# Marriott Maui Preview in one hr-any questions?



## winger (Apr 18, 2009)

Sorry for the last-minute notice, but we are leaving in about 1/2 hour for a preview in preparation for our check-in tomorrow.

Any questions you want us to ask?


----------



## LAX Mom (Apr 18, 2009)

winger-
If you're still around the Maui Marriott, Emmy (iconnections) and her husband would like to meet you. I just sent you a PM, I have her phone number.
We had a great visit this past week with Denise L, iconnections and borntotravel. Have a great week!
Aloha!


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 18, 2009)

Thank you Lisa.  

Winger just called me and we are going to meet.  We also enjoyed meeting some of the other TUGgers the other day at the Westin.


----------



## winger (Apr 18, 2009)

I just spoke to iconnections - I hope we can meet up later !

Here are a few notes about our tour this morning:

1) no pressure at all - rep was Brian T., very professional and friendly

2) 25th year anniversary 25% off only good for today (overall offer ends this coming Wed for general members) - and was for Napali Towers every year OF and GV's only.  discount not available for EOY units.  Cost after discount is approx 46k and 35k (OF/GV).  MF were steep IMO approx $1800/yr.

3) Superpool is closing on Monday for renovation, as scheduled - as well as exterior painting of the original hotel conversion bldg is underway.

4) three Hawaiian projects coming up are Waikiki (behind Marriott hotel), Kauai (next to the Ritz, overlooking Kauai Beach Club) and the Big Island. 

5) Marriott is moving ahead with internal trading system, 8-16 months out.

6) existing resale owners will NOT be grandfathered in, they will have a booking window of 6 mos from date of checkin.

7) We were able to book a 2-bedroom Maui unit (check in tomorrow) with our mainland unit (MMC) only because of the current renovation and pool shutdown.  

8) seemed very slow in the sales area.  We got our 10k MRP's - did not opt for the two 25-min massages or $75.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Apr 19, 2009)

winger said:


> 6) existing resale owners will NOT be grandfathered in, they will have a booking window of 6 mos from date of checkin.


 
Did he say this as a matter of fact?  Anything else you can say about this?


----------



## winger (Apr 19, 2009)

GaryDouglas said:


> Did he say this as a matter of fact?  Anything else you can say about this?


My question was basically what is marriott doing to distinguish development and resale purchases. The three things he mentioned were 1) no mrp conversions. 2) no assigned voa, although they will not deny you a conversation with a voa if a resale owner calls mvci owner svcs and 3) all resale owners will be allowed the 6-mo reservaton window. 

When I 
asked if whether he was sure "existing resale owners will be grandfathered in to the current 12-mo reservation window" he said that this was considered but marriott decided against doing this, that 6-mo will apply to all resales once mvci goes to the internal trading system. He quoted this info was from a a recent presentation from the timeshare vp (or president?, I forget which) .


----------



## Quimby4 (Apr 19, 2009)

hum..interesting.  
There have been lots of rumors for the last year about the internal trading system. 

Any time line for the other Hawaii properties?  This is the first I have heard.  The Big Island needs a Marriott but Kauai already has 2, so that is surprising.  Waikiki would be a good location.  Perhaps this is on a 10 year plan.
Thanks for the update


----------



## winger (Apr 19, 2009)

Supposedly the one on kauai has already broken ground, waikiki's timeframe is 2 yrs out from completion, and mvci just purchased the big island land. 


Quimby4 said:


> hum..interesting.
> There have been lots of rumors for the last year about the internal trading system.
> 
> Any time line for the other Hawaii properties?  This is the first I have heard.  The Big Island needs a Marriott but Kauai already has 2, so that is surprising.  Waikiki would be a good location.  Perhaps this is on a 10 year plan.
> Thanks for the update


----------



## Quimby4 (Apr 19, 2009)

I sure  hope the Big Island is beach front or real close to the beach! 

 Any idea what area of the Big Island?

Thanks, and enjoy Maui!!


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 19, 2009)

No way are resales going to a 6 month reservation window.  The class action lawsuit that was already very strong is almost iron clad with the recent Marriott statement that they would NOT try to limit resale reservations in a new system.  I'm not buying it.  But, if they do try it, a class action lawsuit is certainly in Marriott's future.  Talk about a dumb move.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 19, 2009)

I am really glad to hear that Marriott has some new properties in the plan and they are going ahead.  This must mean they feel confident and a strong Marriott is good for all of us!


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 19, 2009)

THis is the second time I've read that a Marriott salesman has come right out and said something about an internal exchange program. I think we'll all have to wait and see what the real rules are rather than any salesman talk that's going to slant things in their favor to make a sale. It could simply be that Marriott offers some sort of option where an owner, resale or direct, can reserve their home resort at 12 months. Then limit the internal exchanges to any other Marriott to 10 months for direct purchasers for 6 months for resale buyers. If they do that, resale buyers can still reserve their home resort for personal usage or exchange with I.I. While it might not be a perfect world it will certainly cut down on any chances of a successful lawsuit in that they're still providing what they had provided before any internal exchange system while still providing the idea of exclusivity to those that pay developer prices. 

As to the new Hawaiian resorts, the Big Island would be a very nice addition. As it stands now, I'd have to go with Hilton to stay on the Big Isaland and that's a golf resort. I don't play golf and would prefer a beach front resort myself. But, I'll take what I can get if we ever decide to travel that direction. 

Winger, I think #7 was more of a lie than any other statement. IMHO, this puts in doubt anything else the salesman has said. We easily booked into Waihoai using our 2 bedroom Grand Chateau week requesting the exchange 12 months in advance. I would agree that those that buy Hawaii and pay the price, both upfront and in MF's, are more likely to want to stay at those locations but, I doubt the "only" reason you were able to get that week was due to the pool closing. I have never known either of my resorts to telegraph pool closings to all the owners, including exchangers. So I doubt that so many people knew before making the exchange that the super pool was going to be closed. It's more likely that airfares were so high when that week was booked by the original owner that they decided on a mainland vacation this year. It's hard to tell but, Hawaii does not seem to be that difficult of an exchange. I've know to many people that have made the exchange for me to believe statement #7.


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 19, 2009)

winger said:


> I just spoke to iconnections - I hope we can meet up later !
> 
> Here are a few notes about our tour this morning:
> 
> ...


Winger, we enjoyed meeting you and your family too.  We hope that your condo and view will be as nice at the MOC as you had here at the Maui KBC.  Enjoy your second week!   

We went to an update at the MOC and nothing was mentioned yet about the new internal exchange system but it was mentioned at the Vacation Club Owners' Workshop.  I asked the person if re-sale owners would be grandfathered in but he didn't know the answer and hoped that they would because some of his own customers had bought re-sale too and they would be pretty upset.  I believe that most people buy from the developer direct so the Marriott couldn't care less about the small percentage of re-sale buyers just like they didn't care about the one week owners either who lost 50% of the inventory to book twelve months in advance.  That made it really hard for us to book our late February or early March week at the resort we owned.  When we had a chance to upgrade to a fixed week and unit at a profit rather than a loss, we jumped at it and we have no regrets.

Aren't we talking about apples and oranges here anyway?  One has to do with making reservations at the resort we own which will always be at least one year out or even longer and the other one has to do with making an internal exchange to another Marriott resort?  Terms of exchanges were never spelled out in the documents that go with the deed so why would a class action lawsuit be justified?  Is it because re-sale prices will drop next to nothing like with the Wyndham resorts?

I am going to call the sales lady tomorrow who took over our account and find out what she has learned in that meeting.

It was a beautiful day today and the ocean looked so calm.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 19, 2009)

iconnections said:


> I asked the person if re-sale owners would be grandfathered in but he didn't know the answer and hoped that they would *because some of his own customers had bought re-sale too and they would be pretty upset.*  I believe that most people buy from the developer direct so the Marriott couldn't care less about the small percentage of re-sale buyers just like they didn't care about the one week owners either who lost 50% of the inventory to book twelve months in advance.  That made it really hard for us to book our late February or early March week at the resort we owned.  When we had a chance to upgrade to a fixed week and unit at a profit rather than a loss, we jumped at it and we have no regrets.
> 
> Aren't we talking about apples and oranges here anyway?  One has to do with making reservations at the resort we own which will always be at least one year out or even longer and the other one has to do with making an internal exchange to another Marriott resort?  Terms of exchanges were never spelled out in the documents that go with the deed so why would a class action lawsuit be justified?  Is it because re-sale prices will drop next to nothing like with the Wyndham resorts?
> 
> I am going to call the sales lady tomorrow who took over our account and find out what she has learned in that meeting.


Part of what you said is the biggest factor, imho, in this whole discussion. Besides the legal issues of course, it is not in Marriott's best interests to antagonize any owners, because today's resale owners may have been yesterday's developer's owners and, in any case, are prospective new buyers of tomorrow's resorts. *Keeping ALL owners happy is in Marriott's best interests. *

The way I read Winger's comments (and I am not questioning that's what he was told) is that the salesperson stated that Marriott was going to curtail resale reservations to 6 months. It sounds like the salesperson was embellishing things a bit (isn't that a nice way of saying he was less than truthful?) since he was put on the defensive and wanted to encourage a direct purchase. 

I agree that resale buyers are a small blip on the screen. I maintain that it would be a terrible business decision to exclude resale buyers from any new internal trading system. As stated above, current owners would have to at least be partially grandfathered in as to making reservations at their home resort for legal reasons and excluding them from internally trading would likely result in a lawsuit, definitely result in tremendous animosity and very bad publicity; these mostly developer and resale owners would likely never buy from Marriott again. That's bad for business.

As for future resale owners- as long as the rules don't change after a purchase is made, buyers can't cry fowl BUT this would create other issues. The resale market would plummet (or never recover and fall even more). How will the salesperson answer the question of "what if I ever want to sell it?" Secondly, salespeople tout the location they are trying to sell. There are many buyers who buy simply to use what they have purchased and do not intend to ever trade. Why not buy a resale unit that is now so much cheaper? Letting resale prices plummet is bad for business on both ends- detracts from the perceived investment value of the purchase and makes resales even more appealing to some people.

Even as a resale buyer, I know I might buy direct at a new location that holds appeal and, although I know timeshares are not an investment (which the majority of buyers likely are unawares of) I would hesitate to buy if I knew that there would be virtually no retained value on resale. I think part of the reason Marriotts have sold so well, besides their terrific properties, is that they are still worth $$$'s down the road. Many original pre-construction buyers have used their unit for years and either sold at or near their purchase price, or even made some money and gotten years of use. To me, that's the best sales pitch and reason to buy at a new property. I can't believe Marriott would destroy that.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 19, 2009)

Aren't resale owners more likely to buy only resale?  Why would Marriott want to accommodate a segment of owners that take business away from them?   As shown here on tug, resale purchasers have no interest in purchasing directly from Marriott so i'm confused why resale owners expect Marriott to court them or make them happy.  You don't give them any business or make them any money!


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 19, 2009)

I'm finding it interesting that the new internal exchange system is now being discussed in the open by the sales staff. I'm starting to feel that this will more likely be a reality and just speculation. As to how it will play out, we're all just guessing. We all know that sales staff are the least reliable sources of information. Any details on this new internal exchange system remain just rumors. Until one of us see's something in writing, I think there's little need to be concerned about what might happen. 

To many times in life we worry about things we have no control over. Worse yet, we worry about things that never even happen. Sure it's fun to speculate but, I'm happy to keep it at speculation and remain hopeful this will be something of value to all Marroitt owners.


----------



## luv2vacation (Apr 19, 2009)

Latravel said:


> Aren't resale owners more likely to buy only resale?  Why would Marriott want to accommodate a segment of owners that take business away from them?   As shown here on tug, resale purchasers have no interest in purchasing directly from Marriott so i'm confused why resale owners expect Marriott to court them or make them happy.  You don't give them any business or make them any money!



I don't mean to start an argument here (or offend anyone) but you're wrong on all counts.  Let me elaborate.

First of all, many resale owners give Marriott TONS of business.  Because they like the product so much, many of the resale owners are big participants in the Marriott rewards program.  That often means that they buy points DIRECTLY from Marriott and/or they are Marriott brand loyal, patronizing exclusively Marriott brand hotels for business AND pleasure to accumulate their points.  In addition to that, many have the MR visa card, which also generates profits for Marriott.  They also patronize many of the Marriott restaurants, food markets, Marketplaces, ets.  Marriott makes money off of all of that, too.

In addition, I have seen many (resalers) who frequent the MR program contemplate buying DIRECT at some point, either because they want in on a new property right away, or the the incentives are high enough to justify purchasing with their high usage of the MR program.  My last purchase was resale because I have never used the option of trading my units for points.  Hubby has no interest in traveling outside of the country.  But maybe someday he will and under the conditions above, I would consider direct again.

I purchased 2 weeks direct and 1 week resale.  Hubby is EXTREMELY brand loyal - will not stay anywhere but a Marriott when it comes to hotels.  I also charge EVERYTHING on my MR rewards visa.  I routinely buy gift cards, dining certs, etc.  I'm sure Marriott gets something from all of that.  

However, if Marriott chose to exclude 1 of my weeks (just because it was resale) and not the other 2, I would be VERY upset and would still use my Marriott timeshares but Marriott would lose ALL of my other business.  (That's a LOT of business.)  I would think that there are more people out there like me than you think.  I know that there are many on TUG who have bought both direct AND resale, and who are very Marriott brand loyal.

So, yes I DO think that Marriott owes me something.  I am loyal to their brand, not just with TS, but on the hotel side also.  I also use their credit card and purchase their other products.  I pay money in my maintenance fees that goes toward their management fees.  In other words, I pay every year for the Marriott "name".  I give them TONS of business.  AND I know that I am not the only resale purchaser out there that does this. Believe me, Marriott makes money off of me all the time, just because someone doesn't buy direct doesn't mean that Marriott doesn't make a lot of money from their patronage.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 19, 2009)

You make some very good points but I still think that Marriott makes more money off the direct purchasers vs the resale purchasers since direct purchasers buy the unit direct from Marriott (hence income from that sale) in addition to all of the income sources you mention.

People who use the program frequently (such as visa card use, buying points, staying in Marriott hotels) get rewarded in other ways (points, specials promos).  We are discussing the internal trading system that was mentioned in Wingers presentation and should Marriott, which is a business, court resale purchasers, or, as you state, are resale purchasers "owed" anything?


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 19, 2009)

Hmmmmmmm.  There's so much to think about here and I have a problem with clearly articulating all of my thoughts.  Several things come to mind immediately, though.



sdtugger said:


> ... The class action lawsuit that was already very strong is almost iron clad with the recent Marriott statement that they would NOT try to limit resale reservations in a new system...



What class action lawsuit?



luv2vacation said:


> I don't mean to start an argument here (or offend anyone) but you're wrong on all counts.  Let me elaborate.
> 
> First of all, many resale owners give Marriott TONS of business.  Because they like the product so much, many of the resale owners are big participants in the Marriott rewards program.  That often means that they buy points DIRECTLY from Marriott and/or they are Marriott brand loyal, patronizing exclusively Marriott brand hotels for business AND pleasure to accumulate their points.  In addition to that, many have the MR visa card, which also generates profits for Marriott.  They also patronize many of the Marriott restaurants, food markets, Marketplaces, ets.  Marriott makes money off of all of that, too.
> 
> ...



Everything said here applies to me, too, except that I am not a resale purchaser.  I do not expect that "Marriott owes me something," other than the use of my timeshare (as is stipulated in both the ownership documents and the program rules), and MRP benefits that anyone else in the program receives.  (MVCI ownership is not a requisite for MRP program membership, thus I think of MRP as something enhanced by MVCI and not an extension of it.)

I don't have any problem at all with Marriott offering a 12/13-month reservation window for the units which you and I bought direct, and a reduced 6/7-month window for your resale unit.  That differential gives us both what we're "owed", rewards customer loyalty, and is not legally forbidden by the deeded rights.  Works for me.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 19, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Part of what you said is the biggest factor, imho, in this whole discussion. Besides the legal issues of course, it is not in Marriott's best interests to antagonize any owners, because today's resale owners may have been yesterday's developer's owners and, in any case, are prospective new buyers of tomorrow's resorts. *Keeping ALL owners happy is in Marriott's best interests. *
> 
> The way I read Winger's comments (and I am not questioning that's what he was told) is that the salesperson stated that Marriott was going to curtail resale reservations to 6 months. It sounds like the salesperson was embellishing things a bit (isn't that a nice way of saying he was less than truthful?) since he was put on the defensive and wanted to encourage a direct purchase.
> 
> ...



Wow, there is a LOT here that I'm going to come back to later because Sunday dinner needs to be cooked and eaten  , but for now ....

_How will the salesperson answer the question of "what if I ever want to sell it?"_

I would hope, truthfully!  When we asked, our sales rep said something to the effect of, "Timeshares are not financial investments; their value is in the use of the product.  But if you do want to sell down the road, Marriott has a buy-back program for use in certain circumstances.  There are also outside resale brokers and an established market."  (Perhaps she included this because she saw the sales brochures in our hands.)  "People who buy pre-construction generally receive more of a return on their initial outlay than those who buy into finished properties, but very few actually make money in the timeshare market."


----------



## lisilv (Apr 19, 2009)

This "internal trading system" was not brought up by the sales person when I was there 2 weeks ago. I'm sure there will be a LOT of unhappy re-sale buyers out there.


----------



## Carlsbadguy (Apr 19, 2009)

The new Kauai property is going ot be labled Grand Residence Clubs - so don't know if they will trade like reg vacation clubs.  Saw teh sign up last week while at Kauai Beach Club


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 19, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> What class action lawsuit?


Exactly. The only people who benefit by a class action lawsuit are the attorneys. The people involved will get next to nothing and the attorney expenses are going to be passed on to us. What grounds do they have to sue the Marriott? This is what recently happened with the RCI class action lawsuit too. The attorneys made big money and the RCI members got a token. It is posted right here. 

I wished the Marriott could keep us all happy but their first loyalty goes to the bottom line of their company and to satisfy their investors.

I happened to talk on the phone to a sales manager of a Marriott competitor and she told me that there is light in the tunnel as their sales are improving slowly. The smart money may know already that the worst is over. We looked at some private condos too here in Maui and the salesman told us the same thing that people are buying again.

The week, we were at the Marriott, seven sales had been reported the day before we took our update and I believe the figures that Winger was quoted about the 25% sale as it is a good deal for direct purchasers who are not aware that a re-sale market even exists or the MRP system is more important to them and combining a 2 BR condo once a year for their family is like an extra perk to them for all the company traveling they do. Not everyone thinks like people here on TUG and I still feel that early one week owners got holding the bag because they got disadvantaged after the thirteen months reserve window came into being but we did something about it and are happy now. Once it was introduced, it was presented at the presentations so you knew right from the beginning that it was to your advantage to own more weeks than one.



SueDonJ said:


> Wow, there is a LOT here that I'm going to come back to later because Sunday dinner needs to be cooked and eaten  , but for now ....
> 
> _How will the salesperson answer the question of "what if I ever want to sell it?"_
> 
> I would hope, truthfully! When we asked, our sales rep said something to the effect of, "Timeshares are not financial investments; their value is in the use of the product. But if you do want to sell down the road, Marriott has a buy-back program for use in certain circumstances. There are also outside resale brokers and an established market." (Perhaps she included this because she saw the sales brochures in our hands.) "People who buy pre-construction generally receive more of a return on their initial outlay than those who buy into finished properties, but very few actually make money in the timeshare market."


Some locations have done very well so buying at pre-construction prices at a location where you like to visit often may not be so dumb. The investment was in quality vacations with your family or friends and an album full of pictures that you will treasure one day.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 19, 2009)

dougp26364 said:


> I'm finding it interesting that the new internal exchange system is now being discussed in the open by the sales staff. I'm starting to feel that this will more likely be a reality and just speculation..



This isn't new talk. People have mentioned for a couple years how the sales people have mentioned a possible internal exchange system. This new experience means nothing new and nothing has changed. It means nothing more than when the salesperson who said it 6 months ago, 12 months ago, or evern 18 months ago.

From the survey that many of us took several months back it doesn't sound like any owner will be included in the new system. One would have to buy in to it, retail and resale purchasers. Marriott will create it to make money. They would sell the option to owners, not give it out for free. They won't want to exclude a segment of their owner base because that would reduce their profit potential on a new program.


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 19, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't have any problem at all with Marriott offering a 12/13-month reservation window for the units which you and I bought direct, and a reduced 6/7-month window for your resale unit.  That differential gives us both what we're "owed", rewards customer loyalty, and is not legally forbidden by the deeded rights.  Works for me.




I have to say that I, even as a direct purchaser, would have a problem with resale owner only having a 6-7 month reservation window. It would essentially gut any resale value out of the units I own. I don't know about you but, I don't plan to live forever and our kids don't really want the burden of annual MF's for something they won't use. Thus, these weeks will eventually have to be sold at some point in time. I want them to have as much value as possible.

We don't have any details about any internal exchange program and we all know that salesman are notorious for only telling half the story. While I can't see Marriott restricting resale purchasers right to reserve their week like anyone else, I can see them restricting their rights to any internal exchange program. Other developers do this very same thing. 

For instance, resale purchasers with DRI who buy a deeded week are excluded from their internal exchange program completely unless they buy something from the developer as well. At least with this rumor about resale buyers only having 6-7 months, if it's about internal exchanges, they'll have that priviledge. If they bought a deeded week with DRI, they wouldn't even have that. 

I most definately do NOT want the reservation window shortened for resale purchases. That would hurt every Marriott owner or their estate at some point in time. I would not object nearly as bad if the only thing restricted was the internal exchange window for resale buyers. While it would still hurt resale values to some extent, Marriott would still be giving resale owners what they purchased. A unit that they could reserve and use at the 12-13 month window or exchange through I.I. at the 12-13 month window. All they wouldn't have is internal exchange privlidges until the 6 month window.


