Special Assessment Fee @ Pollard Brook

[rockhill30]

I'm not a points owner. I own an odd year week and an even year week. Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.

 

[Bwolf]

I'm not a points owner. I own an odd year week and an even year week. Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.

They are always administratively challenged.

 

[sarahlovesmickey]

I'm not a points owner. I own an odd year week and an even year week. Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.

I think they're just intellectually challenged.

 

[Finley]

I'm not a points owner. I own an odd year week and an even year week. Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.

As I continue to try to sort this out, I posed a series of questions to Mr. Bourassa, PB GM and he has responded as following answers. I will add, each time I have contacted him, he has responded within 24 hours, which is appreciated.
Q. Who was hit with these charges?
A. "If an owner purchased from us in 2008 or 2009 they did not receive and assessment as they, in most likelihood, have not even stayed here yet or perhaps have only recently visited for the first time. We did not think it fair to assess brand new owners for that reason. Your contact may also have had a bad address or just hasn’t received the notice yet as well."

Q. It doesn't appear South Mountain folks have an assessment placed on them. Is this being rolled out at different times? Can you share with me the differences of who/why some are being hit and not others?
A. "South Mountain and the other 6 InnSeason Resorts are separate entities unto themselves. There ownership base is separate from ours and each other unless a few of our owners also purchased at the other resorts."

Q. Can you also share with me what exactly what Southern Peaks is?
A. "Southern Peaks is the development entity who owns the rights to develop this property and who therefore owns the unsold inventory."

Q. And also how many timeshare intervals are we talking about at PB? The site says there are 133 rooms at PB, is that all timeshares so 6916? When Dennis did the Announcement on your appointment, he indicated there were 10,000 timeshare owners at PB. Yet the letter indicates 6000 owners.
A. "I guess the 10,000 number represents some public relations exuberance as your number of 6900 is much closer to reality."

Q. What exactly comprises PB - how many buildings, units, etc. I noted another article about the design of a new building Sabbaday Brook Lodge. Did that project start?
A. "We have 6 buildings total. The Sabbaday Brook Lodge someday would be the7th but that project was delayed indefinitely far before the recession even hit as we need to sell down the remaining intervals here prior to any major expansion.

Q. And how does the RiverWalk project factor in?
A. "Riverwalk is a project that our developer is looking at here in Lincoln with private investors and unrelated to this property. You also should know that when the developer builds a new building here on our premises, he does so exclusively with his own funding and no HOA funds are used."

Comment by me: I've been doing a ton of research on this entire thing and it really appears Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran bit off more than they can chew with the last two endeavors and PB was/is being used as a "cash cow" for them. I appreciate you can't comment on this last statement but please do share with me the facts as requested above.
A. "All I can say is that expansion plans typically start 2-3 years before construction due to architectural plans, local and state approvals, financing, environmental assessments and the like. Then the build-out can take a year or more with extensive site work and utilities etc. The last building built here was our Jackman Building in 2005 when the economic indicators were very strong and existing sales were booming."

 

[Bwolf]

Well, Finley, Bourassa's comments are interesting.

My letter to the NH AG in support of yours but also raising questions regarding the tangled web of interlocking entities is in the mail.

Given that Bourassa is answering your questions, and no questions are being answered at the website except for my initial one, would you ask Bourassa these two questions?

1) Does Southern Peaks also own the rights to develop South Mountain and/or Riverwalk?

To my way of thinking, if Southern Peaks has a hand in all three developments, then South Mountain should also be subject to an assessment. Since Riverwalk doesn't exist, there is no one to assess.

2) What specific provision of any of the documents related to my ownership at Pollard Brook gives you the right to levy a special assessment?

I'm still unclear as to which provision is in play.

 

[ecwinch]

Sorry to butt in again. If you find my posts distracting, let me know.

I do not understand the logic of who received the special assessment. His reply indicated that certain owners were not subject to it, since they just purchased. How does that matter?

At the end of the day, every owner is a member of a non-profit corporation. You cannot treat members differently. The special assessment should have been levied on all registered owners based on the effective date of the assessment.

I also would ask for a detailed break-down on special assessment, and if the BoD is going to initiate foreclosure proceedings on those units who are in arrears on m/f . Specifically the developer inventory.

 

[Finley]

Sorry to butt in again. If you find my posts distracting, let me know.

