# ROFR



## Pistolpete (Aug 31, 2007)

I contacted MVC and the rep stated they are enforcing rofr on Summit Watch.  That was one in which was not being required in the past.  Does anyone know why the coverning docs have changed?


----------



## johnmfaeth (Aug 31, 2007)

The ROFR can only be enforced when that provision exists in the deed or the timeshare bylaws/rules which are recorded at the local recorder of deed's office.

So no arbitrary changes can occur in reality. 

Sometime ago, a great list of all Marriotts and ROFR status was posted here in TUG.

If you want confirmation from the horse's mouth, send an email to mvcirofr@vacationclub.com

That is the email inbox for the ROFR group in FL. It is headed by Mr. Francisco Prieto. He is the final decision maker for Marriott (and perhaps the most overworked person at Marriott).


----------



## Steve (Aug 31, 2007)

*Misinformation*

I think the rep is seriously mistaken.  As a former owner at Summit Watch, I can tell you that there is no ROFR at Summit Watch.  That isn't something that Marriott can just change on a whim.  I'm quite certain that the owners have not voted to change the CCRs to allow Marriott to have a ROFR at Summit Watch.

Call back and talk to someone else.

Steve


----------



## CaliDave (Aug 31, 2007)

I heard the same thing.. I can't remember where. 
What if a Marriott controlled board, put it in place? What if new weeks that are sold, have the clause in the contract? Could that be happening?


----------



## Steve (Sep 1, 2007)

CaliDave said:


> I heard the same thing.. I can't remember where.
> What if a Marriott controlled board, put it in place? What if new weeks that are sold, have the clause in the contract? Could that be happening?



No, it could not be happening.  Marriott does not control the HOA at Summit Watch...the owners do.  The HOA is very active at Summit Watch.  Also, the resort has been sold out for years...so there aren't any new weeks being sold. Plus, this type of a change would have to be voted on by the owners.  It's not something that the HOA board can just decide to do.

There are the bronze weeks which are only selling for $1500 (including closing costs) being sold...but they aren't really "new" per se.  They are weeks which Marriott deeded to the HOA for use as rentals  when the resort was developed.  The HOA is now selling them...with Marriott handling the transactions...but they aren't new weeks.  

There is so much incorrect information out there when it comes to timeshares...even among Marriott employees...that it should not come as a surprise that there are false rumors about there being a ROFR at Summit Watch.

Steve


----------



## Seth Nock (Sep 2, 2007)

Steve said:


> No, it could not be happening.  Marriott does not control the HOA at Summit Watch...the owners do.  The HOA is very active at Summit Watch.  Also, the resort has been sold out for years...so there aren't any new weeks being sold. Plus, this type of a change would have to be voted on by the owners.  It's not something that the HOA board can just decide to do.
> 
> There are the bronze weeks which are only selling for $1500 (including closing costs) being sold...but they aren't really "new" per se.  They are weeks which Marriott deeded to the HOA for use as rentals  when the resort was developed.  The HOA is now selling them...with Marriott handling the transactions...but they aren't new weeks.
> 
> ...



It is not false.  Marriott had the governing documents amended and they are exercising right of first refusal (and often).


----------



## Steve (Sep 2, 2007)

Seth Nock said:


> It is not false.  Marriott had the governing documents amended and they are exercising right of first refusal (and often).



Seth,

When did they do this?  And, how were they able to do this?  I'm very surprised to hear this.

Steve


----------



## Dave M (Sep 3, 2007)

For many Marriott resorts, the ROFR provision is in the "Program Rules", rather than in the Declaration or the By-laws. The Program Rules, unlike the other basic legal documents, can generally be amended at Marriott's option - without any involvement or vote by the owners.


----------



## ricki999 (Sep 3, 2007)

What season(s) has Marriott excersised ROFR at Summit Watch?  Platinum, Gold...?


----------



## Pistolpete (Sep 3, 2007)

It was a gold week that I discussed with her.  It was strange that she indicated that the $95 charge would not apply if I did not request a certified letter and they only waived the rofr by email.  This sounded odd and I am wondering if I will later be surprised by the $95 charge.


----------



## Seth Nock (Sep 3, 2007)

I know it was in the 2007 governing docs.  Idon't believe it was in any of the earlier ones.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 3, 2007)

Wow!

This should be great news for current owners.  I always viewed SW as being below that 40% mark from the developer's current prices.

Anyone have current developer's prices?

P.S.
I am constantly amazed as to how much I learn from TUG - thanks TUG.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 3, 2007)

Seth Nock said:


> It is not false. Marriott had the governing documents amended and they are exercising right of first refusal (and often).


What easier way is there to make a quick profit for the developer in their re-sale department by amending the governing documents for the resorts that are in high demand? They won't do this with the older or slower selling resorts.

It seems to me that all big developers have the upper hand 100% of keeping control over anything timeshare related and even more so with the floating systems that are out there as they can change the required amount of points for the newer resorts too.

You bought a week at your home resort but if you want to stay at a newer resort, you will have to buy, borrow or rent more points to stay a week or go less days. Buying for exchanging mainly is no longer a good idea today. JMHO.

With the Marriott, a week is still a week today anywhere else but that may change too when they implement their new internal exchange system and trading up may disappear.


----------



## Seth Nock (Sep 3, 2007)

Pistolpete said:


> It was a gold week that I discussed with her.  It was strange that she indicated that the $95 charge would not apply if I did not request a certified letter and they only waived the rofr by email.  This sounded odd and I am wondering if I will later be surprised by the $95 charge.



You will have to pay the $95 fee.  

Interesting, Marriott changes condo docs in order to be able to "steal" peoples contracts and if they choose not to, they force the buyer to pay a $95 fee.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 3, 2007)

It's the bottom line that counts and all major developers are doing this today. There is a way around this all but I am not going to tell.   I know someone who did this successfully and gets the appreciation too!


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 3, 2007)

*Can't unring the bell. The documents at sale are what rule.*



Seth Nock said:


> I know it was in the 2007 governing docs.  Idon't believe it was in any of the earlier ones.



Something as basic as the right to sell your ownership unencumbered (ROFR is most certainly an encumbrance) usually cannot be changed by a mere rule change or made retroactive to owners who purchased prior to the change in recorded documents, if in fact such a change was made and approved.  

If anyone is told otherwise or if a sale is held up by a non-existing clause when they purchased they have a great case against management, the developer, Board and/or Association.  Obviously anyone who purchased since the RECORDED change in 2007 has in theory agreed to that and would have no case.  Wastegate has already tried to pull that trick retroactively on owners of many years and it doesn't work. I guess Marriott is now trying to lower themselves to that leave of disrepute? Yet another group enters the weasel pit. It must be getting crowded.


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2007)

*Major Thumbs Down to Marriott on This One*

I appreciate the information.  I am really surprised that Marriott can do this.  I'm also quite disappointed that they would do so...even though apparently they can.  I always thought that a change like this would have to be voted on by the owners of the resort.  I didn't realize that the management company/developer could simply amend the governing documents at will and make the change.  If I was still an owner at Summit Watch, I would have a serious conversation with the HOA president and also with Steve Weisz's office.  I don't think this is something that should be forced upon owners after the fact.  

Steve


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 4, 2007)

I read that they can make changes from time to time at their sole discretion.  I read this phrase in one of the many papers we signed and that was even for a fixed week/unit too.  I would have to get the papers out to look what exactly it was for or about.

They did too with our first Marriott resort where we owned and it made a big difference for us from then on and not for the better.  Timeshare developers (all of them) will do anything to make more profits for their investors until sales start slowing down and then they may realize finally that they need to serve and satisfy their customers too.  If we no longer buy, there are no profits.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2007)

*Marriott got it backwards...*

Why stop at $95?

Why not $950? Or $9,500?

If it's $95 now you can bet years from now it will be much more with no upper limit.

It's ok for Marriott to enforce a ROFR but to then extort money from ALL resales is obscene to me and as much as I abhor it this sounds like something the government should investigate - the fee structure for something that benefits them in the first place.

How much time are we talking about? 1 minute of someone's time?

Marriott should actually PAY the buyer and seller $95 each to compensate them for their hassles.  i.e. when Marriott exercises the ROFR they pay the parties for interrupting the sale.

Marriott got this one backwards.


----------



## Dave M (Sep 4, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Something as basic as the right to sell your ownership unencumbered (ROFR is most certainly an encumbrance) usually cannot be changed by a mere rule change or made retroactive to owners who purchased prior to the change in recorded documents, if in fact such a change was made and approved.


