Please, please, please...write the Attorney General and voice your complaint about what is happening at Sandcastle.
It has worked in other states, but you and I, and as many of us as possible have to act here too!
In Missouri Festiva was fined $325,000. North Carolina is starting an investigation. Complaints have been registered in other states: Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, Wisconsin, Maine.
Go here to view an ABC News clip about this:
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/abc11_investigates&id=6789555
You can read the transcript there too. You will see some very familiar items there.
Then write your online complaint here:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagoterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Consumer+Protection&L2=Complaints+%26+Mediation+Services&sid=Cago&b=terminalcontent&f=consumer_consumer_complaint&csid=Cago
Print out the online complaint and write your own story, with any specifics you can include and send it snail mail to the Attorney General.
I spoke today with:
Alexander Terry
Legislative Aide
Office of Senator Robert A. O'Leary
Cape & Islands District
P: 617-722-1570
F: 617-722-1271
He advised us to fill out the online Consumer complaint form linked above, and to also write using regular mail, to the address at the top of the form. Be specific, tell your story, do not just generalize your unhappiness.
Numbers (quantity of complaints) matter and so does the quality of the complaint.
Please do view the ABC video clip and read the article. You will see things like this: "Festiva says it no longer uses outsourced companies for sales and marketing."
This article is dated May 1,09! So are they lying to the news reporter? or is Outfield part of Festiva? Isn't the group selling Festiva points and taking Sandcastle deeds from owners called Outfield? Haven't we been told the companies are legally separate?
We need help unraveling this web. Write the AG today!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Festiva Problems in Missouri, North Carolina
Consider first that the following comes from a website. We all know that it can be hard to trust what we read on the web. So, don't take it as gospel.
The "ex-employee" posting might not really have been an employee.
However, it sure looks familiar, right down to the appearance of the owner being happy to answer questions while at the same time not answering questions already asked and not responding to obvious issues already raised.
In my opinion, a public forum is a good place for company owners/managers to answer people's concerns. How better to reach as many as possible? On the other hand, insisting to only respond individually leaves the questioner open to trained tactics designed to achieve pre-determined results. Outfield does the same when they insist on meeting the owner in their home and not some public space.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comes from the site called Rip-off Report. The page is here:http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/356/RipOff0356189.htm#421685
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Festiva Resorts Misleads Consumers Asheville North Carolina
Basically, they are trying to charge us $3000 to buy what we already own. The sales rep we dealt with made several claims which we found out were false. We have had issues dealing with Festiva to make reservations and get our maintenance fees paid. I have heard nothing good about this company and recently read an account where the Attorney General in Missouri took Festiva to court and Festiva was found guilty of misleading consumers. Numerous complaints have been filed with the Attorney General in North Carolina (where Festiva's home offices are located) regarding the fraudulent activities of Festiva. This company cannot be trusted.
There is a group on Yahoo made up of Equivest/Peppertree owners and if you are an owner of an Equivest/Peppertree timeshare and wish to exchange ideas, share experiences, or get information then join us at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Equivest-PeppertreeOwners/. We hope to join together to file a complaint against Festiva.
---------------------------
U.S.A.
--------------------------
U.S.A.
The "ex-employee" posting might not really have been an employee.
However, it sure looks familiar, right down to the appearance of the owner being happy to answer questions while at the same time not answering questions already asked and not responding to obvious issues already raised.
In my opinion, a public forum is a good place for company owners/managers to answer people's concerns. How better to reach as many as possible? On the other hand, insisting to only respond individually leaves the questioner open to trained tactics designed to achieve pre-determined results. Outfield does the same when they insist on meeting the owner in their home and not some public space.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comes from the site called Rip-off Report. The page is here:http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/356/RipOff0356189.htm#421685
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Festiva Resorts Misleads Consumers Asheville North Carolina
Festiva Resorts, Festiva Resorts Misleads Consumers Asheville North Carolina
If you are considering buying a timeshare do NOT buy from Festiva Resorts. My husband and I own a timeshare that we bought from Equivest in 2000. In 2007, Festiva purchased Equivest and has since been trying to convert all the Equivest owners over to Festiva. They have been using misleading information and using scare tactics to get over $3000 from each Equivest owner to convert to Festiva.Basically, they are trying to charge us $3000 to buy what we already own. The sales rep we dealt with made several claims which we found out were false. We have had issues dealing with Festiva to make reservations and get our maintenance fees paid. I have heard nothing good about this company and recently read an account where the Attorney General in Missouri took Festiva to court and Festiva was found guilty of misleading consumers. Numerous complaints have been filed with the Attorney General in North Carolina (where Festiva's home offices are located) regarding the fraudulent activities of Festiva. This company cannot be trusted.
There is a group on Yahoo made up of Equivest/Peppertree owners and if you are an owner of an Equivest/Peppertree timeshare and wish to exchange ideas, share experiences, or get information then join us at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Equivest-PeppertreeOwners/. We hope to join together to file a complaint against Festiva.
---------------------------
Submitted: 8/10/2008 5:21:29 PM
Modified: 8/10/2008 9:19:19 PMTimeshare Insider
Mt. Pleasant, South CarolinaU.S.A.
Buyer Beware of Festiva/Timeshares
If you are considering buying TIMESHARE do NOT purchase with Festiva Resorts. As a former employee I know that they hire and retain sales people who have criminal records. Many of them have drug and alcohol problems. They LIE, PRESSURE YOU, and MANIPULATE. When they approach the consumer they tell you it is a vacation club....it is simply TIMESHARE using a points system.
Points do not work well. They are difficult to use, lose value each and every year, and will not put you in a great vacation destination in prime season.
When going to a Festiva property they take you to the 'model' which is always so much nicer than the units available when you return to vacation. YOU HAVE 5 DAYS to CANCEL if you have purchased a timeshare. USE IT and send them notice by certified mail. Contact your credit card company and reverse the charge.
Submitted: 5/14/2009 8:37:05 AM
Modified: 5/14/2009 10:17:14 AMFestiva Rep
Asheville, North CarolinaU.S.A.
Response from CEO of Festiva Resorts
My name is Don Clayton and I am the CEO of Festiva Resorts.
Although I am sure there are areas where our company can do a better job I am very proud of what we are doing and I am willing to assist in any way to answer your questions and concerns.
If you are truly interested in seeking solutions to any concerns you may have please contact me I will be glad to speak with you about your concerns and lets see if we can work together to resolve any of them. I can be reached at 828.254.3378.
Thank you.
Don Clayton
Thursday, July 16, 2009
TimeShare Today article
The following article is reprinted here by permission of the magazine TimeSharing Today, from their Jul/Aug issue.
Their website is www.tstoday.com
Their website is www.tstoday.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the right article at the right time for us!
Please read through to see how similar this is to our situation. Perhaps we can use this info towards a successful outcome to our complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ousted Directors Fight Back,
Seeking Help from State, Court
Hanalei Bay Resort owners and four directors
ousted by Celebrity Resorts Management
have sought help from Hawaiian Senate Majority
Leader Gary Hooser and the Court in
seeking to regain control of the resort.
According to the Petition filed by the ousted directors,
their removal from the Board of Directors was
masterminded by Celebrity in response to the directors
raising “issues and concerns” alleging Celebrity’s
mismanagement and self-dealing.
The luxury oceanfront resort was built in 1975 and
managed in recent years by Quintus Vacation Management,
headed by Gary Grottke. Grottke, who owns a unit
at the resort, was one of five Board members, with the
other four having been elected by the owners. However,
at the time the management contract was made with
Quintus, Grottke controlled the Board. As a result, the
management contract is automatically renewed annually
unless a majority of owners authorize the
Board to cancel the agreement.
In August, 2008, Grottke sold the
management rights to Celebrity Resorts
Management. Prior to the sale, Peter
Somerville, Richard Schweickert, David
Nicholl and Don Finch had been elected
to the Board and, according to their court
Petition, their standing as duly elected
directors had never been questioned by
Grottke or Quintus, which had administered
the elections.
In April, 2009, Celebrity and Grottke
notified the other four directors that they
had not been properly elected and that four
new directors (all connected to Celebrity)
had been appointed. Somerville, Schwe-
ickert, Nicholl and Finch then filed a Petition
in the Hawaii Circuit Court seeking
to have the court remove all five directors
and oversee an election of the directors.
In addition, the ousted directors and other
owners sought help from Senate Majority
Leader Gary Hooser, who wrote to the
Department of Commerce and Consumer
Affairs and the Attorney General, urging
them to look into the siutation:
“Your prompt review and evaluation
of the below information is greatly
appreciated. The below data and allegations
originate from numerous telephone
and email communications with interval
owners at the Hanialei Bay Resort. I have
not spoken directly with the owner of the
management company or others involved
and named below, nor have I verified any
of the a11egations.
“However; it seems clear to me that
there is serious conflict going on between
parties that involve ownership rights that
arc governed by state law. It is further
obvious that this situation is of an urgent
nature as the financial impacts to all parties
involved may be significant.
“It has come to my attention that the
management company of the Hanalel
Bay Resort, Quintus Resorts LLC and
its successor. Celebrity Resorts, may
have, apparently without owner notice
or approval, replaced the members of
the Hanalei Bay Resort Vacation Owners
Association Board of Directors (VOA
Board), and installed its own board.
Timeshare owners, many of whom
maintain their own businesses and have
owned their properties for years, are
understandably upset, and have sought
my assistance.
“Pilikea [Hawaiian for trouble] such
as this affects not only our reputation as a
tourist destination but Kaua’i owners and
residents who work at the Resort.
“I understand from my constituents
that they have peppered your offices with
inquiries and requests for assistance to resolve
these matters, and to restore control
of Hanalei Bay Resort to its owners.
“Though I do not have firsthand
knowledge and I have not verified the
statements and allegations stated in the
above letter, it is clear to me that there is
an urgent need for an independent evaluation
of this situation by the Attorney
General’s office and or the Department of
Commerce and Consumer Affairs.”
An investigation by the Department
of Commerce and Consumer Affairs is
now reportedly under way.
