Poipu Point - Walk away from ownership?

[waimea'smom]

Here is the photo of the materials on display.

http://www.travellifeisshort.com/displaytable.JPG

Here is the photo of the proposed new exteriors.

http://www.travellifeisshort.com/newbuildings.JPG

 

[artringwald]

I took some photos of the new plan (with a yellow top floor, and brown bottom floor) and of some of the corroded materials on display. I put them on the new Facebook page.

Thanks for the report on the meeting! What's the new Facebook page?

 

[Carolinian]

The numbers given at the meeting indicate that deeded owners have 63% of the ownership. Given this huge wakeup call, if properly organized, this sleeping giant is a large enough group to throw off the arrogant yoke of DRI. Of course, it will need to go to court to get the membership list given the illegal refusal by DRI to turn it over as required by law. That is how things CAN indeed change.

As to the conflict of interest, that is certainly always an ethical issue and should motivate owners to make a change. In certain contexts, it may be useful as a legal issue, but it is certainly not a silver bullet.

As to states which have historically stood up for timeshare members, you left out one that has done so more than the two states you mention, and that is North Carolina, especially during the decades that Blackwell Brogden headed the timeshare unit at the NC Real Estate Commission. Brogden would take on anybody, no matter how big, on behalf of timeshare consumers. He even took on RCI and forced them to change some of the more onerous aspects of their points program as RCI originally rolled it out.

Good luck with the argument that it is a conflict of interest. This has been discussed as to its unfairness at length, and the bottom line is that it will NOT change. The only states that I know that seem to help the consumer in Timeshare is Florida and California.

One would think that since these states are not Hawaii, there is nothing that can be done, but that is FALSE. In order to send any timeshare marketing material to California residents, Poipu Point must be registered in the state of California just like they are in Hawaii. The requirement comes when you make the mini vacation contingent upon you taking a tour. If it is strictly a hotel stay, there is no registration needed.

So there may be some reason to contact the California DRE if someone would like to voice a complaint. Just a thought and opinion here.

 

[Carolinian]

However, they were told by the Hawaii AG according to the article posted that they were legally entitled to the list, but the AG's office would not pursue it for them. They had to file their own civil action. That needs to be done.

It appears that the right to the list isn't clear cut either. Another post points out that the group that existed & tried to organize these owners in the past discovered the crazy patchwork of Hawaii laws has added a rule that in order to get an owners list you must have permission of the owners to have the information released. So how do you reach them to ask for permission if you don't have the list which you can't get because they haven't been asked/given permission!

As usual, the minute Government is involved nothing is simple or in any way clear cut. I'm sure DRI can (and would) use that issue to drag out any release far beyond the time when it would be of any value. We've seen that in these cases in the past. (see the LONG Marriott thread of last year for example)

 

[waimea'smom]

Thanks for the report on the meeting! What's the new Facebook page?

This was the page that was created.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Point-of-Poipu-Angry-Owners/148027451960608

 

[lv_maui]

Carolinian, I have addressed this list issue. They are not violating the law but rather, abiding by a stupid law that allows them to not send it out due to privacy laws. I agree that someone needs to file in court to at least get this out in the open and moving. The court of public opinion would be another way to go maybe but that is just an opinion

However, they were told by the Hawaii AG according to the article posted that they were legally entitled to the list, but the AG's office would not pursue it for them. They had to file their own civil action. That needs to be done.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

The numbers given at the meeting indicate that deeded owners have 63% of the ownership. Given this huge wakeup call, if properly organized, this sleeping giant is a large enough group to throw off the arrogant yoke of DRI. Of course, it will need to go to court to get the membership list given the illegal refusal by DRI to turn it over as required by law. That is how things CAN indeed change.

The breakdown reported from the meeting differs a bit from the breakdown indicated in the letter to owners, in which DRI's direct share of the assessments was ~11%.

