ecwinch
TUG Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- 1,125
- Location
- San Antonio
- Resorts Owned
- Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
Without knowledge of a Power of Attorney held by Marksue or signatures from the owners, how could Marriott/MVCI know that the owners on that list have complete knowledge of and agree with exactly what Marksue is requesting and/or the ramifications of the action to oust BOD members? Marriott/MVCI is asking for verification, and the burden for that rests on the owners, doesn't it? The company isn't going to expend any resources on matching Marksue's list to their ownership records (or do anything else) until they know that they and each owner are protected.
Sue,
In general I agree with most of what you have said, except for:
1) It is not MVCI's responsibility to assure that each member on the list has complete knowlege and understanding of the ramifications of the action. There is no meaningful test they could make to meet that standard.
2) They are holding this petition to a higher standard then they use in the governance of the MOC.
When lawyers are involved, this is the first page in the playbook. They establish a position that is most beneficial to their clients interest. That is all they have done by saying that notarized statements are required. That is their opening position and is unreasonable, while the standard of signatures is reasonable.
Think of any electoral or political process you can. How many of them require a notarized signature?
You just keep chipping away until they agree to a reasonable standard. You do so by countering with a position that is most beneficial to your cause.
Last edited: