Timeshare Users Group Forums

Timeshare Users Group Forums (http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/index.php)
-   US - Western (http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   MROP (ORE/VRI)Special Assessment! (http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60944)

brg850 December 21, 2007 11:27 AM

MROP (ORE/VRI)Special Assessment!
 
I received a bill for the MROP special assessment for $250 per week interval a few days ago, just in time for the holidays.
I called the Utah office and finally talked the office manager. According to her, the project to build the new condos in St. George Utah is about 60 percent done and it will be built out by April 2008. Now they need more money to pay the developer again but MROP were unable to sell the new intervals/memberships to get additional funding until the condos are ready. Utah law does not allow timeshare association to get loan on their real properties. Therefore came the special assessments....
I have heard of special assessments because of major nature disasters, but not for this type of man made financial crisis. I am going to get a copy of the by-laws and see if this is legal at all to ask members money for this type of use.

brg

brg850 December 22, 2007 04:46 PM

Here's what I found out according to the paragraph from the bylaws, that the special assessment we received is not valid!

In Vacation Handbook page 26, or MROP Bylaws page 18,

Article VII Assessements And Enforcement.

Section 7.04. Special Assessments.

"However, Special Assessments shall not, in the aggregate, exceed 25% of the Maintenance Assessment for the applicable fiscal year, without a vote of the majority of a of a quorum of the members to approve such Special Assessment beyond 25%"

I do not think this special assessment was approved by the members in the regular membership meeting or any special membership meetings at all.

So take a look at the bylaws yourself and call the MROP office. The current president Noel S. Hyde (Utah) and past president Chris Fonnesbeck (Utah), their phone numbers are on the internet white pages and zabasearch.

I have also left a message for the MROP/VRI "manager" Terry Bicco at 800-400-9950 ext 112 regarding the artificial special assessment without the members approval.

brg

brg850 December 22, 2007 10:54 PM

MROP Bylaws
 
These are links to the bylaws and newsletters:

Bylaws http://www.multi-resorts.com/documents/MROP_ByLaws.pdf

Handbook http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...n_Handbook.pdf

2006_audit http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...ance_audit.pdf

2005_audit http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...ance_audit.pdf

Spring_news http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...newsletter.pdf

Fall_news http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...newsletter.pdf

brg

bogey21 December 22, 2007 11:17 PM

All good things come to an end. ORE was great until they sold out. Now the greed takes over.

George

Kurt Brown December 23, 2007 11:22 AM

Thank you for the information
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brg850 (Post 438407)
I received a bill for the MROP special assessment for $250 per week interval a few days ago, just in time for the holidays.
I called the Utah office and finally talked the office manager. According to her, the project to build the new condos in St. George Utah is about 60 percent done and it will be built out by April 2008. Now they need more money to pay the developer again but MROP were unable to sell the new intervals/memberships to get additional funding until the condos are ready. Utah law does not allow timeshare association to get loan on their real properties. Therefore came the special assessments....
I have heard of special assessments because of major nature disasters, but not for this type of man made financial crisis. I am going to get a copy of the by-laws and see if this is legal at all to ask members money for this type of use.

brg

I have sent them a letter explaining why I will not be paying the special assessment, to the effect that:

"I am writing in protest of the recent special assessment of $250.00 per member week. This is an unacceptable reason for a special assessment.

I am being asked to fund construction of a new resort, Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge Resort, where I will have no specific individual ownership interest, and where I have no intention of ever traveling.

Your offices are located in Utah. You have somehow decided to build a new resort rather than continuing to gain access to existing resorts, for the Multi Ownership Resort Plan. I have to question the competence of that decision-making process. Your reasoning is, after construction has already begun, that

Kurt Brown December 23, 2007 11:44 AM

Thank you for the information
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brg850 (Post 438407)
I received a bill for the MROP special assessment for $250 per week interval a few days ago, just in time for the holidays.
I called the Utah office and finally talked the office manager. According to her, the project to build the new condos in St. George Utah is about 60 percent done and it will be built out by April 2008. Now they need more money to pay the developer again but MROP were unable to sell the new intervals/memberships to get additional funding until the condos are ready. Utah law does not allow timeshare association to get loan on their real properties. Therefore came the special assessments....
I have heard of special assessments because of major nature disasters, but not for this type of man made financial crisis. I am going to get a copy of the by-laws and see if this is legal at all to ask members money for this type of use.

brg

I have written a letter to them to the effect:

"I am writing in protest of the recent special assessment of $250.00 per member week. This is an unacceptable reason for a special assessment.

I am being asked to fund construction of a new resort, Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge Resort, where I will have no specific individual ownership interest, and where I have no intention of ever traveling.

Your offices are located in Utah. You have somehow decided to build a new resort rather than continuing to gain access to existing resorts, for the Multi Ownership Resort Plan. I have to question the competence of that decision-making process. Your reasoning is, after construction has already begun, that “we have learned that Utah law prohibits secured loans or encumbrances against timeshare properties”.

I have no objection to your noting on my account that since I am not participating in the construction of the new resort that I not be allowed to use it.

Thank you for your understanding as to why I will not be paying the special assessment."

(NOTE: At the time owners at my resort were being asked to join MROP, I asked the board to put out balancing information so that owners could make an informed choice. They refused to do so. I therefore voted AGAINST the resort joining MROP).

Kurt

jmparker98223 January 2, 2008 12:07 AM

WHOA! Think this through! Cool down!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt Brown (Post 439147)
I have written a letter to them to the effect:

"I am writing in protest of the recent special assessment of $250.00 per member week. This is an unacceptable reason for a special assessment.

I am being asked to fund construction of a new resort, Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge Resort, where I will have no specific individual ownership interest, and where I have no intention of ever traveling.

Your offices are located in Utah. You have somehow decided to build a new resort rather than continuing to gain access to existing resorts, for the Multi Ownership Resort Plan. I have to question the competence of that decision-making process. Your reasoning is, after construction has already begun, that “we have learned that Utah law prohibits secured loans or encumbrances against timeshare properties”.

I have no objection to your noting on my account that since I am not participating in the construction of the new resort that I not be allowed to use it.

Thank you for your understanding as to why I will not be paying the special assessment."

(NOTE: At the time owners at my resort were being asked to join MROP, I asked the board to put out balancing information so that owners could make an informed choice. They refused to do so. I therefore voted AGAINST the resort joining MROP).

Kurt

A special assessment never pleases anyone regardless of the circumstances. However, not paying is not an option unless you want to forfit your timeshare. See the By-Laws, they are very explicit on this.

As a new owner/Member of MROP, it really fails to satisfy. The Board by way of their legal counsel either knew or should have known that Utah law prohibited encumbering the Association. Incompetence or malfeasence seems to be the order of the day.

Our choices as mere owner/Members are limited but from my perspective they are:
(A.) Encourage a simple majority of the members to attend either in person or by proxy to change the By-Laws to reign in the Trustees, empower the Members, establish conflict of interest rules for the Trustees and Board Members, and, for calling on a vote of the members for acquisition of new properties beyond some set dollar value.

(B.) Enjoin the Board in a class action law suit to accomplish the goals outlined in (A.) above. This will take deep pockets and after all we will be suing ourselves.

Nobody wins in a lawsuit.

To acomplish the goals of (A.) a list of members and their addresses are required. Somebody will have to become the focal point for all this and spearhead the effort. Plus, as the old saying goes, it ain't free. A lot of effort and postage will be required as well as answering a lot of questions.

Are you close to the MROP Office so you can drop-in and get the list of owners? I'm not! But, that is what it's going to take to get going.

The number of replies to this post is a clear indicator that this isn't on the front burner for most folks.

teepeeca January 2, 2008 11:36 AM

jmparker98223
 
Most of the time, special assessments are a "necessary evil". HOWEVER, in this case, according to the by-laws, the special assessment CANNOT be imposed because it is more than the percentage allowed, without a vote of the membership.

No vote of the membership has taken place.

If it is an "illegal" special assessment, then you will NOT forfeit your
week(s).

Tony

jmparker98223 January 2, 2008 01:47 PM

We out here in Owner/Member land can squawk all we want about what is 'legal' , 'illegal', or anything else, however the simple fact remains that the Board of Trustees sent out a special assessment.

The Board of Trustees obviously feels that sending out the special assessment is a legitimate exercise of their power.

So, how do you challenge the exercise of the Board of Trustees power?

The only two ways that I know of is to Lawyer up or bring it up from the floor at a regular Member meeting. Do you have another approach?

This is where the fly is in the ointment. Refusing to pay puts you in a delinquent status and thus voids your vote at the meeting. Foreclosure or forfeiture happens later.

Are you ready to Lawyer up?

Jya-Ning January 2, 2008 02:03 PM

Not an owner in the chain.

Actually, from what I read, it is illegal, so they will have trouble to foreclose,

look at this thread

http://www.timeshareforums.com/forum...tml#post189950

They must find it out and now will plan to have a quick special meeting and use the uniformed owner's vote to pass it.