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 19, 2009)

dioxide45 said:


> This isn't new talk. People have mentioned for a couple years how the sales people have mentioned a possible internal exchange system. This new experience means nothing new and nothing has changed. It means nothing more than when the salesperson who said it 6 months ago, 12 months ago, or evern 18 months ago.
> 
> From the survey that many of us took several months back it doesn't sound like any owner will be included in the new system. One would have to buy in to it, retail and resale purchasers. Marriott will create it to make money. They would sell the option to owners, not give it out for free. They won't want to exclude a segment of their owner base because that would reduce their profit potential on a new program.



I realize the rumor is not new. What is new is that the sales staff seems to be able to talk about it openly and they seem to be consistant with what they're saying. Before, they were all over the map IF they'd say anything at all. 

For that past 2 or 3 years it's been little more that rumor and speculation on the part of Tuggers. Now, there seems to be more substance to the rumor.


----------



## billymach4 (Apr 19, 2009)

I really find it amusing that so many of you actually believe there will one day be an internal system. This rumor has been circulating for so many years and it is always about 1 to 2 years away from implementation. 

The salespeople perpetuate it only to their own spin to convince you to buy direct. 

Rubbish, Rubbish. I say it is all Rubbish!

To those of you that are developer buyers more power to you. I wish you all well in your timeshares. There has got to be a resale market, otherwise your developer purchase would be worthless. 

Marriott may well one day implement some sort of internal trading system, however they must include and grandfather resale owners. Not grandfathering resales owners will devalue the developer purchased Units. Who would buy a resale if your unit was going to be considered sub par!

Salespeople will twist the facts! Always!


----------



## tlwmkw (Apr 19, 2009)

*Marriott probably wants the resale market for themselves*

Marriott may not be trying to kill the resale market- they just want to control it.  They probably see other folks making money off their resorts in resales and want a piece of the action.  If you have been reading some other posts on this BB then you will have noted that they are taking names for wait lists for future purchases.  This is a smart move on their part- they can sell inventory that they don't even hold and collect 40% off the top if they sell it.  They don't have to pay MF's on those weeks and they don't have to tie up capital.  The sales staff at Surfwatch are already into this in a fairly significant way since they don't have much inventory left on HHI.  If they do the selling of the resale timeshares then they can bundle it with points or whatever.  They have already been doing this in a small way but now it sounds like they intend to try to take away the ability to resell their product from anyone else.

From the slant of the questionaire that many of us received it appears that you will have to pay for the opportunity of participating in the internal trade system.  Personally I don't think anyone really needs to worry about this.  I doubt many people who already own will want to participate (I won't) and if people don't join in then it won't fly for a long time- I can only imagine that new purchasers would use it because they have to.  If you are using II then Marriott won't have any control when you book and others who decline the internal trades will be there to trade with you.


----------



## billymach4 (Apr 19, 2009)

tlwmkw said:


> Marriott may not be trying to kill the resale market- they just want to control it.  They probably see other folks making money off their resorts in resales and want a piece of the action.  If you have been reading some other posts on this BB then you will have noted that they are taking names for wait lists for future purchases.  This is a smart move on their part- they can sell inventory that they don't even hold and collect 40% off the top if they sell it.  They don't have to pay MF's on those weeks and they don't have to tie up capital.  The sales staff at Surfwatch are already into this in a fairly significant way since they don't have much inventory left on HHI.  If they do the selling of the resale timeshares then they can bundle it with points or whatever.  They have already been doing this in a small way but now it sounds like they intend to try to take away the ability to resell their product from anyone else.
> 
> From the slant of the questionaire that many of us received it appears that you will have to pay for the opportunity of participating in the internal trade system.  Personally I don't think anyone really needs to worry about this.  I doubt many people who already own will want to participate (I won't) and if people don't join in then it won't fly for a long time- I can only imagine that new purchasers would use it because they have to.  If you are using II then Marriott won't have any control when you book and others who decline the internal trades will be there to trade with you.



The only reason Marriott is offering to resell units it because there are no units from ROFR to build up inventory. Over at HGVC Hilton is buying back  on the resale market and building up their own inventory. They have no development in the pipeline so this how HGVC maintains their inventory. Marriott on the other hand is in the development business and thus needs to build new units in order to profit. As we all know if Marriott did not need to resell their mortgages Marriott would be doing more in the way of ROFR as well.


----------



## winger (Apr 19, 2009)

We got here at pre-dawn this morning luggage and all and selected our poolside chairs.  Ppl started showing up with towels to reserve their seats at about 640AM, what a nutty concept. 

Anyways, I will check with our sales person to get more clarificaton of the internal system and the 6-mo reservation window for resales.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 19, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> What class action lawsuit?
> 
> I don't have any problem at all with Marriott offering a 12/13-month reservation window for the units which you and I bought direct, and a reduced 6/7-month window for your resale unit.  That differential gives us both what we're "owed", rewards customer loyalty, and is not legally forbidden by the deeded rights.  Works for me.



The concept of a Marriott internal trading system and/or restricting resale buyers reservation window have been discussed ad naseum for the last 2-3 years.  A class action lawsuit was discussed at length in those threads.  Suffice it to say that there is a very strong case against Marriott if they take away resale purchasers' right to reserve the same as any other owner.  Someone contacted Marriott during the earlier discussions and a Marriott employee fairly high up in the MVCI chain sent out a statement that Marriott would not restrict the reservation rights of resale purchasers.  If Marriott were to now restrict resale purchasers' reservation rights, this statement would strengthen a strong class action case even more.

And, as Doug stated above, restricting resale purchase rights hurts everyone because everyone is extremely likely to eventually need to resell their timeshare.  However, using MOC as an example, all of the key weeks are reserved within days, hours, or minutes of their availability.  Therefore, any restriction on resale reservations would effectively reduce the value of those weeks because they could only be used to reserve the least popular weeks.  And, the deed does NOT allow Marriott to reduce the value of the weeks (by 50-75%).

I find it funny that some direct purchase folks who tout the benefits of direct purchase are quick to argue that resale purchasers should be punished.  A direct purchase should make sense under the current system, not the current system "enhanced" by devaluing resale owners.

I am convinced that if Marriott ever does introduce an internal trading system that they will leave reservation practices alone.  Frankly, I believe that they may have considered changing the sytem to hurt resale owners and that they saw on this board and elsewhere that they'd face a huge lawsuit and they "saw the light."  I think Marriott is a well run company and I think they will continue to get this one right.  They can change many things regarding trading weeks.  But, they can't change the reservation system without a costly legal fight that I believe that would lose and lose big.  That isn't smart business.  If they want to enhance direct purchase weeks, the way to do it is to make it easier to exchange those weeks.


----------



## billymach4 (Apr 19, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> The concept of a Marriott internal trading system and/or restricting resale buyers reservation window have been discussed ad naseum for the last 2-3 years.  A class action lawsuit was discussed at length in those threads.  Suffice it to say that there is a very strong case against Marriott if they take away resale purchasers' right to reserve the same as any other owner.  Someone contacted Marriott during the earlier discussions and a Marriott employee fairly high up in the MVCI chain sent out a statement that Marriott would not restrict the reservation rights of resale purchasers.  If Marriott were to now restrict resale purchasers' reservation rights, this statement would strengthen a strong class action case even more.
> 
> And, as Doug stated above, restricting resale purchase rights hurts everyone because everyone is extremely likely to eventually need to resell their timeshare.  However, using MOC as an example, all of the key weeks are reserved within days, hours, or minutes of their availability.  Therefore, any restriction on resale reservations would effectively reduce the value of those weeks because they could only be used to reserve the least popular weeks.  And, the deed does NOT allow Marriott to reduce the value of the weeks (by 50-75%).
> 
> ...



Agreed Sdtugger!


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 19, 2009)

This topic does goes around and around and around, doesn't it?  Some very good points have been made on both sides of the discussion pertaining to these two points from winger's recent conversation with a Marriott rep:

"_5) Marriott is moving ahead with internal trading system, 8-16 months out.

6) existing resale owners will NOT be grandfathered in, they will have a booking window of 6 mos from date of checkin."_

I'm of the opinion that MVCI _can_ reward its direct purchasers in both of these ways because there is nothing specific contained in the deeded rights of any owners which would legally prohibit such actions.  _If_ the changes are implemented, I just don't see a legal basis for a class action suit anywhere here.

Now whether or not Marriott Co. or MVCI _would_ roll out the changes and chance a possible public relations nightmare as fallout is another thing.  In the past they've weathered, successfully, negative reaction to changes in practices such as the MRP devaluations and 12/13-month reservation process.  Who's to say it couldn't happen again?  I'd bet that Marriott changes and negative reactions definitely will happen at some point, if not with these two particular issues than with something else.  That's what history teaches us.

It seems to me that MVCI doesn't concern itself with how an owner is able to sell his/her unit at some point in the future, other than the establishment of ROFR and that's to protect its own brand.  We're all watching now and seeing that in his bad economy, even that has been all but suspended.  The only internal resale option they offer, to buy back in certain circumstances, is poor at best and totally subject to the market demand.  No, their concern is with selling new properties and maintaining existing ones to a certain standard so as to discourage owners from selling.  MVCI doesn't want either an internal or external glut of units on the market.

In any event, over the last few years we've read and discussed on this board many statements about _possible_ program changes that were made by Marriott reps, but not one of them has been an _official written statement_ issued by Marriott the parent company or MVCI in particular.  There's been a whole lot of fodder for digestion, but nothing at all to make a meal. 

I also want to say that although I am in favor of Marriott rewarding its direct-purchasers in the specific ways discussed here and any other possible ways, I do not see that as "punishment" for resale buyers.  It's simply the old "you get what you pay for" in action.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 19, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> This topic does goes around and around and around, doesn't it?  Some very good points have been made on both sides of the discussion pertaining to these two points from winger's recent conversation with a Marriott rep:
> 
> "_5) Marriott is moving ahead with internal trading system, 8-16 months out.
> 
> ...




Susan, We'll have to agree to disagree.  The fact is that you did NOT pay for the system that you describe.  You paid for the current system where the only difference between resale and direct purchase is the ability to exchange for MRP points.  I think most people can see the problem with changing the system after purchases were made.  And, given the horrible devaluation caused by any change in the reservation system, there would be a huge incentive for all owners to sue Marriott because all owners will eventually want to sell.  The right to reserve any platinum week is included in every week sold at MOC.  If a new reservation system effectively took that right away, that would indeed be a violation of the deed and related documents.

I don't have time to dig up the old statement from MVCI that they would not change the reservation system, but it was documented by several of the trusted posters on this board and it was from someone high enough up to make the statement reliable. 

In short, Marriott has tons of flexibility to play with an internal or new exchange system.  You'll get no argument from me on that front.  But, I don't think they have any flexibility to effectively remove valuable reservation rights from weeks that were sold to include those rights without a costly lawsuit that they would be very likely to lose.  Marriott is not that dumb, even if some wish they were in order to make their own purchase appear more valuable in the short run.  In the long run, everyone would lose.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 19, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> I also want to say that although I am in favor of Marriott rewarding its direct-purchasers in the specific ways discussed here and any other possible ways, I do not see that as "punishment" for resale buyers.  It's simply the old "you get what you pay for" in action.



Understandably, you and I sit on opposite sides of the fence, so to speak, although we have at times agreed on things . But I don't see how if Marriott changed the rules after the fact it would be a "you get what you pay for" in action. Resale (and direct) purchasers bought under a certain known set of conditions. Changing the rules going forward, while I still maintain would be bad for business because by decimating the resale market you are hurting direct buyers who may buy with the anticipation of selling 10 years or so down the road when their needs change, could be categorized in your "you get what you pay for" category. BUT- changing the rules after the fact would be taking away what was bought. It would be no different than Marriott telling original pre-construction purchasers that since later purchasers paid $10,000 or more additional they are entitled to earlier reservations, better room assignments, etc. 

It doesn't matter how much was paid. At the time the product was purchased, a certain set of advertised and implied entitlements went along with the purchase and any restrictions would be bad for everyone, and I don't just mean resale buyers. To reiterate what I think is a critical argument- anything that creates animosity towards the brand is bad for the brand. Many resale buyers are also developer purchasers and certainly are potential developer purchasers of future resorts. As pointed out by others, restricting rights already enjoyed will lead to a lot of brand animosity and bad publicity. 

Furthermore, also as pointed out, resale buyers are not the only ones who will be negatively affected. Need to move, no longer can travel the distance, change in lifestyle, health, etc.- you can never maintain you'll never want to sell. Be careful what you wish for- killing the resale market will kill your investment. And- good luck getting Marriott to sell for you; hope you have the patience and can afford the MF's while you wait, and wait, and wait. So your salesperson's canned response about reselling will be worth squat.

Last but not least- along with the be careful what you wish for vein- as any kind of owner, whether direct or resale, I'd worry about a company that for whatever reason starts to remove rights/privileges/use of a product from any of its customers. Just because you bought direct doesn't make you immune. I know you'll think it sounds far-fetched, but an analogous argument can be made that people at the same resort who paid more should similarly be compensated and enjoy more privileges. You indicate people should get what they paid for. I know for a fact that at many resorts resale prices were about the same as initial offerings. So, does that mean those people who paid about the same should enjoy the same privileges or suffer the same restrictions. Should Marriott now reward those later purchasers who may have paid close to at least a third more? That would certainly be a way to justify ever increasing prices (and just so there is no misunderstanding, I am saying this a bit tongue in cheek, and in no way am suggesting this).

*Marriott should not be allowed to change the rules of use after the fact for any owner *and every owner should support that.


----------



## Troopers (Apr 19, 2009)

My bet is that if Marriott introduces an internal trading system, it will only be available to weeks purchased directly from them.  Also, this will not be such a big deal for resale weeks because I doubt the internal trading system will offer much more than other available options to exchange (trade) the (resale) week.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 19, 2009)

This thread again sets forth the continual confusion about any internal Marriott *TRADING* system vs. the *reservation* process. Let's not continue to confuse the two.

Marriott CANNOT change your rights to reserve *YOUR* week. These are deeded rights. 

Marriott CAN set up any priority it wants in any TRADING system. TRADING system= Interval International, RedWeek, Ownertrades, etc. ie., trading your week you have already reserved.

Marriott CANNOT restrict which program you decide to trade your unit with. 

For those who missed the old thread on this issue,  here is more: http://tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=576497&postcount=13

Let's not continue to confuse these two distinct issues.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 19, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> In short, Marriott has tons of flexibility to play with an internal or new exchange system.  You'll get no argument from me on that front.  But, I don't think they have any flexibility to effectively remove valuable reservation rights from weeks that were sold to include those rights without a costly lawsuit that they would be very likely to lose.  Marriott is not that dumb, even if some wish they were in order to make their own purchase appear more valuable in the short run.  In the long run, everyone would lose.



Well said. But, not just because I want it that way, but for the reasons stated above, even if Marriott has the legal flexibility to play with an internal exchange system, discriminating against any current owner would, in my opinion, be bad for business. The only reason would be to be punitive and that just doesn't generate good will. It would just turn off current owners from ever buying another Marriott. And, as others have stated, there are many resale (I wouldn't be surprised if it was most even) owners who also have bought one or more developer weeks and any happy Marriott owner is a potential future purchaser of a new development. 

Grandfathering all current resale owners would cost Marriott nothing. It would keep all current owners happy and maintain their entire customer base. It would make all current owners, regardless of how they bought, assured that Marriott will take care of their owners in the future no matter how prices rise or conditions change. It would only generate more revenue in any internal trading system. Simply put, it would be good for business.

Changing the rules going forward for any future resale buyer would be fair to all current owners in so far as Marriott wouldn't be changing the rules of use after the fact and would be fair to any future buyers because in that case they would be knowing and getting what they were buying. However, I still feel that every owner and future purchaser would be hurt by this, because it will severely impact the resale value and desirability of every unit. And it may come back to haunt Marriott, since salespeople will have a harder time convincing prospective buyers that there purchase will retain value over time, should they need or want to sell it in the future. Because of that, I don't think its good for owners and I don't think its good for Marriott either.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 19, 2009)

See, I knew it would be difficult to flesh out my thoughts here but I'm really confused about the certainty that some of you have, that a class action suit could be brought if the reservation process is changed.

Perhaps that may be true for fixed weeks, but seasonal ownership?  I'm just not getting it.

The *only* deeded right with respect to a week's use is that an owner is entitled to _a week_ within a certain season in a specific unit configuration, for example a Gold 2BR oceanview.  MVCI (and every other timeshare entity) is legally prohibited from selling any more weeks than fit those specifics, therefore, there will always be availability for an owner to use his/her week.  That is the extent of MVCI's legal obligations to seasonal owners, as far as usage.

If MVCI goes to a 12/13-month direct-purchase and 6/7-month external resale-purchase reservation system, it will not prevent a resale owner from reserving a week as specified by his/her deeded rights, because the number of those specific weeks is fixed to the number sold.  What it will do is force him/her to wait out a six month period in which direct-purchasers _who also own that specific unit configuration_ will be able to make reservations ahead of him/her.  Thus, the legal requirement that _a week as specified must be available_, is not breached.  

The reservation process has been changed in the past by Marriott.  If I'm not mistaken, the 12/13-month thing is a fairly recent change within the last ten years or so.  What recourse did single-week owners at the time have?  Weren't they forced to abide by the new reservation process even though it put them at a disadvantage?  I simply don't see a precedent for a class action suit by owners to prohibit any such future changes.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> ... I don't have time to dig up the old statement from MVCI that they would not change the reservation system, but it was documented by several of the trusted posters on this board and it was from someone high enough up to make the statement reliable. ...



Separate from the issue itself -

I believe I've seen a few posts from DaveM in discussions here in which he relates what he's heard from his trusted source, and some of those have served to discount rumors.  The fact that he has a trusted source doesn't surprise me in the least, and I believe that what Dave posts is exactly what he's heard from his source.  Dave is as knowledgeable about the Marriott product as anyone can be, and I'm in total agreement with every positive opinion of Dave as there is on this site.

BUT...

Dave will be (and has been, in these types of discussions) the first to say that unless a written official statement is made by Marriott Co. or MVCI, no rumor can be assumed as fact or dismissed as fiction by virtue of any rep's unofficial statement.  Which makes sense, doesn't it, because what a Marriott higher-up hears today may be different tomorrow.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 20, 2009)

Have you guys forgotten that Marriott can and will change the rules after a purchase?  Examples:
1.  Receiving points for financing your purchase with Marriott was stopped.
2.  Number of points required for vacation packages
3. 12/13 month reservation window

Why do you think they "can't" change the system to suit their business needs when they have already in the past?  Marriott can change the internal TRADING system however they see fit if they feel they can enhance their sales.  It's written in the purchase contract which we all signed.

When I was sitting in a sales presentation, I asked about the resale market.  They told me they don't consider resale units part of the system.  There is a big "R" next to the unit number.  This is one of the many reasons why I never purchased resale.  I didn't want to take a chance that there would be any future restrictions on my unit.

Regarding restrictions on resale units hurting resale value.  I don't consider my units an investment and I don't expect a resale value.  They are for my enjoyment and if I make any money if I sell, that is a nice perk.  Did Marriott ever make you a promise that you would make a profit or even make your money back?   I remember the purchase agreement clearly states that timeshares are not considered investments, only for enjoyment.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 20, 2009)

Wow SueDon - 
The reservation system that you describe where resale purchasers would only be able to reserve their home unit 6 months out, after direct purchasers, sounds almost cruel!  I don't think that would be fair.  Everyone (direct and resale) should have access to the unit they bought at the same time.  Though, I agree with your theory that there is probably no basis for a class action suit, it still sounds wrong.

On the other hand, any program perks such as internal trading, is another story.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

davidvel said:


> ... Marriott CANNOT change your rights to reserve *YOUR* week. These are deeded rights. ...



But Marriott can change the process by which you are able to reserve your week.  So, you have the right to reserve your week, but Marriott reserves the right to determine how the reservation can be made.

That specific process is not a deeded right, and there have previously been uncontested changes made to the process.  Multi-week owners were granted an advantage (if booking consecutive or concurrent weeks) over single-week owners, who had no legal recourse to stop Marriott's change in the process.  I don't know why anyone would expect that it can't happen again.

(I sure do hope I've explained this well enough now that folks don't think I'm saying that developer-purchasers should be able to book anything other than the specific unit/season configuration they puchased.  I don't mean that at all!)


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

Latravel said:


> Wow SueDon -
> The reservation system that you describe where resale purchasers would only be able to reserve their home unit 6 months out, after direct purchasers, sounds almost cruel!  I don't think that would be fair.  Everyone (direct and resale) should have access to the unit they bought at the same time.  Though, I agree with your theory that there is probably no basis for a class action suit, it still sounds wrong.
> 
> On the other hand, any program perks such as internal trading, is another story.



It doesn't sound fair, does it?  But that's how I'm reading what winger related, that resale purchasers would have an open window for reservations at six months, 7/6 months after the window opens for developer purchasers.  And isn't there already a precedent for Marriott allowing a reservation differential, with the multi- and single-week owners?

For the record, I think six months is a long time, too, and I also think that there are a few too many logistical problems with implementing such a change.  For instance, what if you own one developer and one resale week?  Do you have to forfeit your multi-week advantage and book each week according to single-week ownership rules, i.e. the developer week can be booked at 12 months and the resale at 6 months?  Seems like a nightmare.  Maybe, though, they've figured out the logistics and the time will be shortened to one month, or two, or four?  Or a totally different process is being considered?  Who knows.

