# Marriott Grand Chateau Passed ROFR



## vacationcrazy (Dec 29, 2012)

I won an every other year 2 bedroom Marriott Grand Chateau on ebay for $720.  I thought for sure Marriott would excercise their right but they did not.  I purchased it from Redweeks for less and was unaware about all the bad feedback on them. So far things seem to be going ok.  They asked me to pay the 2013 maintenance fee and I told them I would not pay until it passed ROFR. They said it did pass.  I did not trust them so I called Marriott to verify and they said it did pass. I am pretty excited about this as I feel it was a really good price and being an every other year it helps take the bite out of the maintenance fee


----------



## fluke (Dec 29, 2012)

It has been suggested that PCCs sometimes falsify ROFR documents (with erroneously higher amounts) so they can collect the money (if ROFRed the money gets sent to the owner of record).  

Either way congrats on the purchase.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Dec 29, 2012)

Congratulations.  GC is a great property and EOY is a nice arrangement.

Not sure if Marriott would have been interested in EOY unit at any price.  Better for you in the end.

Enjoy!


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 29, 2012)

Is your first usage year 2013 or 2014?


----------



## vacationcrazy (Dec 29, 2012)

BocaBoy said:


> Is your first usage year 2013 or 2014?



First use is 2014.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 29, 2012)

vacationcrazy said:


> First use is 2014.


Then I hope you realize that by agreeing to pay the 2013 MF, you are in effect increasing your purchase price by paying an obligation of the seller's.  This is because maintenance fees for 2012 usage is paid for in 2012 and 2013.  If the 2013 MF payment is $560, you are really buying the unit for $1280, not $720.  Still not a bad deal, but quite a bit higher percentage-wise.


----------



## gnorth16 (Dec 30, 2012)

BocaBoy said:


> Then I hope you realize that by agreeing to pay the 2013 MF, you are in effect increasing your purchase price by paying an obligation of the seller's.  This is because maintenance fees for 2012 usage is paid for in 2012 and 2013.  If the 2013 MF payment is $560, you are really buying the unit for $1280, not $720.  Still not a bad deal, but quite a bit higher percentage-wise.



Really? My EOY's didn't work that way...

It would make sense that 2013 and 2014 MF's went to the use year of 2014.  They would want payment of all MF's before you can use the unit or else they won't let you occupy...

I could be wrong....I have been *once *before!


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Dec 30, 2012)

gnorth16 said:


> Really? My EOY's didn't work that way...
> 
> It would make sense that 2013 and 2014 MF's went to the use year of 2014.  They would want payment of all MF's before you can use the unit or else they won't let you occupy...
> 
> I could be wrong....I have been *once *before!



BocaBoy is correct. All Marriott's are the usage year and the year after. Marriott does not bill EOY maintenance fees in advance.  

Marriott also does not require maintenance fees to be paid before using a unit, as long as the fees are not past due and the owner still holds the reservation. In other words the owner of record could have deposited the reservation with Interval long before paying the maintenance fees.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 30, 2012)

Saintsfanfl said:


> BocaBoy is correct. All Marriott's are the usage year and the year after. Marriott does not bill EOY maintenance fees in advance.
> 
> Marriott also does not require maintenance fees to be paid before using a unit, as long as the fees are not past due and the owner still holds the reservation. In other words the owner of record could have deposited the reservation with Interval long before paying the maintenance fees.



I am pretty sure that MFs on Marriott biennials are collected on the year before and the year of usage, not the year of and year after.


----------



## gnorth16 (Dec 30, 2012)

Good to know. This will save me some money when I do buy a Marriott.  However, IMO this could lead to use and not pay the second half of the MF's.  I'm not sure why Marriott would even put themselves in this position. Starwood now makes owners pay before depositing in II and to my knowledge MF's must be current before usage.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 30, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I am pretty sure that MFs on Marriott biennials are collected on the year before and the year of usage, not the year of and year after.



When one purchased a EOY direct from Marriott, they were not billed MFs until the first use year and then every year after. So someone would pay their 2014 and 2015 MFs to cover the 2014 use year. Re-sellers attempt to collect the fees for the year prior to prop up their proffit. Though it one is happy with the price they paid along with paying that prior years MFs, then no harm is done.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Dec 30, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I am pretty sure that MFs on Marriott biennials are collected on the year before and the year of usage, not the year of and year after.



That would be incorrect, although I am not sure it matters from resale to resale. It would make a difference if Marriott ever changed their policy mid stream. It is a fact that marriott did not collect the maint fee until the first year of use. Call and ask and they will tell you the same thing.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 30, 2012)

I am a the owner of a Grand Chateau EOY week. I can verify that MGC *bills every other year units 50% EVERY year.* The original poster has not increased his cost by paying the 2013 MF bill. That bill should be 50% of the total MF for 2013.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 30, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I am pretty sure that MFs on Marriott biennials are collected on the year before and the year of usage, not the year of and year after.





Saintsfanfl said:


> That would be incorrect, although I am not sure it matters from resale to resale. It would make a difference if Marriott ever changed their policy mid stream. It is a fact that marriott did not collect the maint fee until the first year of use. Call and ask and they will tell you the same thing.



Sorry Saintsfanfl but your "facts" are wrong and Beefnot is correct, at least for MGC. I own EOY weeks at Grand Chateau and MGC does in fact bill 50% of the MF every year. How the billing is done is up to the HOA and MGC's HOA chooses to bill 50% of the current years MF every year to EOY owners. This may vary from resort to resort. Making a blanket statement that all Marriott biannuals are billed in the year of usage is incorrect. 

Want proof? Here's the 2013 billing for our 3 bedroom EOY week.

Grand Chateau  (click here for details)  

  Property Total Amount Amount to Pay   

  VG****** $848.91 | Show/hide details  $    
Fiscal Year Description Due Date Amount Due 
2013 Property Tax Fee  2013-01-18  48.79 
2013 Operating Fee  2013-01-18  571.70 
2013 Reserve Fee  2013-01-18  228.42 
Total Charges   $848.91


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 30, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> Sorry Saintsfanfl but your "facts" are wrong and Beefnot is correct, at least for MGC. I own EOY weeks at Grand Chateau and MGC does in fact bill 50% of the MF every year. How the billing is done is up to the HOA and MGC's HOA chooses to bill 50% of the current years MF every year to EOY owners. This may vary from resort to resort. Making a blanket statement that all Marriott biannuals are billed in the year of usage is incorrect.
> 
> Want proof? Here's the 2013 billing for our 3 bedroom EOY week.
> 
> ...



Doug, I don't think anyone is disputing that EOY ownerships are billed 50% every year.  What's up for debate is whether the 50% billed in the off year is for the past or future usage year.  

Maybe the answer is in the details of your off-year bill from last year?  Did your invoice from last year read the same as what you quoted above, or did it indicate either "2012" or "2011" Property Tax, Operating, etc fees?  If last year's bill said "2011" then you paid 50% of the 2011 usage year fees in each of 2011 and 2012, so year-of and year-after.  If last year's bill said "2012" then the details don't clear up the question of year-of/year-ahead _usage_, they're simply the year-of _billing_.  If last year's bill also said "2013" like this year's, then you're being billed 50% each year-ahead and year-of.

Hope this doesn't further confuse the issue.

For what it's worth, from what I remember of past TUG discussions EOY ownerships are billed 50% in year-of and year-after.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 30, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Doug, I don't think anyone is disputing that EOY ownerships are billed 50% every year.  What's up for debate is whether the 50% billed in the off year is for the past or future usage year.
> 
> Maybe the answer is in the details of your off-year bill from last year?  Did your invoice from last year read the same as what you quoted above, or did it indicate either "2012" or "2011" Property Tax, Operating, etc fees?  If last year's bill said "2011" then you paid 50% of the 2011 usage year fees in each of 2011 and 2012, so year-of and year-after.  If last year's bill said "2012" then the details don't clear up the question of year-of/year-ahead, they're simply the year-of-billing.  If last year's bill also said "2013" like this year's, then you're being billed 50% each year-ahead and year-of.
> 
> ...