You can inform as many owner as possible, and make sure they send no on their vote and not just let the board use their ignorance.

Jya-Ning

gravityrules January 2, 2008 04:40 PM

deleted, see following post.

gravityrules January 2, 2008 04:44 PM

jmparker98223, I'm also in the process of becoming a MROP member so I'm not thrilled with what's happening here. What some posters seem to be missing in reacting to a special assessment (SA) is the issue of Utah law not allowing timeshare property to be used as collateral for a loan. Apparently MROP has operated for many years with loans secured by various timeshare properties. Part of the proposed SA is to pay off existing loans, part of it is to not have loans on the new St. George project. Perhaps in the process of trying to secure the new project financing this legal issue was discovered? It's hard to accept that things have been operating for years in an 'illegal' fashion (having outstanding loans secured by timeshare properties) without ORE (and now VRI) management and/or the MROP board realizing it.
But to make matters worse, to try to rush in a last minute SA (notices apparently sent out in December, due in January) beyond the 25% SA allowed in the bylaws without a member meeting, runs completely against the owner friendly image MROP has tried to cultivate. Although I'm not happy about a SA, it's the lack of explanation and communication that worry me the most. Is this really a one time SA? Will the MFs be lower next year as a result?

jmparker98223 January 2, 2008 04:57 PM

Thank you Jya-Ning. You appear to be correct, an end run will depend on un-informed owners not participating. Regarding what's legal or illegal depends on who is forcing the action. Several shallow pocket owners against the Board of Trustees don't have much of a chance.

Let's do the math

$450,000 (estimated) per unit times 12 = $5,400,000
12 units times 50 weeks = 600 intervals for sale
600 intervals times $5000 per interval = $3,000,000
$250 special assessment time 10,000 owners (estimated) = $2,500,000
$2,500,000 + $3,000,000 = $5,500,000

So it looks like someone's real estate deal gets financed for free and the MROP Owners get the bill. It does not seem that this is something that any MROP Owner would want to scratch and sniff.

We need someone in Salt Lake City to get a list of Owners/Members so we can start a campaign to answer the classic Roman question Qui Bono? Who benefits? It doesn't seem to be the membership. All we would get out of this is the bill via the Special Assessment and an increase in Maintenance Fees next year. Unfortunately I'm several thousand miles from Salt Lake and can't get there to get the list myself.

Hellooooo!!! Is there anybody near the MROP Offices interested in this issue????

Bill4728 January 2, 2008 05:32 PM

Since this thread has nothing to do with Buying or selling, I've moved this to the western US board.

shagnut January 2, 2008 09:37 PM

I received my sa and couldn't believe it. I just paid the mf's!!! I am very close to telling them to keep my week, except for the fact I've just paid my fees and want to use a week. I will probably pay this one time but I will sell it or give it away if this happens again.

I remember many years ago they wanted a one time fee of 5 thousand which would give us one week in a gold crown resort they wanted to build in St George. I voted NO, they called me and wanted to know why. I told them I only paid $500 in the first place and I had more than enough vacations to feel if I lost it I had more than used it. Of course, they didn't get enough support to do anything.

As my originial deed was in St George they said they wanted to build a new resort in St George so we would have a week to go there.

Stinks, it almost makes me want to get out of ts altogether.

shaggy

gravityrules January 2, 2008 11:46 PM

I don't want to be in the position of defending this SA, but aren't we all overreacting to a one-time SA of $250? I'm sure there are MANY Tuggers who can comment on their experience with 'special assessments'. I can understand the frustration, but 'suing the MROP board' or 'getting out of timesharing' are rather extreme reactions. Why is the assumption that the MROP board has suddenly switched to the 'dark side'? I would like a thorough explanation and accounting of the SA, the 'no debt' Utah law recently 'discovered' and the story on the new St. George resort (the benefit this has for existing MROP members other than adding 600 more St. George weeks to the pool).
If I'm interpreting the sketchy information correctly, MFs should GO DOWN next year, at least to the extent that some of the previous MFs serviced debt. And then the sales of the new weeks would go into the reserve fund.
We can certainly question whether the new resort in St. George was the best use of MROP funds but that decision seems to be past the point of return.

If the MROP board was trying to get members to go for a new resort 'years ago' (pre VRI) at a 5K pop, then that seems to indicate to me this has nothing to do with VRI.

jmparker98223 January 3, 2008 12:44 AM

The ultra vires exercise of power simply has to be challanged and the tort feasors held accountable. There is no dark side, only the legitimate exercise of power or something else. When we are coerced into the something else we start down a slippery slope from which there is no return and rules to fit the circumstances are created and imposed - the By-Laws will have become notes of convienence. Once power is granted it is very difficult to retract. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires

The following letter has been sent to MROP regarding the assessment: It is my hope that readers of this posting may find something useful by reading it.

Mr. Gerald Thompson, Secretary
Multiple Resort Ownership Plan
1521 East 3900 South,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84124



Dear Mr. Thompson,

Recently, I learned of a special assessment required to “…eliminate all outstanding loans…” related to certain properties that the MROP Board of Trustees has decided to acquire for use by the membership.

In reading through the Corporate Charter and By-Laws I have noted the “Purpose of Assessment” is defined in Section 7.02 and that Section 7.04 defines the requirements for the levying a “Special Assessment”.

The December 5, 2007 letter from MROP President Noel S. Hyde, announces the levying of a “Special Assessment” that meets none of the definitions of “Purpose” nor does it meet those of a “Special Assessment” nor does anything in the President’s Letter meet the requirements of a “Special Assessment” as defined in the By-Laws.

The By-Laws are explicit: "However, Special Assessments shall not, in the aggregate, exceed 25% of the Maintenance Assessment for the applicable fiscal year, without a vote of the majority of a of a quorum of the members to approve such Special Assessment beyond 25%"

Therefore, your presentment of “Special Assessment” has been refused for cause and is attached herewith.

Not withstanding anything in the foregoing, I have several questions relative to this acquisition and Mr. Hyde’s Letter:
1. Was there a polling of the membership to determine whether or not sufficient membership interest in that geographic area warranted acquiring properties at the Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge?
2. On what date did the MROP Officers and or Board of Trustees arrive at the decision to acquire the Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge property?
3. Is this decision reflected in the minutes of the Corporation?
4. Were other geographic areas considered at the same time as the Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge for acquisition of additional timeshare units?
5. Was the legal counsel retained by the Corporation apprised of the facts of the purchase of Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge either before or after consummation of the transaction?
6. Did the counsel provide advice to the Board of Trustees or the Officers of the Corporation regarding this the purchase of the Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge?
7. If advice was provided by counsel is that advice a matter of record in the minutes or records of the Corporation?
8. During the meeting at which the decision was made to acquire 12 units at the Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge were the MROP Officers and or Board of Trustees aware that it would experience a shortfall of funds during the consummation of the purchase?
9. During the meeting at which the decision was made to acquire 12 units at the Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge did the MROP Officers and or Board of Trustees discuss the fact that the magnitude of the special assessment was in excess of the limits established in Section 7 et. seq. for a special assessment?
Please do not ignore this request for information.
Kindly notify me of the time and place of any Special Meetings of the Members.

Respectfully,

gravityrules January 3, 2008 02:17 AM

A poster in that 'other TS forum' says the MROP board is now planning to call the required meeting. If so, that implies acknowledgement that the present SA does not meet the by-law requirements.

Other than working within the bylaws (both in letter and in 'spirit') and having meaningful, honest 2 way communication with the members, what are you wanting the MROP board to do? Would you agree that MROP should be in compliance with Utah law? Are you asking the board to abandon a half completed 12 unit resort? I don't like an SA either, but please explain any options that are better for this present situation. It seems to me that some posters are not going to be happy with any outcome other that no SA, but is that realistic? I agree that MROP 'should not have got into this mess' but that sentiment does nothing to address the present issues.

Perhaps the place to start would be for the board to send out SA retraction letters explaining the by-law requirements along with a meeting notice and detailed financial information explaining the basis of the proposed SA. There would also need to be a thorough discussion of the new St. George project.

CharlesS January 3, 2008 08:21 AM

Do I understand this correctly?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gravityrules (Post 444212)
I agree that MROP 'should not have got into this mess' but that sentiment does nothing to address the present issues.

Perhaps the place to start would be for the board to send out SA retraction letters explaining the by-law requirements along with a meeting notice and detailed financial information explaining the basis of the proposed SA.

I am not prepared to discuss the merits of the SA but I would like to know if I understand the history. Tell me where I am wrong.

1. The owners elected the Trustees of the HOA (the policy making group).

2. The HOA borrowed money for whatever.

3. The HOA hired a new management group (VRI).

4. VRI told the HOA that they were doing something wrong in the borrowing and that they have to correct it.

5. HOA decided on an SA and failed to adequately inform the members of their rational of the need for the SA.

6. The amount of the SA as approved by the HOA violated the by-laws.

Thank you, Charles

gravityrules January 3, 2008 01:38 PM

1. Yes

2. Yes -
Reason A from SA letter "As you may know, since its organization over twenty years ago MROP has obtained loans from time to time to pay for such things as catastrophic damage from weather related events at some of our resorts."
Reason B From the SA letter it appears the board planned to finance the construction of the new 12 unit Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge resort.

3. Yes - actually the previous non-profit management firm ORE was purchased by VRI in 2006.

4. Unknown - I haven't seen an explanation of how or when the board became aware of the legal issues. Whether this is due to imcompetence or 'malfeasance' (as the previous poster says) of the present or previous MROP board, management, or legal counsel ... I don't know.

5. Debatabe, but Yes (IMHO) - the explanation was contained in the SA letter sent out in December with the SA due in January. Here's the gist of it: "In order to eliminate all outstanding secured loans and to provide the funding to complete the new Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge without any debts or encumbrances, your Board of Directors has authorized a special assessment". The explanation is insufficient, the timing is bad, and too little time is allowed for owners to deal with the SA.

6. Yes


FYI, here's a link to the 2006 Annual meeting minutes:

http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...ng_Minutes.pdf

Does anyone have minutes of the 2007 annual meeting?

lynnray January 3, 2008 03:02 PM

Confused and concerned
 
In March 2006 we went to a TS presentation at the Snow Canyon Villas and made the mistake of purchasing 108,000 RCI points for $18,000. We were told at the time that this would be our home resort and many other things that have turned out to be untrue. We are owners and part of MROP and have not received any letter regarding a special assessment. Maybe the owners who already paid a large chunk of money flor Snow Canyon are not included in the SA, but it that would also seem to go against the by-laws of the association.

We actually live in St George. I am going to go to Snow Canyon Villas and see if I can get any additional info. I do not trust the sales people there at all, but I will see what I can find out.

lynnray January 3, 2008 03:49 PM

found this post re: MROP/ST George
 
I found this posting on www.streettalkblog.com - it goes back to my last post that the salespeople from WROMAN are crooks. I am going to the UT State Attorney General about their sales practices and deceipt. They absolute misled us about what we were buying.


"Word on the street says that Wroman has not learned its lesson about selling inventory without the deeds. Consider this rant:

They did it at Landmark Holiday Beach Club in Panama City, Tahoe Beach and Ski in Lake Tahoe, Inverness at South Padre, Royale Beach and Tennis in South Padre and The shores of Lake Travis in Texas. After consumer complaints reached the Attorney General’s office or the clients attorney’s started calling, Wroman would try to make the owner take another property in place of the one sold or a refund that would usually take months to deliver. Now they are in St George, Utah selling unsuspecting souls on the beauty of the soon to be developed Snow Canyon timeshare units. Only problem is, they are selling the MROP program. The owners receive a membership, not deeded anywhere, that allows them the ability to trade within the current MROP family of resorts. People who have bought into the false pitch of owning in Snow Canyon are starting to complain. Wroman is telling people that construction is delayed due to the developer, Split Rock Development, having problems getting the project started.
I can say that Wroman has earned a less than glorious reputation within the industry nearly since they day they opened their doors to sell RCI Points, if our inboxes are any indication. So IF the above is true, I for one would not be surprised."

jmparker98223 January 4, 2008 12:27 AM

On Jan. 3, 2008 at 3:17 am GRAVITY RULES wrote:
Other than working within the bylaws (both in letter and in 'spirit') and having meaningful, honest 2 way communication with the members, what are you wanting the MROP board to do? Would you agree that MROP should be in compliance with Utah law? Are you asking the board to abandon a half completed 12 unit resort? I don't like an SA either, but please explain any options that are better for this present situation. It seems to me that some posters are not going to be happy with any outcome other that no SA, but is that realistic? I agree that MROP 'should not have got into this mess' but that sentiment does nothing to address the present issues.

Is there some problem with “working within the bylaws (both in letter and in 'spirit') and having meaningful, honest 2 way communication with the members?”

It is very difficult to determine the proper course of action when there is a absence of facts and candor. The term that seems to apply is “Full Disclosure” and that is what we do not have from the current Board of Trustees or the Officers of the Corporation. We the Members and Owners don’t really know the full extent of the present issues. Consequently we Owners and Members cannot ameliorate the situation.

It isn’t clear from any of the documents provided by the Board of Trustees or the Officers of the Corporation that an actual contract has been consummated. It isn’t a clear established fact that the Association is at the present out of compliance with Utah Law. Until these facts are known, the only clear facts are:

1. MROP is supposed to be a non-profit corporation established for the benefit of the Members/Owners.
2. The Corporation has a Charter and By-laws that are supposed to govern the activities of the Corporation.
3. The Special Assessment, as presented, is in violation of the By-Laws.
4. The Board of Trustees or the Officers of the Corporation knew or should have known that the Special Assessment as written was beyond their power without a vote of the Members/Owners.
5. The Board of Trustees or the Officers of the Corporation knew or should have known that Utah law does not allow timeshare association to get loan on their real properties.
6. Legal counsel retained by the Association for advice knew or should have known that Utah law does not allow timeshare associations to encumber their real properties with loans.
7. The 2006 Audit Report shows that $26,001.00 was budgeted for Legal and Professional Fees.

What is missing here is some candor and visibility into the operations and decision making by the Board of Trustees or the Officers of the Corporation. We do not know if any of the Board of Trustees or the Officers of the Corporation has a conflict of interest between the Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge Resort and MROP.
We the Members and Owners do know that we need some changes to the By-Laws to provide prohibitions against conflicts of interest, greater visibility into operations and decision making, some dollar limits on expenditures that can be made without a vote of the Members and Owners, and a pledge to ethical conduct of operations on behalf of the Members and Owners.

ragtop January 4, 2008 01:08 AM

So what I don't get is why VRI bought the management contract for MROP if not to make money and why problems like this didn't turn up when they were doing their pre-purchase investigation? And how will VRI benefit from the SA now being imposed? Are they paying too:doh: ?

CharlesS January 4, 2008 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragtop (Post 445035)
So what I don't get is why VRI bought the management contract for MROP if not to make money and why problems like this didn't turn up when they were doing their pre-purchase investigation? And how will VRI benefit from the SA now being imposed? Are they paying too ?

Does MROP just own deeds to individual unit/weeks at various resorts or does MROP also own some "resorts" in the sense that MROP also owns the swimming pool, restaurant, registration building, and/or golf course, etc.?

When VRI (a management company) bought ORE (another management company) they got stuck with ORE's bad contracts as well as the good contracts. (I don't know if, in the long run, MROP will turn out to be good or bad for VRI).

VRI benefits from its contracts. Of course the contracts have to be renewed by the HOA's that hire VRI. So VRI will benefit if the MROP assets, etc. are properly managed in an ethical and fiscally responsible manner such that the HOA's are happy and the owners(members) (who elect the HOA's) are happy. If MROP was doing something illegal or not responsible, VRI has to help them get out of the mess. If VRI does something illegal and the other VRI managed resorts find out about, VRI will lose many of their contracts, so VRI has to make sure that the resorts it manages are run on the up and up. (By the way, previous messes made by previous HOA's and/or developers and whether legal or not cost money to fix. The only source of money is Special Assesments.)

VRI will also benefit if they can help do away with black eye practices which give timeshares a bad name.

Regarding the question about VRI paying too, VRI is paying in having to put extra effort in to get the HOA to fix past mistakes rather than just managing things and looking forward.

Charles

gravityrules January 4, 2008 10:13 AM

jmparker98223,

Well said.

Garnet January 4, 2008 05:57 PM

Would the BOD just spread out an SA over a number of years? The Tahoe Beach and Ski did that-$500 over 5 years. BUT it was for needed repairs (not new units in UT) and from what I understand (we purchased in year 5 of 5 year SA) the resort had gotten a bit run down. For TBS owners, the SA was worth it-we have a terrific location right on Lake Tahoe. Doesn't sound like you're getting much out of the SA?

gravityrules January 4, 2008 11:00 PM

lynnray,

Is Snow Canyon Villas in the Coral Ridge Townhome development? (see link) Since you are in the area, can validate where the new resort is actually located? The townhomes seem to match the given description (3 BR, 2.5 bath) and the developer mentioned (Split Rock Development). See the 20-22' model, it has 1532 square feet of living space.

http://www.coral-ridge.com/index.shtml

The number of RCI points you mentioned for Snow Canyon Villas (108,000) is almost 3 times the 38,000 points given for a MROP red week. I'm not trying to re-direct this thread, but I'd love to know what dollar figure Wroman is trying to get to convert a MROP week to RCI points. I've not had any personal experience with Wroman, but their reputation with TUGGERs and others in the TS industry seems to be poor. So why did the MROP board partner with these guys?

Dean January 5, 2008 06:16 AM

I don't have a dog in this fight but will point out that if the HOA wants a SA, they will likely do so. If the special meeting doesn't work out, they'll probably just do it over 2 or 3 years likely with a higher price tag in the long run.

brg850 January 5, 2008 11:05 PM

MROP Special Assessment Updates!
 
I just got back home this afternoon from my New Year vacation and I still have not received any replies from MROP since more than a week ago. So I decided to give the board president Mr. Noel S. Hyde a call. For the phone number, I did Zabasearch in Layton/UT, the other phone number in Ogden/UT is probably his office number. He was at home when I called this evening and was kind enough to answer some questions.

According the Mr. Hyde, they were not aware of the bylaws when they sent out the special assessment letter. He also has instructed VRI/MROP NOT to collect the special assessment for now. They are planning on sending out the special member meeting by the end of this month and hold the meeting early next month. They will try get inputs and feedbacks from the members.

So please spread the words, inform other owners, call the board members and give them your inputs. Our voices and votes do count!

brg

w879jr1 January 6, 2008 06:31 AM

Thanks
 
A big Thank You to brg for taking the actions you have. I hope many others will send you their thanks too.

I notice that you have posted this information on the MROP members forum so the good news should travel quickly. Hopefully Mr. Hyde will place a revised letter in the member area of www.multi-resorts.com.

On checking, I found that on the VRI/ORE web site the SA is no longer recorded as "due now", so Mr. Hyde's instructions appear to be in place. The opportunity members will have to discuss this matter with the board is to be welcomed.

Passepartout January 6, 2008 09:03 AM

BRG, I second the big Thank You for contacting Mr. Hyde about this. I wasn't aware of the conflict with the by-laws (hate reading legalese) until this thread appeared. The Coral Ridge addition looks usable for our family, but I can see how a SA isn't an applicable way to acquire more properties.

So, that aside, any clues as to what those who already paid the assessment ought to do?

Jim Ricks

jmparker98223 January 7, 2008 10:26 AM

At 0820 PST on 01-07-08 the assessment was still on my account.

Don't go to sleep on this. Call and ask everyone you know to call.

brg850 January 7, 2008 02:23 PM

More Updates!
 
I just called VRI/MROP again this morning. The project manager Terry Bricoo (800-440-9950 ext 112) was out of the office again to St. George, but I was able to talk to Lynn Larson (800-440-9950 ext 106). She was very helpful to provide some more information. She's also willing to answer other owner's questions so you can call her directly rather then waiting 20 minutes for a vacation/fee agent.

Their interpretations of Mr. Noel Hyde's were not to pursuit the special assessments aggressively. They will still collect the fee if you are willing to pay. If you have already paid the fee, it will be up to the voting results whether it will be refunded back to the owners or not. The special meeting will be held on Feb 6.

The Coral Ridge project in St. George is the replacement for Snow Canyon project. They are planning on selling 200 intervals from the 600 total intervals when the 12 units are done in a few months.

The remaining 400 intervals will be used together with other St. George intervals and storm damaged intervals as a pool that Member Class K with more than 1,000 members will have priority into. They still have to figure out a way to work this out and hope these members will not want to use this resort very often based on the past usages.

This means although MROP will own this resort, RCI point system will pretty much have access to 1/3 of the intervals, and there will be more owners with priority than available St. George intervals already. What are the chances for the rest of the owners who pay for the special assessments who want to use the St. George resort? Once in a BLUE WEEK!

As fas as the available unsold intervals when the resort is ready but before the next annual scheduling, their plan was to let owners use these intervals on the first come first server basis. So I suggested that maybe they can give the owners who are will to pay or fund the project some credits or bonus time in compensation.

We definitely need more people to contact Lynn Larson and Noel Hyde to give them feedbacks and alternatives rather than just a yes/no vote in the coming meeting.

brg

shagnut January 7, 2008 08:43 PM

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! shaggy

lynnray January 8, 2008 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravityrules (Post 445686)
lynnray,

Is Snow Canyon Villas in the Coral Ridge Townhome development? (see link) Since you are in the area, can validate where the new resort is actually located? The townhomes seem to match the given description (3 BR, 2.5 bath) and the developer mentioned (Split Rock Development). See the 20-22' model, it has 1532 square feet of living space.

http://www.coral-ridge.com/index.shtml

The number of RCI points you mentioned for Snow Canyon Villas (108,000) is almost 3 times the 38,000 points given for a MROP red week. I'm not trying to re-direct this thread, but I'd love to know what dollar figure Wroman is trying to get to convert a MROP week to RCI points. I've not had any personal experience with Wroman, but their reputation with TUGGERs and others in the TS industry seems to be poor. So why did the MROP board partner with these guys?


Snow Canyon Villas is nowhere near Coral Canyon. I definitely need to get out to Snow Canyon Villas and find out what is going on, but based on a later post, it appears tha Coral Canyon is a replacement for Snow Canyon. I am going to try and call the Wroman salesman who "sold" me my points and see what I can find out. As to the dollor figure they wanted to convert a MROP week to RCI points, I am not sure, but will ask a friend of mine who was also at the presentation and was a MROP weeks owner. Will get back to you on that and anything else I find out.

lynnray January 8, 2008 02:21 PM

thanks
 
thanks brg for the info. we need to stay on top of this. will call Lynn Larson and Mr Hyde.

lynnray January 8, 2008 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnray (Post 447822)
Snow Canyon Villas is nowhere near Coral Canyon. I definitely need to get out to Snow Canyon Villas and find out what is going on, but based on a later post, it appears tha Coral Canyon is a replacement for Snow Canyon. I am going to try and call the Wroman salesman who "sold" me my points and see what I can find out. As to the dollor figure they wanted to convert a MROP week to RCI points, I am not sure, but will ask a friend of mine who was also at the presentation and was a MROP weeks owner. Will get back to you on that and anything else I find out.

I just talked to our salesman, formerly from Wroman, and basically he said that the Snow Canyon Villas are on hold for now, but wouldn't exactly elaborate. Split Rock Development is building units at Coral Canyon as a replacement. Wroman is no longer involved with MROP.

brg850 January 8, 2008 10:08 PM

New Letter from Mr. Hyde
 
Here's the link to the new letter regarding the special meeting from Mr. Hyde dated tomorrow we will all receive soon.

http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...ing_letter.pdf


Link to Meeting Notice:

http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...ing_notice.pdf


Link to the Supplemental Budget:

http://www.multi-resorts.com/documen...tal_budget.pdf

gravityrules January 9, 2008 01:41 PM

Thanks BRG for all your work on this issue. So less than $20 per interval week in the special assessment is to pay off old debt. It appears about $100 per interval week is to pay off Coral Ridge loans that have already been made, with another $100 for 'Capital Reserve Fund Contrib - special assess.' which I assume is for yet to be incurred expenses associated with Coral Ridge (Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge appears to be the 'official' name). There's another almost $20 per interval week for 'WA State Taxes' and then another $8 or so for 'Reserve for Potential State Regulatory Costs'; Explanations for these are needed.

Since the SA is mostly about paying for the new Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge resort, I think it's fair for existing MROP owners to ask 'what's in this for me?' If it's just another resort where an MROP week could potentially (see brg's previous comment) be used, then this is a bad deal for existing MROP owners.

The previous SA letter says as much as $750,000 ( which sounds like an 'upper limit' to me) could be added to the Capital Reserve account by the sale of the new weeks at Coral Ridge. Why is that a good deal for the membership if we're paying over $2 million for the development? Is a $5000 per interval week cost ($2 million divided by 400 weeks) a good use of MROP funds? It's been common for MROP to acquire weeks in the past at other locations for 1/10th of that cost. If there's other information or benefits that I'm missing I would sure like to hear about that. Also what happened to those San Antonio and Las Vegas weeks that MROP said were being acquired? Has this project in St. George, where MROP already has weeks, killed off acquisitions in other areas?

rkconnor January 9, 2008 04:43 PM

Thanks brg. I am a new member having just purchased two weeks from a friend and my membership was being held up because of the levy that I didn't pay. In speaking with VRI today the are going ahead with paper work but I still see that the web site shows a maintenance fee of 250/wk owing. Please let me and others know who we should call to object this assessent. Thanks again Ron

brg850 January 10, 2008 12:50 AM

MROP Contact Info
 
VRI/MROP Office

Lynn Larson 800-440-9950 ext 106, communicates with board members, very knowledgeable, also can provide new ownership info.

Terry Bricco 800-440-9950 ext 112, St. George Project Manager.

MROP Board Members

Current President: Noel S. Hyde (Utah)
http://whitepages.addresses.com/resu...&qn=Hyde&qs=UT

Past President: Chris Fonnesbeck (Utah)
http://whitepages.addresses.com/resu...nnesbeck&qs=UT

MROP Contact Email: info@multi-resorts.com

To Leave feedbacks on MROP Web Site: http://members.multi-resorts.com/contact.php

To Post Messages on MROP Forum: http://forum.multi-resorts.com

Jya-Ning January 11, 2008 11:51 AM

Not owner, but look like the HOA will hold a special meeting,
http://www.timeshareforums.com/forum...ssessment.html

So, if owners want to go and think they will willing to take poxoy so it will be voted after a more detail examine the situation, it maybe good to try to coordinate the effort.

