California court strikes blow for timeshare member democracy

[1SOKCO Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close 1SOKCO]

Do you think there is value in uniting several timeshares with similar problems (Sands of Kahana and Point at Poipu, for example) working together? Would the State Attorney General help if they were shown tha these are not just isolated problems, but exist throughout the State?

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Do you think there is value in uniting several timeshares with similar problems (Sands of Kahana and Point at Poipu, for example) working together? Would the State Attorney General help if they were shown tha these are not just isolated problems, but exist throughout the State?

If the State AG is like most, they have a Consumer Protection Division, and that would be the place that could help. Usually there are a lot more potential cases that they could tackle than they have manpower to get into, so most things don't go beyond a letter to a company that is out of line. To get their attention to take stronger action, you either need an ''in'' with someone in a higher position there or enough complaints that gets it on their radar screen. Coordinating complaints from several timeshares can, indeed, help in the latter situation to get their attention, but it might take a while.

I would also determine what agency in Hawaii government handles timeshare regulation. In North Carolina, it is the Real Estate Commission. I would also coordinate complaints to that agency. If they ask the AG for action, then that goes a long way to getting the AG's attention. Some states have had very proactive Real Estate Commissiions (as North Carolina's was for over two decades while Blackwell Brogden was their timeshare guy) who will help out owners who are being screwed by developers. Most of them, however, are less proactive. But again, getting the same complaint from several resorts may help stir them to action.

If any of your members live in Hawaii, they might look to legislative solutions, such as amending the law. One amendment that might get the attention of Stalinesque developers would be to impose a large per-day financial penalty for failure to comply with a demand for a membership list including names, mailing addresses, and email addresses which would have to be paid by management and could not be passed on as a resort expense to members.

[1SOKCO Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close 1SOKCO]

If any of your members live in Hawaii, they might look to legislative solutions, such as amending the law. One amendment that might get the attention of Stalinesque developers would be to impose a large per-day financial penalty for failure to comply with a demand for a membership list including names, mailing addresses, and email addresses which would have to be paid by management and could not be passed on as a resort expense to members.

We have contacted some legislators, but ASNY has more money and influence. We have not given up, and we will not.

We need more SOK TS owners to contact us and offer support and money to take them to court.

[Brogers92026 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Brogers92026]

Sands of Kahana

I received a proxy/voting form from Consolidated for the Sands (SOK). I carefully researched the candidates. One is an attorney from CRM (he mentions that he is an attorney but forgot to mention his close ties to the mgmt company), two are (IMHO) hand picked (by CRM) candidates. Probably okay people, but... The last candidate is Charlie Johnson. He is part of the "Concerned Owners" group. I voted for him because I thought that he would add valuable "new blood" to the board and would provide a good balance. I am hoping that owners visit the SOKCO site, register, and support it and vote for an independent candidate.

BTW, in the last 2 elections, after I selected the candidates that I wanted to fill the open positions, I then received a duplicate proxy statement from CRM. The duplicate proxy indicated that it took precidence over my actual vote and that I gave CRM the sole authority to conduct business at the annual meeting (and vote) however THEY wanted to. I had to read through it two or three times to understand what was going on. So.... IMHO, if you are an owner, be careful if you receive a second proxy document after you have voted. You may be nullifying your vote.

I love my SOK timeshare and want to see it continue to exist and improve (BTW BOD: how about adding A/C and wifi??)

[Jasonb334 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jasonb334]

The following is the provision that others have cited, from HRS 514B-153(e):



Sounds pretty cut and dried, no?? However, those who have been citing to that section neatly omit the remainder of the provision. Here is the section, in its unredacted entirety:

Sounds like those that have been citing it were actually accurate until June 2011 when Hawaii passed SB1483 that added that additional language to HRS 514B-153(e).

The passing of SB1483, or I should say, the arguments in favor of adding this language cite that it is too much work and expense to keep these individual owners' information separate. Too funny considering they have no problem keeping the list so they can send out a bill to the individual owners' true and accurate mailing address.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

Sounds like those that have been citing it were actually accurate until June 2011 when Hawaii passed SB1483 that added that additional language to HRS 514B-153(e).

The passing of SB1483, or I should say, the arguments in favor of adding this language cite that it is too much work and expense to keep these individual owners' information separate. Too funny considering they have no problem keeping the list so they can send out a bill to the individual owners' true and accurate mailing address.

Even before that it wasn't exactly cut-and-dried since the implementing regulations adopted by the Hawaii Department of Real Estate did not require disclosure of ownership lists.

In any case, news of the assessment came out in September or October of 2011, after the legislation was passed. The flaming of outrage from that event unsurprisingly has greatly raised the profile of the Point at Poipu Concerned Owners organization, and that organization has been been referencing the first portion of the code as evidence of bald flaunting of the law by the current board as part of the organization's efforts to garner support.

I can only conclude one of two things:

1. The organization is unaware of the changes to the code, which would indicate their level of research and preparation is horribly deficient; or

2. The organization is aware of the changes to the code but is knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting the language of the statute in order to spur support for their position.

Neither scenario reflects well on that organization.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

The ones who this really reflect badly on are Hawaii legislators who would pass such anti-democratic special interest legislation to entrench authoritarian developer dictatorships in power in HOA's. They should all be run out of office. Shame on them!

I would consider owning a timeshare in California, but with politicians pulling these stunts in Hawaii, you could not give me a timeshare there.

[Jasonb334 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jasonb334]

Even before that it wasn't exactly cut-and-dried since the implementing regulations adopted by the Hawaii Department of Real Estate did not require disclosure of ownership lists.

In any case, news of the assessment came out in September or October of 2011, after the legislation was passed. The flaming of outrage from that event unsurprisingly has greatly raised the profile of the Point at Poipu Concerned Owners organization, and that organization has been been referencing the first portion of the code as evidence of bald flaunting of the law by the current board as part of the organization's efforts to garner support.

I can only conclude one of two things:

1. The organization is unaware of the changes to the code, which would indicate their level of research and preparation is horribly deficient; or

2. The organization is aware of the changes to the code but is knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting the language of the statute in order to spur support for their position.

Neither scenario reflects well on that organization.

I'm sure they were very aware of the new code. The problem is the new code is not cut-and-dried either. It is also left to interpretation by the courts and/or governmental bodies that are supposed to enforce (hand slap) the laws. Some of the resorts may be grandfathered in due to the dates they were organized under HRS 514A or HRS 514B. Unfortunately the legislature did not make it clear and concise which would allow a direct course of action.

The lingering issue of the membership list goes back to those members that were denied the list prior to the new law passed in June 2011, (regardless if it applies). Those parties were entitled to the list (not cut & dried) and needed the list to run an effective campaign for a seat on the board.

Enacting a new law is not a remedy for those that violated it prior to enactment, nor does it entitle them to withhold it from the members that made the request earlier. As with SOKCO, the courts ruled that the list had to be provided which set a precedent in Hawaii. The SOCKO issue is a little unique because they have full fee simple deeded (52 weeks) owners and fractional or vacation ownership. The court action was taken by a full fee simple week owner and he actually paid the entire court costs himself (from what has been gathered).

The strength in obtaining the membership list has been greatly weakened by the Hawaii Collection and the list will not make it easy, but not completely impossible to make a few changes. One thing that most people forgot, or were not aware of, is that you can pull your deed out of the Trust.....which would sway the percentages a bit. But it would take a major effort to swing it far enough to actually control the vote to a degree that "real" changes could be made, but control of the board, even for a short time could bring attention to misdoings and with the membership list in hand, others would at least have an idea what is going on with the resort.

But the real issue comes down to the assessment, how it was levied, why it was levied and at the benefit of whom. Did an owners' association, representing the best interest of the owners really look into alternatives or was it in their best interest to make the assessment such a hardship that other owners would default? Maybe not cut & dried, but not rocket science to figure that one out.

Good luck to all.... this is one ugly mess and it's not going to get better any time soon.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

I'm sure they were very aware of the new code. The problem is the new code is not cut-and-dried either.

So if they are aware of the new code doesn't that mean they're more than a bit disingenuous in the way they spin the information on the ownership list to try incite owners to join the cause? IMHO, they are guilty of almost exactly the same thing they accuse the board of doing.

[1SOKCO Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close 1SOKCO]

As with SOKCO, the courts ruled that the list had to be provided which set a precedent in Hawaii. The SOCKO issue is a little unique because they have full fee simple deeded (52 weeks) owners and fractional or vacation ownership. The court action was taken by a full fee simple week owner and he actually paid the entire court costs himself (from what has been gathered).

You are close in your facts, but... The suit was brought by a whole owner, not a timeshare owner. The plaintiff was the AOAO (condominium board), not the SOK Vacation Club (timeshare board). He won, but the court rule for them to provide the list of owners. The list, indeed, does show all of the timeshare owners, however, the addresses were all the same - the resort address. Interesting that in an earlier ruling the Court SPECIFICALLY told them not to do this. Another interesting point to note is the soon after this final ruling, the judge retired. Hmm... We believe that ASNY was one of the parties that influenced this legistation. This legislation does not go into effect until March 2015! There is still time to show the legislature the errors of their ways and have this repealed.

There were several of us that, many years ago, filed notarized affidavits with management requesting the list of timeshare owners. All of this has been entirely futile, because the management (SOC VC board and ASNY) has ignored ALL of our requests!

[Jasonb334 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jasonb334]

So if they are aware of the new code doesn't that mean they're more than a bit disingenuous in the way they spin the information on the ownership list to try incite owners to join the cause? IMHO, they are guilty of almost exactly the same thing they accuse the board of doing.

I think you may have missed this part of the post:
"The problem is the new code is not cut-and-dried either. It is also left to interpretation by the courts and/or governmental bodies that are supposed to enforce (hand slap) the laws. Some of the resorts may be grandfathered in due to the dates they were organized under HRS 514A or HRS 514B."

That's why they have legal counsel (more than one) looking into the applicability of SB1483 and the prior requests and more than willing to pay the legal fees to do it, but the caveat of a "class action" is that the courts will most likely provide that information to the plaintiffs' attorneys to notify owners that they are entitled to join the class.

I don't think it is disingenuous if they are seeking it through more than one legal avenue and I doubt they need "anything" to incite those owners. The assessment alone is enough to start a riot.....

If I only went to Law School... I'd take them on pro-bono just for the shear thrill of it.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

I think you may have missed this part of the post:
"The problem is the new code is not cut-and-dried either. It is also left to interpretation by the courts and/or governmental bodies that are supposed to enforce (hand slap) the laws. Some of the resorts may be grandfathered in due to the dates they were organized under HRS 514A or HRS 514B."

That's why they have legal counsel (more than one) looking into the applicability of SB1483 and the prior requests and more than willing to pay the legal fees to do it, but the caveat of a "class action" is that the courts will most likely provide that information to the plaintiffs' attorneys to notify owners that they are entitled to join the class.

I don't think it is disingenuous if they are seeking it through more than one legal avenue and I doubt they need "anything" to incite those owners. The assessment alone is enough to start a riot.....

If I only went to Law School... I'd take them on pro-bono just for the shear thrill of it.

As you note that the law is not cut and dried, and that in itself is spinning the situation positively. Don't you think it's disingenuous to tell people that the law is clear when it isn't?

To me, this feeds a credibility problem. Where else are they distorting or doctoring information to spin it their way? If they do so with regard to something that can be so easily checked, how can someone believe other assertions that can't be so easily investigated?

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

If they only give the management address, there needs to be a means through either the court or statute to force management to forward all such communications as a fiduciary duty to the actual owner.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

shear thrill

That's scary.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

The ones who this really reflect badly on are Hawaii legislators who would pass such anti-democratic special interest legislation to entrench authoritarian developer dictatorships in power in HOA's. They should all be run out of office. Shame on them!

I would consider owning a timeshare in California, but with politicians pulling these stunts in Hawaii, you could not give me a timeshare there.

With the requirement of airfare / ship travel and higher costs of island maintenance in general you couldn't give me a Hawaiian t/s or any other t/s that requires a non-drivable destination. Those have to remain options that I'll trade into or rent when conditions are favorable NOT something I'm tied to owning & paying for when the mere cost of getting there is prohibitive and renting also becomes problematic as anyone has to pay those costs. It just doesn't make sense to try to own there unless you plan to go regularly and travel and other costs don't matter to you. Not many have that situation. Thats before you look at the poor climate the governing bodies are creating for owners. Not a place to own anymore.