Sandcastle P'town owners -Festiva

[Carolinian]

I was just at Sandcastle for one of my weeks and was given the Festiva pitch. After coming home googled Festiva Resorts (see complaints on google), found out that the Attorney's General in several states have either brought charges against and won, or are investigating their operation in several different states - Missouri, Carolina's etc. in regards to other timeshare sites.
Does anyone know how current sandcastle owners can get a list of the other owners in the resort? Might be nice to send out the info that is included here as a heads up - evidently they are trying to see every owner that checks in with their sales pitch. Don't know how many visit here.
Also - are they charging Festiva RENT for the use of the Offices - as this is part of our property and they should not be able to come in and use it without standard/current rate rental fees to Royal Coachman or the Dunes Trust? Their agents are staying in a unit or units at the resort - are they paying fees for that use? They cannot own all 52 weeks of unit 606. Maybe they move them around to whatever is vacant. Still there should be charges made and applied to the trust.
If there are foreclosures at the resort, how does Festiva get ownership???? I would think ownership would return to sandcastle trust?? Am I just to naive?
I saw a supposed balance sheet for sandcastle comparing 2007 -2008 and there doesn't look like we are in the RED moneywise. Of course it was just flashed in front of me, and removed - but from what I saw - it looked like income and expenses matched up pretty well.

UGHHHHHHHHHHH!

The corporate law of every state I am aware of provides for this during a set period prior to the annual meeting. Call the state's Real Estate Commission or Corporations Commission or equivalent. They should be able to tell you. Organize and kick these turkeys out!

 

[ChrisH]

The annual meeting was in late April so I guess we missed that deadline. Thanks for the info.

 

[ChrisH]

I am new to this forum. Started googling Festiva after my recent vacation week at Sandcastle and ended up here. I was contacted by the 'office' during my stay to review all the 'decisions' at the owners meeting - as a 'courtesy' to all owners that were vacationing.

I was told that i could 'exchange' my weeks for points. That this was not a 'sale', that they were not 'sales representatives of any sort' and this was simply an 'exchange into the new system'.
The documents/contracts they then showed me clearly stated 'Seller' and 'Purchaser' in every statement.

I was told that:
1) RCI was no longer going to affiliate with Sandcastle unless it upgraded to a 'star' category resort and that II would not affiliate with Sandcastle until major improvements were made.
2) RCI was giving up 'weeks' resorts for only 'points' resorts.
3) RCI was actually getting out of the business, that the reason the new 'weeks' directory was 'so small' was that they were trying to get out of that business and dropping resorts.

I was also told that anytime I wanted to use my own weeks, I simply had to let them know a year ahead of time and I wouldn't get my points for that unit(s) for that year but could use the unit. The fine print says ' you must notify the manager at least 12 months but no more than 13 months ahead that you intend to use your unit. At that time the manager would estimate the next years' assessment and bill you for the 'hold of your own unit', I beleive you have 30 days to pay it. If his estimate was too low, you would receive another bill when the maintenance fee for that following year was determined. If his estimate was higher than the actual maintenance fee, 'they would NOT return the overage but apply it to future assessments.' So you really don't 'own' your week anymore- but technically you can use it if you can predict all of life's events 13 months ahead and have the cash on hand.
Greg also said, you don't ever want to do that, you can get the same exchange to Sandcastle anytime. The longer you wait the fewer points you would use. ie. at 60 days out it would cost you only 1800 points for a Sandcastle unit instead of 4000 points. When I said 'do you really think July 4th is going to be available 60 days or 45 days out' he said he was sure that I could get a July week that close 'and save all my points.' But in reading all the web complaints for other resorts, it appears that nobody seems to be able to get high demand time at these festiva resorts. They are simply offered a stay at a 'nearby' resort for nightly fees. SO basically I would be giving up my rights to week 27 for life, for a crappy vacation to be determined by Festiva.

I was told that the fee for 'exchange' of my units to the point system would be $2990 for the exchange plus $195 x 4 (for 4 deeds to be to be 'converted') which is really for 4 deeds to be turned over to them and my name anihalated (?sp). However the document says 'SALES PRICE' and was going to be listed as $3575 plus $195 admin fee. When I questioned why they did not list it as stated, with 4 admin fees for the deed transfer (it's actually a QuitClaim deed giving up all your rights) I was told 'Oh, your the 1st one who caught, oh I mean noticed that.' 'It's just the way we have to write it up, but it's no problem.' Well if there a 4 fees at the Barnstable Courthouse for each Quitclaim deed, why would it be written that way????

