# Kicked out of resort because of [occupancy rules exceeded.]



## jc92869

A bit of a rant, A bit of cautionary tale.

Wife, baby and I booked a week at a very popular SoCal beachfront resort for 4th of july. We  were lucky to see it available through RCI a year in advance, and since it is a very popular beach  destination  (specially on 4th of july), we jumped on it and booked the only unit available which was a studio. 

Although  we are SoCal locals, we really were looking forward to this vacation, since there is a really nice fireworks display right in front of the resort, and overall it's a fun place to be. So  we treated it like an actual vacation. we both  got time off work and made plans to meet friends at the beach etc. 

Fast forward to this year. We  checked in at the resort on July 3. during the check in process, the front desk staff was acting weird. One of them even told us to keep our baby quiet and to try to sneak him into the room.  Wife and i found this very  odd, but went along.

About twenty minutes after walking into the  studio unit, we got a call directly from RCI  stating  that the resort manager had called them and had asked RCI to please ask us to leave the resort. The problem being that a studio unit is only for two people and they were counting our baby ( 1 year old) as a third person.

Long story short, we had to leave, and we did. To be fair, RCI booked us at another resort  about  45 minutes  away. The new resort was nice and we ended up having a good time, but it was not the same. it's akin to booking New York for new years, and getting relocated to new jersey.

i understand that this was them being by the book, but I've never had any place count a baby as a whole person.  Even the evil airlines still  grant leniency towards children less than two. Never imagined it would be an issue. 

Although rules are rules, we felt very humiliated. the whole process made us feel less-than. The manager was cold and  although he let us stay for at least the night of check in ( we had to leave the next morning), he made it sound  and feel like he was doing this  as an act of kindness. like we were homeless refugees. never mind that we had  booked and paid for this stay. The whole thing just felt dirty.

As i mentioned, the resort  on that week  at that location is very popular, and one of the check  in staff mentioned that they already had  six people on the waiting list looking to rent that unit for  the week at a very "Hefty" rate.
I don't know if this had anything to do with  us being kicked out or not, but it does raise the question. 

So lesson learned.  Some resorts will adhere strictly to their max occupancy.


----------



## Ty1on

I read a story about adult-only pools being struck down in Cali because it is discriminatory.  I get that they used room occupancy to push you out, but this might be worth consulting an attorney.


----------



## Fern Modena

Why would they want to waste money on a lawyer? A baby is a person. A small one, to be sure, but nonetheless a person. I am sure some resorts allow maximum occupancy PLUS a baby, but we've heard before that many do not. 

Seems to me you pay your money and take your chance. Even though they ended up "in New Jersey," miles from where they had planned to be, they were lucky to have gotten anything else for the July 4th week. Lucky for two reasons...one, RCI didn't owe them anything, and two, as stated above, it's a busy week.

Sorry you weren't treated well, though. And appreciate the cautionary post so others know it can happen.

Fern


----------



## Ty1on

Fern Modena said:


> Why would they want to waste money on a lawyer? A baby is a person. A small one, to be sure, but nonetheless a person. I am sure some resorts allow maximum occupancy PLUS a baby, but we've heard before that many do not.
> 
> Seems to me you pay your money and take your chance. Even though they ended up "in New Jersey," miles from where they had planned to be, they were lucky to have gotten anything else for the July 4th week. Lucky for two reasons...one, RCI didn't owe them anything, and two, as stated above, it's a busy week.
> 
> Sorry you weren't treated well, though. And appreciate the cautionary post so others know it can happen.
> 
> Fern



Because a consultation wouldn't cost a lot, and because given the strange complexion of California laws, the resort may well have violated a law.  That's why.

Parents with young children should not be relegated to the darkness of their homes for the crime of having a baby.  Nor should they be compelled to pay for lodging space they don't need to accommodate an infant.  

The big problem to me is that they checked him in, then called RCI to *evict* him.  Not even the cajones to tell him themselves.  I would like to know the resort, because I would like to know whether they clearly state on RCI that an infant as a third guest is forbidden at the resort. Even if they do, there is a chance that DFEH and/or a California judge will see their policy as unnecessarily discriminating.  At any rate, "paying your money and taking your chances" is unacceptable.

jc92869, you actually don't have to consult a lawyer.  You can file a complaint with http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/

You should be able to reasonable expect to travel with your children without being discriminated and without getting a finger wagged at you on TUG.

http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch3

"The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51 (hereafter the Unruh Act or the Act) prohibits discrimination in "all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." (50) This provision has been interpreted to include businesses and persons engaged in the sale or rental of housing accommodations. (51)

While the Act specifically prohibits only discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, or disability, its language, unlike the FEHA's, has been judicially and statutorily construed to apply to arbitrary discrimination based on personal traits, beliefs, or characteristics similar to those specifically listed. (52) The Act, for example, *has been held to prohibit discrimination against families with children* and against persons based upon their sexual orientation or their age. (53) Accordingly, the Act does not apply only to those bases which are specifically listed, but may also apply to other, unlisted but similar bases, as well."


----------



## Bucky

"Parents with young children should not be relegated to the darkness of their homes for the crime of having a baby. Nor should they be compelled to pay for lodging space they don't need to accommodate an infant."

This statement is hilarious. So, let's see. Is it ok for a family with 1yr old twins also? How about triplets? Where do you draw the line? Nobody is forcing them to pay for space they don't need. They are paying for space for two people only that was clearly disclosed prior to them paying for it! Then they decided to put three people in the room. Go figure. Are you saying that baby is not a person? Rights to Life people would love an answer.

Civil law is irrelevant. Rules are rules. You know that when you book an exchange. When it says max occupancy 2, I'm pretty sure that's what it means! Sure, there are some resorts that will look the other way but you better know darn sure who they are before confirming the exchange. While I feel sorry that the OP felt humiliated, I don't see a leg to stand on here.

Last, but certainly not least, is I'm pretty sure that the RCI agreement each member signs has some verbiage about max occupancy of units!


----------



## csxjohn

Many resorts count babies as a person, some do not.  If you are going to go over the occupancy limits it would be best to call first to see if they count babies.

You should not have felt humiliated, you did not get booted because you have a baby, you got booted because you tried to go over the stated occupancy of the unit you exchanged for.

As you said, lesson learned.


----------



## vacationhopeful

RCI called you because YOU had paid your money to them ... they were your landlord.

The Front Desk did not discriminate against YOU or your family .... you were the RULE BREAKER. And RCI went out of their way to get you lodgings in the immediate area. Sorry, but 45 minutes away in CA could be a 10 miles or less as the crow flies.

I KNOW if my one of my resorts kicks a guest (owner or renter) out of a unit for not following posted rules .... they would be homeless and MONEY not refunded (like their MFs). And I own a studio which have a clear 2 person occupancy limit .... I state that on my rental agreement and emails as being "2 breathing persons" defining that occupancy limit of 2 persons.

PS When is a "baby" no longer a baby? I hear some parents call their 15 yo a baby because that child is the youngest or does the dumbest things or acts out with immature acts.


----------



## theo

I neither have nor want any dog in this fight, but will merely note objectively that (...RCI "rules" completely aside), local fire codes / maximum occupancy limits for rental units (...yes, certainly including any and all timeshare units) are actually *laws* (i.e., not just "guidelines") and they include and apply to persons of *any and all* ages. 

A resort (and / or motel) manager could be (and should be) understandably uncomfortable about the potential liability associated with knowingly and willfully permitting "exceptions" to known local laws and ordinances. Any such "permitted exceptions" can (and sometimes do) come right back to "bite in the butt" in our litigious society. Sometimes, no good deed goes unpunished and there is considerable legal risk associated with choosing to just "look the other way" on applicable law(s). Enough said.


----------



## Icc5

*Rules are Rules*



theo said:


> I neither have nor want any dog in this fight, but will merely note objectively that (...RCI "rules" completely aside), local fire codes / maximum occupancy limits for rental units (...yes, certainly including any and all timeshare units) are actually *laws* (i.e., not just "guidelines") and they include and apply to persons of *any and all* ages.
> 
> A resort (and / or motel) manager could be (and should be) understandably uncomfortable about the potential liability associated with knowingly and willfully permitting "exceptions" to known local laws and ordinances. Any such "permitted exceptions" can (and sometimes do) come right back to "bite in the butt" in our litigious society. Sometimes, no good deed goes unpunished and there is considerable legal risk associated with choosing to just "look the other way" on applicable law(s). Enough said.


I agree with the Resort and feel they bent over backwards to help you.  RCI finding you another place was very nice on their part.  If I bring too many people I would be kicked out and just out of luck I'm sure.
I look at it that I follow rules and others also should plus the fire codes are there for a reason.


----------



## vacationhopeful

I had a father rent a week for his daughter and her very close friends. I warned him that the SHORT senior front desk clerk had worked 27 Spring Breaks and could count - 8 occupants meant 8. NOT 9 or 10 occupants. And if his daughter and her friends did NOT comply, they would have to rent an additional unit at RACK rate or would be kicked out with NO REFUND.

Talked to Dad at least 3 times - restating the occupancy limit each time - put it in the rental agreement which HE signed & returned with payment.

Yes, they showed up at the Front Desk with NINE and the SHORT senior front desk clerk caught the 9 count BEFORE they had the room key cards. Well, she was a GREAT friend whose plans had changed and BEG to come along on their trip. They got to rent a 1bdr unit at RACK RATE on Daddy's credit card ... most likely about the same I charge them for a bigger unit. Dad paid it ... and Dad did NOT complained to me ... he upfront told me, I predicted EXACTLY what and who would "catch on" ... he was just surprised it was BEFORE they had the room key cards.


----------



## presley

Timeshares are not like hotels. You cannot sneak in extra people. They probably should have never let you check in, but probably some of the staff would have preferred to just let you stay there. Keep in mind, if just one guest complained about you be over the limit, they would have had to remove you, even if you were already there for most of the week. It sounds like it was an unfortunate situation, but the rules have to be followed. I'm guessing this was SCBC?


----------



## bnoble

IMO, not justified as a rant---the limit is the limit, and it's up to the resort to decide whether or not infants count, and at what age if not.

Definitely justified as a cautionary tale, though.  If you are planning to travel with a very young child that would put you over the limit, definitely call the resort before you confirm the hold to make sure that it is okay. Preferably, get it in an email message.


----------



## theo

*A fictitious story, but not at all a fairy tale...*

When occupancy limits are exceeded (i.e. *when local laws and ordinances are violated* --- never mind RCI "rules") there is great potential for the tables to get turned against a permissive facility, whether it's a hotel, motel or timeshare facility. Let me present a hypothetical (but completely realistic and entirely possible) scenario:

A manager reluctantly but knowingly allows a 2 person studio unit occupancy maximum to be exceeded. The size, age, gender, etc. of the "extra" (third) occupant is irrelevant and matters not one bit, but let's just say for the sake of discussion that it's an accompanying infant. 

In the hypothetical small studio unit, one adult occupant with hot coffee in hand trips over the portable crib they've brought into their unfamiliar and somehat cramped surroundings and promptly spills the hot beverage onto the infant, who subsequently requires and receives medical attention for (potentially disfiguring) burns sustained.

Next thing you know, lo and behold, the occupants are *blaming* (i.e., filing a lawsuit against) the facility whose manager, being compassionate, had "looked the other way" regarding the "extra" occupant. Now it's somehow the facility's "fault" for knowingly allowing the visitors to violate applicable occupancy limits (laws and ordinances)?  

The End. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is *not* a story (or a lawsuit) that I *ever* want to see unfold at *any* of my facilities. As one who sits on a timeshare BoD, such completely unnecessary and entirely avoidable legal dilemmas (and costs) are not where I *ever* want a dime of our financial resources to *ever* have to be spent. Occupancy limits are applicable law, not just mere suggestions or helpful "guidelines".

Frankly, the manager who allowed even *one* overnight for the OP's trio did so at risk to his / her continued employment *and* to all other interval owners at that facility. 
He or she would very soon be looking for a new job in *my* universe, empathy or sympathy or personal compassion notwithstanding.


----------



## Passepartout

Well, of course there was a remedy. Since the OP clearly knew of the occupancy rule, and chose to 'fudge', or ignore it, s/he could have left the spouse and baby there and gone back home after the fireworks.

The title of the thread should be amended to: [One too many occupants gets guests evicted!]

That might serve as a more cautionary post than the current title, which seems to blame the resort. *The resort did nothing wrong!*

Jim


----------



## ronparise

Maybe it wasnt the baby. It could have been either one of the two adults here that was considered the 3rd person

You or your wife could have slept in the car to bring the number down to 2


----------



## Ty1on

Passepartout said:


> Well, of course there was a remedy. Since the OP clearly knew of the occupancy rule, and chose to 'fudge', or ignore it, s/he could have left the spouse and baby there and gone back home after the fireworks.
> 
> The title of the thread should be amended to: [One too many occupants gets guests evicted!]
> 
> That might serve as a more cautionary post than the current title, which seems to blame the resort. *The resort did nothing wrong!*
> 
> Jim



You're making a leap to assumption that the OP "clearly knew" of the occupancy rule, unless you were involved in his reserving the exchange.  Others are making an assumption that the two-person occupancy is driven by fire code, not resort policy.  Unit occupancy isn't ONLY dictated by fire code.

"Keep your baby quiet" is a very discriminatory thing for the front desk staff to have said, and coupled with the fact that they checked him in and then yanked the rug, could possibly give him a case for complaint.

And for you other hall monitors, I still feel that if he was breaking occupancy, they should not have checked him in.  To check him in and then have RCI evict him was spineless and humiliating.

I would like to see a case like this hit DFEH.  I realize none of you have an infant child, and neither do I, but a little empathy can go a long way.


----------



## ace2000

ronparise said:


> Maybe it wasnt the baby. It could have been either one of the two adults here that was considered the 3rd person
> 
> You or your wife could have slept in the car to bring the number down to 2



Perfect... problem solved!  Next?   LOL


----------



## theo

Ty1on said:


> <snip> Unit occupancy isn't ONLY dictated by fire code. <snip>



No offense, but you are just selectively and conveniently deflecting away from the core issue with this particular observation, at least from my perspective. 
With all due respect, the *applicable local laws and ordinances are really the ONLY factors that carry actual weight of law* in the discussion at hand.  

My child-rearing days are long behind me now but I am certainly not unsympathetic to (*or* unfamiliar with) the difficulties of young parenthood --- but that's completely irrelevant to the issue of violating local laws and / or the associated legal liability of doing so knowingly and willfully (I refer more to the manager here than the parents). 

I've often said here on TUG on differing topics and viewpoints that sitting on a BoD (as an unpaid volunteer), brings a certain responsibility to *all other* owners at a facility. I certainly am not interested in ever being a "hall monitor", but as I have observed here before in regard to a HOA / BoD perspective --- "walk a mile in my shoes". 
Think about the hypothetical scenario presented upstream in this thread --- and just *maybe* you'll come down from your high horse of entirely unwarranted indignation.


----------



## Ty1on

theo said:


> No offense, but you are just deflecting away from the core issue with this particular observation, at least from my perspective.
> With all due respect, the applicable *local laws and ordinances are the ONLY factors that actually carry weight of law in the discussion at hand.*
> 
> My infant rearing days are long behind me now and I am certainly not unsympathetic to (or unfamiliar with) the difficulties of young parenthood --- but that's simply irrelevant to the issue of violation of local laws and the associated legal liability of doing so knowingly and willfully (I refer to the manager here, not the parents).
> 
> I've often said here on TUG on differing topics and viewpoints that sitting on a BoD (as an unpaid volunteer), brings a certain responsibility to *all other* owners at a facility. Not interested in ever being a "hall monitor", but as I have observed here before in regard to HOA / BoD perspective --- "walk a mile in *my* shoes".



Again, you are _assuming_ that this occupancy limit is a result of local law and not resort policy.  The front desk checked them in, telling them to keep the baby quiet (which is discriminatory), then evicted him.  Heck, if it IS resort policy instead of municipal code, it could even be argued that the rule is squarely aimed at young children, because a couple with a young child is most likely to want to put 3 in a studio without a second bed (or alternative).


----------



## Passepartout

Ty1on said:


> You're making a leap to assumption that the OP "clearly knew" of the occupancy rule, unless you were involved in his reserving the exchange.  Others are making an assumption that the two-person occupancy is driven by fire code, not resort policy.  Unit occupancy isn't ONLY dictated by fire code.



If you re-read the 4th paragraph of the OP, it appears that the OP booked the unit, knowing there was an occupancy rule. I'm not assuming anything, including what grounds the resort used in determining the rule.

The OP knew the rule going in, and seems surprised at the enforcement.


----------



## theo

Ty1on said:


> Again, you are _assuming_ that this occupancy limit is a result of local law and not resort policy.  The front desk checked them in, telling them to keep the baby quiet (which is discriminatory), then evicted him.  Heck, if it IS resort policy instead of municipal code, it could even be argued that the rule is squarely aimed at young children, because a couple with a young child is most likely to want to put 3 in a studio without a second bed (or alternative).



I'm not going to pointlessly split hairs with you. Yes, I most certainly *do* "assume" that there are, in fact, local codes and ordinances (i.e.,* laws*) firmly in place and directly applicable and relevant to virtually any and every commercial facility with rented occupancy, whether it's a hotel, motel, timeshare, youth hostel, or Bed & Breakfast. 

If the distinction between applicable law vs. facility "policy" is unimportant to *you*, that's fine and certainly your prerogative. Perhaps we can instead then simply agree that "*more people than the clearly posted maximum allowed*" is just precisely that, invoking whatever particular authority or law or policy or rule floats *your* boat.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> Again, you are _assuming_ that this occupancy limit is a result of local law and not resort policy.  The front desk checked them in, telling them to keep the baby quiet (which is discriminatory), then evicted him.  Heck, if it IS resort policy instead of municipal code, it could even be argued that the rule is squarely aimed at young children, because a couple with a young child is most likely to want to put 3 in a studio without a second bed (or alternative).



How do you know that the front desk didn't tell him they'd let them stay for the night but would be contacting RCI in the morning, and that they should try to keep the baby quiet to keep other guests from complaining which would force the staff to evict them during the night?

None of us knows the whole story but the OP clearly said that he knew the occupancy limit (which reason for it is immaterial.)  The time to argue over whether a baby should be included in that limit is before you get to the resort, not after.

I do understand the argument you're making and who knows, it could hold up if ever this was to make it to a court.  But really, are you in favor of the OP being rewarded when he knew beforehand enough to be more careful?  And in favor of the resort being punished when for all we know, they could have been trying to help the OP by giving him a place to sleep while they worked out the problem?


----------



## Ty1on

theo said:


> I'm not going to pointlessly split hairs with you. Yes, I most certainly do "assume" that there are, in fact, local codes and ordinances (i.e., laws) in place and applicable for virtually any and every commercial occupancy facility (hotel, motel, timeshare or hostel).
> 
> If the distinction between applicable law vs. occupancy limit "policy" is irrelevant to you, that's fine. Perhaps we can then just simply agree that "more people than the posted limit" is still just precisely that, under whatever particular authority or policy floats your boat.



The distinction is *very* relevant to me.

When I was with a resort in Reno, we had hospitality suites.  The posted occupancy limit for the suite was 6.  However, for hospitality events, the local ordnance occupancy of 30, based upon the square footage, was permitted.  My opinions come from 30 years in the hospitality industry, I'm not just grasping at thin air.


----------



## bnoble

Ty1on said:


> You're making a leap to assumption that the OP "clearly knew" of the occupancy rule, unless you were involved in his reserving the exchange.



Every exchange I've ever booked through RCI includes both the maximum and "private" occupancy for the unit.  If the OP booked a studio that slept 2/2, then it's the OP's obligation to confirm with the resort what their policy is for small children/infants. One cannot just assume that a resort will allow a party to bring an extra infant beyond the maximum capacity of the exchange. The resort gets to decide whether or not the occupancy can be exceeded with an infant-in-arms. The fact that many resorts do allow this is immaterial.


----------



## tschwa2

*RCI's Urgent information*

*General Urgent Information*
Occupancy limits are strictly enforced: could result in forfeiture of the unit and/or other penalties.


*I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the terms and conditions stated in the Urgent Information*


If nothing else this is a cautionary tale to remind those with small children that you should double check when booking (within 24 hr so you can cancel) and ask if an infant or small child counts toward the occupancy limit.


----------



## klpca

I think that a lot of businesses bend over backwards to accommodate people. So much so that it has created an expectation that the rules can be relaxed here and there. If it doesn't hurt anyone it's fine. But there are some rules that can't be relaxed and complying with the fire code is probably pretty close to the top of the list.  

I'm amazed that RCI was able to reaccommodate you anywhere over the 4th of July! That is the most surprising part of the whole story to me, lol. I'd chalk this up to a somewhat unpleasant learning experience, but thank you for reporting back here. There always seems to be the feeling that occupancy limits aren't enforced. You are living proof that they are. Live and learn.


----------



## Ty1on

bnoble said:


> Every exchange I've ever booked through RCI includes both the maximum and "private" occupancy for the unit.  If the OP booked a studio that slept 2/2, then it's the OP's obligation to confirm with the resort what their policy is for small children/infants. One cannot just assume that a resort will allow a party to bring an extra infant beyond the maximum capacity of the exchange. The resort gets to decide whether or not the occupancy can be exceeded with an infant-in-arms. The fact that many resorts do allow this is immaterial.



Under the Unruh Act, California Courts have ruled that adult pools are discriminatory toward families.  That was also resort policy.  You guys can lecture this parent and change his thread title on him all you want, but I'm talking about a bigger issue than resort policy, which the courts could very well find to be discriminatory if they ever get a chance to hear a case like this.  IF it is a matter of resort policy and not municipal code, which NONE OF US actually know.


----------



## ace2000

Ty1on said:


> Under the Unruh Act, California Courts have ruled that adult pools are discriminatory toward families.  That was also resort policy.  You guys can lecture this parent and change his thread title on him all you want, but I'm talking about a bigger issue than resort policy, which the courts could very well find to be discriminatory if they ever get a chance to hear a case like this.  IF it is a matter of resort policy and not municipal code, which NONE OF US actually know.



What is discriminatory?  The OP could have had 3 adults or in this example, they had 2 adults + 1 child.  They still exceeded the limit, and the resort chose to enforce the limit.  Where do you see any discrimination against the child?


----------



## Ty1on

ace2000 said:


> What is discriminatory?  The OP could have had 3 adults or in this example, they had 2 adults + 1 child.  They still exceeded the limit, and the resort chose to enforce the limit.  Where do you see any discrimination against the child?



They first told him he can have the room if he keeps the child quiet.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> Under the Unruh Act, California Courts have ruled that adult pools are discriminatory toward families.  That was also resort policy.  You guys can lecture this parent and change his thread title on him all you want, but I'm talking about a bigger issue than resort policy, which the courts could very well find to be discriminatory if they ever get a chance to hear a case like this.  IF it is a matter of resort policy and not municipal code, which NONE OF US actually know.



Right.  All we know is that the OP admitted he knew of the two-person occupancy limit prior to checking in and that RCI enforced the limit when the resort asked them to intervene.

The OP isn't being "lectured" for his parenting, and you're the only one who has inferred discrimination based on the third person being a baby.  The OP posted his story and many of us are taking it for what it is, a cautionary tale of the ramifications of exceeding occupancy limits.  I think, and probably others do as well, that the resort is justified in enforcing occupancy limits regardless of the ages of the guests.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> They first told him he can have the room if he keeps the child quiet.



But, keep the child quiet for the entire week, or keep the child quiet tonight so we don't have to evict you in the middle of the night when other guests complain?  The details matter and any of us could be inferring details that are entirely incorrect.


----------



## Ty1on

SueDonJ said:


> But, keep the child quiet for the entire week, or keep the child quiet tonight so we don't have to evict you in the middle of the night when other guests complain?  The details matter and any of us could be inferring details that are entirely incorrect.



He says he understands them being by the book, but nowhere does he state he knew their policy beforehand.

And this--"But, keep the child quiet for the entire week, or keep the child quiet tonight so we don't have to evict you in the middle of the night when other guests complain?"--is PRECISELY where discrimination lies.  An innkeeper can NOT evict an occupant because of a crying baby, no matter how much it disturbs other guests.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> He says he understands them being by the book, but nowhere does he state he knew their policy beforehand.
> 
> And this--"But, keep the child quiet for the entire week, or keep the child quiet tonight so we don't have to evict you in the middle of the night when other guests complain?"--is PRECISELY where discrimination lies.  An innkeeper can NOT evict an occupant because of a crying baby, no matter how much it disturbs other guests.



But an innkeeper can evict guests for exceeding stated occupancy limits.  And the OP does state that he knew the occupancy limits "but I've never had any place count a baby as a whole person."

If the OP had been told at check-in that guests older than a baby would be allowed regardless of the occupancy limits stated in advance by the resort and/or the exchange company, then discrimination against babies could be inferred.


----------



## taterhed

I'm not picking sides. I'm reading the post as a cautionary tale.
But, here's some very interesting information: (assuming it's the SCBC--but could be anywhere now, couldn't it?)


I went to the SCBC website. The studio shows occupancy limit of 2. No expanded info.
I went to the RCI SCBC site: Studio occupancy 2 private 2. No expanded info.
I attempted to book via SCBC: it did not expand occupancy rules, but would not allow me to book 2 adults 1 child into a studio.
I went to most of the common booking sites for hotels and resorts (as I often do when thinking about staying at an unfamiliar resort):
Most booking sites would allow 2 adults and 1 child (0-1) to be booked into the studio.
One booking site had this warning: "Unit is based on double occupancy and MAY NOT exceed 2 guests in room."
One booking site allowed 2 adults/1 infant and gave these options:
Studio, 1 Queen Bed, Non Smoking
*1 queen bed*
495-sq-foot (46-sq-meter) room, balcony/patio with courtyard views
495 square feet
(Extra beds available: Crib) 
Room sleeps 2 guests (up to 1 child) 
Best Value!
Standard Suite, 1 Bedroom, Non Smoking 700 square feet
1 queen and 1 sofa bed 
(Extra beds available: Crib) 
Room sleeps 4 guests (up to 3 children)


 
another booking sites helpful info:
Children and extra beds 
All children are welcome.
*Free!* All further children or adults stay free of charge when using existing beds. 

All further older children or adults are charged USD 20 per person per night for extra beds.
*Free!* One child under 2 years stays free of charge in a child's cot/crib. 

The maximum number of extra beds/children's cots permitted in a room is 1.
Any type of extra bed or child's cot/crib is upon request and needs to be confirmed by management.
Supplements are not calculated automatically in the total costs and will have to be paid for separately during your stay.
 
Recommended for 2 adults, 1 child 
*1 × Studio *
1 × Extra bed/child's cot
 
I emailed the customer staff at Grand Pacific but haven't heard back.
My final take after some research?


If you're unsure, you should call.
If the resort has a strict occupancy limit regarding infants and children, perhaps they should mention it on their website? Not an excuse, but they are very quick to point out the enforcement in the newsletter....
If a resort is accepting booking services from a dozen websites that clearly allow, encourage, support and even suggest booking children (of unknown age) into the suite/apt above the listed capacity--then the resort; the parent company et al--have a duty and responsibility to police what is being solicited for occupancy by fiduciary agents or contractors etc... I'm assuming that's the relationship, but somebody will correct me.
I'm not encouraging or pardoning jc92869. I'm just saying...there is a great deal of ambiguity on this.
If he had booked the studio thru the above website rec'd the studio, would you be so quick to condemn him? I think not.
JM2c


----------



## ace2000

Ty1on said:


> An innkeeper can NOT evict an occupant because of a crying baby, no matter how much it disturbs other guests.



Now I see where you're going.  You see the eviction was because of a crying baby, and I see it was because of exceeding the occupancy limit.  And your example of the discrimination in the pool does not correlate to this situation at all.  Totally different scenario.


----------



## Ty1on

SueDonJ said:


> But an innkeeper can evict guests for exceeding stated occupancy limits.  And the OP does state that he knew the occupancy limits "but I've never had any place count a baby as a whole person."



We have to agree to disagree on that statement being an admission that he knew they advertised a strict 2 human of any size rule.


----------



## taterhed

I might add, there are HUGE blurbs about quiet hours on many of the websites including the SCBC.  The newsletter also had a good bit to say about that.

 I'm not so sure it wasn't the noise issue that did it.


----------



## SueDonJ

I want to know what more was said at check-in.  The OP says RCI called just twenty minutes after they got to the room but the manager allowed them to stay the night before moving to the other resort that RCI provided.  It seems far-fetched that the only comment from the front desk staff was a remark to keep the baby quiet with no mention at all of the occupancy limits, when they obviously made the call to RCI almost immediately.


----------



## raygo123

On our stays we hear about over occupied units all the to

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Passepartout

SueDonJ said:


> I want to know what more was said at check-in.  The OP says RCI called just twenty minutes after they got to the room but the manager allowed them to stay the night before moving to the other resort that RCI provided.  It seems far-fetched that the only comment from the front desk staff was a remark to keep the baby quiet with no mention at all of the occupancy limits, when they obviously made the call to RCI almost immediately.



I wonder if the comment about keeping the baby quiet wasn't just a sympathetic desk clerk, who knew about the occupancy rule, unilaterally trying to make an exception for this nice family. As opposed to some 'official', intimating that if the baby is quiet, nobody would notice it. Just speculating.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> We have to agree to disagree on that statement being an admission that he knew they advertised a strict 2 human of any size rule.



Isn't it the responsibility of the exchanger to know the rules of the exchange company with which he's contracted?  All of the exchange companies include max occupancy of the resorts/units in their systems.

The OP says he understands, "this was them going by the book" and that, "ome resorts will adhere strictly to their max occupancy."  If he only understands that after the fact because he didn't take responsibility for knowing the rules in advance, that doesn't absolve him.


----------



## raygo123

Time and the resorts do act on it.  Reminds me of my brother in law and his 5 kids booking into a hotel as two people. And it seems this is not his first reservation.

Dory about the glitch

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## presley

taterhed said:


> I'm not picking sides. I'm reading the post as a cautionary tale.
> But, here's some very interesting information: (assuming it's the SCBC--but could be anywhere now, couldn't it?)


I thought that's where it was based on the 2 per limit per studio, but I don't know of fireworks that go off in front of it, so likely was somewhere else.

At any rate, the resort didn't evict this family. RCI did. 

I put my comment out there that you cannot sneak in extra people to timeshares because the ones I visit are very strict. Even if the staff isn't on top of it, owners throw fits when they think anything is out of ordinary.

I was interrogated twice at Hilton Flamingo as to why I had 5 people on my last vacation. I was in a 2 bedroom lockout that sleeps 6. I know Hilton always asks for first and last name of everyone in the room, but didn't expect a line of questions two days in a row. After the second interrogation, I figured they were probably hoping to sell my guests some timeshares. It was very annoying though. "Why do you have so many people with you?" "What are they going to do?" "Who are they?" "Why did you bring extra people with you?" ---- I've never experienced that at any hotel.


----------



## SueDonJ

taterhed said:


> I might add, there are HUGE blurbs about quiet hours on many of the websites including the SCBC.  The newsletter also had a good bit to say about that.
> 
> I'm not so sure it wasn't the noise issue that did it.



He says RCI called twenty minutes after they got to the room.  That would be an extremely unreasonable amount of time for the resort to invoke any noise restrictions.  Even twenty-somethings jampacked into units and partying like it's 1999 are given more leeway than that.  Plus noise violations are handled by resort staff while occupancy issues can be enforced by both the resort and the exchange company.


----------



## taterhed

SueDonJ said:


> He says RCI called twenty minutes after they got to the room. That would be an extremely unreasonable amount of time for the resort to invoke any noise restrictions. Even twenty-somethings jampacked into units and partying like it's 1999 are given more leeway than that.



 By that, I meant; maybe they decided to not overlook it specifically because it was a infant (and prone to lots of noise).  I don't have infants and I'm not especially sympathetic to parents of screaming kids.  (might change when I have gran-babies!)

 excerpt from newsletter (at scbc--don't even know if that's it)
 "The Units at the Beach Club were designed for these occupancy maximums.
They are not designed to accommodate any additional people. You may ask...​ Why? It goes back to the title of this article.....CONSIDERATION.​ In consideration of everyone’s vacation experience, occupancy limits are​ enforced in an attempt to reduce the amount of noise affecting adjacent units."

 It's a valid concern  (text about wear and tear etc... not cited)


----------



## tschwa2

> One booking site allowed 2 adults/1 infant and gave these options:
> Studio, 1 Queen Bed, Non Smoking
> 1 queen bed
> 495-sq-foot (46-sq-meter) room, balcony/patio with courtyard views
> 495 square feet
> (Extra beds available: Crib)
> Room sleeps 2 guests (up to 1 child)
> Best Value!
> Standard Suite, 1 Bedroom, Non Smoking 700 square feet
> 1 queen and 1 sofa bed
> (Extra beds available: Crib)
> Room sleeps 4 guests (up to 3 children)



I've seen this site and I read it very differently than you.  2 guests (up to 1 child) still means two guests total.  You can have 2 adults, 1 adult or 1 adult and 1 child.  You can't check 2 children into a room with no adults.  Same with a 4 guest room.  You can't have 4 guests *plus* up to 3 children.  You can have 4 guests total and up to 3 can be children.  You can't have 4 children and no adults in the room.


----------



## DeniseM

I would have called the front desk directly.  RCI cannot tell you what the front desk may or may not do.  Then I'd try to get something in writing - maybe a fax or email from the front desk.


----------



## taterhed

tschwa2 said:


> I've seen this site and I read it very differently than you. 2 guests (up to 1 child) still means two guests total. You can have 2 adults, 1 adult or 1 adult and 1 child. You can't check 2 children into a room with no adults. Same with a 4 guest room. You can't have 4 guests *plus* up to 3 children. You can have 4 guests total and up to 3 can be children. You can't have 4 children and no adults in the room.



Me too.  My only point was this:  it's a bit confusing.  If in doubt--call. After looking at the other websites which did not reflect 2 max--I would not have interpreted it that way.  If I have any guests or renters, I'll certainly remind them to strictly observe the limits or query the resort.


----------



## vacationhopeful

Many NON-SUPERVISING front desk personnel REFER issues to the Supervisor/Manager on Duty. A guest whose name and id MATCHING the records for inbounds was checked in. And given a room key. That is WHAT a front desk clerk does.

Then the Front Desk clerk notified their supervisor that 2 adults and a baby were checkin into a Studio. The supervisor called RCI to verify IF they had either given their client the WRONG reservation or if RCI had another reservation to accommodate their party of 3 as the resort was next going to KICK them to the curb.

RCI called the guests and MOVED them.

Personally I believe this was a WIN-WIN for the resort and also for RCI. No TV news live at 5 or 10 with lights and camera. No guests screaming in the lobby. No bad reviews for making a family sleep in their car.

Sorry ... but issues have to WORK their way thru the chain of command. The resort acted within a SHORT time frame - IMHO.

As for OP .... he was trying to pull a fast one. Busy 4th of July week at a HIGHLY desired resort on the beach. Just have to hide the baby ... and figure everybody will be in vacation mode ... it will just not matter about just a baby. A small baby. A cute small baby.


----------



## optimist

Though I don't post much, I have been on TUG for about five years reading most of the posts.
I am always amazed at which posts get the board's sympathy and which ones bring out the judgmental stick.   I have started and deleted many posts because,  personally, I don't have the stomach for this kind of disapproving criticism just because I have chosen to share something.
Why change the title of her thread?  I don't think she was wrong to think her one year old would not be considered "a person" in the way hotels use that term.


----------



## bnoble

> Under the Unruh Act, California Courts have ruled that adult pools are discriminatory toward families. That was also resort policy.


"An unrelated prohibition of children in the pools is illegal, and that was a resort policy. Strictly adhering to resort occupancy is also a resort policy, and so it might also be illegal."

Is that really what you are saying? Because it seems to me that one adult could show up with an infant-in-arms and have no problem staying there, unlike the pool prohibition which would forbid the child no matter how many people were there as well---a pretty effective defense against any claimed discrimination.

You can keep arguing your point, but I believe you are wrong here. There may be other things the resort is doing that *are* illegally discriminatory, but holding to stated occupancy of an exchange probably isn't one of them.


----------



## SueDonJ

optimist said:


> Though I don't post much, I have been on TUG for about five years reading most of the posts.
> I am always amazed at which posts get the board's sympathy and which ones bring out the judgmental stick.   I have started and deleted many posts because,  personally, I don't have the stomach for this kind of disapproving criticism just because I have chosen to share something.
> Why change the title of her thread?  I don't think she was wrong to think her one year old would not be considered "a person" in the way hotels use that term.



The OP stated:  _"So lesson learned. Some resorts will adhere strictly to their max occupancy."_  That's what precipitated the thread title edit (by me.)

Disagreeing with the OP's premise that a baby shouldn't count towards the occupancy limits isn't anything akin to "disapproving criticism."  Neither is stating personal recognition/knowledge that resorts and exchange companies have stated occupancy rules and the ability to enforce them.

Anybody who is reading should feel free to click on the "Report Post" icon of any objectionable posts.  The mods/admin will be happy to review and determine if TUG Posting Rules are being followed.  (I don't see any violations but that doesn't mean another mod/admin won't interpret differently.)


----------



## davidvel

bnoble said:


> "An unrelated prohibition of children in the pools is illegal, and that was a resort policy. Strictly adhering to resort occupancy is also a resort policy, and so it might also be illegal."
> 
> Is that really what you are saying? Because it seems to me that one adult could show up with an infant-in-arms and have no problem staying there, unlike the pool prohibition which would forbid the child no matter how many people were there as well---a pretty effective defense against any claimed discrimination.
> 
> You can keep arguing your point, but I believe you are wrong here. There may be other things the resort is doing that *are* illegally discriminatory, but holding to stated occupancy of an exchange probably isn't one of them.


My interpretation of Ty1on's point is that UNDER CA (and federal) LAW, the "policy" is not a be-all, end-all. This is a complex area of law, and there are many court (and administrative agency) opinions that have held that (apparently objective) occupancy limits in condos (which may TSs in CA are) _may_ violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws. 

Some of the factors in evaluating whether the "policy" discriminates against families with children include:
1.  Size of the bedroom and unit; 2.  Age of the children; 3.  Configuration of the unit; 4.  Other physical limitations of housing; 5.  State and local law; 6.  Other relevant factors, such as: - if the landlord has made discriminatory statements, if the landlord has taken steps to discourage families with children from living in its housing, if the landlord has enforced its occupancy policies only against families with children.

To sum it up, legally speaking, "Its a complicated question."


----------



## ace2000

davidvel said:


> To sum it up, legally speaking, "Its a complicated question."



To pursue this as a legal matter on the basis of "child discrimination" would be waste of everyone's time and money.  And what is very clear is the fact that the occupancy for the studio was 2.  Sorry, it's not really that complicated.


----------



## rapmarks

many resorts do not enforce this rule, it probably is better if a resort does enforce this rule.  I met people staying in a one bath, two bed, 600 square foot unit:  all 12 of them.


----------



## Luanne

So, if someone posts the question "does such and such resort enforce the occupancy limits" the answer would be.......................maybe.  Best to check.  Isn't this what is usually suggested?


----------



## jc92869

vacationhopeful said:


> Many NON-SUPERVISING front desk personnel REFER issues to the Supervisor/Manager on Duty. A guest whose name and id MATCHING the records for inbounds was checked in. And given a room key. That is WHAT a front desk clerk does.
> 
> Then the Front Desk clerk notified their supervisor that 2 adults and a baby were checkin into a Studio. The supervisor called RCI to verify IF they had either given their client the WRONG reservation or if RCI had another reservation to accommodate their party of 3 as the resort was next going to KICK them to the curb.
> 
> RCI called the guests and MOVED them.
> 
> Personally I believe this was a WIN-WIN for the resort and also for RCI. No TV news live at 5 or 10 with lights and camera. No guests screaming in the lobby. No bad reviews for making a family sleep in their car.
> 
> Sorry ... but issues have to WORK their way thru the chain of command. The resort acted within a SHORT time frame - IMHO.
> 
> As for OP .... he was trying to pull a fast one. Busy 4th of July week at a HIGHLY desired resort on the beach. Just have to hide the baby ... and figure everybody will be in vacation mode ... it will just not matter about just a baby. A small baby. A cute small baby.


Op here. The feeling of humiliation did not come from what happened, but rather of how it happened. It's because of the way we were talked to, the way we were treated.

 There's nothing tangible that  was said or done, but as an adult you have a sense of when you are being talked down to. There was no compassion or hospitality, just a "you need to leave" attitude. 

The way things were phrased, the tone in the voice, the suggestions that we knew the rules and were purposefully and knowingly trying to buck the system. The  smug way in the which they told us they already had  a long waiting list waiting to pay top dollar for that unit.

 I'd be disingenuous  if i said i didn't know what max occupancy rules are. We all do.   I guess as  a new family we didn't realize babies counted as a whole person.  

As I type this I realize what a dumb assumption that is, but I just think of other  situations; When you go to a restaurant you don't make a reservation for three people, at  themeparks you don't pay for three tickets,  airlines don't  charge for three seats etc.

There was no malice or wanton disregard for rules, we  were just a new family checking into a resort. The same way we have checked into other resorts (including that same exact resort just  six months earlier, and yes, with the same baby).  

Rules are rules. We get it, I'm not arguing that at all , that's why we left. But it still left a really bad taste. 


Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ty1on

rapmarks said:


> many resorts do not enforce this rule, it probably is better if a resort does enforce this rule.  I met people staying in a one bath, two bed, 600 square foot unit:  all 12 of them.



But it really is that complicated, and this black or white mob mentality is exactly why protected classes exist.  Discrimination is often committed in nuance.


----------



## Fern Modena

Whoa! You might want to rethink your last post. Or not. Are you accusing us of mob mentality and/or discrimination because of our posts?

Your post offends *me*




Ty1on said:


> But it really is that complicated, and this black or white mob mentality is exactly why protected classes exist.  Discrimination is often committed in nuance.


----------



## bnoble

davidvel said:


> My interpretation of Ty1on's point is that UNDER CA (and federal) LAW, the "policy" is not a be-all, end-all. This is a complex area of law, and there are many court (and administrative agency) opinions that have held that (apparently objective) occupancy limits in condos (which may TSs in CA are) _may_ violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws.
> 
> Some of the factors in evaluating whether the "policy" discriminates against families with children include:
> 1.  Size of the bedroom and unit; 2.  Age of the children; 3.  Configuration of the unit; 4.  Other physical limitations of housing; 5.  State and local law; 6.  Other relevant factors, such as: - if the landlord has made discriminatory statements, if the landlord has taken steps to discourage families with children from living in its housing, if the landlord has enforced its occupancy policies only against families with children.
> 
> To sum it up, legally speaking, "Its a complicated question."



If I'm following you correctly, you are applying fair-housing statutes to fractional-ownership vacation lodging.  Maybe, but I'd like to see the case law with something approaching a precedent first.


----------



## Ty1on

bnoble said:


> If I'm following you correctly, you are applying fair-housing statutes to fractional-ownership vacation lodging.  Maybe, but I'd like to see the case law with something approaching a precedent first.



He doesn't need to.  The Unruh Civil Rights Act applies to all businesses.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> But it really is that complicated, and this black or white mob mentality is exactly why protected classes exist.  Discrimination is often committed in nuance.



I'm only speaking for myself, not the mob, but I don't think applying a "black or white" mentality here is incorrect.  The choice is either follow the 2/2 max occupancy rule as it's stated or, if you think you have what constitutes a reasonable exception, clear it with the resort GM in advance.

The OP didn't do either and was made to suffer for it.  I'm okay with that because I like rules in general, and I'd be willing to take responsibility for my own actions if I choose to break them.


----------



## ace2000

jc92869 said:


> Rules are rules. We get it, I'm not arguing that at all , that's why we left. But it still left a really bad taste.



Thanks for clarification.  I also want to make clear that any of my comments have been addressing the legality of the rule and whether there are grounds for a lawsuit.  That's the only part of this thread and the advice here that doesn't make sense to me.

I'm definitely not blaming or casting judgement on you at all, and I appreciate that you're trying to help others by informing us.


----------



## Ty1on

jc92869 said:


> The same way we have checked into other resorts (including that same exact resort just  six months earlier, and yes, with the same baby).



So you check into the resort with the baby once, and you are supposed to know that you can't check into the resort with a baby this time?  That's yet another point of contention for me.  It also kills all the "He knew he wasn't supposed to bring a baby as a 3rd guest."


----------



## Luanne

Ty1on said:


> So you check into the resort with the baby once, and you are supposed to know that you can't check into the resort with a baby this time?  That's yet another point of contention for me.  It also kills all the "He knew he wasn't supposed to bring a baby as a 3rd guest."



My question would be, was it the same unit size both times?


----------



## jc92869

Luanne said:


> My question would be, was it the same unit size both times?


Yes. Studio both times. At no point during either check in did we hide or disguise or try to  avoid detection of our baby. 

I don't bring up the previous check in as a "you let us the,  why not now"  type of comment. Just thought it was relevant to the conversation.

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## Luanne

jc92869 said:


> Yes. Studio both times. At no point during either check in did we hide or disguise or try to  avoid detection of our baby.
> 
> I don't bring up the previous check in as a "you let us the,  why not now"  type of comment. Just thought it was relevant to the conversation.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk



Thanks for answering.

That really is strange then. Wonder what happened between your last stay and this one.


----------



## taterhed

It's the McDonxalds rule:  conformity.

 Don't give them more fries this time/less fries next time.  Always give them the same amount of fries.

 I will say:  selective enforcement (on any of a wide range of reasons--age, sex, color etc...) will ALWAYS get you in trouble.

 Jm2c


----------



## Ken555

jc92869 said:


> Yes. Studio both times. At no point during either check in did we hide or disguise or try to  avoid detection of our baby.
> 
> I don't bring up the previous check in as a "you let us the,  why not now"  type of comment. Just thought it was relevant to the conversation.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk




I would think this is an issue not to ignore. Selective enforcement is a problem for businesses on many levels.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## tschwa2

jc92869 said:


> Yes. Studio both times. At no point during either check in did we hide or disguise or try to  avoid detection of our baby.
> 
> I don't bring up the previous check in as a "you let us the,  why not now"  type of comment. Just thought it was relevant to the conversation.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk



Which resort?  It's possible that during early December-March when the resort is not at capacity they may be able to accommodate.  On the other hand when the resort is at 100% capacity with most using the full capacity there may be a no exception to max occupancy.    Some resorts also have multiple size studios with some having a 2/2 capacity and others at 4/2.  

The same goes for the plane and restaurant reservations.  If you are booking during holiday time and the expected capacity is at 100%, I think it would be best to mention and have them note in your restaurant or plane reservation that you will be traveling or dining with a small child.  I know for international flights you need to make a reservation for a lap child even if you are not paying for a seat.


----------



## DeniseM

Luanne said:


> Thanks for answering.
> 
> That really is strange then. Wonder what happened between your last stay and this one.



Easy - it's just the difference in enforcement.  One front desk clerk enforces the rules and another doesn't.  Happens all the time.  That's why you can't rely on a phone call if you are asking for an exception to the rules - you need it in writing.


----------



## vacationhopeful

Luanne said:


> <snip>Wonder what happened between your last stay and this one.



Any number of things from a new manager, a fire code official visit, different staff on duty at checkin, training performed or even an incident at the resort etc.

I know I have had occupancy issues CHANGED on me over the years ... one town goes by state fire code on bedroom square footage while the county welfare & local HUD office follows occupancy on Federal subsidy allowances due to a "housing shortage" but an overlapping regional area Federal housing group follows each bedroom can have 2 occupants.

So the same 2 bedroom apartment could have a limit of 3 in the town that follows the state fire code; a limit of 4 on the overlapping regional area Federal housing group; a limit of 6 by the county welfare and the local HUD office.


----------



## Egret1986

*I think it would be no harm to name the resort.*



jc92869 said:


> Op here. The feeling of humiliation did not come from what happened, but rather of how it happened. It's because of the way we were talked to, the way we were treated.
> 
> There's nothing tangible that  was said or done, but as an adult you have a sense of when you are being talked down to. There was no compassion or hospitality, just a "you need to leave" attitude.
> 
> The way things were phrased, the tone in the voice, the suggestions that we knew the rules and were purposefully and knowingly trying to buck the system. The  smug way in the which they told us they already had  a long waiting list waiting to pay top dollar for that unit.
> 
> I'd be disingenuous  if i said i didn't know what max occupancy rules are. We all do.   I guess as  a new family we didn't realize babies counted as a whole person.
> 
> As I type this I realize what a dumb assumption that is, but I just think of other  situations; When you go to a restaurant you don't make a reservation for three people, at  themeparks you don't pay for three tickets,  airlines don't  charge for three seats etc.
> 
> There was no malice or wanton disregard for rules, we  were just a new family checking into a resort. The same way we have checked into other resorts (including that same exact resort just  six months earlier, and yes, with the same baby).
> 
> Rules are rules. We get it, I'm not arguing that at all , that's why we left. But it still left a really bad taste.
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk




I, too, thought that it was SCBC.  I know it is one of the resorts that has a 1-in-4 rule with RCI.  So, you couldn't have visited SCBC twice in the last six months.

The manager's deficiency in handling the situation and the lack of consistency in enforcing the occupancy limit would be upsetting to me also.

The manager's mention of the waiting list was not necessary, and should have had no place in the situation that you faced.  Perhaps, since he felt the need to mention it, that was a motivating factor in enforcing the occupancy limit.  It was very poorly handled.  Yes, he had the right to enforce it, but it should have been handled more appropriately and consistently.


----------



## rapmarks

Ty1on said:


> But it really is that complicated, and this black or white mob mentality is exactly why protected classes exist.  Discrimination is often committed in nuance.



12 people in a max 6 timeshare is a protected class and we are a mob?


----------



## bnoble

Ty1on said:


> He doesn't need to.  The Unruh Civil Rights Act applies to all businesses.


That's not what that argument was based on, unless I misunderstood it.  That argument seems to build on fair housing statutes that define the occupancy of a residential unit, and applying it to a timeshare.

Your argument seems to be that occupancy limits, in and of themselves, somehow infringe on an Unruh protected class. I don't see how, because the occupants can be any age (or sex, or race, or...) at all, as long as there are no more than N of them. But, perhaps I'm just not inventive enough.


----------



## Ty1on

bnoble said:


> That's not what that argument was based on, unless I misunderstood it.  That argument seems to build on fair housing statutes that define the occupancy of a residential unit, and applying it to a timeshare.
> 
> Your argument seems to be that occupancy limits, in and of themselves, somehow infringe on an Unruh protected class. I don't see how, because the occupants can be any age (or sex, or race, or...) at all, as long as there are no more than N of them. But, perhaps I'm just not inventive enough.



Read the very early post (#4?) where I pasted a discussion of Unruh that I got from a Cal .gov page.  According to the site, Unruh has been used to interpret matters like this one precisely because the fair housing act is too limited in scope, where Unruh is not.


----------



## rapmarks

I have a lot of sympathy for the poster, and I think it is a good warning that an infant will count in the occupancy total.  
you know it is possible to book a year out, be due in August, and have the baby early, and suddenly you can't use the unit.  I know this poster didn't have the same situation, but that would be a tough situation to be in.


----------



## VegasBella

jc92869 said:


> I've never had any place count a baby as a whole person.  Even the evil airlines still  grant leniency towards children less than two.



I just want to point out, because no one else has yet, that the airlines only let children under the age of 2 fly free _if the parents/guardians are willing to risk the child's safety_ by having the child fly as a "lap child." If you want to protect your child from the dangers of turbulence then you buy a seat for the child and bring an airline approved carseat. 

The FAA says:

_"Did you know that the safest place for your child on an airplane is in a government-approved child safety restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap? Your arms aren't capable of holding your child securely, especially during unexpected turbulence.

*The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) strongly urges you to secure your child in a CRS or device for the duration of your flight*. It's the smart and right thing to do so that everyone in your family arrives safely at your destination."_ 

http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/

Here is another in-depth article as to why it's a better option to buy your baby or toddler his or her own seat and have them ride in a carseat: http://thecarseatlady.com/airplanes/

Similarly, the current mainstream recommendations from pediatricians is to have infants sleep separately from their parents in a crib or bassinet. This sleeping arrangement requires extra space and can easily make a hotel room or studio unit too cramped for fire safety. (Personally, I actually think an infant poses a bigger risk in a fire than a young child because of the furniture issue. A young child can share the bed or sleep on a sofa or floor and not require any extra physical barriers in the way during an emergency evacuation. Plus the child can walk or run out themselves whereas the baby must be carried.)

The American Academy of Pediatrics says:

"*The safest place for your baby to sleep is in the room where you sleep, but not in your bed.* Place the baby’s crib or bassinet near your bed (within arm’s reach). This makes it easier to breastfeed and to bond with your baby.

The crib or bassinet should be free from toys, soft bedding, blankets, and pillows"

http://www.healthychildcare.org/PDF/SIDSparentsafesleep.pdf

More detailed info about safe sleep practices: http://pediatrics.aappublications.o...full?sid=3b72accb-6cf5-4999-af68-8aa507db8e12


I want to say, I have sympathy for the OP here because of the lack of respect and hassle they experienced. That said, I think the best policy is to always count an infant as a person for these types of situations.


----------



## akdrc

A few years ago we stayed at a Disney property in a 4 person room with a fifth person being an infant.  The price difference for another bedroom was not insignificant for a 7 night stay.  When we were checking I acquired a crib for and made no secret we had an infant in relation to our other two children.  They checked us in and there was no issue.  

Reading the OP's issue, I am happy it did not happen to me.  I never thought it could have been a real issue at the time - just add a crib, what's the big deal?  How naive I was almost 7 years ago...   I think Disney would have worked to accommodate us if they did not want us in the room, but it would have been a painful bump - particularly if we had to move to another resort and or pay a lot more money.

Being a parent, I feel for the OP.  I am grateful (and maybe? lucky) it did not happen to us.  I guess it's true, "A person is a person no matter how small."


----------



## jc92869

akdrc said:


> A few years ago we stayed at a Disney property in a 4 person room with a fifth person being an infant.  The price difference for another bedroom was not insignificant for a 7 night stay.  When we were checking I acquired a crib for and made no secret we had an infant in relation to our other two children.  They checked us in and there was no issue.
> 
> Reading the OP's issue, I am happy it did not happen to me.  I never thought it could have been a real issue at the time - just add a crib, what's the big deal?  How naive I was almost 7 years ago...   I think Disney would have worked to accommodate us if they did not want us in the room, but it would have been a painful bump - particularly if we had to move to another resort and or pay a lot more money.
> 
> Being a parent, I feel for the OP.  I am grateful (and maybe? lucky) it did not happen to us.  I guess it's true, "A person is a person no matter how small."


For some of us accustomed to resorts, it's an easy fix- get a bigger unit. But what about checking into a hotel? Some hotel rooms are way smaller than any resort studio I've ever stayed at. So does this mean we now have to  book two rooms??  

The law makes sense, but  that  does not  stop it from being stupid.

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## Passepartout

Auto-correct typo solved. Some of them are hilarious!


----------



## jc92869

Passepartout said:


> What's a "girl room"? I didn't think they came in genders. Who knew?


  my phone auto corrected hotel to girl.   

Ahhh the  slowly dying art of proofreading.

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## bnoble

Ty1on said:


> Read the very early post (#4?) where I pasted a discussion of Unruh that I got from a Cal .gov page.  According to the site, Unruh has been used to interpret matters like this one precisely because the fair housing act is too limited in scope, where Unruh is not.



I did read it. You do recognize that people can read what you write and still disagree with it, yes?

My opinion is that your interpretation could be charitably described as "a stretch," because I do not see how you go from occupancy limits to discriminating against a protected class. But, you clearly believe that somehow it is possible.  More power to you.


----------



## Ty1on

bnoble said:


> I did read it. You do recognize that people can read what you write and still disagree with it, yes?
> 
> My opinion is that your interpretation could be charitably described as "a stretch," because I do not see how you go from occupancy limits to discriminating against a protected class. But, you clearly believe that somehow it is possible.  More power to you.



Not an argument.  You mentioned that you thought we were talking about fair housing, and I clarified it.


----------



## SueDonJ

akdrc said:


> A few years ago we stayed at a Disney property in a 4 person room with a fifth person being an infant.  The price difference for another bedroom was not insignificant for a 7 night stay.  When we were checking I acquired a crib for and made no secret we had an infant in relation to our other two children.  They checked us in and there was no issue.
> 
> Reading the OP's issue, I am happy it did not happen to me.  I never thought it could have been a real issue at the time - just add a crib, what's the big deal?  How naive I was almost 7 years ago...   I think Disney would have worked to accommodate us if they did not want us in the room, but it would have been a painful bump - particularly if we had to move to another resort and or pay a lot more money.
> 
> Being a parent, I feel for the OP.  I am grateful (and maybe? lucky) it did not happen to us.  I guess it's true, "A person is a person no matter how small."



Disney's official policy in their hotels and timeshares is that an infant can be added to the stated max occupancy figures.  That's an example of what it appears the OP's expectations are with every lodging facility, but as we're learning it's not an industry standard.


----------



## sjsharkie

jc92869 said:


> Op here. The feeling of humiliation did not come from what happened, but rather of how it happened. It's because of the way we were talked to, the way we were treated.
> 
> There's nothing tangible that  was said or done, but as an adult you have a sense of when you are being talked down to. There was no compassion or hospitality, just a "you need to leave" attitude.
> 
> The way things were phrased, the tone in the voice, the suggestions that we knew the rules and were purposefully and knowingly trying to buck the system. The  smug way in the which they told us they already had  a long waiting list waiting to pay top dollar for that unit.
> 
> I'd be disingenuous  if i said i didn't know what max occupancy rules are. We all do.   I guess as  a new family we didn't realize babies counted as a whole person.
> 
> As I type this I realize what a dumb assumption that is, but I just think of other  situations; When you go to a restaurant you don't make a reservation for three people, at  themeparks you don't pay for three tickets,  airlines don't  charge for three seats etc.
> 
> There was no malice or wanton disregard for rules, we  were just a new family checking into a resort. The same way we have checked into other resorts (including that same exact resort just  six months earlier, and yes, with the same baby).
> 
> Rules are rules. We get it, I'm not arguing that at all , that's why we left. But it still left a really bad taste.


I agree with you that the situation was handled badly by the resort.  I really do feel for you, as I believe most hotels/resorts would not have an issue with your situation.  As you point out, the resort had every right to enforce the occupancy limit, but I think it is poor business practice to do so in this instance.  6 rowdy teens on spring break in a studio is different from 2 parents and a baby -- management should exercise more judgement with respect to their actions IMHO.

I travel with 3 kids and the wife, and 5 is always a tough call.  We always try to get a 2BR, but my 18 mos. old twins sleep in cribs.  It simply does not make sense to split us up into 2 separate rooms in a hotel situation so I totally understand what you did.

This has been discussed before -- the same arguments around fire code, safety, yada yada yada come up -- it makes me want to throw up.  I think you'll find in most cases if you are well-behaved group on vacation squeezing in an infant to a full capacity room, most resorts will not have a problem with it.

-ryan


----------



## csxjohn

When occupancy limits have been discussed here in the past the advice I remember seeing is that if you are going to intentionally break the rules or don't know for sure, have one person check in and leave the others outside.

Put your name and the baby's name as the guests and go from there.

My advice has always been to call about anything you are not positive about and if you want to try to check in 9 peeps where only 8 are permitted, be sneaky about it.


----------



## Ty1on

csxjohn said:


> When occupancy limits have been discussed here in the past the advice I remember seeing is that if you are going to intentionally break the rules or don't know for sure, have one person check in and leave the others outside.
> 
> Put your name and the baby's name as the guests and go from there.
> 
> My advice has always been to call about anything you are not positive about and if you want to try to check in 9 peeps where only 8 are permitted, be sneaky about it.



What if you have just recently checked into a studio at that resort with your infant with no issues?  Should you call and verify every time you reserve?


----------



## vacationhopeful

I find it interesting that this was booked a year in advance (baby was a KNOWN project at that time) .. such a GREAT RCI find .. but in a later post, comments they had stayed there between booking the Studio and checking into the studio ... but also staying with the baby that time.

Maybe the resort "recognized" these guests and there were _other_ prior issues. 

As a side note ... July 4th weeks do have the HIGHEST occupancy rates at ANY beach resort (and most other summer weeks). If I was the resort manager, I would have given my front desk & housekeeping staff a reminder course ON OCCUPANCY LIMITs for the units and reviewed the procedures beforehand.

Additional, the personnel on duty at the time of checkin may NOT have had a supervisor to "call the shots" right there. Lunch break, bathroom break, onsite for another issue...and the clerk handed off the situation in a timely manner. They might have needed to review or call another manager (and definitely, the resort did call RCI to handle the issue).


----------



## Bucky

Ty1on said:


> You're making a leap to assumption that the OP "clearly knew" of the occupancy rule, unless you were involved in his reserving the exchange.  Others are making an assumption that the two-person occupancy is driven by fire code, not resort policy.  Unit occupancy isn't ONLY dictated by fire code.
> 
> "Keep your baby quiet" is a very discriminatory thing for the front desk staff to have said, and coupled with the fact that they checked him in and then yanked the rug, could possibly give him a case for complaint.
> 
> And for you other hall monitors, I still feel that if he was breaking occupancy, they should not have checked him in.  To check him in and then have RCI evict him was spineless and humiliating.
> 
> I would like to see a case like this hit DFEH.  I realize none of you have an infant child, and neither do I, but a little empathy can go a long way.



[Deleted.]  [W]hen you book an exchange through RCI, it is clearly disclosed what the maximum occupancy is. If you choose to ignore the rules, pay the price. I think RCI went out of their way to accommodate these people. The world has enough litigious people in it already.


----------



## Tank

We have 5 in our family. We were traveling home, (its  1 AM)  time to stop driving for the night. Pull into a hotel, ask for a room, ok, how many, 5, you need 2 rooms for 5.

We went across the street. Rules are rules, I get it now.

The number now is always 4, I am the only one signing in.  I'll except the chance taken my room away if the fire marshal shows up at my door. We just need to sleep.

(honestly do I feel I put it to the hotel chain ? No I don't, I slept well, much better I'm sure than if I knew I was paying for 2 rooms for 6 hours of sleep)

Recently went on a trip west on the other hand using points for stays driving up the coast. 
I did reserve 2 rooms a night for fear of  5 people, and no place to go.

If I had a toddler though I would not have. Once checked in you can come and go, just don't ask for a crib or have the hole family signing in. 

Though I am fully aware of my risk taken, and consequences it can have, this is what works only for me and do not recommend taking chances unless you are fully aware  , and ready to accept the consequences.


----------



## riverdees05

Many times the occupancy limit is due to fire and life safety codes.  Not sure if this is the case, but if it said 2 people, I would call if I had a third, even if it was a little person.


----------



## csxjohn

Ty1on said:


> What if you have just recently checked into a studio at that resort with your infant with no issues?  Should you call and verify every time you reserve?



Absolutely! You cannot assume that what was allowed in the past will be allowed in the future.

If the stated occupancy is two and I want to bring a third, I would call.  It sure beats seeking legal recourse.


----------



## Saintsfanfl

I cannot bare to read all the posts but still wish to throw in my 2 cents. This might vary by location but  occupancy disclosure limits for a rented room are primarily or solely to make the person aware of the limits. They then assume the liability for exceeding the limit. I have never heard of a hotel being fined because someone in the rented room exceeded the limits.

I have extensive experience openly exceeding the occupancy limits and this dates back to when I was a toddler. We do not announce how many will be in the room but never once have we ever had a problem. Not even one mention of it. These days we generally do not exceed due to the space in timeshares but when we are on the road we sure exceed it.

Has anyone ever heard of code enforcement knocking on hotel or resort doors and checking for occupancy? The disclosure sign is what is required by the code.

The resort was simply enforcing it's own policy. I have heard of it being done to spring breakers on a trip who greatly exceeded occupancy. This is the first I have ever heard of it being done to a one year old. The toddler isn't even old enough to sleep in a bed. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Saintsfanfl

I am looking over the laws governing evicting guests from a hotel room. Right now the only state I see that specifically allows eviction due to occupancy is Kansas. The others may fall under the general reason of "violating federal, state, or local hotel laws or regulations" but I seriously doubt the OP's case would have been a legal eviction. Since the OP left voluntarily then it wasn't an actual eviction.

I recently asked a hotel in St Augustine Florida how many I can put in an off site cottage. Online it would only allow two but there is a couch downstairs. They told me I could put however many I could fit and I was welcome to bring blow up mattresses. We did not end up renting it but it just explains the complete lack of occupancy enforcement everywhere I have ever been. Obviously this is extreme and not the answer I would get other places.

Keep in mind there are different actual laws governing a hotel stay versus an owned timeshare stay. It would be extremely difficult to evict an owner staying in their own deeded property. In the OP's case they were the renter and RCI the landlord, but RCI may also be subletting depending on how they legally control the unit in question.


----------



## Ty1on

Bucky said:


> [Deleted] when you book an exchange through RCI, it is clearly disclosed what the maximum occupancy is. If you choose to ignore the rules, pay the price. I think RCI went out of their way to accommodate these people. The world has enough litigious people in it already.



You know what, I've held this debate without insulting [deleted].

None of us give a crap about the rights of others until our own have been trampled.

As far as "Enforcing a rule is not discrimination," SELECTIVE enforcement is PRECISELY how discrimination works.  No one hangs a sign on their restaurant window saying "no coloreds allowed."  They have a rule against tank tops on men.  African American shows up in a tank top and Flo points at the sign and asks him to leave.  You come back a week later and Jeb is sitting at the counter in his wifebeater, Flo leaning over the counter and chatting with him.

If you don't think this kind of stuff still happens, you live in a jaded world.

[Deleted.]


----------



## Saintsfanfl

Bucky said:


> [Deleted] when you book an exchange through RCI, it is clearly disclosed what the maximum occupancy is. If you choose to ignore the rules, pay the price. I think RCI went out of their way to accommodate these people. The world has enough litigious people in it already.



I don't have RCI but I reviewed my certificates with II and I do not see a legal statement regarding occupancy limits. It states the maximum number the unit will accommodate, which always coincides with the number it can sleep in beds. If occupancy limits were important then certainly it would state it on the certificate. Many other things are stated. Letting an exchanger know how many the unit will sleep in beds is not the same thing as disclosing the occupancy limit and warning them of the consequences of exceeding it.

Maybe it is there and I am just not seeing it.


----------



## TTom

*Sometimes...*

I will say that, in certain cases, I have seen resort descriptions (on RCI?) where it clearly states that occupancy limits will be strictly enforced. If that is the case, it should not be such a hardship on the resort to clearly state their policy.

All the rest is pretty much a crap shoot.

Can they do it? Yeah
Should they? Maybe
Should it piss you off? Maybe
Can you avoid it by asking? Likely!!
Should it piss you off if you do it and get burned? Probably not.

To play devil's advocate, if I were to violate occupancy requirements covertly and a catastrophe happened and my "extra" was hurt or killed, would I have legitimate cause to blame the hotel/resort and sue them for damages? I'm going to assume that, if I did this overtly, with the concurrence of the resort, they would certainly be liable; if I do it under the covers, I would have to think it is my responsibility, not theirs.

Many people seem to want to have it both ways, violating the rules because they are the ones being croweded or inconvenienced by their own choice, but holding their hosts responsible should something go wrong.

Not sure I know the correct answer, except to say that it's probably better to be up front and open in advance.

Tom


----------



## geekette

Ty1on said:


> You're making a leap to assumption that the OP "clearly knew" of the occupancy rule, unless you were involved in his reserving the exchange.  Others are making an assumption that the two-person occupancy is driven by fire code, not resort policy.  Unit occupancy isn't ONLY dictated by fire code.
> 
> "Keep your baby quiet" is a very discriminatory thing for the front desk staff to have said, and coupled with the fact that they checked him in and then yanked the rug, could possibly give him a case for complaint.
> 
> And for you other hall monitors, I still feel that if he was breaking occupancy, they should not have checked him in.  To check him in and then have RCI evict him was spineless and humiliating.
> 
> I would like to see a case like this hit DFEH.  I realize none of you have an infant child, and neither do I, but a little empathy can go a long way.


Every exchange confirmation clearly states Max Occupancy.  Absolutely, OP KNEW the limit.  This has nothing to do with having a child, it has to do with being a party of 3 where only a party of 2 is allowed.  

It doesn't matter how the occupancy limit comes to be, it is A Limit.  Yeah, they shouldn't have checked him in, they were spineless.  So what?


----------



## Ty1on

geekette said:


> Every exchange confirmation clearly states Max Occupancy.  Absolutely, OP KNEW the limit.  This has nothing to do with having a child, it has to do with being a party of 3 where only a party of 2 is allowed.
> 
> It doesn't matter how the occupancy limit comes to be, it is A Limit.  Yeah, they shouldn't have checked him in, they were spineless.  So what?



See SaintsFan's (poor guy) and TTom's responses above.  Occupancy limit so often regards how many bedspaces there are that the ones who are strict about it should post that they are strictly enforced, and even whether young children count as occupants or not.  I have seen this disclaimer on enough exchange listings to believe that it isn't too much to ask of the resort.

Furthermore, OP had stayed in that resort before with no issues.  With the infant.  in a Studio.

Let's forget about the whole family thing for a minute.  Do you think it's right for a resort to waive the rule (without telling the guest the rule is there and being waived, btw) one time, but then the next time, when that room has cash rental value over a holiday week, decide to enforce it by evicting the same guest?


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> ... None of us give a crap about the rights of others until our own have been trampled. ...



Respectfully, that's not a fair assessment of what those of us who disagree with the OP's premise are saying.  Some of us simply don't see that anybody has a right/entitlement to ignore the stated occupancy limits.

I like when hotels/resorts enforce limits because it makes for a miserable stay when facilities/amenities are overloaded.  If they're able to relax the rules on a situational basis - i.e. when it can be done without causing discomfort to other guests - I'm okay with that.

All this thread proves to me is that some people think the stated limits are there to be ignored or challenged for any number of reasons, and that hotels/resorts should NEVER allow exceptions because they'll come back to bite them every time.


----------



## Passepartout

*A humorous- but slightly off topic story*

Waaay back, about 35ish years ago, I was a poor trucker. Working for a moving company, I'd just transitioned into moving trade shows from household goods. I had a show to move into Jacob Javits Convention center in NYC. I  those days, movers who brought an exhibit in, would wait during the show, help out with extra product, cleaning, etc. during the show, then wrap it up and take it back to the booth builder after the show.

So, picture this, about 20 or more semi-trucks parked down the middle of streets in mid-town. We were pretty much on our own nickel, so several of us would rent one hotel room with 2 beds, have the maids bring a huge stack of towels and blankets. Then we'd take the beds apart. Some guys would sleep on the mattresses on the floor, and some on the box springs. Most of us slept in our sleepers, or made a bed out of furniture pads in the trailer. Who knew how many would (serially) use the shower. 

Hence, the occupancy rules. A person is a person, regardless of size or age.

Forgive the 'war story' if it's too far off topic.

Jim


----------



## Saintsfanfl

geekette said:


> Every exchange confirmation clearly states Max Occupancy.



Not on mine but then again I don't have RCI. Again how many the unit will accommodate in beds does not mean max occupancy. There are resorts and hotels that will allow a roll-away bed or a pack-n-play that will then exceed the existing stated bed spaces. Marriott resorts for example offer pack-n-plays to guests based on request. The pack-n-play then adds an additional sleeping area for an infant. Marriott Vacation Club would never in a million years ask a guest to leave because they have a baby that supposedly exceeds the capacity.


----------



## Ty1on

SueDonJ said:


> Respectfully, that's not a fair assessment of what those of us who disagree with the OP's premise are saying.  Some of us simply don't see that anybody has a right/entitlement to ignore the stated occupancy limits.
> 
> I like when hotels/resorts enforce limits because it makes for a miserable stay when facilities/amenities are overloaded.  If they're able to relax the rules on a situational basis - i.e. when it can be done without causing discomfort to other guests - I'm okay with that.
> 
> All this thread proves to me is that some people think the stated limits are there to be ignored or challenged for any number of reasons, and that hotels/resorts should NEVER allow exceptions because they'll come back to bite them every time.



Do you think an 8 month old baby creates an overload situation?  When our children were infants, we either borrowed (or rented) a crib from the hotel, brought along a travel crib, or they slept with us on the bed.  The first two options took up 6 sqft of floor space, and the third no space at all.  They don't take up a lounger at the pool.  Strollers can be a pain, but no more a pain than if you forced the guest to pay extra money for the space of a 1 BR with Sleeper that she had absolutely no need for.

Most businesses, including airlines, see a child 2 and under as an attachment of the parent.  There is good reason for this--the child is held, handheld, or pushed in a stroller by a parent.  Now, irresponsible parents who let there two year old wander all over the place and terrorize the planet are a different matter entirely.


----------



## Ty1on

Passepartout said:


> Waaay back, about 35ish years ago, I was a poor trucker. Working for a moving company, I'd just transitioned into moving trade shows from household goods. I had a show to move into Jacob Javits Convention center in NYC. I  those days, movers who brought an exhibit in, would wait during the show, help out with extra product, cleaning, etc. during the show, then wrap it up and take it back to the booth builder after the show.
> 
> So, picture this, about 20 or more semi-trucks parked down the middle of streets in mid-town. We were pretty much on our own nickel, so several of us would rent one hotel room with 2 beds, have the maids bring a huge stack of towels and blankets. Then we'd take the beds apart. Some guys would sleep on the mattresses on the floor, and some on the box springs. Most of us slept in our sleepers, or made a bed out of furniture pads in the trailer. Who knew how many would (serially) use the shower.
> 
> Hence, the occupancy rules. A person is a person, regardless of size or age.
> 
> Forgive the 'war story' if it's too far off topic.
> 
> Jim



To analogize a couple in a studio with an infant with cramming 6 truckers into a midtown hotel room is comical.


----------



## ace2000

This thread seems to be on a _bridge to nowhere_...


----------



## Saintsfanfl

ace2000 said:


> This thread seems to be on a "bridge to nowhere"...



It's quite ridiculous.

If it really was legally based in most places then you would see fairly consistent enforcement. It is the extreme opposite.


----------



## ace2000

Saintsfanfl said:


> It's quite ridiculous.
> 
> If it really was legally based in most places then you would see fairly consistent enforcement. It is the extreme opposite.



I'm looking at it as just a fun discussion, I'm not really gaining much from it.  

But, are you saying that a resort cannot legally enforce their occupancy restrictions?


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> Do you think an 8 month old baby creates an overload situation?  When our children were infants, we either borrowed (or rented) a crib from the hotel, brought along a travel crib, or they slept with us on the bed.  The first two options took up 6 sqft of floor space, and the third no space at all.  They don't take up a lounger at the pool.  Strollers can be a pain, but no more a pain than if you forced the guest to pay extra money for the space of a 1 BR with Sleeper that she had absolutely no need for.
> 
> Most businesses, including airlines, see a child 2 and under as an attachment of the parent.  There is good reason for this--the child is held, handheld, or pushed in a stroller by a parent.  Now, irresponsible parents who let there two year old wander all over the place and terrorize the planet are a different matter entirely.



My point is, it doesn't matter how I think babies should or shouldn't be counted, or how you do, or how the OP does, or how The Man In The Moon does.  What matters is how the lodging vendor counts all guests including babies, and how any specific vendors account for their own occupancy limits.

I wouldn't expect to be able to step into a hotel/resort and tell them that their restaurants must remain open until 2AM when the sign says they close at 11PM, or that they need to provide me with a car service at no charge when the sign says it's available for a fee, or that they must provide a lifeguard at their pool when the sign says we swim at our own risk.  They make the rules, not me, and if they want to count babies as persons for occupancy limits, it's on me to find that out in advance of bringing a baby-makes-three when I'm holding a confirmation that says occupancy is 2.  Every time.


----------



## Ty1on

ace2000 said:


> I'm looking at it as just a fun discussion, I'm not really gaining much from it.
> 
> But, are you saying that a resort cannot legally enforce their occupancy restrictions?



What he means is that if occupancy limits were driven by code enforcement instead of resort discretion, you would see more consistency between resorts.  The fact that you can have resorts next door to one another with different occupancy limits for the same square feet defeats the argument that they are just adhering to laws.


----------



## raygo123

Everyone here bought into your system.  I only know Wyndham, it is stated clearly what the occupancy is
When u book, and I have seen resorts go after violater's.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ty1on

SueDonJ said:


> My point is, it doesn't matter how I think babies should or shouldn't be counted, or how you do, or how the OP does, or how The Man In The Moon does.  What matters is how the lodging vendor counts all guests including babies, and how any specific vendors account for their own occupancy limits.
> 
> I wouldn't expect to be able to step into a hotel/resort and tell them that their restaurants must remain open until 2AM when the sign says they close at 11PM, or that they need to provide me with a car service at no charge when the sign says it's available for a fee, or that they must provide a lifeguard at their pool when the sign says we swim at our own risk.  They make the rules, not me, and if they want to count babies as persons for occupancy limits, it's on me to find that out in advance of bringing a baby-makes-three when I'm holding a confirmation that says occupancy is 2.  Every time.



And my position from the beginning is that some courts and govt organizations might care how babies are or are not counted, if it appears that there is a possibility of arbitrary enforcement that may point toward discrimination.  To use your analogy, if a resort chooses to waive the fee for white guests but not black ones, there is going to be a problem.  If a resort tells a couple to keep their baby quiet at check-in, then immediately calls RCI to evict them, I see a potential problem.

What do you think would happen if a resort refused a gay couple.  Do you think it's their right as a resort?


----------



## ace2000

Ty1on said:


> What do you think would happen if a resort refused a gay couple.  Do you think it's their right as a resort?



Using your logic here...  If the resort allowed 3 gay people to share a room once, and then all of a sudden the same resort chooses to enforce the 2 person limit, then that constitutes a legal challenge!  Seriously, that's almost exactly what you've been saying.


----------



## Saintsfanfl

ace2000 said:


> But, are you saying that a resort cannot legally enforce their occupancy restrictions?



I am saying that may be a possibility in some areas and in some circumstances. I am having a very difficult time finding anything referencing evicting guests solely due to exceeding the occupancy limits, in this case exceeding by 1 due to an infant. 

Here is a great write up on evicting guests in California.
{http://www.calodging.com/images/uploads/pdfs/ABCsOfEvictingGuests.pdf}

No where does it mention occupancy limits. It is reasonable to assume that it could fall under "Violation of Hotel Rules", but that section is very clear on the need to inform the guest of expressed rules, before they check-in. In the case of the OP the fact that they were openly allowed to bring their baby in the past may have set a precedent for the guest not knowing.



> However, if an hotelier experiences trouble with guests who claim that they were not aware of the innkeeper’s rules and regulations and, therefore, cannot be evicted for violating them, it would be wise to post them at the front desk.



The legally required occupancy limit disclosure in the room would not count as informing a guest because they have to already be checked in to even see it. I agree that when you book online it is usually stated but the majority of the time when you ask a resort they absolutely will allot you to bring your baby.


----------



## Ty1on

ace2000 said:


> Using your logic here...  If the resort allowed 3 gay people to share a room once, and then all of a sudden the same resort chooses to enforce the 2 person limit, then that constitutes a legal challenge!  Seriously, that's almost exactly what you've been saying.



If the resort had allowed the three gay people a room on a prior visit, but on this visit told them not to act gay and then called RCI immediately to evict them, I assure you there would be a legal challenge.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> And my position from the beginning is that some courts and govt organizations might care how babies are or are not counted, if it appears that there is a possibility of arbitrary enforcement that may point toward discrimination.  To use your analogy, if a resort chooses to waive the fee for white guests but not black ones, there is going to be a problem.  If a resort tells a couple to keep their baby quiet at check-in, then immediately calls RCI to evict them, I see a potential problem.
> 
> What do you think would happen if a resort refused a gay couple.  Do you think it's their right as a resort?



No, I don't.  I agree with you that discrimination is wrong but I don't agree with you that discrimination is in play here.

You're arguing the assumption that these people were evicted because of the baby but the resort used occupancy limits as an excuse.  I'm arguing the assumption that these people were evicted because they exceeded the occupancy limits.

Your assumption might prove discrimination against babies except that there is a known history of them relaxing the occupancy rules for the exact same baby during a lesser-demand period.

My assumption is that they chose to enforce the occupancy limits during a high-demand period with no exceptions thus no discrimination.


----------



## Saintsfanfl

SueDonJ said:


> No, I don't.  I agree with you that discrimination is wrong but I don't agree with you that discrimination is in play here.
> 
> You're arguing the assumption that these people were evicted because of the baby but the resort used occupancy limits as an excuse.  I'm arguing the assumption that these people were evicted because they exceeded the occupancy limits.
> 
> Your assumption might prove discrimination against babies except that there is a known history of them relaxing the occupancy rules for the exact same baby during a lesser-demand period.
> 
> My assumption is that they chose to enforce the occupancy limits during a high-demand period with no exceptions thus no discrimination.



I agree with this, but I question the legality of the eviction due to the guest not being informed. I believe this more firmly after having read the link I posted regarding hotel guest evictions in California. It is even more enforced because they were allowed to check in even though the front desk knew they were exceeding the limit. They were actually told by a hotel employee to go ahead and "sneak" the baby in the room. 

The contract was formed at check-in based on the hotel knowing and allowing the guest to exceed the occupancy of 2. The hotel then changed their mind 20 minutes later but you cannot just arbitrarily decide to change your mind on a contract. The resort probably wouldn't admit to allowing it and then changing their mind but it would then still fall back to whether the guest was clearly informed.

Since the vast majority of hotels and resorts will allow a baby to exceed stated occupancy it becomes important for it to be very clear to the guest in cases where it is not going to be allowed. How many couples travel with a baby and stay in a room with an occupancy of 2? It happens thousands of times every day. 99.9% of the hotels out there will openly allow it.


----------



## presley

This thread is a trip. We won't need a vacation if it keeps going.


----------



## geekette

Ty1on said:


> See SaintsFan's (poor guy) and TTom's responses above.  Occupancy limit so often regards how many bedspaces there are that the ones who are strict about it should post that they are strictly enforced, and even whether young children count as occupants or not.  I have seen this disclaimer on enough exchange listings to believe that it isn't too much to ask of the resort.
> 
> Furthermore, OP had stayed in that resort before with no issues.  With the infant.  in a Studio.
> 
> Let's forget about the whole family thing for a minute.  Do you think it's right for a resort to waive the rule (without telling the guest the rule is there and being waived, btw) one time, but then the next time, when that room has cash rental value over a holiday week, decide to enforce it by evicting the same guest?



You are incorrect.  There are 2 numbers, first is private sleeping (as in bedroom), second number is MAX OCCUPANCY.  Max is higher than private as persons could be on a sleeper sofa.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> If the resort had allowed the three gay people a room on a prior visit, but on this visit told them not to act gay and then called RCI immediately to evict them, I assure you there would be a legal challenge.



What if they were told they'd be allowed to spend the night while the resort staff contacted RCI because it was an RCI booking, and were told to keep quiet so that other guests wouldn't report them during the night which would force the staff to evict them immediately?

We don't know the context of the comments made by the front desk staff re the crying baby but the OP does say that the manager, "let us stay for at least the night of check in."

We also don't know if the resort's policy is to allow exceptions for infants up to 12-months-old and enforce restrictions for any person older than that.  The OP says that the baby was allowed during a visit six months previously but was "1 year old" for this visit.


----------



## Ty1on

geekette said:


> You are incorrect.  There are 2 numbers, first is private sleeping (as in bedroom), second number is MAX OCCUPANCY.  Max is higher than private as persons could be on a sleeper sofa.



The first number, actually, is the number of sleeping spaces available in the unit, and the second number is the number of private sleeping spaces.


----------



## Passepartout

Ty1on said:


> If the resort had allowed the three gay people a room on a prior visit, but on this visit told them not to act gay and then called RCI immediately to evict them, I assure you there would be a legal challenge.



What do you mean by 'act gay'? In a room with max occupancy of 2, it would be the choice of the occupant/renter whether one would leave, or if the group would leave together. But the sexual orientation of the guests is of no concern or business of the innkeeper- that would be discrimination.


----------



## Ty1on

Passepartout said:


> that would be discrimination.



Ya don't say....

And the implication of "don't act gay" would be don't hold hands, embrace or kiss in public.  I'm sure you asked that question tongue in cheek.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> The first number, actually, is the number of sleeping spaces available in the unit, and the second number is the number of private sleeping spaces.



No.  For example, 2/4 means two people can be accommodated for private sleeping space in a bedroom while four people can be accommodated if the sleeper sofa in the living area is also used.


----------



## Ty1on

SueDonJ said:


> No.  For example, 2/4 means two people can be accommodated for private sleeping space in a bedroom while four people can be accommodated if the sleeper sofa in the living area is also used.



We're saying the same thing.  It's a measure of accommodation, not maximum occupancy.  Otherwise, resorts would have no need for rollaways.

From Dolphin's Cove on RCI for 1 Bedroom:

Sleeps: 4
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Full
Bathroom: Full

Does not mention Max Occupancy


----------



## SueDonJ

Passepartout said:


> What do you mean by 'act gay'? In a room with max occupancy of 2, it would be the choice of the occupant/renter whether one would leave, or if the group would leave together. But the sexual orientation of the guests is of no concern or business of the innkeeper- that would be discrimination.





Ty1on said:


> Ya don't say....
> 
> And the implication of "don't act gay" would be don't hold hands, embrace or kiss in public.  I'm sure you asked that question tongue in cheek.



You may have missed the point that any one of your three guests could leave the premises so that the other two would be in conformance with the max occupancy and therefore not subject to discrimination.  Thus, the baby and the mother OR the father could have stayed without exceeding the occupancy limits while still allowing the baby in the premises.

In other words, your tenuous discrimination case can't be proven unless the OP was told point-blank that babies are not allowed as guests.  The OP never said that.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> We're saying the same thing.  It's a measure of accommodation, not maximum occupancy.  Otherwise, resorts would have no need for rollaways.



We're not saying the same thing as far as your post where you disagreed with geekette about the meaning of the X/X format as it pertains to occupancy, and my post in support of her meaning.

Some resorts will allow extras in rollaways/cribs, some won't.  It's up to the guest to find out in advance if they intend to use the lodging for more people than what's stated as occupancy limits.


----------



## DeniseM

Wow - I can't believe how long this thread has gone on, on a relatively mundane topic.


----------



## TTom

*Probably missed something along the line...*

I haven't read most of this thread, so I may be going "off the rails." That having been said, if the OP was allowed to check in, with their infant/one year old clearly visible and, if NOTHING was indicated by the resort staff with regard to any potential "violation of the rules," e.g., "we have to confirm with our management or RCI" or "as long as we don't receive any complaints from our other guests" (this one is a bit dicey). then the OP was treated unfairly.

The simple matter of the OP being evicted does not provide complete context to all that happened.

Even if the OP had done the same thing previously, it is still their obligation to confirm that this is acceptable, since it is a violation of some sort (whether that is of the prevailing laws or the resort policy).

Although I am not aware of any legal precedent for considering infants as an extension of their parents, i.e., not a "person," that would be the only case I could see where the OP could claim they did not violate a rule.

Bottom line, it sounds like the OP made an assumption, no one on either side clarified the situation, an uncomfortable circumstance occurred, and there was a problem which seems to have been handled pretty badly. There's enough blame here for everyone to have a feast!

Tom


----------



## Fern Modena

I am offended by your trying to make what happened an analogy with racial discrimination or anti-gay behavior. It is about occupancy rules, _[deleted.]_

Fern



Ty1on said:


> And my position from the beginning is that some courts and govt organizations might care how babies are or are not counted, if it appears that there is a possibility of arbitrary enforcement that may point toward discrimination.  To use your analogy, if a resort chooses to waive the fee for white guests but not black ones, there is going to be a problem.  If a resort tells a couple to keep their baby quiet at check-in, then immediately calls RCI to evict them, I see a potential problem.
> 
> What do you think would happen if a resort refused a gay couple.  Do you think it's their right as a resort?


----------



## Ty1on

SueDonJ said:


> We're not saying the same thing as far as your post where you disagreed with geekette about the meaning of the X/X format as it pertains to occupancy, and my post in support of her meaning.
> 
> Some resorts will allow extras in rollaways/cribs, some won't.  It's up to the guest to find out in advance if they intend to use the lodging for more people than what's stated as occupancy limits.



The accommodation number is not a max occupancy number.  I edited my post above with this paste from RCI's Dolphin's Cove Room Details for a 1 BR:

Sleeps: 4
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Full
Bathroom: Full

Sleeps 4 and Max 4 don't mean the same thing.


----------



## Ty1on

Fern Modena said:


> I am offended by your trying to make what happened an analogy with racial discrimination or anti-gay behavior. It is about occupancy rules, [deleted]
> 
> Fern



_[Deleted - personal attack.]_

Discrimination is discrimination, and California in particularly has used the same laws to combat discrimination against families with children.  That was my original point.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> The accommodation number is not a max occupancy number.  I edited my post above with this paste from RCI's Dolphin's Cove Room Details for a 1 BR:
> 
> Sleeps: 4
> Privacy: 2
> Kitchen: Full
> Bathroom: Full
> 
> Sleeps 4 and Max 4 don't mean the same thing.



That only reinforces the premise that if a guest intends to bring more people than what's stated, it's prudent to be in contact with the resort prior to the stay or be willing to accept the responsibility for any consequences.


----------



## Ty1on

SueDonJ said:


> That only reinforces the premise that if a guest intends to bring more people than what's stated, it's prudent to be in contact with the resort prior to the stay.



Well sure, because they should be concerned whether they can find a place to sleep their 9 month old baby.

Does this sincerely make sense to you?


----------



## Passepartout

DeniseM said:


> Wow - I can't believe how long this thread has gone on, on a relatively mundane topic.



It would have lasted one short page but for one participant throwing out exceptions to simple occupancy rules.


----------



## SueDonJ

Can we please try not to equate discrimination scenarios as they're introduced here as examples, with personal offense of discrimination?  I know it's a fine line but Ty1on has IMO been doing his best to explain why he sees this as a discrimination matter.  I don't agree with his premise that this was a matter of discrimination but I do understand why he's he's introduced certain scenarios in support of the case he's trying to make.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> Well sure, because they should be concerned whether they can find a place to sleep their 9 month old baby.
> 
> Does this sincerely make sense to you?



Yes.  If it didn't make sense to me I wouldn't be arguing it so strenuously!

But again, the OP says the baby was "1 year old."  Not an infant strictly speaking, if the resort's policy is predicated on allowing infants above the occupancy limits (which we have no idea if that's the case.)


----------



## Ty1on

SueDonJ said:


> Can we please try not to equate discrimination scenarios as they're introduced here as examples, with personal offense of discrimination?  I know it's a fine line but Ty1on has IMO been doing his best to explain why he sees this as a discrimination matter.  I don't agree with his premise that this was a matter of discrimination but I do understand why he's he's introduced certain scenarios in support of the case he's trying to make.



And this all started with a suggestion that there could be a discrimination factor to this incident in California, the King of discrimination prosecution.  Then came the resort rulebook pounders.  To understand discrimination, it is very important to know that rules are _used_ to facilitate discrimination, especially when they are enforced arbitrarily.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ty1on said:


> And this all started with a suggestion that there could be a discrimination factor to this incident in California, the King of discrimination prosecution.  Then came the resort rulebook pounders.  To understand discrimination, it is very important to know that rules are _used_ to facilitate discrimination, especially when they are enforced arbitrarily.



I have a complete understanding of discrimination and how it's implemented both overtly and covertly.  I'm not disagreeing with you because I don't understand you.  IMO the same can be said by many posters in this thread.


----------



## ace2000

ronparise said:


> Maybe it wasnt the baby. It could have been either one of the two adults here that was considered the 3rd person
> 
> You or your wife could have slept in the car to bring the number down to 2



Here's the solution.  Ron's post here is the only thing that makes any sense in the entire thread...


----------



## geekette

Ty1on said:


> The accommodation number is not a max occupancy number.  I edited my post above with this paste from RCI's Dolphin's Cove Room Details for a 1 BR:
> 
> Sleeps: 4
> Privacy: 2
> Kitchen: Full
> Bathroom: Full
> 
> Sleeps 4 and Max 4 don't mean the same thing.



You might want to check with RCI for exact definitions since your interpretation is only valid with you.  

By your logic, you could pack 10 people in at a time, so long as only 4 were sleeping.  Clearly, this would be discriminatory against the conscious that get evicted when they fall unconscious, raising the Sleeping number to an intolerable amount of unconscious people in one unit.


----------



## jc92869

Saintsfanfl said:


> The resort was simply enforcing it's own policy. I have heard of it being done to spring breakers on a trip who greatly exceeded occupancy. This is the first I have ever heard of it being done to a one year old. The toddler isn't even old enough to sleep in a bed. It's ridiculous.



OP Here.
This is why the original title of the post was "kicked out of resort because of baby". Mods felt the need to change it and it's their right and i'm not fighting it, but i think that the "Baby"  IS important in this discussion.

Rules are rules - i get it, they are there for a reason, but sometimes rules don't make sense in a certain situation.  This (i believe)  is one of them. 

Remember how silly it sounded years ago when airlines started charging baggage fees?  Remember asking "What, Am  i supposed to travel without bags?" Remember the feeling that this was just another instance of corporate greed?

Sure, you could travel without  bags; buy everything you need for your trip at your destination. Sure you could pay the extra fees. Sure you could simply  just not travel.

Well  the feeling here was similar.

Sure, we could just  book two separate  rooms for my wife baby and I. Sure we could just have one of us sleep in the car. Sure we could simply not vacation as a family.- But REALLY?


----------



## geekette

jc92869 said:


> OP Here.
> This is why the original title of the post was "kicked out of resort because of baby". Mods felt the need to change it and it's their right and i'm not fighting it, but i think that the "Baby"  IS important in this discussion.
> 
> Rules are rules - i get it, they are there for a reason, but sometimes rules don't make sense in a certain situation.  This (i believe)  is one of them.
> 
> Remember how silly it sounded years ago when airlines started charging baggage fees?  Remember asking "What, Am  i supposed to travel without bags?" Remember the feeling that this was just another instance of corporate greed?
> 
> Sure, you could travel without  bags; buy everything you need for your trip at your destination. Sure you could pay the extra fees. Sure you could simply  just not travel.
> 
> Well  the feeling here was similar.
> 
> Sure, we could just  book two separate  rooms for my wife baby and I. Sure we could just have one of us sleep in the car. Sure we could simply not vacation as a family.- But REALLY?



OP, you could also get accommodations large enough for your family.

Consider the scenario of fire at the resort.  Nobody is going to be looking for more than 2 people in your room.  If that's ok with you, keep on skirting max occ rules.

Consider also when a ship goes down, they don't say 1800 adult souls lost and 3 infants.  No, every life is a soul to be accounted for.


----------



## am1

With two twin boys and traveling a lot with my wife's cousin who lives with us, other cousin or sister, my my mother, wife's mother we have excedded the occupancy at multiple hotels without issue.  One we were charged an extra person (adult fee).  We have never had an issue otherwise.  Most stays have been using reward points where the max occupancy limit is higher then the rack rate when paying cash.  Only once at a timeshare we went above this limit and no issue.  

There may be a difference between 2 allowed and 3 in the room vs 4 allowed and 5 in the room.  Or two of the them being kids and not just one.

I would never think for a second that my sons would not count as whole people.  It would be insulting if they were counted that way.  

A question though what if one gives birth during the stay and puts them over the maximum occupancy?  In the case of twins where the mother was not aware of two babies?  Very rare case and even less likely the resort makes an issue of it but what if?

I have no problem with Disney's policy of an extra child being allowed. An encourage it as only 1 bedrooms seems to come available there.   But lets remember where disney makes their money.  

This situation is an issue for us as the hilton studios in nyc that come available only sleep 2.  3 weeks with just my wife is too long.  We will have to book manhattan club or wyndham 45 which costs a lot more and no breakfast or social hour but the extra space and kitchen will be nice.

I am of the opinion that if the resort does not allow you to stay then do not book there anymore.  In all my situations another room could have been booked, stayed elsewhere, or went home.  My wife and my two kids were looked after.  

If we have another child then it would be more of an issue as 4 to 5 is  much difficult instead of 2 - 3 or 4 in terms of availability.  

I do not agree with all the discrimination lawsuits and for sure not in this case but it is a slippery slope and in 2015 we are on it.   Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.


----------



## Ken555

Hmm...I find it interesting that some believe it's okay to knowingly exceed occupancy limits. At least one post infers this is due to cost. So...when I travel by myself, should I expect a discount because I won't be utilizing as much of the hotel services as a family of four or five? Of course not.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## SueDonJ

jc92869 said:


> OP Here.
> This is why the original title of the post was "kicked out of resort because of baby". Mods felt the need to change it and it's their right and i'm not fighting it, but i think that the "Baby"  IS important in this discussion.
> 
> Rules are rules - i get it, they are there for a reason, but sometimes rules don't make sense in a certain situation.  This (i believe)  is one of them. ...



Who gets to decide which rules are silly, and who gets to enforce rules when making exceptions results in people feeling entitled to break whatever rules they choose?



jc92869 said:


> Remember how silly it sounded years ago when airlines started charging baggage fees?  Remember asking "What, Am  i supposed to travel without bags?" Remember the feeling that this was just another instance of corporate greed?
> 
> Sure, you could travel without  bags; buy everything you need for your trip at your destination. Sure you could pay the extra fees. Sure you could simply  just not travel.
> 
> Well  the feeling here was similar.
> 
> Sure, we could just  book two separate  rooms for my wife baby and I. Sure we could just have one of us sleep in the car. Sure we could simply not vacation as a family.- But REALLY?



Or, knowing that there isn't an industry-wide standard, couldn't you choose lodging that you've verified in advance will allow the three of you (whether in a 2/2 that makes exceptions for all babies the same age as yours, or in a 2/3+ or larger?)

I honestly do feel for you because that situation in the moment must have been very difficult and disappointing.  But I can't blame the resort for establishing and enforcing rules put in place to protect the value of every guest's enjoyment.  If over that July 4th holiday interval they strictly enforced the rules with no exceptions, or if in the six months between your stays your baby reached the cut-off age of their allowable exceptions, or if you were the 20th guest checking in that day with an additional person, or for whatever reason the resort chose to enforce the rules for your stay ... that moment was lousy for you.  I wouldn't rather, though, that the entitlement to relax any rules be left in the guests' purview and not the resort's.

It's still unclear whether the resort staff told you when you were checking in and with no prior or stated notice that babies are not allowed.  If they did, which means if they based your eviction on a baby being involved and not on occupancy limits, then I'd say you might have a case of discrimination like Ty1on suggests.  Might.  In which case I'd agree with his initial advice to consult an attorney.  The reason I didn't agree with it then and still, and the reason I edited the thread title, is because RCI told you they were moving you because of the occupancy limits and you summed up your OP by warning that occupancy limits can be enforced.


----------



## Ty1on

geekette said:


> You might want to check with RCI for exact definitions since your interpretation is only valid with you.
> 
> By your logic, you could pack 10 people in at a time, so long as only 4 were sleeping.  Clearly, this would be discriminatory against the conscious that get evicted when they fall unconscious, raising the Sleeping number to an intolerable amount of unconscious people in one unit.



What you really mean is that I should check with RCI because I don't agree with your definition.

Sleeps 4 means Sleeps 4.  What is so hard to understand about that, and why that isn't the same as Max Occupancy?


----------



## jc92869

Ken555 said:


> Hmm...I find it interesting that some believe it's okay to knowingly exceed occupancy limits. At least one post infers this is due to cost. So...when I travel by myself, should I expect a discount because I won't be utilizing as much of the hotel services as a family of four or five? Of course not.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad



No.  The quoted post above sounds like it infers  a knowing and  purposeful disregard of the max occupancy rules due to cost.

This is far from what happened in this situation.

Whether  it was hotel rules, local regulation, federal laws, or managerial decision to kick us out, it does not matter.  We  did not question it. We  left.
Besides who wants to be somewhere where you are not wanted.


----------



## Ken555

jc92869 said:


> No.  The quoted post above sounds like it infers  a knowing and  purposeful disregard of the max occupancy rules due to cost.
> 
> 
> 
> This is far from what happened in this situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether  it was hotel rules, local regulation, federal laws, or managerial decision to kick us out, it does not matter.  We  did not question it. We  left.
> 
> Besides who wants to be somewhere where you are not wanted.




I was not referring to your exact situation, as I posted previously. I am referring to other posts. Context is key 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## jc92869

geekette said:


> OP, you could also get accommodations large enough for your family.
> 
> Consider the scenario of fire at the resort.  Nobody is going to be looking for more than 2 people in your room.  If that's ok with you, keep on skirting max occ rules.
> 
> Consider also when a ship goes down, they don't say 1800 adult souls lost and 3 infants.  No, every life is a soul to be accounted for.



VERY  respectfully, that  sounds  just like the canned response we got from  one of the check in reps. The same that had earlier in the conversation had very mentioned in a very cavalier manner that they already had  a waiting list of people waiting to rent out our unit at a  higher rate.


----------



## SueDonJ

jc92869 said:


> VERY  respectfully, that  sounds  just like the canned response we got from  one of the check in reps. The same that had earlier in the conversation had very mentioned in a very cavalier manner that they already had  a waiting list of people waiting to rent out our unit at a  higher rate.



If they kicked the three of you out and replaced you with two paying guests, no foul.  If they replaced you with three or more paying guests, foul.  Other than that I don't understand what difference it makes that they had a waiting list for a holiday interval.  That's prudent business.


----------



## Ty1on

am1 said:


> I would never think for a second that my sons would not count as whole people.  It would be insulting if they were counted that way.



Merchants everywhere will be delighted that you will want to pay full fare for movies, theme parks, restaurant meals, etc., for your young children!

As far as giving birth, I'm sure the resort will be helping to make arrangements to get the new mother and child to a hospital! :rofl:


----------



## Saintsfanfl

Ken555 said:


> Hmm...I find it interesting that some believe it's okay to knowingly exceed occupancy limits. At least one post infers this is due to cost. So...when I travel by myself, should I expect a discount because I won't be utilizing as much of the hotel services as a family of four or five? Of course not.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad



Why in the world should I care if the hotel doesn't??? Why would I rent a second room for my toddlers and babies if the hotel says I don't have to? Marriott lets them all eat the included breakfast as well. Am I supposed to feel bad about it if the manager doesn't?

That's why I like Marriott. They don't nickle and dime you for every little thing like having an extra charge for each additional person. That's what cheap hotels do. I don't stay in roach motels with my family. Those are the types of places that I wouldn't be surprised if they enforced occupancy limits.


----------



## Saintsfanfl

geekette said:


> OP, you could also get accommodations large enough for your family.



How much room is an infant supposed to take? Is he supposed to have his own room? So you rent a 1BR so the infant is under the headcount but since the family is going to put him in the same bedroom isn't it a moot point? The capacity for the bedroom is still exceeded.



geekette said:


> *Consider the scenario of fire at the resort.  Nobody is going to be looking for more than 2 people in your room. * If that's ok with you, keep on skirting max occ rules.



I have seen people make this point in the past but it's completely nuts. Resorts do not track how many guests are staying in the room. In a 2BR that sleeps 8, how would they possibly know how many to look for? You are saying they would be looking for 8 but that makes zero sense. Most people do not have the full 8 in the room and the resort certainly did not get the names or count at check-in. You think Summer Bay counted heads per room when the lone security guy tried to get people out of the building that got swallowed by a sinkhole?



geekette said:


> Consider also when a ship goes down, they don't say 1800 adult souls lost and 3 infants.  No, every life is a soul to be accounted for.



Ships and planes track every person on board. Resorts and hotels do not. I do not recall ever being asked how many will be in the room except my old days of staying at Motel 6 who charged extra per person.


----------



## Ty1on

Saintsfanfl said:


> Ships and planes track every person on board. Resorts and hotels do not. I do not recall ever being asked how many will be in the room except my old days of staying at Motel 6 who charged extra per person.



And by the way, they ALWAYS report how many children were on board.


----------



## SueDonJ

Saintsfanfl said:


> Why in the world should I care if the hotel doesn't??? Why would I rent a second room for my toddlers and babies if the hotel says I don't have to? Marriott lets them all eat the included breakfast as well. Am I supposed to feel bad about it if the manager doesn't?
> 
> That's why I like Marriott. They don't nickle and dime you for every little thing like having an extra charge for each person above 2. That's what cheap hotels do. I don't stay in roach motels with my family. Those are the types of places that I wouldn't be surprised if they enforced occupancy limits.



I do agree with you that where they allow the rules to be relaxed we shouldn't care or, ridiculously, insist that they hold us to the stated rules.

But I've stayed in Marriott hotels and been charged extra for any adults over the two standard allowed in the room with those adults being my two kids.  I've also stayed in Marriott hotels where they wouldn't provide a rollaway bed unless we could prove that we wanted it so that our son and daughter didn't have to share a bed, and not so that we could fit a fifth person in max-4 room.  Marriott's rules are the reason why the only times we ever booked one room for all four of us were the times we used the rooms just to crash for six or seven hours sleep while on the road.

IME whether the lodging is a large chain hotel/resort or a one-off motel, knowing the rules ahead of time makes for a smoother trip.


----------



## SueDonJ

Saintsfanfl said:


> How much room is an infant supposed to take? Is he supposed to have his own room? So you rent a 1BR so the infant is under the headcount but since the family is going to put him in the same bedroom isn't it a moot point? The capacity for the bedroom is still exceeded.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen people make this point in the past but it's completely nuts. Resorts do not track how many guests are staying in the room. In a 2BR that sleeps 8, how would they possibly know how many to look for? You are saying they would be looking for 8 but that makes zero sense. Most people do not have the full 8 in the room and the resort certainly did not get the names or count at check-in. You think Summer Bay counted heads per room when the lone security guy tried to get people out of the building that got swallowed by a sinkhole?
> 
> 
> 
> Ships and planes track every person on board. Resorts and hotels do not. I do not recall ever being asked how many will be in the room except my old days of staying at Motel 6 who charged extra per person.



Disney not only asks how many will be in the room, they ask for names and ages.  In advance.


----------



## Saintsfanfl

Ty1on said:


> And by the way, they ALWAYS report how many children were on board.



I know. They have to keep track of that stuff. It is required by law.


----------



## Saintsfanfl

SueDonJ said:


> Disney not only asks how many will be in the room, they ask for names and ages.  In advance.



I had heard that about Disney. I think it's a good thing but obviously not industry standard. Haven't stayed at a Disney resort yet but maybe someday.


----------



## VegasBella

Ty1on said:


> SELECTIVE enforcement is PRECISELY how discrimination works.  No one hangs a sign on their restaurant window saying "no coloreds allowed."  They have a rule against tank tops on men.  African American shows up in a tank top and Flo points at the sign and asks him to leave.  You come back a week later and Jeb is sitting at the counter in his wifebeater, Flo leaning over the counter and chatting with him.


Agreed. That's a great example of how modern discrimination works. And it's why so many people can't recognize it as such. They just never noticed that Jeb was wearing a tank top and that there was a rule against tank tops. But when Black guy was kicked out "for wearing a tank top" they all nod and say "rules are rules."

So... what we would need here to prove that this was discrimination is we'd need other families with babies who were told to "keep the baby quiet" or were evicted and/or evidence that other groups (without babies) were allowed to bend the occupancy rules.




Ty1on said:


> Most businesses, including airlines, see a child 2 and under as an attachment of the parent.  There is good reason for this--the child is held, handheld, or pushed in a stroller by a parent.



I do not agree with this. I think airlines should stop letting babies fly free. It's dangerous for the babies. I think they do it because they make more money allowing babies to fly free on their parents' laps than if they charged for babies. A lot of families wouldn't fly if they had to pay for the baby. But as I pointed out earlier in this thread and in other threads,* babies should fly in a carseat. It's MUCH safer* and ALL the experts agree that it's the safest choice.



Ty1on said:


> The fact that you can have resorts next door to one another with different occupancy limits for the same square feet defeats the argument that they are just adhering to laws.



Well, yes and now. Square feet is not the only consideration. The number and proximity to exits is also an issue. So two hotel rooms with the same square footage where one has a door and the other has a door plus two windows might have different max occupancy rates.




Ken555 said:


> Hmm...I find it interesting that some believe it's okay to knowingly exceed occupancy limits. At least one post infers this is due to cost. So...when I travel by myself, should I expect a discount because I won't be utilizing as much of the hotel services as a family of four or five? Of course not.


I agree. I definitely understand the temptation to bend occupancy rules. But my senses of safety and justice make me never want to do it. Not saying I won't ever do it, just saying that I don't want to do it, I don't take it lightly.

I'm annoyed when I'm at a resort and my family of 3 (in a room that sleeps 6) can't even find a parking space because other units are being occupied by 10 people who have 4 cars. I'm annoyed when resources get used up, like there aren't enough beach chairs or pool loungers. I'm annoyed with they clog up the elevator or hallway with all their luggage.


----------



## Ty1on

VegasBella said:


> I'm annoyed when I'm at a resort and my family of 3 (in a room that sleeps 6) can't even find a parking space because other units are being occupied by 10 people who have 4 cars. I'm annoyed when resources get used up, like there aren't enough beach chairs or pool loungers. I'm annoyed with they clog up the elevator or hallway with all their luggage.



THIS is a reason to get behind occupancy limits set by a resort without respect to code max occupancy.  And the basis of my opinion regarding young children is that they do not use up parking spaces, beach chairs, or loungers.  They do clog up hallways with strollers, but that isn't a result of the extra person, per se.

Not talking rules here, talking common sense.


----------



## am1

Ty1on said:


> Merchants everywhere will be delighted that you will want to pay full fare for movies, theme parks, restaurant meals, etc., for your young children!
> 
> As far as giving birth, I'm sure the resort will be helping to make arrangements to get the new mother and child to a hospital! :rofl:



A baby/child can be counted as 1 person but not have to pay full fare, for movies, theme parks or meals.  Or Even count against the max occupancy.  It all depends on the business.  

I would hope as well that the hotel would help in making arrangements if a guest was giving birth.  Another situation is what if a baby comes earlier then expected and then puts the family over the limit?  Are they to cancel their plans?  Maybe the plans included the stay before the birth as it is?  Not sure why you are rolling on the floor laughing.  If rules are rules then they are rules.  Ideally businesses have flexibility but due to reasons mentioned here that is not always the case.

In regards to suggest people have more guests then allowed because of cost then why do the hotels not say anything.  In my example it is but also if I am with my wife, two sons and another minor, who stays where?  

I do agree that timeshares overall should have different rules then hotels.  Most timeshares have the option of booking larger units and not all hotels do. 

For our upcoming cruise there are no 5 person cabins so we are going with a group of 12 occupying 3 cabins.  

For airlines if babies should have their own seats then the airlines should accomodate families with free seats or just the taxes if the plane would otherwise have empty seats.  Just like with over weight people.


----------



## sjsharkie

Saintsfanfl said:


> Has anyone ever heard of code enforcement knocking on hotel or resort doors and checking for occupancy? The disclosure sign is what is required by the code.
> 
> The resort was simply enforcing it's own policy. I have heard of it being done to spring breakers on a trip who greatly exceeded occupancy. This is the first I have ever heard of it being done to a one year old. The toddler isn't even old enough to sleep in a bed. It's ridiculous.


I agree.  Like I said earlier, the hotel had every right to enforce occupancy limits here, but management's judgement was poor to handle it this way.  Asking a family of 3 to split into two rooms when 1 is an infant is sad.

No code enforcement is coming around to enforce max occupancy in rooms.  The max occupancy (unless regulated by statute) is generally under the actual max occupancy for the floor anyway.  Hotels need to figure out based on the fire marshal's assessment of fire escapes, egress locations, etc. how many and how to design layout of the rooms by floor -- they generally need to have fewer occupants in rooms because they still need to account for general traffic on that floor.  Agree if you are fitting 10 into a hotel room, that may be a problem.  However 1 infant is not.

I go back to earlier threads about this subject.  Same people making the same silly arguments about fire code.  If there is a fire, the fireman is not reviewing schematics and room occupancy policies to determine if everyone is out of the building.

-ryan


----------



## Jason245

am1 said:


> For airlines if babies should have their own seats then the airlines should accomodate families with free seats or just the taxes if the plane would otherwise have empty seats.  Just like with over weight people.



The faa specifically encourages this, however airlines are not required to do it. Airlines do offer discounted seats for young(under two) children  (although usually the discounted price is off of full fair which is more than a non refundable ticket costs)  That is why I have always paid for a seat for my child (who has now flown on 2 trips in his less than 2 years of life). I own the only approved harness system for children flying, and carry the faa rules that require them to allow me to use it while flying. Some countries are actually looking into requiring all persons no matter age to have a seat given some of the recent deaths and injuries  of several "infants in arms".  Whenever anyone asked me about it or look at me strange, i simply say.. would you be willing to watch your child die or be injured  because you were to cheep to spend an extra few hundred dollars. .

As for the occupancy thing
Rules are rules..if they say two people maximum I am a little confused about the issue.  If the rules are that you only get access to one parking spot and they towed your second car.. would you complain about that?  These are generally hoa rules. . And guess what..they don't always make sense,  but ultimately they must be complied with especially if they are disclosed in advance.  Can rules be waived?  Yes.. but it sets a precident that can lead to discrimination lawsuits etc.. I have watched hoa in Florida force people to sell their condos because they have a  indoor cat and rules say no pets for any owners.

Are there people who "sneek" a third person in? Maybe. . But if you are blatant about it you are just asking for trouble. Ultimately it is a calculated risk. . 

As for the birth question. .call me stupid,  but most doctors don't advise travel in last trimester. . So this would likely be a premeture birth. .most premies arnt home a week after birth  (and the mothers  are probably camping out in hospital. .).  In the last trimester. .if you are traveling hundreds of miles away from your doctor,  your preferred delivery hospital, and your support network to spend a week at a timeshare. . You probably have bigger problems than occupancy limits. .

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## geekette

Ty1on said:


> What you really mean is that I should check with RCI because I don't agree with your definition.
> 
> Sleeps 4 means Sleeps 4.  What is so hard to understand about that, and why that isn't the same as Max Occupancy?



Guess again, Chief.  Looking at RCI right now, the words Max Occupancy appear when I go look at Available Units.

It's not My Definition, I don't make the rules.  You need to defer to those that do make the rules.  Or not, whatever, not my problem if you also get evicted even after arguing what Max Occupancy is or isn't.  

Right back at cha:  what's so hard to understand?  Is maximum some flexible concept in your mind?  The dictionary would probably disagree with you, and you can argue their definition also and call it discriminatory.


----------



## Jason245

am1 said:


> For our upcoming cruise there are no 5 person cabins so we are going with a group of 12 occupying 3



As an FYI,  some ships have large suits that can accomodate large numbers of people. . But it actually is less expensive per person to book the 4 person cabins instead. .(look at some of the rooms on oasis of seas for example ).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## ace2000

Refresh my memory, what are we talking about again???


----------



## ace2000

Sorry for the above post, I thought this was the tuna thread... got confused.


----------



## sjsharkie

ace2000 said:


> Sorry for the above post, I thought this was the tuna thread... got confused.


Well, I see an argument about babies in carseats on airlines a few posts up...

...so we should be talking about tuna by tomorrow at this rate.  Maybe they will merge the threads.

-ryan


----------



## am1

Yes kids in their own airline seats is preferred.  Not sure how my wife and I could ever get two car seats and the carry ons to the the departure gate with our kids and a stroller.  Other point is once my wife were in business for a 5.5 hour flight and our kids were each given the seats beside us so we were in the same row but our kids did not spend any time in their own seats.  Almost a waste but no one would have enjoyed their time in the seats beside ours.  

Yes some cruise ship rooms sleep more than 4 but not our ship.  We were faced with leaving one of our kids at home while we brought my wifes cousin who has never been out of the country and would be celebrating a birthday.  But everyone is going and 2 more families.  Who knows where everyone will sleep on a daily basis.


----------



## Bucky

sjsharkie said:


> Well, I see an argument about babies in carseats on airlines a few posts up...
> 
> ...so we should be talking about tuna by tomorrow at this rate.  Maybe they will merge the threads.
> 
> -ryan



When you have people that have made over 1000 posts in a month, you expect these types of endless threads IMO. Somebody has to have the last word and its gonna be them! Let me know when we start on the tuna!


----------



## HenryT

*Misuse of the Word Discrimination*

I have been reluctant to get involved in this conversation but I am baffled by some peoples definition of "discrimination". 

I am an African American who grew up in the South with "Whites Only" water fountains, segregated schools, riding in back of the bus, etc. I know what discrimination is and what we are talking about now "ain't" it!

If I decide to ignore the rule (which I might) and get caught it's my fault and I am not going to blame the establishment because I was punished for breaking their rule.

As long as the rule is enforced across the board max occupancy of two means two. If you don't like it talk with your pocketbook. Go to a place that allows you to have 2 non-babies and a baby in a unit with max occupancy of 2. If enough people do that maybe the businesses which don't allow it will change their tune. If not, that's their prerogative.


----------



## Jason245

HenryT said:


> I have been reluctant to get involved in this conversation but I am baffled by some peoples definition of "discrimination".
> 
> I am an African American who grew up in the South with "Whites Only" water fountains, segregated schools, riding in back of the bus, etc. I know what discrimination is and what we are talking about now "ain't" it!
> 
> If I decide to ignore the rule (which I might) and get caught it's my fault and I am not going to blame the establishment because I was punished for breaking their rule.
> 
> As long as the rule is enforced across the board max occupancy of two means two. If you don't like it talk with your pocketbook. Go to a place that allows you to have 2 non-babies and a baby in a unit with max occupancy of 2. If enough people do that maybe the businesses which don't allow it will change their tune. If not, that's their prerogative.


Just to be clear. . I was using the legal definition.  When you are inconsistent in applying a rule one of the first things that people sue for is that(among others). .. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Saintsfanfl

Jason245 said:


> Just to be clear. . I was using the legal definition.  When you are inconsistent in applying a rule one of the first things that people sue for is that(among others). ..
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



That's right, and there really is very little basis for a defense. You can call it a frivolous lawsuit but they happen all the time. The plaintiff is going to search high a low for examples of the enforcement due to occupancy being ignored by the staff and management. They might not win their case but for most lawyers it's well worth the trouble to try.


----------



## jc92869

OP Here.

I really had not given this much thought after it happened.  I posted my story here months later as an after thought, just something to share, and something I learned.

I know what occupancy rules are, but on this and any other check in it never crossed my mind that a baby would be counted a a third person because -- well, it's a baby--. You just kind of assume he is counted as an extension of you.

At the time  we never looked at it as discrimination ( i still don't). If anything, we just saw it as selective  enforcement of rules.

But after a lot of the posts, and just out of curiosity, today i logged in to  RCI just for the heck of it.

Transaction Date:
29-Jul-2014
Travel Dates:
03-Jul-2015 - 10-Jul-2015 City
****** State
CA
Confirmation Number:
5******
RCI Points Value: 29000
Country
USA BR(s)
Studio

Studio
Sleeps: 4
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Full
Bathroom: Full

Studio
Sleeps: 2
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Partial
Bathroom: Full

Studio
Sleeps: 2
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Partial
Bathroom: 2 Full Baths

Studio
Sleeps: 2
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Full
Bathroom: 2 Full Baths

Studio
Sleeps: 2
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Full
Bathroom: Full


- See more at: http://www.rci.com/resort-directory/resortDetails?resortCode****


----------



## tschwa2

So they have 5 different types of studio configurations 4 of which have a 2 person max and one that has a 4 max.  It may have been that the last time you stayed you were in a 4 max or it could have been that when the resort isn't at capacity they are more lax or it could have been something else.  

In the future you know that if you are confirming into a room with a 2 person max and plan to bring a small child you should call and confirm that it is allowed and have them document it in your reservation and ideally send you a confirmation with the documentation included.  

I am glad you brought up the topic because it can be confusing and it's best to remind others that they should check if there is any doubt.


----------



## Ty1on

Bucky said:


> When you have people that have made over 1000 posts in a month, you expect these types of endless threads IMO. Somebody has to have the last word and its gonna be them! Let me know when we start on the tuna!



Yet here you are, posting a personal attack.


----------



## dominidude

am1 said:


> And this is what is wrong with people.  There are much bigger issues we should worry about as a society.




In my view, the resort stole from the OP, the OP was put in an accommodation that was worth less money, hence the availability at the last minute. 



geekette said:


> with ya, Saint.
> So far as I can see, the OP was not out of pocket whatsoever, RCI moved em.
> 
> They were inconvenienced, however, they did get to stay the night of check-in.



It is conceivable that the reservation the OP was given did not have ANY value, so that the resort in fact stole the whole value of the reservation, which was in a high peak season, probably the highest of the year. 


The resort probably broke the LAW by refusing to host an infant child. I remember reading once that an infant has the legal right to be with his mom, and the mom the legal right to be with the infant, wherever they are. Hence the reason airlines make accommodations for infants.

On top of that, the resort made a tidy sum by renting to any of the six people on the waiting list.

Let the courts figure it out, that's my motto. That is what is RIGHT with the USA, and why the world loves to come to America.

In pretty much every other country you have to take what you are given, here you have the power to fight back, if you so choose.

The fact that RCI was the landlord to me just means that both the Resort and RCI should be named in the suit.

This is not legal advise. This is just my thoughts and how I would handle this situation.


----------



## am1

And this is what is wrong with people.  There are much bigger issues we should worry about as a society.  



dominidude said:


> Last thing. If I were OP I would TOTALLY sue this resort in small claims court for the amount that it would have cost me to reserve this resort at rack rate because 1) the resort is likely to pay OP rather than hiring a lawyer, especially because I see no way the resort can possibly prove  in a court of law that 3 people were going to stay in that studio 2) the OP lives close to the resort, and hence the county court of the resort.
> 
> Suing businesses is really easy. I've done it several times, and each time they have paid me. More people should try it


----------



## Saintsfanfl

dominidude said:


> Last thing. If I were OP I would TOTALLY sue this resort in small claims court *for the amount that it would have cost me to reserve this resort at rack rate* because 1) the resort is likely to pay OP rather than hiring a lawyer, especially because I see no way the resort can possibly prove  in a court of law that 3 people were going to stay in that studio 2) the OP lives close to the resort, and hence the county court of the resort.
> 
> Suing businesses is really easy. I've done it several times, and each time they have paid me. More people should try it



This doesn't make any sense to me. You sue for damages. Where did the OP have damages equal to the reservation at rack rate? Why is that amount any part of the equation? The OP didn't pay the resort one penny.


----------



## geekette

Saintsfanfl said:


> This doesn't make any sense to me. You sue for damages. Where did the OP have damages equal to the reservation at rack rate? Why is that amount any part of the equation? The OP didn't pay the resort one penny.


with ya, Saint.
So far as I can see, the OP was not out of pocket whatsoever, RCI moved em.

They were inconvenienced, however, they did get to stay the night of check-in.

Chalk it up to experience and move on.  Just because suing someone is easy doesn't make it the right thing to do.


----------



## dominidude

am1 said:


> And this is what is wrong with people.  There are much bigger issues we should worry about as a society.



That resort stole from the OP, the OP was put in an accommodation that was worth less money, hence the availability at the last minute. 

The resort probably broke the LAW by refusing to host an infant child.

On top of that, the resort made a tidy sum by renting to any of the six people on the waiting list.

Let the courts figure it out, that's my motto. That is what is RIGHT with the USA society, and why the world loves to come to America.

In pretty much every other country you have to take what you are given, here you have the power to fight back, if you so choose.


----------



## bnoble

You know what's cool about TUG? The ignore feature. My ignore list grew by one today.


----------



## tashamen

bnoble said:


> You know what's cool about TUG? The ignore feature. My ignore list grew by one today.



Yup, mine did too.  Although it may grow by 2 before the day is out.


----------



## geekette

dominidude said:


> That resort stole from the OP, the OP was put in an accommodation that was worth less money, hence the availability at the last minute.
> 
> The resort probably broke the LAW by refusing to host an infant child.
> 
> On top of that, the resort made a tidy sum by renting to any of the six people on the waiting list.
> 
> Let the courts figure it out, that's my motto. That is what is RIGHT with the USA society, and why the world would love to come to America.
> 
> In pretty much every other country you have to take what you are given, here you have the power to fight back, if you so choose.


Good luck proving theft or that resort broke the law by enforcing their own posted occupancy limits.

It was an exchange, so second resort therefore worth exactly same as first.  

It doesn't  matter if resort subsequently profited.

I'm sure OP will appreciate your time and money in getting the suit filed and probably cut you in on the proceeds.


----------



## Saintsfanfl

dominidude said:


> That resort *stole* from the OP, the OP was put in an accommodation that was worth less money, hence the availability at the last minute.



Stole?? This does not make one lick of sense. The resort never collected money from the OP so how did they steal? The resort also did not put the OP in lesser accommodations. RCI is the one that put the OP in alternative accommodations.  I do not like the way the resort handled the situation in the least but I don't see how the resort took anything from or monetarily damaged the OP. RCI was the reservation owner and they moved their tenant to another property. The OP *never had a contract with the resort*.


----------



## dominidude

geekette said:


> Good luck proving theft or that resort broke the law by enforcing their own posted occupancy limits.
> 
> It was an exchange, so second resort therefore worth exactly same as first.
> 
> It doesn't  matter if resort subsequently profited.
> 
> I'm sure OP will appreciate your time and money in getting the suit filed and probably cut you in on the proceeds.



If you break the law (by refusing to host a child) and subsequently profit from it, then you broke the law twice.  I've heard this argument many times (but there was a sign that said bla bla bla).

No sign is above the law, no contract is above the law. In my view, it is the resort that has to prove that they did not break the law by A) explaining to the judge that there were 3 people in that studio when the resort could only legally handle 2 people and B) that separating the mother from the infant was legally permissible in this instance.


----------



## Jason245

dominidude said:


> If you break the law (by refusing to host a child) and subsequently profit from it, then you broke the law twice.  I've heard this argument many times (but there was a sign that said bla bla bla).
> 
> No sign is above the law, no contract is above the law. In my view, it is the resort that has to prove that they did not break the law by A) explaining to the judge that there were 3 people in that studio when the resort could only legally handle 2 people and B) that separating the mother from the infant was legally permissible in this instance.


It doesn't sound like you have engaged in much civil litigation.  I recommend you contact an attorney to gain a better understanding of how civil lawsuits work. 



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## dominidude

Jason245 said:


> It doesn't sound like you have engaged in much civil litigation.  I recommend you contact an attorney to gain a better understanding of how civil lawsuits work.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



You are 100% correct in that I have only engaged civil litigation for personal issues. Now, please explain 

1) how the resort, or its lawyer, can prove to a county judge that there were three people in the studio instead of two, 
2) that the guest was not given the chance to rectify the problem and instead the reservation was swiftly cancelled, and 
3) what possible justification can be given to separate infant from mother.

If you answer those three, I think we all will be better informed consumers.


----------



## Passepartout

*There is clearly something wrong with me!* Why do I keep looking at this thread, when (a) the subject will NEVER be applicable to me. (b) I don't care who 'wins'. and (c) It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion- You know what's gonna happen, it's gonna be ugly, and you can't look away.

Jim


----------



## SueDonJ

dominidude said:


> You are 100% correct in that I have only engaged civil litigation for personal issues. Now, please explain
> 
> 1) how the resort, or its lawyer, can prove to a county judge that there were three people in the studio instead of two, ...



The OP admitted there were three people: him, his wife, and his ("1 year old") baby.  (Or her, her husband and baby?  I'm sorry, not sure if the OP is mom or dad.)



dominidude said:


> 2) that the guest was not given the chance to rectify the problem and instead the reservation was swiftly cancelled, and ...



The reservation wasn't swiftly cancelled.  They got a phone call from RCI twenty minutes after they got to the room but the manager allowed them to spend the night (presumably while RCI was given time to find them a unit/resort which would accommodate them.)



dominidude said:


> 3) what possible justification can be given to separate infant from mother.
> 
> If you answer those three, I think we all will be better informed consumers.



Who said the mother would have to separate from her (not technically "infant") "1 year old"?  They were told three people exceeded the occupancy limit but the OP hasn't said that the front desk staff or RCI stated that either the father, the mother or the baby was not specifically allowed.


----------



## Jason245

dominidude said:


> You are 100% correct in that I have only engaged civil litigation for personal issues. Now, please explain
> 
> 1) how the resort, or its lawyer, can prove to a county judge that there were three people in the studio instead of two,
> 2) that the guest was not given the chance to rectify the problem and instead the reservation was swiftly cancelled, and
> 3) what possible justification can be given to separate infant from mother.
> 
> If you answer those three, I think we all will be better informed consumers.



I think you misunderstand the burden of proof for civil litigation (and this is not small claims court, but true civil litigation). 

Here is the result of my first google search
http://www.cochranfirm.com/resources/PersonalInjury/burdenofproof.html

OP has the burden of proof not the resort. All that being said I will play your game once and only once (and assume that the OP engaged in Purgery by stating that there were only 2 people checking in when the hearing came to be). 

1. OP freely admited it to the resort upon check in (witness testepony).  Furthermore upon supena and under penelty of purgery it will be very hard for OP records to evidence that they did not bring child with them. As the defense attorney I would supena all e-mails, all Facebook accounts and other social media accounts, all credit card transactions etc to evidence this. I would also go after day care records and get evidence of child attendance of daycare. Coworkers etc would also be gone after.  If I had cameras on resort... even better.  Furthermore, Resort can show an electronically signed contract by OP making reservation in which they acknowledge ocuppancy limits ETC (also listed in reservation that was sent). 

2.  They were given an opportunity, The father could have left and slept in alternative accomodations (or the car). 

3. See answer number 2. 

The real question is how the OP and/or their attorney could prove that their harm was a result of the Resort since it is THEIR OBLIGATION. 

As the resort, I would also file countless "extra" deposition requirements for OP and their friends and family, supenas to the OP's friends and family and employers (especially people who the OP spoke to or texted with during their vacation). I would also file counterclaims for legal fees and other costs related to these very expensive litigation matters plus any additional damages I could legally seek.  The resort may have an insurance policy to cover this type of litigation, and OP is paying out of pocket, I would make the litigation very expensive for OP as well and drag it out for a few years. In then end, OP may win or lose, but it can be made very costly and unpleasent to the health and wellbeing of the OP and family, while the resort attorney is just showing up for their 9-5.


----------



## dominidude

SueDonJ said:


> The OP admitted there were three people: him, his wife, and his ("1 year old") baby.  (Or her, her husband and baby?  I'm sorry, not sure if the OP is mom or dad.)
> 
> The reservation wasn't swiftly cancelled.  They got a phone call from RCI twenty minutes after they got to the room but the manager allowed them to spend the night (presumably while RCI was given time to find them a unit/resort which would accommodate them.)
> 
> Who said the mother would have to separate from her (not technically "infant") "1 year old"?  They were told three people exceeded the occupancy limit but the OP hasn't said that the front desk staff or RCI stated that either the father, the mother or the baby was not specifically allowed.



The resort's argument would be very weak if it needed to rely on OP's admission. The OP needs not admit to there being three guests. The OP merely needs to casts doubt as to the number of guests (are they sure there really were three guests?), and it is up to the resort to provide proof a judge would agree with that there were three guests.

It is true that the resort did not swiftly cancel the reservation, but that only strengthens OP's case in court. If OP was allowed to spend the night, what exactly prevented the resort from allowing OP to spend the rest of the reservation?

The allegation that the resort wanted the infant separated from the mother is based on A) someone from the resort apparently rudely said that they wanted the infant quiet, and B) based on the supposition that the reservation was made in the father's name. That means that the father had to stay at the resort, because his name was on the reservation, and the only choice to be made was whether the mother or child could be somewhere else.

To me it seems a open/shut case. The OP could get, if a judge agrees, the full value of their reservation, and it would server the resort right for kicking out a couple because of an infant.


----------



## SueDonJ

dominidude said:


> The resort's argument would be very weak if it needed to rely on OP's admission. The OP needs not admit to there being three guests. The OP merely needs to casts doubt as to the number of guests (are they sure there really were three guests?), and it is up to the resort to provide proof a judge would agree with that there were three guests.
> 
> It is true that the resort did not swiftly cancel the reservation, but that only strengthens OP's case in court. If OP was allowed to spend the night, what exactly prevented the resort from allowing OP to spend the rest of the reservation?
> 
> The allegation that the resort wanted the infant separated from the mother is based on A) someone from the resort apparently rudely said that they wanted the infant quiet, and B) based on the supposition that the reservation was made in the father's name. That means that the father had to stay at the resort, because his name was on the reservation, and the only choice to be made was whether the mother or child could be somewhere else.
> 
> To me it seems a open/shut case. The OP could get, if a judge agrees, the full value of their reservation, and it would server the resort right for kicking out a couple because of an infant.



We'll have to agree to disagree.  On all counts.  Strenuously.


----------



## theo

Jason245 said:


> It doesn't sound like you have engaged in much civil litigation.  I recommend you contact an attorney to gain a better understanding of how civil lawsuits work.



Even a modicum of reading within this very thread would provide exactly that opportunity --- without the contact or associated expense.  

Apparently like others, my "ignore" list has also grown by several after reading enduring some of the drivel and nonsense spewed forth within this thread.
I can only hope that a merciful moderator will soon just close it entirely...


----------



## DeniseM

As the moderator of this forum, I am going to make an executive decision and close this thread.  

1)  There is apparently nothing more to be said, so people are repeating themselves ad nauseam.

2) The thread has cycled down into the stupid zone.

3)  The armchair attorneys are in overdrive.


----------