It's possible the difference, though, is due to the fact that DRI owns all 51 weeks of one of the two 3-bedroom units at the property (used for a sales office). The assessments for 3-bedroom are higher. Also I don't know if DRI owns 51 ownership units in that unit or if that is a single undivided unit. If they own it as a single deed that would certainly make their ownership stake much smaller than their proportion of the special assessment.

 

[JohnandSue]

We are also thinking of walking away or selling cheaply. Agree water assessment is outrageous. Have contacted a local attorney in California and it is suggested that we timeshare owners unite and get attorney in Kauai. Possible letter to Attorney General about conflict of interest due to the fact that memebers of the Assoc of Apt Owners of Poipu Beach are employees of Diamond Resorts. I have asked for a copy of the insurance denial letter but was told it is not publicly available. I am putting my request in writing along with a copy of the building inspections that determined the water intrusion issue and a copy of the inspection done when Diamond Resorts purchased from Sunterra in 2005. I am afraid this is a money scam because Diamond Resorts is in an economical bind and see's this as a way to recoup the money they need to do upkeep on property that they have neglected to take care of since 2005.

 

[norm949]

OWNERS - Please join this facebook page to help unite us! I will be assisting the current owner's group in tracking down and recruiting current owners!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Point-of-Poipu-Angry-Owners/148027451960608

Thanks for doing this. When I get to the FB page, I only see a "Like" button, no join button or link. Am I missing something?

 

[LauritaM]

owners list

The numbers given at the meeting indicate that deeded owners have 63% of the ownership. Given this huge wakeup call, if properly organized, this sleeping giant is a large enough group to throw off the arrogant yoke of DRI. Of course, it will need to go to court to get the membership list given the illegal refusal by DRI to turn it over as required by law. That is how things CAN indeed change

The best way to get an owners list would be to talk to the people that are always calling wanting to know if we want to sell our timeshare - ha! They got a list somewhere.

Another avenue would be if an owner lives on or is going to Kauai and has time to go to the courthouse and look up the records. That could/would be time consuming I know. Maybe someone knows someone who knows someone who works in the registrar of deeds office at the court house and they could help. Our local courthouse will help w/ info - my husband is a State Farm Agent and we often need more info on a property - esp the legals on farms for crop insurance, etc.

 

[lv_maui]

Going to the county is a good idea but I was told that the addresses on record are not the owner's real address but that of the resort. So you get a name but that is it.

The best way to get an owners list would be to talk to the people that are always calling wanting to know if we want to sell our timeshare - ha! They got a list somewhere.

Another avenue would be if an owner lives on or is going to Kauai and has time to go to the courthouse and look up the records. That could/would be time consuming I know. Maybe someone knows someone who knows someone who works in the registrar of deeds office at the court house and they could help. Our local courthouse will help w/ info - my husband is a State Farm Agent and we often need more info on a property - esp the legals on farms for crop insurance, etc.

 

[Cheryl20772]

Thanks for doing this. When I get to the FB page, I only see a "Like" button, no join button or link. Am I missing something?

You need to have a facebook account and log in. Then when you click on the Like button you are joined to the feed of posts from that page.

You just log in to your FB account and read on your feed page. When you like other users their posts will also come to your FB page when you log in. I think you can also set up your account to send posts to your email.

 

[LauritaM]

yup - you are right!

Going to the county is a good idea but I was told that the addresses on record are not the owner's real address but that of the resort. So you get a name but that is it.

Yes - you are right, I recall that now - they said so that we don't get all kinds of spam mail - but we get calls three four times a year from different places wanting to "help" us sell our TS. So someone somehow someway is getting lists of names and addresses as well as phone numbers. Maybe DRI sells our info??? Just sayin ... and speculating. My main form of exercise is jumping to conclusions.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Yes - you are right, I recall that now - they said so that we don't get all kinds of spam mail - but we get calls three four times a year from different places wanting to "help" us sell our TS. So someone somehow someway is getting lists of names and addresses as well as phone numbers. Maybe DRI sells our info??? Just sayin ... and speculating. My main form of exercise is jumping to conclusions.

