Westin Coalition E-mail about VGV lawsuit

[ekinggill]

Got this today from Gene Jaspan. Would like the board's thoughts.

Good afternoon all,

I want to start out by apologizing to members of the Westin Coalition who may have already received the information in this letter and are reading this for the 2nd and perhaps 3rd time. However, the information is so important, in my opinion, that I feel all owners should be apprised of what's going on. Attached is a file containing the legal complaint of one of the vendors involved in the refurbishment of our villas at VGV. Basically, a company called Structural Waterproofing Company wasn't paid for a large part of the work that they did at VGV. As a result of this, they are suing the VGV Homeowners Association, Starwood Vacation Club, and each and every member of the Board of Directors (including the owner board members, Bob Werbel and Phil Schrag). One thing that I have learned throughout the process of trying to take control of the fees at Starwood is to that all Board Members (even those that are Starwood employees) have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the homeowners. If not, they can be sued as individuals or together as a group. The attached lawsuit is a perfect example of this, but the plaintiff is an outside party.

Here is the biggest implication of this lawsuit. Right now there is a stay on all closings of units at VGV. Nobody can buy or sell units as the plaintiff in this case has a contractor's lien on all of VGV. Read paragraph 49 on page 10 of the attached complaint. I know for a fact that about 5 closings that were supposed to take place this week have been pushed off for a minimum of 15 days and won't take place unless there is some type of settlement or agreement reached. If there is no settlement, a full-fledged lawsuit will take place against all the parties mentioned. If the plaintiff wins, the Board members, the VGV HOA and Starwood Vacation club could be liable for $750,000 plus legal fees. Guess who's going to pay for this? The owners of VGV in the way of an assessment. Since all the named defendants in this lawsuit have retained legal counsel, they are forbidden from discussing this matter.

The attached lawsuit is fact. I am not writing this to scare anyone. Most of you know that I started a coalition in 2009 to take on Starwood for the outrageous fees that they are imposing on us. We filed a lawsuit of our own against Starwood Vacation Club back in the fall basically insisting that we as owners get majority control of the Board, as we currently own close to 90% of the units. Many of you for your own reasons chose not to participate. You should all be aware that Starwood filed a Motion To Dismiss and our attorney, Nancy D'Anna fought it and Starwood's motion was denied. Starwood recently approached Nancy D'Anna, our attorney, about trying to settle. They obviously don't want a full blown lawsuit, especially with this other one taking place.

Our main goal in settling would be to revise the outdated by-laws so that us owners would have control of the Board. Based on the current by-laws, Starwood has control until the very last unit is sold. That will never happen, because there is a Week 53 (this occurs every 6 years, because your typical year consists of 52 weeks plus 1 day; 2 days for leap year). which Starwood does not sell nor market. For this reason we would never have control even if Starwood could sell the units for all 52 weeks. If we had control of the Board, we would be able to control costs. When refurbishments were necessary, we would run VGV like any normal business and take competitive bids from vendors. Starwood would still manage the property, but they would have to answer to us, not the other way around. Since they would be working for us, they would be subject to competition from other management companies, so we might be able to negotiate a lower fee than the flat 10% of total maintenance fees (including reserves) that they currently charge. Finally we would ask that the sales office continue to market our vacant units. As many of you know first hand, they are actively encouraging owners of VGV to give up their units for an "upgrade" to Bay Vista. In my opinion, those units are inferior to those at VGV. They are converted hotel rooms on the hill. There is no place to park a rental vehicle nearby nor are there any private villa pools. They currently tell prospective buyers that those units are newer and are worth more money than ours. They also sell them on the fact that maintenance fees are significantly less. While that may be the case now, when the selling period ends and Starwood stops their subsidy, those owners are in for a rude awakening.

One final thing that we would ask for in a settlement is that this contractor in the attached lawsuit be paid, so that the lien be taken off of our property. Our coaltion paid approximately $25,000 in legal fees and have basically exhausted our retainer at this point. Since most of you do not want to be hit with another assessment, I want to ask all of you to consider a one time contribution of $100.00 to help pay for the legal counsel to get a settlement in our favor. It's a very small price to pay to take back control of VGV and make it affordable once again. If you are in fact interested in helping out, write a check in the amount of $100.00 payable to:

Nancy D'Anna, ESQ
P.O. Box 8330
St. John, VI 00831

In the memo line, put "VGV Escrow fund" This is for a very good cause. If you're not interested, that is fine. I will not be sending out any more e-mails except to coalition members. However, if you have any questions, feel free to respond and I will get back to you ASAP. You can also reach me at (201) 741-1814. I live in the NY area, so I'm on the Eastern Time Zone.

Cordially,
Gene Jaspan

 

[LisaRex]

I have no dog in this fight, but it's a very convoluted letter. It seems to me that there are 2 separate issues here. Issue 1 is that a vendor is suing VGV for payment for work rendered. Issue 2 involves what appears to be an ongoing fight between the "Westin coalition" and SVO to wrest control of the HOA.

Issue #1 - Structural Waterproofing Company v. VGV HOA/SVO, et al

If there is no settlement, a full-fledged lawsuit will take place against all the parties mentioned. If the plaintiff wins, the Board members, the VGV HOA and Starwood Vacation club could be liable for $750,000 plus legal fees. Guess who's going to pay for this? The owners of VGV in the way of an assessment. Since all the named defendants in this lawsuit have retained legal counsel, they are forbidden from discussing this matter.

Here is the biggest implication of this lawsuit. Right now there is a stay on all closings of units at VGV. Nobody can buy or sell units as the plaintiff in this case has a contractor's lien on all of VGV.

Sorry, but this DOES sound like total scare tactics to me. IF the plaintiff was contracted to do a task and completed said task in a satisfactory manner, he should have been paid ALREADY. Assuming the contract was for $750,000, the VGV owners already assumed that liability when their HOA reps signed the contract. And they could have avoided paying ANY legal fees ($25,000 and counting, just from the HOA) had they not forced the vendor to sue for the money he was rightfully entitled to.

If they didn't pay the vendor for a legitimate reason (e.g. an inspection or rain revealed that the units were not waterproofed), then a lawsuit was unavoidable, so the two parties could hash out a settlement. Sadly, legal fees are a cost of doing business. If the HoA didn't build enough money in the budget to cover such things, then they need to increase the amount in next year's MF.

FYI, the fact that the vendor sued the HOA, SVO, and each Board member individually is not unusual. My husband sits on the Board of his family company, and the company pays for a $1million umbrella policy for us in case he is personally named in a lawsuit. The VGV board should do the same for its HOA members.

Issue #2 "Westin coalition" vs. SVO:

1) It sounds like some VGV owners did not want to try and go independent. Getting this letter, using scare tactics and unrelated issues, to beg for money, is only going to irritate them more. Issue #1 was either completely avoidable (had they paid the contractor on time) or inevitable (contractor didn't do the work he was contracted to do). Figuring out such things is what an HOA does.

2) If the WC truly wants an independent HOA, then it shouldn't be surprising that SVO will actively market BV at the expense of VGV. OF COURSE they will. It's not about how nice the units are, it's because they are in business to make money. And they'll get more money from the BV phase than the VGV phase. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if SVO didn't just break off from VGV, should the WC succeed in creating a truly independent HOA.

3) BTW, I've stayed in BV units and they are not converted hotel rooms. They were clearly built to be timeshares, and are very nice, albeit with no nearby parking. If the writer doesn't know what she's talking about, she should not speak about it.

4) One of the main reasons that I'd be reticent to have the WKORV HOA go completely independent of SVO is illustrated here. One unhappy vendor can wreak havoc on the best planned budget. We pay dearly for our MFs, but it's nice to know that we have a large, profitable company behind us. It has paid staff attorneys and deep pockets to withstand all these lawsuits. A tightly run, independent HOA does not. What good is it to save $500 in MFs by breaking off from SVO, only to have the HOA ask me for $100 every other month?

 

[jarta]

If the work was shoddy work, the WSJ HOA should not pay for it. It should have the vendor file the suit to foreclose the mechanic's lien. The WSJ HOA will defend (through it's insurance company) and the vendor will have to prove that the work is not shoddy and the bill is due.

If the work was not shoddy work, the vendor should have been paid.

Every bill that comes in should not be put to a vote of the owners for payment. That's why HOA boards exist. They, along with their professional management companies, make a decision about which bills to dispute and which to pay. Salty

 

[DavidnRobin]

Got this today from Gene Jaspan. Would like the board's thoughts.

ekinggill - wasn't sure if by the "board's thoughts" that you meant the TUG BBS or the BOD for WSJ VGV?

my thought is... :zzz:
(big surprise...)