I do not understand the logic of who received the special assessment. His reply indicated that certain owners were not subject to it, since they just purchased. How does that matter?

At the end of the day, every owner is a member of a non-profit corporation. You cannot treat members differently. The special assessment should have been levied on all registered owners based on the effective date of the assessment.

I also would ask for a detailed break-down on special assessment, and if the BoD is going to initiate foreclosure proceedings on those units who are in arrears on m/f . Specifically the developer inventory.

I would agree Eric. I've never actually even stayed there and have been an owner since '95. I use it to exchange only so I should be exempt too! I assure you, I will continue to request information. They have posted a listing of projects on our Owner's Inn but not costs. The developer is none other than Southern Peaks and who owns it, Dennis Ducharme - PB's owner. Hmmmm....

 

[sarahlovesmickey]

I also have never stayed there. We have been owners since 2002 and own 1 week, odd years, but we always exchange.

 

[dreamWeaver]

Finley,
We received the special assessment on Monday. I feel very fortunate to have found this thread. I have read through all the documentation provided to us when we bought in 98. We are concerned about whether we are becoming victims of poor management.
We appreciate the time and effort you have already spent.
We would like to support you by sending a letter to the AG.
I have a good idea of what points I need to make, but would appreciate it, if I could see a copy of your letter.

 

[sarahlovesmickey]

Finley,
We received the special assessment on Monday. I feel very fortunate to have found this thread. I have read through all the documentation provided to us when we bought in 98. We are concerned about whether we are becoming victims of poor management.
We appreciate the time and effort you have already spent.
We would like to support you by sending a letter to the AG.
I have a good idea of what points I need to make, but would appreciate it, if I could see a copy of your letter.

I agree with you dreamWeaver. I want to also send information to the AG's office. I know that I need to make copies of everything we recieved when we bought ours, but I am at a loss as to what information should go into the letter to them. I did make a report to the BBB, but I don't know if I can take the info. I gave them and put it into letter form for the AG's office. I want to get this done ASAP. I need help...

 

[Bwolf]

Eric: There is no logic to any of this, which is the most upsetting part of it. Assessing some owners and not others? Ridiculous.
Several different entities owning or managing Pollard Brook. Ridiculous.

My letter to the Consumer Fraud Office emphasized the various entities: South Mountain LLC, Mountain Lodge, Loon Mountain, InnSeason Resorts, etc., some of which are not even mentioned in my governing documents.

If enough people raise the issue of possible consumer fraud, the office must act.

For those who are thinking of sending a letter to the Consumer Fraud Office, get a copy of Finley's letter and attach it to your letter. Finley sent copies of the governing documents already, so there's no need to send them again.

 

[Finley]

Letter to NH AG's Office re: Special Assessment

To assist with others who may want to also contact the NH AG's Office and as Bwolf suggested the Consumer Fraud Office, here is the letter I sent:

July 8, 2009
Consumer Protection & Antitrust Burean
NH Attorney General's Office
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you to seek your assistance with InnSeasons Resort, Pollard Brook - a condominium development and subsequent time share. We have been issued a "Special Assessment" and I am questioning their right to require we as owners be responsible for this debt they have incurred as a result of poor development planning and economic conditions that have left these units unsold and others foreclosed.

I recently went on-line and noted a charge posted to my account, an assessment fee of $419.42. Not understanding what this was I contacted the facility. I did receive a reply from Joel Bourassa, General Manager. This communication is attached. Upon further site searching, I was able to locate the letter Mr. Bourassa referenced but I have yet to receive anything in the mail. The letter is attached as printed from the website. I was surprised that a fee could be levied to an account before notification has even been sent as was the case here. As a result of this unexpected fee, I cannot use my time share until this is paid even though I paid my maintenance fees and placed it on deposit in the Spring to use elsewhere this Fall.

We have never been subject to a "Special Assessment" with this facility however, have experienced sudden excessive increases in the Maintenance Fees when monies were needed for added or unexpected repairs. I can appreciate these types of unexpected circumstances. My concerns with the Special Assessment is that the letter and other documentation on their website states this is as a direct result of poor economic conditions due to continued development and their inability to seel the inventory and increased foreclosures of such moreover than expenses directl related to this specific resort. It appears they have compromised our capital expense fund as a result of this continued development. And this has been a trend for two years which was never communicated to us as owners.

