# Reservation Procedures updates [merged]



## RBERR1 (Nov 19, 2010)

*Has anyone received a reservation procedure update document for your resort*

I received a reservation procedure doucment for Sunset Pointe and Cypress Harbour that seems to be written in legalese.  Interesting that at least for now I have not received one for Barony Beach.

Has anybody else gotten one and have they been able to determine what the exact changes are?


----------



## windje2000 (Nov 19, 2010)

RBERR1 said:


> I received a reservation procedure doucment for Sunset Pointe and Cypress Harbour that seems to be written in legalese.  Interesting that at least for now I have not received one for Barony Beach.
> 
> Has anybody else gotten one and have they been able to determine what the exact changes are?



1. Yes (Royal Palms) and 2. not yet.  

Mine used an unusual word - 'promulgated' - and seems to have been dated in May, well prior to 6/20/2010.  

Wondering why the 'promulgation' wasn't publicized before.


----------



## HenryT (Nov 19, 2010)

I received one for Sunset Pointe and Grande Ocean. I skimmed them but not sure what the changes are.


----------



## wof45 (Nov 19, 2010)

I think it is the legal language that allows the DC to have weeks starting on other days and lasting less than a week.


----------



## RBERR1 (Nov 19, 2010)

wof45 said:


> I think it is the legal language that allows the DC to have weeks starting on other days and lasting less than a week.



That would make sense.  I wish they would have also sent a quick summary saying what they were instead of just sending a legal doc.

Anybody see any other changes to be aware of.


----------



## Dave M (Nov 19, 2010)

I think for the most part, the new provisions, at least for Grande Ocean ("GO"), are an update to the existing rules, some of which, especially for older resorts, were obsolete based on actual practice. As one example, the new rules now make it explicit that an owner may reserve weeks at two or more *different resorts* 13 months in advance.

I don't think the check-in change relates to the DC. For GO, the "Check-in day" in the new rules is still specifically defined as Friday, Saturday and Sunday and that those are the only first days of a use period (not counting split week options). Then the document states that no matter what an owner's check-in day is, the owner can check in on any day of the week, but occupancy shall terminate on the final day of the owner's reserved use period. 

To me, that formalizes the option we have to reserve a week and then, if we call in advance, check in late on (for example) the third day of our week without risk that the week would be canceled if we don't show up on the normal check-in day. 

Interestingly, the changes still don't recognize that reservations can be made through the Internet. Allowable methods include telephone, mail and facsimile transmission. The old GO rules (adopted in 1993!) referred to mail as the only allowable reservation method!

Also formalized is Marriott's position that if a multi-week owner makes reservations at 13 months and then cancels one of the weeks, Marriott can cancel all of the weeks reserved at 13 months.

There are some other changes to the written GO rules:
Owners have to make a reservation at least 75 days before the beginning of the owner's "season" in order to ensure that a week will be available. Otherwise, an owner might be stuck with an II "credit" - an exchange week.
There are some updates to the provisions restricting ability of owners to use their week when delinquent on MFs and allowing Marriott to rent the owner's week to recover some or all of the delinquent MFs.
The use of a lottery system, to be used if Marriott so chooses, is authorized to ensure that all owners have the opportunity to reserve high demand weeks (e.g., for holidays or special events in the area).
The existing practice that an owner may lose the right to make another reservation if a reservation is canceled within 60 days of check-in is formalized. And the fee for changing a reservation ($25) is formalized.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Nov 19, 2010)

Dave,
Thanks for the interpretation and the "Readers Digest" version.  I had a tough time trying to get through that document.


----------



## BocaBoy (Nov 19, 2010)

I have received mine from Sabal Palms.  None yet from my other resorts.  The Sabal Palms document seemed to primarily codify in one document the existing rules, with a few tweaks as mentioned above.  I am glad these updates are being prepared for apparently all the resorts.  I saw nothing in the new document that would have been caused by the DC club.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 19, 2010)

Dave M said:


> I think for the most part, the new provisions, at least for Grande Ocean ("GO"), are an update to the existing rules, some of which, especially for older resorts, were obsolete based on actual practice. As one example, the new rules now make it explicit that an owner may reserve weeks at two or more *different resorts* 13 months in advance.



For the most part SurfWatch's amended version and original are word-for-word from Section 1.2 (d) to the end.  The difference in the 1.1 DEFINITIONS section is, the entire language from "Notwithstanding" in the first paragraph through the end is new and doesn't replace anything.

It's interesting that they've included a definition for "Multi-Interest Owner" which specifies ownership of "at least one Time Sharing Interest at ..." [mine says SurfWatch - do yours say your resorts?] "and at least one ... branded as "Marriott Vacation Club."  Obviously that's to include DC members, but I agree with you that it also clarifies the 13-mos reservation rules can be used to reserve different resorts. 



Dave M said:


> I don't think the check-in change relates to the DC. For GO, the "Check-in day" in the new rules is still specifically defined as Friday, Saturday and Sunday and that those are the only first days of a use period (not counting split week options). Then the document states that no matter what an owner's check-in day is, the owner can check in on any day of the week, but occupancy shall terminate on the final day of the owner's reserved use period.
> 
> To me, that formalizes the option we have to reserve a week and then, if we call in advance, check in late on (for example) the third day of our week without risk that the week would be canceled if we don't show up on the normal check-in day.



I agree with you here but I do wonder why they've put some of the language in gigantic capital letters.     Is it possible that these amended Reservation Procedures have been made uniform and formalized across ALL of Marriott's business, including the DC, in order to spell out specifically for Trust and Exchange Members that their usage is not a 7-day period unless they reserve it as such?  And maybe it has something to do, too, with how Marriott allocates inventory for DC usage?



Dave M said:


> Interestingly, the changes still don't recognize that reservations can be made through the Internet. Allowable methods include telephone, mail and facsimile transmission. The old GO rules (adopted in 1993!) referred to mail as the only allowable reservation method!



Mine says, "by telephone, electronic mail, internet application mail, or facsimile."  It's exactly the same wording on the new as the old; I've always thought "internet application mail" meant the website.



Dave M said:


> Also formalized is Marriott's position that if a multi-week owner makes reservations at 13 months and then cancels one of the weeks, Marriott can cancel all of the weeks reserved at 13 months.



I think there's a significant difference here in my two versions and this amended one is much stricter.  The original said, "Any cancellation of a Use Period reserved more than twelve (12) months in advance must include all concurrent or consecutive use Periods reserved with the Use Period cancelled."  This new one says, "The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."

That's harsh!  ALL reservations for a usage year will be cancelled if I cancel only one of two or more Weeks booked more than 12-mos out?  Wow.

The language has always been there to give them the right but they didn't practice it.  I wonder if this new stricter language is also there for a 'just-in-case-we-have-to' situation, or if they're going to start enforcing it.  One reason they may want to is, it will free up prime Weeks inventory for DC use if Weeks owners are not allowed to book at 13-mos as a safety net for their other plans, requiring a later reservation, maybe not working out?



Dave M said:


> There are some other changes to the written GO rules:
> Owners have to make a reservation at least 75 days before the beginning of the owner's "season" in order to ensure that a week will be available. Otherwise, an owner might be stuck with an II "credit" - an exchange week.
> There are some updates to the provisions restricting ability of owners to use their week when delinquent on MFs and allowing Marriott to rent the owner's week to recover some or all of the delinquent MFs.
> The use of a lottery system, to be used if Marriott so chooses, is authorized to ensure that all owners have the opportunity to reserve high demand weeks (e.g., for holidays or special events in the area).
> The existing practice that an owner may lose the right to make another reservation if a reservation is canceled within 60 days of check-in is formalized. And the fee for changing a reservation ($25) is formalized.



All of these are word-for-word from the original SurfWatch version.  I don't have the new Barony Beach version yet but if it's the same as this, there are a whole lot of differences.  Barony's old version is probably similar to GO's.  That makes me wonder if we're all getting the same new version .... hmmmm.

I have no interest in reading them all but if any of the legal gurus want to take a swipe at them, here's the SurfWatch version.


----------



## tiel (Nov 19, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> I think there's a significant difference here in my two versions and this amended one is much stricter.  The original said, "Any cancellation of a Use Period reserved more than twelve (12) months in advance must include all concurrent or consecutive use Periods reserved with the Use Period cancelled."  This new one says, "The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."
> 
> That's harsh!  ALL reservations for a usage year will be cancelled if I cancel only one of two or more Weeks booked more than 12-mos out?  Wow.
> 
> The language has always been there to give them the right but they didn't practice it.  I wonder if this new stricter language is also there for a 'just-in-case-we-have-to' situation, or if they're going to start enforcing it.  One reason they may want to is, it will free up prime Weeks inventory for DC use if Weeks owners are not allowed to book at 13-mos as a safety net for their other plans, requiring a later reservation, maybe not working out?.



Question regarding this 13-month rule:  would "cancellation" include  subsequently depositing one of the weeks in II for exchange, and/or a change to the check-in date of one of the weeks (for example, to a month later)?  Or is it just true cancellations, where the week is returned (in MVCI) to the owner for later use?  

We have often made the 13-month reservations, then deposited one of the weeks into II;  the weeks we use are on opposite sides of the country, and it would be a real pain to actually occupy both of the weeks reserved.  We hope this approach is still going to be ok, since it has worked so well for us.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 19, 2010)

The Barony Beach new version came later today; again, it's here if anyone is taking a look at all of them.

It answers one of my earlier questions, that we're not all getting a uniform version that fits all resorts.  Barony's new version isn't all that different from its old, but it's not the same as SurfWatch's new version.  What is similar between SurfWatch's and Barony's new versions is that the language which has been amended is the same in both.  (Whew, I hope that's easily understood.    )

These are the glaring differences from the old versions, with slight changes for Barony Beach and Surfwatch in []:

- New to the 1.1 Definitions section in both new versions I have is this language:

"Notwithstanding any Check-in Day(s) defined or set forth herein or in the ["applicable calendar" - Barony Beach] ["Declaration" - SurfWatch], Management Company may, in its sole discretion, accommodate Owners' requests to check in to the ["Condominium" - Barony Beach] ["resort" - SurfWatch] on any day ["of the week" - SurfWatch].  REGARDLESS OF AN OWNER'S SPECIFIC CHECK-IN DAY, OCCUPANCY SHALL TERMINATE ON THE FINAL DAY OF THE OWNER'S RESERVED USE PERIOD."

In the next paragraph defining Multi- ["Week - Barony Beach] ["Interest" - SurfWatch] Owners, both new versions make new reference to "... another timeshare resort, timeshare plan or other vacation resort owned and/or operated by Declarant or its subsidiaries, affiliates or parent company, and branded as 'Marriott Vacation Club' ..."

- In Section 1.2 the language referencing cancellations of reservations made using the 13-months rule has been changed in both new versions I have.  This is Barony Beach's old version:

"Any cancellation of a Use Period reserved more than one (1) year in advance must include all concurrent or consecutive Use periods reserved with the Use Period canceled."

This is SurfWatch's old version:

"Any cancellation of a Use Period reserved more than twelve (12) months in advance must include all concurrent or consecutive use Periods reserved with the Use Period cancelled."

Both new versions contain this much stricter language:

"The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."

- In Section 1.7 General Rules for Barony Beach and Section 1.6 General Rules for SurfWatch, this language is new:

"(h) the Management Company may forecast anticipated reservation and use of Units and is authorized to reasonably reserve, deposit, or rent the Units for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Units or other benefits made available through the Time Sharing Plan."

*******************

I'll confess to being more than a little bit concerned about what these changes mean for Weeks usage, and I hope that more owners will join this thread to see if we can figure all this out.


----------



## David10225 (Nov 19, 2010)

I got the Barony Beach one....


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 19, 2010)

tiel said:


> Question regarding this 13-month rule:  would "cancellation" include  subsequently depositing one of the weeks in II for exchange, and/or a change to the check-in date of one of the weeks (for example, to a month later)?  Or is it just true cancellations, where the week is returned (in MVCI) to the owner for later use?
> 
> We have often made the 13-month reservations, then deposited one of the weeks into II;  the weeks we use are on opposite sides of the country, and it would be a real pain to actually occupy both of the weeks reserved.  We hope this approach is still going to be ok, since it has worked so well for us.



I have no idea, tiel, but we've done the same as you, made 13-mo reservations of multiple weeks and then deposited one in II and/or cancelled one to reserve another date in the same season.  For as many years as we've owned, Marriott has never enforced the doc language about cancelling all consecutive/concurrent reservations if the Owner cancels one.

I think this is very concerning not only for Weeks, but if the references to "... any MVC-branded ..." mean the DC, it's also concerning for DC use.  Does it mean that we can't make a 13-mo Weeks reservation and decide later to convert one or all of those Weeks to Points without forfeiting all reservations in that use year?


----------



## hipslo (Nov 21, 2010)

Dave M said:


> Also formalized is Marriott's position that if a multi-week owner makes reservations at 13 months and then cancels one of the weeks, Marriott can cancel all of the weeks reserved at 13 months.



This sounds like a departure from current practice.  Is it meant to suggest that if one of the weeks is, for example, deposited to II, or exchanged for DC points, or MRPs, or rented through marriott's rental program, or rented outside of marriott's rental program, that all units reserved at the same time will be cancelled?  And, if so, would it depend at all on when this occurs?


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 21, 2010)

hipslo said:


> This sounds like a departure from current practice.  Is it meant to suggest that if one of the weeks is, for example, deposited to II, or exchanged for DC points, or MRPs, or rented through marriott's rental program, or rented outside of marriott's rental program, that all units reserved at the same time will be cancelled?  And, if so, would it depend at all on when this occurs?



Those are the things I'm concerned with, too - what will Marriott consider a "cancellation" to be?

Plus I think the new wording is much stricter than how Dave has interpreted it, much stricter than what it was in the older versions of the Reservations Procedures documents (if it was included in the doc at all.)

The old version seemed to mean that Marriott could cancel all of the concurrent/consecutive reservations made more than 12-mos out if the Owner cancelled only one of those multiple reservations.  The way this new version reads, Marriott has leeway to cancel all of the reservations made for a given use year, and not just the concurrent/consecutive ones made more than 12-mos out.  That's a significant change, I think - many of us reserve some combination of unrelated multi- and single-weeks throughout the year.

Marriott didn't practice the old version at all - we routinely made 13-mos reservations for three weeks and cancelled/deposited only one or two of those after the fact, without any penalty.  If Marriott doesn't practice this new version of the rules then we won't have anything to worry about it, either, but why would they develop a stricter version if they don't intend to practice it?  Especially when by practicing it, they may be able to free up some prime inventory for DC use?


----------



## taffy19 (Nov 22, 2010)

Personally, I believe that Marriott is putting all these clauses in to protect themselves once many DC point owners have bought in the trust and want to stay at the older resorts. There is only so much space in the resorts but they keep selling the dream of staying there over and over again.  They may even have a lottery later to fulfill the demand more fairly. It may be years away but they are putting the clauses in the contracts already so they can enforce it when it becomes necessary. JMHO.

Give me a fixed week/unit so I know what I own and they can't temper with it unless I enroll and select to use points. What would worry me as a point owner is that they will devalue these points over time so you will have to spend more money again to get what you already paid for. 

They have to make money somehow and the old week-based program was no longer doing that for them. I see hard times ahead for this industry because traveling is a luxury item and not necessary to survive. It's not only the Marriott but all the big developers are guilty of raising the maintenance fees faster than the rate of inflation. Let's be honest, it benefits their bottom line because they have the maintenance contract too and they get a percentage. If you want a well known name on your resort, you will have to pay dearly for the privilege.  The higher the maintenance fees go, the less value there is in owning a timeshare and renting is the way to go.


----------



## puckmanfl (Nov 22, 2010)

good morning....

To quote/paraphrase Windje... (kind of sort of...)

For every motive, there is a plan..
For every action... a reaction
etc.. etc.. etc...

If the legal beagles are creating new docs ,there is a reason beyond boredom and the academic exercise...

Pretty obvious to me!!! Closing some loopholes in the 13 mos. legacy reservation system in order to open more DC inventory at 13 months...

I doubt that MVCI woke up one morning and said "Gee, puckman is having a hard time booking a ski week because some owner is booking 13.5 mos in advance using extra weeks, then canceling.  Let's help poor puck out"

remember, before DC MVCI did not care, but now they sell a competing reservation and exchange system!!!


----------



## wof45 (Nov 22, 2010)

I think the only difference is that more people are reserving at the 13 month point because they know they can after all the rules came out about the DC.  People want to see if they really can get a reservation into whatever.

If tuggers have been gaming the system, it looks like this will be harder to do in the future.  But I'm sure someone will better define just what came be done that will still work without risks.


----------



## windje2000 (Nov 22, 2010)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> To quote/paraphrase Windje... (kind of sort of...)
> 
> ...




Its more than 'selling' a competing exchange system, its operating that system for their own account and their financial benefit, - - - to your detriment.

And now Marriott appears to be signaling that are going to antagonize their 'best' customers, the folks who own multiple weeks and reduce/change/alter the benefits of owning multiple weeks.  Enforcement of this policy could have the effect of  'encouraging' one to elect points to get the high demand weeks a multiple weeks owner could snag with the 13 month rule.

Another excellent business strategy?  They're nearing the Rubicon when even SueDonJ is becoming concerned.   What will they use to cross it?

If they keep this up, they're really going to need that voting clause in the docs.


----------



## puckmanfl (Nov 22, 2010)

good morning...

I have had great success with legacy and DC.  I believe that MVCI's love stops where their pockets begin... (just like any large company).

I really enjoy the game and playing the anglees.  They have my coin and I am sort of locked in, so I am going to play and have fun...

puck


----------



## pwrshift (Nov 22, 2010)

*What about lockoff suites?*

I haven't yet received any notice for my 6 weeks.  As they are non-trust resorts I expect to get them...did they come via email or snail?  

I suspect any changes are the result Marriott could be worried about not enough control over non-member resorts and the way they have been booked, so I forecast they will police it.

The question comes up about booking 2 lockoff suites 13 months ahead and splitting them to span 4weeks in a row.  If one tries to replace the two studio weeks in this case with 1-2 bdrm exchanges with Interval, I wonder if this gives Marriott the right to cancel the whole thing?

Brian


----------



## pwrshift (Nov 22, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> And now Marriott appears to be signaling that are going to antagonize their 'best' customers, the folks who own multiple weeks and reduce/change/alter the benefits of owning multiple weeks.
> 
> If they keep this up, they're really going to need that voting clause in the docs.



That's why they hope to snare in a majority of non-trust resort owners.  An owner of 2 resale weeks bought for $5000 each can book 13 months ahead...compare that to the value of points a DC member has to buy to have that option!

But as long as they won't let resales after June 20th join they don't have a chance to win a vote unless, as is normal, existing owners don't bother to vote.  And when current owners sell their weeks marriott has lost their vote too.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 22, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> Its more than 'selling' a competing exchange system, its operating that system for their own account and their financial benefit, - - - to your detriment.
> 
> And now Marriott appears to be signaling that are going to antagonize their 'best' customers, the folks who own multiple weeks and reduce/change/alter the benefits of owning multiple weeks.  Enforcement of this policy could have the effect of  'encouraging' one to elect points to get the high demand weeks a multiple weeks owner could snag with the 13 month rule.
> 
> ...



I sure am concerned and honestly don't understand why this isn't drawing attention from more TUGgers.  It's one thing for Marriott to have a right by virtue of the docs and NOT practice it; it's an entirely different animal if they expand on that right with the intent to put it in practice.

They're sure not going to come out and tell us, though, if their intent is to practice this stricter policy, so ... who here feels comfortable enough that they won't?  Who is willing to go ahead and book their Weeks the way they've been doing, using the 13-mos advantage and then making changes to those Weeks later?  Not me, no way.  I'll be waiting and watching to see how this plays out.

But for the record, I'm always concerned about what Marriott is able to do - they've always held the highest cards and that's never going to change.  It's been my belief since that speculation thread that there shouldn't be any doubt  Marriott is going to do whatever it has to do to make the DC a success.  They need prime Weeks inventory to be available for exchanges, and we should be on the lookout for ways that they can get it.  This new cancellation policy may be one way.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 22, 2010)

pwrshift said:


> I haven't yet received any notice for my 6 weeks.  As they are non-trust resorts I expect to get them...did they come via email or snail?



They came in an email from Owner Services; both of mine read the same except the resort name is different:


> ...Please click here to view a copy of the reservation procedures for Marriott's [resort], which contain certain amendments recently introduced by the management company on behalf of the Board. These amendments address the following issues:
> 
> 1.	Check-in for Owners and transient occupants (rentals) on days not specified as official
> check-in days
> ...



They're definitely making a concerted effort to call our attention to #4, no doubt.  



pwrshift said:


> I suspect any changes are the result Marriott could be worried about not enough control over non-member resorts and the way they have been booked, so I forecast they will police it.



I agree, I think they've made changes for a specific reason - to free up prime Weeks inventory for DC exchanges - and policing it will allow them that access.

One other thought - this is when dioxide's thread about Trust inventory is very helpful.  Marriott is conveying inventory from more resorts all the time; eventually there will be very few, if any, resorts which aren't Trust resorts.



pwrshift said:


> The question comes up about booking 2 lockoff suites 13 months ahead and splitting them to span 4weeks in a row.  If one tries to replace the two studio weeks in this case with 1-2 bdrm exchanges with Interval, I wonder if this gives Marriott the right to cancel the whole thing?
> 
> Brian



Your guess is as good as anyone's.     One thing that may be in Weeks owners' favor is, some of the original versions of the Reservations Procedures documents at the older resorts contained a stipulation that the weeks reserved using the 13-mos rule were "for Owner occupancy only" (although Marriott didn't enforce it anywhere.)  Barony's had that wording; SurfWatch's did not.  This new version does not.


----------



## wof45 (Nov 22, 2010)

my guess is that Marriott is only after the throw-away weeks that some use to get a multi-week reservation and then cancel the lead in week(s).

Then a cancel one week would cancel the string. 

I doubt they are after multiple units the same week or depositing weeks to interval with a reservation number.

But, we shall see


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 22, 2010)

I'm sorry, I know this is bordering on obsession now but here's another thing I just thought of ...

Fletch talked about the Owner surveys and what makes Owners unhappy with II in that speculation thread; one of the things is that some don't like that they're unable to get home usage of prime Weeks while others are exchanging/renting those Weeks.  Look at #5 in that email:  "These amendments address the following issues ... 5. Use of inventory to support Owners' use of units and other Owner benefits."

Enforcing this new, stricter cancellation policy could free up those Weeks, right?  Well, so could enforcing what Starwood has begun doing, which is to assign a Week (rather than allowing an Owner to choose) when an Owner makes a deposit for an exchange.

This wording (bolding mine) in SurfWatch's and Barony's docs is unchanged between the old and new versions:


> Section 1.2 (f) ... If designation of a specific Unit is required to effectuate an exchange, *the Management Company ... will provide* the Owner with a reservation confirmation *as ["reasonably" - SW] needed* to effectuate an exchange.



Was this language included in ALL Weeks docs before?  Dave said the Lottery language (which may also be related) is new to GO's docs; is this also new to some?

Won't enforcing this language across all resorts now allow Marriott to do what Starwood is doing?  Again, it appears they've always had the right to do it at some resorts and didn't enforce it.  But does including it in all of these new versions signal that they will begin to do so?

Ugh, this is way too much thinking about "what if."  The doc language is important but they have a history of not enforcing it all.  I just want to know what they intend to do differently so that I can use Weeks and Points advantageously.


----------



## windje2000 (Nov 22, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm sorry, I know this is bordering on obsession now but here's another thing I just thought of ...
> 
> Fletch talked about the Owner surveys and what makes Owners unhappy with II in that speculation thread; one of the things is that some don't like that they're unable to get home usage of prime Weeks while others are exchanging/renting those Weeks.  Look at #5 in that email:  "These amendments address the following issues ... 5. Use of inventory to support Owners' use of units and other Owner benefits."
> 
> ...



I haven't read the document and the Section is quoted out of context.  Given those caveats, is the purpose of Section 1.2 (f) to identify and/or guarantee view?


----------



## abdibile (Nov 22, 2010)

tiel said:


> Question regarding this 13-month rule:  would "cancellation" include  subsequently depositing one of the weeks in II for exchange, and/or a change to the check-in date of one of the weeks (for example, to a month later)?  Or is it just true cancellations, where the week is returned (in MVCI) to the owner for later use?
> 
> We have often made the 13-month reservations, then deposited one of the weeks into II;  the weeks we use are on opposite sides of the country, and it would be a real pain to actually occupy both of the weeks reserved.  We hope this approach is still going to be ok, since it has worked so well for us.



I really can not imagine that "cancellation" would mean anything else than cancellation.

Why should they call renting, deposting or whatever a cenellation of a reservation? Nothing is canceled there, time period and unit number stay the same, only the guest name is changed for a deposit/exchange or rental.

I understand that they want to stop people from reserving long strinks of weeks and then cancelling the first few weeks. It is (and has been) clearly in the rules that you have to cancel the whole string then. If someone tries to not apply to this rule, now Marriott has one more option to punish him (cancel all his reservations for that year).


----------



## abdibile (Nov 22, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm sorry, I know this is bordering on obsession now but here's another thing I just thought of ...
> 
> Fletch talked about the Owner surveys and what makes Owners unhappy with II in that speculation thread; one of the things is that some don't like that they're unable to get home usage of prime Weeks while others are exchanging/renting those Weeks.  Look at #5 in that email:  "These amendments address the following issues ... 5. Use of inventory to support Owners' use of units and other Owner benefits."
> 
> ...




I think I have read on TUG in the past that the lottery language has been in some reservation policies, but not sure about that.


I read the whole paragraph re exchanging 1.3.f) differently:

If you want to exchange, you first need to get a reservation (to deposit it).

If a unit deisgnation is needed for the exchange, you get a confirmation with a unit number on it. (who needs this? II does not require that if I am not completely msitaken, perhaps the independents?)

Owner is responsible to play in the exchange companies rules.


I do not see any wording that could lead to a Starwood-like "we chose the week that is deposited".

Let's hope my interpretations are correct...


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 22, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> I haven't read the document and the Section is quoted out of context.  Given those caveats, is the purpose of Section 1.2 (f) to identify and/or guarantee view?



I think view guarantees are covered in Section 1.2 (d):  "... The requested Use Period shall be limited to .. a Use Period within the same season and for a Unit type (i.e. Oceanfront, Oceanside or Garden villa) which corresponds to the Time Sharing Interest owned ..."  (This is Barony's version; SW's is similar except it includes language pertaining to the Ultimate Occupancy provision that's probably similar to OceanWatch's - those two resorts allowed usage in a different type unit than what was purchased while the resorts were still in the building phase.)

It is difficult to figure this all out without access to all of the complete docs, isn't it?  You can click on the links for SW and Barony to get context, but this is the entire section being questioned:  "1.2 (f) Owners desiring to exchange their right to use a Unit through an exchange company must first obtain a confirmed reservation pursuant to these Procedures prior to seeking to trade within any exchange system.  If designation of a specific Unit is required to effectuate an exchange, the Manage Company, upon notification of this fact by the Owner, will provide the Owner with a reservation confirmation as [reasonably*] needed to effectuate an exchange."

(* This is the only difference between SW's and Barony's documents; both are repeated word-for-word in both the new and old versions of the Reservations Procedures docs.)

Like I said, I don't know if this can apply if Marriott wants to go the same route that Starwood has gone.  Do you know how/why Starwood was able to change their practice?  That might be helpful.


----------



## Dave M (Nov 22, 2010)

abdibile said:


> I really can not imagine that "cancellation" would mean anything else than cancellation.
> 
> Why should they call renting, deposting or whatever a cenellation of a reservation? Nothing is canceled there, time period and unit number stay the same, only the guest name is changed for a deposit/exchange or rental.


You might be right, but it appears that Marriott might not agree.

When I go to Marriott.com, log in and then go to "Change/Cancel Reservations" (link at the top of the page), the list of my "Cancelled Reservations" is at the bottom of that page. Included in that list of "Cancelled Reservations" are both of my Marriott deposits to II that I made this year. Both the original confirmation number and the cancellation number (presumably issued after II notified Marriott of the deposits) are listed.

Who is going to be first to take the risk? Not I!


----------



## BocaBoy (Nov 23, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> I think there's a significant difference here in my two versions and this amended one is much stricter.  The original said, "Any cancellation of a Use Period reserved more than twelve (12) months in advance must include all concurrent or consecutive use Periods reserved with the Use Period cancelled."  This new one says, "The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."
> 
> That's harsh!  ALL reservations for a usage year will be cancelled if I cancel only one of two or more Weeks booked more than 12-mos out?  Wow.
> 
> The language has always been there to give them the right but they didn't practice it.  I wonder if this new stricter language is also there for a 'just-in-case-we-have-to' situation, or if they're going to start enforcing it.  One reason they may want to is, it will free up prime Weeks inventory for DC use if Weeks owners are not allowed to book at 13-mos as a safety net for their other plans, requiring a later reservation, maybe not working out?



I read this language differently.  I think the new rule is less harsh.  The old rule REQUIRED all weeks of a multi-week reservation to be canceled in the circumstances we are talking about.  Because that rule is too harsh, Marriott has not enforced it.  The new rule gives them the right to cancel the whole reservation, but does not require it.  That seems to make sense, because there may be a good and unavoidable reason for a cancellation of one week and they do not want to penalize an owner in that case.  However, if the multi-week reservation was made with the intent to get an early booking of a single week by then canceling one of the weeks, then in my opinion the entire reservation should be canceled.  That strategy violates the letter of the rule (even though not enforced) and certainly violates the spirit of the rule, which is to enable an owner who owns a block of weeks to reserve them as a block.

I cannot think of a harsher rule than the old one:  Let's say a person owns 4 weeks in Maui, locks off and books 8 weeks in a row, then has to cancel one to go to a wedding which was announced after the booking.  The old rule says the entire 8 weeks must be canceled.  And you think the the new rule is harsher?


----------



## windje2000 (Nov 23, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> I read this language differently.  I think the new rule is less harsh.  The old rule REQUIRED all weeks of a multi-week reservation to be canceled in the circumstances we are talking about.  Because that rule is too harsh, Marriott has not enforced it.  The new rule gives them the right to cancel the whole reservation, but does not require it.  That seems to make sense, because there may be a good and unavoidable reason for a cancellation of one week and they do not want to penalize an owner in that case.  *However, if the multi-week reservation was made with the intent to get an early booking of a single week by then canceling one of the weeks, then in my opinion the entire reservation should be canceled. * That strategy violates the letter of the rule (even though not enforced) and certainly violates the spirit of the rule, which is to enable an owner who owns a block of weeks to reserve them as a block.
> 
> I cannot think of a harsher rule than the old one:  Let's say a person owns 4 weeks in Maui, locks off and books 8 weeks in a row, then has to cancel one to go to a wedding which was announced after the booking.  The old rule says the entire 8 weeks must be canceled.  And you think the the new rule is harsher?



BocaBoy's points are well taken.  I disagree with the bolded part.  That's one of the benefits of owning more than 1 week.  Suppose I want to use my weeks concurrently rather than consecutively.  No advantage there for multiple week owners. 

Owners are using the system as designed.  Personal plans and travel are always subject to change when one has to plan and make reservations more than one year out with multiple timeshare weeks. 

I plan to do what I've always done.  If worst comes to worst, I'll convert to MRP and use them in Europe, where they continue to have good value.  Having said that, it's worth it to request each week have its own separate reservation number.  Better to stay under the radar. 

It can't be repeated often enough that Marriott (by virtue of DClub) has become everyone's competitor for reservations.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 23, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> I read this language differently.  I think the new rule is less harsh.  The old rule REQUIRED all weeks of a multi-week reservation to be canceled in the circumstances we are talking about.  Because that rule is too harsh, Marriott has not enforced it.  The new rule gives them the right to cancel the whole reservation, but does not require it.  That seems to make sense, because there may be a good and unavoidable reason for a cancellation of one week and they do not want to penalize an owner in that case.  However, if the multi-week reservation was made with the intent to get an early booking of a single week by then canceling one of the weeks, then in my opinion the entire reservation should be canceled.  That strategy violates the letter of the rule (even though not enforced) and certainly violates the spirit of the rule, which is to enable an owner who owns a block of weeks to reserve them as a block.
> 
> I cannot think of a harsher rule than the old one:  Let's say a person owns 4 weeks in Maui, locks off and books 8 weeks in a row, then has to cancel one to go to a wedding which was announced after the booking.  The old rule says the entire 8 weeks must be canceled.  And you think the the new rule is harsher?



IF either rule were enforced, then the older one is more harsh in its application because Marriott would be required to apply it to all instances, while the newer one gives them some leeway to apply it at their discretion.  But IF either rule is applied, then the newer one is much harsher in its penalty - you'll forfeit a "Usage Year" worth of reservations with the new version, as opposed to only (!) the consecutive/concurrent reservations made more than 12-months out with the older version.