Yes, last year's bill from any MGC, or perhaps any Marriott, would clear it up. I was operating off of many, possibly erroneous, ebay seller descriptions I had seen before which explained the billing. Although it doesn't make a lick of common business sense to not collect all MFs for a given use year prior to using that year, perhaps that does not reflect reality with Marriott EOYs.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 30, 2012)

At MGC, fees are billed yearly. The OP would owe a MF in 2013 regardless of whether or not it's a usage year. 

As to the original developer purchase, MF's began in the first usage year if memory serves me correctly. However, that's a moot point unless you're making a developer purchase. 

In this case, a MF is due for 2013, even though the first usage year for the OP is 2014.

And yes, last years billing was the same except it was for 50% of the 2012 fee's


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 30, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> At MGC, fees are billed yearly. The OP would owe a MF in 2013 regardless of whether or not it's a usage year.
> 
> As to the original developer purchase, MF's began in the first usage year if memory serves me correctly. However, that's a moot point unless you're making a developer purchase.
> 
> In this case, a MF is due for 2013, even though the first usage year for the OP is 2014.



My guess would be that paying only half in the year of usage was a "benefit" of purchasing from the developer. The developer may have simply been absorbing half of the MFs. Or more appropriately, that half year's MFs were absorbed into the sales price.


----------



## vacationcrazy (Dec 30, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> My guess would be that paying only half in the year of usage was a "benefit" of purchasing from the developer. The developer may have simply been absorbing half of the MFs. Or more appropriately, that half year's MFs were absorbed into the sales price.



Either way, I am happy with my purchase.  We almost bought this resort several years ago from the developer, so I consider myself lucky we recinded at that time. That was even before we found Tug


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 30, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> At MGC, fees are billed yearly. The OP would owe a MF in 2013 regardless of whether or not it's a usage year.
> 
> As to the original developer purchase, MF's began in the first usage year if memory serves me correctly. However, that's a moot point unless you're making a developer purchase.
> 
> In this case, a MF is due for 2013, even though the first usage year for the OP is 2014.



Yes, it's understood that as the owner of record now on Marriott's books, the OP is legally responsible for the 2013 invoiced MF's.  But that's not the question.  The question is, with the usage year being 2014, is the 2013 off-year 50% MF fee accounted to the 2012 (past) usage year or the 2014 (future) usage year?

Regardless of who Marriott would be going after if the 2013 invoice is unpaid (the OP, of course) if the answer is that EOY ownerships are billed year-of and year-after, the OP could have correctly negotiated that the seller should be responsible for the 2013 invoice.  And again, of course, it's probably a moot point now because the negotiation window is closed at this point.  But still the question is interesting.



Beefnot said:


> My guess would be that paying only half in the year of usage was a "benefit" of purchasing from the developer. The developer may have simply been absorbing half of the MFs. Or more appropriately, that half year's MFs were absorbed into the sales price.



It's not a benefit, it's the way they did things with every direct purchase.  If you bought a Week direct and its season during that usage year had already been open, you were required to pay that year's MF in the closing fees but were automatically given the MRP exchange value for that year (in addition to whatever MRP purchase incentives were given.)  So usage began the first year of purchase but it may not have been in the form of a week at your home resort.

I'd guess that the same thing happened with EOY direct purchases - usage would have begun in the first year and the first MF payment would have been included in the closing fees (regardless of whether "usage" would have been in the form of a Week at the home resort or an MRP exchange or something else specified in the docs.)  Then the following year's MF invoice would have covered the second-half of the prior year's usage.