I don't know how many times I was told this is an 'exchange to points' and not a 'sale of my units'.

I have seen that the Attorneys General of several other states have either sued and won vs. Festiva with money being returned, or are suing, or are investigating Festiva points system. These seem to be resorts that are further into the Festiva system timewise (MO, Carolinas etc.) as Festiva just starting in MA - I'm curious to know if anyone on this forum is aware of or has contacted the MA Atty Gen in regards to Festiva?

Also curious as to how to get the word out to other Sandcastle owners as there only seem to be a dozen or so members responding in this forum.

Chris

 

[theo]

Lotsa lies, lotsa nonsense...

I was told that i could 'exchange' my weeks for points. That this was not a 'sale', that they were not 'sales representatives of any sort' and this was simply an 'exchange into the new system'.
The documents/contracts they then showed me clearly stated 'Seller' and 'Purchaser' in every statement.

You've already figured out that this was a lie. The "exchange" is basically a "forfeiture" of one solid product for a less valuable one ---and paying out money for the "privilege". Well done.

Re: >> I was told that:
1) RCI was no longer going to affiliate with Sandcastle unless it upgraded to a 'star' category resort and that II would not affiliate with Sandcastle until major improvements were made. <<

That may be half true. RCI will, in fact, affiliate with any timeshare facility, anytime, anywhere ---no exceptions. II, on the other hand, has higher minimum standards.

2) RCI was giving up 'weeks' resorts for only 'points' resorts.

More nonsense. Whether a resort is a RCI "weeks" resort or a RCI "points" facility is not even an RCI decision in the first place. It's a resort decision --- and a big money maker for the resort (RCI gets mere peanuts).

3) RCI was actually getting out of the business, that the reason the new 'weeks' directory was 'so small' was that they were trying to get out of that business and dropping resorts.

Even more utter, unbelieveable nonsense. I'm certainly no fan of RCI, but the smaller RCI directory is merely a cost cutting measure. There are no fewer RCI resorts than formerly, but the shift to "online information" from paper directory makes complete sense, particularly since "online" information can be updated in real time --- unlike an expensive annual paper directory.

Re: >> I was also told that anytime I wanted to use my own weeks, I simply had to let them know a year ahead of time and I wouldn't get my points for that unit(s) for that year but could use the unit. <<

Partly true, but oddly stated. Yes, if converted to points it's 13 months in advance reservation --- and the associated underlying "points" would, in fact, be used in full to utilize the week. It's not that you "wouldn't get the points", but rather that you would spend them all in reserving your underlying week. Obviously, by refusing to "convert", your deeded week remains yours to use each year without any such reservation gymnastics.

Re: >> The fine print says ' you musst notify the manager at least 12 months but no more than 13 months ahead that you intend to use your unit. At that time the manager would estimate the next years' assessment and bill you for the 'hold of your own unit', I beleive you have 30 days to pay it. If his estimate was too low, you would receive another bill when the maintenance fee for that following year was determined. If his estimate was higher than the actual maintenance fee, 'they would NOT return the overage but apply it to future assessments.'<<

Now this is a new twist, in my experience. No facility "manager" in my experience ever has (or ever has had) the individual right or any authority whatsoever to determine or predict "assessments". I'm not even sure this would be legal to attempt.

You seem to have encountered a uniquely slimy liar here. Either that or this guy just has no idea what he is talking about in the first place...

In short summary, keep your deeded week, keep your money --- and tell these lying thieves to "go pound sand"...

 

[ecwinch]

I am new to this forum. Started googling Festiva after my recent vacation week at Sandcastle and ended up here. I was contacted by the 'office' during my stay to review all the 'decisions' at the owners meeting - as a 'courtesy' to all owners that were vacationing.

I don't know how many times I was told this is an 'exchange to points' and not a 'sale of my units'.

I have seen that the Attorneys General of several other states have either sued and won vs. Festiva with money being returned, or are suing, or are investigating Festiva points system. These seem to be resorts that are further into the Festiva system timewise (MO, Carolinas etc.) as Festiva just starting in MA - I'm curious to know if anyone on this forum is aware of or has contacted the MA Atty Gen in regards to Festiva?

Also curious as to how to get the word out to other Sandcastle owners as there only seem to be a dozen or so members responding in this forum.

