, however that may be because we have no nomination from our own ranks - which of course can be said to be our own "fault" as we are free to nominate - it is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. With respect to Doug's response it is indeed unfortunate that some have taken to attacking the messenger, however in any situation people will vent before they come to a conclusion. Doug is right as DRI have addressed a situation that was neglected so they have done the right thing. The question remains whether or not DRI (and the HOA) can continue to do the right thing by being more reasonable to those who are cryng for help due to a sudden demand for funds which strains their resources (removal of priviledges is not appropriate if rescheduling can be arranged.) I certainly hope they can do so as the vocal minority is in many cases likely to awaken the slumbering majority as recent history has demonstrated. Rescheduling payments may not adversely affect the project and would go a long way to address the concerns of some members. The HOA, our representative, is silent on the issue of those who need some consideration in this case.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

However in the worst case a Trust keeps the money for the purpose for which it was paid, and in the case of a company failing the money in the Trust is not part of the company's assets. If there are major defaults then those who stay in the game have a measure of protection.

I'm confused by this. For all practical purposes failure of the AOAO is the same as failure of the resort. If the AOAO (Association of Apartment Owners) for Point at Po'ipu bellies up, then how are those who "stay in the game" protected? For that matter, what would it even mean to "stay in the game" in that circumstance?

 

[billstellar]

I'm confused by this. For all practical purposes failure of the AOAO is the same as failure of the resort. If the AOAO (Association of Apartment Owners) for Point at Po'ipu bellies up, then how are those who "stay in the game" protected? For that matter, what would it even mean to "stay in the game" in that circumstance?

Of course not being a lawyer I may be wrong, however if a company bellies up then surely any money left in a Trust set up for the purposes of reconstruction can go back to those who paid into the Trust. So they have a measure of protection. (Here a Trust would essentially hold the funds in escrow on behalf of owners for use by DRI for the re-construction only.) Staying in the game would mean not defaulting and paying the SA into the Trust in the "hope" that all the water damage will be repaired and the resort will have a bright future. If the resort bellies up it is probably "game over" and no-one wants that outcome. I would be happy to pay into a Trust on a reasonable schedule with some rules on the release of funds for reconstruction.
__________________
Whatever I post is my personal opinion and is in no way intended to be, or should be construed to be, an indictment of any company or individual.

 

[timeos2]

Of course not being a lawyer I may be wrong, however if a company bellies up then surely any money left in a Trust set up for the purposes of reconstruction can go back to those who paid into the Trust. So they have a measure of protection. (Here a Trust would essentially hold the funds in escrow on behalf of owners for use by DRI for the re-construction only.) Staying in the game would mean not defaulting and paying the SA into the Trust in the "hope" that all the water damage will be repaired and the resort will have a bright future. If the resort bellies up it is probably "game over" and no-one wants that outcome. I would be happy to pay into a Trust on a reasonable schedule with some rules on the release of funds for reconstruction.

The idea is laudable but I really don't think it protects anyone. The trust would exist to pay the repair costs - they wouldn't know at the time of construction/payment if the next round will get paid or not thus they would spend the trust until the next payments were due.

I reminds me of the Association who put the money - ALL OF IT - for an upcoming renovation into an escrow / trust type investment as they were very leery of the ability of the contractor to supply and finish the work. All went well with phase 1 but they didn't pay the bill & the contractor accepted it as it was safely with the trustee. They went ahead and collected for Phase 2 - got the supplies on site and were ready to start the work - but the 1st payment had to made first. They made the request and got a notice that the ESCROW COMPANY /Trust had filed for bankruptcy and couldn't pay!! Longer story short they only got 33% of the total back from insurance and then about 10% more from a final accounting. But they had PAID for this "service" and insurance coverage to "protect them" and it was anything but. Ever since our management company has advised against any type of escrow/trust for reserves or special assessments based on this true life experience one of their resorts suffered.