I just want to know if we need to worry about Marriott beginning to enforce this rule on a regular basis or not.  Like Dave, I'm not going to be the test case.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 23, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> BocaBoy's points are well taken.  I disagree with the bolded part.  That's one of the benefits of owning more than 1 week.  Suppose I want to use my weeks concurrently rather than consecutively.  No advantage there for multiple week owners.
> 
> Owners are using the system as designed.  Personal plans and travel are always subject to change when one has to plan and make reservations more than one year out with multiple timeshare weeks.
> 
> I plan to do what I've always done.  If worst comes to worst, I'll convert to MRP and use them in Europe, where they continue to have good value.  Having said that, it's worth it to request each week have its own separate reservation number.  Better to stay under the radar.



What you have underlined may actually be a point in Marriott's favor, at least as far as their recent marketing campaign for trip insurance?

Has Marriott ever assigned only one confirmation number to concurrent/consecutive reservations?  You see the suggestion to ask for them all the time on TUG but you never see a post by anyone saying that it happened automatically.  I don't ask and have never had it happen; I can't even figure out how their computer system would allow it to happen.



windje2000 said:


> It can't be repeated often enough that Marriott (by virtue of DClub) has become everyone's competitor for reservations.



No doubt.


----------



## wof45 (Nov 23, 2010)

of course there is a benefit to multi-week users to book concurrent weeks.

We do it all the time in order to bring the family together.  

From the documents, it certainly appears that the point of 13 month reservations was so that an owner could use their weeks together.

Using two weeks in order to get one, and then canceling the first, is just gaming the system.  Eventually, it will catch up with us and we will lose more than we gained by gaming the system.


----------



## Ggatorgirl (Nov 23, 2010)

I, for one, would be extremely pleased if Marriott began to enforce either the old or new rule about 'cancelling' or converting 13 month reservations.

This has long been a pet peeve of mine, that 13 month reservations were made then immediately available for rent.  The docs from MCV clearly state that the 13 month ressies were for personal use, not renting...

<aybe those of us who only get the 12 month window will have a slightly better chance of getting peak reservations if the multi week owners knew that gaming the system is no longer allowed.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 23, 2010)

Ggatorgirl said:


> I, for one, would be extremely pleased if Marriott began to enforce either the old or new rule about 'cancelling' or converting 13 month reservations.
> 
> This has long been a pet peeve of mine, that 13 month reservations were made then immediately available for rent.  *The docs from MCV clearly state that the 13 month ressies were for personal use, not renting...*
> 
> <aybe those of us who only get the 12 month window will have a slightly better chance of getting peak reservations if the multi week owners knew that gaming the system is no longer allowed.



I don't have a problem with Marriott allowing or not allowing 13-mos reservations to be exchanged, rented, or used only for Owner stays, but as long as they allow it I don't think that Owners who do it are "gaming" anything.  I just wish they would tell us what their intended blanket policy is going to be from this point forward so that we'll know if we shouldn't be doing something we've always been able to do!  But it'll never happen, I don't think, because Marriott has a history of not enforcing the rules as they're written and not explaining why/how they've chosen to act that way.

About what I've bolded above, though - ALL of the documents did not state clearly that the 13-mos rule was for personal use only.  Comparing the only two I have, Barony Beach's original and revised docs do contain the "... for Owner occupancy only ..." wording, SurfWatch's do not.

That may be why they haven't enforced it at the resorts which stipulate it - because that would mean they'd have two different sets of rules to follow and they're all about one set of rules across all resorts.  It's possible we could see that rentals of 13-mos reservations will still be allowed going forward for that reason, but cancellations of 13-mos inventory may be treated differently now because it appears all of the revised versions contain the same new penalty language.


----------



## windje2000 (Nov 23, 2010)

Ggatorgirl said:


> I, for one, would be extremely pleased if Marriott began to enforce either the old or new rule about 'cancelling' or converting 13 month reservations.
> 
> This has long been a pet peeve of mine, that 13 month reservations were made then immediately available for rent.  *The docs from MCV clearly state that the 13 month ressies were for personal use, not renting.*..
> 
> <aybe those of us who only get the 12 month window will have a slightly better chance of getting peak reservations if the multi week owners knew that gaming the system is no longer allowed.



I've never seen that language.  

Accordingly, if the system and my multiple weeks ownership allows it, I'm going to take advantage of it.  That's not 'gaming' the system any more than getting a first class upgrade from an airline because you fly a lot, IMHO.  

Buy another week if you want greater certainty of getting a peak reservation.  They're currently real cheap.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 23, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> I've never seen that language.
> 
> Accordingly, if the system and my multiple weeks ownership allows it, I'm going to take advantage of it.  That's not 'gaming' the system any more than getting a first class upgrade from an airline because you fly a lot, IMHO. ...



I agree with you, it's not gaming the system as long as Marriott allows it.  It can't be said, either, that they don't know when it's happening, because they've consistently allowed me to make 13-mos multi-week reservations and deposit one or more of those into II during the same telephone call, or cancel and re-book one or more of those during a later phone call.  I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a post on TUG, if ever, where someone was penalized for making changes to a 13-mos reservation and/or not keeping it for their own occupancy.

FYI, because the language about personal use is in quite a few of the resorts' docs and those Owners do have different expectations because of it, here's what is in Barony's original and revised docs (bolding mine.)  It's probably similar in all of those resorts:


> 1.2 (c)  Owners are entitled to request a reservation beginning on the date which is twelve (12) months in advance of the date of the first Check-in Day for the requested Use Period.  Multi-Week Owners may reserve concurrent weeks, meaning two (2) or more Units during the same week, or consecutive weeks, meaning one (1) or more Units for two (2) or more weeks in a row *(for Owner occupancy only)*, beginning on the date which is thirteen (13) months in advance of the date of the first Check-in Day ...


----------



## Superchief (Nov 23, 2010)

pwrshift said:


> The question comes up about booking 2 lockoff suites 13 months ahead and splitting them to span 4weeks in a row.  If one tries to replace the two studio weeks in this case with 1-2 bdrm exchanges with Interval, I wonder if this gives Marriott the right to cancel the whole thing?



On a related issue, what would Marriott due to someone who uses the 13 month advantage to book consecutive weeks, locks off and exchanges the  studio but uses the 1 BR for the reserved weeks?


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 23, 2010)

Superchief said:


> On a related issue, what would Marriott due to someone who uses the 13 month advantage to book consecutive weeks, locks off and exchanges the  studio but uses the 1 BR for the reserved weeks?



  I think the new documents on their own give us a good enough reason to keep an eye out for changes that Marriott starts making.  But moreso with respect to all of these scenarios that would follow the cancellation parameters that Dave mentioned in his post above; specifically, the Weeks that are reserved and then have changes made to them which result in a "Cancellation Number" being assigned to them and their inclusion in the list of "Cancelled Reservations" on Marriott.com accounts.  That would include Weeks deposited to II, Weeks that are re-booked for a different home resort use, and Weeks that are reserved but then converted to DC Points.  I don't have lock-off units; do the deposited partial units result in a Cancellation Number being issued?


----------



## wof45 (Nov 23, 2010)

The behavior I see that is gaming the system is someone with two weeks, using a week in advance of the week they want, 13+ weeks out and then canceling the lead in week. 

It is moving beyond the rules.

I can understand renting the week, or exchanging the week, or locking off the week for exchange, but not canceling the lead in week.  I would like to see a cancellation for that since it takes the week out of the system before others get a chance to book the good week.

We have always picked up our 13 month requests, and 13 months plus a week is just gaming.


----------



## windje2000 (Nov 23, 2010)

wof45 said:


> The behavior I see that is gaming the system is someone with two weeks, using a week in advance of the week they want, 13+ weeks out and then canceling the lead in week.
> 
> It is moving beyond the rules.
> 
> ...



Notwithstanding how the lead-in week(s) is/are used (and I tend to agree with you that renting, or exchanging, or locking off is permissible, but not canceling), the owner of two weeks competes with anyone else who owns two weeks for the farthest out week.

The owner of two weeks is one week behind the owner of three weeks for the farthest out week, who in turn is one week behind the owner of 4 weeks, . . . etc.

Those are the rules.  The rules give the the best customers first place in line, just like the airlines give platinum (or 1K or whatever) FF benefits to their best customers.  There is nothing at all unfair about that.


----------



## tiel (Nov 23, 2010)

We have been multiple weeks owners for a number of years.  At first, we never "took advantage" of the 13-month reservation opportunity, because we knew WE could NOT occupy both weeks easily (the resorts where this would work, for us, were on opposite coasts);  it would have been a logistical nightmare for us, and not fun.  But, in one of our many sales presentations, we were told there was no problem in booking the 2 weeks @ 13 months out, then cancelling/depositing/changing dates later.  Now, we know sales people will say anything.  But, it was presented as "perk" to multiple week owners, which we already were.  And, our advisor confirmed this was perfectly acceptable.  We never once read the rule book, just noticed the highly generalized info provided on the reservation web page; don't think that mentioned the "personal use" requirement.

Since only 50% of a resort's weeks are available at 13 months out, it made sense to us as a perk.  Naive, maybe yes.  Anyway, we used it to our advantage a number of times, but always just deposited or modified one of our reservations later.  We are not into renting.  But I must say we were not always successful @ 13 months.  Sometimes we did not get in soon enough, just like @ 12 months.  We weren't happy when we failed, but that's just part of having floating weeks.  

So we're not sure we see the problem with the way it has been.  But we are very disturbed by the inability to find out if and when (and even how) Marriott intends to enforce the rules they now seem to be promulgating, and which version of those rules they will be enforcing.  It shouldn't be this hard.


----------



## puckmanfl (Nov 23, 2010)

good evening....

Technically, reserving 2 weeks (concurrently or consecutively) at 13 months, then depositing one of these reservations with II, constitutes a "cancellation".  Under the letter of the law, one could then lose the other reservation or even the one deposited...(when a unit is deposited with II, it is first verified by II as being legit).  The initial purpose of the 13  month gig was for the owner to OCCUPY in order to use the 13 month advantage.  It was not meant as a tool to snag a better week for deposit (trading) or to use extra weeks to book atr 13.5 months...

Still unclear if converting a 13 month obtained reservation for DC points counts as " cancellation"...


----------



## JustKeepBreathing (Nov 23, 2010)

Hmmm....if this is true, that depositing in II is considered a "cancellation" I'm really glad that I didn't pull the trigger on purchasing another week to take advantage of the 13 month rule.  I'll be interested to see how this plays out over time.


----------



## tiel (Nov 23, 2010)

Question:  why would depositing a week be considered a cancellation?  I know it shows up that way in my MR account, and I can see why it is considered a cancellation strictly from a personal perspective.  But from a system (MVCI) perspective, isn't that specific week still "reserved", in the sense that it is available only for exchange and not for reserving directly?  I mean, it's been reserved, there's just not a specific name associated with it until an exchange occurs.  Just curious...not sure it makes any real difference...except in the context being discussed in this thread.


----------



## windje2000 (Nov 23, 2010)

puckmanfl said:


> good evening....
> 
> Technically, reserving 2 weeks (concurrently or consecutively) at 13 months, then depositing one of these reservations with II, constitutes a "cancellation".  Under the letter of the law, one could then lose the other reservation or even the one deposited...(when a unit is deposited with II, it is first verified by II as being legit).  The initial purpose of the 13  month gig was for the owner to OCCUPY in order to use the 13 month advantage.  It was not meant as a tool to snag a better week for deposit (trading) or to use extra weeks to book atr 13.5 months...
> 
> Still unclear if converting a 13 month obtained reservation for DC points counts as " cancellation"...






tiel said:


> Question:  why would depositing a week be considered a cancellation?  I know it shows up that way in my MR account, and I can see why it is considered a cancellation strictly from a personal perspective.  But from a system (MVCI) perspective, isn't that specific week still "reserved", in the sense that it is available only for exchange and not for reserving directly?  I mean, it's been reserved, there's just not a specific name associated with it until an exchange occurs.  Just curious...not sure it makes any real difference...except in the context being discussed in this thread.



If depositing to II is a cancellation, I'm wondering why Marriott has never charged me a cancellation fee ($25 IIRC) when I deposited into II.

The reservation for the week you reserve is 'cancelled' on MARSHA when you deposit to II.  Same word but a different context.  Transferred might be more descriptive.

Take a look at page 2 of  'How to use your Timeshare Week'  at link login required.

Says nothing about mandatory owner occupancy @ 13 months


----------



## pwrshift (Nov 23, 2010)

I guess this doesn't apply to my resorts as I don't have the letter from them on any yet.   

Brian


----------



## puckmanfl (Nov 24, 2010)

good evening...

don't shoot the messenger.  I just called and asked!!!!  I don't make, enforce or write the rules!!!  Just trying to be well informed.  I have no idea how this will play out but I think the legal eagles have circled their wagons and covered all  of "their" bases....

I think there is a clause in there somewhere about the 13 month reservation being for "occupancy" only.  I don't haveenough timeto check!!!!


----------



## BocaBoy (Nov 24, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> Owners are using the system as designed.  It can't be repeated often enough that Marriott (by virtue of DClub) has become everyone's competitor for reservations.



Huh?  Using the system as designed?  That is an interesting interpretation, to say the least.  The system was designed (see the old rule) to specifically prohibit the "gaming" being discussed.  Then Marriott apparently strayed and did not enforce their rule, probably because the rule was too harsh and did not consider the individual circumstances of the cancellation.  Now that they have put some discretion into the rule, they may feel they can enforce it again.  I think this is a good thing, and I am a multiple week Hawaii owner who almost always uses the 13 month rule.

And how does the DC Club become part of this problem?


----------



## mpizza (Nov 24, 2010)

puckmanfl said:


> I think there is a clause in there somewhere about the 13 month reservation being for "occupancy" only.  I don't haveenough timeto check!!!!



I also remember there being a statement in the rules that 13-month reservations were for owner's occupancy.

I did have a 13-month reservation, and was intending to occupy all weeks, but had to cancel one.  Although the week does indicate "cancelled" on my Marriott reservation page, it shows "deposited" in my MDC II account with the original booking date.  

I haven't received the new rules documentation yet for MFV, but I hope at long as you occupy one of the units yourself, they don't cancel the entire reservation.

Maria


----------



## windje2000 (Nov 24, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> Huh?  Using the system as designed?  That is an interesting interpretation, to say the least.  The system was designed (see the old rule) to specifically prohibit the "gaming" being discussed.  Then Marriott apparently strayed and did not enforce their rule, probably because the rule was too harsh and did not consider the individual circumstances of the cancellation.  Now that they have put some discretion into the rule, they may feel they can enforce it again.  I think this is a good thing, and I am a multiple week Hawaii owner who almost always uses the 13 month rule.
> 
> And how does the DC Club become part of this problem?



LINK

I never bothered to read Marriott legal docs until the arrival of DClub.  I read the descriptive materials, as may be found the LINK.

Unless I missed it, there is NOTHING written about the owner occupancy requirement of the thirteen month rule.  In fact the section on exchanges states to reserve occupancy exactly the way you would for staying at your own resort.  EDITED TO ADD:  As I think a little more about it, the rule that protects the single week owners is the 50% rule.  Fully one half of the inventory is available for those who reserve at 12 months out.  

DClub becomes an issue if those who buy the leftover weeks (in the form of trust points) end up ahead of everyone else in line for II exchanges through Marriott.  Enforcing this rule will free up good weeks at sold out resorts for those who are sold the dream.  

Your post certainly suggests you consider yourself as the authoritative source as regards the system design and purpose of this section of the Marriott rulebook.  That's pretty interesting.


----------



## puckmanfl (Nov 24, 2010)

good morning...

My 2 cents for what it is worth...

There are now two competing reservation and exchange systems within the MVCI universe.  What isn't reserved or exchanged in one gets used in the other.  Since the units are a FINITE resource, any chage in quantity in one system inversely involves the other...

Therer are only 750 K unit/weeks inthe system (MVCI) It is a zero sum game...

This is not an editorial on the merits of either system (legacy v DC) as we have beaten thatto death, but just my mathematrical analysis of it all...

Happy Tgiving to all...

Lets count our blesings inthat we have the time on our hands and the prosperity toworry about such issues as exchanges/reservations in an elite vacation product.  There are many that wish they had our problems...

happy Holidays to all...


----------



## wof45 (Nov 24, 2010)

I think that when the exchange customers begin complaining that they cannot get the weeks they would like, even 13 months ahead -- then Marriott will enforce the agreement.  Those are the people that they will want to make happy.

Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## BocaBoy (Nov 24, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> LINKYour post certainly suggests you consider yourself as the authoritative source as regards the system design and purpose of this section of the Marriott rulebook.  That's pretty interesting.



Maybe so, but I have owned since 1987 (I bought the first Marriott-built timeshare) and was an owner when they first put the 13 month rule in (it was not there when Marriott first started in timeshares).  I am just giving you the reasons for the rule as Marriott explained them at the time they were introduced.  It was pretty clear then and made a lot of sense.