Unlike Starwood and others, Marriott has never required payment of MF in advance of reservations or stays.  Depending on the MF due date, it's possible that every first- or second- and sometimes third-week in January stay can take place before the due date of that year's MF invoice.  And II requests can be made far in advance of the MF due date for the usage year.  Marriott won't allow you to make reservations or check-in to stays if your MF are not current, but "current" in this case applies only to the last MF invoice and due date.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 30, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> My guess would be that paying only half in the year of usage was a "benefit" of purchasing from the developer. The developer may have simply been absorbing half of the MFs. Or more appropriately, that half year's MFs were absorbed into the sales price.



I'll buy the argument that paying the MF increase the overall purchase price, but, it's a moot point. The OP didn't negotiate the seller paying 2013 billing before the purchase. 

Besides, in the original usage year, new owners of EOY weeks only pay 50% of the EY MF whereas an EY owner would pay 100%.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 30, 2012)

vacationcrazy said:


> Either way, I am happy with my purchase.  We almost bought this resort several years ago from the developer, so I consider myself lucky we recinded at that time. That was even before we found Tug



Nobody would disagree, that's all that matters.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 30, 2012)

vacationcrazy said:


> I won an every other year 2 bedroom Marriott Grand Chateau on ebay for $720.  I thought for sure Marriott would excercise their right but they did not.  I purchased it from Redweeks for less and was unaware about all the bad feedback on them. So far things seem to be going ok.  They asked me to pay the 2013 maintenance fee and I told them I would not pay until it passed ROFR. They said it did pass.  I did not trust them so I called Marriott to verify and they said it did pass. I am pretty excited about this as I feel it was a really good price and being an every other year it helps take the bite out of the maintenance fee



Congratulations!


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 30, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Yes, it's understood that as the owner of record now on Marriott's books, the OP is legally responsible for the 2013 invoiced MF's.  But that's not the question.  *The question is, with the usage year being 2014, is the 2013 off-year 50% MF fee accounted to the 2012 (past) usage year or the 2014 (future) usage year?*
> Regardless of who Marriott would be going after if the 2013 invoice is unpaid (the OP, of course) if the answer is that EOY ownerships are billed year-of and year-after, the OP could have correctly negotiated that the seller should be responsible for the 2013 invoice.  And again, of course, it's probably a moot point now because the negotiation window is closed at this point.  But still the question is interesting.
> 
> 
> ...



When we purchased our weeks, the original billing for our first usage year was 50% of what the total MF for a year would be. The first bill is due in the first usage year but, it's half of the total bill. Therefore, you're paying 50% that first year, 50% the next year and so on. 

I guess you could say you're paying in arrears to some point. You only pay 50% in that first usage year, then you pay 50% in the next usage year (that's your first full years total) and so on. So half up front and half behind.

I guess it could be argued that the new buyer is paying half of the previous owners MF but, you can also look at it as they are paying half of their first year's usage up front and the other half in the usage year. 

It seems to me that Marriott is the one covering 50% of the first usage year by billing EOY MF's this way. We own two other EOY ownerships with different management companies and we pay the full years fee during our usage year and nothing during the non-usage year. I'm not sure which way works out best for owner or HOA. In the end, it really doesn't matter that much to me.

Really, this is a debate about nothing that matters. It's the way it is and, if you buy an EOY ownership with Marriott, it's just something to account for when you bid. It occurs to me that the OP still got a GREAT deal on this unit.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 30, 2012)

This MF issue on EOY weeks is one that I am 100% totally sure of and I would bet my retirement plan and my house and my family on it.  Dioxide is right in confirming what I wrote earlier.  One thing that continually baffles me is why so many people here automatically dispute this rather than check out the facts.  There have been several threads on this in the past and it happens every time.  I have bought 6 EOYs from Marriott over the years and sold 4 of them.  In every one of the ten cases the MF were paid in the year of first usage and the following year.  The documents are clear and explicit on this point.  Think about it.  If someone bought an EOY from Marriott with immediate usage in the year of purchase, there would have been no one to pay the first installment.  I often bought in an even (or odd) year with first usage in the following even (or odd) year two years out, which is when I was first billed the MF.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 30, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> If you bought a Week direct and its season during that usage year had already been open, you were required to pay that year's MF in the closing fees but were automatically given the MRP exchange value for that year (in addition to whatever MRP purchase incentives were given.)  So usage began the first year of purchase but it may not have been in the form of a week at your home resort.
> 
> I'd guess that the same thing happened with EOY direct purchases - usage would have begun in the first year and the first MF payment would have been included in the closing fees (regardless of whether "usage" would have been in the form of a Week at the home resort or an MRP exchange or something else specified in the docs.)  Then the following year's MF invoice would have covered the second-half of the prior year's usage.



It was sometimes done that way, Sue, but Marriott was always willing to sell a week with usage to begin the next year (or two years out in the case of an EOY).  We did that many times and never paid MF in our closing costs--not until our year of usage.

In your first example above, based on my experience Marriott would always agree, if asked, to make the first year of usage the following year to avoid the inability to occupy the home resort in the first usage year.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 30, 2012)

BocaBoy said:


> This MF issue on EOY weeks is one that I am 100% totally sure of and I would bet my retirement plan and my house and my family on it.  Dioxide is right in confirming what I wrote earlier.  One thing that continually baffles me is why so many people here automatically dispute this rather than check out the facts.  There have been several threads on this in the past and it happens every time.  I have bought 6 EOYs from Marriott over the years and sold 4 of them.  In every one of the ten cases the MF were paid in the year of first usage and the following year.  The documents are clear and explicit on this point.



My facts, using ebay seller descriptions, were apparently faulty. I haven't seen the prior threads, nor would know how to locate them.  Having never purchased from the developer, I have never seen developer documents that articulate the half the MFs are paid in arrears, so I would have to defer to the assertions of those familiar with those documents.



BocaBoy said:


> Think about it.  If someone bought an EOY from Marriott with immediate usage in the year of purchase, there would have been no one to pay the first installment.  I often bought in an even (or odd) year with first usage in the following even (or odd) year two years out, which is when I was first billed the MF.



Theoretically speaking, there is always someone to pay the first installment, the developer, if they so chose to structure the agreement like that, or simply implicitly fold the half MFs into the purchase price. Still makes no common sense to me to collect fees on a usage year after it has past, but as folks have pointed out, it is all moot anyway.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 30, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Still makes no common sense to me to collect fees on a usage year after it has past, but as folks have pointed out, it is all moot anyway.



I do not agree that it is moot.  It is an initial year's MF instalment that you are paying on behalf of the seller.  And, as others have pointed out, you can reserve an annual week, deposit it and actually stay someplace before the year's MF are due.  Same with DC points--you can stay before any of the MF is due.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Dec 30, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Still makes no common sense to me to collect fees on a usage year after it has past...



It doesn't have to make financial sense on the surface. It's called customer service which is something Marriott cares a great deal about. Sure they may hike the overall fee to cover the resulting increase in bad debt, but it looks better and sure is more convenient to the customer. This really is no different than their policy of not requiring the fee paid prior to depositing with II. Is anyone arguing that fact??? Didn't think so...

The fact that Marriott considers the fee complete at the 50% due AFTER the usage year may not usually matter to the owner, but it is a fact none the less.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 30, 2012)

As for the developer paying the MF, maybe, maybe not. Sometimes they're sellling inventory that's not ready for occupancy (as was our case). If they have the inventory, it's not as if they don't have the ability to rent it or use it for promotional incentive.


----------



## jimf41 (Dec 30, 2012)

EOY MF at Frenchmans Cove are billed 50% the first usage year and 50% the following year.


----------



## jont (Dec 31, 2012)

With two un-built towers, I wouldn't expect Marriott to exercise ROFR on this property for a long time.They currently have lots of units in the trust at this property and with the construction of the new towers will have a majority of the units.


----------



## vacationcrazy (Dec 31, 2012)

jont said:


> With two un-built towers, I wouldn't expect Marriott to exercise ROFR on this property for a long time.They currently have lots of units in the trust at this property and with the construction of the new towers will have a majority of the units.