And oh yeah, maybe a resort can be "jinxed". When the resort involved was being built one of the major structures - an extremely large metal building with a wide open floor space for three tennis courts & another 1/3 for a recreation center - was knocked down not once but twice during construction from hurricanes in an area that hardly ever has one no less two in a single construction season. Plus a few years later the resort went bankrupt due to bank shenanigans on another development the developer was building causing the whole company to be declared insolvent.

Fortunately an independent management was able to step in and turn it all around (for the resort owners not the developer/bank) but the damage lingered for years. Now it is ancient history but all involved have never forgotten how things can go terribly wrong no matter how much you try to avoid it.

I wouldn't recommend doing anything that costs extra or delays the project that isn't required. Getting too gun shy can sometimes be just as bad as charging ahead without a clue. Go with the middle road, conservative assumptions and it will most likely work out. A trust may sound good but it wouldn't really get the owners much if anything in protection IMO.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

(Here a Trust would essentially hold the funds in escrow on behalf of owners for use by DRI for the re-construction only.)

This comment reinforces a point that so many people seem to have a hard time grasp that DRI is not the resort.

DRI does not own the resort. DRI would not do any construction at the resort. DRI would not be paying contractors or engineers. DRI would not be holding any of the construction money.

*****

Personally my interest is in reducing the cost of construction. Throwing a trust into the middle of the process is going to directly add the trust fees to the cost of the project, plus by making project administration more complex will further add to project overhead.

If you want to control costs a big place to start is by simplifying instead of complicating.

 

[MadOwner]

Concerned Deeded Owners at the Point at Poipu( CDOPP)

November 1, 2011

Note: We will be changing the name to reflect that this group consists of deeded owners and point’s program owners (Hawaiian Collection). We are looking for a remedy for both ownership groups as a collective group of vacation owners.

We would like to welcome all of the new and existing registered members, as well as those of you that have not yet registered on our website. We appreciate your patience while we have been gathering information and reorganizing the Board of Directors for CDOPP. We are receiving a lot of new registrations on a daily basis and we are working diligently to get information to you. The website is being worked on daily to provide better communication and more content, as we look to make positive changes.

Several years ago, many owners at the Point at Poipu banded together and formed CDOPP with the intent of collecting contributions in an effort to get the Association Membership List released to CDOPP. In addition, CDOPP launched the website www.PoipuOwners.org as an effort to inform and further identify owners that shared the same concerns.

The board members devoted countless hours collecting information, talking to concerned owners, meeting with government officials, seeking legal consultations, documenting the complaints made by owners of the Point at Poipu, as well as many other actions. Much of the work had to be done “behind the scenes” in an attempt to keep things confidential. In the winter of 2011, the website was hacked by someone forcing the Guestbook page to be shut down. This led members and others to believe that the group was inactive. In addition, the newsletters were making their way into to the hands of Diamond Resorts employees through a member that registered as a concerned owner, which we now believe may have been an employee of Diamond Resorts or one of their affiliates.

In response to the shocking Water Intrusion Assessment Invoice, one of the new board members, Tammy Sona started the Facebook page Point of Poipu Angry Owners (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Point-of-Poipu-Angry-Owners/148027451960608?sk=wall&filter=2). Between the new Facebook page and the water intrusion assessment notice, there has been an increased awareness of our group and the realization that there is an even stronger need to band the owners together. Many are looking to our group to assist in protecting our resort from the poor decisions made by the Board of Directors at our resort under the guidance of the current management company, DRI. The registrations on the website have been growing in numbers very rapidly over the past few weeks and we expect that to continue as more owners are becoming aware of our efforts.

Here are a few basic facts that we would like to share with you.

1. The 2012 AOAO & VOA Approved Budget consists of various line items. We would like you to be aware that Diamond Resorts is collecting a total of $3,265,745 for management and corporate administration fees. This does not include the $612,732 budgeted for administration fees.

2. The water intrusion fee is nearly $6,000 per deeded week for the deeded owners and an unknown amount for the Points people in the DRI Hawaiian Collection. This is an economic hit of at least $65 million dollars for the deeded and Hawaiian Collection (points/Club/Trust) owners. “Your” VOA & AOAO Board of Directors voted to require this payment with the terms and penalties presented in the assessment. “They” decided to spread the assessment over 3 years instead of giving owners the option to spread it over a greater number of years to make it more affordable.