The “issues and concerns” alleged by the Hanalei Bay Resort Board
included the following actions and failures by Celebrity:
(a) Without authorization from the Board, cancelled the contract with the longterm
insurance broker and signed a contract for insurance brokerage services with
an affiliate of Celebrity Resorts Management located in Florida;
(b) Failed, neglected and refused to prepare the 2009 budget In a timely manner;
(c) Failed, neglected and refused to provide information requested by the Board
regarding the location and amounts of all bank accounts and only provided such
information after repeated requests over several months;
(d) Failed, neglected and refused to provide to the Board an accurate and complete
list of Interval Owners, including their contact information;
(e) Rented out the intervals of delinquent or defaulted interval Owners and collected
the rent for its own account rather than the account of the owners association
(f) Failed neglected and refused to provide the Board with detailed condition
reports with respect to all Interval Units, as promised;
(g) Failed, neglected and refused to provide the Board with any Information
regarding a substantial tax audit involving the Hawaii general excise tax payable
for the resort;
(h) Failed, neglected and refused to create and generate the Project website as
promised to the Board;
(i) Contrary to the direction of the Board, prepared and sent mailings to Interval
Owners without first providing a draft to the Board and failed to include in such mailings
and items the Board had specifically instructed Celebrity to include;
(j) Subsequently sent additional mailings without even providing any copies
thereof to the Board;
(k) Failed, neglected and refused to send out the 2009 Annual maintenance fee
bills to the interval Owners on a timely basis and when it did send out such bills in
an untimely manner, it failed to include any deadline for payment by the Interval
Owners;
(1) Hired an assistant manager at the time the resort was operating at an annual
deficit without the approval of, or without even providing prior notice to, the
Board;
(m) Paid the real property taxes on the Interval Units after the due date, incurring
penalties and interest;
(n) Failed to aggressively pursue the collection of delinquent maintenance fees
from Interval Owners despite Instructions from the Board; and
(o) Unilaterally changed the rules without the approval of the Board or the Interval
Owners to prohibit interval Owners from reserving a specific Unit with their
reserved week, which is contrary to the Declaration and the long-standing custom
and practice of the owners association.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Addresses to write to; Website to read; Take action now.
Mass. STATE SENATOR
ROBERT A. O'LEARY (Cape Cod and the Islands)
website http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/rol0.htm
email Robert.O'Leary@state.ma.us
State House
Room 511B
Boston, MA 02133
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Senator Edward M Kennedy
site: http://kennedy.senate.gov/
email: http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
(That's an email form online)
Washington Office
317 Russell Senate Building
Washington D.C. 20510
-------------------------------------------------------------------
See July 6 Blog entry for sample AG letter and contact info.
http://sandcastleowners.blogspot.com/2009/07/sample-ag-letter.html
Please consider writing your own or at least add your own to this
pre-written letter. There is more that can be said. I would suggest
you send copies to both of the AG addresses (one on the form letter,
one listed below in this blog posting.)
------------------------------------------------------------
The Mass AG's Office for info:
Public Inquiry & Assistance Center Hotline, (617) 727-8400
Consumer Complaint Form (Fillable PDF)
mail address for complaint:
PublicInquiry & Assistance Center
Attorney General’s Office
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
-------------------------------------------------
Cliff Hagberg
Managing General Partner
New England Vacation Management Services, LLC
Sandcastle
P.O. Box 576, Rte 6A
Provincetown MA 02657
------------------------------------------------
For some other useful addresses visit the conversation at:
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82489&page=6
Scroll down and read entries that provide addresses and form links.
Excerpts from pertinent laws are also there.
Whether there or here or to the AG, let your voice be heard.
From page six of the TUG website you can visit any page and view
questions to and “answers” from Cliff Hagberg. (His “name” there
is NEVMSLLC) Numerous people post about their experiences with
Outfield Marketing. That's the company that has been hired to sell
Festiva club points and take control of your deeds at Sandcastle.
See if you think Mr Hagberg answers the questions and complaints
and clears up the confusion.
You can check the “Hagberg confusion” letter on this blog to get an
idea of the enmeshed relationships of the companies and the officers
involved in the current Sandcastle experience.
To this date, my sense is that we must make up our own minds about
what is really happening at Sandcastle. If what you have experienced
and what you read is OK with you then sit back. If not, then act now
to get the information you need, lodge complaints to authorities, or
do your own research and add to the pool of information available and
tell your story.
ROBERT A. O'LEARY (Cape Cod and the Islands)
website http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/rol0.htm
email Robert.O'Leary@state.ma.us
State House
Room 511B
Boston, MA 02133
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Senator Edward M Kennedy
site: http://kennedy.senate.gov/
email: http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
(That's an email form online)
Washington Office
317 Russell Senate Building
Washington D.C. 20510
-------------------------------------------------------------------
See July 6 Blog entry for sample AG letter and contact info.
http://sandcastleowners.blogspot.com/2009/07/sample-ag-letter.html
Please consider writing your own or at least add your own to this
pre-written letter. There is more that can be said. I would suggest
you send copies to both of the AG addresses (one on the form letter,
one listed below in this blog posting.)
------------------------------------------------------------
The Mass AG's Office for info:
Public Inquiry & Assistance Center Hotline, (617) 727-8400
Consumer Complaint Form (Fillable PDF)
mail address for complaint:
PublicInquiry & Assistance Center
Attorney General’s Office
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
-------------------------------------------------
Cliff Hagberg
Managing General Partner
New England Vacation Management Services, LLC
Sandcastle
P.O. Box 576, Rte 6A
Provincetown MA 02657
------------------------------------------------
For some other useful addresses visit the conversation at:
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82489&page=6
Scroll down and read entries that provide addresses and form links.
Excerpts from pertinent laws are also there.
Whether there or here or to the AG, let your voice be heard.
From page six of the TUG website you can visit any page and view
questions to and “answers” from Cliff Hagberg. (His “name” there
is NEVMSLLC) Numerous people post about their experiences with
Outfield Marketing. That's the company that has been hired to sell
Festiva club points and take control of your deeds at Sandcastle.
See if you think Mr Hagberg answers the questions and complaints
and clears up the confusion.
You can check the “Hagberg confusion” letter on this blog to get an
idea of the enmeshed relationships of the companies and the officers
involved in the current Sandcastle experience.
To this date, my sense is that we must make up our own minds about
what is really happening at Sandcastle. If what you have experienced
and what you read is OK with you then sit back. If not, then act now
to get the information you need, lodge complaints to authorities, or
do your own research and add to the pool of information available and
tell your story.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Owners mailing list
Several people have brought the following to my attention. It is the Massachusetts law governing the mailing list, or list of owners of a timeshare. It looks to me like we have a legal right to it.
I would ask anyone visiting Sandcastle this summer to go to the office and request the list of owners, and cite the law, section, and paragraph. In fact, print it out and hand over a copy. This is one reason I created this blog.
The list obviously exists because we have been sent bills and meeting minutes. I will ask for the list in writing since I may not be going back to P'town this summer. If it is not provided the AG should know about that.
Here is the link for the Mass law table of contents governing timeshares: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-183b-toc.htm
Here is the link for the law section pertaining to owner address lists: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/183b-32.htm
And here is the specific paragraph:
(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.
People have been told that the list is withheld for privacy reasons. That may be someone's policy, but it is not the LAW!
Please root around and look at various sections of the law. You will see info about allocation of votes, and many other pertinent things such as this excerpt:
"At the time the time-share owners are notified of the amount of the assessment for the current year, the time-share owners shall be provided with a copy of the budget prepared in accordance with the provisions of clause (6) of subsection (a) of section thirty-eight and an accounting of income and expenses for the preceding year."
Has anyone received such documents?
I would ask anyone visiting Sandcastle this summer to go to the office and request the list of owners, and cite the law, section, and paragraph. In fact, print it out and hand over a copy. This is one reason I created this blog.
The list obviously exists because we have been sent bills and meeting minutes. I will ask for the list in writing since I may not be going back to P'town this summer. If it is not provided the AG should know about that.
Here is the link for the Mass law table of contents governing timeshares: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-183b-toc.htm
Here is the link for the law section pertaining to owner address lists: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/183b-32.htm
And here is the specific paragraph:
(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.
People have been told that the list is withheld for privacy reasons. That may be someone's policy, but it is not the LAW!
Please root around and look at various sections of the law. You will see info about allocation of votes, and many other pertinent things such as this excerpt:
"At the time the time-share owners are notified of the amount of the assessment for the current year, the time-share owners shall be provided with a copy of the budget prepared in accordance with the provisions of clause (6) of subsection (a) of section thirty-eight and an accounting of income and expenses for the preceding year."
Has anyone received such documents?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
"Hagberg Confusion"
The following letter was sent as a follow-up to the previously posted one, by an owner. It is long but please hang in there, there is lots of good information and numerous pertinent questions are asked. Please consider writing your own letter and keep records of all your experiences.
If it seems like this is too complicated and you don't have time for it, please realize this sheds a great deal of light on what is happening at Sandcastle that is upsetting so many owners. Someone felt it was important enough to do the research and take the time to compose this. It outlines, in many respects, how we might lose what we have in Provincetown. It also gives us a lot of information we might follow up on ourselves if we care to stop what is going on, protect our interests, or at least demand full disclosure which I believe is our right as owners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our new Manager, Developer, and Trustee, Cliff Hagberg
I have read many angry statements in on-line blogs concerning Mr. Hagberg, but I believe he deserves the benefit of doubt. My impression is that he is very personable, and he has stated that he has our (and Sandcastle’s) best interests at heart. That said, at the Owner’s Meeting this past April a number of factual questions were asked that he claimed not to be able to answer. Although he has been a successful business man in the timeshare business for decades, it is possible that he doesn’t know the answers to many of the questions raised, and it is also possible that the confusion that resulted was because of a communication issue. In fact, I suspect that many of the problems other owners have raised with Mr. Hagberg’s management of Sandcastle to date may come down to a matter of communication style.
AVAILABILITY
Mr. Hagberg has repeatedly stated that he will answer all owner questions by email. Yet, he is probably too busy to answer everyone. I suppose it is more likely a time issue for Mr. Hagberg than a purposeful avoidance of certain issues, as suggested by many owners whose emails have been ignored. Admittedly, our correspondence went unacknowledged for months as well.