BUT I am still in favor of MVCI using its creative power to differentiate in some way between developer and resale purchasers in order to reward its loyal customers (to the extent that rewards do not usurp any owners' deeded rights.)  I'll always be in favor of such things.  However, I've also said before that I don't _expect_ any changes.  The program works for me as is.

You know, I've never seen any picketing or rallying cry for a class action suit outside of a Macy's when there is a sale with an additional x% off if you use a Macy's credit card.  Macy's rewards its loyal customers with such things, and is immune from prosecution for it because all shoppers have the opportunity to apply for the card.  Well, all MVCI owners have the opportunity to buy developer-direct.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> But Marriott can change the process by which you are able to reserve your week.  So, you have the right to reserve your week, but Marriott reserves the right to determine how the reservation can be made.
> 
> That specific process is not a deeded right, and there have previously been uncontested changes made to the process.  Multi-week owners were granted an advantage (if booking consecutive or concurrent weeks) over single-week owners, who had no legal recourse to stop Marriott's change in the process.  I don't know why anyone would expect that it can't happen again.
> 
> (I sure do hope I've explained this well enough now that folks don't think I'm saying that developer-purchasers should be able to book anything other than the specific unit/season configuration they puchased.  I don't mean that at all!)



The point that your argument misses is that all weeks are not created equal.  It would be very easy to demonstrate in court that a July 4 week in Hilton Head or Hawaii is much more valuable than a different week in the same season (like mid-October in Hawaii).  If Marriott were to change the reservation system to deny access to the most valuable weeks to certain owners that previously had full access to those weeks, it would be easy for a judge or jury to conclude that a valuable right had been removed and compensation should be paid.  Even if the letter of the contract were met (and I don't believe it would be met because Marriott didn't promise access to only the worst weeks, they promised access to all the weeks in a certain season), a judge or jury would still be able to award damages on several legal grounds.  It happens all the time.

As to the previous uncontested changes, I'm no expert, but I suspect that the change wasn't "bad" enough to cause people to sue to stop it.  For example, there is still 50% of the inventory available at 12 months, etc.  But, if Marriott tried to take away my right to reserve a key week in Maui, I'd be leading the charge and I suspect there would be an army following me.  In many ways, my timeshare would be virtually worthless to me and I'm not going to just sit by and do nothing over a loss like that.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Separate from the issue itself -
> 
> I believe I've seen a few posts from DaveM in discussions here in which he relates what he's heard from his trusted source, and some of those have served to discount rumors.  The fact that he has a trusted source doesn't surprise me in the least, and I believe that what Dave posts is exactly what he's heard from his source.  Dave is as knowledgeable about the Marriott product as anyone can be, and I'm in total agreement with every positive opinion of Dave as there is on this site.
> 
> ...



I'm not talking about rumors by DaveM or anyone else.  Within the last 2 years (last year I believe), during the debate on this issue someone high up in MVCI sent a series of e-mails to a Tugger that were posted here to clarify and reassure that no changes were planned to the reservation system for resales.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> BUT I am still in favor of MVCI using its creative power to differentiate in some way between developer and resale purchasers in order to reward its loyal customers (to the extent that rewards do not usurp any owners' deeded rights.)  I'll always be in favor of such things.  However, I've also said before that I don't _expect_ any changes.  The program works for me as is.
> 
> You know, I've never seen any picketing or rallying cry for a class action suit outside of a Macy's when there is a sale with an additional x% off if you use a Macy's credit card.  Macy's rewards its loyal customers with such things, and is immune from prosecution for it because all shoppers have the opportunity to apply for the card.  Well, all MVCI owners have the opportunity to buy developer-direct.



So what you are saying is that you want Marriott to give you something that you didn't purchase and take that away from others?  The only thing you purchased was the right to exchange for points.  Seems short sighted to me because there could easily come a time in the near future when you needed to sell for some reason and under your system there would be no market.

Your Macy's example is apples versus oranges.  If Macy's tried to tell you that if you resold a piece of clothing and the purchaser could only use it on odd numbered days or something ridiculous like that, you can bet that there would be some sort of rallying cry to stop it.  That's closer (albeit admittedly not really the same) to the situation we are discussing.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> The point that your argument misses is that all weeks are not created equal.  It would be very easy to demonstrate in court that a July 4 week in Hilton Head or Hawaii is much more valuable than a different week in the same season (like mid-October in Hawaii).  If Marriott were to change the reservation system to deny access to the most valuable weeks to certain owners that previously had full access to those weeks, it would be easy for a judge or jury to conclude that a valuable right had been removed and compensation should be paid.  Even if the letter of the contract were met (and I don't believe it would be met because Marriott didn't promise access to only the worst weeks, they promised access to all the weeks in a certain season), a judge or jury would still be able to award damages on several legal grounds.  It happens all the time.



Within a certain season, ALL weeks are considered equal and an owner is entitled to A week within the season.  That's how it's stipulated in the property Master Deed and By-Laws, and those are what will be offered as evidence by Marriott's lawyers in the class action proceeding.  A judge or jury would have no basis on which to consider any one week more valuable than the others.

If there is a legal precedent that you can cite to back up your "damages on several legal grounds," then I'll reconsider.  But if not, I just don't see a basis for any such thing.



sdtugger said:


> As to the previous uncontested changes, I'm no expert, but I suspect that the change wasn't "bad" enough to cause people to sue to stop it.  For example, there is still 50% of the inventory available at 12 months, etc.  But, if Marriott tried to take away my right to reserve a key week in Maui, I'd be leading the charge and I suspect there would be an army following me.  In many ways, my timeshare would be virtually worthless to me and I'm not going to just sit by and do nothing over a loss like that.



Marriott's obligation is for _a week_, not _a KEY week_.  But the By-Laws do allow for you to contest anything you choose with no regard for its relative "bad"-ness.  I just wouldn't be surprised if your charge went nowhere.

And again, I'm not saying that this particular change being discussed would be a positive change, or possible.  I'm just confused by the idea that it could be reversed by a class action suit.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> I'm not talking about rumors by DaveM or anyone else.  Within the last 2 years (last year I believe), during the debate on this issue someone high up in MVCI sent a series of e-mails to a Tugger that were posted here to clarify and reassure that no changes were planned to the reservation system for resales.



Oh.  That's my fault, then, I always think of DaveM as the resident Marriott expert and he does have a highly-placed source within MVCI.

I don't remember anything posted here in any of these discussions that was quite as concrete as you remember, and I read most everything on the Marriott Board.  Is it possible for you to find them and post the link here?


----------



## sandesurf (Apr 20, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> As to the previous uncontested changes, I'm no expert, but I suspect that the change wasn't "bad" enough to cause people to sue to stop it.  For example, there is still 50% of the inventory available at 12 months, etc.  But, if Marriott tried to take away my right to reserve a key week in Maui, I'd be leading the charge and I suspect there would be an army following me.  In many ways, my timeshare would be virtually worthless to me and I'm not going to just sit by and do nothing over a loss like that.



I'll be right next to you in that charge, sd!

We have bought both ways, developer and resale. We'd possibly buy again, developer, if the circumstances were right. I don't understand how some people consider themselves to be more "loyal" to Marriott, just because they bought a developer week. Us, resale buyers, are paying the same maitenence fees, and spending just as much money while we're on our vacations as anyone else.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> So what you are saying is that you want Marriott to give you something that you didn't purchase and take that away from others?  The only thing you purchased was the right to exchange for points.  Seems short sighted to me because there could easily come a time in the near future when you needed to sell for some reason and under your system there would be no market.



What I'm saying is that for each of my weeks I am not owed anything from Marriott other than what I purchased, which is a week at a certain resort within a certain season in a specific unit configuration.  That's Marriott's legal obligation.

Everything else - the reservation system, the trading system, the MRP incidental value, the developer v. resale purchase differential, etc. - all of that is subject to Marriott's interpretation and implementation.  None of us has any control over that stuff.

What I'm also saying, and will always say, is that I don't have a problem with Marriott rewarding its loyal customers so long as the rewards do not legally infringe on any owners' deeded rights.  The value of MVCI, to me, is in the vacation experience and not the financial benefit.  



sdtugger said:


> Your Macy's example is apples versus oranges.  If Macy's tried to tell you that if you resold a piece of clothing and the purchaser could only use it on odd numbered days or something ridiculous like that, you can bet that there would be some sort of rallying cry to stop it.  That's closer (albeit admittedly not really the same) to the situation we are discussing.



My point was simply that Marriott is free to reward its loyal customers within legal boundaries, and those that fall outside those boundaries have no legal recourse to contest the rewards.


----------



## sandesurf (Apr 20, 2009)

Well, I would hope that Marriott would see ALL of their owners as "Loyal", as long as their maitenece fees are paid up.

Even though we bought one of our Marriotts "resale", we still put our money into "Marriott", and not some other timeshare system.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

sandesurf said:


> ... I don't understand how some people consider themselves to be more "loyal" to Marriott, just because they bought a developer week. ...



I'm using "loyal customer" for developer purchasers as it's defined in industry - those who contract directly with a company for goods and services.  I have no doubt that resale purchasers are as loyal (i.e. devoted, maybe?  I can't think of the word...) to the Marriott brand as developer purchasers.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have bought Marriott at all.

In all these discussions it always comes around to "neither is better or smarter than the other, but you're making me feel that way, nyah nyah nyah."  Honestly, I hate that.  Resale purchasers have their own reasons for buying that way and they don't all agree with each other.  The same is true for developer purchasers.  Neither group is 100% correct or wrong, so I don't understand why it's always an us-against-them thing.  In this particular discussion, as I've said already, I'm not looking at it as a "punish the resalers!" thing.  I don't think they need to be punished.  What I do think, is that if Marriott implements policies which favor their direct-purchasers, there might be no legal recourse against those policies.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> What I'm saying is that for each of my weeks I am not owed anything from Marriott other than what I purchased, which is a week at a certain resort within a certain season in a specific unit configuration.  That's Marriott's legal obligation.
> 
> Everything else - the reservation system, the trading system, the MRP incidental value, the developer v. resale purchase differential, etc. - all of that is subject to Marriott's interpretation and implementation.  None of us has any control over that stuff.
> 
> ...



The purchase of a week entitles you to reserve a week in the purchased season, but also the potential access to every week. IF Marriott was to penalize any group of owners by precluding them from having the potential to book any week or group of weeks there would be a huge outcry. The concept of diminished value would be very real. What you are suggesting is entirely different from the 12/13 month rule, because 50% of every available week's inventory was reserved for each set of reservations, so EVERY owner has an equal chance of reserving each week. Barring resale owners from making reservations at exactly the same time as every other owner would effectively be excluding them from reserving certain weeks of their available season, a right which was guaranteed in their ownership documents. No one is guaranteed a specific week (except, of course, for fixed week owners) but EVERY buyer is entitled to the opportunity to book every week in the season owned. 

What you are advocating would be no different then Marriott releasing all its inventory at 13 months to multiple week owners. After all, why shouldn't they reward their most loyal customers, as you so strongly advocate?! I don't think you- or any other Marriott owner- would think that was right, now would you? While you seemingly have no problem penalizing those you consider "less worthy" because they bought resale, the same can be said for multiple week owners as being more loyal customers. Or people who paid more for their untis later on. As I said, be careful what you wish for...IF Marriott was stupid enough to implement regulations like this that impact resale owners, don't think it won't set a very dangerous precedent wherein single week owners,etc., will remain immune. 

Marriott smartly did not do this in the past because it would have infringed on owner's legal rights and I am confident they won't infringe on them in the future. As a resale- or direct developer- purchaser I am entitled to the opportunity to book every week in my season and not to just a choice of the ones others have found less desirable. Regardless of whether you feel resale buyers are second class citizens and should be treated as such, we purchased under an agreement entitling us to the same benefits with the exception of the Marriott Rewards program. Being part of MVCI has fostered brand loyalty in other ways as well, besides paying our MF's. Marriott is too smart to antagonize thousands of owners, most of whom have bought directly from them in the past and/or potentially will in the future.

If Marriott didn't consider us good customers, why would they constantly offer us previews and try to sell us additional units? Resale buyers are not lepers to the Marriott system; Marriott considers all owners valuable assets and I, for one, expect them to continue.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

m61376 said:


> The purchase of a week entitles you to reserve a week in the purchased season, but also the potential access to every week. IF Marriott was to penalize any group of owners by precluding them from having the potential to book any week or group of weeks there would be a huge outcry. The concept of diminished value would be very real. What you are suggesting is entirely different from the 12/13 month rule, because 50% of every available week's inventory was reserved for each set of reservations, so EVERY owner has an equal chance of reserving each week. Barring resale owners from making reservations at exactly the same time as every other owner would effectively be excluding them from reserving certain weeks of their available season, a right which was guaranteed in their ownership documents. No one is guaranteed a specific week (except, of course, for fixed week owners) but EVERY buyer is entitled to the opportunity to book every week in the season owned.



Ugh, I'm repeating and repeating here but I simply don't see that the By-Laws offer legal equal access to _each week_ within a season for all owners.  We're all guaranteed _a week_, and so long as there are a corresponding number of developer-purchased weeks to those owners and resale-purchased weeks to those owners, Marriott's legal obligation is fulfilled.

The concept of diminished value is already very real in the 13/12-month reservation process, and there has been no legal recourse against that.  I believe that is because MVCI would prevail in any suit contesting the "any week" contract language versus the "any certain week" owner-perceived language.



m61376 said:


> What you are advocating would be no different then Marriott releasing all its inventory at 13 months to multiple week owners. After all, why shouldn't they reward their most loyal customers, as you so strongly advocate?! I don't think you- or any other Marriott owner- would think that was right, now would you? While you seemingly have no problem penalizing those you consider "less worthy" because they bought resale, the same can be said for multiple week owners as being more loyal customers. Or people who paid more for their untis later on. As I said, be careful what you wish for...IF Marriott was stupid enough to implement regulations like this that impact resale owners, don't think it won't set a very dangerous precedent wherein single week owners,etc., will remain immune.



I advocate rewards for loyal customers, sure, in MVCI as well as every other consumer-driven industry.  It's simply good business practice.

But as I've also said, I don't mean "loyal customer" as a disparaging term.  Specifically, "less worthy" is YOUR wording, not mine.  I haven't said anything about "most" or "more" or "less" loyal at all.  It's not a relative term; it's simply an industry-defined term to mean those who contract directly with a provider.  This is getting frustrating, because I'm in the position of being forced to defend a position that I've not taken!  I do not think that direct purchasers are _entitled_ to anything more, legally, than what is provided in the By-Laws to resale buyers.  But should MVCI choose to offer rewards which do not infringe on any other owners' rights, I'm not going to complain.



m61376 said:


> Marriott smartly did not do this in the past because it would have infringed on owner's legal rights and I am confident they won't infringe on them in the future. As a resale- or direct developer- purchaser I am entitled to the opportunity to book every week in my season and not to just a choice of the ones others have found less desirable. Regardless of whether you feel resale buyers are second class citizens and should be treated as such, we purchased under an agreement entitling us to the same benefits with the exception of the Marriott Rewards program. Being part of MVCI has fostered brand loyalty in other ways as well, besides paying our MF's. Marriott is too smart to antagonize thousands of owners, most of whom have bought directly from them in the past and/or potentially will in the future.



"Second-class citizens?"  Again, not my words or my intent.  The rest is rehash.



m61376 said:


> If Marriott didn't consider us good customers, why would they constantly offer us previews and try to sell us additional units? Resale buyers are not lepers to the Marriott system; Marriott considers all owners valuable assets and I, for one, expect them to continue.



Marriott constantly offers previews and tries to sell to everyone under the sun who checks in to any Marriott property (hotels included,) as well as guests of those folks.  They also target demographics with mailings, advertise in industry-related publications and media outlets, and set up booths at trade shows.  Selling is their business!  They're not rewarding you or me when they offer us more; they're looking to make another sale.

The one thing that I will agree with, is that MVCI considers all of its owners who abide by the rules as "valuable assets."  But that term has nothing to do with "loyal customers", as defined.

(Finally, none of this is meant to be antagonistic.  Honestly.  The discussion is, for me, a review of the legalities that limit any owners' recourse against MVCI practices.  That's all.  No insult is intended or implied, but for whatever reason some of you appear to be seeing one.  I honestly don't know how to defend my position any differently, in a way that you don't see such a thing.)


----------



## m61376 (Apr 20, 2009)

Let me express it a little differently. The purchase agreement with Marriott gives owners rights to all specified weeks in a season, with at least the potential to access those weeks. If, for example, a season includes weeks 1-17 except for pre-designated Platinum Plus holiday weeks, all Platinum owners are entitled to have access to each of those weeks. Curtailing the ability of ANY owner to reserve by making all of certain weeks unavailable before they have the ability to try to reserve would result in such owners seeking legal recourse, because they would no longer be enjoying the product they purchased; if instead of 15 potential weeks they only had 4 or 5 less desirable weeks to choose from and could only make plans 6 months out, for example, Marriott would severely be diminishing the value of their ownership. 

The 12/13 month rule is totally different, because every owner still has the potential to book every week in the purchased season. IF Marriott had elected to allow multiple week owners access to all reservations rather than only half, then I am certain 12 months owners would have sought legal redress. 

Marriott can, of course, change the program for future purchasers, because that would not violate either the letter or the spirit of their contractual agreement. The product would inherently have lesser use value and the market would likely reflect that, and it would be up to a buyer as to whether or not to buy under such terms. But ALL current owners own the right to book a week in their season AND the right to have potential access to every week in the season they have purchased.

Just as many people are concerned with what is happening at the Ocean Club, I am surprised all owners aren't concerned about this. Don't fool yourselves- this can be a dangerous precedent which can trickle its way down to all owners. If they are allowed to do something like that to resale owners, what's to prevent them from allowing multiple week owners to book 100% of the inventory at 12 months? It is the same contractual obligation which makes Marriott make sure that single week owners have access to every week in their season that obligates them to allow resale week owners to have access to every week in their season.


At least we both agree that all owners are valuable assets. My point about being loyal customers was actually made by someone else; you don't have to be a developer purchaser of all (or any) of your weeks to be a loyal customer. There is more to brand loyalty than simply a timeshare purchase- there are hotel stays, eating at their restaurants, use of their VISA, etc.- all of which generate money. Being a loyal customer of one place, whether a hotel chain or store, does not preclude me from shopping elsewhere on occasion; this is no different.

And I realize that they offer timeshare presentations basically to anyone who can walk. My point wasn't that it proved that Marriott was rewarding me with that, but that they still consider me an important part of their customer base and potentially a future purchaser. If they felt resale buyers were lost causes, and not worth wasting their time on, they wouldn't. I think Marriott is smarter than that. They hope all buyers (including resale) are happy with their product and will buy more of their product. Hey, I bet many resale buyers who have traded into the Royals in Cancun, for example, will be lining up to buy there pre-construction. Financing future developments depends on current owners wanting to buy more and recommending their friends, etc. They need repeat customers. I still maintain that Marriott is smart enough not to antagonize a small but significant portion of their customer base. Keep in mind that while less tha 10% of units were purchased resale, resale owners account for a higher percentage, because many resale owners are also direct purchasers and have the potential to be direct purchasers in the future.


----------



## tlwmkw (Apr 20, 2009)

*The bottom line is.....*

No one really knows what is going to happen.  So why not just wait and see for now?  Clearly Marriott is trying to create some differential between those who purchase directly from them (either original purchase or resale) versus those that purchase resale not through Marriott.  How that will impact any of us is a big unknown for now so best thing for now is to enjoy our weeks and see what happens.  Unless you signed a contract directly with Marriott then they do not have to honor anything except what is on the deed- that is just basic real estate law.

I still believe that Marriott wants a bigger piece of the re-sale pie and that a lot of this relates to that.  If they use ROFR then they have to hold the week themselves and pay MF's.  With the system of creating a "waiting list" for those wishing to sell their weeks Marriott does not have to tie up capital or pay MF's but can still collect their 40%.  I think we'll see more of this going on (but only at sold out resorts of course).  This is pure conjecture too so we'll all have to just wait and see.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 20, 2009)

_"Unless you signed a contract directly with Marriott then they do not have to honor anything except what is on the deed- that is just basic real estate law."_

But we all should have known that, right?  It has never been a secret with every sales person telling us that if you don't buy directly from Marriott, you are not included in the program.  They do not hide this fact. 

Some tuggers here have minimized that to only losing out on points but it could be so much more.   We don't know what changes will happen in the near future or in a few years, or both.  All we know is that if you didn't purchase from Marriott, you _could_ be subjected to changes you may not like.  But that is a risk resale purchasers hopefully understood and were willing to take.  Just don't get mad if the changes are not in your favor (though they very possibly could be).


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Let me express it a little differently. ...



Nothing I can say in response to your latest, m, would be different than what I've already said.

Doesn't it all come down to whatever interpretation of the legal documents (Deed, By-Laws, Time Sharing Declaration, etc.) would be determined as binding by the Court during an action against MVCI?  Everything I've read gives Marriott the protection it needs to go ahead with a reservation process differential between developer- and resale purchasers, because nothing I've read gives each owner access to "every" week within a season (only "a" week.)

My Owner Reference Guide says, under the "How To Use Your Vacation Ownership" section:  _"Your first option as a Marriott Owner is to occupy your villa within the season that you own."_

Under the "Reserving a Full Villa for a Week at Your Home Resort" section, it says:  _"For optimal reservation ability, contact Owner Services as soon as you are eligible.  Based on space availability, reservations are made and confirmed on a first-come, first-served basis."_

There's nothing in either of those about all owners having equal access to every week or a specific week within a season, and there's nothing to prohibit Marriott's ability to determine different reservation eligibility dates (which, again, has been done in the past.)  