3. The State of Hawaii has received dozens of complaints to act on, and they need to receive even more to get them to enforce their own laws concerning time-shares in the State of Hawaii.

4. “Your” elected Board Member, Cleana Dean, is the mother of Linda Riddle (a Vice President with DRI) and was elected to the Board of Directors without disclosure regarding her relationship with DRI.

5. It appears that DRI has taken over the Point at Poipu in its entirety with no resistance except for the actions initiated by our members group.

The initial goal of this group (CDOPP) was to obtain the membership list consisting of contact information for all of the owners of the Point at Poipu to provide a direct line of communication with other owners for voting purposes. Without this list, we believe that it is virtually impossible to obtain the support of other members and also to ask them to vote (or assign their proxy to a representative of CDOPP) for OWNERS, not affiliated with DRI at the next election. We believe this has to be done in order to gain the majority interest on the boards of OUR resort.

The identified goals of CDOPP going forward are as follows:
1. Obtain the contact information of as many of the owners as possible.
2. To continue our efforts to obtain a copy of the membership contact list.
3. Assist owners with information about candidates that we support in upcoming elections.
4. Provide communication to owners beyond what the current management company provides.
5. To have an option regarding the costs of our management fees and the ability to seek other qualified management companies or to change the structure of management at our resort.
6. Assess the options available regarding the Water Intrusion issues
7. Take action to make changes to the existing assessment, including working out an agreeable payment solution with our AOAO and/or VOA Board of Directors. It’s pretty easy to defend their actions to us individually, with a group this size, we believe they will be compelled to make some changes.

The new Board of Directors has been working diligently and we are looking forward to sharing the actions that are being planned to help achieve the goals that we have identified with you.

CDOPP
Keith Paulsen – President
www.PoipuOwners.org

If you have contributed to CDOPP previously and would like your contribution returned, contact us and we will return your contribution immediately. If we do not receive a request for a refund by November 15, 2011, we will assume that you want to continue to support the efforts of CDOPP.

The information and opinions expressed in this letter are the opinions of the members of CDOPP. For legal purposes, we ask that you always include this disclaimer in your correspondence with CDOPP or other written communication. Contributions and/or registration to CDOPP by any Diamond Resorts International employees, relatives of employees, subsidiary or affiliated companies, or any other person not purely identified with the purposes of the CDOPP cause, is strictly prohibited and legal action will be taken as deemed prudent and necessary.

 

[lv_maui]

Owners List

I was curious as to how to get the owners list other than Diamond. As I had stated earlier, the County recorders office has the names of the owners listed but their addresses are that of the resorts. Someone could get the owner's names for deeded owners by doing a search on this website:

https://boc.ehawaii.gov/docsearch/nameSearch.html;jsessionid=86C51A7319A4F0F79F9FD25EFF535EC7.kolea

If you put in Poipu Resort Partners, and then sort by TSD which stands for Timeshare Deeds, you can get all owners names online just sitting at your computer. But that is only the deed owners not point collection owners.

After that, I do not know any reliable way of getting the addresses of the owners. I am thinking that someone knowledgable in Skip Tracing ?? might be able to help.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

If you put in Poipu Resort Partners, and then sort by TSD which stands for Timeshare Deeds, you can get all owners names online just sitting at your computer. But that is only the deed owners not point collection owners.

When I did that it only served up 135 total records, a good number of which were between the HOA and Poipu Resort Partners. There are many deeds that don't seem to be returned by this search.

 

[billstellar]

(Here a Trust would essentially hold the funds in escrow on behalf of owners for use by DRI for the re-construction only.)

This comment reinforces a point that so many people seem to have a hard time grasp that DRI is not the resort.

DRI does not own the resort. DRI would not do any construction at the resort. DRI would not be paying contractors or engineers. DRI would not be holding any of the construction money.

I think I grasp that point, however adding the layer of the Trust seems to have good arguments against it, especially the one earlier about Escrow companies going bust. An earlier point regarding more favourable payment terms may be the way to go forward if the HOA (or whoever is our representative) can be persuaded. I, like others, am simply searching for a soluton that would help folks who wish to keep their ownership, and see a viable resort emerging, to pay the SA over a reasonable period rather than the 3 years the HOA has chosen.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

I think I grasp that point, however adding the layer of the Trust seems to have good arguments against it, especially the one earlier about Escrow companies going bust. An earlier point regarding more favourable payment terms may be the way to go forward if the HOA (or whoever is our representative) can be persuaded. I, like others, am simply searching for a soluton that would help folks who wish to keep their ownership, and see a viable resort emerging, to pay the SA over a reasonable period rather than the 3 years the HOA has chosen.

Unfortunately, we are not privy to all of the discussions of the board. That being said, I think that in selecting the three-year time frame the Board was trying to balance project cost and payment shock, against a backdrop where money has to be collected in advance of construction (since a obtaining bank financing for a project such as this isn't feasible).

Again, one of the assumptions that people seem to be making is that the project can simply be extended without significantly impacting project cost. That just isn't true. A number of factors come into play.

First is that it's always cheaper for a contractor to do a project in one concerted effort rather than stretching it out over time. For every project there is an optimum length construction window, within which the contractor can most effectively plan and deploy resources. Any movement outside of that window - be it fast-tracking to complete a project quickly or slowing down the project to meet other constraints - increases the project costs.

Second is that stretching out a project adds to uncertainly in the prices and availabilities of materials. If you want to negotiate a firm price for the contract - where the contractor assumes those risks - the contractor will add extra contingencies to the project cost. And those risks don't increase linearly - They increase dramatically each year.

Third is that you also need to factor inflation into the picture. If you stretch out the project and the costs go up as discussed above, you not only need to cover the added project cost, you need to collect yet another amount extra over the life of the project to address inflation. So by stretching the payment period over six years, that assessment of $2000 per interval for three years might turn into something more like $1300 per interval for six years.

Fourth, you can also stretch a project out so long that contractors lose interest in the project. If the project requires significant technical expertise that must be imported - i.e., the project can't be farmed out to a local contractor but needs to be handled by someone from the mainland, they will lose interest in nursing along what becomes a small project in a distant location. It isn't cost effective for them to work that way.

As I look at the logistics side of the proposed program it actually makes a lot of sense to me once you throw out the option of simply getting the project done in one concerted push (i.e., the lowest cost option). It maintains a continuous level of activity at a pace that is likely to still maintain project efficiencies, and gets the project done within a period of time within which the contractor can probably obtain reasonable guarantees of pricing from vendors.

I'm certainly interested in anything that can be done to stretch out the payment time for the project. But I suspect that is one area in which the Board has already run through the alternatives and has already pushed the schedule about as far as they reasonably can.

 

[edgarrison]

Points owners

I apologize if this topic has been covered in one of the many previous posts. I have 10,000 points in the DRI Hawaii collection and I have the same concern as everyone else about the increased yearly maintenance fees and the "water intrusion" assessment. I am interested in the efforts of the organization of deeded owners who are trying to get more controll of the HOA board. Is there a similar effort on behalf of the owners of points?

It is frustrating to read the litany of suggested remedies in these many pages of posts and to see each and every suggestion explained away by TUG members who seem very knowledgable about the situation. I hate feeling powerless and I fail to believe we have no choice but to bend over the barrell and take it.

 

[lv_maui]

When I did that it only served up 135 total records, a good number of which were between the HOA and Poipu Resort Partners. There are many deeds that don't seem to be returned by this search.

You appear to be correct. It seems to stop in early 1996. But when you use date ranges, you get more. I think the issue is that there a limit of 500 records to be displayed. So, they are there, you just need to limit with date ranges

 

[Poobah]

Taxation w/o Representation

Note: I posted this on another thread; it fits better on this thread

The situation at the P@P is that HOA and AOAO represent a minority interest in the resort. Steve's point is well taken that most of the deeded owners don't realize they are part owners of the resort. It has always frustrated me that people don't take an active interest in the care and feeding of this piece of paradise.

Hopefully this will be a wakeup call to the apathetic deeded owners to get involved and take an interest in what is going on.

Looking at some of the other sites that have threads on the subject (Facebook and Redweek.com) this has been a wake-up call for the Trust members as well. There are post from owners at KBR wondering why they are paying for repairs at P@P, they don't even go there. The reason is simple: you agreed to it when you surrendered your deed. I suspect that the Trustees are also going to get a dose of frustration as well.

The subtlies of the organizational relationships that Steve has pointed out (several times) is the way we should deal with this. It is difficult for people to appreciate this because the pervaiseness of DRI thoughout the VOA/AOAO, the Trustees, and the Management Company. IMHO it is the organizational equivalent of a Mobius Strip!

If you read the letter to the owners that accompanies the MF, the DRI is never mentioned.

The bottom line nothing is going to change until the VOA/AOAO represents the majority interest in the resort. That is never going to happen unless apathetic owners get off their duffs and get proactive. We can always hope!

Cheers,

Paul

 

[billstellar]

Unfortunately, we are not privy to all of the discussions of the board.
...
I'm certainly interested in anything that can be done to stretch out the payment time for the project. But I suspect that is one area in which the Board has already run through the alternatives and has already pushed the schedule about as far as they reasonably can.

You make excellent points as always. As we are not privy to the details of the cash flow and the payment sources it is difficult to see how the cash flow could be addressed differently. The ones with the deep pockets might be the management group itself. It might be interesting to see if up front payment by them of their portion (I think I read $7Million but could be mistaken) would make any difference to the cash flow for our $43Million. If we cannot persuade the HOA to re-open this it might be best to finance our payments and pay as requested then look at this again when buybacks return and/or the resort is restored to its former grandeur. A good long term strategy might then be for us to vote people representing the "slumbering" majority onto the Board to avoid repeats of the actions we have seen, and CDOPP needs our support to do that. The key for that might be to ensure we do not divide our own vote through fielding too many of our candidates simultaneously (in competition with each other.) We need a a good strategist to plan how to accomplish this over a few elections.
__________________
Whatever I post is my personal opinion and is in no way intended to be, or should be construed to be, an indictment of any company or individual.

 

[billstellar]

Note: I posted this on another thread; it fits better on this thread

The situation at the P@P is that HOA and AOAO represent a minority interest in the resort. Steve's point is well taken that most of the deeded owners don't realize they are part owners of the resort. It has always frustrated me that people don't take an active interest in the care and feeding of this piece of paradise.

Hopefully this will be a wakeup call to the apathetic deeded owners to get involved and take an interest in what is going on.
...
The bottom line nothing is going to change until the VOA/AOAO represents the majority interest in the resort. That is never going to happen unless apathetic owners get off their duffs and get proactive. We can always hope!

Cheers,

Paul

As you can see from the posts "getting off their butts" means acting together and it seems that other than CDOPP there is no simple mechanism to do so as the membership lists are not available (plenty of posts on this point.) Any suggestions on how to have CDOPP found by members or have members found by CDOPP would be a good proactive starting point. Superficially at least it seems that social networks might be the answer, however I for one am not sure how to put that in motion. Any experts out there?

 

[pedro47]

How much would a lawsuit costs both parties and how much time would passed before a final court decision is render?

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

How much would a lawsuit costs both parties and how much time would passed before a final court decision is render?

Which "both parties"?

 

[billstellar]

Concerned Deeded Owners at the Point at Poipu( CDOPP)

November 1, 2011

Note: We will be changing the name to reflect that this group consists of deeded owners and point’s program owners (Hawaiian Collection). We are looking for a remedy for both ownership groups as a collective group of vacation owners.
...
3. The State of Hawaii has received dozens of complaints to act on, and they need to receive even more to get them to enforce their own laws concerning time-shares in the State of Hawaii.
CDOPP
Keith Paulsen – President
www.PoipuOwners.org

If you have contributed to CDOPP previously and would like your contribution returned, contact us and we will return your contribution immediately. If we do not receive a request for a refund by November 15, 2011, we will assume that you want to continue to support the efforts of CDOPP.