Not necessarily true, John. At least for Marriott. See my post # 8 in this thread.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 4, 2007)

Dave M said:


> Not necessarily true, John. At least for Marriott. See my post # 8 in this thread.



Dave - If it was in there from the beginning then it would be agreed too along with any other rules. But the basic ownership rights - and transfer/resale is certainly one of those - can't be encumbered by Association rules and regs.  They may not have been challenged on it (yet) but I doubt that type of restriction can simply be written in on anyones whim.  Rules and Regs have to do with use and operation not the basic ownership rights.


----------



## Dave M (Sep 4, 2007)

You would have to review the actual wording of the Program Rules, John. It's pretty clear from the wording - at least at the three Marriott resorts where I own - that Marriott could make such a change to the Program Rules. 

Yes, someone could certainly mount a legal challenge to such a change. I wouldn't want to foot the bill for that fight!! Further, it might be tough to prove that an owner was damaged by such a new provision. There have been numerous threads here about whether or not ROFR harms owners, with none of them coming to a consensus.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 4, 2007)

Dave M said:


> You would have to review the actual wording of the Program Rules, John. It's pretty clear from the wording - at least at the three Marriott resorts where I own - that Marriott could make such a change to the Program Rules.
> 
> Yes, someone could certainly mount a legal challenge to such a change. I wouldn't want to foot the bill for that fight!! Further, it might be tough to prove that an owner was damaged by such a new provision. There have been numerous threads here about whether or not ROFR harms owners, with none of them coming to a consensus.



Almost all resorts have a clause that says the Rules & Regs can be modified at anytime so thats not unique. What possible wording can there be that would allow them to change the ability to transfer or sell your deeded rights - with the exception of a transfer/recording fee they usually can require although the amount may be capped?  I'd really like to read that as it must be one carefully crafted line/paragraph.  It is the disclosure statement and covenants not the rules and regs that apply to the deeded rights. If Marriott has found a way to make that a variable rather than fixed, filed and certified document overseen by the State we're in big trouble!  Wastegate will be changing everyone to week 1 ownership, RTU and adding ROFR and fees up the wazoo if they think they can!  

Is there a specific line or four you see that makes them think they have that right?


----------



## Pistolpete (Sep 4, 2007)

I talked to another MVC rep today.  She confirmed that MVC is exercising rofr at Summit Watch.  She thinks they started that in Feb '07.  She also stated that based on the price of $4500 for Gold week, she thinks that it will be purchased by MVC.  I may not be buying a week afterall.  :annoyed:


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2007)

Pistolpete said:


> I talked to another MVC rep today.  She confirmed that MVC is exercising rofr at Summit Watch.  She thinks they started that in Feb '07.  She also stated that based on the price of $4500 for Gold week, she thinks that it will be purchased by MVC.  I may not be buying a week afterall.  :annoyed:



Buy the Bronze week direct from Marriott for $1,500, including all closing costs.  I doubt that there is any difference in II as to trading power.


----------



## Pistolpete (Sep 4, 2007)

*Trading power*

Perry,
Wish I knew the answer.  II trades the bronze week either yellow or green depending on the week booked.  The Gold week trades red.  I don't feel comfortable w/ the Bronze week knowing that and the idea that Marriott may soon have an internal trading ability.  Thanks for your input.
Steve


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2007)

Pistolpete said:


> Perry,
> Wish I knew the answer.  II trades the bronze week either yellow or green depending on the week booked.  The Gold week trades red.  I don't feel comfortable w/ the Bronze week knowing that and the idea that Marriott may soon have an internal trading ability.  Thanks for your input.
> Steve



I would NOT base any decisions on Marriott's internal exchange system - it may or may not happen and we have no idea how it will work.  Making decisions on this is as logical as flipping a coin - Heads - buy Gold, Tails - buy Bronze.


----------



## m61376 (Sep 4, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Buy the Bronze week direct from Marriott for $1,500, including all closing costs.  I doubt that there is any difference in II as to trading power.



Do you really think they trade equivalently? Most of the posts I've read seem to indicate that the Bronze weeks are really poor traders outside of Flexchange. If, however, you are referring to Flexchange trades, then most would seem to agree with you. 

The reason why I didn't opt for buying a Bronze week may have been foolish, but I have to admit that the prospect of holding a very weak trading week once Marriott adopts an internal trading system with a hefty annual MF made me a bit  nervous.