Jya-Ning

brg850 January 11, 2008 04:14 PM

Proxy
 
I have not received the letter myself yet. Since I live near L.A. so we have to see who live near Salt Lake will be willing to be the proxy.

I am opposing the SA until MROP can come up with another plan to address these issues:

1. Financial responsibilities vs. acquiring new resorts from developer and increasing new membership intervals.

2. MROP still own less intervals then the total number of membership attached to the St. George resort. This is not just a mis-presentation, but another pending legal/bylaws issue as well.

3. Although the MROP office and the meeting will be held in Salt Lake, Utah, the ownership base has grown way beyond the Salt Lake, Utah area in the last few years. Instead of just building new condos in St. George, MROP probably can purchase some more intervals in other area near Utah through resale/wholesale that most of the owners can also use, such as Summer Bay Las Vegas or Sedona...

Let's call the board members and see if any one of them is also against the SA.

brg

brg850 January 12, 2008 04:38 PM

Proxy/Ballot
 
I just received the proxy/ballot for the special assessment today.

The form itself is rather misleading and not well instructed as where/how you put in your vote regarding the special assessment instead of just putting in the board of trustees as the proxy holder. There is no yes/no check boxes for you to vote for the assessment neither.


The proper way to fill out the proxy/ballot is to:

1. Select a Proxy holder. If you can not go to the meeting, you can not be the proxy holder.

1a. If you do not know any owner going to the meeting. Circle "A" to chose board of trustees to cast your voting instruction.

1b. You know any owner that is going to the meeting in Salt Lake, you can put the person's name in "SPACE B". Make sure the proxy holder will be at the meeting.

1c. As an alternative, you can put Mr. Noel Hyde in "SPACE B", since he will be at the meeting for sure, and he is okay to cast your voting instruction.


2. Make sure to put in your voting instruction next to it (No or yes on the special Assessment).

Even if the Board of Trustees is the chosen proxy, if you write down the voting instruction and return it. They will have to vote based on your instruction.

Please do not only sign and return it without the voting instruction, then the board can do whatever they want to do with it. This will be the worst case.

I have talked to both of them to confirm this.

Noel Hyde (president)
White page listing - Noel Hyde

David Racker (treasurer)
Whitepage listing - David Racker

You can also call them or call MROP office to ask for more clear instructions or to challange this questionable proxy/ballot.

So please do put in your voting instruction and return the proxy ballot.

brg

Kurt Brown January 14, 2008 04:53 PM

Think That This Thread Should Be Moved Back To "buying, Selling, Etc."
 
I never check the western board and there are MROP timeshares here in Texas and elsewhere!! This is an important issue.

I just received a new "Official Proxy/Ballot"

The "ballot" does not allow me to vote; only to appoint the Board of Trustees or some individual who is actually planning on attending the meeting to vote on my behalf - however they so wish to vote!!!

The whole thing smells to me.

Are there any TUGgers who are planning on going to the February 6th meeting and who intend to vote AGAINST the special assessment? If so, please let me know so that I can specify your name on my "ballot".

Sincerely yours,
Kurt Brown
kjbrown@sprintmail.com
713-271-8039 phone

brg850 January 15, 2008 02:41 PM

Special Meeting
 
Kurt,

Just saw this. Call MROP office and request it. It's Utah law.

Utah Code -- Title 16 -- Chapter 06a -- Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act

16-6a-708. Meetings by telecommunication.
(1) Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, any or all of the members may participate in an annual, regular, or special meeting of the members by, or the meeting may be conducted through the use of, any means of communication by which all persons participating in the meeting may hear each other during the meeting.
(2) A member participating in a meeting by a means permitted under Subsection (1) is considered to be present in person at the meeting.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE16/htm/16_02058.htm

brg

bart12 January 16, 2008 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brg850 (Post 450165)
I just received the proxy/ballot for the special assessment today.

The form itself is rather misleading and not well instructed as where/how you put in your vote regarding the special assessment instead of just putting in the board of trustees as the proxy holder. There is no yes/no check boxes for you to vote for the assessment neither.


The proper way to fill out the proxy/ballot is to:

1. Select a Proxy holder. If you can not go to the meeting, you can not be the proxy holder.

1a. If you do not know any owner going to the meeting. Circle "A" to chose board of trustees to cast your voting instruction.

1b. You know any owner that is going to the meeting in Salt Lake, you can put the person's name in "SPACE B". Make sure the proxy holder will be at the meeting.

1c. As an alternative, you can put Mr. Noel Hyde in "SPACE B", since he will be at the meeting for sure, and he is okay to cast your voting instruction.


2. Make sure to put in your voting instruction next to it (No or yes on the special Assessment).

Even if the Board of Trustees is the chosen proxy, if you write down the voting instruction and return it. They will have to vote based on your instruction.

Please do not only sign and return it without the voting instruction, then the board can do whatever they want to do with it. This will be the worst case.

I have talked to both of them to confirm this.

Noel Hyde (president)
White page listing - Noel Hyde

David Racker (treasurer)
Whitepage listing - David Racker

You can also call them or call MROP office to ask for more clear instructions or to challange this questionable proxy/ballot.

So please do put in your voting instruction and return the proxy ballot.

brg

Funny, I just talked to Lynn Larson and she didn't provide any of this information about being able to write your preference on the so called "Official Proxy / Ballot", and when I complained to her about this not actually being a ballot, she said that I would have to find a member who is going to be at the meeting - write is name under "b" on the proxy, and then actually talk to him to tell him how I wish to vote.
Looks like the Board is really trying to make it difficult to vote "NO".

bart12 January 16, 2008 06:33 PM

Special Meeting
 
I think we really need to find a member that is going to the meeting and is going to vote against the special assessment and then appoint that person as our proxy. Any ideas on how to accomplish this?

brg850 January 16, 2008 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bart12 (Post 452590)
Funny, I just talked to Lynn Larson and she didn't provide any of this information about being able to write your preference on the so called "Official Proxy / Ballot", and when I complained to her about this not actually being a ballot, she said that I would have to find a member who is going to be at the meeting - write is name under "b" on the proxy, and then actually talk to him to tell him how I wish to vote.
Looks like the Board is really trying to make it difficult to vote "NO".

I know, I just talked to her myself yesterday. So the rule changes depends who you talk to. Now their are telling you they will only give out the ballot at the meeting, you will have to know someone that goes there.

If you look the new post on MROP forum, that's another story.
http://forum.multi-resorts.com/comme...&page=1#Item_2

According the Utah Law. If you can not be there in person, you should be able to use the written ballot and request teleconference...

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE16/16_02.htm

Utah Code -- Title 16 -- Chapter 06a -- Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act

16-6a-704. Notice of meeting.
(1) A nonprofit corporation shall give to each member entitled to vote at the meeting notice consistent with its bylaws of meetings of members in a fair and reasonable manner.
(2) Any notice that conforms to the requirements of Subsection (3) is fair and reasonable, but other means of giving notice may also be fair and reasonable when all the circumstances are considered.
(3) Notice is fair and reasonable if:
(a) the nonprofit corporation notifies its members of the place, date, and time of each annual, regular, and special meeting of members:
(i) no fewer than ten days before the meeting;
(ii) if notice is mailed by other than first-class or registered mail, no fewer than 30 days, nor more than 60 days before the meeting date; and
(iii) if notice is given by newspaper as provided in Subsection 16-6a-103(2), by publication three separate times with:
(A) the first of the publications no more than 60 days before the meeting date; and
(B) the last of the publications no fewer than ten days before the meeting date;
(b) the notice of an annual or regular meeting includes a description of any matter or matters that:
(i) must be approved by the members; or
(ii) for which the members' approval is sought under Sections 16-6a-825, 16-6a-910, 16-6a-1003, 16-6a-1010, 16-6a-1102, 16-6a-1202, and 16-6a-1402; and
(c) unless otherwise provided by this chapter or the bylaws, the notice of a special meeting includes a description of the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called.
(4) (a) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, if an annual, regular, or special meeting of members is adjourned to a different date, time, or place, notice need not be given of the new date, time, or place, if the new date, time, or place is announced at the meeting before adjournment.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(a), if a new record date for the adjourned meeting is or shall be fixed under Section 16-6a-706, notice of the adjourned meeting shall be given under this section to the members of record as of the new record date.
(5) When giving notice of an annual, regular, or special meeting of members, a nonprofit corporation shall give notice of a matter a member intends to raise at the meeting if:
(a) requested in writing to do so by a person entitled to call a special meeting; and
(b) the request is received by the secretary or president of the nonprofit corporation at least ten days before the nonprofit corporation gives notice of the meeting.

16-6a-708. Meetings by telecommunication.
(1) Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, any or all of the members may participate in an annual, regular, or special meeting of the members by, or the meeting may be conducted through the use of, any means of communication by which all persons participating in the meeting may hear each other during the meeting.
(2) A member participating in a meeting by a means permitted under Subsection (1) is considered to be present in person at the meeting.