The information and opinions expressed in this letter are the opinions of the members of CDOPP. For legal purposes, we ask that you always include this disclaimer in your correspondence with CDOPP or other written communication. Contributions and/or registration to CDOPP by any Diamond Resorts International employees, relatives of employees, subsidiary or affiliated companies, or any other person not purely identified with the purposes of the CDOPP cause, is strictly prohibited and legal action will be taken as deemed prudent and necessary.

Hi Keith: To whom should complaints be addressed? Can you say if the appropriate complaint is the non-release of the member's list as it seems DRI has taken reasonable managerial steps to fix an inherited problem and we can hardly complain to Hawaii about DRI's lack of PR skills.
__________________
Whatever I post is my personal opinion and is in no way intended to be, or should be construed to be, an indictment of any company or individual.

 

[singlemalt_18]

Wow! Where to begin…

We bought at KBC more than 10 years ago under Embassy. We converted to points and became Diamond owners in the fall of 2010 – less than 90 days apparently – before special waivers were being used to entice sales in Jan 2011. If this was an ongoing issue for a few years, at what point may they have been guilty of non-disclosure to new investors in the Trust?

Forget about the DRI members forum as it is useless. It is moderated with an iron fist at the corporate level, and as of this moment there is not a single mention of this issue to be found by anyone! I once tried to post an open letter to Cloobeck but received an email stating that they did not think my letter was appropriate for the open forum; they instead forwarded my letter up the chain. I did receive a personal executive contact, but it was not from the president. No surprise there.

Although I am an owner, I am in no way a fan of DRI. I do however agree with others that DRI is not to blame for the issues now at hand with Poipu. They are only guilty of piss poor communication and relationship management with their most important customers – Diamond owners. For all of their ignorance or arrogance, they clearly show every confidence by spelling out such a multi-year assessment fee schedule. If nothing else, one must be impressed with their confidence and conviction in choosing to go down this road. This ain’t your neighbor’s Netflix!

While I understand the anger and frustration, as well as the financial hardship this imposes, my concerns are also about the big picture. Just how much money will I be needing to pump into this over the next few years? I am not convinced that any viable guesstimate can be made about current and future delinquencies, and thus the downward spiral. This could not have come at a worse time IMO. What impact has the economic downturn of the past few years had on delinquencies across the industry in general, SAs not withstanding?

The personal balance sheets for most of the country have been stressed for some time, and the credit markets are still quite dysfunctional. Unfortunately, you can’t get blood from a stone unless you hit yourself in the head. We just stayed at the Peppertree in Atlantic Beach, NC, and there Festiva is desperate to give away deeds to anyone willing to simply pay the annual fees. I wasn’t impressed. Peppertree my friends, is not Diamond.

I have a different take on the benefits of owning in a trust, and the ability to diversify away individual property or resort risk as a result of this. It is the same as owning a mutual fund instead of an individual stock. The deeded owners are in a horrible position, and that is where I believe the true current risk sits. What would a collapse of 60% of the revenue do? I would not be surprised if this event becomes a marker for some type of future reform for the industry, but that will be a day late and a few dollars short for many. Any Poipu owners that did buy-up into points (and the Diamond Trust) over the past few years should be thanking owners like me, and count your blessings – YOU MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE !!!

Keep in mind that we were previously KBC owners and now must share in the loss with the entire group. The protection afforded to the Poipu owners who did convert into the trust amounts to about $4,100 per week, and here are the round numbers. The assessment for a deeded week is ~$5,800. Within the Trust, a 10 to 11,000 point owner (~ one prime week) is being assessed approximately $1,700 or 17 cents/point. That is a 17 cent assessment on top of the 17 cent/point MF in the trust. So even though our cost has doubled, the sad truth is it looks pretty sweet compared to those with individual deeds.

This is a real eye opener, and I’m so glad we did not opt to buy additional points. It was something we would have considered doing upon retirement, but as a result of this, we will make due with what we have, and limit any additional unquantifiable future risk.

Will it continue to be Paradise... or Paradise Lost?