I seriously doubt that Diamond is selling the data. They might be shifty, but they are not stupid. The companies try to lock down that information - for a variety of reasons ranging from privacy laws to the simple desire to not have a list of their customers/owners winding up in the hands of their competitors.

If that information gets out, it's most likely is the results of employees copying owner information and selling it on the side. There's a black market for that data. The companies try to restrict access to owner information, but enterprising employees will always try to find ways to get around the safeguards when there's money to be made.

 

[dougp26364]

I seriously doubt that Diamond is selling the data. They might be shifty, but they are not stupid. The companies try to lock down that information - for a variety of reasons ranging from privacy laws to the simple desire to not have a list of their customers/owners winding up in the hands of their competitors.

If that information gets out, it's most likely is the results of employees copying owner information and selling it on the side. There's a black market for that data. The companies try to restrict access to owner information, but enterprising employees will always try to find ways to get around the safeguards when there's money to be made.

There are marketing companies that compile and sell lists which are not on the black market. I use to buy those lists all the time years ago when I was in sales. They would tailor the product to fit whatever paremeters I requested. They could provide the names of houshold occupants, where they worked, ages, income and/or pretty much anything else I requested. Generally these list were compiled from public records.

I can't say that this would work with timeshares. I guess it would depend on how the deeded weeks had been filed and if the names and addresses of the owners were filed with the deeds. Considering that we get calls all the time about our desire to rent or sell our timeshares, I'm assuming that there are companies that can provide these types of lists. I'm pretty certain that not every one of the timeshares we own has an employee selling off owners information.

I would keep in mind that not all lists are created equal. The first obsticle I can see with a timeshare project is the original information listed on any particular deed might not be acurate today. We are a mobil society and people tend to move frequently. Any list compiled from public records from the original sales data would likely have a high instance of outdated addresses.

 

[Carolinian]

The corporate law, which is the more specific should trump any more general privacy law, especially since it is absolutely essential for corporate democracy. I think the Hawaii AG is very likely correct that it is the corporate law here that prevails. This stupid privacy law just creates a stupid excuse for abusive developers. Worldmark played the same assinine game with their lists, were defeated in the trial court, and appealed. If DRI appeals, due to this special assesment the court should be asked to require a $65 million appeal bond from them.

Carolinian, I have addressed this list issue. They are not violating the law but rather, abiding by a stupid law that allows them to not send it out due to privacy laws. I agree that someone needs to file in court to at least get this out in the open and moving. The court of public opinion would be another way to go maybe but that is just an opinion

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

There are marketing companies that compile and sell lists which are not on the black market. I use to buy those lists all the time years ago when I was in sales. They would tailor the product to fit whatever paremeters I requested. They could provide the names of houshold occupants, where they worked, ages, income and/or pretty much anything else I requested. Generally these list were compiled from public records.

I can't say that this would work with timeshares. I guess it would depend on how the deeded weeks had been filed and if the names and addresses of the owners were filed with the deeds. Considering that we get calls all the time about our desire to rent or sell our timeshares, I'm assuming that there are companies that can provide these types of lists. I'm pretty certain that not every one of the timeshares we own has an employee selling off owners information.

I would keep in mind that not all lists are created equal. The first obsticle I can see with a timeshare project is the original information listed on any particular deed might not be acurate today. We are a mobil society and people tend to move frequently. Any list compiled from public records from the original sales data would likely have a high instance of outdated addresses.

IIRC, in some of the recent busts of upfront fee scammers law enforcement personnel have specifically mentioned the existence of a market in which purloined lists of timeshare owner names, provided by employees of companies, are bought and sold to fuel the operations.

 

[Carolinian]

I seriously doubt that Diamond is selling the data. They might be shifty, but they are not stupid. The companies try to lock down that information - for a variety of reasons ranging from privacy laws to the simple desire to not have a list of their customers/owners winding up in the hands of their competitors.

If that information gets out, it's most likely is the results of employees copying owner information and selling it on the side. There's a black market for that data. The companies try to restrict access to owner information, but enterprising employees will always try to find ways to get around the safeguards when there's money to be made.