Chris

Locate FestivaRep over in the Other Timeshare System forum, and send her a PM with the details of your encounter (salesperson's name, date/time, location, etc.). She has indicated a willingness to curb this type of sales tactics and it would be good to put her to the test. I would cc: Cliff at NEVS also as he has made statements that a rep was fired for this type of misrepresentation.

I would also send the letter to the Mass AG. This is how timeshare companies usually get their hands slapped. Enough people complain about unfair trade practices and the AG ends up opening a case.

I think what you have written here, with an opening paragraph saying that you are concerned that you were subject to an unfair and misleading sales presentation on XXX, by YYY at the ZZZ resort would be sufficient. cc: to Festiva, NEVS, and Outfield Marketing (assuming they were the sales co). Even better if it was an in-home presentation, so highlight that fact if that was the case.

 

[ChrisH]

From: Rules and Regulations -Festiva Resorts Members Assoc

RE your comment: Now this is a new twist, in my experience. No facility "manager" in my experience ever has (or ever has had) the individual right or any authority whatsoever to determine or predict "assessments". I'm not even sure this would be legal to attempt.

You seem to have encountered a uniquely slimy liar here. Either that or this guy just has no idea what he is talking about in the first place...

In short summary, keep your deeded week, keep your money --- and tell these lying thieves to "go pound sand"...[/QUOTE]

Reserving 'your own' unit 12-13 months in advance as required.

This is what it says in Festivas Rules RE: section 2.4.3

2.4.3 Advance Payment of Assessments. In the event that a member requests a reservation within the appropriate reservation window but the Use Period in question occurs in the immediately succeeding Calendar Year, the Manager shall request and receive payment of the estimated Assessment for such succeeding Calendar Year prior to issuing a confirmed reservation. The Manager shall determine the estimated Assessment for any subsequent Calenday Year in its sole discretion.

2.4.4 Adjustments. In the event that the estimated Assessment charged to a Member in accordance with Section 2.4.3 above is lower than the actual Assessment ultimately levied by the Association, the Member will be required to pay the amount of the difference within thirty dayw of the due date of the Assessment in order to remain a Member in good standing. In the event that the estimated Assessment charged to a Member in accordance with section 2.4.3 above is higher than the actual Assessment ultimately levied by the Association, the Member's account will reflect a credit against future Calendar Years Assessments, but neither the Association nor the Manager shall be obligated to refund such excess amount to the Member.

So you have to pay a year in advance and they can charge what they want.
Tried to copy word for word, sorry if there are any typos!

Chris

 

[ecwinch]

RE your comment: Now this is a new twist, in my experience. No facility "manager" in my experience ever has (or ever has had) the individual right or any authority whatsoever to determine or predict "assessments". I'm not even sure this would be legal to attempt.

You seem to have encountered a uniquely slimy liar here. Either that or this guy just has no idea what he is talking about in the first place...

Not that they are not slimy liars, but...

Most resort systems will allow usage to be deposited into II or RCI, 12-13 months out in exchange for the estimated m/f. So in that process the mgt company usually estimates what the m/f will be.

They do this in order to compensate for the use year not aligning with the deadline for m/f. For instance to deposit my Mar 2010 week, I would need pay my estimated m/f now. The actual m/f will not be known until much later in the year.

[Edit]: ChrisH and I are saying the same thing. Theo's quote is intermingled with ChrisH's comments, and that is what I responding to.

 

[theo]

No disagreement here...

Not that they are not slimy liars, but...

Most resort systems will allow usage to be deposited into II or RCI, 12-13 months out in exchange for the estimated m/f. So in that process the mgt company usually estimates what the m/f will be.

They do this in order to compensate for the use year not aligning with the deadline for m/f. For instance to deposit my Mar 2010 week, I would need pay my estimated m/f now. The actual m/f will not be known until much later in the year.

Sure, paying the most current maintenance fee amount, in advance of next year mf bill issuance in order to be able to make an advance reservation for next year, is standard procedure most anyhwhere, as is the understanding that any shortfall would obviously have to be made up if / when that next years' mf amount increases. No dispute on that point at all.

What I intended to express, but perhaps not with sufficient clarity, was my great surprise at any suggestion or notion that an individual resort manager could somehow guess / divine / predict (or had any authority to even attempt to do so) what the next years's maintenance fee amount might be, since that decision would actually be one in which he /she as individual resort manager would have absolutely no say, knowledge or involvement whatsoever.

It's an unimportant clarification, however. My main and most pertinent point was (and still remains) that the "rep" to which Chris H made reference told a broad array of lies and assorted half-truths --- some of them straining credibility and / or reason well beyond the breaking point...

 

[Sou13]

Now posted on TUG

For anyone else being contacted by Outfield Marketing I have now posted the "Terms and Conditions" for membership in the Festiva Adventure Club at http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthr...s #post719708
The "Public Offering Statement" has been published at http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthr...ent#post687123

Anyone who needs to download a copy of these documents can copy and paste it from these TUG posts.

Our annual meeting is coming up Saturday the 16th at noon. I intend to be there with all the documents I've managed to copy and share, including how many Southcape owners had converted to Festiva as of 03-18-2009.

 

[ChrisH]

Sandcastle Owners - Please read - any lawyers out there?

Hi
I've been reading the Mass Gen Laws - section 83 - all about timeshare laws in MA and found some interesting and useful things.

1: Is anyone going to sandcastle in the next few weeks? According to MGL any owner can get a list of ALL owners by just requesting it in person see law below. That might help getting MORE people informed.

MGL Chapter 183B: Section 32. Definitions; list of addresses of owners; ballots; communication expenses; vote allocation; notice; recording amendments
(b) The managing entity shall keep reasonably available for inspection and copying by any time-share owner all addresses, known to it or to the developer, of all the time-share owners with the principal permanent residence address of each indicated if known. The managing entity shall revise continually the list of addresses in the light of any information it obtains, and the developer shall keep the managing entity advised of any information he has or obtains.

2: In the sales office there are several posters showing artist renderings of changes to come, furniture and carpet swaths etc. showing decor. Can anyone check out whether it has the required "Need NOT be Built' as required by law. Didn't see anything like that. Might have been in fine print somewhere on the posters. See belowl-section 50

Chapter 183B: Section 50. Improvements not required to be built

Section 50. If any improvement in the time-share property is not required to be built, no promotional material may be displayed or delivered to prospective purchasers which describes or portrays said improvement unless the description or portrayal of the improvement shall be conspicuously labeled or identified as “NEED NOT BE BUILT”.
Also:

3: This next Section 33 seems to indicate that the owners can, by ballot vote, approve or disapprove any proposed expenditure - such as tearing out the tennis courts and building more units - maybe even the expenditure of having Festiva in there????? I don't know. It seems to say any owner and then 10 percent of owners - can anyone interpret this law and determine exactly how many petitioners are required? It appears if the manager gets such a petition then the manager is required to provide a ballot to all owners and give ample notice and response times.
AND -Section 35 seems to indicate that the management can be changed by the same format owner/10%???


Chapter 183B: Section 33. Amendment of project instruments or unrecorded documents; approval of expenditures; procedure

Section 33. (a) The owners may amend the project instrument or any unrecorded document governing the project, or approve or disapprove any proposed expenditure, in the manner provided by this section in addition to any manner permitted by law or by the instrument or document.

(b) Any owner may deliver to the managing entity a petition containing the language of any proposed amendment or proposal for the approval or disapproval of any proposed expenditure and signed by owners of at least one time-share or other estate or interest in each of a number of units to which at least ten per cent of the votes are allocated, or any smaller percentage specified by the document to be amended. The owner delivering said petition may attach to it a letter of not more than two pages to be mailed with the ballots. Within ten days after receiving said petition, the managing entity shall mail to each owner a ballot setting forth the language of the petition and affording an opportunity to indicate a preference between approval and disapproval of said proposed amendment or proposal, together with a copy of any letter of not more than two pages attached by the owner who delivered said petition. The ballot may also be accompanied by a letter of not more than two pages from the managing entity recommending approval or disapproval of said proposed amendment or proposal.... more


Chapter 183B: Section 35. Discharge of manager

Section 35. (a) During the period of time the developer appoints, controls or serves as the managing entity, the owners may discharge the manager with or without cause in the manner provided by this section in addition to any manner permitted by law or the project instrument.