We sent Mr. Hagberg a letter with a number of what seemed like pretty straightforward questions (by both email and certified, return receipt snail mail on Feb 12, 2009, attachment # 3), but he never responded. When pointedly asked at the Owners’ Meeting in April whether or not he had received the letter, he stated that he had, but did not answer it, because it contained “only legal questions” which he was not equipped to answer. I found this repeated answer confusing and a little frustrating since these seemed to be almost all factual questions that someone who was the property Manager, Developer, Trustee, and Owner should be able to answer, and if he wasn’t able to answer them, it seemed to me that these were questions of sufficient importance that all Sandcastle owners (including Mr. Hagberg himself) would want and need to know the answers to. I remain particularly surprised that Mr. Hagberg, an otherwise successful businessman, seems to have purchased a large stake in Sandcastle without knowing the answers to what seemed to me to be critical questions.
Curiously, the items requested in the list at the end of the letter to Mr. Hagberg are required by Massachusetts law to be made available to any requesting owner by both the property Manager and the Trustees (he is both). Although he never responded to our letter, at the Owners’ Meeting, Mr. Hagberg did extend an open invitation to anyone to come to his office and “sift through mountains of papers” to obtain these answers. I plan to visit Mr. Hagberg’s office this summer and request in person a concise presentation of those items he is required by law to produce, and I would encourage all of you to do the same.
CONFUSING COMMUNICATION REGARDING ORGANIZATION TRANSPARENCY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Hagberg wrote in an email “There is no relationship between IVS Realty, Outfield Marketing, and Festiva. All are completely independent companies under separate ownership. NEVMS is the management company that manages the resort for all of the owners.”
According to a number of on-line blogs, Mr. Hagberg has made this point repeatedly. And at the Owners’ Meeting he stated “The Trustees are all part of NEVS. None of them are affiliated with Festiva.” “NEVS, NEVMS, Outfield Marketing share absolutely no relationship or interest and have no interest in Festiva.”
Mr. Hagberg seems to be legally correct. The entities appear to be legally independent. However, it is interesting to note the following information based upon what we were told at the Owners’ Meeting:
IVS Realty: Mr. Hagberg is CEO of this realty company.
NEVS: the company that purchased “unsold inventory at Sandcastle” is comprised of Mr. Hagberg and the three owners of Outfield Marketing, Tom Franks, Steve Lamantia, and Mark Monroe (incidentally, these are also now the four Trustees for Sandcastle).
NEVMS: the management company hired by the four current Trustees and is comprised of Mr. Hagberg, and the three owners of Outfield Marketing Tom Franks, Steve Lamantia, and Mark Monroe.
Outfield Marketing: a company based in Texas owned by Tom Franks, Steve Lamantia, and Mark Monroe. Based on on-line sources, this company seems to have a long-standing relationship with Festiva as their sales and Marketing company.
A number of other owners have expressed anger at what they see as a misleading description of the relationships between these entities; however, technically, Mr. Hagberg’s description seems to be correct. There is probably no legal connection between these entities, but clearly they are all owned by the same individuals.
When Mr. Hagberg was asked at the Owners’ Meeting whether or not he might have a “conflict of interest” with him being a Trustee, Developer, Manager, unit owner, and partnered with the owners of Outfield Marketing, etc., Mr. Hagberg responded, “No, the lawyers tell me there is not [a conflict of interest].” I don’t know whether his lawyers are giving him correct advice or not, since not only are Trustees required to act in a manner that is not self-serving, but they are also required to act in a way that does not even appear to be self-serving. And without a clear and available budget or accounting, we must hope and assume that when Mr. Hagberg and the other three Trustees hired themselves as Sandcastle’s management company and then hired Mr. Hagberg as the Property Manager that this was all done at reasonable and customary wage rates and without a conflict of interest.
STAND ON OUTFIELD MARKETING AND THEIR BULLYING SALES TACTICS
Mr. Hagberg has expressed justifiable outrage over Outfield Marketing representatives’ “illegal and false” sales practices to Sandcastle owners that resulted in “two” representatives “being fired” and others being “retrained.”
Although Mr. Hagberg is partnered with the Outfield owners in at least two companies, it is his position that it is not his responsibility to make sure that the Sandcastle owners visited by the malfeasant Outfield Marketing representatives who made false claims were identified, apologized to, and offered to back out of their Festiva commitments.
I can also understand why many owners have raised questions about Mr. Hagberg’s association with Outfield Marketing, because Sandcastle’s whole relationship with Outfield Marketing seems to be a bit mysterious. Mr. Hagberg has explained that Outfield Marketing was “hired” by NEVMS to sell NEVS properties to existing owners. Yet, I have not heard of a single owner visited by Outfield Marketing where NEVS inventory was discussed; whereas in every case that I have heard about, the financial advantages of Festiva and their points system was brought up. In fact, when he was asked at the Owners’ Meeting how much Sandcastle was paying Outfield Marketing to try to sell NEVS owned units, Mr. Hagberg said, “Nothing. They make their money selling Festiva.” So, I remain very confused. Aside from the fact that Mr. Hagberg has business associations with the owners of Outfield Marketing, I still don’t understand why Outfield Marketing has gotten involved and why they have been given the list of Sandcastle owners, when I understand that Mr. Hagberg says such a list cannot be given to other owners as it would violate owner privacy.
CONFUSION OVER SANDCASTLE’S FINANCES
Mr. Hagberg stated that the budget prior to him taking over “was never balanced.” Each year, the prior Trustees took out a loan to meet Sandcastle expenses, which they paid back with maintenance fees from the next year, but they never fell short and apparently were not getting farther and farther behind. I suppose this is a matter of semantics. To me this was not an unbalanced budget, but a budget that was balanced out of synch with the calendar year. Thus, if there was a $350,000 “shortfall” from the previous year, it was made up for during the following year. This is not necessarily a problem for the continued functioning of Sandcastle, but it certainly would be a problem for someone who wishes to turn around and sell their controlling stake in Sandcastle. What I don’t understand is how Mr. Hagberg when doing his diligence prior to purchasing his large stake in Sandcastle missed the fact that the Sandcastle was $350,000 behind in its budget every year.
The “budget” provided by Mr. Hagberg for 2009 during the Owners’ Meeting is not itemized, and the “Salaries, Wages, General, and Administrative” costs add up to $817,894 (54% of the budget). This does not include “laundry, supplies, repairs and maintenance.” I’m sure Mr. Hagberg has not intended the finances to be obscure, but it is both our legal right and of considerable interest to know how much of the $800,000+ is going to management salary and the management company. Recall that the management company was hired by the Trustees (and ARE the Trustees who have a legal fiduciary responsibility to all owners). This budget proposed by Mr. Hagberg seems to have a $40,000 profit with an already assessed 26% increase in maintenance fees before any special assessments. Where does the $40,000 profit go?
Further, Mr. Hagberg has suggested a $700 “hopefully onetime” assessment fee from each owner-week. But when asked at the Owners’ Meeting how many paying owners he expected to receive this from and what total amount is he trying to raise and for what purpose, he responded “It’s just an estimate… I don’t have any numbers to give you!”
I was sadly surprised to hear Mr. Hagberg assert that he had no knowledge when he acquired the unsold inventory at Sandcastle and became Developer, Manager, and Trustee that a.) there was a $350,000 shortfall, b.) the state-required Reserve Account did not exist, and c.) he was blind-sided by the financial extent of the repairs necessary at Sandcastle. Mr. Hagberg who paid 1.2 million dollars for the unsold inventory at Sandcastle apparently failed to obtain a careful inspection of the property and its books and has been “able to find no records of anything.”
I remain hopeful that Mr. Hagberg’s long success in the timeshare business will pay off in the end, and that he will be a more careful steward of our assets than he claims to have been of his own.
Mr Hagberg also asserted at the Owner’s Meeting that the unit-weeks he purchased have never paid maintenance fees (or special assessments) and he, as their new owner, doesn’t have to pay these fees either. I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why. My understanding was that once the developers sold a week for a unit, from then on, the developer was required to pay the fees related to all the other weeks for that unit until the developer sold those other weeks. Since I have been told that at least one week has been sold for each unit at Sandcastle, I don’t understand how Mr. Hagberg can maintain developer status for his units. I don’t know whether it’s that my information is incorrect or if sometime along the way an error in the billing developed. Further, since Mr. Hagberg asserts that there is “no record of anything,” I am uncertain how they know which units have been sold and which have not.
CONFUSION OVER WHAT NEVS BOUGHT AND WHY
Mr. Hagberg states that NEVS purchased “between 350 and 400 unit-weeks.” (He doesn’t know exactly what they bought, but knows they paid 1.2 million). That means NEVS paid $3,000-$3,428 for each week. Why? He says that “most” of these unit weeks held by NEVS are when Sandcastle is closed between December and May, and that these are “developer” units that have never been sold, and so don’t pay maintenance fees.
Although most of these weeks are “legal” weeks, they have no sale value, because Sandcastle is closed. Yet, Mr. Hagberg asserts that “the whole purpose” NEVS bought the unsold weeks and then hired Outfield Marketing was to change the Trustees, improve the quality of the units, and then sell the previously unsold units to owners who will pay maintenance fees. I am so confused. Who is buying units at Sandcastle when Sandcastle is closed? And Mr. Hagberg was pleased to announce that he had graciously signed an agreement that any monies obtained from rental of the NEVS owned units (recall most (all?) of these are when Sandcastle is closed) will go into the Trust to reduce maintenance fees. Since Mr. Hagberg generally speaks to the letter of the law, there must be a legal reason for this, because I can see NO financial benefit to the Sandcastle owners.
LACK OF CLARITY OF SANDCASTLE CONTROL
Mr. Hagberg said at the Owners’ Meeting “until such time as I sell the (NEVS) weeks, I’m going to have complete control over the resort, King of the Castle.” On the other hand, he says that NEVS does “NOT own 51% of anything” and although he declined to discuss the concept of “Beneficial Ownership” in the Master Deed and the Deed’s Amendment which gives essentially all voting power to Red Week (Summer time owners) because that was a “legal question”, he does admit that he is not sure whether his weeks give him any voting power at all.
To try to summarize what I think is the current situation: Mr. Hagberg states there are some 4,500 unit-weeks. NEVS bought 350-400 (off season). There are some 600 owners delinquent in their maintenance fees, and thus their voting power may be questionable. So, if there are 4,500 weeks and maintenance fees are not being paid on 400 developer + 600 delinquent weeks, that leaves 3,500 being paid for. An assessment of $700 for each of the 3,500 weeks yields a total of $2.45 million – for what?