''Privacy'' is ALWAYS a phony reason, and is a cover for their real reason, which is CONTROL. Corporate laws in most states REQUIRE them to provide these lists to members.

My HOA provided these lists to members already on gummed labels for the cost of the label stock if any of them wanted the lists, but also required a signed form that they would use them only in compliance with state law (i.e. not for business soliciations, only for communication with other members on HOA issues, and not transfer them to third parties). We were not afraid of members wanting to discuss HOA matters with others. An abusive management company / developer, well, they may have reason to be afraid of such communications.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

''Privacy'' is ALWAYS a phony reason, and is a cover for their real reason, which is CONTROL. Corporate laws in most states REQUIRE them to provide these lists to members.

My HOA provided these lists to members already on gummed labels for the cost of the label stock if any of them wanted the lists, but also required a signed form that they would use them only in compliance with state law (i.e. not for business soliciations, only for communication with other members on HOA issues, and not transfer them to third parties). We were not afraid of members wanting to discuss HOA matters with others. An abusive management company / developer, well, they may have reason to be afraid of such communications.

Interesting. I didn't know that the laws required companies to provide lists with owner telephone numbers.

 

[bogey21]

What a mess. I feel for the Owners. All the more reason to only own at well managed Independents Resorts with Owner controlled HOAs. There are two major problems with Corporate Developer controlled Resorts. First, they will make decisions in their (not the Owners) best interests and second, they have the legal resources to coerce the results they want.

George

 

[weisberg]

wiamea'smom

Hi Wiamea’smom,

First let me thank you for your reporting of the meeting. You’ve given me more information than I probably would have been able to grasp if I had been there myself. I do have a couple of thoughts. Were the materials ruled as defective or under code? How can you rule the workmanship was faulty if the work was inspected ? In the past we built new two times. Each building stage was inspected by the township before the next stage could begin. If all was approved, how can the insurance company deny the claim? If the project was not inspected at each stage, is the township responsible in any way?
I would also like to encourage anyone who would be interested in compiling an owner’s list, to start with posting their email address with their comments. I have received seven names along with email addresses. If we start with this the list it will grow. The power we get will be in the amount of participants we have bobweisberg@bellsouth.net .
Thanks again, Bob Weisberg
1) The insurance claim was supposedly denied for three exclusions (construction defect/faulty workmanship exclusion, gradual deterioration/wear and tear exclusion, and dry rot exclusion).

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

If all was approved, how can the insurance company deny the claim?

With the caveat that I haven't seen the insurance policies, I'm pretty sure the insurance company denied the claim because property and casualty policies insure against sudden acts of God types of events, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and windstorms, and they are specifically written to exclude coverage for damages that occur gradually and incrementally over a long period of time.

It would be the same as if you had a leaky rook and over a period of ten to fifteen years water had seeped inside that walls of your house and rotted the studs. If you made a claim on your policy it would likely be denied because the damage didn't occur as the results of a sudden and catastrophic event.

IOW, if a tree falls on your house in a windstorm your insurance pays for a new roof. If your roof falls apart gradually over a period of ten to fifteen years, your insurance isn't going to pay you for a new roof. I would be surprised if the same didn't apply in this case, as property and casualty insurers to go great lengths in their policies to exclude from coverage precisely this type of situation unless someone specifically purchases coverage for non-sudden events. And if they had purchased such coverage - assuming it were even available - they would have paid a correspondingly higher premium, all the while that owners have been screaming that annual fees were already outrageously high.

 

[weisberg]

With the caveat that I haven't seen the insurance policies, I'm pretty sure the insurance company denied the claim because property and casualty policies insure against sudden acts of God types of events, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and windstorms, and they are specifically written to exclude coverage for damages that occur gradually and incrementally over a long period of time.

It would be the same as if you had a leaky rook and over a period of ten to fifteen years water had seeped inside that walls of your house and rotted the studs. If you made a claim on your policy it would likely be denied because the damage didn't occur as the results of a sudden and catastrophic event.