----------



## billymach4 (Sep 4, 2007)

If you are a good salesman you could flip a $1500 Bronze week for $3000 on ebay. Every few weeks there is someone attempting to sell the MSW Bronze for more than $1500.  Heck Marriott is probably offering $2500 to buy back the Bronze weeks under ROFR!:hysterical:

Then there is that BOZO that lists the Marriott Secrets everyday on EBAY. That BOZO is enough to make anyone create an internal trading system!


----------



## esk444 (Sep 4, 2007)

Why couldn't you legitimately defeat the ROFR by putting in terms that are deliberately unfavorable to Marriott, but are otherwise legitimate and make good business sense?  I was thinking of granting the seller an option to receive 30% (or even 100%) of any profits if the Marriott unit in question was resold in the next year or so.  

The option would eliminate Marriott's incentive to exercise the ROFR if it couldn't flip it for at least a year without paying the seller a portion or all of their profits.  It would also create some administrative hassles in monitoring the option.  As for the seller, unlike a lot of other proposals, actually benefits from the option because they can earn more money in the future if certain events occur.  The buyer would only be hurt if he or she actually had to resell the unit in the next year and sold it for a profit.  Even if the buyer doesn't intend to sell in the next year, because it could happen, the option would still have value.

Or does "terms" under the ROFR agreement solely mean just the purchase price?  If so, then the option probably wouldn't work, nor would having an accelerated closing date.  I don't know, I'm just trying to be creative, but not too off the wall.


----------



## Pistolpete (Sep 4, 2007)

So I guess I am on an intern working for MVC now.  I find them good deals on resales, they don't let me buy them and they don't pay me for finding them.  What a deal for MVC.  Frustrated to say the least.  If they don't allow the purchase they could at least tell me the minimum that I can purchase one for without them interferring with the sale.  Yeah, right! :annoyed:


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2007)

m61376 said:


> *Do you really think they trade equivalently?* Most of the posts I've read seem to indicate that the Bronze weeks are really poor traders outside of Flexchange. If, however, you are referring to Flexchange trades, then most would seem to agree with you.
> 
> The reason why I didn't opt for buying a Bronze week may have been foolish, but I have to admit that the prospect of holding a very weak trading week once Marriott adopts an internal trading system with a hefty annual MF made me a bit  nervous.



I believe they do have the same trading power, whatever that is, and would return the same results.  But that's just a guess on my part.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2007)

*ROFR is a great program.*



Pistolpete said:


> So I guess I am on an intern working for MVC now.  I find them good deals on resales, they don't let me buy them and they don't pay me for finding them.  What a deal for MVC.  Frustrated to say the least.  If they don't allow the purchase they could at least tell me the minimum that I can purchase one for without them interferring with the sale.  Yeah, right! :annoyed:



I favor ROFR but don't see the logic of making EVERY Marriott owner selling their unit pay $95 fee, it used to have NO fee and should go back to being free.

ROFR is an integral part of the Marriott resale system that keeps resale prices high.  As seller I love this and as the buyer it give me comfort that when I turn around and sell that unit the resale value will be higher than when I bought it.

It's a win win for everyone involved.

The alternative is what Wyndham (FairField) has - immediate loss of 85% of the sales price.


----------



## Seth Nock (Sep 5, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Something as basic as the right to sell your ownership unencumbered (ROFR is most certainly an encumbrance) usually cannot be changed by a mere rule change or made retroactive to owners who purchased prior to the change in recorded documents, if in fact such a change was made and approved.
> 
> If anyone is told otherwise or if a sale is held up by a non-existing clause when they purchased they have a great case against management, the developer, Board and/or Association.  Obviously anyone who purchased since the RECORDED change in 2007 has in theory agreed to that and would have no case.  Wastegate has already tried to pull that trick retroactively on owners of many years and it doesn't work. I guess Marriott is now trying to lower themselves to that leave of disrepute? Yet another group enters the weasel pit. It must be getting crowded.




Westgate has suceeded.  I have had atleast 10 contracts bought back in the last 6 months.


----------



## Seth Nock (Sep 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Why stop at $95?
> 
> Why not $950? Or $9,500?
> 
> ...



The $95 fee is for Marriott to produce a recordable waiver.  A number of the brokers got together to try to figure out an alternative.  We decided that we can FedEx copies of the contract to Marriott and tell them that we only want them to contact us if they are exercising right of first refusal.  We would then produce an affidavit that we sent a copy of the contract to Marriott.  Unfortunately, the Title Insurance companies that would honor this would charge us about $200 extra to accept and record this document.  We did not think it was right to cost our buyers the extra $105 and decided to just pay Marriott the $95.  It was a close decission though.


----------



## Seth Nock (Sep 5, 2007)

Go for the Silver before the Bronze.  Atleast you can grab Thanksgiving week and they are very reasonably priced.


----------



## Dave M (Sep 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I favor ROFR but don't see the logic of making EVERY Marriott owner selling their unit pay $95 fee....


Just a minor point, Perry....

Marriott charges the fee to the _buyer_ at closing as a condition of recognizing the buyer on Marriott's records.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 5, 2007)

Dave M said:


> Just a minor point, Perry....
> 
> Marriott charges the fee to the _buyer_ at closing as a condition of recognizing the buyer on Marriott's records.



I guess I don't understand when the fee is actually charged - didn't have this with our 5 Marriotts sold.

Immediately upon reaching an agreement, the names and terms are sent by eMail to Marriott for a yes or no decision.  If the answer is No interest in buying the unit, the parties proceed to closing.

At this point there is no fee?

At what point does someone get the $95 fee for all that work that Marriott did?

Are you saying that months later when Marriott actually changes the name the new owner must cough up $95 or Marriott will not change the names on their records?

I don't know, this sounds like a restraint of trade issue to me and should be settled by a court.  Marriott is preventing the lawful sale of real estate for an extortion - heck if they can do it why not the Mafia?

And again, why stop at $95 and not $950?  This is an abuse just waiting to happen.  Hell, maybe Marriott has watched RCI folks converting to RCI Points for $3,000 and this is more like a number they like than a puny $95.


----------



## Dave M (Sep 5, 2007)

The reason the fee is normally charged at closing is that no fee is due unless the sale is consummated. Thus, no fee is due when Marriott issues its waiver. 

Doesn't seem a lot different than many other fees collected in connection with the sale of traditional real estate. Some of those fees (such as a recording fee) are charged to the buyer only if the deal goes through. 

In this case, Marriott calls it an ROFR fee, but charges the buyer only if the deal goes through. So whatever it's called, it's still merely a transaction fee.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 5, 2007)

Dave M said:


> The reason the fee is normally charged at closing is that no fee is due unless the sale is consummated. Thus, no fee is due when Marriott issues its waiver.
> 
> Doesn't seem a lot different than many other fees collected in connection with the sale of traditional real estate. Some of those fees (such as a recording fee) are charged to the buyer only if the deal goes through.
> 
> In this case, Marriott calls it an ROFR fee, but charges the buyer only if the deal goes through. So whatever it's called, it's still merely a transaction fee.





I agree, but there are no competitive forces at work here and the fee is totally subjective - $95 is way too much to begin with and if they start to ratchet it up what do the two parties do?

I am just worried that Marriott can go nuts here and we have no recourse but the courts.

P.S.
I still remember the day I learned that Marriott stopped charging 25% commission to sell your unit and bumped it up to 40% and there wasn't a whimper of an outcry that I remember.

So what do we do if instead of $95 for a ROFR answer, Marriott charges 40% of the current sales price - effectively destroying the resale market and forcing all resales thru Marriott?

Now if they made it a closing fee of $95 I can understand that, however how much should a developer charge for a ROFR decline fee which is what this is now - 40%?

I don't know why they are dragging ROFR into a change of name issue for closing?


----------



## Pistolpete (Sep 5, 2007)

*$95 fee*

And Counsel could have fun w/ this one. I have now had two MVC reps tell me the $95 is not mandatory unless I request a certified document which is optional.  The second rep noted the file that I only request an email.  At what point will they say "Oh, no. This is a mandatory fee.  Pay now"


----------



## PerryM (Sep 5, 2007)

Pistolpete said:


> And Counsel could have fun w/ this one. I have now had two MVC reps tell me the $95 is not mandatory unless I request a certified document which is optional.  The second rep noted the file that I only request an email.  At what point will they say "Oh, no. This is a mandatory fee.  Pay now"



Huh?

Say what?


----------



## johnmfaeth (Sep 5, 2007)

If they are excercising ROFR's at a resort, you MUST pay the $95 fee upon submission of the newly recorded deed along with the $25 transfer fee. Why would anyone pay a voluntary fee? 

Truth is $120 is not far out of whack for a resort transfer fee. Wyndham get's $100 if points or a RTU contract are involved (deeded only ownership is still a free transfer). Morritt's Grand Cayman gets $300. Many on Aruba get $100-$250.

The worst I know of is the Wyndham Sapphire (privately owned, Wyndham licensee) on St. Maarten which gets a $800 transfer fee. Others on SXM get $200-$500.


----------



## CaliDave (Sep 5, 2007)

Mayan resorts in Mexico charge a transfer fee of 10% of the original cost. Which in many cases is $3K for a $30,000 week.


----------



## TSResalez (Sep 24, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Why stop at $95?
> 
> Why not $950? Or $9,500?
> 
> ...



I was told this fee is waived as a courtesy during internal resales and was only implemented to cover the growing increase in the ROFR department.


----------



## TSResalez (Sep 25, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I favor ROFR but don't see the logic of making EVERY Marriott owner selling their unit pay $95 fee, it used to have NO fee and should go back to being free.
> 
> ROFR is an integral part of the Marriott resale system that keeps resale prices high.  As seller I love this and as the buyer it give me comfort that when I turn around and sell that unit the resale value will be higher than when I bought it.
> 
> ...



I was curious by your post and called Wyndham....they have absolutely NO resale program. They leave it in the hands of the resale market. Ouch!!


----------



## TSResalez (Sep 25, 2007)

Dave M said:


> Just a minor point, Perry....
> 
> Marriott charges the fee to the _buyer_ at closing as a condition of recognizing the buyer on Marriott's records.



At a recent purchase, I was given the option to split this fee 50/50 with the seller. Not so bad...


----------



## Dave M (Sep 25, 2007)

As far as Marriott is concerned, the fee has to be paid before Marriott will recognize the buyer as the owner. Thus, from Marriott's standpoint, the buyer has the responsibility to pay the fee. However, as you suggest, any time the seller is willing to pay part of the fee, that's cause for a  by the buyer!


----------



## PerryM (Sep 25, 2007)

TSResalez said:


> I was curious by your post and called Wyndham....they have absolutely NO resale program. They leave it in the hands of the resale market. Ouch!!



That was my point - a developer who get's involved in resales is going to have a ROFR to snap up panic sales - the alternative is a developer who considers resales their archenemy and does everything in its power to kill resale prices.

Of course all they do is to fuel sharp timeshare folks into buying the same exact timeshare unit for 15 cents on the dollar - it makes no sense but developers are sales oriented and have a salesrep's outlook on things.

The typical salesrep spends the last day of the month cursing anything in sight for deplorable sales - the weather, the economy, resale prices, their mother....


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 25, 2007)

Dave M said:


> As far as Marriott is concerned, the fee has to be paid before Marriott will recognize the buyer as the owner. Thus, from Marriott's standpoint, the buyer has the responsibility to pay the fee. However, as you suggest, any time the seller is willing to pay part of the fee, that's cause for a  by the buyer!



It was my understanding that the fee had to be shown as being paid by the buyer on the closing statement. I don't know if the closing statement actually gets sent to Marriott though. Of course one could always negotiate that the seller pay $95 someplace else to balance it out.


----------



## Dave M (Sep 26, 2007)

That's close. The fee is paid through closing - or before closing, if the buyer arranges to do so. It's also possible that the fee won't be paid through closing if, for example, the buyer ands seller handle the closing themselves. Amnd in such a case, there wouldn't be a closing statement. 

Marriott doesn't care who pays, as long as the fee gets paid. However, Marriott won't recognize the buyer until the fee is paid. 

That's like buying a timeshare from Marriott. Marriott doesn't care who pays the $30,000, as long as it gets paid. Anyone want to volunteer to pay $30,000 for me?


----------



## Icarus (Sep 26, 2007)

I think what's bothersome, Dave, is that the ROFR is for the most part for Marriott's benefit. I don't think they are buying units at ROFR in order to keep the resale market propped up. Since it's strictly for their benefit and allows them to pick up units on the cheap, why should anybody have to pay a fee for the priviledge of allowing Marriott to pick and choose which resale transactions they chose to buy out from under the purchaser's offer because they think they can make a profit by exercising that right?

I'd like to see somebody try something like that in the private sector. Sure, I'll give you some consideration for an ROFR on your property, but if I don't exercise my right, the buyer has to pay me a fee. That seems laughable to me.