Not intended to be a scare tactic? what is the intent? To ramble on with a strange dichotomy of convoluted logic trying to relate one issue to the other - and trying to claim it is not a scare tactic (and to send money for something that is not in our best interest? IMO)

I thought Gene (GeneNWendy) no longer owned VGV? If so, I am unclear of his motivation in all of this? revenge?

LisaR - the BV section was built where the former hotel buildings stood, however, you are correct that they were not just simply converted from hotel rooms to timeshares.

Like you, I am glad WSJ has SVO backing (as well as WKORV/N, WPORV and WKV) - I would not have bought into theses VOIs without the Starwood and Westin branding and support. I have a feeling many VGV owners feel this way, but not vocal about it (just want a relaxing and comfortable vacation w/o hassle). Am I happy about everything - including vendor selection, the remodel [really needed - even at a premium], or transparency [vastly improved]?
Of course not, but I do not delude myself that we would be better off with an SVO-independent board - especially with the disposition of a few WC members 'in charge'. If that were to happen - I would get out - even if I had to walk away. IMO - they are doing a majority of VGV owners a disservice and not in our best long-term interests.

 

[jarta]

David, ... Maybe GeneNWendy is one of the people whose closing is allegedly held up. lol! Salty

 

[Bubbasgonefishin]

My closing is held up because of the lein.

 

[timeos2]

There appear to be two major misconceptions in this thread. First, if the ownership is deeded and not a RTU or a trust type membership then wha a contractor can sue for is the value of the HOA property NOT the individual ownerships as they are not owned by the HOA but each deeded owner. So no deed transfers should be impacted or held up as there is no right to place a lien on those assets. Where is the quality legal advice in this issue?

The second error is the claim that the WSJ and SVO "backing" somehow gives these owners an edge or special support from legal advisers. If there are any legal services required then they may in fact come from those groups but this is some benevolent move. You the owners/HOA will pay every penny of the cost -including defense of those groups as management PLUS the corporate overhead! So you are paying 10-15% or more above the legal expense to that mothership. How is that better than simply getting quality legal service and paying for it without handing a hefty additional amount to WSJ SVO?

Both sides appear to be deluded and looking for justification of their views rather than doing whats best for the Association(s) involved. There should be owner control and reasonably priced legal services - neither appears to be happening here. No surprise when a developer holds the reins and controls the fees.

 

[Bubbasgonefishin]

All I know or care about now is my transfer is being held up due to a lien filed by a contractor that did work on the property.

 

[timeos2]

All I know or care about now is my transfer is being held up due to a lien filed by a contractor that did work on the property.

But there should be no hold up as YOU the owner have no lien - and they have no right to hold anything based on a dispute/lien with the Association. Again YOU own the property - the Association does not and any lien on them does not include your deeded ownership. hWhere is this high priced legal team that supposedly is acting in the owners interest? It shows the whole idea of a "protection" via a developer operation is a false belief. Time for you to get your representatives (HOA) on the horn and tell them to stop messing with your transfer and act as they are supposed to.

 

[jarta]

timeos, ... Bubba may be the purchaser and rely on what the seller (or seller's closer) is telling him:

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159885

Bubba doesn't say when any contract to purchase was agreed to. If Bubba is the buyer, it might be something else (normal delay) holding up the closing.

There seem to be no goofy wrinkles in the VI mechanics lien procedure. Notice must go to the owner within 90 days of the last furnishing of materials and labor. Another 90 days and the lien may be filed against the property of the owner. The HOA is not the owner of anything but the outlots. Seems like a motion to dismiss should be filed if the individual owners were not noticed or informed of the filing by the vendor.

http://www.zlien.com/lien-law/us-virgin-islands/private-projects/

I don't get it either. Salty

 

[Fredm]

But there should be no hold up as YOU the owner have no lien - and they have no right to hold anything based on a dispute/lien with the Association. Again YOU own the property - the Association does not and any lien on them does not include your deeded ownership. hWhere is this high priced legal team that supposedly is acting in the owners interest? It shows the whole idea of a "protection" via a developer operation is a false belief. Time for you to get your representatives (HOA) on the horn and tell them to stop messing with your transfer and act as they are supposed to.

John, this appears to be mechanics lien. If this is so, the lien IS against the property. The disagreement is with the HOA, as they let the contract. But the contractor's recourse is against the property itself. Besides, the HOA is merely the governing representatives of the collective ownership.

Absent an agreement to remove the lien, it would normally be satisfied by proceeds from the sale of the property.
Without knowing the details, I assume the sale of intervals would not be allowed to proceed, as the money would go to the contractor. The interval owner would get nothing. I also assume it would not be enough to satisfy the amount of the lien in any case.

The dispute must, therefore, be legally (or otherwise) resolved for the lien to be lifted. As a practical matter, the transfer of intervals will be dead in water until then.

Such are the pitfalls of shared ownership. A blanket lien affects everyone.

Other options may be available to the HOA. I am not a lawyer, and don't claim any special knowledge of USVI real estate law. That is what the operations manager should be sorting out, and then communicating to the owners.

 

[timeos2]

One of the problems faced by Associations that need money for repairs, improvements, etc is the inability to get loans as they own very little in assets. They operate / manage property for the owners but have only future fees as income - they own nothing. The only parts that they can even possibly offer as assets are the shared, common areas. Liens on those have no affect on the individual deeds. Only if the company went through the proper process of filing & notification of each owner would they have a possibility of encumbering the individual deeds. Even that is unlikely but it certainly didn't occur in this case. If it's management saying there is a valid lien they are lying. If it's the transfer agent they are incorrect. If it's the recording agency then the legal representatives for the Association should be setting them straight. In no case should an owner feel any effect from this and they are not getting what they are paying fees for.

 

[YYJMSP]

There seem to be no goofy wrinkles in the VI mechanics lien procedure. Notice must go to the owner within 90 days of the last furnishing of materials and labor. Another 90 days and the lien may be filed against the property of the owner. The HOA is not the owner of anything but the outlots. Seems like a motion to dismiss should be filed if the individual owners were not noticed or informed of the filing by the vendor.

Doesn't the HOA essentially bind all of the owners when they enter in to these contracts on behalf of the property?

 

[jarta]

Doesn't the HOA essentially bind all of the owners when they enter in to these contracts on behalf of the property?

As timeos has repeatedly said already: The mechanic has to notify each owner of the lien and take steps against the owners directly if there was work done on a specific unit.

If the work was done on any of the outlots (the property owned by the HOA) that property (and not the individual units) can be liened. Big whoop!

Moreover, most HOA boards require that all mechanics execute a written waiver of mechanics lien before doing any work at all. I can't believe this was not done for work at WSJ. It should be standard practice for a company like Starwood to get waivers of mechanics lien before anyone does anything at any SVO resort.

This, to me, sounds like a phony baloney excuse for seller's remorse (or, even worse, a canard to cause trouble for the WSJ board).

If I was the timeshare purchaser, I would have asked that title insurance be taken out on my purchase. I have it for all the units I own. If there was an application for title insurance, there would be a title report with an exception noted if there was any supposed encumbrance. When you don't take steps to protect your money, sometimes you lay yourself open to all sorts of trickery.

Without a licensed and bonded title company being involved, Bubba has no way of seeing anything that says there is a valid encumbrance on the property. He must rely on what he is told by a maybe reluctant seller and the seller's closer.

If a mechanics lien is filed in error or if the proper steps were not taken to perfect the lien, a request should be made of the mechanic to remove the lien. If the mechanic refuses to do so and the lien is found to be bad, the law provides a remedy - an action for slander of title against the person or entity filing the lien.

This whole lien "problem" seems trumped up to me. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Salty

 

[yogiwine]

If the work was shoddy work, the WSJ HOA should not pay for it. It should have the vendor file the suit to foreclose the mechanic's lien. The WSJ HOA will defend (through it's insurance company) and the vendor will have to prove that the work is not shoddy and the bill is due.

If the work was not shoddy work, the vendor should have been paid.

Every bill that comes in should not be put to a vote of the owners for payment. That's why HOA boards exist. They, along with their professional management companies, make a decision about which bills to dispute and which to pay. Salty

Hey Salty:
FYI, the BV was originally a hotel, that's how I became an owner in the VGV. You talk about scare tactics, and actually most of your verbage tends to lend suspicion that perhaps you work for the starwoodys. Could that be true? Anyhow, much of what you say is suspect and at the very outset, contentious. Why do you have such an issue with owners are trying to protect and full benefit from what they purchased. U R an Owner R U not?
Yogi

 

[jarta]

Hey Salty:
FYI, the BV was originally a hotel, that's how I became an owner in the VGV. You talk about scare tactics, and actually most of your verbage tends to lend suspicion that perhaps you work for the starwoodys. Could that be true? Anyhow, much of what you say is suspect and at the very outset, contentious. Why do you have such an issue with owners are trying to protect and full benefit from what they purchased. U R an Owner R U not?
Yogi

Not an owner. Been to WSJ a few times. Generally, I like it there.

If these owners you hang with were concerned about preserving value at their resort there would not have been as many false starts as there were. Delay only caused greater decay and higher expenses when work began. Accept the fact that your delaying tactics merely ended up costing yourselves (and every other owner) more money.

I don't work for the starwoodys (never have), but you are free to look under your bed before retiring to see if I'm lurking there.

BTW, within a month of Schrag and Werbel being elected to the VG board, I was getting emails saying they just would not follow DeClemente's marching orders. The inability to recognize that elected HOA board members have a fiduciary duty to see that the resort is well run, and are not just there to raise hell for some some group of owners and make the resort unmanageable, turns me off. Salty

 

[yogiwine]

Not an owner. Been to WSJ a few times. Generally, I like it there.

If these owners you hang with were concerned about preserving value at their resort there would not have been as many false starts as there were. Delay only caused greater decay and higher expenses when work began. Accept the fact that your delaying tactics merely ended up costing yourselves (and every other owner) more money.

I don't work for the starwoodys (never have), but you are free to look under your bed before retiring to see if I'm lurking there.

BTW, within a month of Schrag and Werbel being elected to the VG board, I was getting emails saying they just would not follow DeClemente's marching orders. The inability to recognize that elected HOA board members have a fiduciary duty to see that the resort is well run, and are not just there to raise hell for some some group of owners and make the resort unmanageable, turns me off. Salty

You have no vested interest other than visiting the resort a few times? You know none of the players personally yet you try to sound as if you are quite knowledgeable about being an owner. R U an attorney?

As I said earlier, this isn't my first rodeo with owning a condominium. I have served on several HOAs and understand their dealings. In this case, the lien is made against the property as a whole and the managment company, whom we the owners trust to deal in good faith, with whom the mechanics went into contract with. Therefore, with this lien, any and all sales or transfers are on hold until the lien is settled through the entities contracted. I am one of those on hold and have been in discussion with my attorney since we were given legal notice no transactions will take place until proper title search can be achieved, which can not be performed until such lien is settled.

Perhaps you and John should quit trying to be Monday Morning Lawyers and go back to your day jobs. Hey, here's an idea, buy a place of your own then talk to the rest of us about it!
Y

 

[yogiwine]

P. S.

You have no vested interest other than visiting the resort a few times? You know none of the players personally yet you try to sound as if you are quite knowledgeable about being an owner. R U an attorney?

As I said earlier, this isn't my first rodeo with owning a condominium. I have served on several HOAs and understand their dealings. In this case, the lien is made against the property as a whole and the managment company, whom we the owners trust to deal in good faith, with whom the mechanics went into contract with. Therefore, with this lien, any and all sales or transfers are on hold until the lien is settled through the entities contracted. I am one of those on hold and have been in discussion with my attorney since we were given legal notice no transactions will take place until proper title search can be achieved, which can not be performed until such lien is settled.

Perhaps you and John should quit trying to be Monday Morning Lawyers and go back to your day jobs. Hey, here's an idea, buy a place of your own then talk to the rest of us about it!
Y

P.S. ". . . lurking under your bed."?? What kind of freak are U?

 

[timeos2]

You have no vested interest other than visiting the resort a few times? You know none of the players personally yet you try to sound as if you are quite knowledgeable about being an owner. R U an attorney?

As I said earlier, this isn't my first rodeo with owning a condominium. I have served on several HOAs and understand their dealings. In this case, the lien is made against the property as a whole and the managment company, whom we the owners trust to deal in good faith, with whom the mechanics went into contract with. Therefore, with this lien, any and all sales or transfers are on hold until the lien is settled through the entities contracted. I am one of those on hold and have been in discussion with my attorney since we were given legal notice no transactions will take place until proper title search can be achieved, which can not be performed until such lien is settled.

Perhaps you and John should quit trying to be Monday Morning Lawyers and go back to your day jobs. Hey, here's an idea, buy a place of your own then talk to the rest of us about it!
Y

Who is posting incorrect "facts"? I have been on two HOA Boards for over 15 years. I've been through Developer / resort bankruptcies. We ousted a Developer management and took part in a Federal Court lawsuit. I have dealt with about 6 law firms that specialized in timeshare law. I have reviewed the hundreds of pages of documents no one ever reads when they buy (but they should!).

Bottom line - as stated before - no lien can be filed on the individual owners without their knowledge. If you weren't notified in the exact way described in the legal notice process (and clearly no owner was) then at worst the HOA has a lien filed against them but that does NOT allow the lien to apply to individually owned property. Period.

Again if they are claiming a lien they are either completely misinformed (and as a large management company that shouldn't be) or flat out lying as an excuse for their holding up a proper deed transfer. And they aren't giving the owners the services they are paying plenty for. It is really just that clear and simple. Your take is wrong & you are buying a false story from your management as gospel. Our Boards did that in the early days. I wouldn't recommend it as they look out for no one but themselves despite supposedly acting for and being paid by the owners. You are being duped.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Who is posting incorrect "facts"? I have been on two HOA Boards for over 15 years. I've been through Developer / resort bankruptcies. We ousted a Developer management and took part in a Federal Court lawsuit. I have dealt with about 6 law firms that specialized in timeshare law. I have reviewed the hundreds of pages of documents no one ever reads when they buy (but they should!).

Bottom line - as stated before - no lien can be filed on the individual owners without their knowledge. If you weren't notified in the exact way described in the legal notice process (and clearly no owner was) then at worst the HOA has a lien filed against them but that does NOT allow the lien to apply to individually owned property. Period.

Again if they are claiming a lien they are either completely misinformed (and as a large management company that shouldn't be) or flat out lying as an excuse for their holding up a proper deed transfer. And they aren't giving the owners the services they are paying plenty for. It is really just that clear and simple. Your take is wrong & you are buying a false story from your management as gospel. Our Boards did that in the early days. I wouldn't recommend it as they look out for no one but themselves despite supposedly acting for and being paid by the owners. You are being duped.

Hey - let's not confuse the issue with facts...

yogi - (see also: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1320038#post1320038) - as well as the WSJ posts that go back years for historic perspective versus the revisionist history being sold to you apparently) - you are taking advice and getting 'facts' from a person who is no longer an owner, but clearly seems to be a pawn for TomD and his agenda who IMO has been twisting facts for his own interests and not the interest of a vast majority of Owners. I suggest you do a search on TomD and check-up on his 'integrity' as an attorney and law practice. I would also suggest that you go back and follow the history WSJ VGV as it pertains to the refurbish and how Bob and Phil were first elected to the VGV BOD.

I do not know Bob, but knew Phil well before his election to the BOD (which he jokingly blames me for) - and I can assure you he is a man of integrity and is no SVO pawn (but does need to work within the SVO system - no matter how messed up it is). As Bob and Phil were - I was also involved with the original group until I realized what their true purpose was - and that it was not in my best interests and likely not other Owners. TomD never wanted any kind of refurbish (he told me this directly) - he was happy with the status quo in regards to how shabby the villas and resort had become. (again - the refurbish history is documented in the WSJ thread).

I also know jarta is not a SVO employee - and while I have had documented issues with his approach and style - I would trust him way before TomD and Gene based on my personal interactions - and seeing first hand their intent - I have written about this. Also, very sorry I gave up 100s of owners names to Gene to be part of their email list that they claim as members of their 6% 'coalition'.

I am not an attorney, nor do I pretend to know the first thing about contract law (I am a Scientist in oncology biopharm drug development) - so I will leave to others the lien issue brought against VGV. But I know enough to realize when I am being played. I am also not a SVO fan, but would rather have an SVO controlled board than one that had TomD as a member as they at least have an interest to keep the resort maintained properly. The so-called 'coalition' is going to cost VGV owners in the long run if they had their way (IMO) - go ahead keep placing the blame in the wrong place and keep deluding yourself by sending them more money to sue ourselves - you shall reap what you sow... (plant ice - harvest wind...)