(b) Any owner may prepare a ballot affording the opportunity to indicate a preference between retaining the present manager and discharging him in favor of a new manager; provided, however, that the owners of at least one time-share or other estate or interest in each of a number of units to which at least ten per cent of the votes are allocated sign a petition authorizing said owner to prepare said ballot on their behalf. A copy of said ballot and of any letter to be mailed with said ballot shall be delivered to the manager. Said ballot and a copy of any said letter, together with a copy of any written reply received from the manager containing no more pages than said letter, shall be mailed not less than ten or more than thirty days from the date of delivery to said manager to each owner by the owner who prepared the ballot.
(c) On the date specified pursuant to clause (2) of subsection (c) of section thirty-two, the person who receives the ballots shall examine the ballots that have been returned, calculate the vote accordingly, and forthwith notify the manager of the result. If at least sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of all of the votes allocated to all time-share owners, which votes represent at least thirty-three and one-third per cent of the votes allocated to all owners, favor discharging the manager, the developer also shall be notified of said result, the ballots or copies thereof shall be given forthwith to the manager, and the developer shall forthwith diligently attempt to procure offers for management contracts from prospective managers..... more

There is a lot more but it takes plenty of reading and legal interpretation - just google MGL and then search for section 183B.

 

[ChrisH]

Sandcastle Owners - Please read - any lawyers out there?

Hi
I've been reading the Mass Gen Laws - section 83 - all about timeshare laws in MA and found some interesting and useful things.

1: Is anyone going to sandcastle in the next few weeks? According to MGL any owner can get a list of ALL owners by just requesting it in person see law below. That might help getting MORE people informed.

MGL Chapter 183B: Section 32. Definitions; list of addresses of owners; ballots; communication expenses; vote allocation; notice; recording amendments
(b) The managing entity shall keep reasonably available for inspection and copying by any time-share owner all addresses, known to it or to the developer, of all the time-share owners with the principal permanent residence address of each indicated if known. The managing entity shall revise continually the list of addresses in the light of any information it obtains, and the developer shall keep the managing entity advised of any information he has or obtains.

2: In the sales office there are several posters showing artist renderings of changes to come, furniture and carpet swaths etc. showing decor. Can anyone check out whether it has the required "Need NOT be Built' as required by law. Didn't see anything like that. Might have been in fine print somewhere on the posters. See belowl-section 50

Chapter 183B: Section 50. Improvements not required to be built

Section 50. If any improvement in the time-share property is not required to be built, no promotional material may be displayed or delivered to prospective purchasers which describes or portrays said improvement unless the description or portrayal of the improvement shall be conspicuously labeled or identified as “NEED NOT BE BUILT”.
Also:

3: This next Section 33 seems to indicate that the owners can, by ballot vote, approve or disapprove any proposed expenditure - such as tearing out the tennis courts and building more units - maybe even the expenditure of having Festiva in there????? I don't know. It seems to say any owner and then 10 percent of owners - can anyone interpret this law and determine exactly how many petitioners are required? It appears if the manager gets such a petition then the manager is required to provide a ballot to all owners and give ample notice and response times.
AND -Section 35 seems to indicate that the management can be changed by the same format owner/10%???


Chapter 183B: Section 33. Amendment of project instruments or unrecorded documents; approval of expenditures; procedure

Section 33. (a) The owners may amend the project instrument or any unrecorded document governing the project, or approve or disapprove any proposed expenditure, in the manner provided by this section in addition to any manner permitted by law or by the instrument or document.

(b) Any owner may deliver to the managing entity a petition containing the language of any proposed amendment or proposal for the approval or disapproval of any proposed expenditure and signed by owners of at least one time-share or other estate or interest in each of a number of units to which at least ten per cent of the votes are allocated, or any smaller percentage specified by the document to be amended. The owner delivering said petition may attach to it a letter of not more than two pages to be mailed with the ballots. Within ten days after receiving said petition, the managing entity shall mail to each owner a ballot setting forth the language of the petition and affording an opportunity to indicate a preference between approval and disapproval of said proposed amendment or proposal, together with a copy of any letter of not more than two pages attached by the owner who delivered said petition. The ballot may also be accompanied by a letter of not more than two pages from the managing entity recommending approval or disapproval of said proposed amendment or proposal.... more


Chapter 183B: Section 35. Discharge of manager

Section 35. (a) During the period of time the developer appoints, controls or serves as the managing entity, the owners may discharge the manager with or without cause in the manner provided by this section in addition to any manner permitted by law or the project instrument.