Of course I could be wrong, and I'm more than willing to admit it in the face of proof determined by legal precendent.  Of course MVCI could choose to not put any of its owners at a disadvantage, but its past history shows us that it can and will do exactly that.  Of course the rumored change may never come to fruition, in which case we'll move along to the next topic and discuss that to death.   In the meantime, there is no harm or intended insult in disagreeing.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

tlwmkw said:


> No one really knows what is going to happen.  So why not just wait and see for now?  ...



Eh, I like to think out loud.  Judging by the frequency and length of threads here related to these issues, a whole lot of other folks do, too.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Nothing I can say in response to your latest, m, would be different than what I've already said.
> 
> Doesn't it all come down to whatever interpretation of the legal documents (Deed, By-Laws, Time Sharing Declaration, etc.) would be determined as binding by the Court during an action against MVCI?  Everything I've read gives Marriott the protection it needs to go ahead with a reservation process differential between developer- and resale purchasers, because nothing I've read gives each owner access to "every" week within a season (only "a" week.)
> 
> ...



Your deed is more important than the owner's reference guide.  What do you see in your deed that you think allows Marriott to limit access to weeks during a certain season outlined in the deed?  the deed gives every owner a right to reserve every week in the season they own.  It really is not a close call legally that if they try to take away access to some of the weeks in a season that they will have violated the rights granted by the deed.

But, even your owner's reference guide quote cuts against your argument.  By telling owners to reserve early and that weeks are handed out on a first come first served basis, and that optimal reservations happen when you are first in line, they are admitting that it is a valuable right to be first in line.  If they take away that right, they will take away a right that was granted by the deed and emphasized in the owner's reference guide.

Just giving access to one week during the season purchased does not fulfill the rights granted by the deed.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

Latravel said:


> ... Some tuggers here have minimized that to only losing out on points but it could be so much more.   We don't know what changes will happen in the near future or in a few years, or both.  All we know is that if you didn't purchase from Marriott, you _could_ be subjected to changes you may not like.  But that is a risk resale purchasers hopefully understood and were willing to take.  Just don't get mad if the changes are not in your favor (though they very possibly could be).



I'll take that one step further and say that _every_ owner, direct- _and_ resale-purchasers, could be subject to changes that we might not like!  It's only our very specific deeded rights that are legally protected; Marriott Co. and MVCI reserve the rights to any other aspect of the program, including the rights to make policy changes within those aspects.

I agree with you, though, that the price differential between resale and direct purchases is worth it, to protect against any future possible devaluation of the program that Marriott might inflict on resale buyers.  It's simply a hedge bet.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> Your deed is more important than the owner's reference guide.  What do you see in your deed that you think allows Marriott to limit access to weeks during a certain season outlined in the deed?  the deed gives every owner a right to reserve every week in the season they own.  It really is not a close call legally that if they try to take away access to some of the weeks in a season that they will have violated the rights granted by the deed.



Ah, but the onus in any court proceeding is on the plaintiff to prove an injury or breach of contract.  What do _you_ see in _your_ documents that validates your position?



sdtugger said:


> But, even your owner's reference guide quote cuts against your argument.  By telling owners to reserve early and that weeks are handed out on a first come first served basis, and that optimal reservations happen when you are first in line, they are admitting that it is a valuable right to be first in line.  If they take away that right, they will take away a right that was granted by the deed and emphasized in the owner's reference guide.



They're admitting that first in line is a valuable _position_, not _right_.  Again, where in your documents...?



sdtugger said:


> Just giving access to one week during the season purchased does not fulfill the rights granted by the deed.



I simply disagree.


----------



## rsackett (Apr 20, 2009)

The only thing I feel is certain in any new Marriott internal exchange policy is that it will be structured in a way that MAKES MARRIOTT THE MOST MONEY!

Marriott is a business.  They have no interest in rewarding customers or punishing customers unless it makes them more money.  The rewards program is not there because they like us.  It is there to make them more money!  After studying the market place they have determined that by giving out X dollars in rewards they can get XX dollars in return.  If they can make more money by including 3rd party buyers in the internal system they will.  If they can make more money by excluding them they will.

I would not be happy if my resale Manor Club property value dropped like a rock.  But assuming that it does not go below zero the most I can loose is $8000.  I would be even more upset if I paid $21000 for it and Marriott decided to make changes to the system to bring the resale value to zero. 

Ray


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

rsackett said:


> The only thing I feel is certain in any new Marriott internal exchange policy is that it will be structured in a way that MAKES MARRIOTT THE MOST MONEY!
> 
> Marriott is a business.  They have no interest in rewarding customers or punishing customers unless it makes them more money.  The rewards program is not there because they like us.  It is there to make them more money!  After studying the market place they have determined that by giving out X dollars in rewards they can get XX dollars in return.  If they can make more money by including 3rd party buyers in the internal system they will.  If they can make more money by excluding them they will.



I agree completely.  In fact, I'm not sure that there is any benefit to owners for an internal exchange system.  If the parameters set forth in the recent owners' questionnaire are any indication, it's possible that the exchange fees may exceed those now implemented by Interval Intl.  Also, I think the bonus week AC's issued by II are a very nice benefit that we may lose if Marriott assumes its own trade system, considering that the Marriott properties trade at a "premium" among all of the II offerings.  Even if Marriott applied a sliding "premium" rank to its properties in order to offer a similar bonus week benefit, there would be less availability by virtue of the numbers. 



rsackett said:


> I would not be happy if my resale Manor Club property value dropped like a rock.  But assuming that it does not go below zero the most I can loose is $8000.  I would be even more upset if I paid $21000 for it and Marriott decided to make changes to the system to bring the resale value to zero.
> 
> Ray



The value in my week is in its usage (as opposed to a dollar resale figure), but I'm right there with you in that I'd be upset if any program change resulted in that value being zero.  So far I haven't seen any such change.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Ah, but the onus in any court proceeding is on the plaintiff to prove an injury or breach of contract.  What do _you_ see in _your_ documents that validates your position?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I said above, the deed provides the right to reserve any week within the season that was purchased.  You believe that right is fulfilled by Marriott only making one week available during the entire season that is owned.  "I simply disagree."  No court or jury would conclude that a CHANGE to the reservation process that took all but one week away from an owner who previously had full access to all weeks during a season was not a breach of the agreement providing access to all weeks.


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 20, 2009)

davidvel said:


> This thread again sets forth the continual confusion about any internal Marriott *TRADING* system vs. the *reservation* process. Let's not continue to confuse the two.
> 
> Marriott CANNOT change your rights to reserve *YOUR* week. These are deeded rights.
> 
> ...



EXACTLY!

I don't see Marriott restricting reservation rights. If that were to happen, then I agree that the likelyhood of a class action lawsuit would be strong. I really believe this is the sales staff taking liberty with what they've been told. IOW, taking a truthful statement and bending it for their purposes to the point that it's not actually true anymore.

Case in point, take DRI. With DRI, if you buy direct, you are given membership to their internal exchange program. If you buy a deeded week resale, you get the deed to your week, the right to reserve that week and the right to exchange that week through I.I. You do NOT get access to their internal exchange program unless you buy additional DRI inventory or, if you can force the issue, pay a $2,995 joiner fee to have access.

This is what I see Marriott doing but, the salesmen are going to bend the words so that it sound like (or they say directly) that resale buyers can't reserve (rather than trade).

Marriott is not going to restrict anyones right to reserve their owned unit. They may restrict access to any internal exchange program them come out with.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 20, 2009)

The two posts above are pretty much right on point.

I know I've said it before, but at the risk of being repetitive- I find it very interesting that the couple of people who have posted who would be just as happy, to say the least, if Marriott restricted resale owner's rights to book fail to see any connection between that and the potential for Marriott to restrict any of their booking rights in the future. IF you contend that the owner's documents don't give any owner the right to have access to every week in their season, then Marriott could just as easily next year say that all owners of 3 weeks can book at 13 months, owners of 2 weeks at 12 months and single week owners whatever is left at 11 months, without reserving half of the inventory for each week for each booking segment. Resale buyer or developer purchaser- I'd want to make darn sure that Marriott continues to honor its commitment to all owners. 

And as far as Heidi's contention that resale owners knew upfront that they "weren't part of the program" because all the salespeople have told them so- as a matter of fact, several salespeople that I spoke with said that resale owners didn't get the full benefit of the "program"  because they couldn't trade the unit in for points for those fabulous vacation packages and that, in their opinion of course, that was such an important part of the MVCI program. They were upfront that all other rights and usage was the same. So- yes- I knew upfront, as you suggest, that I wouldn't be part of the program- the trading for points program, that is. And, it was my choice not to pay the extra $$'s for the right to trade for points because I prefer to book my non-timeshare travel the way I've always done. I bought with the understanding and expectation that I'd always have complete use of what I bought, just as Marriott sold it to me with the expectation that I'd always pay my MF's for the right to use my purchase as outlined, with potential access to any of the weeks in my purchased season.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> As I said above, the deed provides the right to reserve any week within the season that was purchased.  You believe that right is fulfilled by Marriott only making one week available during the entire season that is owned.  "I simply disagree."  No court or jury would conclude that a CHANGE to the reservation process that took all but one week away from an owner who previously had full access to all weeks during a season was not a breach of the agreement providing access to all weeks.



Where did I say anything about "Marriott making only one week available?"  You're the one who keeps saying the word "one", which you've specified as a July 4th week at your resort; I have repeated ad nauseum the word "a," which I've specified to denote any week.  If this rumored reservation process change is contested, any court or jury could conclude that Marriott is honoring its contractual obligations by making sure "a week" is available to any owner of that particular season/resort/unit configuration, because there is nothing in any of the documents that gives any owner more than that deeded right.

Whether or not the system stays as is or changes in this specific way, ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season, subject to whatever reservation eligibility limits are in place at the time.  It doesn't appear to me that Marriott is burdened by a responsibility for making sure that those owners at the front of the line leave behind a certain inventory.


----------



## littlestar (Apr 20, 2009)

All Marriott owners are responsible for maintenance fees. I sure hope all owners are treated fairly because frankly, I don't want my fees to go absolutely nuts because of owners or heirs walking away from a devalued product. 

Life has too many changes - aging, divorce, health, death, to ever think that your situation won't change and you or your family won't end up needing to sell a developer bought week. 

Every week was initially a developer purchase. After all, someone that buys resale is agreeing to those never ending maintenance fees . . .


----------



## Palguy (Apr 20, 2009)

If there is nothing stopping Marriott from restricting resale owners to 6 months and they do, how long will it be before they restrict them to 1 month or one week and completely control the resale market? There has to be a point at which this becomes unreasonable and past practice dictates 12/13 months out for all owners. The last change was to reward all multiple week owners (regardless of how they purchased they were all considered loyal owners) by adding one month to the window but never to punish or take away from what had already been established or single out any one group for punishment. They added value by rewarding multiple week owners not reducing value by limiting single week owners to 6 months as opposed to 12.


----------



## Troopers (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Where did I say anything about "Marriott making only one week available?"  You're the one who keeps saying the word "one", which you've specified as a July 4th week at your resort; I have repeated ad nauseum the word "a," which I've specified to denote any week.  If this rumored reservation process change is contested, any court or jury could conclude that Marriott is honoring its contractual obligations by making sure "a week" is available to any owner of that particular season/resort/unit configuration, because there is nothing in any of the documents that gives any owner more than that deeded right.
> 
> Whether or not the system stays as is or changes in this specific way, ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season, subject to whatever reservation eligibility limits are in place at the time.  It doesn't appear to me that Marriott is burdened by a responsibility for making sure that those owners at the front of the line leave behind a certain inventory.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 20, 2009)

m61376 said:


> ... I know I've said it before, but at the risk of being repetitive- I find it very interesting that the couple of people who have posted who would be just as happy, to say the least, if Marriott restricted resale owner's rights to book fail to see any connection between that and the potential for Marriott to restrict any of their booking rights in the future. ...



Well, IF I have made any such statement, you probably could go back and find it and quote it here, right?  Why don't you do that?

At the same time, why don't you show me where I said anything about being "happy" with this rumored change?  Sure, I've said that I'm in favor of MVCI rewarding its direct purchasers in any way which doesn't infringe on the rights of any owners, but that doesn't automatically translate to "happiness" with this particular rumored change.  In fact I believe I said that it would be a logistical nightmare. 



m61376 said:


> IF you contend that the owner's documents don't give any owner the right to have access to every week in their season, then Marriott could just as easily next year say that all owners of 3 weeks can book at 13 months, owners of 2 weeks at 12 months and single week owners whatever is left at 11 months, without reserving half of the inventory for each week for each booking segment. Resale buyer or developer purchaser- I'd want to make darn sure that Marriott continues to honor its commitment to all owners.



Well, lookie here, you don't have to go searching after all because this refutes both your first statement above and this paragraph.  It's post #62 from the thread, in case you're wondering.

And with that, I'm done unless a completely new idea or thought is presented here.  You're probably reading a bit of an attitude in this post and you're not incorrect.  But it is my first post in which the attitude is intended.  I have no problem entertaining a discussion with folks who hold opinions and ideas that are different from mine, but I do have a huge problem constantly defending against statements which I have not made.  You can play that game just as well without me.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDon-
I love your posts and the confidence in your opinions!!!!!!  Bravo!  

You make some very good points and i've learned a lot from your responses.  I hope you continue!  By now, you should have received a lot of hassle from multiple posters and the fact you haven't (well, relatively so) means you have been able to state your point very effectively.  I'm impressed, and i'm a tough cookie too.   

p.s.  I believe M was mentioning me, not you, in her post.  She likes to do that a lot.


----------



## luv2vacation (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't have any problem at all with Marriott offering a 12/13-month reservation window for the units which you and I bought direct, and a reduced 6/7-month window for your resale unit.  That differential gives us both what we're "owed", rewards customer loyalty, and is not legally forbidden by the deeded rights.  *Works for me.*


 Post #19

This may not be 'happiness', but it definitely states that contrary to what you state here: 



SueDonJ said:


> Sure, I've said that I'm in favor of MVCI rewarding its direct purchasers in any way *which doesn't infringe on the rights of any owners*, but that doesn't automatically translate to "happiness" with this particular rumored change.



you are just fine with a program that DOES infringe on the rights of resale owners.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Where did I say anything about "Marriott making only one week available?"  You're the one who keeps saying the word "one", which you've specified as a July 4th week at your resort; I have repeated ad nauseum the word "a," which I've specified to denote any week.  If this rumored reservation process change is contested, any court or jury could conclude that Marriott is honoring its contractual obligations by making sure "a week" is available to any owner of that particular season/resort/unit configuration, because there is nothing in any of the documents that gives any owner more than that deeded right.



Are you saying that Marriott would not have the right under the deed and related documents to limit resale owners to one week in their season?  Why would you say that?  If your argument is correct, then Marriott should be able to limit resale owners to one week during their season.  If your interpretation is correct, that one available week would fulfill the "deeded rights."  Of course, I think your interpretation of the deed and related documents is dead wrong, but how is limiting resales to one week per season inconsistent with your interpretation of the deed language?  And, if it is consistent, does it help you see why your interpretation doesn't make sense?  



> Whether or not the system stays as is or changes in this specific way, ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season, subject to whatever reservation eligibility limits are in place at the time.  It doesn't appear to me that Marriott is burdened by a responsibility for making sure that those owners at the front of the line leave behind a certain inventory.



Susan, Please reread what you just wrote here and consider whether an average judge or jury would follow your logic or whether they would see a giant corporation trying to take advantage of individual owners by trying to interpret contractual language in a new way that they haven't followed and that twists the language and intent beyond recognition.  Your own language demonstrates the legal sleight of hand that a judge or jury would see through easily.  You say all weeks within the season are still available to all owners.  Yet, you then qualify that right by subjecting some owners to reservation eligibility limites and parameters.  That's simply not what the deeds say, it's not what Marriott has done for years, and it's not what a reasonable person purchasing a Marriott timeshare would expect to receive when they purchased the availability of the entire season.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 20, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Whether or not the system stays as is or changes in this specific way, ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season, subject to whatever reservation eligibility limits are in place at the time.  It doesn't appear to me that Marriott is burdened by a responsibility for making sure that those owners at the front of the line leave behind a certain inventory.



Yup- Marriott has to ensure that "ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season;" they cannot restrict any subset of owners from making reservations in such a way that there would be certain weeks that were never available to certain owners of a particular system by virtue of the way they made changes int he reservation system. It is for this very reason that only 50% of the inventory is released to multiple week owners at 13 months; if this was not an issue, all inventory would be released to multiple week owners at the 13 month mark and single week owners would likely be banned from ever making reservations for certain weeks at certain resorts. But, thankfully, Marriott recognizes its obligation to make all weeks potentially available to all owners.

And, Susan, just for the record- I was referring to not necessarily your posts but it was a general comment that at least a few of the posts come across as, shall I say, less than graciously accepting of all owners, with the tone of resale buyers deserve what they get; even if not stated as such, there were posts that seemingly inferred that. My point is that resale and direct owners are all owners and deserve to be treated fairly. Many resale owners even paid the same as direct owners, only a few years later. It is not in anyone's best interests for Marriott to arbitrarily change the rules- it is not in resale owners' best interests, it is not in direct purchasers' best interests if only for the fact that it sets a dangerous precedent, and it is not in Marriotts' best interests to antagonize any of their owners/customers.


----------



## Troopers (Apr 20, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Yup- Marriott has to ensure that "ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season;" they cannot restrict any subset of owners from making reservations in such a way that there would be certain weeks that were never available to certain owners of a particular system by virtue of the way they made changes int he reservation system. It is for this very reason that only 50% of the inventory is released to multiple week owners at 13 months; if this was not an issue, all inventory would be released to multiple week owners at the 13 month mark and single week owners would likely be banned from ever making reservations for certain weeks at certain resorts. But, thankfully, Marriott recognizes its obligation to make all weeks potentially available to all owners.



If Marriott implemented a 6 month ressie period for resale weeks, can you explain how the above is still not true?

Thanks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 20, 2009)

If Marriott wants resale owners to buy in to their internal exchange system, they better give those resale owners the same ability to reserve as developer purchases. Otherwise resale owners won't bother buying in. If Marriott is looking for people to buy in, they won't exlcude any part of their owner base.

In the survey people were asked how much they would be willing to pay for the system described, the amounts went from something like $3K down to a few hundred dollars. If they are looking to charge up to $3K to buy in to their internal exchange system I would expect to get the same treatment as everyone else or I wouldn't be buying.

Don't think for a second an internal points system is going to come for free. There will be a fee and it could be significant. Marriott is looking for profit growth.

Sure if they ever impliment such a system it could be completly different from what the survey pointed to, but I doubt they would waste their time on the research to not move in that direction.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 20, 2009)

Troopers said:


> If Marriott implemented a 6 month ressie period for resale weeks, can you explain how the above is still not true?
> 
> Thanks.



Let's say, for argument's sake, that the season consists of May-Sept.  weeks. There are about 8 weeks in the season which most owners want and actively try to reserve. Now, every owner who bought into that resort during that season bought the right to potentially reserve those weeks. But, if some owners had access to all the weeks months beforehand, then likely those 8 prime end of June-mid August weeks would be long gone and the owners who are only allowed to reserve later on would be forced to accept only the leftovers. Effectively, their season would be May-mid June and late August through September, not the season they purchased in, since they would never have the opportunity to reserve a large portion of those weeks.

Again, it is for this very logic that Marriott reserves 50% of VERY week's booking for owners to book at the 12 month mark. Multiple week owners never have access to all of any specific week's full inventory. It is not half the weeks are available in total, but half of every individual week. That fulfills their obligation and ensures that every owner has potential access to every week in their owed season.


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Let's say, for argument's sake, that the season consists of May-Sept.  weeks. There are about 8 weeks in the season which most owners want and actively try to reserve. Now, every owner who bought into that resort during that season bought the right to potentially reserve those weeks. But, if some owners had access to all the weeks months beforehand, then likely those 8 prime end of June-mid August weeks would be long gone and the owners who are only allowed to reserve later on would be forced to accept only the leftovers. Effectively, their season would be May-mid June and late August through September, not the season they purchased in, since they would never have the opportunity to reserve a large portion of those weeks.
> 
> Again, it is for this very logic that Marriott reserves 50% of VERY week's booking for owners to book at the 12 month mark. Multiple week owners never have access to all of any specific week's full inventory. It is not half the weeks are available in total, but half of every individual week. That fulfills their obligation and ensures that every owner has potential access to every week in their owed season.



Thanks for the explanation....I know you posted your thoughts here already so I'll try not to have you rehash it again.

Resale weeks will not get squeezed out of the prime weeks as much as you think.  Assume 75% of all weeks in the season are developer weeks.  At 12 months out, only 75% of weeks (25% resale weeks do not apply) have the ability to reserve those prime weeks.  Than assume 25% of those weeks decide to use their week in another way by exchanging to MRP, or II or exchanging with the internal exchange system.  So, about 40% of those prime weeks will be available.  I'm not so sure that all the prime weeks will be reserved prior to 6 months out.

Also, I can appreciate your thinking that it's in Marriott's best interest to keep all owners content but their actions doesn't always support that position...there's countless examples here.

I wouldn't be surprised if Marriott intends to create more "value" or an "advantage" in direct purchased weeks.  It's apparent the ability to exchange to MRP isn't enough.


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 21, 2009)

I have to ask one question.

Why are you guys debating something that A) Hasn't happened. B) We only have a SALESMANS word on the subject and C) We have NO IDEA what Marriott might or might not do?

IMHO, you're all fighting over thin air. Nothing has happened and nothing has changed. When we see something definate and in writting, they we can flesh out the pro's and con's of any new system. Until then your debating nothing but rumor or personal theory. This is hardly worth the effort of emotion if you ask me.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 21, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Thanks for the explanation....I know you posted your thoughts here already so I'll try not to have you rehash it again.
> 
> Resale weeks will not get squeezed out of the prime weeks as much as you think.  Assume 75% of all weeks in the season are developer weeks.  At 12 months out, only 75% of weeks (25% resale weeks do not apply) have the ability to reserve those prime weeks.  Than assume 25% of those weeks decide to use their week in another way by exchanging to MRP, or II or exchanging with the internal exchange system.  So, about 40% of those prime weeks will be available.  I'm not so sure that all the prime weeks will be reserved prior to 6 months out.
> 
> ...



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your logic. I can't fathom how you assume that 40% of all the weeks (including the prime weeks) will likely be available. Owners who choose to deposit into II or rent (I am not including an internal trading system because we don't have any info., only conjecture, on how that might work) will try their hardest to reserve those prime weeks, just as they do now. So, just as those prime weeks now get nabbed sometimes within minutes of their release, even if only 60-7-% of owners are vying for them, they will be gone. Ask the owners of NCV Plat., for example, if they agree with your logic that at least 40% of those summer weeks will still be left. I would be shocked if a single person felt that at 6 months that any summer week, let alone every summer week, would still be available (and to fulfill Marriott's obligation to their owners, every week in the purchased season has to be potentially available).

I do agree that in the past Marriott has made decisions that may have annoyed a percentage of their owners, but overall they are in business to do business- and that means keeping owners happy. I don't think they will do anything to downright antagonize perhaps a quarter of their owners (I don't know the true percentage, but since something like 8% of weeks are resale and since many, if not most, resale owners also own one or more developer weeks, I am assuming it is somewhere in that vicinity). Most resale owners have bought from them in the past and are great candidates for future sales. Even most wholly resale owners are great candidates for future direct purchases as they again begin to develop new resorts. 

I do agree with you (see- we can agree  ) that Marriott will likely do something to retain the resale market for their own profiteering and to create more value in developer purchases. MRP, as the program now stands, is not enough for many people (not to rehash the many threads on this, but point devaluation and escalating purchase prices and annual MF's have diminished the return even for the most ardent supporters of trading for points). They also have enough developments in which people have owner for 10+ years, with more and more owner turnover as past of a natural ownership cycle and, since we live in the information age, people are becoming increasingly aware of outside sources for purchase. So, changing the rules going forward may be in their best interest (even though I think it will be bad for all owners and I am not sure how big an impact decimating the resale market will have on initial purchases). *They can change the rules going forward and still benefit their direct sales without antagonizing current owners, simply by grandfathering all current owners, resale or developer.*

Including all current owners in any future program will prevent animosity, since every current owner will be retaining all the rights they currently have, and will cost Marriott nothing. In fact, they will gain a lot: they will generate goodwill by demonstrating they are a company that stands behinds its promises (whether written or implied) and, as others have pointed out, will generate income by increasing their participant pool in any newly developed program. They will not risk perhaps a quarter of their owners losing confidence in them and vowing never to purchase another unit from them. Going forward, they want all current owners to be an audience to potentially purchase in Cancun, etc., as new resorts come on the horizon.

The only people who I can see objecting to that are perhaps a small minority (at least I hope it would be a very small minority) who have a sense of entitlement and feel they would like to have more benefits than the program they purchased into, at the expense of others (in this case, resale owners). I think- at least I hope- that the vast majority of owners would feel it was fair for everyone to retain the privileges of the system they bought into and, while we would all like more perks, wouldn't want to selfishly get them at someone else's expense.

And Doug- you're right...this is just an exercise in futility. Perhaps an excuse to waste time and procrastinate a bit


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

Okay, it's a new day.   

I've tried to think of a way to say more clearly why I believe that Marriott would _not_ be in violation of it's contractual obligations if the rumored reservation process change is implemented.  This has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea or not, or whether I'd be in favor of it specifically; it's simply a look at the legality of it.  Here goes:

- You buy a seasonal week.  The deed and other contract documents specify the season within which that week falls and the unit configuration.

- MVCI is constrained by the laws pertaining to timeshare sales, in that no more than the specific number of season/unit configuration weeks which are available can be sold.  Thus, there will always be a week for every owner.  MVCI makes no claim that any owner will be able to reserve his/her personal choice of week or any specific week.

- Nothing in the legal documents specifies any one week within that season as having more value than any other, regardless of the legal holidays as stipulated by the annual calendar or an owner's preference.  Therefore, each week within the season must be legally considered of equal value.

- MVCI (not deeded rights) determines the process by which you are able to reserve your unit within the season.  MVCI reserves the right to change that process, as has been demonstrated by its past history of doing just that, uncontested.

- That reserved right allows MVCI to give any class of ownership a priority advantage in the reservation booking process, as it did when it gave multi-week owners a one-month "front of the line" advantage over single-week owners.

- _[It appears to me, and I could certainly be wrong, that]_ there is nothing in any of the legal documents which stipulates that MVCI is restricted, within that reserved right, by any legal constraint which places a burden of responsibility on MVCI to not implement a policy that results in any one week within the season not being available to any one member.  (In other words, MVCI doesn't have to make sure that the "first-come, first-served" policy leaves a legal holiday or any other specific week open for any owner at the end of the line.)

That's it, I guess.  Except I'll say that IF this is implemented (and yes, that's a big "IF" figuratively and literally) and a class action suit is filed in objection, the smallest details contained in the legal documents pertaining to MVCI's and the owners' actual legal rights are what will be the determining factors for the judge and jury to review.  The court's decision will be based on a strict interpretation of the contract language.  That's what contract law is, specifically.  In order for the plaintiffs (the owners) to be successful in their effort, they'd have to prove that MVCI breached the contract terms.  I'm just not seeing that this rumored change would be proven to do that.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

luv2vacation said:


> Originally Posted by SueDonJ
> I don't have any problem at all with Marriott offering a 12/13-month reservation window for the units which you and I bought direct, and a reduced 6/7-month window for your resale unit. That differential gives us both what we're "owed", rewards customer loyalty, and is not legally forbidden by the deeded rights. Works for me.
> 
> Post #19
> ...



WHICH specific contractual right, exactly, would be infringed by the change being discussed here?  Spell it out for me, please, because I'm not seeing it.  Remember, it's up to you to prove that the contract is breached, not up to MVCI to prove that it hasn't, so you need to offer the evidence.  If you can, I'll shout from the rooftops exactly how wrong I am.

Aside from that, I think you're conveniently glossing over the "...is not legally forbidden by the deed rights" phrase in my first post up there, to make the accusation that you've made.  I resent the accusation, actually, because you have no basis for it.  I've said repeatedly that I'm NOT okay with Marriott breaching its contract against any owner, because I am fully aware that any such action they take in the future may negatively impact me.


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

m61376 said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your logic. I can't fathom how you assume that 40% of all the weeks (including the prime weeks) will likely be available. Owners who choose to deposit into II or rent (I am not including an internal trading system because we don't have any info., only conjecture, on how that might work) will try their hardest to reserve those prime weeks, just as they do now. So, just as those prime weeks now get nabbed sometimes within minutes of their release, even if only 60-7-% of owners are vying for them, they will be gone. Ask the owners of NCV Plat., for example, if they agree with your logic that at least 40% of those summer weeks will still be left. I would be shocked if a single person felt that at 6 months that any summer week, let alone every summer week, would still be available (and to fulfill Marriott's obligation to their owners, every week in the purchased season has to be potentially available).



I must be missing something here.

How can developer week owners reserve more weeks than they own?  Using my numbers above, 75% of all weeks are developer purchased.  So how can they reserve all weeks?  Isn't a min of 25% available at 6 months?


----------



## Latravel (Apr 21, 2009)

SueDon -  Are you an attorney?


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 21, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Okay, it's a new day.
> 
> I've tried to think of a way to say more clearly why I believe that Marriott would _not_ be in violation of it's contractual obligations if the rumored reservation process change is implemented.  This has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea or not, or whether I'd be in favor of it specifically; it's simply a look at the legality of it.  Here goes:
> 
> ...



Do you believe that Marriott has the legal right under the deeded language to change the reservation process in such a way that an owner would only have access to one week in their season of ownership?  If I follow your logic that is the ultimate extension of the logic.  If you don't believe that, then on what basis do you believe that Marriott has the right to impose some limits on reservation rights, but not the extreme limit of narrowing the right to one available week per season?

I don't believe a Marriott reservation change would have to be nearly this drastic to justify a winning class action law suit.  But, I believe this extreme example proves my point.  Let's use a specific example:

If someone paid $35,000 for the opportunity to reserve any week in Maui other than New Years (the current platinum season) and they in fact reserved July 4th, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Presidents Day, etc. for several years and then Marriott came along and said we are changing the reservation process now and you will effectively only be able to reserve the 2nd week in October each year from now on, don't you believe that a judge or jury would look hard at the contract language and look for a way to say that Marriott had overstepped?  I do.  And, I don't think they'd have to look very hard to find language in the deed that says that every platinum owner has a right to have ACCESS to every week in the platinum season.  Now, in the real world, Marriott's changes wouldn't limit the choices to one week.  But, the principle is the same.  It would be very easy to demonstrate that all weeks do not have equal value based on rental rates on Marriott's site as well as redweek, Tug, etc.  Damages would be clear and punitive damages would likely follow.

If you believe that Marriott truly has the contractual right to limit certain owners to one available week to reserve in their season, then we will just have to agree to disagree and I'll move on to something else.


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

m61376 said:


> I do agree that in the past Marriott has made decisions that may have annoyed a percentage of their owners, but overall they are in business to do business- and that means keeping owners happy. I don't think they will do anything to downright antagonize perhaps a quarter of their owners (I don't know the true percentage, but since something like 8% of weeks are resale and since many, if not most, resale owners also own one or more developer weeks, I am assuming it is somewhere in that vicinity). Most resale owners have bought from them in the past and are great candidates for future sales. Even most wholly resale owners are great candidates for future direct purchases as they again begin to develop new resorts.



I don’t think so.  My guess is that if there was a poll taken (hint hint moderator), my bet is that most resale owners would not purchase directly (again or for the first time) from Marriott.  Where’s the value in purchasing direct?  Isn’t the foremost advice here is to rescind and buy resale?  Would you buy at the newest resort and know that in perhaps 1 to 2 years you can buy resale at more than 50% off?


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Apr 21, 2009)

Troopers said:


> I must be missing something here.
> How can developer week owners reserve more weeks than they own?



They can't reserve more than they own, but they can reserve *all *the "good" weeks.



> Using my numbers above, 75% of all weeks are developer purchased.  So how can they reserve all weeks?  Isn't a min of 25% available at 6 months?



I must be missing something related to the "min of 25% available at 6 months".  Can you explain that?   TIA


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

FlyerBobcat said:


> They can't reserve more than they own, but they can reserve *all *the "good" weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> I must be missing something related to the "min of 25% available at 6 months".  Can you explain that?   TIA



This is contrary to m61376 statement of "I would be shocked if a single person felt that at 6 months that *any* summer week, let alone every summer week, would still be available".

The suggestion was made that resale purchases were not going to have a booking window of 6 months from check-in.  Developer purchased weeks would retain the 12 months window.  My example assumed that 75% were developer purchased weeks and 25% were resale weeks.  So, only 75% of all weeks would be able to book at 12 months which would leave 25% of the weeks available at the 6 month mark.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Apr 21, 2009)

Troopers said:


> So, only 75% of all weeks would be able to book at 12 months which would *leave 25% of the weeks available at the 6 month *mark.



But isn't the point that those available 25% will be the less desirable weeks of that given season -- since all weeks in a given season do not have the same demand????


Depending on the length of the season you own -- you are more or less likely to see this problem.  Long seasons certainly will exaggerate this issue...


----------



## luv2vacation (Apr 21, 2009)

Troopers said:


> My example assumed that 75% were developer purchased weeks and 25% were resale weeks.  So, only 75% of all weeks would be able to book at 12 months which would leave 25% of the weeks available at the 6 month mark.



This is not how the booking and availability process works.  You are assuming that the 75% of people (developer purchasers) book an assortment of ALL available weeks in a season, i.e., if the season runs from Jan-April, all of these 75% of people book an even amount of weeks from each month (i.e. break that 4-month span up into 16 weeks, 1/16 of the 75% book the first week of Jan., 1/16 of the 75% book the second week of Jan., etc.....all the way through 1/16 book the 4th week of April.)

*That's not how it works.*  Those 12-month booking people can book ALL of the Feb. & March weeks, first two weeks of April, and last two weeks of January (prime winter & spring break weeks).  That would leave only the first two weeks of Jan. and the last two weeks of April available for the other 6-month booking people.  That would still be 25% of the weeks but no GOOD weeks in there and definitely none that *I* (and many other people) could vacation in - I go to school full-time. 

This is a very probable scenario.  For instance, this year I got caught up in school and studying for mid-terms and by the time I remembered to book my Ocean Pointe platinum week, *ALL* of the February and March weeks were already gone, and that is at *ELEVEN* months out!  NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS LEFT!!  Now, I'm not complaining about that, because that was my personal error - but that's just an example of how the system can work.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Apr 21, 2009)

luv2vacation said:


> This is not how the booking and availability process works............................


Well stated....  Darn, I wish I could have said that....


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

luv2vacation said:


> This is not how the booking and availability process works.  You are assuming that the 75% of people (developer purchasers) book an assortment of ALL available weeks in a season, i.e., if the season runs from Jan-April, all of these 75% of people book an even amount of weeks from each month (i.e. break that 4-month span up into 16 weeks, 1/16 of the 75% book the first week of Jan., 1/16 of the 75% book the second week of Jan., etc.....all the way through 1/16 book the 4th week of April.)
> 
> *That's not how it works.*  Those 12-month booking people can book ALL of the Feb. & March weeks, first two weeks of April, and last two weeks of January (prime winter & spring break weeks).  That would leave only the first two weeks of Jan. and the last two weeks of April available for the other 6-month booking people.  That would still be 25% of the weeks but no GOOD weeks in there and definitely none that *I* (and many other people) could vacation in - I go to school full-time.



I'm not assuming that at all.  I apologize if that's how it sounds but I don't think I said that in any way.  The fact remains 25% of the weeks, are still available to you.  And yes, they may not be the weeks you want but still weeks within your season.

I’m not an expert so I’ll let the others discuss the legalities of it.  It’s still a week within the season, although it may be less desirable.  That’s what the week entitles one to, a week within your season.

Yes, the 12 month booking people can and might book all the good weeks.  But, I think more than you think will not.  If Starwood's internal exchange is any indication, I think there will be more than 25% of weeks available at 6 months out (my above example stated 40%).  It’s a minimum of 25% IF every developer week owner chooses to reserve their week.  But, I think 25% of the developer week owners will choose to use their week differently, say exchange to MRP or utilize the internal exchange program (the 6 month ressie window for resale owners is based on the notion of an internal exchange program).  That’s how I arrived at 40% availability at the 6 month mark.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

Latravel said:


> SueDon -  Are you an attorney?



No.  I was a legal secretary in a small law firm for seven years, if that counts, but I don't have any legal education background.  It's mostly reading comprehension that leads me to my opinions.

And as I said, I could be wrong.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Apr 21, 2009)

We might be confused, since in #81 you stated:



> Resale weeks will not get squeezed out of the prime weeks as much as you think. Assume 75% of all weeks in the season are developer weeks. At 12 months out, only 75% of weeks (25% resale weeks do not apply) have the ability to reserve those prime weeks. Than assume 25% of those weeks decide to use their week in another way by exchanging to MRP, or II or exchanging with the internal exchange system. *So, about 40% of those prime weeks will be available.  I'm not so sure that all the prime weeks will be reserved prior to 6 months out.*



So it just might be the interpretation of the term "prime weeks"



Troopers said:


> I'm not assuming that at all.  I apologize if that's how it sounds but I don't think I said that in any way.  The fact remains 25% of the weeks, are still available to you.  And yes, they may not be the weeks you want but still weeks within your season.............


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

FlyerBobcat said:


> We might be confused, since in #81 you stated:
> 
> 
> 
> So it just might be the interpretation of the term "prime weeks"



Yup.  We're square.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Apr 21, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Yup.  We're square.



Thanks for the clarification!!!!


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> Do you believe that Marriott has the legal right under the deeded language to change the reservation process in such a way that an owner would only have access to one week in their season of ownership?  If I follow your logic that is the ultimate extension of the logic.  If you don't believe that, then on what basis do you believe that Marriott has the right to impose some limits on reservation rights, but not the extreme limit of narrowing the right to one available week per season?



Technically, someone who owns one week DOES have "access" to only one week, someone who owns two weeks has "access: to two, etc.  That "access" allows an owner to book as many weeks as s/he owns within the season according to the reservation eligibility system implemented by MVCI.  MVCI does limit an owner to as many weeks as are owned.

But the system in place now does not provide an "equal access" reservation  to every week by every owner, which is I think what you believe is a deeded right.  The one-month advantage given to multi-week owners in fact makes the system unequal, which means that equal access is not a deeded right.  Does the 50% inventory control factor mean that there is a deeded _limited_ right held by either MVCI or an owner?  I don't know, but I haven't been able to find one.

If you think about it, and get reaaaallllly technical about it, once the first reservation in a season has been made every owner following has "unequal access."



sdtugger said:


> I don't believe a Marriott reservation change would have to be nearly this drastic to justify a winning class action law suit.  But, I believe this extreme example proves my point.  Let's use a specific example:
> 
> If someone paid $35,000 for the opportunity to reserve any week in Maui other than New Years (the current platinum season) and they in fact reserved July 4th, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Presidents Day, etc. for several years and then Marriott came along and said we are changing the reservation process now and you will effectively only be able to reserve the 2nd week in October each year from now on, don't you believe that a judge or jury would look hard at the contract language and look for a way to say that Marriott had overstepped?  I do.  And, I don't think they'd have to look very hard to find language in the deed that says that every platinum owner has a right to have ACCESS to every week in the platinum season.  Now, in the real world, Marriott's changes wouldn't limit the choices to one week.  But, the principle is the same.



In this particular example, there is a definite breach of contract because MVCI would effectively be changing your week from a "seasonal" week to a "fixed" week.  There is specific language in the legal ownership documents which details week usage; the contractual "seasonal" week language is different from the "fixed" week language.



sdtugger said:


> It would be very easy to demonstrate that all weeks do not have equal value based on rental rates on Marriott's site as well as redweek, Tug, etc.  Damages would be clear and punitive damages would likely follow.



In any court proceeding it would have to be proven, first, that the contractual language does not stipulate an "equal value" for all weeks within the season, because such a stipulation would have to be honored by the court.  Only the absence of such a stipulation would allow that an arbitrarily defined "unequal value" could be assumed.   You don't think that MVCI has protected itself with a defined "equal value" clause? 



sdtugger said:


> If you believe that Marriott truly has the contractual right to limit certain owners to one available week to reserve in their season, then we will just have to agree to disagree and I'll move on to something else.



But technically, every owner IS limited to "an" available week, which is the deeded right.  The fact that the eligibility requirements of any reservation system may offer less choices to any owner, especially of "prime," "key," or "holiday" weeks, is a direct result of the inventory being reserved by the "first-come, first-served" factor.  Granted, they system is implemented by MVCI, but MVCI has no control over the order by which weeks are individually prioritized or reserved.  That's the result of owner action.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

FlyerBobcat said:


> But isn't the point that those available 25% will be the less desirable weeks of that given season -- since all weeks in a given season do not have the same demand????
> 
> 
> Depending on the length of the season you own -- you are more or less likely to see this problem.  Long seasons certainly will exaggerate this issue...



The "more-" or "less-desirable" qualifiers are not implemented by MVCI, therefore it has no burden for protecting a non-stipulated value.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Apr 21, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> The "more-" or "less-desirable" qualifiers are not implemented by MVCI, therefore it has no burden for protecting a non-stipulated value.



Susan.  Recall that I have not taken a stance in the "legal" exchange that has been going on involving the former legal secretary.   I was just explaining how it was possible to be excluded from "prime" weeks within one's season.....

I'm outta' here.....


----------



## thinze3 (Apr 21, 2009)

Funny how this sales tactic against "external" owners keeps raising its ugly head. Last year I got this email directly from Marriott Executive Offices.



> _Mr. (thinze3)
> Please reread my second paragraph.[/B]_ (referring to an older email)
> _I thought it said very clearly that external owners do have the right to reserve 12 months ahead.
> ....
> ...


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> Funny how this sales tactic against "external" owners keeps raising its ugly head. Last year I got this email directly from Marriott Executive Offices.
> 
> ...
> 
> While we know that Marriott has been working on an internal trading system, that by the way, was put on the shelf last year, anything being said about limiting the trading ability of *current* external owners is anything but hogwash.



But nobody is saying here that they expect every statement ever said by any person ever affiliated in any way by MVCI to be true.  That would be foolish.  As it would be to expect that statements made in the past by those same people to be as true today, tomorrow, next week, or at any point in the future.  NOTHING is concrete until it's released in an official statement.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

FlyerBobcat said:


> Susan.  Recall that I have not taken a stance in the "legal" exchange that has been going on involving the former legal secretary.   I was just explaining how it was possible to be excluded from "prime" weeks within one's season.....
> 
> I'm outta' here.....



No worries (hopefully for both of us.)  I didn't take your explanation as a stance.  I did, though, take them as an opportunity to reiterate a point.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Apr 21, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> No worries (hopefully for both of us.)  I didn't take your explanation as a stance.  I did, though, take them as an opportunity to reiterate a point.



Gotcha' .....


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

FlyerBobcat said:


> Gotcha' .....



Does that mean that maybe the _"...the "legal" exchange that has been going on involving the former legal secretary..."_ comments will end, then?  I assumed (yeah, I know  ) that Heidi asked for a reason, and so I answered with what little knowledge of the law that I have.

This thread proves, actually, that we're ALL smart enough to read and interpret various things, doesn't it?  There's no need to snidely denigrate or elevate anybody's intelligence here.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 21, 2009)

It's obvious you have a legal background...


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

Latravel said:


> It's obvious you have a legal background...



But not nearly enough to make me think that what I'm interpreting is 100% correct, that's for sure.  Shouting from the rooftops may very well be in my future.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 21, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> > Technically, someone who owns one week DOES have "access" to only one week, someone who owns two weeks has "access: to two, etc.  That "access" allows an owner to book as many weeks as s/he owns within the season according to the reservation eligibility system implemented by MVCI.  MVCI does limit an owner to as many weeks as are owned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## m61376 (Apr 21, 2009)

Troopers said:


> I don’t think so.  My guess is that if there was a poll taken (hint hint moderator), my bet is that most resale owners would not purchase directly (again or for the first time) from Marriott.  Where’s the value in purchasing direct?  Isn’t the foremost advice here is to rescind and buy resale?  Would you buy at the newest resort and know that in perhaps 1 to 2 years you can buy resale at more than 50% off?



Except that historically initial pre-construction offering have been very good price-wise and, in many cases, people who bought at the outset later sold for their initial purchase price or perhaps even higher. So an initial offering, coupled with a good points incentive, would be, in my opinion, attractive to many- even resale owners- who also want to buy at the newest and latest.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 21, 2009)

Troopers said:


> I must be missing something here.
> 
> How can developer week owners reserve more weeks than they own?  Using my numbers above, 75% of all weeks are developer purchased.  So how can they reserve all weeks?  Isn't a min of 25% available at 6 months?



It is not that developer week owners could reserve more weeks than they own under your example. It is that they could reserve 100% of certain weeks, still leaving one week for each owner left, but only giving them the choice of the less desirable weeks in their season. And, not to rehash, since every owner bought a right to potentially reserve every week in the season, owners restricted to later reservation times would no longer be enjoying the rights that they purchased.



SueDonJ said:


> In any court proceeding it would have to be proven, first, that the contractual language does not stipulate an "equal value" for all weeks within the season, because such a stipulation would have to be honored by the court.  Only the absence of such a stipulation would allow that an arbitrarily defined "unequal value" could be assumed.   You don't think that MVCI has protected itself with a defined "equal value" clause?


By virtue of the fact that Marriott itself charges different rental rates for different weeks in the same season, the "unequal value" of weeks within a given season can be assumed.

And- Terry- Thanks for the post. This is VERY different than the isolated ramblings of a perhaps too eager salesperson. Marriott executives are reluctant to put anything that isn't factual in writing. Since Terry bought his resale units based on official confirmation of the reservation system, it would be easy for him to prove damages resulting from any such changes as being suggested in this thread. And Marriott upper echelon executives are too smart for that.


----------



## tlwmkw (Apr 21, 2009)

If, and when, any of this comes to pass it will all hinge on whose lawyers make better arguments as to what constitutes a floating week.  However when you purchased you made an assumption that any, and all, weeks in your given period are acceptable.  Your documents nowhere state that you have a right to any particular week just "a week" in the given period.  If there was a higher value placed on certain weeks then that would be outlined in the original documents and it is not.  Also the popular weeks may change from year to year (spring break may fall early or late).


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> SueDonJ said:
> 
> 
> > Susan, you would have made good attorney because you provided an answer without really answering my question.  But, just to get away from your fixed week red herring, let's modify my example and question.  Do you believe that Marriott has the legal right to change the reservation system at MOC to limit a platinum owner to effectively reserving one of two available weeks instead of providing access to the 51 available weeks that are stipulated in the deed and were previously made available for reservation?
> ...


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

m61376 said:


> ... And- Terry- Thanks for the post. This is VERY different than the isolated ramblings of a perhaps too eager salesperson. Marriott executives are reluctant to put anything that isn't factual in writing. Since Terry bought his resale units based on official confirmation of the reservation system, it would be easy for him to prove damages resulting from any such changes as being suggested in this thread. And Marriott upper echelon executives are too smart for that.



Terry's post proves only that at a certain point in time, an MVCI executive was confident with declaring that, "It is true that "Marriott has no plans to change the reservations policy of external owners."  Isn't it true that the same executive could at some point declare, "Marriott's plans have changed."

I think so, because I do not think any Marriott employee's email correspondence represents an official notice of program-wide policies, or even, if it did, that a subsequent statement would not supercede the first.


----------



## ngmaui (Apr 21, 2009)

*A different way to look at it*



winger said:


> I just spoke to iconnections - I hope we can meet up later !
> 
> Here are a few notes about our tour this morning:
> 
> ...



I think everyone might be reading into #6 incorrectly.  I am SURE that Marriott would not change the booking window for reserving our weeks from the current policy of the 12 or 13th month rules.  What they MAY do is if resale owners trade their unit (for trading point credits?), then them may have a trading reservation window restricted vs developer purchased units that are traded (for trading point credits?).  This would be similar to what Disney does with their points system for home and away resorts.  Course, at this point everything is speculation but this is how I am reading what the OP wrote.

Nate


----------



## Clemson Fan (Apr 21, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> No way are resales going to a 6 month reservation window. The class action lawsuit that was already very strong is almost iron clad with the recent Marriott statement that they would NOT try to limit resale reservations in a new system. I'm not buying it. But, if they do try it, a class action lawsuit is certainly in Marriott's future. Talk about a dumb move.


 
As far as internal exchanges go, Marriott can probably do whatever they want to separate out resale owners.  However, making a reservation at your home resort where you're an owner, I don't see any way Marriott can legally differentiate out resale owners.  Think of it, resale owners pay the same MF's that direct owners do and what is that MF for - it's for Marriott to manage and service the property as a whole which includes making reservations.  Unless they want to charge resale owners a decreased MF for decreased service, I just don't see how they could legally pull that off.  That's why I think this qualifies as the new biggest lie currently being spread by salespeople.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 21, 2009)

Susan- that's true, but I would think that any executive would be very careful in putting anything which might later be misconstrued in writing if that wasn't, in fact, the case. And contrary to the rumors bandied about, I do believe the upper echelons have at least the outline and major logistics of whatever plan they intend to enact already in place. And yes, if the plans did subsequently change any latter statement would supersede the first,as you pointed out, and could not be represented as being fallacious as long as at the time it was written it was the intended policy. I just really don't think any written official policy would have been offered if, in fact, there wasn't already a predetermined policy.

Although you maintain that every week is assumed to be of equal value unless specifically stated otherwise, as pointed out by someone else earlier, by virtue of the fact that Marriott itself assigns different values by charging different rates to the public interested in renting different weeks, it would be easy to make a compelling legal argument that the weeks do, in fact, vary in value.  

I guess the bottom line remains whether Marriott has a contractual obligation to continue to allow each owner to have the potential to book each week in their owned season or if they can, at will, decide to change the reservation system in any fashion that they deem fit, including assigning even a single week in the purchased season to any given owner.  Although you are certain that "if every owner has available to him/her a week as purchased, subject to eligibility requirements, the contractual burden of MVCI to provide a week is met," if, in fact, Marriott has the obligation to allow each owner the potential to book each week, then simply ensuring that every owner has available a week does not fulfill their contractual obligation. 

Furthermore, even if the contract is read such that there is some ambiguity, Marriott has always sold their units with the promise of owners being able to potentially book any week in their season. The way they carefully designed the 13/12 month reservation rule I think underscores that Marriott recognizes this obligation. The reservation would be much simpler for them and less costly to administrate if they simply said that multiple week owners could book at 13 months and single week owners at 12 months, without reserving half the inventory of EACH week until every owner had the potential to book. I think it was crafted this way for a reason.

And I certainly hope this is the case, because if it is not, then not only would resale weeks be potentially affected, but an awful precedent would be set that, in my opinion, should give anyone pause about ever buying a Marirott timeshare. I would hate to think that I could happily purchase a unit and that somewhere down the road, at Marriott's discretion, they could suddenly decide to allow multiple week owners to have first crack at all the weeks. If, as you suggest, Marriott doesn't have to ensure that every owner has the potential to book each week in their owned season, then it puts all owners (not just resale owners) in jeopardy. To me, that's a scary concept.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Apr 21, 2009)

ngmaui said:


> I think everyone might be reading into #6 incorrectly. I am SURE that Marriott would not change the booking window for reserving our weeks from the current policy of the 12 or 13th month rules. What they MAY do is if resale owners trade their unit (for trading point credits?), then them may have a trading reservation window restricted vs developer purchased units that are traded (for trading point credits?). This would be similar to what Disney does with their points system for home and away resorts. Course, at this point everything is speculation but this is how I am reading what the OP wrote.
> 
> Nate


 
Winger could verify this before they leave...


----------



## KathyPet (Apr 21, 2009)

Marriott obviously has millions of dollars of legal talent at their disposal and I am sure that any changes they would make have been thoroughly vetted by all this expensive legal talent and that Marriott would not implement any changes unless they were very, very sure that they could overcome any legal challenges that might be raised.  So you can hollar about a class action suit all you want I am sure they are prepared for such a suit and are confident of winning it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

ngmaui said:


> I think everyone might be reading into #6 incorrectly.  I am SURE that Marriott would not change the booking window for reserving our weeks from the current policy of the 12 or 13th month rules.  What they MAY do is if resale owners trade their unit (for trading point credits?), then them may have a trading reservation window restricted vs developer purchased units that are traded (for trading point credits?).  This would be similar to what Disney does with their points system for home and away resorts.  Course, at this point everything is speculation but this is how I am reading what the OP wrote.
> 
> Nate



*DOH!*

Geeeeeeeze, all that tiiiiiiiiime spent thinnnnnnnnkingggggg.....

_Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk_ <---- my head hitting the desk

That was brilliant, Nate, absolutely brilliant!  (Except, of course, that I'm not _sure_ that Marriott will or won't do anything any time.)


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Except that historically initial pre-construction offering have been very good price-wise and, in many cases, people who bought at the outset later sold for their initial purchase price or perhaps even higher. So an initial offering, coupled with a good points incentive, would be, in my opinion, attractive to many- even resale owners- who also want to buy at the newest and latest.



Poll time.  Moderators pls help.

Bet's anyone?  I'll take the under.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Susan- that's true, but I would think that any executive would be very careful in putting anything which might later be misconstrued in writing if that wasn't, in fact, the case. And contrary to the rumors bandied about, I do believe the upper echelons have at least the outline and major logistics of whatever plan they intend to enact already in place. And yes, if the plans did subsequently change any latter statement would supersede the first,as you pointed out, and could not be represented as being fallacious as long as at the time it was written it was the intended policy. I just really don't think any written official policy would have been offered if, in fact, there wasn't already a predetermined policy. ..



Sometimes I get email that has a disclaimer on the bottom: "you can't publicly post this," "this is not a formal directive," "the contents contained herein do not represent the XYZ Corp.," "chew this thirty-seventeen times and then burn it," etc.  We all have.  I would guess that any email generated from an @marriott.com (or similar) address would contain such a disclaimer, considering that most every company under the sun uses one.  I don't take anything as official policy unless and until the point when formal official documents have been filed wherever they need to be filed.  In this "what if" situation, that point would be when the amendments stipulating MVCI's changes become part of the corresponding master contractual documents.  Until then, anything is possible no matter who says what when.

Now about the rest of your post and this entire discussion, m, we've been around and around and around and over and through and upside-down at this point.  _I'm tired!_  Let's you and I agree to disagree with no concession that one of us is more or less correct than the other.  Deal?


----------



## KathyPet (Apr 21, 2009)

But consider the great work out all those brain cells got!


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

m61376 said:


> It is not that developer week owners could reserve more weeks than they own under your example. It is that they could reserve 100% of certain weeks, still leaving one week for each owner left, but only giving them the choice of the less desirable weeks in their season.



Agreed.

However, I believe you have reached your conclusion about how owners will use their week assuming the only change is resale weeks are given a 6 month window.  Except that with this 6 month window comes an internal exchange system.  Spend more time on the Starwood boards (it's definitely not a perfect system)...owners of resort A are able to book prime weeks in resort B at the 8 month period even though owner of owners of resort B have an 12 to 8 month ressie window.  That's impossible under your logic for a non owners of resort B.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 21, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Poll time.  Moderators pls help.



This is the second time that you've called out for a mod and no one is answering.  It's a good thing you're not actually in distress!

DaveM is the mod assigned to this board.  He's either given up on us as hopeless delinquents, or he's out on a boat in the middle of an ocean somewhere, or he's at some tennis match.

I like your idea for a poll.  Maybe you could line up the questions and ask TUGBrian to post it while Dave decides if he's ever going to get his act together?


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 21, 2009)

ngmaui said:


> I think everyone might be reading into #6 incorrectly. *I am SURE that Marriott would not change the booking window for reserving our weeks from the current policy of the 12 or 13th month rules. What they MAY do is if resale owners trade their unit (for trading point credits?), then them may have a trading reservation window restricted vs developer purchased units that are traded (for trading point credits?).* This would be similar to what Disney does with their points system for home and away resorts. Course, at this point everything is speculation but this is how I am reading what the OP wrote.
> 
> Nate


I understood it just like you so feel that a class action lawsuit, that some TUGgers recommended, would be a waste of time for everyone concerned. The internal exchange system is just one more option we will have to exchange to other Marriott resorts. You probably will have to pay an additional fee to use the internal system but people, who bought from the Marriott direct, may start exchanging earlier through their new system. Maybe that's what they mean?


----------



## Troopers (Apr 21, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> This is the second time that you've called out for a mod and no one is answering.  It's a good thing you're not actually in distress!
> 
> DaveM is the mod assigned to this board.  He's either given up on us as hopeless delinquents, or he's out on a boat in the middle of an ocean somewhere, or he's at some tennis match.
> 
> I like your idea for a poll.  Maybe you could line up the questions and ask TUGBrian to post it while Dave decides if he's ever going to get his act together?



DeniseM, moderator of the Woodies, started one.  There's a range of questions so it's not quite right but it's an indication of Woodies.


----------



## roberto (Apr 21, 2009)

Marriott is not coming out with an Internal trade system as much as a "points" system which will allow those that buy into the point system to book direct with Marriott. Those owners who do not pay the additional to be part of the new program will still trade through II as they do today.

I have heard rumour that resale purchases outside of Marriott will not be allowed to purchase into the points program.


----------



## judys19058 (Apr 21, 2009)

People, people, people...So much anger and tension over something which is still speculation.  I have also been to a presentation recently and the sales guy mentioned the coming of the internal trades and point based system.  I figured, why get worked up until the facts come out? People are beating Marriott up over rumors and speculations.  Wait until the new program is ready to roll.


----------



## Steve (Apr 21, 2009)

*New Poll is Open...see above*



Troopers said:


> Poll time.  Moderators pls help.
> 
> Bet's anyone?  I'll take the under.



You have a poll.  Let the voting begin!

Steve


----------



## KathyPet (Apr 22, 2009)

OK so I am confused here.  What does a poll about how you have purchased in the past and would purchase again in the future have anything to do with the rumored changes that may or may not happen to the Marriott program??  I know it's late and I am tired but I am not getting it.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Sometimes I get email that has a disclaimer on the bottom: "you can't publicly post this," "this is not a formal directive," "the contents contained herein do not represent the XYZ Corp.," "chew this thirty-seventeen times and then burn it," etc.  We all have.  I would guess that any email generated from an @marriott.com (or similar) address would contain such a disclaimer, considering that most every company under the sun uses one.  I don't take anything as official policy unless and until the point when formal official documents have been filed wherever they need to be filed.  In this "what if" situation, that point would be when the amendments stipulating MVCI's changes become part of the corresponding master contractual documents.  Until then, anything is possible no matter who says what when.
> 
> Now about the rest of your post and this entire discussion, m, we've been around and around and around and over and through and upside-down at this point.  _I'm tired!_  Let's you and I agree to disagree with no concession that one of us is more or less correct than the other.  Deal?



You're right about nothing being official policy until when- and if- an official announcement is made. What I was trying to say is that I don't think (although I could be wrong) any upper echelon would put something even unoffical in writing if that wasn't the intent. Which is why I believe, like posted above, the whole thing was either misconstrued from the beginning and/or, as is often the case, the salesperson either stretched the truth a bit or couched his statement in such a way as not to outright lie but to generate a misperception. 

And  - I like the idea of agreeing to disagree, It was never personal, and I hope you didn't take it that way, but just an interesting debate; as Kathy inferred, a great mental exercise and an interesting way to waste time. That's all. My guess is that we'd probably agree on more things than not.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Agreed.
> 
> However, I believe you have reached your conclusion about how owners will use their week assuming the only change is resale weeks are given a 6 month window.  Except that with this 6 month window comes an internal exchange system.  Spend more time on the Starwood boards (it's definitely not a perfect system)...owners of resort A are able to book prime weeks in resort B at the 8 month period even though owner of owners of resort B have an 12 to 8 month ressie window.  That's impossible under your logic for a non owners of resort B.



There are several big differences between Marriott and Starwood, and the most glaring is that Starwood mandatory owners (the ones who are able to use the internal trading system) are not allowed to choose which weeks get deposited into II. They can only reserve a specific week to use or to rent, but not to trade externally. Marriott lets owners choose which week they want to deposit and even with an internal trading system II will still be in place. So owners will still be reserving more prime weeks then in the Starwood system at the 12 month window. And, if under your example, owners at other resorts were able to book at 8 months and resale owners couldn't even book at their home resort until later (at the 6 months as suggested), you could be darn sure every desirable week would be way gone.

Something interesting to note- Starwood never changed the rules along the way wrt the ability of direct or resale owners to make reservations. At their home resorts, Starwood direct and resale owners have the same booking privileges. Those who bought at mandatory resorts have the same internal trading privileges, while those who bought at voluntary resorts have to do all their trading through II. That's fine- because they knew what they were buying when they bought it (akin to grandfathering all current resale owners today by Marriott, so any rights had at time of purchase would be retained). Also interesting to note- since you mentioned the Starwood comparison- is that the resale value at voluntary properties is much less than at mandatory ones, even at locales which have sections of both. So, restricting certain owners from internal trading is not good for any owner at those properties if/when they decide to sell.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2009)

KathyPet said:


> OK so I am confused here.  What does a poll about how you have purchased in the past and would purchase again in the future have anything to do with the rumored changes that may or may not happen to the Marriott program??  I know it's late and I am tired but I am not getting it.



I think it was in response to someone disagreeing with my post that current resale owners are potential direct purchasers. I contend that even people that buy resale today and are happy with their purchase may be attracted to new properties and see the value in pre-construction pricing with a good up front incentive, especially at the initial offering. 

It really has nothing to do with any rumored changes to the program, except in so far that, at least in my opinion, it is in Marriott's best interests to keep ALL their owners happy and not antagonize any segment of their owners.


----------



## Troopers (Apr 22, 2009)

m61376 said:


> There are several big differences between Marriott and Starwood, and the most glaring is that Starwood mandatory owners (the ones who are able to use the internal trading system) are not allowed to choose which weeks get deposited into II. They can only reserve a specific week to use or to rent, but not to trade externally. Marriott lets owners choose which week they want to deposit and even with an internal trading system II will still be in place. So owners will still be reserving more prime weeks then in the Starwood system at the 12 month window. And, if under your example, owners at other resorts were able to book at 8 months and resale owners couldn't even book at their home resort until later (at the 6 months as suggested), you could be darn sure every desirable week would be way gone.



I know there are big differences btw the two systems.  Yes, Starwood owners are unable to select the week for II but that doesn't mean they don't reserve at 12 months to secure a prime week.  Still, somehow non owners are still able to reserve prime weeks.  It happens because those who reserve at 12 months have to release that reserved prime week to reserve elsewhere (only one ressie allowed) which opens up that prime week for the other owners at 8 months.

Don't you think an internal exchange program will change the way owners reserve today?  

I don't know if Marriott will implement a 8 month window for an internal exchange...I was simply using Starwood's 8 month as an example.  What if it's at 6 months?  

Btw, all developer weeks and resale weeks at mandatory resorts have access to the internal exchange program.



m61376 said:


> Something interesting to note- Starwood never changed the rules along the way wrt the ability of direct or resale owners to make reservations. At their home resorts, Starwood direct and resale owners have the same booking privileges. Those who bought at mandatory resorts have the same internal trading privileges, while those who bought at voluntary resorts have to do all their trading through II. That's fine- because they knew what they were buying when they bought it (akin to grandfathering all current resale owners today by Marriott, so any rights had at time of purchase would be retained). Also interesting to note- since you mentioned the Starwood comparison- is that the resale value at voluntary properties is much less than at mandatory ones, even at locales which have sections of both. So, restricting certain owners from internal trading is not good for any owner at those properties if/when they decide to sell.



Starwood hasn't changed the rules wrt to reservations for resale or developer weeks (not yet at least).  However, they have changed many rules without notice.  Yup, mandatory resorts have higher resale values than voluntary resorts (why? because one can reserve a prime week in a given season which supports my opinion).

Also, Starwood provides more value in developer purchases compared to Marriott because of 1. internal trading system and 2. ability to retro and/or upgrade.  Although there are situations to buy direct, most Woodies would advise one to buy resale.


----------



## Troopers (Apr 22, 2009)

Steve said:


> You have a poll.  Let the voting begin!
> 
> Steve



Thanks.  I suggest separating this poll from this thread and making it a sticky.  I think it's helpful for Marriott newbies.  If you do that, remove "who cares".  Who cares may be a choice as it relates to this thread but it wouldn't make sense if the poll stood alone.