16-6a-709. Action by written ballot.
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, any action that may be taken at any annual, regular, or special meeting of members may be taken without a meeting if the nonprofit corporation delivers a written ballot to every member entitled to vote on the matter.
(2) A written ballot described in Subsection (1) shall:
(a) set forth each proposed action; and
(b) provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.
(3) (a) Approval by written ballot pursuant to this section shall be valid only when:
(i) the time, as determined under Subsection (8), by which all ballots must be received by the nonprofit corporation has passed so that a quorum can be determined; and
(ii) the number of approvals equals or exceeds the number of votes that would be required to approve the matter at a meeting at which the total number of votes cast was the same as the number of votes cast by ballot.
(b) Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in accordance with Section 16-6a-716, for purposes of taking action by written ballot the number of votes cast by written ballot pursuant to this section constitute a quorum for action on the matter.
(4) All solicitations for votes by written ballot shall:
(a) indicate the number of responses needed to meet the quorum requirements;
(b) state the percentage of approvals necessary to approve each matter other than election of directors;
(c) specify the time by which a ballot must be received by the nonprofit corporation in order to be counted; and
(d) be accompanied by written information sufficient to permit each person casting the ballot to reach an informed decision on the matter.
(5) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, a written ballot may not be revoked.
(6) Action taken under this section has the same effect as action taken at a meeting of members and may be described as such in any document.
(7) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, a written ballot delivered to every member entitled to vote on the matter or matters therein, as described in this section, may also be used in connection with any annual, regular, or special meeting of members, thereby allowing members the choice of either voting in person or by written ballot delivered by a member to the nonprofit corporation in lieu of attendance at such meeting. Any written ballot shall comply with the requirements of Subsection (2) and shall be counted equally with the votes of members in attendance at any meeting for every purpose, including satisfaction of a quorum requirement.
(8) (a) Members must be provided a fair and reasonable amount of time before the day on which the nonprofit corporation must receive ballots.
(b) An amount of time is considered to be fair and reasonable if:
(i) members are given at least 15 days from the day on which the notice is mailed, if the notice is mailed by first-class or registered mail;
(ii) members are given at least 30 days from the day on which the notice is mailed, if the notice is mailed by other than first-class or registered mail; or
(iii) considering all the circumstances, the amount of time is otherwise reasonable.

16-6a-712. Proxies.
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, a member entitled to vote may vote or otherwise act in person or by proxy.
(2) Without limiting the manner in which a member may appoint a proxy to vote or otherwise act for the member, Subsections (2)(a) and (b) constitute valid means of appointing a proxy.
(a) A member may appoint a proxy by signing an appointment form, either personally or by the member's attorney-in-fact.
(b) (i) Subject to Subsection (2)(b)(ii) a member may appoint a proxy by transmitting or authorizing the transmission of a telegram, teletype, facsimile, or other electronic transmission providing a written statement of the appointment to:
(A) the proxy;
(B) a proxy solicitor;
(C) a proxy support service organization;
(D) another person duly authorized by the proxy to receive appointments as agent for the proxy; or
(E) the nonprofit corporation.
(ii) An appointment transmitted under Subsection (2)(b)(i) shall set forth or be transmitted with written evidence from which it can be determined that the member transmitted or authorized the transmission of the appointment.
(3) (a) An appointment of a proxy is effective against the nonprofit corporation when received by the nonprofit corporation, including receipt by the nonprofit corporation of an appointment transmitted pursuant to Subsection (2)(b).
(b) An appointment is valid for 11 months unless a different period is expressly provided in the appointment form.
(4) Any complete copy, including an electronically transmitted facsimile, of an appointment of a proxy may be substituted for or used in lieu of the original appointment for any purpose for which the original appointment could be used.
(5) An appointment of a proxy is revocable by the member.
(6) An appointment of a proxy is revoked by the person appointing the proxy:
(a) attending any meeting and voting in person; or
(b) signing and delivering to the secretary or other officer or agent authorized to tabulate proxy votes:
(i) a writing stating that the appointment of the proxy is revoked; or
(ii) a subsequent appointment form.
(7) The death or incapacity of the member appointing a proxy does not affect the right of the nonprofit corporation to accept the proxy's authority unless notice of the death or incapacity is received by the secretary or other officer or agent authorized to tabulate votes before the proxy exercises the proxy's authority under the appointment.
(8) Subject to Section 16-6a-713 and to any express limitation on the proxy's authority appearing on the appointment form, a nonprofit corporation is entitled to accept the proxy's vote or other action as that of the member making the appointment.

brg850 January 16, 2008 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bart12 (Post 452594)
I think we really need to find a member that is going to the meeting and is going to vote against the special assessment and then appoint that person as our proxy. Any ideas on how to accomplish this?

You can select the board or put Mr. Noel Hyde's name on it since he will be at the meeting. If you put " No to the special assessment" as voting instruction, this will them to cast "NO" vote.

But if they don't play by the rules, that's another story.

JudyS January 17, 2008 01:07 AM

I own two MROP contracts, so I am following this situation with interest. I am hoping that the MROP board just made a mistake (or rather, several mistakes), rather than deliberately trying to cheat the owners. However, I don't like how the vote on the Special Assessment is being handled, so I'm not sure if the Special Assessment was an innocent mistake or not.

As my profile says, I own lots of VRI managed weeks, including some that used to be managed by ORE, and some that were never part of ORE. I wasn't happy when VRI bought ORE -- I think VRI is a good management company, but they are a for-profit organization, and ORE was a non-profit. Still, I always felt that MROP was a good, owner-run organization, and I hadn't expected them to be affected much by the puchase of ORE by VRI. I'm not sure what to think at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnray (Post 444604)
In March 2006 we went to a TS presentation at the Snow Canyon Villas and made the mistake of purchasing 108,000 RCI points for $18,000. We were told at the time that this would be our home resort and many other things that have turned out to be untrue. We are owners and part of MROP and have not received any letter regarding a special assessment. Maybe the owners who already paid a large chunk of money flor Snow Canyon are not included in the SA, but it that would also seem to go against the by-laws of the association.

We actually live in St George. I am going to go to Snow Canyon Villas and see if I can get any additional info. I do not trust the sales people there at all, but I will see what I can find out.

Lynn, do you have a deed for your timeshare? Or, perhaps a MROP share certificate? I am wondering what it is that you actually own. I'm not aware of any type of MROP that would be worth 108,000 RCI Points (unless maybe you own several shares.)

Lynnray's experience with Wroman concerns me, too. Actually, the main thing I don't like about VRI is that they encourage resorts to bring Wroman in to do RCI Points conversions. As a result, Points conversions of VRI weeks are way overpriced -- I believe the price is $2500 to convert a week, plus $500 to convert additional weeks. Someone posted on this thread that Wroman is no longer doing RCI Points conversions for MROP. If so, that's a good things. Does anyone know if MROP weeks can no longer be converted to RCI Points, or is someone else now doing the conversion?

brg850 January 17, 2008 01:12 AM

Report this to Utah Attorney General
 
The proxy/ballot form for the special meeting MROP sent out last week is incomplete, misleading and lack of clear instructions. It will have adverse impact on the voting process, which is unfair to the owners. It is illegal!

The MORP Board has decided on their own to purchase additional St. George 3-bedroom condo units for the purpose of selling them. Now they can not get the funding, therefore they are forcing are us to pay for it through the special assessment.

According to the bylaws,
"Section 7.02. Purpose of Assessments. Assessments shall be used exclusively to promote the recreation, health, and safety of the Members and to pay for the improvement, operation and maintenance of the Timeshare Units owned, leased or managed by the Association for the benefit of its Members, for the administration of the Timeshare Program, reimbursement of expenses and other expenditures incurred by the Association in the performance of its duties as set forth in these Bylaw."

No matter what the outcome of the special assessment vote will be, the assessment can not be used for the expenses of acquiring, marketing and selling the St. George 3-bedroom condos. It's violating the bylaws. Then what will happen next?

At this point, I think we better start reporting all this to Utah Attorney General.

http://www.dcp.utah.gov/enforcement/complaint.html

http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/fraud.html

RayH January 18, 2008 05:44 AM

Looks like MROP is trying to discourage the owners from voting. I wonder if we should send our proxy/ballots registered mail. I'm afraid some of our so called ballots may get "LOST".

mtrottier January 18, 2008 12:39 PM

I live in SLC and will attend Feb 6
 
I live in North Salt Lake and will be happy to cast a Proxy vote for anyone AGAINST ANY ASSESSMENT in person at the meeting on Feb 6th.

Even if there were a valid reason for this assessment the manner in which they are trying to collect it is completely inappropriate!

Please feel free to contact me by email or phone.
mrtrott@yahoo.com
801 557-8368

shagnut January 18, 2008 09:10 PM

Sent you an email for you to vote NO!! for me. shaggy

basham January 18, 2008 09:26 PM

Great. Appreciate the offer.