The interesting thing is Marriott is buying back Grand Chateau units from owners and I believe they are paying nearly $5000 for them. This is in their repurchase program.


----------



## jont (Dec 31, 2012)

vacationcrazy said:


> The interesting thing is Marriott is buying back Grand Chateau units from owners and I believe they are paying nearly $5000 for them. This is in their repurchase program.



that is very interesting! maybe i should give them a call to see if they are interested in my eoy 2 br.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 31, 2012)

vacationcrazy said:


> The interesting thing is Marriott is buying back Grand Chateau units from owners and I believe they are paying nearly $5000 for them. This is in their repurchase program.





jont said:


> that is very interesting! maybe i should give them a call to see if they are interested in my eoy 2 br.



Due to the DC trust program, MVC might only be interested in EY ownerships that can easily be converted to trust inventory. I would imagine the EOY weeks might be more difficult to intigrate into that inventory.


----------



## jont (Dec 31, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> Due to the DC trust program, MVC might only be interested in EY ownerships that can easily be converted to trust inventory. I would imagine the EOY weeks might be more difficult to intigrate into that inventory.


i know. just joking doug. i like my eoy MGC. good trader and good points/mf ratio.


----------



## vacationcrazy (Feb 11, 2013)

Well, The resort transfer went through last week and the deed is in our name, so we are now owners of a two bedroom MGC every other year  We won this on ebay on December 3, 2012 from Redweek4less and the closing company was VP Title. The ownership was transferred on February 6th.  This was a very quick closing with no hitches.


----------



## SCSTWG (Feb 11, 2013)

*Congrats*

Congratualtions on your purchase and I am glad it passed ROFR.  I recently purchased my first TS as well and I think it passing ROFR is a coin toss at this point.  Actually, I would be surprised if it does pass.  Nothing to do but wait and see.


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 11, 2013)

When I purchased a Marriott Shadow Ridge back in Oct 2011 from timesharepro1, in less than a month everything had transferred over and I was set up in Marriott's system as an owner.  But I suppose two months is not that bad either.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Feb 11, 2013)

SCSTWG said:


> Congratualtions on your purchase and I am glad it passed ROFR.  I recently purchased my first TS as well and I think it passing ROFR is a coin toss at this point.  Actually, I would be surprised if it does pass.  Nothing to do but wait and see.



It passed but make no mistake, the closing company put down a grossly inflated purchase price in order to make sure it passed. When buying off eBay where the eBay seller does not hold title it is not a toss up on ROFR.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 11, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> It passed but make no mistake, the closing company put down a grossly inflated purchase price in order to make sure it passed. When buying off eBay where the eBay seller does not hold title it is not a toss up on ROFR.



I think it's prudent to be aware that some eBay sellers inflate the purchase price in order to falsely affect ROFR transactions, but I'm not sure why you're so convinced that it happens more often than not or why you think it's happening more frequently now than it ever has.  It's been discussed on TUG for years!  I'm also confused about how you could know the ROFR status of SCSTWG's recent purchase before s/he does?

[eta] Hmmmm.  Maybe I misread your post.  When you wrote, "it passed, but ..." were you referring to TUGger vacationcrazy's recent purchase?  That would make more sense.  But again, I'm not sure how you can so definitively make the statement that the ROFR paperwork is incorrect.  No doubt, it's possible.  But the reason I have a problem with attributing a falsely-inflated ROFR to every eBay purchase is because some TUGgers will demand that the paperwork be corrected and re-filed so as to prevent any problems down the road.  I'd hate to see folks demanding that the Seller and/or Broker must restart the process, or backing out of a legitimate purchase, when there's no evidence of a false ROFR.


----------



## JanT (Feb 11, 2013)

Sue,

I'm interested in your comment.  What problems could come down the road if the ROFR was "falsely-inflated?"  I don't have any experience with that but am just wondering what the legal issues could be down the road if that was done.