In fact, as I understand the Master Deed and Massachusetts law sections 183A and B, Mr. Hagberg’s control over Sandcastle remains as long as he and his business partners remain Trustees. This is NOT related to his (or NEVS’) ownership of usable weeks. In distinction, new Trustees are generally appointed by existing Trustees and such appointment is often linked to the sale of “developer weeks.”
CONFUSING REPRESENTATIONS
When discussing his qualifications at the owners meeting, Mr. Hagberg made two claims:
MR. HAGBERG: “I am THE guy who wrote the resale ethical guidelines – the national code of ethics for resale companies.”
WHAT WE’VE BEEN TOLD: The National Code of Ethics For Resale Companies was written and published by The American Resort Development Association (ARDA). When asked whether Mr. Clifford Hagberg was the sole, primary, or a prominent author of this document, Mr. Howard C. Nusbaum, CEO of ARDA, wrote “Mr. Clifford Hagberg was one of many who worked on our official resale guidelines.”
MR. HAGBERG: “I’m the ONLY one that’s qualified in the country as an expert witness in timeshare fraud.”
WHAT WE’VE BEEN TOLD: According to Mr. Nusbaum, CEO of the American Resort Development Association, “there are many such qualified experts in our Association.”
I can’t say whether Mr. Nusbaum or Mr. Hagberg is giving us the more accurate description; however, it does show that clearly we have to be very careful about evaluating what we are told about what is happening with Sandcastle as different people can have very different views about the same thing.
SUMMARY
I think Mr. Hagberg’s style of communication has lead to much confusion and perhaps even mistrust by some. I believe we simply need to be sure we obtain clear answers from him.
There remain two important issues for Sandcastle owners. The first is a question as to whether Mr. Hagberg and the owners of Outfield Marketing (which have practiced “illegal and false” sales tactics) are reliable and dependable stewards of our Sandcastle Trust as Trustees, and the second are legal questions for the Attorney General’s Office.
A. Is Mr. Hagberg a reliable Trustee?
i. Does he show good judgment by involving Outfield Marketing and their sales practices? Can we understand why they are involved at all?
ii. Is Mr. Hagberg reliably going to improve Sandcastle with a balanced budget when he has provided no real figures or estimates and states he was blindsided by a $350,000 shortfall, unaware of a significant missing Reserve Fund, and surprised by the extent of repairs needed at Sandcastle?
iii. Has he convinced us that his salary as Manager and the cost of his Management Company are justified, reasonable, and customary? Recall that whatever his Sandcastle salary is, it is only a % of his total salary, since he runs other timeshare properties and has other businesses. Is this salary commensurate with the salaries of other Managers?
iv. Is he exhibiting any conflicts of interest as Developer, Trustee, Owner, Manager, and main owner of the management company?
v. Is he transparent in his actions?
vi. In accordance with State law, will he provide us with “a copy of the budget prepared in accordance with the provisions of clause (6) of subsection (a) of section 38 of 183a and an accounting of income and expenses for the preceding year” when we are being given our “special assessment” on top of our 26% increase in maintenance fees?
B. Are the current Activities of the Sandcastle Developer legal?
i. Is it legal for “development properties” which are 30 years old and have never been sold and thus are not assessed maintenance fees or special assessments to be renovated (after falling into disrepair over decades) by maintenance fees paid by other existing owners? Or is it not the responsibility of the developer to finish building a property so that it is sellable?
ii. If a “unit” is rented (ever) or partly owned by another owner, is it still permitted to be construed as “development property”?
iii. If there are “no documents” available to show “any records of anything”, how do we know these “development units” have never been owned by someone? We don’t even know how many units we are talking about, what weeks, and where. Mr. Hagberg has declined to provide this information.
If it seems like this is too complicated and you don't have time for it, please realize this sheds a great deal of light on what is happening at Sandcastle that is upsetting so many owners. Someone felt it was important enough to do the research and take the time to compose this. It outlines, in many respects, how we might lose what we have in Provincetown. It also gives us a lot of information we might follow up on ourselves if we care to stop what is going on, protect our interests, or at least demand full disclosure which I believe is our right as owners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our new Manager, Developer, and Trustee, Cliff Hagberg
I have read many angry statements in on-line blogs concerning Mr. Hagberg, but I believe he deserves the benefit of doubt. My impression is that he is very personable, and he has stated that he has our (and Sandcastle’s) best interests at heart. That said, at the Owner’s Meeting this past April a number of factual questions were asked that he claimed not to be able to answer. Although he has been a successful business man in the timeshare business for decades, it is possible that he doesn’t know the answers to many of the questions raised, and it is also possible that the confusion that resulted was because of a communication issue. In fact, I suspect that many of the problems other owners have raised with Mr. Hagberg’s management of Sandcastle to date may come down to a matter of communication style.
AVAILABILITY
Mr. Hagberg has repeatedly stated that he will answer all owner questions by email. Yet, he is probably too busy to answer everyone. I suppose it is more likely a time issue for Mr. Hagberg than a purposeful avoidance of certain issues, as suggested by many owners whose emails have been ignored. Admittedly, our correspondence went unacknowledged for months as well.
We sent Mr. Hagberg a letter with a number of what seemed like pretty straightforward questions (by both email and certified, return receipt snail mail on Feb 12, 2009, attachment # 3), but he never responded. When pointedly asked at the Owners’ Meeting in April whether or not he had received the letter, he stated that he had, but did not answer it, because it contained “only legal questions” which he was not equipped to answer. I found this repeated answer confusing and a little frustrating since these seemed to be almost all factual questions that someone who was the property Manager, Developer, Trustee, and Owner should be able to answer, and if he wasn’t able to answer them, it seemed to me that these were questions of sufficient importance that all Sandcastle owners (including Mr. Hagberg himself) would want and need to know the answers to. I remain particularly surprised that Mr. Hagberg, an otherwise successful businessman, seems to have purchased a large stake in Sandcastle without knowing the answers to what seemed to me to be critical questions.
Curiously, the items requested in the list at the end of the letter to Mr. Hagberg are required by Massachusetts law to be made available to any requesting owner by both the property Manager and the Trustees (he is both). Although he never responded to our letter, at the Owners’ Meeting, Mr. Hagberg did extend an open invitation to anyone to come to his office and “sift through mountains of papers” to obtain these answers. I plan to visit Mr. Hagberg’s office this summer and request in person a concise presentation of those items he is required by law to produce, and I would encourage all of you to do the same.
CONFUSING COMMUNICATION REGARDING ORGANIZATION TRANSPARENCY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Hagberg wrote in an email “There is no relationship between IVS Realty, Outfield Marketing, and Festiva. All are completely independent companies under separate ownership. NEVMS is the management company that manages the resort for all of the owners.”
According to a number of on-line blogs, Mr. Hagberg has made this point repeatedly. And at the Owners’ Meeting he stated “The Trustees are all part of NEVS. None of them are affiliated with Festiva.” “NEVS, NEVMS, Outfield Marketing share absolutely no relationship or interest and have no interest in Festiva.”
Mr. Hagberg seems to be legally correct. The entities appear to be legally independent. However, it is interesting to note the following information based upon what we were told at the Owners’ Meeting:
IVS Realty: Mr. Hagberg is CEO of this realty company.
NEVS: the company that purchased “unsold inventory at Sandcastle” is comprised of Mr. Hagberg and the three owners of Outfield Marketing, Tom Franks, Steve Lamantia, and Mark Monroe (incidentally, these are also now the four Trustees for Sandcastle).
NEVMS: the management company hired by the four current Trustees and is comprised of Mr. Hagberg, and the three owners of Outfield Marketing Tom Franks, Steve Lamantia, and Mark Monroe.
Outfield Marketing: a company based in Texas owned by Tom Franks, Steve Lamantia, and Mark Monroe. Based on on-line sources, this company seems to have a long-standing relationship with Festiva as their sales and Marketing company.
A number of other owners have expressed anger at what they see as a misleading description of the relationships between these entities; however, technically, Mr. Hagberg’s description seems to be correct. There is probably no legal connection between these entities, but clearly they are all owned by the same individuals.
When Mr. Hagberg was asked at the Owners’ Meeting whether or not he might have a “conflict of interest” with him being a Trustee, Developer, Manager, unit owner, and partnered with the owners of Outfield Marketing, etc., Mr. Hagberg responded, “No, the lawyers tell me there is not [a conflict of interest].” I don’t know whether his lawyers are giving him correct advice or not, since not only are Trustees required to act in a manner that is not self-serving, but they are also required to act in a way that does not even appear to be self-serving. And without a clear and available budget or accounting, we must hope and assume that when Mr. Hagberg and the other three Trustees hired themselves as Sandcastle’s management company and then hired Mr. Hagberg as the Property Manager that this was all done at reasonable and customary wage rates and without a conflict of interest.
STAND ON OUTFIELD MARKETING AND THEIR BULLYING SALES TACTICS
Mr. Hagberg has expressed justifiable outrage over Outfield Marketing representatives’ “illegal and false” sales practices to Sandcastle owners that resulted in “two” representatives “being fired” and others being “retrained.”
Although Mr. Hagberg is partnered with the Outfield owners in at least two companies, it is his position that it is not his responsibility to make sure that the Sandcastle owners visited by the malfeasant Outfield Marketing representatives who made false claims were identified, apologized to, and offered to back out of their Festiva commitments.
I can also understand why many owners have raised questions about Mr. Hagberg’s association with Outfield Marketing, because Sandcastle’s whole relationship with Outfield Marketing seems to be a bit mysterious. Mr. Hagberg has explained that Outfield Marketing was “hired” by NEVMS to sell NEVS properties to existing owners. Yet, I have not heard of a single owner visited by Outfield Marketing where NEVS inventory was discussed; whereas in every case that I have heard about, the financial advantages of Festiva and their points system was brought up. In fact, when he was asked at the Owners’ Meeting how much Sandcastle was paying Outfield Marketing to try to sell NEVS owned units, Mr. Hagberg said, “Nothing. They make their money selling Festiva.” So, I remain very confused. Aside from the fact that Mr. Hagberg has business associations with the owners of Outfield Marketing, I still don’t understand why Outfield Marketing has gotten involved and why they have been given the list of Sandcastle owners, when I understand that Mr. Hagberg says such a list cannot be given to other owners as it would violate owner privacy.