----------



## rsackett (Apr 22, 2009)

roberto said:


> Marriott is not coming out with an Internal trade system as much as a "points" system which will allow those that buy into the point system to book direct with Marriott. Those owners who do not pay the additional to be part of the new program will still trade through II as they do today.
> 
> I have heard rumour that resale purchases outside of Marriott will not be allowed to purchase into the points program.



As long as we are all speculating, I'll through my guess into the ring.

Marriott's goal is to make money.  All actions they take are to make money.  Any actions they take in "Rewarding" direct purchasers are to make money.

So *IF* Marriott is worried about resale buyers cutting into their profits here is what I predict:

Marriott will enact a points system for internal trading.  ALL current (direct and resale) owners will need to buy in if you want to use this new system (Marriott makes money).  New direct purchasers will be included in the points system for free (Marriott adds value to buying from them).  Trading in the points system costs money each time it is used (Marriott makes money).  After the point system starts resale buyers can buy in (Marriott makes money).

In the end Marriott makes money.

Ray


----------



## Troopers (Apr 22, 2009)

rsackett said:


> As long as we are all speculating, I'll through my guess into the ring.
> 
> Marriott's goal is to make money.  All actions they take are to make money.  Any actions they take in "Rewarding" direct purchasers are to make money.
> 
> ...



I agree.  Marriott may follow Starwood and require an annual fee regardless if it's used or not (Marriott makes more money).  Starwood's annual fee is $109 which also includes II membership.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 22, 2009)

I voted 1 in the poll, because we would definitely buy direct again.  The thing is, that's IF we were to buy again, but we have no plans to buy at all.  I could have voted 3, maybe, but wouldn't that mean we might buy resale?  Again, IF ...  Hmmmmmmmm.  Please don't comment about how this really doesn't matter in the great grand scheme of things, okay?  I know that already.  It's just a comment.

And one last thing (promise!):

I just finished reading an email from someone who prefers to not be involved in the thread, and he has a contact who has far greater knowledge than I think any of us do - a law professor.  You'll find me on the roof, waiting for another more knowledgeable somebody to come along with the rebuttal.  :rofl: 

>>_Current resale owners would be on the stronger legal ground because an ongoing conduct incorporates "the course of performance" into the contract's written words.

What that means is that if the two parties to a contract act like something is part of a contract, over time courts view it as part of the contract.

And that because Marriott has set up this system, and owners have relied on it, it is likely contractually enforceable in its exact current form for current owners.

He said Marriott would be free to change the rules for all resale purchasers going forward._<<


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 22, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> [the law professor said,] "Marriott would be free to change the rules for all resale purchasers going forward."



Does this make anyone think twice about voting "I bought resale and will only buy resale in the future."?


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2009)

Susan-
 I actually was looking for a bowing down smilie, 'cause I think you deserved one, but I didn't see it.

It was my contention all along that Marriott had an obligation to current owners to continue the privileges under which they purchased. I guess that's why I was so vehement about it. Even if they don't have a legal obligation (which apparently past performance does convey) they have a moral obligation, and acting righteously is always a big issue with me. 

Even though you perhaps didn't agree with it, it is uplifting that you are open to other's interpretations.

And, to answer your question- although I didn't maintain that I would definitely buy resale in the future, and in fact could envision that direct purchases would make sense under the right set of circumstances, I think how people will vote will depend largely upon what changes Marriott makes to the resale program. If they follow Starwood's example, as it stands, then I think you will see the same trend as with Starwood owners. There, all owners get to reserve their home resort at 12 months, direct or resale. At 8 months, direct owners can book another resort in the system, releasing their initial reservation if they made one at their home resort. If they want to trade outside of Starwood, they can deposit into II at 12 months, but Starwood selects the week (and even the resort) that is deposited. They can own a premium week and get an off-season week elsewhere as their trader, so their trade value may not be what they actually bought. Resale buyers at some of the resorts (mandatory resorts) reserve and trade the same way. Resale buyers at voluntary resorts can reserve their home resort the same way, but can deposit whatever week they reserve into II. So, although Trooper is right in his contention that some weeks would be released at 8 months by direct owners (as well as resale owners at mandatory resorts), generally the prime weeks are long gone before 6 months.

Thus, if Marriott was to restrict future resale purchasers from reserving at their home resort until 6 months beforehand, I think the value of future resale weeks will be next to nill, because assuredly all the prime weeks would be gone. If resale purchasers could reserve at the same time at their home resort (akin to the Starwood system), but are just limited to how they exchange, then I think you will see many people still interested in resales if they primarily want to use their home resort, and be more interested in developer purchases if they want increased trade ability. Again like Starwood, I think prices would decline for resales that don't enjoy the same flexibility into trading into other Marriotts  (like prices at their voluntary resorts).

But- IF Marriott was to exclude future resale purchasers from an internal trading system and/or restrict their reservation ability, I personally think that the resale prices would plummet more than with Starwood, because of Starwood's other policies. Of course, that's my opinion. 

So whether people would rethink their stance as whether to buy resale or not I think depends on large part what Marirott decides to do, what the future costs and cost differentials are and what purchase incentives Marriott offers.

And, while Starwood was used as an example, while I can see benefits to the Starwood reservation system, I can see a lot of drawbacks too. I think a very major one is that Marriott owners are used to being able to deposit what they reserve, and would be crazed if they wanted to trade in II and was assigned an off season week when they reserved a 4th of July week originally, for example. But that hopefully won't be a topic that we will be discussing down the road; hopefully whatever internal trading program that Marriott might adopt (if they actually do adopt) will take the best parts from all programs, as well as include the ability for people to firm up their plans a year in advance so that they can avail themselves of FF tickets, etc.


----------



## thinze3 (Apr 22, 2009)

DING! DING! DING! DING! - We have a winner!  

I agree 100% with this *speculation*.  




rsackett said:


> As long as we are all speculating, I'll through my guess into the ring.
> 
> Marriott's goal is to make money.  All actions they take are to make money.  Any actions they take in "Rewarding" direct purchasers are to make money.
> 
> ...


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> DING! DING! DING! DING! - We have a winner!
> 
> I agree 100% with this *speculation*.



While I agree with rsackett's post, which is the "winner" you are referring to- rsackett (for his post) or Marriott?


----------



## Troopers (Apr 22, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Susan-
> I actually was looking for a bowing down smilie, 'cause I think you deserved one, but I didn't see it.
> 
> It was my contention all along that Marriott had an obligation to current owners to continue the privileges under which they purchased. I guess that's why I was so vehement about it. Even if they don't have a legal obligation (which apparently past performance does convey) they have a moral obligation, and acting righteously is always a big issue with me.
> ...



Completely agree.

Sorry…it wasn’t my intent to turn this thread into a Starwood vs Marriott thread.  My intent was to illustrate reservation opportunities for prime weeks do exist for non owners (within Starwood).


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 22, 2009)

m61376 said:


> It was my contention all along that Marriott had an obligation to current owners to continue the privileges under which they purchased.



The ONLY thing which gave me pause about that obligation is that MVCI has in the past amended the reservation policy (13/12-month rule) without grandfathering current owners at the time.  Maybe the lawyers came up with the 50% inventory control to satisfy "the course of performance" factor?  If so, couldn't they conceivably* do it again?  (i.e. release X% at 13-mo to multi-week owners / X% at 12-mo to single week direct owners / remaining inventory at 6-mo to resale owners)  More logistical nightmare stuff.

*I know, I know, we might have gotten the original premise incorrect, but there's no harm in continuing the discussion.


----------



## Latravel (Apr 22, 2009)

The first thing that comes to mind is when we purchased Timber Lodge, we decided to finance for 6 months just to get the points.  If you remember, they had a program that if you financed for 6 months, you get some amount of points.  It's even in a contract!  Well, mid way, they stopped that program so we paid the timeshare off but I wasn't happy!  I'm  not sure we got any points at all.

So, bottom line, they can change a program at their will and there's nothing you can do about it.  People talk so confidently about a lawsuit, but that's difficult, time consuming and just not practical.


----------



## tlwmkw (Apr 22, 2009)

I can see both sides of this argument but bottom line will be whatever Marriott does then if you challenge them in court you will win or lose based on who has the most convincing lawyers.  Marriott has deep pockets to pay those lawyers and all that tiny writing in the contracts allows for all sorts of future changes which we may or may not like.  I think Heidi is right that this can be interpreted in either way.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> The ONLY thing which gave me pause about that obligation is that MVCI has in the past amended the reservation policy (13/12-month rule) without grandfathering current owners at the time.  Maybe the lawyers came up with the 50% inventory control to satisfy "the course of performance" factor?  If so, couldn't they conceivably* do it again?  (i.e. release X% at 13-mo to multi-week owners / X% at 12-mo to single week direct owners / remaining inventory at 6-mo to resale owners)  More logistical nightmare stuff.
> 
> *I know, I know, we might have gotten the original premise incorrect, but there's no harm in continuing the discussion.



 I hope you're kidding  ...somehow I think we've rehashed this to death.

And, yes, they could come up with some nightmare percentage of each week arrangement. Of course, that would likely tick the direct purchasers who would have access to less inventory of each week and increase the complexity of the reservation system. Increased complexity = increased cost, and guess who'd land up paying for it? I think the one thing we would all agree upon, even without a poll, is that the MF's are high enough and no one wants a system that will result in increased costs. Trust me, I am sure Marriott would find a way to make the owners underwrite any costs.

Heidi- I think the reason Marriott was able to do that is because the financing falls under different regulations then the usage rights of the property. Lending institutions (and loans generated) have specific regulations and my guess is that if you read over your mortgage or financing paperwork carefully there would be a clause in there akin to "subject to availability" or the like which allowed them to stop offering the points. And- not meaning to be disrespectful or start an argument here- we'd better all hope you are very wrong and that they can't simply change a program at their will. That would be very scary!

Past precedent as to how they handled the 13/12 month rule, coupled with Susan's earlier post (which adds further credibility to that), makes me confident that all the talk about a court challenge is simply rhetorical. I'd like to think Marriott is a good company and will do right by all its owners.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 22, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> I voted 1 in the poll, because we would definitely buy direct again.  The thing is, that's IF we were to buy again, but we have no plans to buy at all.  I could have voted 3, maybe, but wouldn't that mean we might buy resale?  Again, IF ...  Hmmmmmmmm.  Please don't comment about how this really doesn't matter in the great grand scheme of things, okay?  I know that already.  It's just a comment.
> 
> And one last thing (promise!):
> 
> ...



I tried to tell you . . . .   If I would have told you that I also teach law school would that have made you believe earlier?


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 22, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> I tried to tell you . . . .   If I would have told you that I also teach law school would that have made you believe earlier?



That depends.  _Do_ you also teach law school, or would you only have been telling me that you do?  

I'm still waiting for the rebuttal, by the way.  That law professor who dropped into my mailbox said, "... _because Marriott has set up this system, and owners have relied on it, it is likely contractually enforceable in its exact current form for current owners._"

That wasn't true, or at least Marriott assumed the risk it wouldn't be contested, when changes in the system (13/12-mo. rule, MRP allocations, etc.) were made and current owners weren't grand-fathered.  There is no way that those changes resulted in the system continuing in "its exact current form" for then-current owners.

If you do teach law, can you tell us why Marriott believed the risk was worth taking?  I believe it's because there are, "Marriott reserves the right to amend from time to time ..." bombshells everywhere in the paperwork.


----------



## sdtugger (Apr 22, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> That depends.  _Do_ you also teach law school, or would you only have been telling me that you do?
> 
> I'm still waiting for the rebuttal, by the way.  That law professor who dropped into my mailbox said, "... _because Marriott has set up this system, and owners have relied on it, it is likely contractually enforceable in its exact current form for current owners._"
> 
> ...



Yes, guilty as charged, I do teach law school.

I'm not totally certain that the 13/12 month rule was a "change."  As I understand it, that language is contained in at least some of the contracts going way back.  But, even if it weren't, my guess is that Marriott would have figured that 50% of the available units would not raise too much of a stink.  But, the bottom line is that I don't think Marriott is free to change the reservation process so drastically as to basically gut the value of what was purchased.

P.S.  Big companies make big mistakes all of the time.  That's what keeps high priced lawyers high priced . . .


----------



## m61376 (Apr 23, 2009)

Ok- here's another take on how much of a change was the 13/12 rule? Does anyone know the percentage of Marriott owners who are multiple week owners? If that is anywhere around the 50% mark, then it would be easy to see how that change was easily justified. Since I have read reports that indicate as high as 68% of timeshare owners in general own more than one unit, it is conceivable that multiple Marriott week owners might approach or even exceed the 50% mark; does anyone know that figure?

At any extent, as pointed out above from someone who obviously has more expertise in this, since at least 50% of every week's inventory is still available to each and every owner under this rule, it would have been difficult for anyone to argue real diminished value.


----------



## luv2vacation (Apr 23, 2009)

Not all multi-week owners are able to use the 13-month rule.  You have to own either multiple weeks in the _same_ season or in 2 seasons that are _'side-by-side'_ or _overlap_ (in the case of different resorts).  For instance, I own 2 weeks at Marriott's Ocean Pointe but cannot utilize the 13-month rule. I own gold and platinum.  Silver season falls between those two on both ends.  (Gold is June through Aug., platinum is last two weeks of December through April, and silver is all of May and Sept. through first two weeks of December.)


----------



## Troopers (Apr 23, 2009)

Bump.

Surprising poll results so far with 55 votes.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 23, 2009)

luv2vacation said:


> Not all multi-week owners are able to use the 13-month rule.  You have to own either multiple weeks in the _same_ season or in 2 seasons that are _'side-by-side'_ or _overlap_ (in the case of different resorts).  For instance, I own 2 weeks at Marriott's Ocean Pointe but cannot utilize the 13-month rule. I own gold and platinum.  Silver season falls between those two on both ends.  (Gold is June through Aug., platinum is last two weeks of December through April, and silver is all of May and Sept. through first two weeks of December.)



I realize that, but I was just throwing it out that if multiple week owners are in the neighborhood or 50% or more, as the industry trend might indicate, then that could easily be used to justify releasing the inventory in that manner. Just a thought- I have no idea if there is any veracity to this.


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 23, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> That depends. _Do_ you also teach law school, or would you only have been telling me that you do?
> 
> I'm still waiting for the rebuttal, by the way. That law professor who dropped into my mailbox said, "... _because Marriott has set up this system, and owners have relied on it, it is likely contractually enforceable in its exact current form for current owners._"
> 
> ...


Exactly. We lost 50% of our inventory so that made it very hard to make our reservations while it was easy before and we we were *direct* customers of the Marriott.

Once, it was spelled out in the documents, buyers are aware that the more weeks you own, the earlier you can reserve but that clause wasn't in our contract. They can change the rules from time to time as that is spelled out in their documents, I found out later. They have very smart lawyers. 

We were upset so didn't keep it as the late February or early March dates were important to us. Anyone can sell if it no longer serves a purpose so you aren't stuck with the timeshare if the new system isn't what you like. 

The more the re-sale market gets known to the general public, the more urgent it gets for the big developers to make it attractive for direct buyers but it will hurt them eventually, if the re-sale values drop too low as nobody will buy a timeshare anymore.

The next generation will all be internet savvy so will search before they buy or rescind right after the sale. It is time for a whole new system to market this industry.


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 23, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> DING! DING! DING! DING! - We have a winner!
> 
> I agree 100% with this *speculation*.


Me too. Marriott is clearly the winner here. They are in business to make money and it was never their intention to "punish" re-sale buyers but they have to do something to make it attractive for new buyers to buy from them directly or they will go out of business.



rsackett said:


> As long as we are all speculating, I'll through my guess into the ring.
> 
> Marriott's goal is to make money. All actions they take are to make money. Any actions they take in "Rewarding" direct purchasers are to make money.
> 
> ...


Sounds fair.  I am glad we only own one single week so it isn't going to cost us much money or any at all. We hardly ever exchange and if you start adding up all the fees and worries (frustration), you may as well rent.


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 23, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Ok- here's another take on how much of a change was the 13/12 rule? Does anyone know the percentage of Marriott owners who are multiple week owners? If that is anywhere around the 50% mark, then it would be easy to see how that change was easily justified. Since I have read reports that indicate as high as 68% of timeshare owners in general own more than one unit, it is conceivable that multiple Marriott week owners might approach or even exceed the 50% mark; does anyone know that figure?
> 
> At any extent, as pointed out above from someone who obviously has more expertise in this, since at least 50% of every week's inventory is still available to each and every owner under this rule, it would have been difficult for *anyone* to argue real diminished value.


It made a big difference to us. In the beginning, we were able to reserve President's week twice before but after the change, it took us two or three weeks on the phone at 6 AM sharp to even get any week in late February or early March. It got so bad, that I wrote an angry letter to Mr. Marriott himself. I posted about it here on TUG and that thread was very long because other people had the same problem.

What really gets me is that some re-sale owners here on TUG reserve the very best weeks and rent them out while taking advantage of this extra lead time. Booking 13 months out is for *personal use only* as this is spelled out in the documents but Marriott is not watching this because it is interfering with private property rights most likely but people should know themselves that this isn't fair to other timeshare owners who are in this reservation system too and we had to sell our timeshare that we liked so much because of these selfish people.  

I have a feeling that you would like Marriott to make it 75% now for the multiple week owners so this perk will stay as valuable as it presently is? Hell with the single week owners as they are poor suckers anyway.  I hope Marriott isn't listening to you as many people can afford one single week only but would also like to stay during these highly desired weeks every once in a while. JMHO. This was very possible before Marriott made these changes!

To get the best week possible for exchanging is perfectly OK because it is for personal use and enjoyment. 

*Winger*, I just read your thread all over again. It sure started a can of worms here about all the uncertainty we are facing.

Are you enjoying yourself at the Marriott and thanks for sending your pictures.  Here is a link where it shows you how to post them in TUG or I can post your picture with the empty swimming pool for you, if you like and your beautiful sunset too.

Will you please ask the sales person again or the sales manager what was meant by #6 in your post and how soon they are going to announce the new system and post it here.

Thanks and ALOHA!


----------



## m61376 (Apr 23, 2009)

Iconnections- I think you misunderstood what I meant (or I didn't express what I meant clearly)- I wasn't saying that single week owners shouldn't have been upset or didn't have the right to be upset. I was postulating that maybe the reason Marriott was able to institute the 13/12 rule was because they were releasing half the inventory to perhaps approximately the same percentage of owners (assuming there are at least 50% multiple week owners), and they were still saving the other 50% of each available week for single week owners. I wasn't saying I thought that was a great idea or anything; I was just musing if that was their justification.

And, for what it's worth- I do agree with you that there is a lot of exploitation of the 13 month rule. I realize it was intended to ease the reservation logistics for people who wanted to enjoy two or more weeks consecutively or perhaps have a big family trip and use them contiguously. The original intent could easily be enforced by allowing only a single reservation number. Instead, as you complained about, people use it to secure the best weeks and then trade one or more of them. The problem is that since the weeks were paid for Marriott doesn't really have the right to tell people how they can use them, and human nature is such that if people can bend the rules to their own advantage they most likely will. Anyway, while I know a lot of people would disagree here, I would agree with you that it would be fairer if the 13 month advance reservation was restricted to the way it was intended to be used, which could easily be accomplished by restricting the reservations made at 13 month to a single reservation number.


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 24, 2009)

M61376, thank you for sending me an email that I just read. I understand better now what you meant in your post. I appreciate your explanation.  

We loved the Marriott DSV-I resort and hated to give it up but making reservations was too much of a hassle for us but it seems to have improved as I read several times already that single week owners got it on their very first try.  It may be that more than half of the owners own two weeks or more today so that would tip the scale over to the advantage of the one week owners again. I am not so sure though because there will always be more first time buyers who buy a single week to start.

I am very happy not to belong to the floating system any longer. Period. We keep using what we own or rent it out or make a direct exchange, if that is possible. Palm Desert has a lot of get-away packages so it is easy to go there for a few days as it is not far away either. The desert is exceptionally beautiful in the spring and also in the fall but the winters are cool just like in Las Vegas.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Apr 29, 2009)

winger said:


> 4) three Hawaiian projects coming up are Waikiki (behind Marriott hotel), Kauai (next to the Ritz, overlooking Kauai Beach Club) and the Big Island.


 
No way.  Not in this economy.


----------



## winger (Apr 29, 2009)

Clemson Fan said:


> No way.  Not in this economy.


Then you can blame the info on my rep, senior sales Brian Thompson.

I did not realize someone started a POLL for this thread ?!?  Well, my schedule and my sales reps' schedule did not match up for my time at the Marriott - once I get caught up with work I will try contacting him to ask some more detailed questions about the internal trading system.  

I will also browse thru this thread to see what other question I may wish to ask. PM me if you want the guys cell # and/or email so you can help asking for clarification - maybe I misheard something.

Oh, it is not so fun to be back from Maui - jet lag and work is a hurdle the older you get      but Best news though is that we made it back to 'celebrate' the passing of our 103 years old grandma. She was a true worrier in many sense of the word.  

I will catch up in a week or so...

BTW I will cast my vote


----------



## Carlsbadguy (Apr 29, 2009)

I do know that the building for the new Kauai resort is being built.  I took a walk while at the Kauai Beach CLub last week to look at the Ritz fractional model.  It is being built in the Kauai lagoons area- you fly right over it when landing in Lihue.  Big disadvantage to me is you really don;t have close beach access.

The new Kauai property is being labeled a Grand Residence Club, so not sure if will be avaialble for trading like other Marriotts.  Also was told the Oceanfront units in the building will be sold as full ownership.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Apr 29, 2009)

winger said:


> Then you can blame the info on my rep, senior sales Brian Thompson.


 
Sales reps will always always paint the most rosy picture possible.

Any project that broke ground before the economy meltdown last fall has the best shot at being completed although even those projects are at risk.  There's a huge condo project in downtown Honolulu that stopped all building about 6 weeks ago and is just sitting there as a half empty concrete shell.  I really hope they finish that project eventually because it will look awful if they don't.

http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/Hawaii-Business/March-2009/Arrested-Development/

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090306/BUSINESS12/903060331/1071

http://savekauai.org/development/marriott,-starwood-stop-big-hawaii-projects

IMO, and in the opinion of a lot of contractors I know, any future planned project that hasn't been started is very likely to be shelved until this economy improves which may be awhile.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 29, 2009)

howard said:


> I do know that the building for the new Kauai resort is being built.  I took a walk while at the Kauai Beach CLub last week to look at the Ritz fractional model.  It is being built in the Kauai lagoons area- you fly right over it when landing in Lihue.  Big disadvantage to me is you really don;t have close beach access.
> 
> The new Kauai property is being labeled a Grand Residence Club, so not sure if will be avaialble for trading like other Marriotts.  Also was told the Oceanfront units in the building will be sold as full ownership.



My understanding from my visit last year is that the planned Marriott development was to include full ownership residences, Grand Residence Club units (i.e. multiple week ownership), and timeshares (Waiohai is close to selling out; Marriott had little weekly timeshare inventory on Kauai at that point).  In other words, lots of choices at three price points:  high, higher, and inspirational.

I suspect the overall plan is unchanged.  I am certain that the original timetable will be delayed substantially.


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 3, 2009)

I see a number of posters here that do not list any Marriott ownership, and if they voted in the poll would it not make the results totally inaccurate?

Scan through the posts and the most posts are from apparent non-owners.

Brian


----------



## davidvel (Jun 3, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> Yes, guilty as charged, I do teach law school.


In S.D?


sdtugger said:


> I'm not totally certain that the 13/12 month rule was a "change."  As I understand it, that language is contained in at least some of the contracts going way back.  But, even if it weren't, my guess is that Marriott would have figured that 50% of the available units would not raise too much of a stink.  But, the bottom line is that I don't think Marriott is free to change the reservation process so drastically as to basically gut the value of what was purchased.


At least as to my resort, Shadow Ridge, the reservation rules (12/13 month) are specifically set forth in the deeded documents. The rules are concise and specific. _Notably, there is no distinction between an original purchaser and resale purchaser in those docs_.  Marriott cannot change any terms of the deed, CC&Rs and Timeshare declaration. In fact, Marriott is simply a manager for the respective HOAs which actually owes the obligations to owners. Simply put Mariott cannot change the "rules" (actually deeded usage rights) for reserving, or using your week, because they are deeded entitlements.   

Under CA law, no "rule," changed or not, can supercede or contradict the declarations. In any conflict between a rule and the declarations, the declarations prevail.  The Declaration sets forth in detail how reservations can be made. Either you own two weeks, or you fall under the 12 month rule. 

*Rights to reserve your use week.*
(The following is paraphrased from the recorded Shadow Ridge Timeshare Declaration.) 

_"Timeshare Interest" is defined as the interest in the timeshare condominium referenced in the respective Timeshare Declaration for the resort._ [paras. 1.85 and 1.87] 

Reserving 
_Owners who own more than one "Timeshare Interest" may reserve use weeks 13 mos. in advance of (down to 75 days before) the use week reserved, only if they reserve such weeks concurrently or consecutively._ [para. 2.1-d-i]

_ Owners other than above may reserve use weeks 12 mos in advance of (down to 75 days before) the use week reserved._ [para. 2.1-d-ii]

[remaining provision relates to reserving within 75 days.]

These provisions are obviously the most material part of a timeshare owner's rights with respect to the property. I can see no conceivable way the substantive rights granted by the Timeshare Declaration could be unilaterally altered by Marriott or its affiliated companies, high priced lawyers or not.  

Within any timeshare project, whether it be Marriott or others, the rules apply as they do in any condominium project governed by CC&Rs. Here, the CC&Rs state that only those owners who have 2 or more weeks can (and have a right to) reserve 13 mos. out and the Association/Marriott must follow those declarations in allowing reservations.

Importantly, "Owner" is defined as any owner of a timeshare interest deed, or any successor purchaser (RESALE PURCHASER, see para 1.61.)  As such, resale buyers are entitled to the same deeded rights of an original purchaser no matter what price was paid. This is no different than neighbors in a condo complex that paid drastically different prices for their unit twenty years apart.

*As to Marriott's new program...*

No resale buyer has a right to be a part of any new exchange program, etc., or any particular priority.  

Obviously, timeshare ownership and the legalities surrounding them are complicated. I enjoy these discussions because they relate to all the promises and lay-opinion given by the salespepople, and put all their simple, strightforward explanations in a more complex context. The more info people have, the better, which I understand the primary purpose of TUGBBS to be.

I implore everyone to keep the distinction between your rights to reserve (deeded) vs. any new points/ exchange program (which can have any rules they want and you agree to when signing up).


> P.S.  Big companies make big mistakes all of the time.  That's what keeps high priced lawyers high priced . . .


NO CHARGE...


----------



## thinze3 (Jun 3, 2009)

davidvel said:


> ... No resale buyer has a right to be a part of any new exchange program, etc., or any particular priority.  ...



Neither do Marriott direct buyers. If Marriott goes to an internal points-based exchange program, EVERY current owner may find themselves having to buy into it. IMHO


----------



## RandR (Jun 3, 2009)

davidvel said:


> I implore everyone to keep the distinction between your rights to reserve (deeded) vs. any new points/ exchange program (which can have any rules they want and you agree to when signing up).



So if I understand this correctly, based on what you are saying, if I am a resale buyer, Marriott will always have to allow me to reserve my resort in the platinum season, 12 months out.  (Or do they only have to allow me to reserve the week that is on the deed?)

But, they can put in a new internal trading system for exchanging between Marriotts and give me no rights to that.

Thanks, Ray


----------



## We Love Fun (Jun 3, 2009)

davidvel said:


> In S.D?
> *As to Marriott's new program...*
> 
> No resale buyer has a right to be a part of any new exchange program, etc., or any particular priority.



We've talked with a Marriott salesman who says that he doesn't know what the company will do with respect to resale purchasers and the internal exchange system, but he has been told it will be within fifteen to 18 months. 

If resale purchasers aren't allowed to participate in an internal exchange system, and if a large number of Marriott owners are direct purchasers who exchange internally to other Marriotts, it would seem that resale purchasers would be limited to trading amoung themselves in II or RCI if they are kept out of the internal trade program. The availability and selection for resale owners then likely would be limited. 

There is another option, too. If Marriott goes to a system like the Ritz Carlton Destination Club, Marriott could limit resale purchasers only to use of their weeks at their home resort, but allow direct purchasers to participate in a Portfolio Membership that allows the owner to use points to go to other destinations. Marriott could offer resale owners the opportunity to "buy in" to the Portfolio Membership concept that is made available to direct purchasers. 

We have no inside information about this and are just learning about the the Marriott TS system. Marriott does own RC, though, and a new program is now being implemented as part of the "redefinition" of the RC Destination Club. It could be that Marriott is trying out the change to "home weeks" and "portfolio points" in a smaller ownership pool before it tries to do something in MVCI.  More info about the Destination Club is available at: 

http://www.ritzcarltonclub.com/ritz...09/2009-04-23-Ritz-redefines-destination.html


----------



## davidvel (Jun 3, 2009)

RandR said:


> So if I understand this correctly, based on what you are saying, if I am a resale buyer, Marriott will always have to allow me to reserve my resort in the platinum season, 12 months out.  (Or do they only have to allow me to reserve the week that is on the deed?)
> 
> But, they can put in a new internal trading system for exchanging between Marriotts and give me no rights to that.
> 
> Thanks, Ray



That is my professional opinion, yes (based upon my timeshare's CC&Rs-Shadow Ridge).

If you have a floating week, you have no rights to the particular week shown on the deed; they have to let you "try" to reserve 12 months out in your season along with everyone else (no guarantee of a particular week).

If anyone wants to see the actual language, I posted the recorded docs here: http://www.veljovich.com/homeweb/index.php?page=tug


----------



## m61376 (Jun 3, 2009)

Davidvel- Thanks for taking the time to post the contractual language that clarifies the question originally raised by this thread. At least for certain resorts (although I would assume that many if not all have similar language defining reservations) then the broad statement made by Winger's salesperson is clearly the active imagination of perhaps an overzealous salesperson.

And you are right in that reserving at one's home resort is different than trading. Although Marriott cannot restrict resale owners from continuing to trade in II if and when they develop an internal trading system, just as direct purchasers will still have that option (and will likely continue to avail themselves of it to trade to non-Marriott properties), you are right in saying that they can elect to restrict a future internal trading system to direct purchasers. However, I still contend that Marriott is a business and will do what is in Marriott's best interests. Keeping *all *current owners happy is in their best interests. Many current resale owners are also direct purchasers of one or more properties and/or are a rich consumer base for pre-construction purchases at future properties.

Excluding any current owner from any new program would not serve any useful purpose. It would only create a lot of animosity and foster ill will; it will not generate any income and may, in fact, take away potential income from any potential internal trading program, both from loss of sign up fees (if there are any) and loss of revenue from exchange fees.

However, that said, an internal trading program may very well exclude future resale purchases. The reason why I think there is a big distinction between future resale purchases and current resale owners is that current owners have already bought the property and the potential income from the sale is already lost to Marriott but restricting future resale purchasers from enjoying benefits would potentially stimulate buyers to buy directly. Like it or not, it would be a strong sales pitch as to why to buy direct and, I think, make a better argument than the ability to trade for points. I think when prices were much lower and annual MF's were considerably less, justifying a direct purchase with the expectation of trading every other year for points was easier, but I think it has become harder and harder to justify and, while I don't like it, I think it is a possible scenario.

So I am confident that reservations ability will maintain a status quo wrt direct and resale purchasers, I am fairly confident that current resale purchasers will be grandfathered and included in any new internal trading system and I do concede that future resale purchasers may very well be relegated to second class citizenship. The big deciding factor here, at least as I see it, is whether Marriott will be concerned about a potential negative impact on future buyers, who may shy away from purchasing because it will be that much harder to sell a unit if it couldn't be traded for other resorts.

Time will tell....


----------



## RandR (Jun 3, 2009)

m61376 said:


> So I am confident that reservations ability will maintain a status quo wrt direct and resale purchasers, I am fairly confident that current resale purchasers will be grandfathered and included in any new internal trading system and I do concede that future resale purchasers may very well be relegated to second class citizenship. The big deciding factor here, at least as I see it, is whether Marriott will be concerned about a potential negative impact on future buyers, who may shy away from purchasing because it will be that much harder to sell a unit if it couldn't be traded for other resorts.



If they make future resale owners into second class citizens, you will see the value of those units drop to close to zero.  It will be similar to Starwood where the mandatory resorts have much more value than the voluntary.  Doing that hurts all the owners since even direct buyers may want to sell their units at some point.


----------



## sdtugger (Jun 3, 2009)

davidvel said:


> In S.D?
> 
> 
> NO CHARGE...



I'd rather not get into details on this public forum, but I'll split the fee with you! 

Thanks for pulling out the 12/13 month language.  How long ago was that in the deed?

I hope that at least most on this board now understand the difference between deeded reservation rights and trading rights.  Marriott can mess around with the trading rights if they insist.  But, I think they are smart enough not to mess around with deeded reservation rights that have become the custom and practice because they know they will lose a massive class action suit if they do.


----------



## m61376 (Jun 4, 2009)

RandR said:


> If they make future resale owners into second class citizens, you will see the value of those units drop to close to zero.  It will be similar to Starwood where the mandatory resorts have much more value than the voluntary.  Doing that hurts all the owners since even direct buyers may want to sell their units at some point.



I have made that point myself before, so I couldn't agree with you more. I think overall it will be bad for Marriott as a whole, and will be bad for all owners, but I am not sure what the immediate impact would be to Marriott. Will people hesitate to buy if they realize that they'll recoup virtually nothing if they choose to sell or will Marriott count on most people being oblivious to this and view it as a potential boost for developer purchasing? 

That's why I think the status of future resales may be iffy, because Marriott may feel that it will enhance their bottom line to exclude future resale purchasers from any internal trading program that's developed. It would be unfortunate in my opinion, as you point out.


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 4, 2009)

*Unequal owners with points?*

The problem I see with a points program (not the Marriott Rewards program) is that it will probably make us unequal owners.  Not sure how that could be based, but perhaps the price you paid might govern your 'position' on the ladder... with resale buyers well below direct buyers.  Or perhaps the annual MF will position your TS points value.  Maybe the 'trading power' of your TS will govern the number of points you get for your TS ... with prime seasons netting out with more points than off seasons at that TS.  

Right now we are 'equals' -- there's a mad rush for booking the more prime weeks in your 'color' season but everyone has the same chance.  Points may change that dramatically.

I like the way it is now ... where I have an equal chance to trade my low MF cost Manor Club week into Naples or Maui.  Time will tell.  But if the Naples owner gets 3 pts to my 1 pt for MMC it might mean my 'week' becomes only 2 days.  My BeachPlace is in the middle perhaps with MF about $1050 but, and although the trading for MR points is always available to me, I seldom trade it except to upgrade a lockoff studio for a 1-2 bdrm if it comes available through Interval.

Brian


----------



## m61376 (Jun 4, 2009)

Brian-
I see a lot of potential problems if Marriott adopts a plan similar to what was alluded to in their survey. Aside from the likely disappointment from not getting those great upgrades, there will potentially be a lot of unhappy owners whose even Platinum properties may be relegated down the ladder. People bought into the Marriott system with the expectation of trading a week for a week and I think will be irate if suddenly their nice Platinum week is only worth a few days elsewhere.

I don't think a valuation based on purchase price will be feasible, because even in the same property prices paid vary greatly. To do so would be to severely penalize not only resale owners, but direct purchasers who bought early on, some of whom paid less than others later paid resale. So I don't foresee that as a tenable way of doing things. Personally, I think the valuation will be based on trading power and Marriott's assessment of resort value if they decide to do unequal valuations. However, while owners of peak beach weeks/seasons, winter ski weeks and the like, as well as owners at the newer premium properties may benefit, I think it would foster many disgruntled owners, who may suddenly find their Platinum weeks requiring 2 years worth of trades to get a single week at more premium destinations. This wasn't the concept people were sold on and it isn't what they have come to expect and would likely just cause people to continue trading in II and bypass the Marriott system. If Marriott is going to have an internal trading system that will be financially beneficial for them, they have to appeal to a broad spectrum of their owners and that is going to be a monumental task; they need to make most people feel like it is an improvement or the program will falter before it gets a start.


----------



## We Love Fun (Jun 4, 2009)

*Ritz Carlton Home Resort and Points System*



m61376 said:


> People bought into the Marriott system with the expectation of trading a week for a week and I think will be irate if suddenly their nice Platinum week is only worth a few days elsewhere.



Remember that the only thing any of us has contractually is the ability to reserve a week during the specified season at the resort listed on our deed. Any ability to exchange or use a week at another location is a separate arrangement (except, maybe, for some Florida Club locations). 

The Ritz Carlton Destination Club preserves the home resort option through its "Home Club" membership. The "Portfolio Membership" offers ownership of a portfolio of properties (possibly the entire MVCI portfolio) and the ability to stay at those locations using points obtained from their ownership of the Portfolio. It appears those members don't have "good traders" or "bad traders" but instead get a number of points. It appears that the original points are based on the resort and season where  the owner purchased their week(s). 

The "cost" in points appears to vary by location, season, day of the week, and size of accommodation and appears to allow partial-week reservations as well as full weeks. This would benefit a low season traveller who wanted shorter stays during the mid-week but would take more points for those who wanted premium destinations during high-demand periods. 

TUG seems to have a number of people who have learned how to "game" the current system to get what they perceive to be the best weeks. I suspect any new system with a new set of rules will result in new ways to game the system to one's benefit. Some will like it better, some won't. 

Moderator - should we start a new thread for discussion of the RC Destination Club program and how it could be applied to MVCI?


----------



## taffy19 (Jun 4, 2009)

davidvel said:


> In S.D?
> 
> *At least as to my resort, Shadow Ridge, the reservation rules (12/13 month) are specifically set forth in the deeded documents.* The rules are concise and specific. _Notably, there is no distinction between an original purchaser and resale purchaser in those docs_. Marriott cannot change any terms of the deed, CC&Rs and Timeshare declaration. In fact, Marriott is simply a manager for the respective HOAs which actually owes the obligations to owners. Simply put Mariott cannot change the "rules" (actually deeded usage rights) for reserving, or using your week, because they are deeded entitlements.
> 
> ...


Shadow Ridge is a newer resort than the MDSV-I. As far as I know, the 13 months reservation rule wasn't included in our documents because this perk didn't even existed yet when this resort was built nor was it mentioned in the year we bought either by the Marriott re-sale office. Originally, we bought at the MDSV-II but rescinded our contract one day later to buy a unit at the MDSV-I from their re-sale office because we liked the far away views better here plus it had a fireplace too. I don't remember if this clause was included in the documents of the MDSV-II since we gave all the documents back but it wasn't mentioned verbally either. That I know.

I still have the MDSV-I documents somewhere but not handy so cannot look it up to make 100% sure or copy the exact clause here but I did look it up once before. They have the right to make changes to the reservation procedure and that was done when the 13 months rule came about so they have the right to change it again in the future too but everyone will always have the chance to reserve a week in the season they bought because they have the right amount of weeks in every resort since they are numbered.

I recently called the person again who gave us the MVCI workshop and asked him what the status was. This person is not a sales person so he has no reason to lie. There is a team of Marriott people working on this new system and no decision has been made if re-sale owners would be grandfathered or not but the internal exchange system is in the works and will be rolled out next year. It has been shared with the sales staff too so that's why we hear so many rumors. Of course, they can still scrap it completely because it is too expensive (this was mentioned here) or they cannot make the right decision what is best for the company since it is so complex.

It will be very difficult to keep everyone happy but as more people will start finding out that buying re-sale is a bargain, they will have to do something to stop this trend by either giving very many MRPs to the direct buyer or other perks that make it attractive to buy from the developer direct or they will lose more business. All the timeshare developers are doing this today already and it will have an effect on the re-sale prices as we all know already with Starwood or Wyndham. 

Buying a timeshare was never meant to be an investment except for an investment in quality vacation time so buy where you like to go most often and you will not be so disappointed with all the changes that keep on coming and always cost more too. JMHO.

We already booked our fare for next year in Maui. Since we are staying four weeks again, we will have to move at least three times. :annoyed: It would be so much nicer to rent a condo for a whole month than keep on moving from resort to resort. To me that is much more flexible now nor would you have to worry about ever increasing maintenance fees or special assessments either. Timesharing has changed a lot from when we started in 1983 and not for the better but we are still happy at the resorts we own so will keep them for now.


----------



## RandR (Jun 4, 2009)

iconnections said:


> Buying a timeshare was never meant to be an investment except for an investment in quality vacation time so buy where you like to go most often and you will not be so disappointed with all the changes that keep on coming and always cost more too. JMHO.



I did buy where I want to vacation but I bought Marriott because of the number of ts locations they have so I could trade into them if I want to.  If they "devalue" what my property is worth so that I can't trade equally into other Marriott ts' I will be quite disappointed.


----------



## sdtugger (Jun 4, 2009)

iconnections said:


> I still have the MDSV-I documents somewhere but not handy so cannot look it up to make 100% sure or copy the exact clause here but I did look it up once before. They have the right to make changes to the reservation procedure and that was done when the 13 months rule came about so they have the right to change it again in the future too but everyone will always have the chance to reserve a week in the season they bought because they have the right amount of weeks in every resort since they are numbered.



If you can locate your MDSV-I documents, it would be interesting to see the exact language.  The only language quoted so far on TUG does have the 13 month rule in it.  If it is a change from older deeds, it would be interesting to see the older language.

We've beaten up the issue of whether Marriott can change the system to essentially limit owners to lesser weeks during the season that they own.  I believe even the early skeptics were persuaded that Marriott couldn't make such a change without exposing themselves to significant liability.  I'm not sure that is what you were trying to say here.  But, I maintain that Marriott could not take away valuable reservation rights without significant legal liability.


----------



## davidvel (Jun 4, 2009)

We Love Fun said:


> Remember that the only thing any of us has contractually is the ability to reserve a week during the specified season at the resort listed on our deed. Any ability to exchange or use a week at another location is a separate arrangement (except, maybe, for some Florida Club locations).


You summed up my dozens of posts and pages of legal jargon in one simple sentence that is what everyone needs to understand: Rights to reserve NOT= rights to trade in any particular system. People shoudn't confuse the two.


----------



## davidvel (Jun 4, 2009)

sdtugger said:


> If you can locate your MDSV-I documents, it would be interesting to see the exact language.  The only language quoted so far on TUG does have the 13 month rule in it.  If it is a change from older deeds, it would be interesting to see the older language.


Hopefully she can scan the pertinent page and let us review. If not, I'll eventually get a copy and see. I am always intrigued about this "They have the right to make changes to the reservation procedure", which in my opinion is a material deeded right in the interest that CANNOT be changed. (yes I know they "did it" but lots of things happen legally that shouldn't...) 




iconnections said:


> I still have the MDSV-I documents somewhere but not handy so cannot look it up to make 100% sure or copy the exact clause here but I did look it up once before.They have the right to make changes to the reservation procedure and that was done when the 13 months rule came about so they have the right to change it again in the future too but everyone will always have the chance to reserve a week in the season they bought because they have the right amount of weeks in every resort since they are numbered.


----------