Jan



SueDonJ said:


> But the reason I have a problem with attributing a falsely-inflated ROFR to every eBay purchase is because some TUGgers will demand that the paperwork be corrected and re-filed so as to prevent any problems down the road.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Feb 11, 2013)

Yes, I was referring to his congrats on the passing. I feel I can definitively state that the mass eBay PCC sellers that hold no claim to title are definitely inflating the price. I have seen it first hand on more than one occasion.  I know it has been discussed but I throw the fact in when someone speculates on the validity of an ROFR passing. Redweek4less? You would have to prove to me it wasn't inflated.

Technically even adding in advertised closing costs or reimbursement of maintenance fees is not legitimate. You easily get around this by offering "free closing" and "free usage". Same bottom line number but one is the correct purchase price and the other is not.

I personally do not care one bit that the ROFR prices are being inflated. Marriott is buying back a week for 10% of what they sold it for and then turning around and marking it up 1,000% for a points purchase. I know it's an agreement violation and I personally would never do it but I do not care that the PCC's are. I know your stance differs from mine and I applaud you for it. 



SueDonJ said:


> I think it's prudent to be aware that some eBay sellers inflate the purchase price in order to falsely affect ROFR transactions, but I'm not sure why you're so convinced that it happens more often than not or why you think it's happening more frequently now than it ever has.  It's been discussed on TUG for years!  I'm also confused about how you could know the ROFR status of SCSTWG's recent purchase before s/he does?
> 
> [eta] Hmmmm.  Maybe I misread your post.  When you wrote, "it passed, but ..." were you referring to TUGger vacationcrazy's recent purchase?  That would make more sense.  But again, I'm not sure how you can so definitively make the statement that the ROFR paperwork is incorrect.  No doubt, it's possible.  But the reason I have a problem with attributing a falsely-inflated ROFR to every eBay purchase is because some TUGgers will demand that the paperwork be corrected and re-filed so as to prevent any problems down the road.  I'd hate to see folks demanding that the Seller and/or Broker must restart the process, or backing out of a legitimate purchase, when there's no evidence of a false ROFR.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Feb 11, 2013)

JanT said:


> Sue,
> 
> I'm interested in your comment.  What problems could come down the road if the ROFR was "falsely-inflated?"  I don't have any experience with that but am just wondering what the legal issues could be down the road if that was done.
> 
> Jan



If Marriott was defrauded on their opportunity to exercise their ROFR, you could lose the week to Marriott. You would then be stuck trying to get a refund from the PCC. I doubt that would ever happen, but it could.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 11, 2013)

JanT said:


> Sue,
> 
> I'm interested in your comment.  What problems could come down the road if the ROFR was "falsely-inflated?"  I don't have any experience with that but am just wondering what the legal issues could be down the road if that was done.
> 
> Jan



I vaguely remember DaveM and others cautioning that Marriott may not recognize the deed if the paperwork isn't in order, resulting in problems with using the Week but more likely problems down the road when selling it.  Obviously if that happened we'd probably hear about it and I don't remember any such reports to TUG.  But there have been a few TUG threads where a false ROFR was discovered after the purchase and the owners were advised to contact Marriott to determine how to proceed.  In the most recent related thread that I do remember, in Post #11 the TUGger, "... contacted a real estate lawyer and he said absolutely I have to have them resubmit the the waiver."

I'm sure it's possible that false ROFR can happen with no apparent problems down the road.  But as usual, I don't like living on the edge  so I'd be one of the folks who wouldn't be comfortable unless all the paperwork was in order.


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 11, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> But the reason I have a problem with attributing a falsely-inflated ROFR to every eBay purchase is because *some* TUGgers will demand that the paperwork be corrected and re-filed so as to prevent any problems down the road.



My guess is that "some" is actually closer to "one or two".  Most folks want the best deal no matter what, and if that means that the PCC inflates numbers in order to get it through, then as long as the buyer has plausible deniability to its occurrence, they could care less.  I would guess that the likely miniscule chance of some issue down the road is meaningless to all but the most anal or paranoid of TUGgers.