CONFUSION OVER SANDCASTLE’S FINANCES
Mr. Hagberg stated that the budget prior to him taking over “was never balanced.” Each year, the prior Trustees took out a loan to meet Sandcastle expenses, which they paid back with maintenance fees from the next year, but they never fell short and apparently were not getting farther and farther behind. I suppose this is a matter of semantics. To me this was not an unbalanced budget, but a budget that was balanced out of synch with the calendar year. Thus, if there was a $350,000 “shortfall” from the previous year, it was made up for during the following year. This is not necessarily a problem for the continued functioning of Sandcastle, but it certainly would be a problem for someone who wishes to turn around and sell their controlling stake in Sandcastle. What I don’t understand is how Mr. Hagberg when doing his diligence prior to purchasing his large stake in Sandcastle missed the fact that the Sandcastle was $350,000 behind in its budget every year.
The “budget” provided by Mr. Hagberg for 2009 during the Owners’ Meeting is not itemized, and the “Salaries, Wages, General, and Administrative” costs add up to $817,894 (54% of the budget). This does not include “laundry, supplies, repairs and maintenance.” I’m sure Mr. Hagberg has not intended the finances to be obscure, but it is both our legal right and of considerable interest to know how much of the $800,000+ is going to management salary and the management company. Recall that the management company was hired by the Trustees (and ARE the Trustees who have a legal fiduciary responsibility to all owners). This budget proposed by Mr. Hagberg seems to have a $40,000 profit with an already assessed 26% increase in maintenance fees before any special assessments. Where does the $40,000 profit go?
Further, Mr. Hagberg has suggested a $700 “hopefully onetime” assessment fee from each owner-week. But when asked at the Owners’ Meeting how many paying owners he expected to receive this from and what total amount is he trying to raise and for what purpose, he responded “It’s just an estimate… I don’t have any numbers to give you!”
I was sadly surprised to hear Mr. Hagberg assert that he had no knowledge when he acquired the unsold inventory at Sandcastle and became Developer, Manager, and Trustee that a.) there was a $350,000 shortfall, b.) the state-required Reserve Account did not exist, and c.) he was blind-sided by the financial extent of the repairs necessary at Sandcastle. Mr. Hagberg who paid 1.2 million dollars for the unsold inventory at Sandcastle apparently failed to obtain a careful inspection of the property and its books and has been “able to find no records of anything.”
I remain hopeful that Mr. Hagberg’s long success in the timeshare business will pay off in the end, and that he will be a more careful steward of our assets than he claims to have been of his own.
Mr Hagberg also asserted at the Owner’s Meeting that the unit-weeks he purchased have never paid maintenance fees (or special assessments) and he, as their new owner, doesn’t have to pay these fees either. I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why. My understanding was that once the developers sold a week for a unit, from then on, the developer was required to pay the fees related to all the other weeks for that unit until the developer sold those other weeks. Since I have been told that at least one week has been sold for each unit at Sandcastle, I don’t understand how Mr. Hagberg can maintain developer status for his units. I don’t know whether it’s that my information is incorrect or if sometime along the way an error in the billing developed. Further, since Mr. Hagberg asserts that there is “no record of anything,” I am uncertain how they know which units have been sold and which have not.
CONFUSION OVER WHAT NEVS BOUGHT AND WHY
Mr. Hagberg states that NEVS purchased “between 350 and 400 unit-weeks.” (He doesn’t know exactly what they bought, but knows they paid 1.2 million). That means NEVS paid $3,000-$3,428 for each week. Why? He says that “most” of these unit weeks held by NEVS are when Sandcastle is closed between December and May, and that these are “developer” units that have never been sold, and so don’t pay maintenance fees.
Although most of these weeks are “legal” weeks, they have no sale value, because Sandcastle is closed. Yet, Mr. Hagberg asserts that “the whole purpose” NEVS bought the unsold weeks and then hired Outfield Marketing was to change the Trustees, improve the quality of the units, and then sell the previously unsold units to owners who will pay maintenance fees. I am so confused. Who is buying units at Sandcastle when Sandcastle is closed? And Mr. Hagberg was pleased to announce that he had graciously signed an agreement that any monies obtained from rental of the NEVS owned units (recall most (all?) of these are when Sandcastle is closed) will go into the Trust to reduce maintenance fees. Since Mr. Hagberg generally speaks to the letter of the law, there must be a legal reason for this, because I can see NO financial benefit to the Sandcastle owners.
LACK OF CLARITY OF SANDCASTLE CONTROL
Mr. Hagberg said at the Owners’ Meeting “until such time as I sell the (NEVS) weeks, I’m going to have complete control over the resort, King of the Castle.” On the other hand, he says that NEVS does “NOT own 51% of anything” and although he declined to discuss the concept of “Beneficial Ownership” in the Master Deed and the Deed’s Amendment which gives essentially all voting power to Red Week (Summer time owners) because that was a “legal question”, he does admit that he is not sure whether his weeks give him any voting power at all.
To try to summarize what I think is the current situation: Mr. Hagberg states there are some 4,500 unit-weeks. NEVS bought 350-400 (off season). There are some 600 owners delinquent in their maintenance fees, and thus their voting power may be questionable. So, if there are 4,500 weeks and maintenance fees are not being paid on 400 developer + 600 delinquent weeks, that leaves 3,500 being paid for. An assessment of $700 for each of the 3,500 weeks yields a total of $2.45 million – for what?
In fact, as I understand the Master Deed and Massachusetts law sections 183A and B, Mr. Hagberg’s control over Sandcastle remains as long as he and his business partners remain Trustees. This is NOT related to his (or NEVS’) ownership of usable weeks. In distinction, new Trustees are generally appointed by existing Trustees and such appointment is often linked to the sale of “developer weeks.”
CONFUSING REPRESENTATIONS
When discussing his qualifications at the owners meeting, Mr. Hagberg made two claims:
MR. HAGBERG: “I am THE guy who wrote the resale ethical guidelines – the national code of ethics for resale companies.”
WHAT WE’VE BEEN TOLD: The National Code of Ethics For Resale Companies was written and published by The American Resort Development Association (ARDA). When asked whether Mr. Clifford Hagberg was the sole, primary, or a prominent author of this document, Mr. Howard C. Nusbaum, CEO of ARDA, wrote “Mr. Clifford Hagberg was one of many who worked on our official resale guidelines.”
MR. HAGBERG: “I’m the ONLY one that’s qualified in the country as an expert witness in timeshare fraud.”
WHAT WE’VE BEEN TOLD: According to Mr. Nusbaum, CEO of the American Resort Development Association, “there are many such qualified experts in our Association.”
I can’t say whether Mr. Nusbaum or Mr. Hagberg is giving us the more accurate description; however, it does show that clearly we have to be very careful about evaluating what we are told about what is happening with Sandcastle as different people can have very different views about the same thing.
SUMMARY
I think Mr. Hagberg’s style of communication has lead to much confusion and perhaps even mistrust by some. I believe we simply need to be sure we obtain clear answers from him.
There remain two important issues for Sandcastle owners. The first is a question as to whether Mr. Hagberg and the owners of Outfield Marketing (which have practiced “illegal and false” sales tactics) are reliable and dependable stewards of our Sandcastle Trust as Trustees, and the second are legal questions for the Attorney General’s Office.
A. Is Mr. Hagberg a reliable Trustee?
i. Does he show good judgment by involving Outfield Marketing and their sales practices? Can we understand why they are involved at all?
ii. Is Mr. Hagberg reliably going to improve Sandcastle with a balanced budget when he has provided no real figures or estimates and states he was blindsided by a $350,000 shortfall, unaware of a significant missing Reserve Fund, and surprised by the extent of repairs needed at Sandcastle?
iii. Has he convinced us that his salary as Manager and the cost of his Management Company are justified, reasonable, and customary? Recall that whatever his Sandcastle salary is, it is only a % of his total salary, since he runs other timeshare properties and has other businesses. Is this salary commensurate with the salaries of other Managers?
iv. Is he exhibiting any conflicts of interest as Developer, Trustee, Owner, Manager, and main owner of the management company?
v. Is he transparent in his actions?
vi. In accordance with State law, will he provide us with “a copy of the budget prepared in accordance with the provisions of clause (6) of subsection (a) of section 38 of 183a and an accounting of income and expenses for the preceding year” when we are being given our “special assessment” on top of our 26% increase in maintenance fees?
B. Are the current Activities of the Sandcastle Developer legal?
i. Is it legal for “development properties” which are 30 years old and have never been sold and thus are not assessed maintenance fees or special assessments to be renovated (after falling into disrepair over decades) by maintenance fees paid by other existing owners? Or is it not the responsibility of the developer to finish building a property so that it is sellable?
ii. If a “unit” is rented (ever) or partly owned by another owner, is it still permitted to be construed as “development property”?
iii. If there are “no documents” available to show “any records of anything”, how do we know these “development units” have never been owned by someone? We don’t even know how many units we are talking about, what weeks, and where. Mr. Hagberg has declined to provide this information.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Letter of request for Information and Answers to Mr Hagberg
From Timeshare week owner
2/12/2009
to:
Cliff Hagberg
Managing General Partner
New England Vacation Management Services, LLC
Sandcastle
P.O. Box 576, Rte 6A
Provincetown MA 02657
Dear Mr. Hagberg,
I very much appreciate the letter you sent to us in late October informing us of New England Vacation Services’ interest in Sandcastle and your plans to renovate existing structural problems.
I think it is best to have everything clearly written down so there are no misunderstandings. We all know how people sometimes erroneously hear what they want to hear, rather than what was actually said.
My family owns several units at the Sandcastle Resort, and although I am not the formal spokesperson for other Sandcastle owners, I believe my questions reflect many of the concerns raised by a very rapidly expanding community of owners that are in communication over the internet.
Since you have been intimately involved in managing time shares for over 20 years, and since you are clearly aware of scams perpetrated by others (http://www.ivsrealty.com/Scams.htm), you will appreciate the anxiety that the many changes that seem to be occurring at Sandcastle have created in current owners. As the manager, I’m certain you will wish to make the process as clear as possible for everyone. In this light, we would really appreciate if you would answer the following questions. Thank you for helping us to understand what is happening at the Sandcastle Resort that we all care so much about.
Question 1: What relationships exist among (1) New England Vacation Services (NEVS), (2) IVS Realty (your original company), (3) Festiva, and (4) Outfield Marketing? Are any of these entities affiliates of each other or owned directly, or indirectly, by the same company or people?
In an e mail to Ms. Watson, you wrote “There is no relationship between IVS Realty, Outfield Marketing, and Festiva. All are completely independent companies under separate ownership. NEVMS is the management company that manages the resort for all of the owners.”
However, we are confused by this e-mail because:
1. It was our understanding that you are the CEO of IVS and the Managing General Partner of NEVMS.
2. When you write “separate ownership,” do you mean there is no cross over at the highest management or invested interest levels, or that these companies are not affiliated with each other?
3. In your October letter, you stated that NEVS purchased the “unsold inventory” of Sandcastle from Vince Barth and Robert Woods. Yet, when an Outfield Marketing representative came to our house, he told us:
a. “I’m with a company called Outfield, and there’s a lot of different companies involved here. It’s all one company . . . but nowadays they segment everything. The big company [over everything] is Festiva Resorts.”
b. “Festiva owns 52% of Sandcastle weeks.” Now that sounds like the unsold inventory to us, but you wrote that the unsold inventory was purchased by NEVS.
4. Festiva is listed in the Deeds office as being an owner of many properties which seem to have been acquired many months before your letter to the owners was mailed.
5. Calls to our home from Outfield Marketing to set up the representative’s meeting with us and calls from Kaitlyn of NEVS Customer Service Department are coming from the same phone number 800 436 9094.
6. In the letter we got from you in October, you state that NEVS is pursuing an “affiliation” with both Interval International and Festiva, as well as a “Professional Management Company.” Is this Management Company Outfield Marketing or a subsidiary of Festiva?
Question 2: What is the current status of Sandcastle’s governing body, and who are the current Trustees?
This really breaks down into several related questions:
1. How many current Trustees are there, and what are their names and addresses? In the original Master Deed, the Trustees were listed as four: Joseph and Wayne McCabe (of Provincetown and North Truro, respectively) and two Fred Sarteriales (of Belmont, Mass.).
2. How/when will any new Trustees be appointed/elected?
3. Who has a copy of prior Trust meeting minutes? How can we get these?
4. How do we get a copy of the Trust formation documents and by laws?
Question 3: What is happening with the next annual Owners Meeting?
Again, this breaks down into several related questions:
1. There is a rumor circulating that there will be an Owners Meeting on April 25th at Noon. Is this correct?
2. Will you be sending a mailing to all owners to advise them of this meeting, and if so, when? I am sure, as an owner yourself, that you are aware that in the past many unit owners were not made aware that an Owners Meeting was taking place.
3. What will be the agenda at this meeting, how will it be run and who will be running it?
4. What issues will be discussed and voted upon at this meeting, including will we be reviewing and voting on the plans for construction and improvement that we keep hearing rumors about?
5. Do you intend (or do you know of anybody else who intends) to seek proxies in advance of the Owners Meeting, and when do you intend this mailing?
Question 4: Who owns what and what rights do the owners have?
The Outfield representative told us that Festiva owns 52% of the Sandcastle weeks (mostly from off season weeks), and so, as individual owners, we can “voice opinions,” but we have “absoutely no control” in what happens to the resort. In your letter, however, you wrote that NEVS acquired the entire “unsold inventory.”
1. Our master deed states that off season week holders have no voting rights or limited voting rights! So does that mean that Festiva or NEVS who owns mostly off season weeks has limited voting rights, except for rights related to units obtained from individuals who signed on with Festiva for their points system?
2. Would you be kind enough to send us a copy of the list of all the weeks/units currently held by NEVS and, to the extent you know it, by Festiva?
3. Would you send us a copy of the list of all of Sandcastle’s owners? We understand that the previous managers were unable to provide a list – we understand from the Outfield Marketing rep that the former managers didn’t really have a proper list, but that through your and Outfield’s diligence over the winter, the list is in much better shape – though, considering that the deed ownership is a matter of public record, we weren’t clear why it’s been so difficult to make a complete list.
4. Have any of the Sandcastle properties in default been foreclosed yet or “given” back to the Trust or management company? How many and when?
Question 5: What are the immediate plans and expenses for planned construction and improvements at Sandcastle?
1. In your October letter, you wrote that you already had a detailed budget for 2009.
a. Would you kindly provide us with the same, including management company fees and, if applicable, management salaries?
b. I am particularly (but not at all exclusively) interested in who paid for the Outfield Marketing representatives to go door to door talking to us, rather than sending initial information in writing and then simply manning a phone bank for further owner questions.
2. Our Outfield Marketing rep who came to our house mentioned the need, because of the purchase by NEVS, to bring Sandcastle up to city legal codes. Can you explain why the purchase by NEVS triggered this requirement since what NEVS purchased was just a block of units? Was there something else purchased – for example, did NEVS purchase development rights or something similar — (same questions for Festiva)?
3. In your letter, you wrote that you would be developing a detailed plan for improvements to Sandcastle over the next few months. Now, some four to five months later, and a mere three to four months before summer occupancy, we are hoping the plan is finished and available for review, – at a minimum for proposed dates and costs for any legally mandated fixes, and for any work that is intended to be done before summer occupancy begins. We feel anxious to see that plan so that we know what to anticipate for the summer of 2009.
a. Are you sure that Sandcastle will be open (legally) for regular occupation by unit owners in 2009 who have paid their maintenance fees?
b. I am seriously concerned about the lack of safety of the railings on upstairs hallways and balconies. What happens if a child falls through those railings and gets seriously injured or killed? To me, if there is going to be work done, these railings should be a first priority concern in Sandcastle improvements. Is that already planned to be attended to?
4. The Outfield Marketing representative who came to our house told us that “Festiva had to pay $100,000” to the existing Management to cover “delinquent fees” by Sandcastle owners and that had “to be paid back.”
a. How and why was this possible and necessary? Was there some kind of loan agreement? Why would Festiva be interested in lending money to Sandcastle? What did they get/are they getting in return? Why would delinquent fees need to be covered in the first place?
b. Isn’t fee collection the responsibility of the Trustees per the Master Deed, and why wasn’t it done?
c. If delinquent fees resulted in the management company then renting the related owned units, what happened to that money?
d. We read that you had already collected $50,000 in delinquent fees. Is this money placed into a reserve account now? How does it relate to the $100,000 that needs to be “paid back”?
e. We are unclear as to why, (after reviewing Massachusetts Chapter 183A, the Master Deed, and our individual deeds), individual owners, who are up to date with their own fees, are responsible for the delinquencies of other owners, or of those entrusted with the responsibility to collect those fees, or for the results of not having enough money then to keep the building up to code par because of such delinquencies, and we understand this is quite different from special assessments for property improvements.
Question 6: What is the purpose of these new institutional relationships?
Would you briefly explain your (or the Trustees’) reasons for “associating” with Festiva Resorts, a company which has a significant record of discontent among its constituents? In searches of the internet by us and other owners, I have been astounded by the shear number of negative reviews of the organization – (certainly, far more than one would expect for an organization its size). In addition, Festiva has been fined for illegal behavior by the Attorney General of Missouri. I’m certain you know this company’s record well, but here are just a few examples I found.
http://timeshareconsumergroup.org/fraud_festiva.html
http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2008/Agreement_with_Festiva_Resorts_LLC/
http://festiva resorts.pissedconsumer.com/
2. What benefit is the association with Outfield Marketing with whom you share phones (office space?)? The representative was very knowledgeable about Festiva and its Point System, but not at all knowledgeable about real projected costs / improvements at Sandcastle. What is Outfield Marketing doing at Sandcastle, and are we paying for it?
3. What is the purpose of the professional management company that you were looking to hire? Is this different from what you are doing/going to be doing? Would we have two management companies? Did you hire a professional management company?
Mr. Hagberg, we very much appreciate your attention to these matters, and I look forward to hearing your response. I realize that we are asking a number of questions, but, as I’m sure you can imagine, there is a lot of concern and confusion among the owners. Hopefully, your answers here will clear up a lot of that confusion.
In addition to the above requests, we would like to get copies of the following:
1. Trust by laws
2. Minute book of the Trust/trustees
3. Minutes of the last three or so previous owner meetings
4. Financial records including:
a.. receipts and expenditures of the last three years
b. records regarding all funds, including the replacement reserve fund
c. the most recent audits, reviews or similar documents, etc. (I believe the legal
requirement is that an audit be performed annually).
d. contracts for work to be performed for or services to be provided (including the
Manager's contract)
Could send the above documents and the other items requested in this letter with the response to this letter as soon as possible? (We would be more than happy to pay for the postage). However, if that will not be possible, can you please let us know when, during reasonable business hours, it would be possible for a member of my family (since I am one of the owners) to come to your office to make copies?
Most Sincerely,
Sandcastle timeshare owner
Note: No response to date. Some answers have been found since the writing of this letter, although apparently they did not come from Mr Hagberg.
2/12/2009
to:
Cliff Hagberg
Managing General Partner
New England Vacation Management Services, LLC
Sandcastle
P.O. Box 576, Rte 6A
Provincetown MA 02657
Dear Mr. Hagberg,
I very much appreciate the letter you sent to us in late October informing us of New England Vacation Services’ interest in Sandcastle and your plans to renovate existing structural problems.
I think it is best to have everything clearly written down so there are no misunderstandings. We all know how people sometimes erroneously hear what they want to hear, rather than what was actually said.
My family owns several units at the Sandcastle Resort, and although I am not the formal spokesperson for other Sandcastle owners, I believe my questions reflect many of the concerns raised by a very rapidly expanding community of owners that are in communication over the internet.
Since you have been intimately involved in managing time shares for over 20 years, and since you are clearly aware of scams perpetrated by others (http://www.ivsrealty.com/Scams.htm), you will appreciate the anxiety that the many changes that seem to be occurring at Sandcastle have created in current owners. As the manager, I’m certain you will wish to make the process as clear as possible for everyone. In this light, we would really appreciate if you would answer the following questions. Thank you for helping us to understand what is happening at the Sandcastle Resort that we all care so much about.
Question 1: What relationships exist among (1) New England Vacation Services (NEVS), (2) IVS Realty (your original company), (3) Festiva, and (4) Outfield Marketing? Are any of these entities affiliates of each other or owned directly, or indirectly, by the same company or people?
In an e mail to Ms. Watson, you wrote “There is no relationship between IVS Realty, Outfield Marketing, and Festiva. All are completely independent companies under separate ownership. NEVMS is the management company that manages the resort for all of the owners.”
However, we are confused by this e-mail because:
1. It was our understanding that you are the CEO of IVS and the Managing General Partner of NEVMS.
2. When you write “separate ownership,” do you mean there is no cross over at the highest management or invested interest levels, or that these companies are not affiliated with each other?
3. In your October letter, you stated that NEVS purchased the “unsold inventory” of Sandcastle from Vince Barth and Robert Woods. Yet, when an Outfield Marketing representative came to our house, he told us:
a. “I’m with a company called Outfield, and there’s a lot of different companies involved here. It’s all one company . . . but nowadays they segment everything. The big company [over everything] is Festiva Resorts.”
b. “Festiva owns 52% of Sandcastle weeks.” Now that sounds like the unsold inventory to us, but you wrote that the unsold inventory was purchased by NEVS.
4. Festiva is listed in the Deeds office as being an owner of many properties which seem to have been acquired many months before your letter to the owners was mailed.
5. Calls to our home from Outfield Marketing to set up the representative’s meeting with us and calls from Kaitlyn of NEVS Customer Service Department are coming from the same phone number 800 436 9094.
6. In the letter we got from you in October, you state that NEVS is pursuing an “affiliation” with both Interval International and Festiva, as well as a “Professional Management Company.” Is this Management Company Outfield Marketing or a subsidiary of Festiva?
Question 2: What is the current status of Sandcastle’s governing body, and who are the current Trustees?
This really breaks down into several related questions:
1. How many current Trustees are there, and what are their names and addresses? In the original Master Deed, the Trustees were listed as four: Joseph and Wayne McCabe (of Provincetown and North Truro, respectively) and two Fred Sarteriales (of Belmont, Mass.).
2. How/when will any new Trustees be appointed/elected?
3. Who has a copy of prior Trust meeting minutes? How can we get these?
4. How do we get a copy of the Trust formation documents and by laws?
Question 3: What is happening with the next annual Owners Meeting?
Again, this breaks down into several related questions:
1. There is a rumor circulating that there will be an Owners Meeting on April 25th at Noon. Is this correct?
2. Will you be sending a mailing to all owners to advise them of this meeting, and if so, when? I am sure, as an owner yourself, that you are aware that in the past many unit owners were not made aware that an Owners Meeting was taking place.
3. What will be the agenda at this meeting, how will it be run and who will be running it?
4. What issues will be discussed and voted upon at this meeting, including will we be reviewing and voting on the plans for construction and improvement that we keep hearing rumors about?
5. Do you intend (or do you know of anybody else who intends) to seek proxies in advance of the Owners Meeting, and when do you intend this mailing?
Question 4: Who owns what and what rights do the owners have?
The Outfield representative told us that Festiva owns 52% of the Sandcastle weeks (mostly from off season weeks), and so, as individual owners, we can “voice opinions,” but we have “absoutely no control” in what happens to the resort. In your letter, however, you wrote that NEVS acquired the entire “unsold inventory.”
1. Our master deed states that off season week holders have no voting rights or limited voting rights! So does that mean that Festiva or NEVS who owns mostly off season weeks has limited voting rights, except for rights related to units obtained from individuals who signed on with Festiva for their points system?
2. Would you be kind enough to send us a copy of the list of all the weeks/units currently held by NEVS and, to the extent you know it, by Festiva?
3. Would you send us a copy of the list of all of Sandcastle’s owners? We understand that the previous managers were unable to provide a list – we understand from the Outfield Marketing rep that the former managers didn’t really have a proper list, but that through your and Outfield’s diligence over the winter, the list is in much better shape – though, considering that the deed ownership is a matter of public record, we weren’t clear why it’s been so difficult to make a complete list.
4. Have any of the Sandcastle properties in default been foreclosed yet or “given” back to the Trust or management company? How many and when?
Question 5: What are the immediate plans and expenses for planned construction and improvements at Sandcastle?
1. In your October letter, you wrote that you already had a detailed budget for 2009.
a. Would you kindly provide us with the same, including management company fees and, if applicable, management salaries?
b. I am particularly (but not at all exclusively) interested in who paid for the Outfield Marketing representatives to go door to door talking to us, rather than sending initial information in writing and then simply manning a phone bank for further owner questions.
2. Our Outfield Marketing rep who came to our house mentioned the need, because of the purchase by NEVS, to bring Sandcastle up to city legal codes. Can you explain why the purchase by NEVS triggered this requirement since what NEVS purchased was just a block of units? Was there something else purchased – for example, did NEVS purchase development rights or something similar — (same questions for Festiva)?
3. In your letter, you wrote that you would be developing a detailed plan for improvements to Sandcastle over the next few months. Now, some four to five months later, and a mere three to four months before summer occupancy, we are hoping the plan is finished and available for review, – at a minimum for proposed dates and costs for any legally mandated fixes, and for any work that is intended to be done before summer occupancy begins. We feel anxious to see that plan so that we know what to anticipate for the summer of 2009.
a. Are you sure that Sandcastle will be open (legally) for regular occupation by unit owners in 2009 who have paid their maintenance fees?
b. I am seriously concerned about the lack of safety of the railings on upstairs hallways and balconies. What happens if a child falls through those railings and gets seriously injured or killed? To me, if there is going to be work done, these railings should be a first priority concern in Sandcastle improvements. Is that already planned to be attended to?
4. The Outfield Marketing representative who came to our house told us that “Festiva had to pay $100,000” to the existing Management to cover “delinquent fees” by Sandcastle owners and that had “to be paid back.”
a. How and why was this possible and necessary? Was there some kind of loan agreement? Why would Festiva be interested in lending money to Sandcastle? What did they get/are they getting in return? Why would delinquent fees need to be covered in the first place?
b. Isn’t fee collection the responsibility of the Trustees per the Master Deed, and why wasn’t it done?
c. If delinquent fees resulted in the management company then renting the related owned units, what happened to that money?
d. We read that you had already collected $50,000 in delinquent fees. Is this money placed into a reserve account now? How does it relate to the $100,000 that needs to be “paid back”?
e. We are unclear as to why, (after reviewing Massachusetts Chapter 183A, the Master Deed, and our individual deeds), individual owners, who are up to date with their own fees, are responsible for the delinquencies of other owners, or of those entrusted with the responsibility to collect those fees, or for the results of not having enough money then to keep the building up to code par because of such delinquencies, and we understand this is quite different from special assessments for property improvements.
Question 6: What is the purpose of these new institutional relationships?
Would you briefly explain your (or the Trustees’) reasons for “associating” with Festiva Resorts, a company which has a significant record of discontent among its constituents? In searches of the internet by us and other owners, I have been astounded by the shear number of negative reviews of the organization – (certainly, far more than one would expect for an organization its size). In addition, Festiva has been fined for illegal behavior by the Attorney General of Missouri. I’m certain you know this company’s record well, but here are just a few examples I found.
http://timeshareconsumergroup.org/fraud_festiva.html
http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2008/Agreement_with_Festiva_Resorts_LLC/
http://festiva resorts.pissedconsumer.com/
2. What benefit is the association with Outfield Marketing with whom you share phones (office space?)? The representative was very knowledgeable about Festiva and its Point System, but not at all knowledgeable about real projected costs / improvements at Sandcastle. What is Outfield Marketing doing at Sandcastle, and are we paying for it?
3. What is the purpose of the professional management company that you were looking to hire? Is this different from what you are doing/going to be doing? Would we have two management companies? Did you hire a professional management company?
Mr. Hagberg, we very much appreciate your attention to these matters, and I look forward to hearing your response. I realize that we are asking a number of questions, but, as I’m sure you can imagine, there is a lot of concern and confusion among the owners. Hopefully, your answers here will clear up a lot of that confusion.
In addition to the above requests, we would like to get copies of the following:
1. Trust by laws
2. Minute book of the Trust/trustees
3. Minutes of the last three or so previous owner meetings
4. Financial records including:
a.. receipts and expenditures of the last three years
b. records regarding all funds, including the replacement reserve fund
c. the most recent audits, reviews or similar documents, etc. (I believe the legal
requirement is that an audit be performed annually).
d. contracts for work to be performed for or services to be provided (including the
Manager's contract)
Could send the above documents and the other items requested in this letter with the response to this letter as soon as possible? (We would be more than happy to pay for the postage). However, if that will not be possible, can you please let us know when, during reasonable business hours, it would be possible for a member of my family (since I am one of the owners) to come to your office to make copies?
Most Sincerely,
Sandcastle timeshare owner
Note: No response to date. Some answers have been found since the writing of this letter, although apparently they did not come from Mr Hagberg.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sample AG letter
The following is a sample letter you can copy and send to the Attorney General of Massachusetts. I used it and I also included my own additional experiences, thoughts, observations and worries as an addendum. It makes sense to me to personalize the letter in some way. I think it may carry a stronger message that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Your Name and Address
RE: Complaint Intake No. 103518
Public Protection and Advocacy Bureau
Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley
105 William Street
New Bedford MA 02740
Dear Attorney General Coakley,
I am writing regarding concerns involving some 4,500 time share owners of Sandcastle Condominiums and Resort (SCCR), Route 6A, Provincetown MA. Importantly, many of my fellow owners have fixed incomes, limited means, or are retired senior citizens and jointly we have little resource to protect our legal interests in this matter.
I understand that you have already received communication in this matter (intake no. 103518), but I wish to impress upon your office the broad scope of people affected by this situation and highlight three specific legal concerns remaining at this time.
1)Unethical and possibly illegal sales tactics and practices by Outfield Marketing representatives in Massachusetts. Importantly, the owners of this Texas-based company now hold ¾ majority vote on the Board of Trustees at SCCR.