I have noticed that many people in TUG consider themselves experts on everything they post about, many times with no basis.  Then when someone else posts something they do not agree with, they attack the messenger.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 24, 2010)

The reason there's so much confusion about the "intention" of the 13-mos rule is because Marriott didn't include the same version of the rule in all of the documents!  SOME of the docs DO contain the "... for Owner occupancy only ..." wording but most assuredly SOME do NOT.  In fact, prior to its inception there wasn't ANY 13-mos language in the docs of the resorts which had already been established.  Look at Section 1.2 (c) in both of the links for SurfWatch's and Barony Beach's new versions:

SurfWatch Second Amended and Restated Reservations Procedures

Barony Beach Club Amended and Restated Procedures for Reserving Usage

The only difference between the original and amended versions in this section for both resorts is the language pertaining to the stricter penalty for canceling less than all usage reserved more than 12-mos out.  You can plainly see that Barony Beach's doc contains the "... for Owner occupancy only ..." language but SurfWatch's doc doesn't, and that difference between the two resorts has always existed.  (I can scan the originals if it will help to get this point across.)

This is a recurring argument on TUG because each of the resorts has its own set of documents and there are clear differences between them.  (The same is true for the argument about whether the 13-mos rule was "intended" to apply to only weeks booked at the same resort - some documents contain wording to that effect and some do not.)  But whatever the documents contain, it's how Marriott puts the rules into practice that counts.  And for at least as long as I've been an owner, Marriott has not enforced either the "Owner occupancy only" or "same resort" stipulations.  As near as I can figure, if either of those two stipulations was contained in the original version of the documents then it's been repeated in these revisions.  But the question still remains as to whether or not Marriott will enforce it where the documents allow it, or continue as they've been doing with a blanket policy across all resorts.  If so, it's my belief that they will not enforce it at all because they could suffer legal recourse if they applied a stipulation which does not exist at some resorts.

BocaBoy, I think your, "...many people in TUG consider themselves experts on everything they post about, many times with no basis..." has no basis.  Each of us is well aware of how our ownership was explained to us by Marriott reps (if it was), how Marriott applies the rules, and how we've been able to use our Weeks.  And some of us have read our ownership documents and have a pretty good understanding of what they contain.


----------



## wof45 (Nov 24, 2010)

but also remember that Marriott reserves the right to change the rules for exchanges, reservations etc.  So if they want to change what they do, it is easy enough to do it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 24, 2010)

wof45 said:


> but also remember that Marriott reserves the right to change the rules for exchanges, reservations etc.  So if they want to change what they do, it is easy enough to do it.



I agree, Marriott has a lot of leeway when it comes to setting the rules.  But if they had intended to apply the "... Owner occupancy only ..." and/or "same resort" stipulations across all resorts from this point forward, wouldn't they have included that wording in all of these revisions so as to prevent a legal challenge from Owners at the resorts where the stipulations didn't exist previously and don't exist in the revisions?


----------



## BocaBoy (Nov 24, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> The reason there's so much confusion about the "intention" of the 13-mos rule is because Marriott didn't include the same version of the rule in all of the documents!  SOME of the docs DO contain the "... for Owner occupancy only ..." wording but most assuredly SOME do NOT.  In fact, prior to its inception there wasn't ANY 13-mos language in the docs of the resorts which had already been established.  Look at Section 1.2 (c) in both of the links for SurfWatch's and Barony Beach's new versions:
> 
> SurfWatch Second Amended and Restated Reservations Procedures
> 
> ...



TUG members seem to spout off an awful lot and congratulate themselves about how smart they are, but I see a lot of garbage accepted as fact.  It was a nice experiment for me to try participating on this forum, but it is clearly not worth my time.  Enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid everyone.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 24, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> TUG members seem to spout off an awful lot and congratulate themselves about how smart they are, but I see a lot of garbage accepted as fact.  It was a nice experiment for me to try participating on this forum, but it is clearly not worth my time.  Enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid everyone.



That's too bad, BocaBoy, because I think you add to the overall positive vibe of TUG, and it's obvious that you're knowledgeable about your ownership.  I agree that there can be a lot of misinformation here, but also think that we (most of us, anyway   ) feel pretty strongly that the information we do have is correct because of how we've obtained it.  I don't see that as arrogance, if that's how you see it; I see it as we all have access to different documents as well as Marriott contacts.  The one thing I think we all agree on, is that the Marriott reps are as guilty of spreading misinformation as TUGgers can be.  But eventually with participation from many different people we do usually manage to get at the correct information here.

Anyway, I hope you'll reconsider leaving this experiment behind.  Your contributions are important, too, and I enjoy reading you.


----------



## inishbofin (Jan 21, 2011)

Did you get these e-mails for all locations?  I got them for Fairway Villas and Monarch.  What is behind these changes?  I am trying to figure out if it has any effect on my old Monarch fixed week.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 21, 2011)

inishbofin said:


> Did you get these e-mails for all locations?  I got them for Fairway Villas and Monarch.  What is behind these changes?  I am trying to figure out if it has any effect on my old Monarch fixed week.



We got one for Grande Vista back in November.


----------



## armstrl (Jan 22, 2011)

*Reservation Procedure Update Email*

We got one for Crystal Shores.  I haven't had time to review it, but it looks like something they put out to align the old with the new.  I wonder if Dave has seen one and has analysed it.


----------



## gblotter (Jan 22, 2011)

I got this same email from Mountainside.  Nothing yet from Maui Ocean Club.  I too am looking for an explanation of the differences.  Without having the old document to compare, it is difficult to discern what Marriott is doing here.


----------



## Superchief (Jan 22, 2011)

I also received one from Mountainside. The changes appear to be very similar to the ones I received from other resorts in November.  As discussed in the previous thread, there appears to be emphasis on MVC's ability to cancel all reservations if one made 13 mo. in advance is cancelled.


----------



## davidn247 (Jan 22, 2011)

Read GV one. No real change. I think that they are just re-aligning/re-confirming all the reservations procedures accross all resorts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 22, 2011)

Here's the thread from when similar letters went out for several resorts in November.

Many of the changes between the old and new documents are discussed in that thread.  The thing that concerns me the most is what Superchief has mentioned, the change in penalties for canceling reservations made using the 13-mo rule:


> ... The original said, "Any cancellation of a Use Period reserved more than twelve (12) months in advance must include all concurrent or consecutive use Periods reserved with the Use Period cancelled." This new one says, "The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."
> 
> That's harsh! ALL reservations for a usage year will be cancelled if I cancel only one of two or more Weeks booked more than 12-mos out? Wow. ...



I don't remember seeing anything on TUG since then that says Marriott has actually put this penalty into practice.  Maybe it will never be enforced, like some of the policies that have always existed in some of the original documents, but time will tell.


----------



## Cathyb (Jan 22, 2011)

*DSV get one?*



inishbofin said:


> Did you get these e-mails for all locations?  I got them for Fairway Villas and Monarch.  What is behind these changes?  I am trying to figure out if it has any effect on my old Monarch fixed week.



We are in Maui now and wonder if DSV owners got one of these? TIA


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 22, 2011)

> The thing that concerns me the most is what Superchief has mentioned, the change in penalties for canceling reservations made using the 13-mo rule:
> Quote:
> ... The original said, "Any cancellation of a Use Period reserved more than twelve (12) months in advance *must* include all concurrent or consecutive use Periods reserved with the Use Period cancelled." This new one says, "The Management Company reserves the *right, in its sole discretion*, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."
> 
> That's harsh! ALL reservations for a usage year will be cancelled if I cancel only one of two or more Weeks booked more than 12-mos out? Wow. ...



I think you are misreading this.  The old rule (although seldom or never enforced) REQUIRED the entire reservation to be canceled.  The new rule only gives Marriott the RIGHT to cancel everything.  I think the new rule is less harsh and more fair.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 22, 2011)

BocaBoy said:


> I think you are misreading this.  The old rule (although seldom or never enforced) REQUIRED the entire reservation to be canceled.  The new rule only gives Marriott the RIGHT to cancel everything.  I think the new rule is less harsh and more fair.



We went through this in that other thread, BocaBoy, and I agreed with you that the new version leaves some leeway for Marriott to NOT enforce the new penalty as it's written (just as they traditionally haven't enforced the "same resort" and "for owner occupancy only" stipulations that were contained in the original docs of some resorts.)  But my concern is that IF Marriott does enforce this new version of the cancellation policy for reservations made using the 13-mo rule, then it will result in a stricter penalty than if they'd enforced the old version.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 23, 2011)

MVC has written in all of its agreements that they can change any rules for reservations or exchanges as long as they notify everyone.  This is the notification, so in the future, they can cancel the additional reservations as long as they treat everyone the same.

this might be a case where people who have learned to game the system will cause problems for those who have actual reasons to needing to cancel a week.  of course, anyone with a reservation can always deposit it to II, so there is a recourse to retain other weeks reserved far in advance.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 23, 2011)

wof45 said:


> MVC has written in all of its agreements that they can change any rules for reservations or exchanges as long as they notify everyone.  This is the notification, so in the future, they can cancel the additional reservations as long as they treat everyone the same.



I don't think there is anywhere that indicates they have to treat everyone the same. They wrote the DC documents in such a way that if they waived some rule for one person it didn't mean that it was waived for everyone.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 23, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I don't think there is anywhere that indicates they have to treat everyone the same. They wrote the DC documents in such a way that if they waived some rule for one person it didn't mean that it was waived for everyone.



They can discriminate on groups, but anyone can join any group.  Someone might not want to spend to join a group, but they could join.  

If they discriminated against single owners, then there would be grounds for legal action.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 23, 2011)

wof, I think I understand what you're saying about Marriott having the right to change rules for the entire ownership base only as long as the new revised rules apply to every owner of that "group."  You're correct that the these new revised rules documents couldn't be sent to only some owners of a certain resort while others at the same resort remain subject to the original docs.  IOW, Marriott is required to send this revised doc to every Owner of whichever resorts adopt the revision.  (And I expect that ultimately all resorts will adopt it so as to provide uniformity across the entire MVCI ownership base.)

But dioxide and BocaBoy are also correct that the way these revisions are written, Marriott does now have some protection if they elect to enforce any of these rules and penalties for only certain Owners.  The "... in its sole discretion ..." wording gives Marriott that right.

Here's a thought.  A year or so ago Disney announced that they would be enforcing limits on adding guests' names to reservations in order to inhibit "commercial renting" (defined as a certain number of reservations per year.)  Barony's original and revised docs contain the "... for Owner occupancy only ..." language in the Reservation Procedures.  SurfWatch's don't but I haven't looked further to see if there is other language in the docs which might inhibit rentals by Owners.  IF the reason that Marriott has decided to put these new penalties for cancelling reservations into writing is an effort to curtail non-owner occupancy of Weeks, especially holiday/high-demand Weeks, then I could see them selectively applying the rules/penalties to only Owners who have put guest names on certain existing reservations.  There are Owners who reserve holiday Weeks in anticipation of rentals and/or reserve/cancel multiple Weeks for renters, aren't there?  Those Owners would certainly suffer if Marriott cancelled all of their reservations for an entire Use Year, wouldn't they?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 23, 2011)

Here is the text from the exchange procedures that I was referring to. This is on page 14 of the exchange procedures document:



> G.
> Waiver. No failure of Exchange Company to enforce any provision under these Exchange Procedures, exercise any power given under these Exchange Procedures, or to insist upon strict compliance with any obligation specified in these Exchange Procedures, and no custom or practice at variance with the terms of these Exchange Procedures, shall constitute a waiver of Exchange Company’s right to demand exact compliance with the terms and conditions of these Exchange Procedures.



I think this is more or less a way to protect themselves in the event that a VOA permits something that they otherwise shouldn't. Meaning if they waive a rule (knowingly or unknowingly) for one enrollee, it doesn't mean they have to waive the same rule for all other enrollees.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 23, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> Here is the text from the exchange procedures that I was referring to. This is on page 14 of the exchange procedures document:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is more or less a way to protect themselves in the event that a VOA permits something that they otherwise shouldn't. Meaning if they waive a rule (knowingly or unknowingly) for one enrollee, it doesn't mean they have to waive the same rule for all other enrollees.



actually, I think this rule almost says the opposite.  As I read it, it says that just because MVC has not enforced a rule in the past, MVC is not prevented to enforce that rule in the future.

"in it's sole discretion" means the MVC is the one that interprets what the rules mean.  However, once it interprets the rules, it has to enforce them on everyone in the same way.

Personally, I don't see a problem in owner rentals, although MVC does have language saying that people can't use reservations as a commercial enterprise, so there is a grey area here IMHO.

I am more bothered by people who game the system by using a throw away week 50 in order to reserve weeks 51 and 52.  IMO, if people want to throw away week 50, then they should have to throw it away and not expect to be able to cancel that reservation and still have week 51 and 52.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 23, 2011)

wof45 said:


> I am more bothered by people who game the system by using a throw away week 50 in order to reserve weeks 51 and 52.  IMO, if people want to throw away week 50, then they should have to throw it away and not expect to be able to cancel that reservation and still have week 51 and 52.



I agree. I would have no problem if Marriott enforced the rule across the board.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 23, 2011)

Isn't it funny how we have different ideas about how certain reservations should be considered to be gaming the system while others shouldn't?

We own 2 gold/1 plat week at Hilton Head resorts and bought that combination deliberately to get a jump on reserving the gold/plat two weeks that straddle Memorial Day.  I've used all three to string together gold-gold-plat at the 13-mos mark, and then at a later 12-mos mark cancelled that first gold week and re-booked it as a single fall week.  I don't think I'm doing anything wrong because Marriott allows me to reserve/cancel in that way, resulting in what I consider ideal usage at my home resorts.  However, IF Marriott begins to enforce the penalties in these revised Reservation Procedures docs - so that all of a Use Year's reservations will be forfeited if an Owner cancels less than all of the reservations s/he made using the 13-mo rule - then obviously what I'm doing won't be allowed anymore and I'll have to change what I've been doing.  It won't make me happy or unhappy, though - it will just be another rule to learn.  (And I already know that this year when May rolls around, I won't be trying for that three-week string for 2012 unless Marriott makes it clear before then that they're not enforcing the new penalties if Owners are reserving for their own use.)

The other way of "gaming the system" that we've been talking about is when Owners use the 13-mos rule to reserve certain Weeks with the deliberate intent to profit from them, either by getting the highest rental income or exchange value for holiday/high-demand periods.  I'll admit I don't like that use of Weeks because it means fewer Owners than can be are actually at the resorts during those high-demand periods.  But again, the Owners who do this aren't doing anything wrong because Marriott allows it.  And again, IF Marriott chooses to enforce the penalties in these revised docs then those Owners will have to change what they're doing.

But whatever Marriott decides - to enforce the new penalties in some situations and not others, to enforce them across the board in every instance, to not enforce them at all - is beyond my control and I'm not going to presume to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with their own Weeks.  I just wish Marriott would make it clear how/if they intend to apply these revised docs from this point forward, so that we all can know how to proceed with our Weeks.   That's a gigantic dose of wishful thinking, though, considering Marriott's track record of not clearly stating their position while allowing actions which appear to be in contrast with written stipulations.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 23, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> The other way of "gaming the system" that we've been talking about is when Owners use the 13-mos rule to reserve certain Weeks with the deliberate intent to profit from them, either by getting the highest rental income or exchange value for holiday/high-demand periods.  I'll admit I don't like that use of Weeks because it means fewer Owners than can be are actually at the resorts during those high-demand periods.  But again, the Owners who do this aren't doing anything wrong because Marriott allows it.  And again, IF Marriott chooses to enforce the penalties in these revised docs then those Owners will have to change what they're doing.



I am able to find in the document for MGV the stipulation that Marriott reserves the right to cancel all reservations if the owner cancels a portion of their 13 month reservation. However I am unable to find anywhere in the document that the 13 month reservation must be for personal usage, and not for exchange or renting. It does refer to "reserve usage for consecutive or concurrent Vacation Time Periods"; however, Marriott defines usage as personal use, exchanging, etc.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 23, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I am able to find in the document for MGV the stipulation that Marriott reserves the right to cancel all reservations if the owner cancels a portion of their 13 month reservation. However I am unable to find anywhere in the document that the 13 month reservation must be for personal usage, and not for exchange or renting. It does refer to "reserve usage for consecutive or concurrent Vacation Time Periods"; however, Marriott defines usage as personal use, exchanging, etc.



I know, this is getting very confusing between this thread and the other, the differences between all the contracts, and trying to figure out how the revised versions differ from the originals and how Marriott might do things differently because of the revisions.

Not all of the original docs contain the 13-mos stipulation in question but in the ones that do, it's not written as "for owner use only" which would by definition allow personal use, exchanging, renting, etc.  Instead it's written explicitly as "for Owner occupancy only" which doesn't appear ambiguous at all IMO.  BocaBoy and others have said numerous times that it's the language in their docs and that's why they believe Owners who rent/exchange reservations made at the 13-mos mark are "gaming the system."  Of my two resorts, Barony's original and revised docs contain the stipulation; neither of SurfWatch's do.

Marriott streamlines its reservation management across all of the resorts regardless of the differences in the individual resort contracts.  I believe that the reason they've chosen to allow all MVCI Owners to do rentals/exchanges of reservations made at the 13-mos mark is because, a) it gives Owners of the resorts which do have the stipulation a more lenient usage option, and b) if they did not allow it at resorts which do not contain the stipulation, they could be legally challenged for not allowing Owners a usage option that is not expressly prohibited in their docs.  But that's just my opinion from probably thinking about this too much over the last few years.  

This is actually getting off-track because in these threads I thought we were discussing how the revised docs could affect usage going forward.  But there is no change in the 13-mos rental/exchange topic - where the stipulation was included in the original docs it's been repeated in the revisions, and where it wasn't included it hasn't been introduced.  The only reason it's in either of these threads is because it's been brought up several times as a way of "gaming the system" and now we've started giving our opinions of what that is and isn't.  

*********
{edited to add} For comparison sake and to get an idea of where to find the stipulation in the docs, check out Section 1.2(c) in these pdf links:

SurfWatch Second Amended and Restated Reservations Procedures

Barony Beach Club Amended and Restated Procedures for Reserving Usage


----------



## tatmtr7 (Jan 24, 2011)

We are long time multiple week owners. As of yet, we have not received any info about changing the reservation/cancellation policies.  Have I just overlooked it?  We own at DSP1 and OP and Marbella. Does this cancellation policy change affect all Marriott resorts?  Sometimes I do use the 13 month rule and have to change my dates or cancel. Hubby still can't decide when he wants to retire and at 13 months out, it is an uncertain so I just plan ahead in case he choses to retire.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 24, 2011)

tatmtr7 said:


> We are long time multiple week owners. As of yet, we have not received any info about changing the reservation/cancellation policies.  Have I just overlooked it?  We own at DSP1 and OP and Marbella. Does this cancellation policy change affect all Marriott resorts?  Sometimes I do use the 13 month rule and have to change my dates or cancel. Hubby still can't decide when he wants to retire and at 13 months out, it is an uncertain so I just plan ahead in case he choses to retire.



So far we have no idea if/when any of the other resorts will adopt similar revisions, or if/how the revisions will be implemented by Marriott.  Between this thread and the one from November it's been reported that the revised docs were sent to Owners at:

Barony Beach
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Fairway Villas
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Monarch
Mountainside
Royal Palms
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch

(For those who wondered, based on dioxide's thread some of the resorts that have had Weeks conveyed to the Trust have adopted the revisions while others haven't.  The Trust doesn't seem to be a factor ...)


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 28, 2011)

You can add Harbour Lake to that list. Just received it this morning. Same verbiage exists related to 13 month reservations and canceling all components of a 13 month  reservation if a single component is canceled. Nothing specific about 13 month reservations having to be for owner occupancy.

They are very clear about the limited lock offs at Harbour Lake. Big bold letters indicating that reserving of a lock off is not guaranteed. There is a provision indicating that they can give priority for lock off reservations for owners that purchased after 6/23/2003.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 28, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> You can add Harbour Lake to that list. Just received it this morning. *Same verbiage exists related to 13 month reservations and canceling all components of a 13 month  reservation if a single component is canceled.* Nothing specific about 13 month reservations having to be for owner occupancy.
> 
> They are very clear about the limited lock offs at Harbour Lake. Big bold letters indicating that reserving of a lock off is not guaranteed. There is a provision indicating that they can give priority for lock off reservations for owners that purchased after 6/23/2003.



Do you mean the 13-mo verbiage is the same between Harbour Lake's original and revised docs, which allows for "canceling all components of a 13 month  reservation if a single component is canceled?"  Because in most of the revised documents, the provision now calls for canceling all reservations in the Use Year if a single component of 13-mos reservations is cancelled.

I honestly can't understand why this is such a big deal to me but a whole lot of TUGgers aren't concerned at all.  This could have huge ramifications for multi-week owners who make reservations throughout the year, if Marriott enforces the provision contained in the revised docs.  And yes, it's a great big unknown whether it will be enforced, because we all know that they haven't historically enforced the provision as it exists in the original docs.  But I'm talking what-if here, and what the new docs might mean in the future.

Here's an example of the difference as I see it, IF Marriott begins to enforce the penalties for canceling less than all components of a 13-mos multi-Week reservation:

Say Bob has 4 Weeks.  He reserves 2 May weeks using that 13-mos window, then a July week using that 12-mos window, then a November week using that 12-mos window.  It doesn't matter who will be using the weeks, he can use them himself or rent them out privately.  Now say Bob realizes in January that one of the May weeks can not be used as reserved.

If the provisions of the original docs are in effect, he calls to cancel/re-book it and learns that he will lose the use of both of those May weeks because the reservations were made at the same time using the 13-mos rule.

If the provisions of the revised docs are in effect, he calls to cancel/re-book it and learns, BAM!, all four of his existing reservations for that use year will be cancelled if he cancels only one of the May weeks.

That's a HUGE difference in my mind.  Am I seeing it wrong?  I KNOW that if Marriott chooses to continue their practice of not enforcing the 13-mos cancellation penalties, then none of this matters.  But there is no guarantee that Marriott will continue in the same fashion, is there?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 28, 2011)

Updated list:

Barony Beach
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Fairway Villas
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Monarch
Mountainside
Royal Palms
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch


----------



## wof45 (Jan 28, 2011)

MVC must be watching Sue's list.
I just received the updated reservation e-mail for Desert Springs Villas a few minutes ago.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 28, 2011)

Harbour Lake Docs

Old Provision


> Any cancellation of a usage reserved more than twelve (12) months in advance for Concurrent Usage or Consecutive Usage will result in all reserved usage being canceled for the given Use Year.



New Provision


> The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion to cancel all of a Multi-Week Owner's reserved usage for a given Use Year if such Multi-Week Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve (12) months in advance.



Sue, What happens in your scenario of the owner cancels both May weeks, but not the July weeks. Are all weeks May and July canceled?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 29, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> ... Sue, What happens in your scenario of the owner cancels both May weeks, but not the July weeks. Are all weeks May and July canceled?



Hmmm.  One version of the new wording is, "the Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."  (Other versions might say Multi-Week Owner or other slight differences but the meaning/result is the same ...)

So I'd guess that IF Marriott enforces the provision and if an Owner cancels all reservations that were made using the 13-mos advantage, then any single-Week reservations that were made using the 12-mos window for the for the same Use Year would be safe.  I think, but am nowhere near certain, that in my example if Bob cancels both May weeks (multi, at 13-mos) then his July and November (single, at 12-mos) weeks would be safe.

I also am wondering how this would affect any reservations in the same Use Year that were made using DC Points - either from a converted/enrolled Week or purchased.  That "... Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year ..." could have broad scope, yes?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 29, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> Harbour Lake Docs
> 
> Old Provision
> 
> ...



Wow, I think that's the first resort I've seen with that version in the original docs.  Maybe that's what Joe meant in the other thread, that one or more of his resorts also have always had that version?


----------



## Superchief (Jan 29, 2011)

I recently received my updated Royal Palms reservation procedures document. It contained most of the same changes that others I had received. However, there was a section regarding banking and borrowing of weeks that I don't recall seeing in the other documents. These references were regarding weeks, not DC points. It appears that MVC may be considering allowing owners to bank or borrow weeks at their home resort in the future.


----------



## davidn247 (Jan 29, 2011)

Superchief said:


> I recently received my updated Royal Palms reservation procedures document. It contained most of the same changes that others I had received. However, there was a section regarding banking and borrowing of weeks that I don't recall seeing in the other documents. These references were regarding weeks, not DC points. It appears that MVC may be considering allowing owners to bank or borrow weeks at their home resort in the future.




Borrowing weeks for an owner too will be perfect (at least for my situation) although I do not know how this can be implemented practically (12 months reservation, seasons, paying of MFs, etc).

Do someone has an idea how it works in other TSs?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 29, 2011)

Superchief said:


> I recently received my updated Royal Palms reservation procedures document. It contained most of the same changes that others I had received. However, there was a section regarding banking and borrowing of weeks that I don't recall seeing in the other documents. These references were regarding weeks, not DC points. It appears that MVC may be considering allowing owners to bank or borrow weeks at their home resort in the future.





davidn247 said:


> Borrowing weeks for an owner too will be perfect (at least for my situation) although I do not know how this can be implemented practically (12 months reservation, seasons, paying of MFs, etc).
> 
> Do someone has an idea how it works in other TSs?



Both SurfWatch's and Barony's docs have always had wording about Marriott reserving the right to institute banking and borrowing but they've never allowed it.  I agree, think it would be a great option but have no idea how they'd do it.  The only thing I'd guess at with a chance of being correct is that it wouldn't impact m/f at all - we'd still be billed annually for the week as it was purchased, regardless of when we use it.

*****
Updated list:

Barony Beach
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Monarch
Mountainside
Royal Palms
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch


----------



## calberry (Jan 29, 2011)

We got an email two days ago for new reservation procedures for our units at Timberlodge...so you can add them to the list.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 29, 2011)

for completeness, we received the updated reservation procedures for Sabal Palms last November


----------



## tiel (Jan 29, 2011)

Just got OceanWatch and Aruba Surf Club today.


----------



## wvacations (Jan 29, 2011)

Received the email last night for Desert Springs. I assume it applies both to DSV I and II. After reading, I can't see how exchanging weeks made 13 months is advance is affected. The document says if you "cancel" a reservation made more than 12 months in advance the penalties will apply. Can a case be made that if you deposit a week into II that this is in fact a cancelation? What about a request first exchange. You are not giving up your reservation until an exchange is made.

I personally would like to see the rule enforced. I believe staying in the resort should have priority over people booking only to get the highest trade value with no intention of using it. However, I do understand that schedules change. I myself had Spring Break booked this year with every intention of using it. Then just this month we found too many work/school conflicts and could not use the week. It seems it will be difficult to enforce.


----------



## ste104 (Jan 30, 2011)

*redervation procedures*

My concern is regarding the lock offs, if I am reading this correctly when I make a reservation and want to split my week and use the lock out first and then the one bedroom, only the first week will be confirmed using the 12 month rule and I then have to call back the following week to reserve the 1 bedroom? This would be a big change vs current policy where I can reserve both weeks with one call. Anyone read this new policy differently? Thanks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 30, 2011)

ste104 said:


> My concern is regarding the lock offs, if I am reading this correctly when I make a reservation and want to split my week and use the lock out first and then the one bedroom, only the first week will be confirmed using the 12 month rule and I then have to call back the following week to reserve the 1 bedroom? This would be a big change vs current policy where I can reserve both weeks with one call. Anyone read this new policy differently? Thanks.



I don't see where this is a change. I wasn't aware that you could reserve 2 consecutive weeks at the 12 month mark. The reason is, the second week inventory hasn't been released for 12 month reservations yet. Only 13 month reservations can book consecutive weeks in this manner.


----------



## ste104 (Jan 30, 2011)

*reservations*

I my have misstated the 12 month rule, but the way I still read it is that going forward when you make your reservation for the following year, you cannot reserve 2 consecutive weeks using the lockout and then the 1 bedroom. You will only get a confirmation for the first week and then have to wait for some time period to book your second week. Hope I am misinterperting the info.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 30, 2011)

*Updated list*:

Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Monarch
Mountainside
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge

(Nothing else to add except thanks to everyone for contributing - this is quite an interesting discussion.)


----------



## WINSLOW (Jan 30, 2011)

You can add St Kitts Beach Club to the list also.

While they basically say the same thing, there are some differences:

At St Kitts  you have to cancel before 75 days or you lose your week

At Aruba Surf Club you have to cancel before 60 days or lose your week

Also, both were signed and took effect on June 1, 2010 and we're just receiving these now


ste104    
"My concern is regarding the lock offs, if I am reading this correctly when I make a reservation and want to split my week and use the lock out first and then the one bedroom, only the first week will be confirmed using the 12 month rule and I then have to call back the following week to reserve the 1 bedroom? This would be a big change vs current policy where I can reserve both weeks with one call. Anyone read this new policy differently? Thanks."

I'm reading this the same way.  On the Aruba Surf Club it states-

At the time an A-Member requests a reservation for a Lock-Off Use Period, only occupancy of the part of the Unit which will be used first will be comfirmed.  A-Members can request a reservation of the remaining Lock-Off Use Period beginning on the date which is 12 months in advance of the date of the first Check-in Day of the remaining Lock-Off Use Period.


----------



## mas (Jan 30, 2011)

I just received emails from Ocean Watch and Beach Place, so you can add Beach Place to the list.


----------



## classiclincoln (Jan 30, 2011)

*Change to Grand Chateau Weeks [2 threads merged at this point]*

Just got an email from Marriott regarding changes to the reservation procedures.  My take, which might not be correct, is that they've reclassified some Platinum weeks as Platinum Plus.  Looks like July 4th, Thanksgiving, Christmas, as well as some other weeks where big events are going on are now Platinum Plus.  My problem is that they don't show you what the changes are (some places will highlight the changes).

Will call Marriott this week for clarification.

http://img.vacationclubsurvey.com/images/Comm_Design/Adhoc2010/Reservation_Procedure/Reservation_Pdf/VG.pdf


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 30, 2011)

I believe this is just the generic rules stating that the manager/developer can change certain weeks to plat. plus and uses those particular holiday weeks as examples. I've received nothing from MGC that would indicate such a change is about to, or has taken place. 

I'll be watching the seasons calander on the Marriott website to see if there are any such changes occuring. FWIW, I would never consider July 4th to be a high demand season in Vegas.


----------



## calberry (Jan 30, 2011)

And we just got ours for Ko Olina.


----------



## dhole (Jan 30, 2011)

Add Grand Chateau as well.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 30, 2011)

*Updated list:*

Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Beach Place
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Monarch
Mountainside
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
St. Kitts Beach Club
Timberlodge

(Whoa, was posting mid-merge in response to classiclincoln's thread and thought I just lost my mind for a minute ... hahaha.  Whoever is doing the merging, there is also this related thread that was begun in November.)

{edited again} And now I'm talking to myself - "Oh duh, it says right there that DeniseM merged the threads."  So I've sent her a PM to get all 3 threads together.


----------



## edge4414 (Jan 30, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I don't see where this is a change. I wasn't aware that you could reserve 2 consecutive weeks at the 12 month mark. The reason is, the second week inventory hasn't been released for 12 month reservations yet. Only 13 month reservations can book consecutive weeks in this manner.



This is a hugh change I think. I am a multi week owner and do all my reservations in one call including lockoffs. I reserve about 12 weeks in a row and at least 3 involve splitting lockoffs. As a matter of fact Marriott's policy has been that both ends of a split 2 or 3 Br must be used consecutively. 

Mike


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 30, 2011)

edge4414 said:


> This is a hugh change I think. I am a multi week owner and do all my reservations in one call including lockoffs. I reserve about 12 weeks in a row and at least 3 involve splitting lockoffs. As a matter of fact Marriott's policy has been that both ends of a split 2 or 3 Br must be used consecutively.
> 
> Mike



But you are a multi week owner making the reservation at the 13 month mark. I don't think there is a change to that.


----------



## edge4414 (Jan 30, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> But you are a multi week owner making the reservation at the 13 month mark. I don't think there is a change to that.



Boy, I hope you are right.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Jan 31, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> *Updated list*:
> 
> Aruba Surf Club
> Barony Beach
> ...





Susan:   Go ahead and add Legends Edge.



.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 31, 2011)

*Updated list:*

Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Beach Place
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Monarch
Mountainside
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge


----------



## chrisfromOC (Jan 31, 2011)

*add Waiohai to the list*

:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 31, 2011)

*Updated list:*

Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Beach Place
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Monarch
Mountainside
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club

(I am nothing if not obedient and compliant.  :hysterical:   :hysterical:   Nope, can't be said with a straight face.)


----------



## suzannesimon (Jan 31, 2011)

I just received mine for Frenchman's Cove.


----------



## aka Julie (Jan 31, 2011)

Just got one for Shadow Ridge.


----------



## Darlene (Jan 31, 2011)

Sorry, I jumped into this thread late. It appears to be about multi-week owners who can make reservations 13 months out - if they cancal one reservation then all their reservations can be cancelled? Wow. That seems harsh.

I got our reservation for Monarch for next year. It's for June of next year - so 17 months out - because it is a fixed week. The strange thing - it says 'This reservation may be changed for a fee up to 60 days prior to arrival.' I don't remember it ever saying that before, and no mention of II.
Darlene


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2011)

Darlene, the thread is to keep track of the resorts which have sent out a revised version of the Reservations Procedures documents, to help all of us figure out the changes in the revisions from the originals, and speculation on what it all might mean for future use.  (At least that's what I think the thread is; someone else might have a different idea.   )

Who knows, you may have stumbled upon a change that's unique to fixed weeks at Monarch just by noticing that new wording on your reservation confirmation.  Hopefully more Monarch owners can help you figure it out.

*********
*Updated list:*

Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Beach Place
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Frenchman's Cove
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Monarch
Mountainside
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Shadow Ridge
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club


----------



## rickxylon (Feb 1, 2011)

You can add Aruba Ocean Club


----------



## Swice (Feb 1, 2011)

*Add Lakeshore*

Add Lakeshore Reserve (Orlando).   I got that notice a few days after Oceanwatch (Myrtle Beach).


----------



## Darlene (Feb 1, 2011)

I have not received anything from Marriott on any revision to the reservations procedures documents at Monarch. All I have received is our reservation confirmation. Since we are fixed week owners, we get an automatic confirmation from Marriott. Do they have to send to us a copy, or just make it known that there are changes? 
Darlene


----------



## Darlene (Feb 1, 2011)

I called Marriott and asked why our reservation said 'This reservation may be changed for a fee up to 60 days prior to arrival.'  They said Oops! That's not an option on a fixed week reservation. We have a new standard reservation form that we send out, and that's what they all say. Only owners with floating weeks have the option to change their reservations.  So all those reservation confirmations are telling fixed week owners they can change their reservations. 
Don't get me wrong, I love having a fixed week reservation that I do not have to call and make. I just think it is stupid they use the same form they send to floating week owners. 
Darlene


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2011)

Darlene, I would guess that yes, Marriott does have to serve notice of the governing document revisions to every owner.  If this is like most other Marriott communications, though, owners who don't receive it through email will receive it sometime later - who knows when - through snail mail.  If you want to go back through your email and check to see if it mistakenly went to a spam folder, it looks like the first post about Monarch was on TUG Jan 21st.

It makes me wonder, though - has anyone seen these new docs posted in the Owners section of their my-vacationclub.com accounts?  Sign in, click "See My Resorts", click "View Resort Page", click "Weeks Owners."  (Nothing there for Barony or SurfWatch.)

*********
*Updated list:*

Aruba Ocean Club
Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Beach Place
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Frenchman's Cove
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Lakeshore Reserve at Grande Lakes
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Monarch
Mountainside
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Shadow Ridge
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club


----------



## wvacations (Feb 1, 2011)

Has anyome figured out if "exchanging" a week with II that was made more than 12 months in advance going to be considered a cancellation. I am about at my 13 month mark for Shadow Ridge. I don't see in the new document saying it must be owner occupied, or if exchanging is a cancellation. I would call Marriott, but I am sure if I called 3 times I would get 3 different answers!


----------



## Lv2Trvl (Feb 1, 2011)

*add a couple more to the list*

We received: Canyon Villas, Waiohai & Aruba Ocean Club.

Everything started arriving via email this past Friday 01/28/11.  We are long time owners also, so don't understand the timing of the notifications...


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 1, 2011)

wvacations said:


> Has anyome figured out if "exchanging" a week with II that was made more than 12 months in advance going to be considered a cancellation. I am about at my 13 month mark for Shadow Ridge. I don't see in the new document saying it must be owner occupied, or if exchanging is a cancellation. I would call Marriott, but I am sure if I called 3 times I would get 3 different answers!



I know when you deposit a week with II that it shows on Marriott.com as cancelled.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 2, 2011)

Back in November when the first round of these revised documents were sent out and we started talking about them in this thread, I didn't realize that a few resorts already had the stricter cancellation penalty language in their original docs (that allowed Marriott to cancel all reservations in a Use Year if less than all reservations made using the 13-mo rule were cancelled.)  Knowing that now, I'm not AS worried that the reason for all the revised docs is for Marriott to serve notice that they'll definitely be doing things differently (with respect to cancellations) from here on out.  But I'm still worried enough that I won't test the new rules until I hear on TUG that others are able to do things the same way they've always done them without Marriott enforcing the new penalties.

I also don't think it's possible that we'll ever know definitely any blanket answers to any of the questions raised by these docs - What is considered a cancellation?  Will they cancel all my reservations for one year if I cancel only one week reserved using the 13-mos rule?  What about if I deposit only one with II or Marriott's rental program or for MRP exchange?  Do they intend to institute a lottery system for reservations of high-demand intervals now that all resorts allow it? ... Marriott isn't going to put any of the clear answers in writing - they never have before despite the fact that some of what they've historically allowed has been in clear violation of certain governing docs.  And the biggest difference with these docs as compared to the originals is that it appears Marriott can pick and choose selectively when they'll apply certain penalties, meaning we'll never be able to be sure that what occurs with one owner will occur with all.

So even though I'm not AS worried about certain things here, I'm still convinced that there is a reason to be worried that we might see some changes going forward.  All of this bears watching, especially considering that more and more resorts are issuing the revised docs.

**********
Updated list:*

Aruba Ocean Club
Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Beach Place
Canyon Villas at Desert Ridge
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Frenchman's Cove
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Lakeshore Reserve at Grande Lakes
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Monarch
Mountainside
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Shadow Ridge
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club


----------



## classiclincoln (Feb 2, 2011)

Called Marriott today and got clarification.  Apparently, (at least at Grand Chateau), they always reserved the right to change weeks from Platinum to Platinum Plus.  I was told that was always in there and not one of the changes.


----------



## Jim&Martha (Feb 3, 2011)

*Lock off reservations changing, yes.*



ste104 said:


> My concern is regarding the lock offs, if I am reading this correctly when I make a reservation and want to split my week and use the lock out first and then the one bedroom, only the first week will be confirmed using the 12 month rule and I then have to call back the following week to reserve the 1 bedroom? This would be a big change vs current policy where I can reserve both weeks with one call. Anyone read this new policy differently? Thanks.



You are correct.  For 10 years we have been able to make the back to back reservations on the same day with one phone call, that's what sold us on buying a two bedroom for just the two of us.  One week using the lock off and the next week using the 1 bedroom portion.  After receiving the email notice this morning with the headings I posted earlier, I called.  I just got off the phone with Marriott reservations and they said now "you may have to call back the next week to reserve the second portion of your two bedroom due to lack of availability of inventory due to the new program".  So it is not a guarantee anymore - but a maybe.


----------



## Michigan Czar (Feb 3, 2011)

Sue - I just received Maui Ocean Club (old section).


----------



## Michigan Czar (Feb 3, 2011)

Jim&Martha said:


> You are correct.  For 10 years we have been able to make the back to back reservations on the same day with one phone call, that's what sold us on buying a two bedroom for just the two of us.  One week using the lock off and the next week using the 1 bedroom portion.  After receiving the email notice this morning with the headings I posted earlier, I called.  I just got off the phone with Marriott reservations and they said now "you may have to call back the next week to reserve the second portion of your two bedroom due to lack of availability of inventory due to the new program".  So it is not a guarantee anymore - but a maybe.



This is highly disappointing and unacceptable. If I am going to Maui I would want to know on the first try if I am willing to get back to back weeks fo rmy stay. I hope this si something that could happen but in reality never does.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 3, 2011)

Michigan Czar said:


> Sue - I just received Maui Ocean Club (old section).



Thanks.  I'll put it in the list as (MMO) and then remove that if an (MM1) owner also confirms receipt.

**********
Updated list:*

Aruba Ocean Club
Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Beach Place
Canyon Villas at Desert Ridge
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Frenchman's Cove
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Lakeshore Reserve at Grande Lakes
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Maui Ocean Club (MMO)
Monarch
Mountainside
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Shadow Ridge
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club


----------



## Superchief (Feb 3, 2011)

I received Newport Coast today. It is interesting that the document was dated 5/10/10.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 3, 2011)

After reading the lock-off posts I'm a little bit confused.  Jim&Martha, did Marriott tell you this morning that you'll no longer be able to split a lock-off and reserve the two pieces consecutively at the 12-mos mark because they won't allow that type of booking from this point forward, or did they tell you that the chances of being able to find availability for the second week will be reduced because of the new Destination Club program?  The first appears to be a definite change in procedure as a result of these revised documents (and it would be the first change to be confirmed in some fashion by Marriott.)  I'm confused whether the other is a change, because hasn't availability always been an issue?  

**********
Updated list:*

Aruba Ocean Club
Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
Beach Place
Canyon Villas at Desert Ridge
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Frenchman's Cove
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Lakeshore Reserve at Grande Lakes
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Maui Ocean Club (MMO)
Monarch
Mountainside
Newport Coast Villas
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Shadow Ridge
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club


----------



## Jim&Martha (Feb 3, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> After reading the lock-off posts I'm a little bit confused.  Jim&Martha, did Marriott tell you this morning that you'll no longer be able to split a lock-off and reserve the two pieces consecutively at the 12-mos mark because they won't allow that type of booking from this point forward, or did they tell you that the chances of being able to find availability for the second week will be reduced because of the new Destination Club program?  The first appears to be a definite change in procedure as a result of these revised documents (and it would be the first change to be confirmed in some fashion by Marriott.)  I'm confused whether the other is a change, because hasn't availability always been an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Availability to reserve both weeks back to back has not been an issue for our 10 years of being a member.  The new document clearly states that the request must be made one year in advance and that the second portion of the lock request also has to made one year in advance - which would preclude making both reservations in one phone call.  

The Marriott rep knew nothing of this new document (no surprise there) - so when I read her the info she spoke to a manager and said it would appear that this new info is correct and IF there is inventory, I could still make my back to back weeks in one phone call.  I'm thinking that's a major league IF.... hmmmmmmm, we'll see.  

The new doc is very clear in that it says I can no longer do that.  

It also states that:
"The Program Operator may restrict the availability of Lock Off Occupancy in order to fulfill the maximum number of owner requests for occupancy which may result in the Owner's request being denied and the Owner losing the use of the remaining Lock Off Use Period."  It goes onto to say there may also be new fees to utilize the lock off option.....
martha


----------



## wof45 (Feb 3, 2011)

I believe the difficulty with lockoffs, is that you can lock off your unit, but then you have to see if someone has already locked off a studio for your other week.


----------



## BocaBoy (Feb 3, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Jim&Martha, did Marriott tell you this morning that you'll no longer be able to split a lock-off and reserve the two pieces consecutively at the 12-mos mark because they won't allow that type of booking from this point forward, or did they tell you that the chances of being able to find availability for the second week will be reduced because of the new Destination Club program?  The first appears to be a definite change in procedure as a result of these revised documents (and it would be the first change to be confirmed in some fashion by Marriott.)



Now I am confused.  I have done a lot of splitting and reserving back-to-back the studio and 1BR parts of a lock-off unit.  My experience has been totally consistent every year (including 2012 reservations).  It can be done as part of a 13-month reservation that includes at least one other unit.  At 12 months it cannot be done if there is not another unit being reserved also (which would transform it into the 13-month rules).  If no second unit is involved, the second week must wait until the 12-month mark.


----------



## Jim&Martha (Feb 3, 2011)

BocaBoy said:


> Now I am confused.  I have done a lot of splitting and reserving back-to-back the studio and 1BR parts of a lock-off unit.  My experience has been totally consistent every year (including 2012 reservations).  It can be done as part of a 13-month reservation that includes at least one other unit.  At 12 months it cannot be done if there is not another unit being reserved also (which would transform it into the 13-month rules).  If no second unit is involved, the second week must wait until the 12-month mark.



We do not and never have owned a second unit.  When we bought the 2 bedroom unit, 10 years ago, the sales pitch we were given was that we could reserve back to back weeks in one phone call, using first one portion , then the other... that way the Marriott had the other side to rent out, and this is what we have done most years.  One phone call and reserved two weeks back to back.


----------



## Superchief (Feb 3, 2011)

Jim&Martha said:


> We do not and never have owned a second unit.  When we bought the 2 bedroom unit, 10 years ago, the sales pitch we were given was that we could reserve back to back weeks in one phone call, using first one portion , then the other... that way the Marriott had the other side to rent out, and this is what we have done most years.  One phone call and reserved two weeks back to back.



My experience has been similar to Boca Boy's. Reservations could only be made 12 months prior to each week. It could not be accomplished in one call unless that call was made 12 months prior to the second week. We would prefer to use the studio the first week and the 1BR the second to take advantage of the laundry units. However, it was always easier to get the studio, so we took a 1BR whenever we could get it.


----------



## Jim&Martha (Feb 3, 2011)

Superchief said:


> My experience has been similar to Boca Boy's. Reservations could only be made 12 months prior to each week. It could not be accomplished in one call unless that call was made 12 months prior to the second week. We would prefer to use the studio the first week and the 1BR the second to take advantage of the laundry units. However, it was always easier to get the studio, so we took a 1BR whenever we could get it.



Ahhhh "the laundry units" so perhaps there is the difference, we are in the old part of the property in the Molokai bldg..... as we have always made one phone call to reserve the two back to back weeks.  Perhaps they did away with that in the newer bldgs.... we have no laundry in our 2 bedroom unit.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 3, 2011)

BocaBoy said:


> Now I am confused.  I have done a lot of splitting and reserving back-to-back the studio and 1BR parts of a lock-off unit.  My experience has been totally consistent every year (including 2012 reservations).  It can be done as part of a 13-month reservation that includes at least one other unit.  At 12 months it cannot be done if there is not another unit being reserved also (which would transform it into the 13-month rules).  If no second unit is involved, the second week must wait until the 12-month mark.



I am equally confused. We have never called at the 12 month mark to make a back to back lock off reservation. Now that we have multiple weeks, we wouldn't have an issue anyway.


----------



## GregT (Feb 4, 2011)

Sue,

MM1 came through -- thx very much.


----------



## Superchief (Feb 4, 2011)

Ocean Pointe came this morning.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 4, 2011)

**********
Updated list:*

Aruba Ocean Club
Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
BeachPlace Towers
Canyon Villas at Desert Ridge
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Frenchman's Cove
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Lakeshore Reserve at Grande Lakes
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Maui Ocean Club
Monarch
Mountainside
Newport Coast Villas
Ocean Pointe
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Shadow Ridge
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club


----------



## melroseman (Feb 4, 2011)

KBC came this morning as well


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 4, 2011)

I don't know if anyone else thinks so but I'd like to know if a board vote was required to adopt these revisions (I suspect not,) if Marriott gave a more detailed explanation of them to the boards (again, I suspect not,) and if the boards were given answers to any questions that they may have asked Marriott before they signed off.  I think what's most likely is that Marriott's only directive to the board was along the lines of, "In accordance with the rights bestowed by the governing docs blahblahblah as Management Company we've developed these revisions; it's your duty to notify owners at the resort."  But even if that's the case, I wonder if any of the board members share the same concerns we do.  Don't know why they wouldn't, actually, as they are owners too.

Unfortunately, TUGger Minoter is the only active board member (BeachPlace Towers) I know of who participates here.  I hate to put him on the spot but I've sent him a PM about this thread.  I also plan on sending an email to both Barony's and SurfWatch's boards, but not until after their next board members' updates are sent out and only if they don't include any mention of all this.

**********
Updated list:*

Aruba Ocean Club
Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
BeachPlace Towers
Canyon Villas at Desert Ridge
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Frenchman's Cove
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Kauai Beach Club
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Lakeshore Reserve at Grande Lakes
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Maui Ocean Club
Monarch
Mountainside
Newport Coast Villas
Ocean Pointe
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Shadow Ridge
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club


----------



## BocaBoy (Feb 4, 2011)

Jim&Martha said:


> We do not and never have owned a second unit.  When we bought the 2 bedroom unit, 10 years ago, the sales pitch we were given was that we could reserve back to back weeks in one phone call, using first one portion , then the other... that way the Marriott had the other side to rent out, and this is what we have done most years.  One phone call and reserved two weeks back to back.



And your phone call was more than 12 months prior to the second week you were reserving?  If so, Marriott's practice seems to be inconsistent.

Also, I don't understand your point about Marriott having "the other side to rent out", since you have reserved both sides.  The side you did not reserve for each week is instead available to other owners to reserve, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying.


----------



## dhole (Feb 4, 2011)

Add Willow Ridge Lodge to the  list as well.  I suppose we could just say every resort by a week or so from now.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 5, 2011)

dhole said:


> Add Willow Ridge Lodge to the  list as well.  I suppose we could just say every resort by a week or so from now.



Maybe.  But it will be very interesting if any resorts manage to block these revisions, won't it?

**********
Updated list:*

Aruba Ocean Club
Aruba Surf Club
Barony Beach
BeachPlace Towers
Canyon Villas at Desert Ridge
Crystal Shores
Cypress Harbor
Desert Springs Villas
Fairway Villas
Frenchman's Cove
Grand Chateau
Grande Ocean
Grande Vista
Harbour Lake
Kauai Beach Club
Ko 'Olina Beach Club
Lakeshore Reserve at Grande Lakes
Legends Edge at Bay Point
Maui Ocean Club
Monarch
Mountainside
Newport Coast Villas
Ocean Pointe
OceanWatch
Royal Palms
Sabal Palms
Shadow Ridge
St. Kitts Beach Club
Sunset Pointe
SurfWatch
Timberlodge
Waiohai Beach Club
Willow Ridge Lodge


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 5, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't know if anyone else thinks so but I'd like to know if a board vote was required to adopt these revisions (I suspect not,)



I believe these changes required a vote of the BOD. The reservation procedures at Harbour Lake and Grande Vista are part of the underlying documents.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 5, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I believe these changes required a vote of the BOD. The reservation procedures at Harbour Lake and Grande Vista are part of the underlying documents.



You're right, they're a part of the docs at every resort.  But I think the revisions may fall into that gray area where Marriott has rights to change them without a board/owner vote.

The revised docs for both of mine came with a cover letter from Marriott Owner Services, not the individual resorts.  It sounds like they're similar to the ones that others have mentioned with the bullet points relating to, "... better align the reservation procedures to historic Owner demand and use preferences as expressed by Owners ..."  But the letters don't say that the board voted in the revisions, they say that they were, "... recently introduced by the management company on behalf of the Board."

I really don't think the boards had any input or vote here but I could be wrong.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Feb 5, 2011)

*Moc/mmo*

Here's the PDF for Maui Ocean Club's amended and restated program rules, in case it hasn't been posted yet. I have a version that I ran through an OCR program, in case you need to be able to copy sections of the text.

Interesting reading...

Admin notice:
Characters entered under "Title" are forced to lower case after the first capitalized character.  Can this be disabled?


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 5, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> You're right, they're a part of the docs at every resort.  But I think the revisions may fall into that gray area where Marriott has rights to change them without a board/owner vote.
> 
> The revised docs for both of mine came with a cover letter from Marriott Owner Services, not the individual resorts.  It sounds like they're similar to the ones that others have mentioned with the bullet points relating to, "... better align the reservation procedures to historic Owner demand and use preferences as expressed by Owners ..."  But the letters don't say that the board voted in the revisions, they say that they were, "... recently introduced by the management company on behalf of the Board."
> 
> I really don't think the boards had any input or vote here but I could be wrong.



I think you may be right. In looking at the Harbour Lake condo docs it defines the Reservation Procedures as follows:



> Reservation Procedures shall mean the procedures governing the reservation and use of Timeshare Units by Owners promulgated by the Management Company. A copy of the present Reservation Procedures is attached hereunto as Exhibit "E" and is incorporated herein by reference.



Since they are incorporated for reference, it would mean they are not part of the actual condo documents and could be amended without vote by the BOD.

Something interesting is that the e-mail actually pointed out the highlights of the revised procedures.



> 1. Check-in for Owners and transient occupants (rentals) on days not specified as official
> check-in days
> 2. Clarification of call-in days for reservation requests
> 3. Multi-week owner status
> ...



So they called out the policy on cancellation of multi week reservations. One would think by calling that out that they would intend to uphold the revisions as written.


----------



## hipslo (Feb 5, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I believe these changes required a vote of the BOD. The reservation procedures at Harbour Lake and Grande Vista are part of the underlying documents.



Not sure about all resorts, but at Mountainside, the original documents (prior to this amendment) specify that the reservation procedures can be changed by the management company (marriott) at any time.  No BOD vote is required.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 5, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> ... Something interesting is that the e-mail actually pointed out the highlights of the revised procedures.
> 
> So they called out the policy on cancellation of multi week reservations. One would think by calling that out that they would intend to uphold the revisions as written.



Yes, exactly!  That's why I'm so surprised that more Marriott owners aren't concerned about what's happening here!  They've practically told us point-blank that the way we've been reserving and canceling Weeks for years will be changing, but they've left it up to us to decipher the revised documents to try to figure out what the changes mean for the future.

But not only that, they've included skeeeery language calling our attention to, "Use of inventory to support Owners' use of units and other Owner benefits," which could mean that Marriott intends to implement such things as the Lottery system that's always been a part of the Reservation Procedures docs at some resorts but has never been used.

I really think these revisions mean that there may be changes ahead that are more important than some people think.  At the very least, the possibility of imminent change exists more now than I've ever thought before.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 5, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Yes, exactly!  That's why I'm so surprised that more Marriott owners aren't concerned about what's happening here!  They've practically told us point-blank that the way we've been reserving and canceling Weeks for years will be changing, but they've left it up to us to decipher the revised documents to try to figure out what the changes mean for the future.
> 
> But not only that, they've included skeeeery language calling our attention to, "Use of inventory to support Owners' use of units and other Owner benefits," which could mean that Marriott intends to implement such things as the Lottery system that's always been a part of the Reservation Procedures docs at some resorts but has never been used.
> 
> I really think these revisions mean that there may be changes ahead that are more important than some people think.  At the very least, the possibility of imminent change exists more now than I've ever thought before.



I think many people may not be as concerned because they don't reserve multi week 13 month reservations only to end up canceling one or more of the weeks. Perhaps there are more and I am just not aware of it. So the impact of the revised rule perhaps doesn't have as much of an impact.

Though we know that there are plenty that reserve 13 months out and deposit some or all of those reservations in to II. If Marriott opted to start canceling all reservations if someone deposited a 13 month reservation, there would be outrage.

I think it has more to do with how broad the impact is. People are worried about themselves and when something doesn't effect them, there is nothing for them to worry about.


----------



## m61376 (Feb 6, 2011)

As for reserving two sides of a lock-off consecutively at the 12 month mark before the first week- I always thought the official policy that consecutive weeks could be booked at the 13 month mark as long as you owned multiple units, but consecutive halves of a single unit could be booked only at the 12 month mark for each part being booked.

If people were able to book both sides of a lock-off on the same call at the 12 month mark of the first week, then I think it was contrary to stated policy. We all know that Marriott reps are inconsistent and people may have been lucky, but as far as I know the written policy was the same before wrt these bookings.

Hopefully DaveM or one of the other experts can confirm??


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 6, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> ... I think it has more to do with how broad the impact is. People are worried about themselves and when something doesn't effect them, there is nothing for them to worry about.



Of course you're right, and maybe I'm paranoid now trying to figure out all the changes Marriott could make because of these revisions, if they intend to make any at all!  But I do think this is bigger than 13-mos cancelations.

The penalty for cancelations of 13-mos reservations that Marriott is adopting with these revisions is the strictest one that was included in any of the original docs.  If they have the right to adopt any cancelation penalties across the board, which it appears they do, why couldn't they have adopted one of the less-strict versions?  That's the one change that stands out most to me but not only because of what it might mean for my personal use.  I think it sets a tone that says Marriott will be doing whatever it can to get ahold of inventory.

That "use of inventory to support Owners' use of units and other Owner benefits" from the cover letters is interesting - does it mean changes ahead relating to private rentals; a possibility of instituting the defined Lottery system for the highest-demand weeks in the calendars; Marriott choosing a la Starwood the weeks that are deposited into II when an exchange is requested; anything that could ensure success of the DC by freeing up inventory for DC use?  That's why I think these revisions could potentially affect many more owners than the ones who cancel/re-book 13-mos reservations ...


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 6, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> ...If Marriott opted to start canceling all reservations if someone deposited a 13 month reservation, there would be outrage. ...



It's like you said - there may not actually be very many who would be affected by such a change.  How many non-TUG owners do you think go by the TUG mantra of "book the highest demand intervals at the earliest possible moment" for exchanging with II?  It seems not a lot, considering the number of owners who have expressed frustration with II over the years.

Besides, I think we've seen that Marriott isn't overly concerned with outrage among the ownership.


----------



## wvacations (Feb 6, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> It's like you said - there may not actually be very many who would be affected by such a change.  How many non-TUG owners do you think go by the TUG mantra of "book the highest demand intervals at the earliest possible moment" for exchanging with II?  It seems not a lot, considering the number of owners who have expressed frustration with II over the years.
> 
> Besides, I think we've seen that Marriott isn't overly concerned with outrage among the ownership.



Still tryimg to figure out if depositing to II is going to be considered a cancellation. The letter I recieved last year from DSV or Shadow Ridge (I can't remember which it was) was clear that OWNERS were upset that they could not book prime weeks, and find out they are being rented and in II. It sounds like with the new letters, that they are trying to limit prime weeks being booked at 13 months only to be traded or rented. When you deposit your week into II, both request first and exchange first, the reservation shows as a cancellation on Marriott.com. On My-Vacationclub.com it shows as exchange. The letter does not address this issue and I am sure calling a VOA would be a waste of time as 3 reps would have 3 different answers. This will be my first year to book 3 weeks at 1 resort back to back, and then the other 2 at another resort (other 2 are a different season). I really would like to know if I exchange these weeks what happens. Seems crazy they send out these letters and don't include an interpertation with them.


----------



## wvacations (Feb 6, 2011)

Just did an online chat on MY-vacationclub.com and was advised that a exchange to II, with a reservation made 13 months in advance is not a cancellation. I'll wait a few hours and check again and see what answer I get.


----------



## hipslo (Feb 6, 2011)

wvacations said:


> Just did an online chat on MY-vacationclub.com and was advised that a exchange to II, with a reservation made 13 months in advance is not a cancellation. I'll wait a few hours and check again and see what answer I get.



Interesting.  I wonder what they'd say about each of the following:

trade for MRP
trade for DC points
rental through MVC rental program
private rental


----------



## wof45 (Feb 6, 2011)

hipslo said:


> Interesting.  I wonder what they'd say about each of the following:
> 
> trade for MRP
> trade for DC points
> ...



that should be an easy answer, since trading for MRP or DC or MVC rental is on the same level as a reservation.  If you were able to actually do these things after choosing a reservation, they could only be done by canceling the reservation.

A private rental should be no different than using the reservation.


----------



## hipslo (Feb 7, 2011)

wof45 said:


> that should be an easy answer, since trading for MRP or DC or MVC rental is on the same level as a reservation.  If you were able to actually do these things after choosing a reservation, they could only be done by canceling the reservation.
> 
> A private rental should be no different than using the reservation.



I think its hard to speculate.  MVC rentals and II deposits both show up on marriott.com as cancellations, complete with cancellation number.  (Not sure about trading for MRP or DC points, as I havent yet done either one).  So why would one be treated as a cancellation and the other not?  

I am considering trading in one of my weeks reserved at 13 months for MR points, and offering another to the marriott rental program.  I will wait until I am within the 12 month window before attemtping to do either, and will ask, specifically, for an email confirmation that doing so will not result in any of my other reservations being cancelled.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out.


----------



## Smooth Air (Feb 7, 2011)

I just received an email about reservation changes, among other things,  re: Ocean Pointe. They attached a 15 page document! Can somebody please tell me if there is anything important that I need to know?


----------



## wvacations (Feb 7, 2011)

Conducted another Online Chat and asked the representative about the email regarding the more than 12 months in advance reservations and the ramifications of cancelling a week after using that procedure. I specifically asked what happens if you deposit one of those weeks, made more than 12 months in advance, into II for exchange. They responded that exchanging with II would not cancel the other weeks. She said the email was intended to stop owners from "booking 2 weeks in a row at 13 months, and then cancelling one of those weeks a few days later and keeping the other week." She said if you only are using 1 week, you need to wait until the 12 month reservation period. This is the second rep that has indicated that depositing a week in II made at the 13 month mark will not have a penalty.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 7, 2011)

I think I have seen it mentioned in the past that as long as you waited until 12 months out to make a cancellation that you were fine. As at that point that week would be available to any owner. I can see their point if they had a lot of people making multi week reservations at 13 months and then calling in at 12 and a half months to cancel one or more of them. At that point single week owners still can't get that week that was canceled.


----------



## minoter (Feb 8, 2011)

*FAQ regarding the Reservation Document*

The document below is the most recent FAQ issued by Marriott regarding the Reservation Document:

"Reservation Procedures - Frequently Asked Questions
Many MVCI Owners have recently received revised Reservation Procedures (or Program Rules) for their MVCI resort. The following is a list of questions and answers compiled from the feedback MVCI has received from Owners.
Question #1: Why were the Reservation Procedures amended?
Answer #1: The specific reasons for the amendments vary from resort to resort, but in general the changes were driven by: (i) Owner demand or confusion regarding existing rules as communicated to MVCI's Owner Services team, (ii) changes in applicable laws, (iii) clarification of how existing rules apply for sites with inventory in the new MVC Destinations product, and (iv) consolidation of existing documents for resorts which had multiple prior amendments or versions of Reservation Procedures.
Question #2: What has changed in the Reservation Procedures for my resort?
Answer #2: A cover letter was sent to you along with your new Reservation Procedures. This cover letter includes a list of the specific changes which were made for your resort. The list of issues addressed includes the following:
(i)
Check-In Days – Allows MVCI to permit check-in on various days. This amendment does not change the beginning or end of the defined one-week use periods (e.g., Fri.-Fri., Sat.-Sat. and Sun.-Sun.) for a given resort. Owners must still reserve occupancy based upon the defined use periods.
(ii)
Call-In Days – Clarifies existing Owner Services procedures for reserving occupancy based on one call-in day regardless of the Owner's desired check-in day. Owners may request a reservation beginning on the date which is twelve (12) months in advance of the date of the first check-in day for the requested use period.
(iii)
Multi-Week Owners – Clarifies that the definition of "Multi-Week Owner" includes Owners who own more than one timeshare interest at the subject resort, or own at least one timeshare interest at the subject resort and at least one timeshare or other interest at another MVCI timeshare resort, timeshare plan or other vacation resort.
(iv) Cancellation of Multi-Week Reservations – Removes the requirement to cancel all multi-week reservations when an Owner requests cancellation of a portion of a multi-week reservation.
560568-1 1
560568-1 2
(v) Inventory Management – Enables MVCI to most efficiently manage available inventory to facilitate Owner benefits such as Marriott Rewards® points exchange and deposit of unreserved weeks with Interval International® for Owner access.
Please note that not every resort has changes in all of these areas. The list of specific changes varies from resort to resort, depending on language present in the existing Reservation Procedures, differences in applicable laws and restrictions contained in other documents governing each resort. Please refer to the cover letter which accompanied your new Reservation Procedures for a list of the specific changes applicable to your resort.
Question #3: Do these changes disadvantage Weeks Owners as compared to Points Owners?
Answer #3: No. The changes apply equally to all Weeks Owners, including the MVC Trust (the legal vehicle for the new MVC Destinations™ Program) for resorts in which the MVC Trust owns timeshare interests. Individual Points Owners use their Vacation Club Points to reserve occupancy based on the Reservation Procedures for Marriott Vacation Club Destinations, and do not receive any preference or priority over Weeks Owners.
Question #4: Who approved the changes to the Reservation Procedures for my resort?
Answer #4: For a majority of resorts, MVCI in its role as the Program Manager or Management Company approved the changes as permitted by the governing documents. However, for a significant number of resorts the governing documents required that the Association's Board of Directors approve the changes. For these resorts, Board approval was obtained by Board resolution at a meeting or by Unanimous Written Consent.
Question #5: Who can I contact if I have additional questions?
Answer #5: Additional questions regarding the Reservation Procedures should be directed to MVCI's Owner Services team at (800)-845-4226."

I hope this document helps Marriott owners better understand the impact of the revised reservation document. 
Eric Minotti


----------



## Herb33 (Feb 8, 2011)

Thank you for posting that, minoter.



> Question #2: What has changed in the Reservation Procedures for my resort?
> 
> Answer #2: A cover letter was sent to you along with your new Reservation Procedures. This cover letter includes a *list of the specific changes* which were made for your resort. ....
> 
> .... The *list of specific changes* varies from resort to resort, depending on language present in the existing Reservation Procedures, differences in applicable laws and restrictions contained in other documents governing each resort. Please refer to the cover letter which accompanied your new Reservation Procedures for a *list of the specific changes *applicable to your resort.



Not true in my case.  My cover letter (see below) points to the *issues addressed* by the changes, but does NOT provide a *"list of the specific changes."*

This posting was helpful in giving me something to work with.  But a list summarizing the before-and-after changes affecting MY home resort would have been nice.

Here's the meat of my cover letter ...



> These amendments address the following issues:
> 
> 1. 	Check-in for Owners and transient occupants (rentals) on days not specified as official
> check-in days
> ...