IOW, if a tree falls on your house in a windstorm your insurance pays for a new roof. If your roof falls apart gradually over a period of ten to fifteen years, your insurance isn't going to pay you for a new roof. I would be surprised if the same didn't apply in this case, as property and casualty insurers to go great lengths in their policies to exclude from coverage precisely this type of situation unless someone specifically purchases coverage for non-sudden events. And if they had purchased such coverage - assuming it were even available - they would have paid a correspondingly higher premium, all the while that owners have been screaming that annual fees were already outrageously high.

This applies to only one of exclusions. They are claiming the work was of construction defect/faulty workmanship. This doesn’t answer the question as to why it passed inspection. If it did. it seems they can not find it to be of construction defect/faulty workmanship.
1) The insurance claim was supposedly denied for three exclusions (construction defect/faulty workmanship exclusion, gradual deterioration/wear and tear exclusion, and dry rot exclusion).
We trust our best interest are always a priority with responsible heads of authority. When my yearly maintenance fees were increased by 30% the first year DRI took over, I had every reason to believe that my best interest, including insurance coverage decisions were in good hands. Apparently, I was wrong. It is unheard of that a property should have to expect to rebuilt after twenty years. You have said that this goes with the territory of ownership. I disagree, this goes with owning a business that generates a profit. DRI will have brand new resort eventually and we will be left with the bill and many bad feedbacks that will prevent any future chance of our selling this nightmare.
Joyce Weisberg

 

[Carolinian]

Interesting. I didn't know that the laws required companies to provide lists with owner telephone numbers.

Corporate law requires provisions of voting lists to facilitate those not in power to communicate their message to others who have votes, either stockholders or members. I have never really looked at those laws that relate to for-profit corporations, but I have with not-for-profit corporations. Timeshare HOA's are organized as non-profit corporations, and those with votes are each of the timeshare owners. The voters list is the owners list.

The key concept is that the only way to insure corporate democracy is to let anyone with a vote at meetings be able to communicate directly with others who have votes. Otherwise you have management entrenched forever. In a corporate context, votes are really going to be determined by who does the best job of solicitiing proxies, which can only be done by contacting those with votes to get their proxies. To contact them, you need their contact info.

Most state corporate laws are somewhat outdated and the contact info that has to be supplied is mailing address. Few requires providing email address. Generally phone numbers are not required to be provided, largely because you cannot send proxy forms over the phone except to those who might have a fax at home.

Many state laws, like North Carolina's provide that voter lists of not-for-profit corporations prohibit those obtaining them from using those lists for commercial purposes or allowing others to do so.

Hawaii's law, which governs timeshare HOA's, is found at Chapter 514A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The relevent portion, as quoted in a Kauai newspaper in an article on Point at Poipu, is:
“The resident manager or managing agent or board of directors shall keep an accurate and current list of members of the association of apartment owners and their current addresses ... The list shall be maintained at a place designated by the board of directors and a copy shall be available, at cost, to any member of the association as provided in the declaration or bylaws or rules and regulations ...”
This is even more specific as to timeshare HOA's than the general not-for-profit law.


Read more: http://thegardenisland.com/business...42d-11df-91f7-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1bRU6oisf

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

This applies to only one of exclusions. They are claiming the work was of construction defect/faulty workmanship. This doesn’t answer the question as to why it passed inspection. If it did. it seems they can not find it to be of construction defect/faulty workmanship.

Like 46 of the 50 states, Hawaii has a statute of repose for construction defects. Statutes of repose bar strictly bar suits for defects in construction after a set period of years from completion of construction (not from discovery). Hawaii statute of repose is for ten years. Since the project was completed in 1993 they are well past the stage at which a cost recovery could be taken against the builder.

There is a question that has not been answered as to potential product liability against the manufacturer of the cladding materials, since product liability is subject to statute of limitations and not statute of repose. That would depend on whether the manufacturer of the materials marketed and represented the materials as suitable for the use to which they were put.