(b) Any owner may prepare a ballot affording the opportunity to indicate a preference between retaining the present manager and discharging him in favor of a new manager; provided, however, that the owners of at least one time-share or other estate or interest in each of a number of units to which at least ten per cent of the votes are allocated sign a petition authorizing said owner to prepare said ballot on their behalf. A copy of said ballot and of any letter to be mailed with said ballot shall be delivered to the manager. Said ballot and a copy of any said letter, together with a copy of any written reply received from the manager containing no more pages than said letter, shall be mailed not less than ten or more than thirty days from the date of delivery to said manager to each owner by the owner who prepared the ballot.
(c) On the date specified pursuant to clause (2) of subsection (c) of section thirty-two, the person who receives the ballots shall examine the ballots that have been returned, calculate the vote accordingly, and forthwith notify the manager of the result. If at least sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of all of the votes allocated to all time-share owners, which votes represent at least thirty-three and one-third per cent of the votes allocated to all owners, favor discharging the manager, the developer also shall be notified of said result, the ballots or copies thereof shall be given forthwith to the manager, and the developer shall forthwith diligently attempt to procure offers for management contracts from prospective managers..... more

There is a lot more but it takes plenty of reading and legal interpretation - just google MGL and then search for section 183B.

 

[Fig]

1: Is anyone going to sandcastle in the next few weeks? According to MGL any owner can get a list of ALL owners by just requesting it in person see law below. That might help getting MORE people informed.

MGL Chapter 183B: Section 32. Definitions; list of addresses of owners;

Great finds! Here's a wild idea. Why doesn't one owner go with another owner who can serve as a witness and a notary public? As insurance, draft up a letter to the Mass AG saying you were denied the list and have it on hand and if you are denied, have the letter signed by the witness and notarized right on-site. Cliff Hagberg, your "trustee" appears to be the keeper of the addresses according to this...and they should be very up to date...heck, according to this, he even has email addresses.

http://askmando.com/authors/brosious_matt/resort_management_software.html

 

[Sou13]

M.g.l. 183b

Thanks for passing along thoughts about M.G.L. 183B. I've copied and saved it as a document which can be emailed as an attachment.

 

[PClapham]

Information????

Hello- I STILL have not heard word one from Sandcastle! We have owned a week there for many years.
Anita

 

[ecwinch]

Hi
I've been reading the Mass Gen Laws - section 83 - all about timeshare laws in MA and found some interesting and useful things.

2: In the sales office there are several posters showing artist renderings of changes to come, furniture and carpet swaths etc. showing decor. Can anyone check out whether it has the required "Need NOT be Built' as required by law. Didn't see anything like that. Might have been in fine print somewhere on the posters. See belowl-section 50

Chapter 183B: Section 50. Improvements not required to be built

Section 50. If any improvement in the time-share property is not required to be built, no promotional material may be displayed or delivered to prospective purchasers which describes or portrays said improvement unless the description or portrayal of the improvement shall be conspicuously labeled or identified as “NEED NOT BE BUILT”.
Also:

3: This next Section 33 seems to indicate that the owners can, by ballot vote, approve or disapprove any proposed expenditure - such as tearing out the tennis courts and building more units - maybe even the expenditure of having Festiva in there????? I don't know. It seems to say any owner and then 10 percent of owners - can anyone interpret this law and determine exactly how many petitioners are required? It appears if the manager gets such a petition then the manager is required to provide a ballot to all owners and give ample notice and response times.
AND -Section 35 seems to indicate that the management can be changed by the same format owner/10%???


Chapter 183B: Section 33. Amendment of project instruments or unrecorded documents; approval of expenditures; procedure

Section 33. (a) The owners may amend the project instrument or any unrecorded document governing the project, or approve or disapprove any proposed expenditure, in the manner provided by this section in addition to any manner permitted by law or by the instrument or document.

(b) Any owner may deliver to the managing entity a petition containing the language of any proposed amendment or proposal for the approval or disapproval of any proposed expenditure and signed by owners of at least one time-share or other estate or interest in each of a number of units to which at least ten per cent of the votes are allocated, or any smaller percentage specified by the document to be amended. ...

Chapter 183B: Section 35. Discharge of manager

....(c) On the date specified pursuant to clause (2) of subsection (c) of section thirty-two, the person who receives the ballots shall examine the ballots that have been returned, calculate the vote accordingly, and forthwith notify the manager of the result. If at least sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of all of the votes allocated to all time-share owners, which votes represent at least thirty-three and one-third per cent of the votes allocated to all owners, favor discharging the manager, the developer also shall be notified of said result, the ballots or copies thereof shall be given forthwith to the manager, and the developer shall forthwith diligently attempt to procure offers for management contracts from prospective managers..... more

There is a lot more but it takes plenty of reading and legal interpretation - just google MGL and then search for section 183B.

The link you are looking for is Mass Timeshare Act.