----------



## hipslo (Feb 8, 2011)

minoter said:


> (iv) Cancellation of Multi-Week Reservations – Removes the requirement to cancel all multi-week reservations when an Owner requests cancellation of a portion of a multi-week reservation.



That is VERY interesting.


----------



## Superchief (Feb 8, 2011)

minoter said:


> The document below is the most recent FAQ issued by Marriott regarding the Reservation Document:
> 
> "Reservation Procedures - Frequently Asked Questions
> (iii)
> ...



This would seem to indicate that you are considered a multi-week owner if you own at one MVC resort and own DC points (any minimum requirement?). I am curious whether this means that a single week owner can make reservations at their home resort 13 months in advance if combine it with a DC points reservation.


----------



## Herb33 (Feb 8, 2011)

Superchief said:


> I am curious whether this means that a single week owner can make reservations at their home resort 13 months in advance if combine it with a DC points reservation.



And ....

If I'm trying to book both of my WEEKS at the same time, will I be competing with this 'hybrid' reservation for the same inventory?


----------



## hipslo (Feb 8, 2011)

Superchief said:


> This would seem to indicate that you are considered a multi-week owner if you own at one MVC resort and own DC points (any minimum requirement?). I am curious whether this means that a single week owner can make reservations at their home resort 13 months in advance if combine it with a DC points reservation.



I dont think DC points would be considered a "timeshare interest" or "other interest at a timeshare resort" for that purpose. DC point owners own beneficial interests in a trust, rather than direct interests in the resorts themselves.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 8, 2011)

minoter said:


> The document below is the most recent FAQ issued by Marriott regarding the Reservation Document ...
> 
> I hope this document helps Marriott owners better understand the impact of the revised reservation document.
> Eric Minotti



Eric, thanks so much for posting this and helping us all figure out what it means.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 8, 2011)

minoter said:


> ... (iv) Cancellation of Multi-Week Reservations – Removes the requirement to cancel all multi-week reservations when an Owner requests cancellation of a portion of a multi-week reservation. ...





hipslo said:


> That is VERY interesting.



I think it's interesting as well, but more for what it doesn't say than for what it does, because it doesn't answer the questions that we've asked about this in any of the related threads.

For one thing, not all of the resorts' original Reservation Procedures docs contained the stipulation that Marriott was required to cancel all multi-week reservations if an Owner cancelled only a portion - some had that exact wording but some went further with a requirement to cancel all reservations in a Use Year.  But regardless of the differences in the original documents, the revised docs haven't just done away with that stipulation - it's been replaced with something that is still not completely explained or understood!

The revised versions read something like this, ""The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."

So yes, in one sense they've "removed the requirement" that all multi-week reservations must be cancelled if an Owner cancels only a portion.  But look what it's replaced with!  Now Marriott can - arbitrarily, at its own discretion - cancel an entire Use Year's worth of reservations if an Owner cancels only a portion of multi-week reservations.

I'd like to know when Marriott intends to enforce this penalty.  Are they planning on using it to go after the folks wvacations mentioned in the post above, the Owners who reserve two or more Weeks at 13-mos and then cancel all except one before the 12-mos mark?  Are they planning on using it whenever they can to enforce the rules about not renting your timeshares as a "commercial" venture?  Will they apply it willy-nilly when it suits their purposes to gain specific intervals?  Is it just going to sit there and never be enforced the way the other versions have been sitting unused for all these years?

I just don't think we'll ever get the answers, at least not unless we try to "test" the new rules.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 8, 2011)

minoter said:


> ... (v) Inventory Management – Enables MVCI to most efficiently manage available inventory to facilitate Owner benefits such as Marriott Rewards® points exchange and deposit of unreserved weeks with Interval International® for Owner access.



So many of the TUG discussions since the advent of the DC have focused on inventory management - the "buckets", availability, pro-rata distributions, etc.  I have no doubt that these revisions have been done for the reason stated, to satisfy the legal requirements for Marriott to deal in Weeks, Enrolled Weeks and DC Points.  But I also have no doubt that they've been done in a way that gives Marriott an advantage to gain access to certain intervals for DC use.  And honestly, I don't have a problem with that - if it's legal and it helps to ensure the continued success of Marriott's timeshare business then I'm all for it.  I just wish that they would plainly state HOW they're "managing the inventory."



minoter said:


> ... Question #4: Who approved the changes to the Reservation Procedures for my resort?
> Answer #4: For a majority of resorts, MVCI in its role as the Program Manager or Management Company approved the changes as permitted by the governing documents. However, for a significant number of resorts the governing documents required that the Association's Board of Directors approve the changes. For these resorts, Board approval was obtained by Board resolution at a meeting or by Unanimous Written Consent.



Boy, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at those board meetings!  Hopefully the board members considered at least some of the ramifications that we've been discussing here on TUG.


----------



## siberiavol (Feb 8, 2011)

I know many including me want clarity on many of the issues discussed on TUG. If we have clarity we can make adjustments. I don't think Marriott is going to give clarity on very much because they want flexibility to maximize revenue.

The leverage most customers have is there is a threat to become former customers. Truthfully as far as most TUG members go that is a  not much of a threat because most TUG members aren't buying any thing new from Marriott. 

They have sold us the car so to speak and know we aren't buying another one. They also know we are locked into maintenance fees and management fees as long as we own the property. Their question then becomes where will new revenue come from?

I don't think Marriott thinks of their  traditional owners as adversaries but I don't think their focus is on keeping us happy. They are in a new business and people in management  are being asked questions about revenue and profits by analysts and senior management. I doubt much time is being spent talking about what a salesman ten years ago told us about lock offs.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 8, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> I think it's interesting as well, but more for what it doesn't say than for what it does, because it doesn't answer the questions that we've asked about this in any of the related threads.
> 
> For one thing, not all of the resorts' original Reservation Procedures docs contained the stipulation that Marriott was required to cancel all multi-week reservations if an Owner cancelled only a portion - some had that exact wording but some went further with a requirement to cancel all reservations in a Use Year.  But regardless of the differences in the original documents, the revised docs haven't just done away with that stipulation - it's been replaced with something that is still not completely explained or understood!
> 
> ...



I agree, the new language removes the "requirement"; however, if there was a requirement before they never enforced it anyway. So does this mean we should just assume everything is status quo? I would think so, though the fear is always there that Marriott can at will enforce at their discretion their rule.


----------



## Luckybee (Feb 8, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I agree, the new language removes the "requirement"; however, if there was a requirement before they never enforced it anyway. So does this mean we should just assume everything is status quo? I would think so, though the fear is always there that Marriott can at will enforce at their discretion their rule.



My hypothesis for what it is worth. One has to believe they are going to be doing something otherwise why change the wording at all ? Imho Marriott has decided for one reason or another that it is in their best interest(it's always about their best interest) to enforce the 13 month rule. They have perhaps hundreds of owners who have been in Marriott's opinion "getting away" with breaking the rules. If they simply started cancellations willy nilly there would be many who would be upset with Marriott once again, and the cries of "why now", and "but I never had a problem doing this before" would be heard. So instead, they "remove the requirement "( still laughing about that one), and no one can say they didnt have notice.  I agree with most of what siberiavol said but for the part of what Marriott thinks of legacy owners. Imho we are only important if we can assist their new "venture". Otherwise we are adversaries, or better yet a knat on the wall


----------



## dan_hoog (Feb 8, 2011)

Black helicopter theory...

To me, they are allowing all of their TS offerings to be combined for 13 month reservations.  Separately, they loosen (per their fax) the 13 month cancellation penalty.

Sales people promote that DC + legacy owners can make reservations at 13 months then 'just' cancel the DC portion without repercussions.  I don't know if this fits with other DC rules, but they specifically say the change relaxes the constraint at Marriott's discretion.

What if the DC reservation was just one day (probably breaks another rule, though)?


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 8, 2011)

I just love these FAQs that Marriott puts out. Reminds me of the one, that also came out through BPT board, shortly after DC rollout. It was an FAQ on the new DC program. It too raised more questions than it answered. I guess we should be used to this by now.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 8, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> But I also have no doubt that they've been done in a way that gives Marriott an advantage to gain access to certain intervals for DC use.  And honestly, I don't have a problem with that - if it's legal and it helps to ensure the continued success of Marriott's timeshare business then I'm all for it.



The problem is that we really don't know if any of the changes in the reservation procedures would help ensure the continued success of Marriott's timeshare business. Sure Marriott makes these changes hoping for that, but that doesn't mean it will always be the case. They are making stabs in the dark IMO.

Ultimately these are reservation procedures, if the changes hurt current owners, it doesn't bode well for their business regardless of how it would help their new Destinations program.


----------



## Herb33 (Feb 12, 2011)

In post #108 _minoter_ posted a Marriott FAQ regarding the Reservation Document.

Can anyone provide a HTML link to this FAQ?

Thanks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 12, 2011)

Herb33 said:


> In post #108 _minoter_ posted a Marriott FAQ regarding the Reservation Document.
> 
> Can anyone provide a HTML link to this FAQ?
> 
> Thanks.



I don't know if there is one. Eric is a member of the board at BPT. So these may be something that was provided to HOA boards when they were presented with the revised procedures.


----------



## minoter (Feb 12, 2011)

Herb33
It appears that Board members were provided this FAQ document by email to assist answering questions from owners regarding the reservation document sent to owners. Is there a reason you need this document with an HTML link? The FAQ language in my post is verbatim from the information I received directly from Marriott.
Eric Minotti


----------



## Herb33 (Feb 12, 2011)

minoter said:


> Herb33
> It appears that Board members were provided this FAQ document by email to assist answering questions from owners regarding the reservation document sent to owners. Is there a reason you need this document with an HTML link? The FAQ language in my post is verbatim from the information I received directly from Marriott.
> Eric Minotti



I don't doubt its authenticity.  

I might want to cite the info in an ongoing email exchange with an exec at MVCI, and to deflect any questions about sourcing I had hoped I could point to a Marriott web page.

Thanks anyway ... Herb


----------



## Herb33 (Feb 12, 2011)

*There he goes again ....*

I might as well fess up to what this is all about.  

The Marriott FAQ Eric posted includes this item ...



> Multi-Week Owners – Clarifies that the definition of "Multi-Week Owner" includes Owners who own more than one timeshare interest at the subject resort, or own at least one timeshare interest at the subject resort and at least one timeshare or other interest at another MVCI timeshare resort, *timeshare plan* or other vacation resort.



*Superchief* then posted:  _"I am curious whether this means that a single week owner can make reservations at their home resort 13 months in advance if combine it with a DC points reservation."_

To which *hipslo* responded:  _"I dont think DC points would be considered a "timeshare interest" or "other interest at a timeshare resort" for that purpose. DC point owners own beneficial interests in a trust, rather than direct interests in the resorts themselves."_

Back to me.

Last June we purchased four "interests" from MOR, Inc..  According to the purchase contract, these interests *"constitute timeshare estates(s) in the plan known as Marriott Vacation Club Destinations (Trust Plan)."*   (Is MVC Destinations a *timeshare plan*?  Or is it some other kind of plan that includes timeshare estates, also known as beneficial interests, but not timeshare interests?)

Do these "interests" qualify as "Timeshare Interests" under the following definition from the MVCI Amended and Restated Club Rules?



> 1.27 *Timeshare Interest* shall mean the legal right (by whatever means legally evidenced, e.g., deed, lease, contract, etc., and however defined, e.g., *timeshare estate*, timeshare license, or *other ownership interest* which is owned or otherwise acquired by a Club Member) which grants such Club Member the right to use accommodations and facilities at a Club Resort in accordance with the Resort Documents.



Section 3.26 of the same document describes the 13-month advance reservation rule and states that this rule applies to *"Club Members who own multiple Timeshare Interests."*

I have been told in an email from the MVCI Director of Customer Advocacy that _*"a hybrid combination of Weeks and Vacation Points cannot be used to create advanced reservation benefits."*_

I hope this is true. 

Herb


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 12, 2011)

The key here is that the reservation procedures are really there for weeks based reservations. That is how all the resorts currently operate. Reservations have to be made in on a weekly basis. The DC reservation procedure doesn't apply to resort based reservations, only to how one exchanges for inventory within the trust or in the exchange company. Those exchange reservations are still based on week based reservation inventory.

The two reservations systems can't commingle the way they are currently written, so as indicates this is why a hybrid multi week reservation can't be done.


----------



## Herb33 (Feb 13, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> The two reservations systems can't commingle the way they are currently written, so as indicates this is why a hybrid multi week reservation can't be done.



I don't think this is a nuts-and-bolts question of whether the two reservation systems can work together.  It's a question of whether an owner of *"multiple Timeshare Interests"* is eligible for the privilege of accessing these systems 13 months in advance.

If I own multiple weeks, I can call Owner Services 13 months in advance for a 2-week reservation.  If I own enough DC points, I can call a VOA 13 months out to book 14 nights.

Right now, if I own one week and enough points, I could call Owner Services at 8, 10, 12 months out and book a week.  Owner Services could then transfer my call to a VOA to tack on 7 more nights.  All subject to availability, of course.  

The question is, do the rules *allow* me to do this at the 13-month point.

While I think the rules *can* be interpreted in favor of YES, the answer from an MVCI exec is: NO.  

I'm satisfied with that ......... for now.

Herb


----------



## Superchief (Feb 13, 2011)

hipslo said:


> I dont think DC points would be considered a "timeshare interest" or "other interest at a timeshare resort" for that purpose. DC point owners own beneficial interests in a trust, rather than direct interests in the resorts themselves.



My question is why would MVC add this qualification if it wasn't referring to the DC program. What other types of 'timeshare interests' does MVC have other than the week ownership at a specific resort?


----------



## minoter (Feb 13, 2011)

I will try to get clarity on this question of multi-week (example: 1 MVCI week and a minimum number of points purchased in the DC program) owners and the 13 month reservation opportunity.


----------



## minoter (Feb 25, 2011)

Herb33
I received this answer from Marriott today regarding the 13 month question.
The answer is "No", because Points and Weeks are governed by 2 different sets of Reservation Procedures with different reservation windows.  However, if the owner enrolled their week in the Exchange Program, and also purchased the Beneficial Interest to achieve the Premium level of points in the MVC Trust the owner would obtain enough Points to make a reservation using Points at the 13-month Points window. It appears that it does not allow the owner of 1 week to make the 13 month reservation in the legacy week program.
I hope this helps. Actual owner reservation experience/outcome is likely to be the definitive answer on this question.
Eric


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 25, 2011)

minoter said:


> Herb33
> I received this answer from Marriott today regarding the 13 month question.
> The answer is "No", because Points and Weeks are governed by 2 different sets of Reservation Procedures with different reservation windows.  However, if the owner enrolled their week in the Exchange Program, and also purchased the Beneficial Interest to achieve the Premium level of points in the MVC Trust the owner would obtain enough Points to make a reservation using Points at the 13-month Points window. It appears that it does not allow the owner of 1 week to make the 13 month reservation in the legacy week program.
> I hope this helps. Actual owner reservation experience/outcome is likely to be the definitive answer on this question.
> Eric



Thanks, Eric.  That's somewhat similar to how it works with an owner who has enrolled enough Weeks to give them Premium or Premium Plus status, and can use the DC Reservation Windows for that status regardless of whether all Weeks are converted to DC Points.  IOW, I have PP status with my three enrolled Weeks and have been able to use the PP windows even though I've only converted one of them.


----------



## Herb33 (Mar 1, 2011)

*Fyi/fwiw ...*

QUESTION emailed to Director of Customer Advocay at MVCI:



> Last June we purchased four "beneficial interests" from MOR, Inc..  According to the purchase contract, these interests *"constitute timeshare estates(s) in the plan known as Marriott Vacation Club Destinations (Trust Plan)."*
> 
> Do these "beneficial interests" qualify as "Timeshare Interests" under the following definition [from the document that inspired this thread]?
> 
> 1.27 Timeshare Interest shall mean the legal right (by whatever means legally evidenced, e.g., deed, lease, contract, etc., and however defined, e.g., _timeshare estate_, timeshare license, or _other ownership interest which is owned or otherwise acquired by a Club Member)_ which grants such Club Member the right to use accommodations and facilities at a Club Resort in accordance with the Resort Documents.



RESPONSE from the DCA:



> I have researched your question with our Law Department to assure accuracy within the parameters of Section 1.27 as you have quoted above.
> 
> The answer to your question is Beneficial Interests in the MVC Trust are interests in a timeshare plan.  However, the MVC Trust plan has its own reservation procedures, separate and apart from the "Florida Club" Reservation Procedures which apply to Ocean Pointe.



Note how this "answer" oh-so-carefully side-steps my question as to whether beneficial interests in the MVC Trust qualify as Timeshare Interests under the quoted definition.


----------