2)Claim by the Board of Trustees that timeshare units purchased by the Trustees as “Developer Units” built 30 years ago and “never sold” are eligible under law for renovation paid for by owners of other units.
3)Claim by the Board of Trustees that the Developer Units have never been sold or rented when they decline to reveal which units and decline to provide sales and rental records for the entire time that SCCR units have existed.
I remain concerned that potentially illegal practices at SCCR may be perpetuated throughout the Commonwealth by these individuals who have multiple other timeshare endeavors in progress.
I would be happy to discuss these issues in detail with a representative from your office at any time.
Respectfully,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Your Name and Address
RE: Complaint Intake No. 103518
Public Protection and Advocacy Bureau
Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley
105 William Street
New Bedford MA 02740
Dear Attorney General Coakley,
I am writing regarding concerns involving some 4,500 time share owners of Sandcastle Condominiums and Resort (SCCR), Route 6A, Provincetown MA. Importantly, many of my fellow owners have fixed incomes, limited means, or are retired senior citizens and jointly we have little resource to protect our legal interests in this matter.
I understand that you have already received communication in this matter (intake no. 103518), but I wish to impress upon your office the broad scope of people affected by this situation and highlight three specific legal concerns remaining at this time.
1)Unethical and possibly illegal sales tactics and practices by Outfield Marketing representatives in Massachusetts. Importantly, the owners of this Texas-based company now hold ¾ majority vote on the Board of Trustees at SCCR.
2)Claim by the Board of Trustees that timeshare units purchased by the Trustees as “Developer Units” built 30 years ago and “never sold” are eligible under law for renovation paid for by owners of other units.
3)Claim by the Board of Trustees that the Developer Units have never been sold or rented when they decline to reveal which units and decline to provide sales and rental records for the entire time that SCCR units have existed.
I remain concerned that potentially illegal practices at SCCR may be perpetuated throughout the Commonwealth by these individuals who have multiple other timeshare endeavors in progress.
I would be happy to discuss these issues in detail with a representative from your office at any time.
Respectfully,
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Our New Blog
This blog is my first and it is brand new.
The purpose of this web presence is to have a place where owners of timeshare weeks at the Sandcastle Resort in Provincetown, Ma. can become more informed about the disturbing and confusing situation at the resort, and leave comments and information they have that we can make use of in our search for the truth about what is going on and our efforts to confront what might be wrong about what is happening.
I welcome comments and factual information that will be helpful to that end. First hand accounts are also welcome, as is primary data, resource sources, websites and such that will assist us.
Please do not expect to see rants, flaming, or any kind of bad behavior. I will, to the best of my ability, allow only accurate or truthful information.
I will soon post a letter to the attorney general of Massachusetts created by an active owner, who is allowing it to be used by anyone who wishes to. I have used it and I included my own addendum about the situation to the best of my understanding, in the same letter.
I am not an attorney and I have limited resources and time for this task. Please realize that you as an owner will sooner or later be confronted with some aspect of this situation. Your participation in our efforts to get full disclosure and to shed light where there seems to be darkness, is much appreciated and will help all of us.
The purpose of this web presence is to have a place where owners of timeshare weeks at the Sandcastle Resort in Provincetown, Ma. can become more informed about the disturbing and confusing situation at the resort, and leave comments and information they have that we can make use of in our search for the truth about what is going on and our efforts to confront what might be wrong about what is happening.
I welcome comments and factual information that will be helpful to that end. First hand accounts are also welcome, as is primary data, resource sources, websites and such that will assist us.
Please do not expect to see rants, flaming, or any kind of bad behavior. I will, to the best of my ability, allow only accurate or truthful information.
I will soon post a letter to the attorney general of Massachusetts created by an active owner, who is allowing it to be used by anyone who wishes to. I have used it and I included my own addendum about the situation to the best of my understanding, in the same letter.
I am not an attorney and I have limited resources and time for this task. Please realize that you as an owner will sooner or later be confronted with some aspect of this situation. Your participation in our efforts to get full disclosure and to shed light where there seems to be darkness, is much appreciated and will help all of us.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Dear valued Sandcastle owner,
Thank you for including me in the mailing list and for sending the attached documents. I commend you on the work you have done to date. I especially appreciate the letter to Mr Hagberg.
Because of your work I believe I have a decent understanding of some basics about the situation.
Has an attorney been consulted on behalf of yourself or owners in general? An attorney familiar with Timeshare issues?
We stayed at Sandcastle last week. The assessment letters are supposed to be in the mail today, July 1. I am inclined to withhold payment until proper paperwork and answers to your pertinent questions are provided by Trustees/Management. Contractors were all over the place Monday, June 29 measuring and discussing infrastructure issues.
The dynamics I see are that an organized small group of Timeshare savvy investors (the "few") have engineered a coup to take over Sandcastle to pull money out in several ways. They know the "game" and saw that Sandcastle was ripe for plucking. They may have long term plans as well which cannot be trusted. The various companies are fingers on the same hand, although possibly legally separately incorporated. We need to know if such relationships are legal when the people, not companies, are so intertwined and clearly self serving.
On the other side is a large un-organized group of owners (the "many") that have been blind-sided and roped into a precarious situation where they risk delinquency and foreclosure if they do not come up with large assessment fees in addition to increased maintenance fees. These foreclosures, as well as the aggressive Festiva moves, will place more power, and money, into the hands of the "few".
All this is happening with no disclosure and plenty of obfuscation.
Some moves by the "few" may be un-reversible. They have an advantage because they have a rehearsed plan and they have knowledge of how this can go from their past business ventures. They keep the "many" in the dark until it's too late to oppose them.
On the other hand, the owners must use their numbers to do what they can. It seems their (our) only advantage, other than potential legal moves and attorney general assistance. If the "few" have made illegal maneuvers, though it may seem now that it is too late, then they can be undone; there is no statue of limitations where fraud is involved.
I would encourage every owner to contact the Attorney General as I plan to. A very simple letter could suffice. It is possible that we could all withhold payment of assessments with written objection as to why it is being done. Until we get full disclosure of the information we have a right to, we will not respond to an unjustified solicitation. If there is an attorney in the group, perhaps he/she could draft a simple letter.
My wife will do some research to see if other organizations might know of an attorney familiar with Timeshare issues. Others could research Festiva's and other parts of the coup group to see who might have successfully opposed them at other resorts.
It also occurred to me that the company that management used to do the mailing, supposedly, of the notices to owners, should have the mailing list we seek. Perhaps a reading of the Sandcastle papers might reveal if there is a legal right we owners have to that list. We may also disprove management's claim that there is a privacy block disallowing them to provide the list. I went to the Barnstable county records website and found it difficult to navigate. At least it didn't seem to be simple to get a master list. Each owner is listed separately, first without address, and printing out anything is on a fee basis (if I understood things correctly). Maybe someone else can do better.
I called and was told the construction plans and permits may be available in Provincetown, and not yet Barnstable. I have not had the time yet to follow up on that.
I believe the list is important because the power we have is in numbers. Whether it is the number of complaints the AG receives, the number of people available to do research, or the contributions available to hire an attorney.
I appreciate your continued efforts on behalf of all owners and the Sandcastle we love.
Sincerely,
Frank
Thank you for including me in the mailing list and for sending the attached documents. I commend you on the work you have done to date. I especially appreciate the letter to Mr Hagberg.
Because of your work I believe I have a decent understanding of some basics about the situation.
Has an attorney been consulted on behalf of yourself or owners in general? An attorney familiar with Timeshare issues?
We stayed at Sandcastle last week. The assessment letters are supposed to be in the mail today, July 1. I am inclined to withhold payment until proper paperwork and answers to your pertinent questions are provided by Trustees/Management. Contractors were all over the place Monday, June 29 measuring and discussing infrastructure issues.
The dynamics I see are that an organized small group of Timeshare savvy investors (the "few") have engineered a coup to take over Sandcastle to pull money out in several ways. They know the "game" and saw that Sandcastle was ripe for plucking. They may have long term plans as well which cannot be trusted. The various companies are fingers on the same hand, although possibly legally separately incorporated. We need to know if such relationships are legal when the people, not companies, are so intertwined and clearly self serving.
On the other side is a large un-organized group of owners (the "many") that have been blind-sided and roped into a precarious situation where they risk delinquency and foreclosure if they do not come up with large assessment fees in addition to increased maintenance fees. These foreclosures, as well as the aggressive Festiva moves, will place more power, and money, into the hands of the "few".
All this is happening with no disclosure and plenty of obfuscation.
Some moves by the "few" may be un-reversible. They have an advantage because they have a rehearsed plan and they have knowledge of how this can go from their past business ventures. They keep the "many" in the dark until it's too late to oppose them.
On the other hand, the owners must use their numbers to do what they can. It seems their (our) only advantage, other than potential legal moves and attorney general assistance. If the "few" have made illegal maneuvers, though it may seem now that it is too late, then they can be undone; there is no statue of limitations where fraud is involved.
I would encourage every owner to contact the Attorney General as I plan to. A very simple letter could suffice. It is possible that we could all withhold payment of assessments with written objection as to why it is being done. Until we get full disclosure of the information we have a right to, we will not respond to an unjustified solicitation. If there is an attorney in the group, perhaps he/she could draft a simple letter.
My wife will do some research to see if other organizations might know of an attorney familiar with Timeshare issues. Others could research Festiva's and other parts of the coup group to see who might have successfully opposed them at other resorts.
It also occurred to me that the company that management used to do the mailing, supposedly, of the notices to owners, should have the mailing list we seek. Perhaps a reading of the Sandcastle papers might reveal if there is a legal right we owners have to that list. We may also disprove management's claim that there is a privacy block disallowing them to provide the list. I went to the Barnstable county records website and found it difficult to navigate. At least it didn't seem to be simple to get a master list. Each owner is listed separately, first without address, and printing out anything is on a fee basis (if I understood things correctly). Maybe someone else can do better.
I called and was told the construction plans and permits may be available in Provincetown, and not yet Barnstable. I have not had the time yet to follow up on that.
I believe the list is important because the power we have is in numbers. Whether it is the number of complaints the AG receives, the number of people available to do research, or the contributions available to hire an attorney.
I appreciate your continued efforts on behalf of all owners and the Sandcastle we love.
Sincerely,
Frank
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
