The venerable Inn of the Seventh Mountain on the road to Mt. Bachelor has been through a lot in its 35-year life, and it shows. The dark wood siding on its condos is weathered and deteriorating. Roofs leak. Uninsulated water pipes freeze.
New skating rink is one of the improvements the Papes madeNobody argues that the old place needs a little TLC – well, a lot of TLC. But the questions of who’s going to pay for it, and how and when, have touched off a civil war between a group of condo owners and the wealthy Pape family of Eugene.
Right in the middle of the war is Bill Friedman, a Bend city councilor and former mayor, who as owner of Cascade Bookkeeping manages the affairs of the condo owners’ association and is under attack from disgruntled owners who claim he’s been unfairly favoring the Papes.
The Pape family – which made a fortune selling heavy construction equipment – controls a majority of the seats on the condo owners’ association board of directors. Or it used to. Or maybe it still does, depending on how things play out in court. But we’re getting ahead of the story.
Condos are the Inn are showing their ageIn 2003 the Papes, through INNspired LLC, a family-owned corporation, leased the Inn’s commercial facilities – the restaurant, convention center, skating rink and others – from the Association of Unit Owners (AUO) and put some $6 million into repairing and upgrading them. The Papes eventually acquired more than a third of the condo units at the Inn, giving Jordan Pape and his sister Susie Pape two of the seats on the nine-member AUO board. Four Pape allies were elected in October, giving the Papes two-thirds of the seats on the nine-member board.
The AUO board hired RDH Building Sciences from Vancouver, BC to evaluate the work that needed to be done on the condos. RDH came back with a jaw-dropping cost estimate of $30 million. The board asked the engineers to scale back the scope of the work and come back with a revised number, which they did: $17.7 million.
That’s when the civil war broke out.
The Pape faction on the board wanted to go ahead with the work and called a special meeting for Nov. 25 to authorize a special assessment on condo owners to pay for the renovations. The cost to the owners would range from $11,000 to more than $100,000, depending on the number and size of units they own.
Peter Bours (with Joan Moss) leads dissident condo ownersBut a dissident faction of owners, led by Dr. Peter Bours, a Forest Grove physician, wanted to put the brakes on.
“We all want to see this place fixed up, but not based on some obscure engineering firm’s walk-through,” Bours said. “We want to get a builder in here that does this kind of work.”
The dissidents also challenge the board’s decision to structure the assessment in a way that would financially benefit the Papes. The details are complicated, but the gist of it is that if the assessment is approved by the board before Dec. 31, 2007 the payments to INNspired will be accelerated, meaning INNspired stands to get about $7 million more.
Although the Papes have offered to let the condo owners spread out payment of the assessment over three years at 4% interest, the owners say the cost is still much more than many of them can possibly afford. And they don’t relish the prospect of trying to sell their condos in the middle of one of the worst real estate slumps in decades.
One owner who didn’t want his name used said the assessment on his two condos is about $65,000 on one and $55,000 on the other, “so we owe, as it stands right now, $120,000 in special assessments. I can’t afford to [pay it]. I don’t have an extra $40,000 a year lying around. What will I do? I don’t know, honestly, at this point and time. I stand to lose over $380,000” in what he’s invested so far in his two units.
In a last-ditch effort to block the assessment from going through, the dissident owners moved aggressively. They contacted all the unit owners they could find and asked them to turn in voting proxies to unseat the Pape faction on the AUO board.
“We all received a rapid education in using the Internet to find people,” Bours wrote on the dissident owners’ website, innof7thmtn.com. “The … assessment notices had grabbed owners’ attention and our position was an easy sell. We began to feel guardedly optimistic.”
Then the dissidents got word that representatives of the Papes were contacting owners trying to buy their units, thereby increasing their number of votes in the hope of staving off the attempted board coup. The Papes “bought up five condos right before Christmas,” Bours said.
Nonetheless, Bours said, the dissident faction managed to collect enough proxies to give it 50.8% of the votes and kick the Pape faction off the board.
But things didn’t go smoothly. At a special board meeting on Dec. 31, the dissidents cast their proxies and voted off the six members of the Pape faction. But the Papes and Friedman – who was charged with supervising the election – are claiming that, for a couple of technical reasons, the Papes actually won.
For one thing, the Pape faction claims it won on the basis of “cumulative voting.” Under that procedure, an owner who’s entitled to, say, six votes can cast them all for one candidate or split them up. The Pape faction used the cumulative voting process to take their votes away from one of their six board members and throw them all to the other five in an effort to maintain a slim majority.
“The bylaws simply saw that cumulative voting is allowed in all elections and recalls of board members,” Friedman said.
Not so, claims Bours. Cumulative voting “is the system we’ve used to elect boards, but this wasn’t the election of a board – this was a special election to remove the board.”
Another issue on which the legitimacy of the vote turns is whether all the proxies Bours and his allies collected were properly cast. Friedman claims four of them were properly rejected on legal grounds.
“One of those proxies came from an owner who, after he signed the proxy, sold his unit to another individual,” Friedman said. “Our attorney believed that under that set of circumstances the ballot could not be counted. Three of the proxies were later revoked in writing by the person who sent in the proxies, and our attorney advised me that was a correct revocation and I should not vote those ballots, and that’s what I did.
“When the dust settled, the proxy ballots that I cast plus three other ballots cast at the meeting in favor of recall amounted to less than 50% of the possible votes.”
But according to Bours the deadline for turning in proxies was Dec. 26, and the bylaws say proxies can be revoked after the deadline only if the owners show up at the meeting in person to do it – which didn’t happen.
So now there are two AUO boards – for convenience, we’ll call them “the old board” and “the new board” – each claiming to be the legitimate one. Which one really is will most likely be determined in court.
The new board and its supporters are still angry with Friedman, who they say tipped off the Papes to their coup attempt and has dragged his feet when asked to provide them with information they’re entitled to, including contact information for condo owners in advance of the Dec. 31 meeting.
“We are really unhappy with Bill Friedman,” said Bours. “There’s absolutely no transparency. We can’t get anything out of him, even as a board member. … He still hasn’t released the voting data [from Dec. 31] to us – he’s just completely in their pocket. He’s supposed to be representing all of us.”
“There are certain records that are open to homeowners, and whenever they were requested we provided those,” Friedman said. “What they were specifically looking for was contact information including telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, and our attorney has instructed us, absent the board’s direction otherwise, to treat such information as confidential.”
Who does Friedman consider himself to be working for – the Papes or the condo owners?
“Good question, and one that’s really clear,” he replied. “Under every homeowners association and condo association declaration, the business of the association is conducted by a board of directors, and the board of directors has the ability to hire folks to perform certain tasks. So in this case and every other association we represent – and there are 30 or 40 of them – we are employed by the association through the board of directors.”
And as far as Friedman is concerned, the old board is still the one he’s employed by. “Other than a letter from some folks purporting to be a new board, I have no evidence that anything has changed,” he said.
The new board’s attorney, Bruce Cahn of Ball Janik LLP, sent a letter on Jan. 4 to the attorney for the Papes, Tamara McLeod of the Bend law firm of Karnopp Peterson LLC, demanding that she and Friedman “immediately turn over all files and materials owned by the AUO and … instrumental to the operations of the AUO, including but not limited to all owner contact information, all vendor materials, all financial records and any other documents pertaining to AUO business.” As of Monday there had been no response, and the Source was unable to reach McLeod for comment.
In the meantime, plans for repairs to the Inn are up in the air, as is the question of who will pay vendors, contractors and employees – including Friedman.
“We’re trying to decide what we can do,” said Bours. “We haven’t worked out all the moves. Basically we want to get the board situation in front of a judge as quickly as possible. … Now I think we’ve gotten a foot in the door and they [the Papes] will have to deal with us, because you can’t run an organization like this with two boards. So we’re feeling reasonably comfortable compared with where we were two weeks ago.”
Despite the bad blood between him and the condo owners, Friedman says he’d like to try to broker a deal between the dissident faction and the Papes. One possibility, he indicated, is to stretch out the payment period for the assessment over more than three years.
“Many of the owners believe the board manipulated the date of the assessment” to speed up payment to INNspired, he said. “So if we want to move to solutions, the way is to talk with INNspired [about] over what period of time will they agree to take this money. So there’s a solution in there. It’s a matter of how long it takes for tempers to cool down.”
“It’s unfortunate that all of this has occurred,” he added. “The primary thing behind us is difference of opinion related to how to move forward with the payment of an obligation [the condo owners] have. Boards up until recently – and I mean over a 30-year period – have chosen to keep the dues low and not put aside money for these needed repairs.
“There’s no disagreement that the buildings need to be fixed. The disagreement comes about because some owners believe that somehow, magically, they ain’t gonna have to pay for it.”
bruce@tsweekly.com
This article appears in Jan 24-30, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
“venerable”? I’ll look it up, but it would not have been the word that I would have chosen.
Bours sounds really immature when he says the following: “รข Weรข โขre trying to decide what we can do,รข ย said Bours. รข We havenรข โขt worked out all the moves. Basically we want to get the board situation in front of a judge as quickly as possible.”
==========
You bet you have not worked out all the moves. How about this question: “What is the price for your assessment?” It is going to take at least $10 Million to just start to do some of the deferred maintenance. Add to that the loan that the Pape’s gave for the $7 Million already spent on the past improvements, and you get $17M. Are you just going to kick that can down the road, like all the idiot AUO Board members did before Pape came along 7 years ago? I watched the AUO Board mismanage this Inn for over 15 years, and Dr. Bours is about as incompetent as Mr. Winkenwerder, who lead the Board back in the early 1990’s through two bankruptcies.
Pape’s were foolish to have not secured their votes by buying up a solid majority. But the Inn owners will have to pay back the $7 Million already spent on the Inn. And they will have to come up with at least $10M to do what they did not do the last 30 yrs. Maybe we just dump the Inn back into bankruptcy. Been there, done that. Twice.
SOME Ex-Mayor IS GOING TO JAIL FOR FELONY FRAUD.
Prediction:
One or more Bend City Councilors will be perp-walked out of City Hall in the next 3 years.
Anyone who’s been in Bend knows that local government & local business is so incestuous, that they will ultimately co-mingle their interests to such an extent that someone will hang, IF it ever leaks. And leaks happen when the feeding trough goes dry. It’s dog-eat-dog time, and the jackals are turning on each other. During the Bubble it happened, of course, but Kool-Aid was flowing in such volume that they were all comfortably numb. To wit, the Ridgewater small-scale HOA scam by Cascade Bookkeeping (pdf):
October 11, 2006
To: All Ridgewater Home and Lot Owners
From: Ridgewater Board of Directors
Subject: Dues increase for 2007
At the October 10, 2006 Board meeting, the Board voted to raise the dues $4.00 per
month. To help all homeowners understand the need for this dues increase, the following information has been provided to you. This increase will be effective for the 2007 Fiscal Year that runs from January to December and will be payable with the June 1, 2007 billing.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
In 2002, when Ridgewater was formed as a HOA, the dues were set at $40 per month.
Shortly after the formation of the HOA, the dues were decreased to $36 where they have remained through 2006. The dues were structured so that $28 was for operations and $8 was for reserve funding.
At the February 2006 Board meeting, the first meeting of the current Board, we
discovered that the Reserve funds were not present in any cash account in the amounts
expected for the time period dues have been collected. The past management firm,
Cascade Bookkeeping, was allowed by the past Board to co-manage the checking and
reserve funds. As a consequence, Cascade had occasionally transferred cash from reserve funds to operations. The major reason for these transfers appears to be the extraordinary expenses for Cascade Bookkeepingรข โขs services, averaging close to $1000 per month for the first 4 months of 2006. As best can be determined, the reserve funds were short about $10,000.
For this reason and others, your Board terminated the services of Cascade and began to run the HOA day-to-day affairs internally. We also hired the services of Peterman Inc to do our bookkeeping/financial management with strong Board oversight.
Besides carefully managing expenses, the Board setup a Money Market Fund for reserve funds that required a majority vote of the Board to use any funds from this account. At $8 per month per lot, the reserve funds should have around $4900 per year contributed each year.
To begin to recoup the expended $10,000, the Board decided to contribute 35% of 2006 dues to this reserve account that amounts to a total contribution of around $7700. At this rate, we would recoup about $2800 each year. In other words, in about 3 to 4 more years (beyond 2006) we would recoup the $10,000.
Also during the February 2006 Board meeting, the Board voted to monitor our cash
position and expenses to determine if a dues raise would be necessary rather than raising dues for the current 2006 fiscal year. In the next section, this review is summarized.
CURRENT FINANCES
Using historical costs for the last year, your Board prepared a pro-forma budget (Table 1) that indicates at the current $36 dues, we would be in deficit about $3700 for the next year. Since that is an untenable situation, the options were:
1. Cut expenses
2. Raise dues
3. Reduce contributions to reserve funds
The Board viewed as unfeasible options numbers 1 and 3. Expenses have already been
cut to the minimum and maintaining the additional catch-up contribution to the reserve
funds was seen as crucial for future years. For example, this next month we will seal
cracks in the streets. While this only will cost $425 within 3-5 years we will need to do seal coat on all the streets. By doing this, we hope to have our pavements last 30 years.
Previously Friedman had said that his hands were tied because of what the condo owners’ association’s lawyer had advised him. In this article he’s quoted as referring to “our” lawyer. Somehow I think he’s still talking about the lawyer hired by the old board (the Papes).
Friedman (Cascade Bookkeeping) needs to hire his OWN lawyer. It’s a normal business expense. If his OWN lawyer has advised Friedman to keep toeing the Pape line, then fine, whatever.
But if he’s just relying on the old Board’s lawyer, well that lawyer should have advised him of a conflict of interest. Of course the old Board’s lawyer is going to tell Friedman that the old Board is in the right. But that’s not “advice”, that’s a position.
The old Board and Friedman are potential adversaries. Friedman’s been quoted once saying that he was following advice of the lawyer hired by the Pape-dominated condo owners’ association. Why doesn’t he get his own advice?
From The Bulletin, New Year’s Day, headline “Boards fight for control of condos”:
“Friedman said Monday that heรข โขs still under contract with the Papรยฉ-led board, as far as he is concerned, and he and his company will continue to do work for the inn until further notice.”
“‘While there are some who believe that a replacement board has been elected, thatรข โขs not the opinion of the associationรข โขs attorney,’ Friedman said.”
Right then and there Friedman should have been following the advice of Cascade Bookkeeping’s lawyer, not the lawyer of the Pape-led condo association.
Lawyer this, lawyer that, new board, old board, yada yada yada. Whatever!
What I want to know is this: The New Board got all riled up, only after somebody hit them with a big assessment. Once they woke up from a 30 year nap, they try and shoot the messenger. Well, what is the answer to this question: “How much are going to assess the owners to fix up 30+ years of deferred maintenance and the past loan of $7M that AUO owes to Pape’s?” Answer that question, Dr. Bours. That Inn of the 7th dump needs some big money for past maintentance. Dr. Bours, until you put up, please shut up.
Here is the Bottom Line to the whole situation @ the Inn for all of you who are jumping into this mid-stream. The Papes (2 people), control roughly 50% of the vote on everything that happens at the Inn and THEY can decide how to spend the other owners money whether we like it or not. They also control the vote on the (Old)Board so the other approximately 100+ Owners have NO say in how our collective money is spent. THAT’s downright UN-American. That’s why we’re PISSED !! Of the 17 million assessment that THEY passed, the Papes will be paying about $0 by virtue of a credit they get for money they spent on the Common areas they lease from the Association.
One has to then ask the question…If we are only raising about $10 million to complete the re-siding project, why did the Board pass a $17 million special assesment if not to allow the Papes their $7 million credit back all at one time instead of over a longer period like the rest of us have to depreciate our Capital investment???? Oh, and why did the (Old)Board decide to pass this assesment before ever getting a Contractor to bid the job if not to get it passed before Dec 31st, when after that date the Papes would have to get paid back over several years???
FYI, they are now getting bids and the lowest so far is about $620,000 for one building. There are only 21 buildings so you do the math….Why did we need a $17 million dollar assesment again ??????
BE INVOLVED….BE INFORMED
No one has addressed the misrepresentations by the real estate salespeople/INNspired/Pape family in the sales of fractional ownerships at the Inn. We were provided information about how all the buildings would be re-sided, roofs repaired, etc, etc at no additional cost to us beyond our purchase price. We were told that the prices would climb and were encouraged to purchase before the exterior renovations were completed. INNspired/Pape family has made a lot of money selling the fractional interest condos!
They have totally surprised us with the HUGE assessment. The assessment letters that went out were dated December 7, 2007 and we were expected to pay by December 31, 2007 or we could wait to pay 1/3 in March, 2008 and spread the payments out three years and pay interest. Did INNspired forget that they were in line to make a lot more money if the assessment went through by December 31, 2007, and they had to hurry a bit?
The sales people did in fact represent that it was best to buy condos now (2005) why renovations were in progress. In the next year and half (by 2006-2007) all renovations by INNspired would be complete and thus our investment worth while (really – I have copies of sales literature).
While the Inn Of Seventh Mountain does need improvements, when a corporation, realtor or individual represents something and then changes their mind this is considered misrepresentation. No where did we fractional owners agree to give a leash on our savings to INNspired.
The realtors induced us to buy into a future piece of paradise. INNspired was using the money from sales to add to the refurbihing kitty — it was a personal desire INNspired had to renovate and participate at the inn — it was altruistic was the story.
Turns out it was not altruistic but greed, mispresentation, and possibly fraud. This is something, hopefully, law enforcement will look into.
Whole owner opinion: Ditto to the misrepresentation on the sale of units that were Pape/Innspired owned. We purchased one of those and were told the siding and money to do said work had been set aside prior to our purchase. Surprise! It cost a whole lot more than anticipated apparently and much more work is needed, or the money just disappeared, the siding is there. I am not opposed to spending the necessary money to do the repairs, but due to recent events (stacking the Board in their favor [Papes], not getting adequate estimates, the timing of the assessment so they benefit substantially thus making less money available for actual repairs, etc.) I have no confidence or trust in the INNspired controlled board of directors (old board). I know that they have made muchos money on the sale of units, as I know they purchased them quite cheaply. I know what they spent on our unit to renovate and of course what our purchase price was, and there was a huge profit for them. We also were never told when we purchased that we were “acquiring” a huge debt to the Papes for the renovations that they made to the core areas. There was gross misrepresentation at the time of sale. LIve and learn they say.
So where do we go from here? I would like to see some sort of mediation where the 2 sides would work together to accomplish the needed repairs. There also needs to be another firm that handles the AUO affairs besides Cascade Bookkeeping due to the conflict of interest with INNspired also being a client. I have lost all confidence in Bill Friendman as well. In order for both sides to work together their needs to be some trust and transparency in the AUO affairs and currently there is none with the old board. The INN is a great place to vacation and hopefully will get the repairs it needs in the near future.
FYI, they are now getting bids and the lowest so far is about $620,000 for one building. There are only 21 buildings so you do the math….Why did we need a $17 million dollar assesment again ??????
—————-
Hmmm, lets do the math: $620K x 21 = $13,020,000. Add in the $7M that the Papes already spent to renovate the old conference center and build a new Reception Hall. $13M +$7M = $21M.
“Why did we need a $17 million dollar assesment again ??????”
Why indeed!!!
“No one has addressed the misrepresentations by the real estate salespeople/INNspired/Pape family in the sales of fractional ownerships at the Inn. We were provided information about how all the buildings would be re-sided, roofs repaired, etc, etc at no additional cost to us beyond our purchase price.”
————–
Go over the sales agreement again, this time look closely. Cut and Paste here for all to see the clause that says “Free re-siding, new roofs, etc, etc”. It should be right after the clause that says “Free new car every other year, Free college tuition for your kids (limit 4 kids), Free Burmuda vacation every year”. Please let use see the amazing sales contract that you negotiated when you purchased your unit.
But wait, there more:
“We were told that the prices would climb…”
———-
Ahh, yes. Probably told that the prices in Bend climb 20-25% every year. And they did for a couple of years. Did you get that in writing also?
Still more:
“…and were encouraged to purchase before the exterior renovations were completed.”
———-
Yes, Real Estate sales people do that. In fact all sales people do that. They encourage you to purchase things. Sooner is better than later. I think their employers pay them money to behave like that. You know, sell things, by encouraging others to purchase.
Theres even more:
“INNspired/Pape family has made a lot of money selling the fractional interest condos!”
———–
Yep. Buy low. Fixer up. Sell high. It is the American way.
Finally, the clincher:
“They have totally surprised us with the HUGE assessment.”
————-
Yes, it was shocking to everybody who has watched the Inn deteriorate from neglect for over 30 years. Not a penny spent for up keep for 30 years. And then, who would have thought that a large assessment was in order? Well, almost everybody, that’s who!
Nobody should be surprised, except for the fools who will believe whatever they want to hear. Always, get it in writing. Always.
We too were misled by the real estate people at the Inn. We were flat out told the rennovations would be paid for and that we would not be reponsible for the cost. This was the deciding factor in our purchasing a fractional share. Oh did I say fractional share? Silly me, I don’t get any say in the matter here only an bill for $16,000. My vote is not good enough but my money is? Mr. Friedman should know better than this but apparently his pockets are lined with Pape dollars. He has been so resistant to providing any information to the owners- why do you think this is? What is he hiding? The residents of Bend should take notice- this is your CITY COUNCILOR and he is crooked! If he is hiding something here(and he surely is) what is he hiding from you, the citizens of Bend? Bill Friedman and Cascade Bookkeeping need to be fired immediately- objectivity left the building long ago. We are not saying that improvements do not need to be made to the units at the 7th mountain, just let us owners be involved and have some say in how it is carried out. I figure if I have $16,000 for a special assessment then I have $16,000 I can donate in legal fees to fight this atrocity. WE WILL PREVAIL!
Gee, we bought this unit to relax, and it’s been nothing but stress and anxiety with these two factions fighting. All I can say – from our experience – is that no one even bothered to recognize that we were owners entitled to a vote back in the Fall – and of course it didn’t occur to us to ask the question, “wonder if there’s a vote coming up on how to pay for $17M in repairs” – not even disclosed!! So we’re starting out with no trust at all with the current board; isn’t there a regular practice to ensure all owners have a voice on important issues? Claiming, “sorry, we didn’t know you were owners” is just not acceptable. Where is the interest in fair representation? We feel completely discounted and disinfranchised just from our own experience with this.
The writer (Miller) put too much emphasis on Bill Friedman. Ending the article with Friedman’s unfair, untrue, and misleading statement “some owners believe that somehow, magically, they ain’t gonna have to pay for it” totally blew the article’s credibility. I have attended every single board meeting here at the Inn of 7th, and NOT ONE owner has ever said that they were not willing to pay for the improvements. What the owners want and deserve is an assessment based on “real” numbers, with reasonable terms for payment. Mr. Friedman and the Pape board members arrived at the amount of assessment without obtaining bids from contractors. And, they voted on the assessment at a “special meeting of homeowners”, which they chose to hold on Thanksgiving weekend! (The weekend that most people are AWAY visiting family and wouldn’t be aware of the “special meeting”.) The whole process has been one of dishonesty and corruption.
The State of Oregon and the Federal Government have laws that prohibit such actions that have taken place by the Pape family/INNspired. Time, money, tenacity and the court system will sort out this mess!
Nobody should be surprised, except for the fools who will believe whatever they want to hear. Always, get it in writing. Always.
_______
I don’t consider my self a fool. I consider myself a victim of corporate fraud.
http://angrybendbitch.blogspot.com/
HBM,
We have a new girl in Bend, who has been a realtor for 30+ years and has just retired, and is made as hell, and promises to tell all to all that will listen.
Look out, we have a new Sally Heatherton, but this time it really is a Bend girl.
There are a lot of realtors that helped sell the PAPE time-shares @ INNof7thMTN, and they’re more than glad to share the dirty behind the scenes information.
I heard an interesting story the other night at MT-B village from a person involved in the sale of land between Widgi and INNof7th.
Widgi sold the land to INNof7th for a quite a deal, and the HOA board at widgi and INNof7th agreed, because the money $5M, was to be used to help fix up, INNof7thMTN, which is of everyone’s interest.
Trouble is the money has completely dissappeared! Friedman refuses to show anyone the books other than PAPE. The whole reason that Widgi approved the sale was that it was in their interest that INNof7thMTN fix a few things up.
This land was the land owned by Widgi that was between INNof7thMTN, and Widgi, and PAPE & Bauhofer wanted the land to create a new resort that was to be part of INNof7thMTN, e.g. the new resort was to use INNof7thMTN amenitys.
The word on the street, is that ONLY Friedman knows what happen to the money.
The present law suit does not cover fractional owners issues. Primarily 2:
1. Apparently dozens of others were told the same thing I was, that Inspired was putting THEIR money into fixing up the core, not OUR money. This is a major deceit. I have no evidence of this deal on the CD of the Unit Owner’s Assoc docs that were given to me at the time of purchase, therefore, no way I could have known. The question is… is it illegal to ask us to pay for it now?
2. Is it legal for Innspired to vote for the whole unit when they only own 1 of 6 shares of our unit. Yes, we signed a document to that effect. Question… is there any State law that restricts them from requiring this as a condition of our purchase? It certainly was unfair, and of course hidden in the fine print.
And the big question…who will organize and represent us on the above issues? Any ideas?
In most small Oregon towns, about half the houses look like crap and the other half are fairly well kept. So when you throw the same population mix into condo ownership or “fractional ownership”, expect the same.
There are many cloudy issues for me. Having read the RDH report, I am unimpressed by the numbers they propose, they are suggestions and frankly, the report seems pretty simplistic to me, and poorly written. This firm may be reputable, but I would love to hear more from some contractors willing to dig into the job, rather than the walk abouts proposing new roofing designs.
We also were told when looking to buy that the remodel was well started and nothing was said about our responsibilty to pay for that, the assumption was that the Pape investment was being repaid in sales of the fractionals and the revitalized Inn business. I think some bills should have been submitted in the past five years if they indeed had intended the AUO to pay for the remodel of the core, and the costs should have been authorized by the board. Now, years later, as the Pape family realizes they have bit off a big hunk of old buildings, and they want out, they are trying to pass off their costs to the owners at large and doing it in a nasty and careless manner. I am happy to pony up on some improvements to the facilities, but not in this way, I want to feel confident that all of these costs are valid and not tossed at us by a bunch of crooks. Bill Friedman may well be liable for poor business practices and we should all be able to review our books, something he seems unwilling to allow. The past land sale also seems to be a shoddy deal. I trust that reasonable people will avoid doing business with Innspired as they are proving to be less than honest. Business is business, but no one likes to support crooks and cheats. It is a shame that this is happening to a place with so many good memories for so many families over the years. We are still happy to have our condo, but are not likely to ever put it into the rental pool, as there is not much incentive to work with the current system. I also wonder about the disenfranchised fractional owners. If they are responsibe for the assessments, then they are owed a voting share. Thanks for the article, it was worth reading…
Hmm…Mt. Bachelor sold to Powder Corp. Mt. Bachelor President at the time of sale. Pape. Pape sues Powder Corp for millions and is settled out, oh, roundabaout ’03. INNspired, LLC. comes to life, run by the Pape’s. They buy most of the Inn…hmm…sorry folks, don’t look for the kiss first.
I too bought in 05 under the sales promise that the siding, decks, exteriors (which were in process at the time) would be completed as part of the renovation at no additional cost above the purchase price. I love the Bend area, lived there for 5 years and always wanted a place to base my recreational activities. Although the employees at the Inn do whatever they can to make my staycomfortable, I have always been concerned about the monthly billing process and the misc. extras added every month. Light bulb replacements, (I believe our unit has spent over $60 on light bulbs this past year. Every month I must call the Home owner rep to discuss the charged on my bill. If I did not love the area and the unit so much I would gladly take the lose on my unit and stay n pay on a nightly basis. However, as a contractor, the process used to determine the $17 mil or $10 mil was a bit non-typica and possibly collusive.
Some comments indicate RE agents invloved in the transactions are willing to break this issue wide open. The trial and litigation will be very entertaining.
The OLD board at the Inn is out to try and get the owners to give up and sell cheap.
I have many years in the building trad and i have not seen such a mess the old board and thier so called weatherazation Co came up with.
First you get bids on what it will cost on a good companys inapection. Then you can figure what it will cost each owner.
What a SCREW job.
As a Bend native and former Seventh Mountain employee,
I have experienced many situations concerning ISM since its inception. When will ISM learn a lesson
from history. WORK TOGETHER. As long as factions
split they will not achieve a resolution in their
own interest or that of commercial tourism. Many years ago, posted in a workspace at the Inn was a poster showing how to build a simple playground swing suspended with rope from a tree and various examples of unfortunate outcomes. Each undesirable
outcome featured a caption such as “what the AUO
wanted” or “what management wanted”, etc. Effective
leaders know the meaning and worth of compromise.