So, basically, it seems hard to justify this from a normal business perspective. But as we all know, the timeshare business is not a normal business. There's fees for breathing, eating and sleeping. Want to trade? Pay a fee. Want to occupy your unit? Pay a fee. Want to trade for points? Pay a fee. Want to sell your unit? Pay a fee. Want clean sheets? Pay a fee. Want to pay us our loan monthly by ACH direct debit? Pay a fee. (that's the one that I think really sucks.) Want to pay off your loan? Pay a fee. Want us to sell your unit? Pay a fee. Want to transfer ownership to a new owner? Pay a fee.

Jut for kicks, I got a letter from Marriott recently offering to purchase my KBC 1BR OV for ...

12.5k less $400 in closing costs (pay another fee) that I would have to pay.

Now that they are reopening the sales gallery, I guess they can't get enough inventory by exercising ROFR and even 50% or 60% offers would not be enough profit for them.

Let's face it .. these companies are in the business to make a profit, and that's fair. But some of the standard practices in the industry, even by the best of the companies, sucks. Fee income must be a huge part of the equation.

-David


----------



## johnmfaeth (Sep 26, 2007)

Marriott and the other developers are making tons of profits and seeking even more, thus some bean counter figured out they could increase revenue and hurt private resales through the ROFR fee. A win-win in their book.

What's surprising is that they only have a $25 resort transfer fee. Wyndham gets $100 (unless a deeded fixed or floating week without points). Divi, Celebrity, and others get $200+.

The record is the privately owned Wyndham licensee, the Sapphire Beach on St. Maarten which now gets $800 !!! Others on St. Maarten jumped on the bandwagon and get $500.

So I predict steady increases in the resort transfer fee going forward, another win-win way (in their book) to increase revenues.

And I consider the worst aspect of the ROFR process to be the anxiety that the buyer goes through waiting at least one week (and as long as 30 days) after a signed contract of sale is submitted to MVC. And that contract takes at least another week to get into existence (creation, execution by both parties) and submitted.


----------



## ffxjack (Sep 26, 2007)

*closing time period stipulations?*

From what I understand, it seems that MVCI has to agree to similar terms as negotiated by the seller.  I wonder if it's possible to stipulate that closing will occur within a certain time frame, i.e. 2 wks of passing ROFR, otherwise the purchase price will increase by some predetermined amount, say 50%.  I figure individuals sellers and buyers (and their agents) can probably push through the paperwork, while a larger corporation may be less nimble.


----------



## ricki999 (Sep 29, 2007)

If they changed Summit Watch to a ROFR resort, why has it not done so at these resorts? 

Marriott's Desert Springs Villas • MDS 
Marriott's Harbour Point • HPS
Marriott's Heritage Club at Harbour Town • MHG
Marriott's Monarch at Sea Pines • MMS
Marriott's Royal Palms • MRP
Marriott's Streamside (Birch, Cedar, Douglas) • MVB, MCD, MDO
Marriott's Sunset Pointe • MSN


----------



## Dave M (Sep 29, 2007)

You'll have to ask Marriott that question. 

The two most logical answers to your question would seem to be that....

The legal documents for those resorts don't permit such a change without a vote of the owners...

and/or

Marriott has no need for inventory at those resorts and, therefore doesn't need an ROFR.


----------



## TSResalez (Oct 11, 2007)

ricki999 said:


> If they changed Summit Watch to a ROFR resort, why has it not done so at these resorts?
> 
> Marriott's Desert Springs Villas • MDS
> Marriott's Harbour Point • HPS
> ...



Desert Springs Villas (2) has ROFR.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Jul 14, 2019)

I thought I would reactivate this older thread in light of all the merge discussions currently going on in the Marriott thread (and gathering lots of outside interest (non Marriott owners), speculation and participation).

This particular thread deals with activation of ROFR (after the fact) at the Marriott Summit Watch Resort in 2007 (many years after the Resort was initially marketed).   For all you newcomers to the Marriott thread, Summit Watch Resort is located in Park City, Utah and constructed during the 1990's.

I find it is an interesting read from beginning to the end.....

And for all you PerryM fans you will find him placing some of his comments in the thread, as well as our now retired knowledgeable TUG friend and Marriott Moderator DaveM.   I believe DaveM still follows TUG but rarely posts any comments.  Hello to DaveM in case he is reading this.

All, please enjoy the thread.





.


----------