When we purchased Pollard Brook, there were two buildings. There are now, I believe, six buildings on that site. I've continually expressed concern regarding the massive development to no avail. Their continued expansion to yer another location, South Mountain is what seems to have created the major financial burden. Based on my Public Offering Statement, Condominium Declaration, Rules & Regulations, Purchase Agreement, Deed, Management Contract and Budget (copies attached) that I was given when we purchased the unit, I do not see where there is a provision for them to be able to assert this financial burden on us as owners of Pollard Brook especially when they indicate the losses are from an entirely new development, South Mountain. There are seven facilities within InnSeasons, yet we at Pollard Brook are the only ones hit with this burden.

The RSA below seems to support my thinking that any Special Assessment should be solely reated to our facility and its specific common areas: Quoted - NH RSA 356-B:45 Liabilities for Common Expenses

Another concern I have is, as an "owner", we have never been consulted on projects of any nature, asked to vote on any matters, been advised on any meetings and virtually been kept in the dark about any of the development, changes in programs or financial matters regarding this facility. We simply get a balance sheet, of which last year's indicated everythng was going along just fine, with a bill for our Maintenance Fee. 2008's was $499.00 for the upcoming year 2009. It appears by the manual referenced above, that Ido have a vote and should be able to participate in the process of these decisions. If they have updated/revised these documents, would they not be required to notify their owners and send updated copies?

Can you advise me on our rights and their to: Impose such additional charges not directly related to the owned units and the Board's responsibility to communicate with its owners regarding impending financial difficulties, new developmentswhich will impact owners expenses as a result, and just overall changes to what we "purchased"?

Thank you very much for your time and any assistance / direction you can provide

 

[Finley]

Other Fact re: PB

I have done additional research and put together some paperwork regarding the relationship of Dennis Ducharme and Billy Curran throughout these years which I believe is concerning. I think they have established LLC's and various companies to keep the money and relationships moving such that a direct connection cannot be associated to each development. However, when they are the owners and developers of each, how can we be confident of this? Quick example from the letter:

Dennis Ducharme – Is listed as “Treasurer” in the cc of the letter. He is listed on the website as the President Inn Season Resorts, also listed in other published areas as “Directs Southern Peaks Resorts, LLC”, and also listed as “President and Owner of Southern Peaks Resorts, LLC” in other sources. Essentially, as president and/ or owner of all entities and member / treasurer of the Board, when the letter states “Southern Peaks has told the Board” – who/what is this referencing? It appears he speaking of and to himself? He is the developer based on his titles and what Mr. Bourassa stated. So he is responsible for the debt. I have numerous other titles and company changes that I have found by comparing all my documents over the years. It's really a piece of work!

 

[ecwinch]

Eric: There is no logic to any of this, which is the most upsetting part of it. Assessing some owners and not others? Ridiculous.
Several different entities owning or managing Pollard Brook. Ridiculous.

My letter to the Consumer Fraud Office emphasized the various entities: South Mountain LLC, Mountain Lodge, Loon Mountain, InnSeason Resorts, etc., some of which are not even mentioned in my governing documents.

If enough people raise the issue of possible consumer fraud, the office must act.

For those who are thinking of sending a letter to the Consumer Fraud Office, get a copy of Finley's letter and attach it to your letter. Finley sent copies of the governing documents already, so there's no need to send them again.

In regard to how the special assessment is being handled, it is absolutely rediculous, and most likely not in compliance with the by-laws of the association. The provisions for assessments should be specifically outlined in your governing documents.

In regard to the corporate structure, I doubt there is much there to complain about. A multi-entity corporate structure is fairly common-place in situations like this. You generally will always have three entities - the non-profit corporation that represents homeowners association, the managing entity (Manager), and the developer. And the it is not uncommon for real estate developers to have multiple layers and holding companies involved.

And your situation is probably complicated by the different types of ownership. So their might be a separate entity that represents the fixed week owners, and one for the points owners, and maybe any fully-owned units (if they exist). This is fairly commonplace.

I would suggest that any correspondence with the AG needs to be focused on the key issues:

1) that you are being subjected to a special assessment due to other members and the developer not meeting their contractual obligation to pay their share of the expenses
2) that the special assessment is not being shared by all members
3) that the BoD has unilaterally decided to exclude certain members from the special assessment, in effect creating two classes of membership
4) that the BoD is not taking appropriate action to foreclose on the non-contributing members
5) that the majority of the BoD members are employees of the Developer, and that the inherent conflict of interest involved might have prevented the BoD from adequately protecting the interests of all the members in their decisions

I would continue to question Mr. Bourassa, on the items above to document each item above. Then after I have gathered that information, I would send a letter to the BoD outlining my concerns. If I did not receive an acceptable response, I then would craft a demand letter to the BoD requesting action be taken.

Then I would file a complaint with the AG. A complaint would go further, if you have exhausted all avenues for resolving this issue. This is where understanding the governing documents come into play. Being able to specifically cite where they are not in compliance, forces the BoD to provide a more through response.

JMO - I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

 

[Carolinian]

Directors also have a fiduciary duty to members, and they have a conflict of interest in their connection to the developer. A sweetheart deal on developer arrearages could really get stinky in court. A owner or group of owners could likely file a corporate derivative lawsuit against the directors on behalf of the interests of the corporation and force them to do right.

I wonder if the developer has a mortgage on its interest in the developer weeks. If so, an HOA could file a foreclosure action for unpaid m/f's which would likely trigger the lender paying them to avoid loosing its collateral and then going after the developer to recoup. If there is a mortgage, it would increase the HOA's ability to play hardball with the developer, if you can get homeowner control.

I completely understand that these type of actions are very difficult. My advice basically was that the first step is to fully understand your rights and the relative obligations of the Developer. The governing documents outline those rights and obligations.

Even with a developer controlled board, a diligent group of owners who fully understand their rights, and take the proper steps to assert them, can be helpful.

If those rights/obligations are not be observed, then following due process to assert those rights can be a relatively low cost way of managing the situtation. Does that mean that the Developer controlled BoD suddenly starts looking out for the owners interests? No.

But it removes the " we did not know about.... " defense that the BoD. It is far to easy for a BoD to do that.

I think putting the BoD on notice that there is group of owners that are diligently reviewing their actions and is aware of their rights, can be a positive influence on the process.

Far to often in these types of cases, people just want to complain about the problems, and do not want to invest the time and energy to understand their rights and to follow the due process that might change the situation. I am not saying that is the case here, just making a general observation.

It starts with simple things, like understanding your right to obtain and review the minutes of BoD meetings, your rights to attend BoD meetings, and your rights to inspect the records of the timeshare. These are the starting points for putting the association on notice that they cannot make decisions unilaterally. And you might be amazed at what you will find.

Just some general food for thought. I am interested in owner advocacy issues, and that is the only reason I bring it up.

 

[Carolinian]

If the developer claims it cannot pay the regular maintenance fee, how is it going to pay the special assessment? Or is it even being charged the special assessment?

 

[Bwolf]

Eric and Carolinian: Very good points. I don't think we differ much. The various entities are too numerous to be the triumvirate you mention, Eric, and none of them represent the interests of the timeshare owners. They all represent the interests of Ducharme and Curran, in various ways and forms. Loosely, and perhaps not quite accurately stated, Finley seems to be emphasizing the multiplicity of DEVELOPER entities. I am not only emphasizing that, but also the possibility of fraud. Why are there multiple entities owned or controlled by just two people when one or two would do? Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, and other criminals spring to mind.

Carolinian seems to have hit it on the head and I wish I'd been able to think it through and state it as clearly in my letter as he did in his post. The directors are not showing any fiduciary responsibility to the timeshare owners. Period. The responsible timeshare owners who have owned for years and pay their MFs and believed it when they were told "everything is rosy" are now being asked to pay a special assessment that some owners and the developer are apparently not paying.

So, what is your definition of fraud?

 

[ecwinch]

Eric and Carolinian: Very good points. I don't think we differ much. The various entities are too numerous to be the triumvirate you mention, Eric, and none of them represent the interests of the timeshare owners. They all represent the interests of Ducharme and Curran, in various ways and forms. Loosely, and perhaps not quite accurately stated, Finley seems to be emphasizing the multiplicity of DEVELOPER entities. I am not only emphasizing that, but also the possibility of fraud. Why are there multiple entities owned or controlled by just two people when one or two would do? Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, and other criminals spring to mind.

Carolinian seems to have hit it on the head and I wish I'd been able to think it through and state it as clearly in my letter as he did in his post. The directors are not showing any fiduciary responsibility to the timeshare owners. Period. The responsible timeshare owners who have owned for years and pay their MFs and believed it when they were told "everything is rosy" are now being asked to pay a special assessment that some owners and the developer are apparently not paying.

So, what is your definition of fraud?

Actually real estate development projects typically have multiple entities involved for a variety of reasons i.e. to limit liability, different equity structures, etc. You may draw a different conclusion.

And it is commonplace for the developer to own the managing entity, and to even have the managing entity be a separate corporation.

I do not think the AG is going to see the corporate structure as evidence of fraud or criminal intent.

You have a similar challenge regarding proving the BoD is violating their fiduciary responsibility. The actions of a non-profit BoD are protected by the "business judgement rule". Basically it says that the presumption exists that the actions of the BoD are motivated by their duty to protect the interests of the organization. It essentially puts the burden of proof on party that seeks to challenge a decision of the BoD.

That being said, the fact that only certain members are subject to special assessment is good indicator of a problem. But you would need more information before pressing that case. Their could be a really good reason why the assessment is not being paid by all members. That fact is the starting point of inquiry that needs to be made and I would have all the information before I went to the AG.

Keep in mind that the AG gets complaints from consumers all the time, and they have resource constraints like all government agencies. JMO - but I think you will get further by giving them a complete concise complaint that demonstrates your actions to resolve the problem.

 

[Finley]

Actually real estate development projects typically have multiple entities involved for a variety of reasons i.e. to limit liability, different equity structures, etc. You may draw a different conclusion.

And it is commonplace for the developer to own the managing entity, and to even have the managing entity be a separate corporation.

I do not think the AG is going to see the corporate structure as evidence of fraud or criminal intent.

You have a similar challenge regarding proving the BoD is violating their fiduciary responsibility. The actions of a non-profit BoD are protected the "business judgement rule". Basically it says that the presumption exists that the actions of the BoD are motivated by their duty to protect the interests of the organization. It essentially puts the burden of proof on party that seeks to challenge a decision of the BoD.

That being said, the fact that only certain members are subject to special assessment is good indicator of a problem. But you would need more information before pressing that case. Their could be a really good reason why the assessment is not being paid by all members. That fact is the starting point of inquiry that needs to be made and I would have all the information before I went to the AG.

Keep in mind that the AG gets complaints from consumers all the time, and they have resource constraints like all government agencies. JMO - but I think you will get further by giving them a complete concise complaint that demonstrates your actions to resolve the problem.

Eric - You are correct in point needing to be succinct and valid in letters to the AG's office. Unfortunatley, I came across much of the additional pieces of information after my the initial letter to the AG's office was sent. I still think there is value in pointing out the conflicts of interest as these companies were developed well after the resurrection of PB. The Board structure is protected by what is clearly stated stated in the Declaration. Although, I cannot believe the State would allow such in a condo document filing as it clearly is not in the interest of the owners. If there are indeed 6000 owners as stated, we need to figure out how to reach as many as possible and get a clear understanding of who was/is being hit. But how on earth do we do that? I've posted here and on the complaints board as well. Where else are folks discussing timeshares? Thoughts????

 

[ecwinch]

Eric - You are correct in point needing to be succinct and valid in letters to the AG's office. Unfortunatley, I came across much of the additional pieces of information after my the initial letter to the AG's office was sent. I still think there is value in pointing out the conflicts of interest as these companies were developed well after the resurrection of PB. The Board structure is protected by what is clearly stated stated in the Declaration. Although, I cannot believe the State would allow such in a condo document filing as it clearly is not in the interest of the owners. If there are indeed 6000 owners as stated, we need to figure out how to reach as many as possible and get a clear understanding of who was/is being hit. But how on earth do we do that? I've posted here and on the complaints board as well. Where else are folks discussing timeshares? Thoughts????

I think the special assessment is enough for the AG to potentially take action on. Dragging everything else in just obscures the main issue.

I think this is the best forum of discussing these type of issues. You benefit from a wider range of experiences when the discussion is on TUG.

Right now, I do not think you need a large number of owners, but it would not hurt to start laying the groundwork focused on building a list of concerned owners. If the resort has a forum, that might be a starting point. Next would be determining if the by-laws allow you to obtain a list of members.

Right now, I think one owner can do a lot in terms of just gathering information. Mr. Bourassa is providing you with information, and I would work that channel. I would ask pointed questions about the special assessment, who is paying it, how was the amount determined, who is not paying it, etc. One key fact would be what part of the assessment is attributable to non-payment by owners vs non-payment by the developer.

Then, when or if that information source stops flowing, I would exercise my right to the inspect the records of the corporation.

Based on what I determined from those inquiries, I would then probably be sending a letter to the BoD. But that would determine what I learned from my other inquiries.

 

[AJS]

I'm not a points owner. I own an odd year week and an even year week. Maybe they are just administratively challenged right now.

When did you purchase your weeks?

 

[AJS]

I think the special assessment is enough for the AG to potentially take action on. Dragging everything else in just obscures the main issue.

I think this is the best forum of discussing these type of issues. You benefit from a wider range of experiences when the discussion is on TUG.

Right now, I do not think you need a large number of owners, but it would not hurt to start laying the groundwork focused on building a list of concerned owners. If the resort has a forum, that might be a starting point. Next would be determining if the by-laws allow you to obtain a list of members.

Right now, I think one owner can do a lot in terms of just gathering information. Mr. Bourassa is providing you with information, and I would work that channel. I would ask pointed questions about the special assessment, who is paying it, how was the amount determined, who is not paying it, etc. One key fact would be what part of the assessment is attributable to non-payment by owners vs non-payment by the developer.

Then, when or if that information source stops flowing, I would exercise my right to the inspect the records of the corporation.

Based on what I determined from those inquiries, I would then probably be sending a letter to the BoD. But that would determine what I learned from my other inquiries.

I think the key questions that need answers are:
1) What is the total dollar amount expected to be raised by the special assessment?
2) How many interval owners are delinquent? What is the amount of delinquency for 2009, for 2008 and previous years? When will foreclosure action begin so that this money can be recovered?
3) Are all interval owners, both weeks and points, being assessed the special assessment? Are any interval owners excepted from the assessment and what is that number of owners?
4) How much is the Developer delinquent in 2009 maintenance fees on how many intervals? How much for 2008 and previous years?
5) Is the Developer being assessed the same amounts on each interval owned for this special assessment? How many intervals? When is the Developer paying the special assessment?
6) What section in what document permits the Board of Advisors to implement special assessments? What document permits the Board of Advisors to assess some owners and not others.
7) With the Developer not paying annual maintenance fees, and possibly not paying the special assessment, what actions are being taken by the Board of Advisors to protect owners from default by the Developer on either or both the unpaid maintenance fee amount or the unpaid special assessment.
8) Where and when is the mext Board of Advisors meeting?

Perhaps anyone in contact with PB personnel could ask these question and fill in the answers as we find out. I think answers to these questions might give us the ammunition we need with the AG of NH.

I also think we should get a good representation of owners to attend the next Board of Advisors meeting.

 

[dreamWeaver]

I have been going through the "Public Offering" document and "By Laws of Pollard Brook", which I received in 1998.

Some statements, which appear as if they are not being followed (maybe they have been modified by the board). I will follow each with it's related question. Finley are you willing to include these with your own questions. You seem to have someone who is answering your questions, where I have not begun a conversation with anyone at Pollard Brook yet. I wanted to get my facts straight first.

1.
Public Offering - (d) Purchasers of timershare intervals will pay to the association to e collected by the manager an annual maintenance fee as provided by the projected budget. Except in extraoridinary circumstances, the annual maintenance feel shall be the only charge the purchaser must pay in addition to the purchase price and closing costs associated there with.
Question:
What were the exraordinary circumstances?

2.
By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part II Board of Directors
(vii) May purchase such equipment and other personal property as is necessary to properly accomplish the purposes of the Association, except that board should have no power to expend in excess of $4,000 in any one (1) year for the acquisition of personal property or for capital improvements w/o majority vote of members present and voting at a duly held meeting of the members association.
Questions:
How much are they spending in one year? Where are the meeting minutes from the approval of this?
Can we see the operating budget for this year and the last two?
Note: The last operating budget I received was the year I purchased my unit.

3.
By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part IV Meetings
Section 1
(c) The president, with in (30) days of said meeting shall cause a copy of the minutes there of, including the budget adopted thereof to be mailed to each member.
I received the special assesement in mail, but have never received a copy in the mail of the operating budget.
Questions:
Can we receive (in mail) the future annual meeting minutes and operating budgets for each year going forward?
Note: The annual meeting according to the 1998 By Laws is held:
"... on the Saturday in November immediately preceding Thanksgiving Day at 1PM in the Conference Center in the Village af Loon Mountain in Lincoln, NH, or at such other time, which shall not be more then twenty (20) days before or after said date, or at such other place as the board shall direct. ..."

4.
By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part VI Accounting -
5. Special Assessments
(a) Each owner is liable for those expenses directly related to his period of occupancy of a condominium unit assigned to him, which shall be billed to him as a special assessment.
(b) Expenses billable as special assessments include, but are not limited to,, the cost of repairing damamge done to" ... "during a use period other then ordinary wear and tear.

Comment: The items our $419. bill are supposed to cover do not seem to fit this discription, with the exception of the phrase "are not limited to".
Question: Based on the definition of Special Assessment within the "By Laws" is it possible that the bill has been miss labeled?

5.
By Laws of Pollard Brook - Part VI Accounting -
4. Maintenace Fees
(a) Each member including the partner is w/ respect to any unit owned by it, whether or not it is completed and ready for use or occupancy, shall be assessed prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.

If the answer to question 4 is yes, then -
This bill would seem to be have missed the due date for the maintenance fee.
Will this be addressed at the next annual meeting?
Where and exactly when will the next annual meeting be held?
Why are some units exempt from paying as seems to be the case?
When all units are billed will our share of the burden be lowered?

Regards

 

[Bwolf]

Let's see. We've questioned the validity of the special assessment. We've pointed out that it is hard to know which entity runs Pollard Brook and which entity is short on money. We've suggested the money might be misused by being diverted to an entity controlled by Ducharme and Curran. We've pointed out that the board that approved this letter is controlled by management, three votes to two. We've pointed out that we've never had a vote in anything, not even the election of the two "owners representatives" on the board. We've pointed out that some owners seem to be exempt, which is not proper.

That is the essence of my letter, and I believe of Finley's letter. It all starts with the assessment, and flows from there.

I believe Finley is still questioning Bourassa since he will answer. Answers at the website stopped after my initial question. BTW, my question never appeared, only the answer, such as it was.

We can send a letter to the Board, but it is a foregone conclusion how it will answer. 3 votes to 2, and the 2 are hand-picked patsies. Probably a 5-0 vote in favor of the assessment.

However, the Consumer Fraud Agency may ask if we've sent such a letter, so doing so and having the letter and answer ready to show consumer fraud makes sense.

Getting the word out to other owners involves asking Pollard Brook for the mailing list. There are other threads and also a discussion in back issues of Timeshare Today about the difficulty of getting one. Here, it is in the interests of those who levied the special assessment not to give it to those of us who are questioning the assessment. Nonetheless, perhaps we should ask for the mailing list.

 

[Carolinian]

You need to read the laws of the state where the timeshare is located to learn your rights as an owner. Every state I am aware of has provisions in its non-profit corporation law, under which HOA's are organized, that establish a right of members to 1) inspect and copy the list of members, and 2) examine and copy many corporate records, including finanical records.

You need to research this for your state, and write a demand letter to the corporate officers demanding to inspect and copy these records. In your letter describe all categories of records just as they are set out in the statute. If management starts stonewalling, you will know there is something there they do not want you to see. With a list of members, you can start making contacts to set up a Concerned Owners group to try to bring about reform.

Eric - You are correct in point needing to be succinct and valid in letters to the AG's office. Unfortunatley, I came across much of the additional pieces of information after my the initial letter to the AG's office was sent. I still think there is value in pointing out the conflicts of interest as these companies were developed well after the resurrection of PB. The Board structure is protected by what is clearly stated stated in the Declaration. Although, I cannot believe the State would allow such in a condo document filing as it clearly is not in the interest of the owners. If there are indeed 6000 owners as stated, we need to figure out how to reach as many as possible and get a clear understanding of who was/is being hit. But how on earth do we do that? I've posted here and on the complaints board as well. Where else are folks discussing timeshares? Thoughts????