Section 50 applies to improvements (swimming pools, tennis courts, hot tubs, etc.), and not replacement of interior furnishings. The key word is improvement. Replacement due to normal wear and tear or maintenance are not improvements to property. It would be difficult for a timeshare to operate if the term "improvement" was expanded to any expenditure of funds on the physical plant.

The 10% provision describes the process to the measure placed before a vote of the owners. It is not the percentage required to approve the measure.

35c above is saying it takes 33.33% of the eligible votes to establish a quorum, and a 66.66 % majority of those votes must favor the discharge of the managing entity.

And it you read the rest of the process, it is a little more complicated. After you vote to discharge, then offers are solicited from other prospective managers. A second ballot is then sent out to determine if the owners want to accept one of the offers from the prospective managers, or retain the incumbent.

"shall forthwith prepare and mail to each owner a second ballot stating at least the term and compensation provided by each offer that has been received and affording an opportunity to indicate a preference for any one of the offers or for retaining the current manager."

 

[Sandy VDH]

Hello- I STILL have not heard word one from Sandcastle! We have owned a week there for many years.
Anita

When is your week? You will likely be contacted about 3 - 4 weeks prior to your scheduled week at the resort.

That is when they contacted me.

I just said not interested, don't want to talk. They seemed surprised when I said I already knew what was going on. Of course this was outfield calling me to try to get me into a "update", yeah right.

 

[Carolinian]

Massachusetts law gives you more to go on than North Carolina law would.

Go get 'em!

 

[Carolinian]

Your owners need to organize a Concerned Owners Group and get control of your HOA board. I would suggest a private forum so that owners don't tip their hand to others. A Yahoo Group would accomplish that, or www.timeshareforums.com has in the past set up private forums for owners groups. Both are free.

You will need mail to initially reach the owners, and you will need the mailing list to do that. Fortunately, under your state's laws, it can be obtained year round. Your first mailing should warn members about Outfield and refer them to this board for further information.

You will also need a mailing timed to go out about when the resort's notice of annual meeting goes out. You will need in that to introduce your candidates for the board and any other items you want to have voted on. You will also need to ask for proxies. Most timeshare meeting votes are by proxy, and management will also be seeking them. Include a blank proxy form for proxies to your people and have it returned to you, not to the resort, so it won't get ''lost''.

I was involved in one Concerned Owners Group at a resort on the OBX. I had owned three weeks at that resort and sold them because of bad management and an indifferent HOA board that let management do as they pleased. Then someone offered to give me a red week, which I took, and I was approached a few weeks later about joining the concerned owners group. At the time I was on the board of a different timeshare on the OBX. Four of us split the cost of a mailing to all members and had family members sit around and stuff the envelopes. We asked for a mailing list, which management denied. As three of the four initiators of our group were lawyers, we contacted the HOA's lawyer, pointed out the applicable statutes and got our list. In our first mailing we asked for opinions about the existing management, volunteers for board candidates, and said we would be running our own team. We also asked for contributions and included a return envelope. We got enough money to reimburse the money the initiators had put up, plus the cost of the second mailing just before the annual meeting where we solicited proxies. We also heard horror stories about management worse than the things we had known about. The vote for the two directors seats was close, and one whole owner with 52 votes stradling the fence by voting for one candidate on each slate, so that each side won a seat. The meeting also passed the bylaw amendments that our group put forward. At the meeting, the majority of timesharers were with the Concerned Owners, but management had a majority of the whole owners. I sold my week there before the next meeting, but ultimately an owner friendly majority was had on the HOA board and the management company was fired and replaced by a better one.

 

[ecwinch]

At the meeting, the majority of timesharers were with the Concerned Owners, but management had a majority of the whole owners. I sold my week there before the next meeting, but ultimately an owner friendly majority was had on the HOA board and the management company was fired and replaced by a better one.

You sold your ownership?

 

[Carolinian]

You sold your ownership?

Yeah, at that resort. I had just bought another week at the resort where I was on the HOA board and also one overseas. Something had to go.

 

[theo]

Owner information access...

.I was involved in one Concerned Owners Group at a resort on the OBX. I had owned three weeks at that resort and sold them because of bad management and an indifferent HOA board that let management do as they pleased. Then someone offered to give me a red week, which I took, and I was approached a few weeks later about joining the concerned owners group. At the time I was on the board of a different timeshare on the OBX. Four of us split the cost of a mailing to all members and had family members sit around and stuff the envelopes. We asked for a mailing list, which management denied. As three of the four initiators of our group were lawyers, we contacted the HOA's lawyer, pointed out the applicable statutes and got our list. In our first mailing we asked for opinions about the existing management, volunteers for board candidates, and said we would be running our own team. We also asked for contributions and included a return envelope. We got enough money to reimburse the money the initiators had put up, plus the cost of the second mailing just before the annual meeting where we solicited proxies. We also heard horror stories about management worse than the things we had known about. The vote for the two directors seats was close, and one whole owner with 52 votes stradling the fence by voting for one candidate on each slate, so that each side won a seat. The meeting also passed the bylaw amendments that our group put forward. At the meeting, the majority of timesharers were with the Concerned Owners, but management had a majority of the whole owners. I sold my week there before the next meeting, but ultimately an owner friendly majority was had on the HOA board and the management company was fired and replaced by a better one.

My heart is genuinely warmed by such reported events of empowered owners, reinforcing that alert and involved owners are not necessarily just at the mercy of developers or, after sell-out of the facility unit / weeks, developer minions and lackeys.

However, I'm prompted to wonder how one would ever get started and / or proceed on such a quest in a state (Florida specifically and immediately comes to mind) where owner information is apparently much more "protected" and therefore virtually inaccessible to concerned owner(s) who might want to launch just such an admirable campaign there.
Any thoughts on that particular scenario?

 

[ChrisH]

Wait until you get there UGHHHHHH!

Hello- I STILL have not heard word one from Sandcastle! We have owned a week there for many years.
Anita

Didn't know any of this either - until I went for my vacation - week 18 - beginning of May. Only 12 owners were there that week and they contacted us individually for a 'meeting' to supposedly go over the results the Annual Meeting the weekend before. It wasn't a meeting - in was a separate appointment to here Festiva's side of this story. I think the people in front of me took their offer as they were signing on the dotted line.

They are asking you to pay them money ($2900 plus the recording fees $195 at Barnstable county courthouse to GIVE UP YOUR DEED FOREVER. In exchange you get a membership in their resort system. They are not buying your deed, you're paying them to take it!

I am so ANGRY at the thought of how many people they will sucker in over the next few months.

 

[Carolinian]

My heart is genuinely warmed by such reported events of empowered owners, reinforcing that alert and involved owners are not necessarily just at the mercy of developers or, after sell-out of the facility unit / weeks, developer minions and lackeys.

However, I'm prompted to wonder how one would ever get started and / or proceed on such a quest in a state (Florida specifically and immediately comes to mind) where owner information is apparently much more "protected" and therefore virtually inaccessible to concerned owner(s) who might want to launch just such an admirable campaign there.
Any thoughts on that particular scenario?

Actually, a couple of the four resorts built by First Flight developers on the OBX had that situation when owners started their successful campaigns to kick out First Flight, not because of the law, but because they did not go to a lawyer to find out. A digruntled employee of First Flight handed them the lists. I do not know the Florida law, but would suggest talking to a Florida lawyer or at least to someone in the Corporatoins office or Real Estate Commmission. The EU privacy laws are similarly idiotic in entrenching management in power in timeshares by making it at least difficult if not impossible to get lists. Fortunately most states in the US give you access, and Mass. seems even more wide open on that than NC. I did not own there at the time of the battles against First Flight but served with a long time board member who had been one of the leaders and heard all of his war stories from those campaigns.

 

[theo]

Well said...

They are not buying your deed, you're paying them to take it!

Succinctly and correctly stated. It is absolutely astounding to me that people somehow fail to grasp this basic, fundamental truth.

You would think that owning a deeded week, free and clear, for a lifetime of potential use, would make most people just immediately burst out laughing at the very notion of coughing up a few thousand dollars to both give up what they already own and acquire something of much less value and certainty of access than what they currently own outright.

 

[theo]

Thanks...

I do not know the Florida law, but would suggest talking to a Florida lawyer or at least to someone in the Corporatoins office or Real Estate Commmission.

Good ideas both --- and thank you. I'm told that there is an article in a very recent issue of Timesharing Today magazine (a publication with which I am generally unimpressed) which cites some very specific Florida statutes on this matter. I'm going to first track down and digest that material and then examine the options. There is a certain multi-state entity of some celebrity whose corporate offices (and a few properties) are based in the state of Florida and whose heavy handed practices in regard to BOD makeup and actions really just beg and plead for a good fight... :annoyed: