• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 31st anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $23,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $23 Million dollars
  • Wish you could meet up with other TUG members? Well look no further as this annual event has been going on for years in Orlando! How to Attend the TUG January Get-Together!
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

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:

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
You have said it perfectly. We agree. Based on our experience with the beach solicitors who collected names, I suspect that the 10% will shrink to 1-2% when these individuals are specifically asked "Do you want to oust the BOD?" or "Do you want a special meeting?" or "Do you want MarkSue to represent you?" No mention of these steps was made by the owner who asked for our name, address, and ownership info.

On one level, I hope this is not the case, as your comment validates a concern the critics of this crusade have had. One would hope this is the exception rather than the rule.

It clearly would be a setback if a sizable portion of the owners whose names were provided to MVCI, did NOT agree to request the special meeting. However, I think we can agree that Mark has no way of knowing what was conveyed to each owner to elicit their support.

But, one has to wonder if it is karma that this information comes out in the 1000th post?
 
Last edited:

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,710
Reaction score
5,973
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
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.

You're right, of course. I was trying to say that the owners need to state their agreement with with the call for a special meeting to attempt to oust three members of the BOD, and nothing more.

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?

I don't see that Corey's letter requested notarized signatures from the individual owners. A notarized Power of Attorney, yes, if one exists, because a PoA is invalid without notarization. But Corey's letter requested "either one of the two following," and no mention of notarization is made for the individual owners' statements:

"1. delivery by you of duly notarized written evidence of your authorization by each individual Voting Member you purport to represent and in the aggregate representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes (i.e. power of attorney), or
2. receipt of confirmation by each such individual Voting Member, representing in the aggregate not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes, of your authorization to represent them as purported in your aforementioned letter
"

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.

Of course. Right now it's most beneficial to the owners' cause to comply with Marriott's/MVCI's not-unreasonable demand.
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,710
Reaction score
5,973
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
You have said it perfectly. We agree. Based on our experience with the beach solicitors who collected names, I suspect that the 10% will shrink to 1-2% when these individuals are specifically asked "Do you want to oust the BOD?" or "Do you want a special meeting?" or "Do you want MarkSue to represent you?" No mention of these steps was made by the owner who asked for our name, address, and ownership info.

Wow. Beach solicitors? I don't know why it shocks me, but it does.
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,710
Reaction score
5,973
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
On one level, I hope this is not the case, as your comment validates a concern the critics of this crusade have had. One would hope this is the exception rather than the rule.

It clearly would be a setback if a sizable portion of the owners whose names were provided to MVCI, did NOT agree to request the special meeting. However, I think we can agree that Mark has no way of knowing what was conveyed to each owner to elicit their support.

But, one has to wonder if it is karma that this information comes out in the 1000th post?

This is spot on - Marksue has no way of knowing what each and every owner whose name is on his list is expecting for an outcome here. I appreciate the time and effort that he's put into his cause, but I wonder if he's assuming a great deal of risk by acting on behalf of the group. I sure wouldn't do it.
 

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
You're right, of course. I was trying to say that the owners need to state their agreement with with the call for a special meeting to attempt to oust three members of the BOD, and nothing more.



I don't see that Corey's letter requested notarized signatures from the individual owners. A notarized Power of Attorney, yes, if one exists, because a PoA is invalid without notarization. But Corey's letter requested "either one of the two following," and no mention of notarization is made for the individual owners' statements:

"1. delivery by you of duly notarized written evidence of your authorization by each individual Voting Member you purport to represent and in the aggregate representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes (i.e. power of attorney), or
2. receipt of confirmation by each such individual Voting Member, representing in the aggregate not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes, of your authorization to represent them as purported in your aforementioned letter
"



Of course. Right now it's most beneficial to the owners' cause to comply with Marriott's/MVCI's not-unreasonable demand.

I think we agree. As I would just reword the letter and resubmit. The cost is relatively low to do so. That was the intent of my first suggestion.

In regards to the beach-solicitors, I think/hope this means a well-intentioned owner canvasing the beach area at the hotel rather than something more odorous.
 

Retired to Travel

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
129
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago, IL
Resorts Owned
Marriott Aruba Ocean Club, Marriott Waiohai, Royal Caribbean
Sorry I used the word "solicitor." It was indeed a well-intentioned owner.

On our very first day at Ocean Club, before we had even unfolded a beach towel, we were approached by a gentleman (whom we afterward dubbed "Mr. Clipboard" as we watched him cover the beach.) He was friendly and polite, and stated only that he was collecting ownership information so that owners could "stay in touch." He showed us a form which listed many of the complaints which have been aired here. We politely declined, citing privacy concerns and stating that we did not agree with the entire list. Afterward we spoke with another couple who had given him their info; they were astonished when we told them that, based on this TUG thread, we suspected the underlying agenda might perhaps include an effort to recall BOD members.

Perhaps our experience is not typical, but it makes us wonder, and that is why we think the request for individually signed statements is quite reasonable.
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,710
Reaction score
5,973
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
I think we agree. As I would just reword the letter and resubmit. The cost is relatively low to do so. That was the intent of my first suggestion.

I'm still not understanding, though, Eric, how a re-worded letter from Marksue to Corey would satisfy one of the two requirements put forth. It couldn't include either a POA (because there isn't one) or the necessary individual signatures/statements from every owner on the list. How does it help the cause to ignore the requirement?

In regards to the beach-solicitors, I think/hope this means a well-intentioned owner canvasing the beach area at the hotel rather than something more odorous.

I think so too, and see that Retired to Travel does as well. If we can agree on anything, it's that this crusade is obviously fueled by good intentions.
 
Last edited:

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
It is a procedural issue. They are rejecting it because he claims to represent the owners, and they cannot verify that fact. Drop any and all statements to that effect.

Present it as list of members requesting a special meeting. Make them come back with the specific requirements that the special meeting request has to be in.

They are only providing him with the requirements if he wants to move forward with his claim to represent the owners. They have not outlined the requirements for requesting a Special Meeting to be called. Change the question and you may get a different answer.

The core question being - what are the requirements for a calling a special meeting? Mark has previously indicated that the by-laws are silent on the issue.

So far I think here is what has happened:

- Mark: Hi, I represent 1000 owners and want to call a special meeting
- BOD: Wait. Prove to us you represent those owners

vs

- Mark: Hi, here is a petition from 1000 owners requesting a special meeting
- BOD: Nice try, we need the following - owner name, address, member number, interval week and signature. You are missing member number and signature.

You might end up in the same place - maybe not. The cost to find it out is minimal.

They have not even commented on any other defects in the request that might exist. They just as easily could reject the (next) signed petition on some previously undisclosed requirement (whoops - need the member number). Get all the requirements out up front either by them outlining the requirement or by their response to your actions. Mark has indicated they have not provide the information when requested, so this is another way of getting that information. I would admit it is not the best one...
 
Last edited:

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,710
Reaction score
5,973
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
Ah, okay, I get what you're saying. But this kind of back-and-forth stuff could go on for quite a long time! Wouldn't you run the risk of the owners losing interest and/or their willingness to cooperate with future requirements if the action is to go forward indefinitely?

Consider, the catalyst for the action is past and the owners have presumably already agreed to Marriott's terms by paying their bills. The due date for the increased maintenance fees has come and gone; the due date for the special assessment fee hasn't, but those bills are out and there is no way that this action will be resolved before that due date.

Like I said, if I was involved in this action my opinion would be that it's past time to retain an attorney who is qualified to interpret the bylaws as well as Marriott's/MVCI's communications. Long past.
 

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
Ah, okay, I get what you're saying. But this kind of back-and-forth stuff could go on for quite a long time! Wouldn't you run the risk of the owners losing interest and/or their willingness to cooperate with future requirements if the action is to go forward indefinitely?

Consider, the catalyst for the action is past and the owners have presumably already agreed to Marriott's terms by paying their bills. The due date for the increased maintenance fees has come and gone; the due date for the special assessment fee hasn't, but those bills are out and there is no way that this action will be resolved before that due date.

Like I said, if I was involved in this action my opinion would be that it's past time to retain an attorney who is qualified to interpret the bylaws as well as Marriott's/MVCI's communications. Long past.

Well that part was over before it was started. In my mind, it now is about getting the BOD to recognize the owners right to due process and the requirements to exercise that right.

To some degree, if an extremely bored individual would go back and read all the posts in this thread, what you are outlining is what most of us "critics" have been trying to accomplish since the beginning. To get him to frame his desire for change in a way that is productive. You only get so many shots at the bear, aim wisely.
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,710
Reaction score
5,973
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
... if an extremely bored individual would go back and read all the posts in this thread ...

Ugh. I don't know if it should be admitted, what it says about me, but I've done exactly that at least four times here. :eek: Each time it was because a new post made me stop and think, "what am I missing here that this doesn't make any sense?"
 

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
Ugh. I don't know if it should be admitted, what it says about me, but I've done exactly that at least four times here. :eek: Each time it was because a new post made me stop and think, "what am I missing here that this doesn't make any sense?"

It was only 10 pages or so when I joined in. I feel your pain. Your therapist or clergy will have to tell what it says about you...:)

I think this is now the thread with most posts and views in the history of the new BBS format.

[Edit: Correction - posts, but not views. Not yet at least. ]
 
Last edited:

m61376

Tug Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
7,268
Reaction score
320
Location
NY
Resorts Owned
Marriott Aruba Surf Club 2 & 3BRs
I, too, have read all the posts :wall:, but thankfully only once. One of the things in the last several posts which I find confusing and I suspect needs to be clarified is the terms of the petition which owners were signing (if it was, in fact, a petition at all, since the solicitations on the beach seem questionable at best). Are they authorizing Mark to act as an agent on their behalf or are they requesting a special meeting and retaining all voting rights?

My impression was that people wanted a special meeting and when they had more details of any agenda would then choose how they individually wanted to proceed. Even if you were to overcome the logistics of obtaining even signed statements from each individual owner, you need first to clarify what they would be agreeing to. If, in fact, owners are going to be asked to sign a proxy statement authorizing Mark to act on their behalf, I think it will be very hard to obtain the needed signatures. Not to be disparaging, but most of us are strangers who converse on an Internet board to learn more about a common interest, but most of us are still strangers. It is probably a good thing I own at the SC and not at the OC, because I for one would have a very hard time authorizing a stranger to vote on my behalf; I would also be reticent to furnish personal identifiers such as Marriott owner's information, etc. to someone I didn't know and that was in no way affiliated with the company. I think that's a big hurdle to overcome.
 

taffy19

newbie
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
593
Ugh. I don't know if it should be admitted, what it says about me, but I've done exactly that at least four times here. :eek: Each time it was because a new post made me stop and think, "what am I missing here that this doesn't make any sense?"
I am keeping track of this thread too and have to read some of it over again as it is so difficult to follow. The thread is important because it may affect other Marriott timeshare resorts too one day, depending on the outcome here.

It is really sad what happened here with such a big increase in fees to the owners in one single year. All maintenance fees are rising faster than the inflation rate and I wonder why?

No wonder that this thread is so very long because everyone is concerned. It must be the longest thread ever.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
51,252
Reaction score
22,747
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
This seems much like a recall vote for a mayor or a governor. A list of names of people wanting the recall vote mean nothing. Those petitions need signatures, not necessarily authorizing one to speak on behalf of them but just showing that they are on the petition. If no signatures exist then there is no proof that those people signed up for the call of a special meeting.
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,710
Reaction score
5,973
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
I, too, have read all the posts :wall:, but thankfully only once. One of the things in the last several posts which I find confusing and I suspect needs to be clarified is the terms of the petition which owners were signing (if it was, in fact, a petition at all, since the solicitations on the beach seem questionable at best). Are they authorizing Mark to act as an agent on their behalf or are they requesting a special meeting and retaining all voting rights?

My impression was that people wanted a special meeting and when they had more details of any agenda would then choose how they individually wanted to proceed. Even if you were to overcome the logistics of obtaining even signed statements from each individual owner, you need first to clarify what they would be agreeing to. If, in fact, owners are going to be asked to sign a proxy statement authorizing Mark to act on their behalf, I think it will be very hard to obtain the needed signatures. Not to be disparaging, but most of us are strangers who converse on an Internet board to learn more about a common interest, but most of us are still strangers. It is probably a good thing I own at the SC and not at the OC, because I for one would have a very hard time authorizing a stranger to vote on my behalf; I would also be reticent to furnish personal identifiers such as Marriott owner's information, etc. to someone I didn't know and that was in no way affiliated with the company. I think that's a big hurdle to overcome.

That's my impression, too, that people gave their names expressly to be included in the 10% requirement for the request for a special meeting, with no authorization to give up their voting rights in that meeting to Marksue. To be fair, Marksue didn't make any claims to those authorizations or rights. The problem came when Marksue submitted his letter with the list of names and stated that he was acting "on behalf of" the owners whose names were on that list. I think Corey's response that Marriott didn't recognize a legal basis for him to act on anyone's behalf in any way was reasonable and should have been expected.

Maybe if Marksue's letter had included an actual petition with accompanying owners' signatures stating that a special meeting was being requested pursuant to Article BlahBlahBlah of the bylaws BlahBlahBlah, rather than just a list of names and his "on behalf of" wording in the cover letter, this one hurdle could have been avoided. Maybe.

Nevermind the risks involved in an owner signing a proxy statement to give another owner voting rights, I wouldn't even have authorized Marksue to put my name on his list to call for the special meeting. My response would have been exactly the same as Retired to Travel's - no way, no how. It makes no sense to me that Marksue or the owners would assume the risks involved.
 

taffy19

newbie
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
593
Also, SA are bad planning on behalf of the resort management (HOA) unless an Act of God occurred like a hurricane, fire, flood or something like that. They should have enough reserves in the account!

Management should have noticed a long time ago that the roof was bad. If they were patching it up for a few years, then they should have taken out more for reserves over a few years and not all of the sudden in two big payments. Why didn't they? :(
 

lovearuba

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
760
Reaction score
2
Location
MA
an owners perspective

Since there is a lot of speculation of what owners agreed to and what they did not. We knew exactly what we were signing up for. We are signing up to change the board to ensure we have transparency. That is all. We want to know what is happening and not being kept in the dark. There are no expectations that something is guaranteed to change the maintenace fees. We just want to have people on the board who are not afraid to share with the owners what is going on. No more secrecy.
 

tlwmkw

newbie
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
1,456
Reaction score
154
Location
Charlottesville, VA
lovearuba,

The very first post that was made by Marksue called for a class action suit against Marriott- there was no mention of transparency, it was all about the money. The loss of transparency occurred because Marriott shut down communication when they were threatened with a lawsuit. Thankfully the class action suit threat has been dropped but the cat was already out of the bag once it was mentioned and you cannot now get that cat back into the bag.

Many of us have been asking what you are trying to achieve with all of this- the board has now explained the cost increases in a way that seems to make a lot of sense, and in fact they have explained that the amounts may be less than anticipated because of the lower than expected costs. So now you do have the transparency that you are asking for. Goal achieved.

What is your aim in overthrowing the board? No one has really said. You now have transparency and the board is explaining where the money is going and why the costs have risen- what else are you trying to achieve? Your board has actually managed to get 48% of the cost of the roof to be covered by Marriott even though the roof was 10+ years old. I would think you should be thanking the board for getting that much out of Marriott. The only thing left would be to defer or cancel the refurbishment but I know from past experience that many owners would be furious if the resort was not maintained to a high standard. The bottom line now is to focus on what your goals are and if they can be reached by overthrowing your board. Of course Marriott wants proof that the owners really want the meeting and they will demand that you follow all procedure to a t, but no one expects any less. Regardless of that you need to have an action plan so that if you do get the meeting and then unseat the board you can actually do something productive in the future. I can't imagine that your only goal is to get rid of the current board and then nothing more- what will you have achieved?

I'm not trying to throw cold water on all this but I'm trying to be realistic about these issues and hate to see all this work on your part with really no gain whatsoever.

tlwmkw
 

ilene13

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
317
Location
Lakewood Ranch, Florida
From an owner

I find it very interesting that many people who are helping to make this thread 41 pages in length DO NOT OWN at the Ocean Club. Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!!
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,710
Reaction score
5,973
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
I find it very interesting that many people who are helping to make this thread 41 pages in length DO NOT OWN at the Ocean Club. Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!!

Because Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club is not the only resort in the MVCI collection, which means that some of the issues that these owners face are not obviously exclusive to the Aruba Ocean Club.
 

AwayWeGo

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
15,822
Reaction score
1,767
Location
McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.
Resorts Owned
Grandview At Las Vegas

[triennial - points]
Various Reasons.

Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!
So we can go & do likewise -- or go & do the opposite, as the case may be.

So we can pick up on some of what's going on at other people's timeshares.

So we can commiserate.

So we can offer advice & insights from an outsider's perspective.

Because we TUG-BBS people like to stick together.

Etc.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​
 

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
Since there is a lot of speculation of what owners agreed to and what they did not. We knew exactly what we were signing up for. We are signing up to change the board to ensure we have transparency. That is all. We want to know what is happening and not being kept in the dark. There are no expectations that something is guaranteed to change the maintenace fees. We just want to have people on the board who are not afraid to share with the owners what is going on. No more secrecy.

I do not think you are empowered to speak for everyone who provided owner information.
 

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
Because Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club is not the only resort in the MVCI collection, which means that some of the issues that these owners face are not obviously exclusive to the Aruba Ocean Club.

Well said.
 
Top