Could you send me your full name so I can fill out the proxy. I'll email you back so you know whose proxy you have.

Carlsbadguy January 18, 2008 10:27 PM

Can you also send me your full name to vote against.

teepeeca January 19, 2008 12:38 PM

I sent you an e-mail to be my proxy and to vote against the special assessment. THANK YOU !!!

Tony

bart12 January 19, 2008 01:15 PM

Complaint to Department of Consumer Protection or AG
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brg850 (Post 452743)
The proxy/ballot form for the special meeting MROP sent out last week is incomplete, misleading and lack of clear instructions. It will have adverse impact on the voting process, which is unfair to the owners. It is illegal!

The MORP Board has decided on their own to purchase additional St. George 3-bedroom condo units for the purpose of selling them. Now they can not get the funding, therefore they are forcing are us to pay for it through the special assessment.

According to the bylaws,
"Section 7.02. Purpose of Assessments. Assessments shall be used exclusively to promote the recreation, health, and safety of the Members and to pay for the improvement, operation and maintenance of the Timeshare Units owned, leased or managed by the Association for the benefit of its Members, for the administration of the Timeshare Program, reimbursement of expenses and other expenditures incurred by the Association in the performance of its duties as set forth in these Bylaw."

No matter what the outcome of the special assessment vote will be, the assessment can not be used for the expenses of acquiring, marketing and selling the St. George 3-bedroom condos. It's violating the bylaws. Then what will happen next?

At this point, I think we better start reporting all this to Utah Attorney General.

http://www.dcp.utah.gov/enforcement/complaint.html

http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/fraud.html

Hello brg850,

Did you file a complaint with either agency? Any feedback from either one?

brg850 January 19, 2008 08:35 PM

Filing Complaints
 
It will probably be a few weeks before they will get back to us. We need more owners filing complaints so they will look into this matter promptly.

The complaint form is a Adobe PDF form down load from available at
http://www.dcp.utah.gov/downloads/complaintform.pdf

We need to stop MROP from using the special assessment fund for purposes not permitted by the bylaws. Else even if we all vote "no" to the special assessment, the MROP board can still send us another special assessment bill within the 25% limitation, and bill us the remaining portion again in the next coming year.

I am sending my complaint form out by next Wednesday. Please send me a email at mrop_special@yahoo.com if I can put down your name in as additional reference information or we can share info if you want to file additional complaints.

p.s.

I just noticed "The MROP Members Only web site is currently unavailable while maintenance is being performed". By the time the site is back up again, most of the linked member documents will probably be relocated. If you still have the supplemental budget, please contact me through the new email address. Thanks.

(The site just went back online, the documents are now located under members folder links. Here's the part of the note I received from the MROP Members Forum Administrator: If MROP owners wish to view these documents, then they should log onto the MROP Owners Only section of the multi-resorts.com web site.)

lynnray January 21, 2008 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyS (Post 452742)
I own two MROP contracts, so I am following this situation with interest. I am hoping that the MROP board just made a mistake (or rather, several mistakes), rather than deliberately trying to cheat the owners. However, I don't like how the vote on the Special Assessment is being handled, so I'm not sure if the Special Assessment was an innocent mistake or not.

As my profile says, I own lots of VRI managed weeks, including some that used to be managed by ORE, and some that were never part of ORE. I wasn't happy when VRI bought ORE -- I think VRI is a good management company, but they are a for-profit organization, and ORE was a non-profit. Still, I always felt that MROP was a good, owner-run organization, and I hadn't expected them to be affected much by the puchase of ORE by VRI. I'm not sure what to think at this point.

Lynn, do you have a deed for your timeshare? Or, perhaps a MROP share certificate? I am wondering what it is that you actually own. I'm not aware of any type of MROP that would be worth 108,000 RCI Points (unless maybe you own several shares.)

Lynnray's experience with Wroman concerns me, too. Actually, the main thing I don't like about VRI is that they encourage resorts to bring Wroman in to do RCI Points conversions. As a result, Points conversions of VRI weeks are way overpriced -- I believe the price is $2500 to convert a week, plus $500 to convert additional weeks. Someone posted on this thread that Wroman is no longer doing RCI Points conversions for MROP. If so, that's a good things. Does anyone know if MROP weeks can no longer be converted to RCI Points, or is someone else now doing the conversion?

Judy - when we purchased our points from Snow Canyon Villas, we were told we would have a "deed". As it turns out, we have a "MROP share certificate". MROP holds the deeds to the properties. I have also found out that the Snow Canyon Villas project is dead and the replacement project is the one that needs the special assessment. Also, Wroman is definitely out of the picture, which is a good thing. I don't "own" anything - all I have is RCI points - I am part of the MROP family and supposedly can get great nightly rate at their properties, but so far none have ever been available.

Another thing is we never got a notice of the special assessment of of the meeting coming up. It appears because we only have points, we are treated differently.

Carlsbadguy January 23, 2008 07:38 PM

re;vote
 
I was wondering what people have figured out to do with the ballot to vote no?

mtrottier January 25, 2008 07:56 AM

Send Proxie for no Vote to:
 
If you want to send me your proxie fill it out and send it to:


Trottier Family Trust, Robert O & Janette P


163 North 550 East
North Salt Lake UT, 84054

KevJan January 25, 2008 06:13 PM

Just sent an E-mail to mrtrott@yahoo.com.

w879jr1 January 26, 2008 02:51 PM

Proxy Form
 
To allow for postal delays etc. I have decided to post my proxy form from the UK now. This means that it will be in the postal system on Monday 28th January and I hope that it will arrive in Salt Lake City before the special meeting.

I have appointed the Board of Trustees as my proxy to vote "at this first instance, AGAINST the special assessment". I added words to that effect on the proxy form which states that "The holder(s) of this proxy is/are hereby directed to vote on all business rightfully brought before the membership, and to vote specifically regarding the Special Assessment as I/we have instructed"

I gather from previous postings in forums that the board, (and I think of Noel Hyde in particular), are members of MROP just like me, and that they are not attempting to rush their plans onto the membership, so I hope that they will allow an initial no vote to give all options a free airing. I guess that an initial SA within limits allowed by MROP rules would have to be accepted.

I agree with a poster on the MROP forum that the special assessment may have some merit, but would wish that majority membership approval is a pre-requisite. I only want to see a 'good value' association continue to prosper.

bogey21 January 27, 2008 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyS (Post 452742)
I wasn't happy when VRI bought ORE -- I think VRI is a good management company, but they are a for-profit organization, and ORE was a non-profit. Still, I always felt that MROP was a good, owner-run organization, and I hadn't expected them to be affected much by the puchase of ORE by VRI. I'm not sure what to think at this point.

I also was a very satisfied ORE/MROP owner when they were ORE/MROP. After they sold I was apprehensive. Before I had time to see how it all played out VRI dumped my resort (Sweetwater Lift Lodge in Park City, UT). When it ended up being managed by Trading Places I punted and gave my Week to charity. Nothing against Trading Places. I know nothing about them but I got tired of the musical chairs.

GEORGE

CharlesS January 28, 2008 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bogey21 (Post 458649)
I also was a very satisfied ORE/MROP owner when they were ORE/MROP. After they sold I was apprehensive. Before I had time to see how it all played out VRI dumped my resort (Sweetwater Lift Lodge in Park City, UT). When it ended up being managed by Trading Places I punted and gave my Week to charity. Nothing against Trading Places. I know nothing about them but I got tired of the musical chairs.

GEORGE

I own at a VRI managed resort and therefore have an interest in VRI since I can trade into VRI resorts.


You say VRI "dumped" your resort. I assume there was a reason why your resort was "dumped". Perhaps your resort did not meet VRI standards and was not willing to meet them. Maybe the HOA was hostile to VRI. Maybe the resort is too small to afford the VRI management fee. Do you have any feeling for the reason?

Charles

gravityrules February 4, 2008 07:51 PM

2006 Annual Meeting minutes
 
By request and since the link to the 2006 meeting minutes no longer works, here is the text of that meeting.

DRAFT
Multi Resort Ownership Plan, Inc. (MROP)
2006 Annual Meeting Minutes

DATE: Saturday, April 29, 2006
TIME: 11:00 a.m.
PLACE: Red Lion Hotel

161 W. 600 S.
SLC, UT 84101

Attending:
I. Welcome & Determination of Quorum
Chris Fonnesbeck, President, called the meeting to order at 11:04 a.m. There were 2,096 members represented in person or by proxy. The quorum requirement was 1,134 members (10% of total membership). A legal quorum was thus achieved.

II. Introductions
Chris Fonnesbeck introduced all of the MROP Board Members and ORE Staff members in attendance. He also welcomed all members in attendance.