----------



## JanT (Feb 11, 2013)

I was just curious.  I didn't even think about the potential for Marriott to find out the selling price was not what was on the ROFR.  I guess that's possible but who knows?  Why people can't just be honest is beyond me.

Anyway....thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Feb 12, 2013)

JanT said:


> I was just curious.  I didn't even think about the potential for Marriott to find out the selling price was not what was on the ROFR.  I guess that's possible but who knows?  Why people can't just be honest is beyond me.
> 
> Anyway....thanks for the explanation.



Because it would kill their sale. The PCC would get nothing and they would be out the effort and the ebay fees. Furthermore, their "original seller" customer that paid them an upfront fee would be furious to find out that all they had to do was sell it to Marriott. They will want a refund of the fee they paid since the PCC is no longer handling their week.

It is very easy for Marriott to find out the actual selling price if the correct amount is on the deed. It's a double edge sword because if they put the correct amount on the deed then it is right there for Marriott to see. If they do not put the correct amount on the deed then the buyer cannot claim ignorance and it takes the fraud to another level since it is now recorded as a public document.


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 12, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> It is very easy for Marriott to find out the actual selling price if the correct amount is on the deed. It's a double edge sword because if they put the correct amount on the deed then it is right there for Marriott to see. If they do not put the correct amount on the deed then the buyer cannot claim ignorance and it takes the fraud to another level since it is now recorded as a public document.



How do you figure? ROFR paperwork is submitted prior to deed transfer, right?


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Feb 12, 2013)

Beefnot said:


> How do you figure? ROFR paperwork is submitted prior to deed transfer, right?



That's right. And then when the recorded deed comes back for the resort transfer it will have the recorded purchase price. I am not sure every county shows the purchase price but Palm Beach County does. It now becomes a visible discrepancy either to Marriott or to the buyer. It might be a different Marriott department handling it and I don't think Marriott cares much about it anyway.


----------



## SCSTWG (Feb 13, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> It passed but make no mistake, the closing company put down a grossly inflated purchase price in order to make sure it passed. When buying off eBay where the eBay seller does not hold title it is not a toss up on ROFR.



One of the key factors in my purchase decision was ensuring that the company I was buying from was legit and that Tugger's thought that they were a good company to deal with.  The broker I bought from on eBay is one of the larger eBay timeshare sellers and the consensus on this site is that they are good to work with.  I have not heard one way or another if they tend to inflate purchase prices to pass ROFR.  They didn't indicate anything about it, but I wouldn't expect them to.  I did ask their professional opinion if they thought it would pass, and they thought it would but indicated you just never know.  My preference is for an honest transaction where all the numbers and paperwork jive.  I want the deal to go through and I don't want to have my money tied up or to waste my time, but I just accept this as part of purchasing a resale. The upside is that you save tens of thousands of dollars over the cost of buying through the developer.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Feb 13, 2013)

SCSTWG said:


> One of the key factors in my purchase decision was ensuring that the company I was buying from was legit and that Tugger's thought that they were a good company to deal with.  The broker I bought from on eBay is one of the larger eBay timeshare sellers and the consensus on this site is that they are good to work with.  I have not heard one way or another if they tend to inflate purchase prices to pass ROFR.  They didn't indicate anything about it, but I wouldn't expect them to.  I did ask their professional opinion if they thought it would pass, and they thought it would but indicated you just never know.  My preference is for an honest transaction where all the numbers and paperwork jive.  I want the deal to go through and I don't want to have my money tied up or to waste my time, but I just accept this as part of purchasing a resale. The upside is that you save tens of thousands of dollars over the cost of buying through the developer.



Don't I know it. I have gone to contract on 12 in less than a year but three fell through and all 12 have been on ebay. All but one was a traditional PCC. The other was a real estate broker company that gets commission after the fact but they handle some things similar.


----------