III. Approval of Minutes from the 2005 Annual Meeting
The minutes from the 2005 Annual Meeting were reviewed.
Motion: Merle Andersen moved to approve the minutes from the 2005 Annual Meeting as written. Denise Thomas seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

IV. President’s Report
Chris Fonnesbeck spoke about the benefits of owning a MROP Membership by telling the Members stories about the fun things that his family has done and places his family has vacationed in the many years that they have owned their MROP weeks. He also reported on some of the new and exciting changes with MROP.

V. Managing Agent Report – ORE Terry Bricco reported that the merger with Resorts West has been completed and former Resorts West owners are beginning to use the MROP system. He also mentioned the renovations at Bonaparte’s Quarters, Puente Vista and See the Sea.

Colleen Freeman reported to the membership on the Growth and Expansion of MROP.

There will always be a 1:1 ratio in the Association. This means there will always be a week of use for each week sold.

The MROP board chooses to sell additional memberships and purchase additional inventory for the following reasons:
1) It allows owners to have new resorts to use.
2) It subsidizes the operating budget.
3) The Owners have 60 plus locations to use without the cost of External exchange companies.

4) In order to defray additional costs to ALL of the Owners, a “User” fee was initiated in a few high cost, high demand locations.

The Board only allows growth as long as it can recover the costs without any impact on the existing owners maintenance fees.

MROP is currently looking at resort properties in Maine and is currently adding locations in Southern California, Las Vegas and San Antonio, TX. Suggestions from owners for new locations are always welcome.

Colleen reported on the Snow Canyon Villas project in St. George as well as information regarding Wroman, the Master Broker of RCI Points and the interest the Owners have expressed in points programs over the past 3 years.

VI. Elections – Vote to fill 5 seats on the Board of Trustees

Gerald Thompson, Secretary/Treasurer, conducted the election. There were 5 trustees to be elected. Four incumbent trustees were seeking re*election: Chris Fonnesbeck, Bud Machin, Dave Racker and Gerald Thompson were up for election. In addition to the incumbents, the following 6 members declared candidacy for the Board: L.C. Thomas, Joe Wood, Nellie Christensen, Steven Christensen, and Norm Sammis. There were no nominations from the floor. All candidates in attendance were given a few minutes to speak.
Ballots were collected and votes tabulated by the ORE staff and member volunteers.
Gerald Thompson announced Chris Fonnesbeck, Bud Machin, Dave Racker, Gerald Thompson and Steven Christensen were elected to the board.

VII. Treasurer’s Report

A. 2005*2006 Budget & 9/30/05 Year End Audited

Brad Gillies, ORE Vice President of Finance, reviewed the 2005*2006 Budget as well as the 9/30/05 year end audited Financial Statement.

B. Financial Resolutions

Resolution 1: Resolution to ratify the 2005*2006 Fiscal Year Budget and authorize the funding of a Capital Reserve account in the amount of $200,000.
Motion: Leone Rogers moved to ratify the 2005*2006 Fiscal Year Budget and authorize the funding of a Capital Reserve account in the amount of $200,000. The motion was seconded by Sid Johnson. The motion passed unanimously.

Resolution 2: Resolution to designate the Board of Trustees as the Agent of the Owners in assessing, collecting, and allocating Capital Reserve funds.

Resolution 3: Resolution to ratify the 9/30/05 Fiscal Year End Financial Statement, and to ratify the actions and decisions of the Board of Trustees since the prior annual meeting.
Motion: Frank May moved to designate the Board of Trustees as the Agent of the Owners in assessing, collecting, and allocating Capital Reserve funds. He also moved to ratify the 9/30/05 Fiscal Year End Financial Statement, and to ratify the actions and decisions of the Board of Trustees since the prior annual meeting. Nancy Larsen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

VIII. New Business

Lyn Larsen gave a visual presentation on the new MROP website. She also demonstrated how to use the ORE website to make online reservations.
Owner questions were addressed.

IX. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

Park February 5, 2008 07:57 PM

Maybe MROP will report at the meeting information on the reservation change that has been made to the VRI web site and what it means.

What protection will be given to MROP owners of specific property vs fully floating ownerships when inventory is managed by RCI.

Are we to be at the mercy if people (VRI/RCI) who are looking out for the bottom line and not really for the interest of owners? Owners have little or no visibility of what is happening and must rely on the fact that the board is spending adequate time to insure the owners interest is cared for. Right now I am a little short on trust.

gravityrules February 6, 2008 06:06 PM

The MROP vacation handbook says all MROP memberships are 'floating' with title held by MROP membership. It's really a perpetual Right to Use within a pool of resorts-weeks owned by MROP itself, not the MROP members. Your MROP membership can have a higher priority than other MROP members into a specific resort.

I think you are dealing with a RCI points membership within MROP and in that case reservations are made through RCI rather than through MROP directly. I suspect that has something to do with your difficulties with the web based reservation system.

I've not seen the RCI points membership within MROP fully explained. What I can tell is that you get a certain number of RCI points based on an MROP membership. I suppose that you have 'priority' into your home resort (in RCI points speak) so you can use the assigned amount of RCI points to go to that resort or you can use RCI points (how many?) for other MROP resort-weeks. I expect that you could get another MROP week without paying a RCI exchange fee.

The handbook says RCI points conversion values are 38,000 for a MROP Red week, 24,000 for a White or Rotating week, and 15,000 for a Blue week. Then it says "all other point values are determined by purchase contract". So I suppose you may get considerably more points for a new MROP membership based on this new St. George resort (for example) than an existing MROP member would get for a conversion. So does it take 38,000 or 24,000 or 15,000 RCI points to get existing MROP resort-weeks?

VRI does the 'managing' for MROP. VRI took over this function through their purchase of ORE, a non-profit organization that previously provided management for MROP. VRI is a 'for profit' organization but MROP itself it still a non-profit.

Tonight is the special meeting night. I'd like to hear details from anyone able to attend.

mtrottier February 7, 2008 09:46 AM

Special Assessment Meeting Results
 
I attended the Special Assessment Meeting last night and the “Official” results are that the Assessment was approved!

The entire meeting was a sham! The president began the meeting saying that the board had the power to change the by-laws at anytime to remove provisions like the 25% limitations. Ultimately he was saying that regardless of the outcome of this vote members will be assessed what ever amount the board felt necessary. He also stated that the board had already evaluated all options and there were no other options so they are moving forward with the strategy as presented irregardless any objects by the members.

I personally feel that the “Official results” are not valid. Of the total membership of over 10,000 members there were a little over 2000 votes. I do not believe anyone in attendance voted in favor of the assessment so I believe what happened was that the proxy ballets that were mailed to MROP without a clear indication of voting preferences were counted as “Yes” votes. I feel the proxies were misleading and did not provide clear instructions on how to indicate a vote. I feel there needs to be a full accounting of the vote to determine the actual intent of those who mailed their proxy votes to MROP!

I don’t know what legal recourse we have at this point. One thing that did become very clear was that this situation has occurred because of the gross mismanagement of the association by the board and its’ officers. It also has become very clear that the board and officers have not acted in good faith and with full discloser.

Dean February 7, 2008 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtrottier (Post 465312)
I attended the Special Assessment Meeting last night and the “Official” results are that the Assessment was approved!

The entire meeting was a sham! The president began the meeting saying that the board had the power to change the by-laws at anytime to remove provisions like the 25% limitations. Ultimately he was saying that regardless of the outcome of this vote members will be assessed what ever amount the board felt necessary. He also stated that the board had already evaluated all options and there were no other options so they are moving forward with the strategy as presented irregardless any objects by the members.

I personally feel that the “Official results” are not valid. Of the total membership of over 10,000 members there were a little over 2000 votes. I do not believe anyone in attendance voted in favor of the assessment so I believe what happened was that the proxy ballets that were mailed to MROP without a clear indication of voting preferences were counted as “Yes” votes. I feel the proxies were misleading and did not provide clear instructions on how to indicate a vote. I feel there needs to be a full accounting of the vote to determine the actual intent of those who mailed their proxy votes to MROP!

I don’t know what legal recourse we have at this point. One thing that did become very clear was that this situation has occurred because of the gross mismanagement of the association by the board and its’ officers. It also has become very clear that the board and officers have not acted in good faith and with full discloser.

Unfortunately it was predictable.

rkconnor February 8, 2008 12:31 PM

Vri What is going on?
 
I tried yesterday to go on VRI to schedule and exchange and there was no website. I called an MROP number and was connected to a VRI representative who told me she didn't know why the website was gone but she could help me with scheduling. When I persisted with my question about the website she said she didn't know and there was no one she could refer me to but she thought it was temporary. This is on the heals of hearing that I am to be assessed $500 for my two week that I have owned for less than a month. The fact that the website just went away with no warning and the rep tells me there is no one that can give me an explanation makes me wonder about the stability of VRI/MROP. What is your take on it? :shrug: Ron

rkconnor February 8, 2008 08:47 PM

I Paniced
 
I foun the web site that explains why the web site is down so feel better about what is happening. :o


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.7
BBS Software Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Editorial Content Copyright ©1993 - 2014, Timeshare Users Group
Customized for TUG by Makai Guy.