# [2016] Aspen Highlands Ritz owners suing



## saabman (Jan 5, 2016)

"The owners of a fractional unit at Ritz-Carlton Club at Aspen Highlands are suing a collection of hotel operators and affiliates alleging their properties’ value has plummeted 80 percent because of new membership terms."

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/1997...rriott-affiliation-dilutes-ritz-carlton-brand


----------



## GreenTea (Jan 5, 2016)

Sounds like those two folks don't want a bunch of Marriott riff-raff running around and spoiling their fun.

Not to add to their spoiled fun.....a fractional ownership IS a time share.  They just have more weeks.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 5, 2016)

saabman said:


> "The owners of a fractional unit at Ritz-Carlton Club at Aspen Highlands are suing a collection of hotel operators and affiliates alleging their properties’ value has plummeted 80 percent because of new membership terms."
> 
> http://www.aspentimes.com/news/1997...rriott-affiliation-dilutes-ritz-carlton-brand



Some people would apparently rather lose everything and go belly up than affiliate with the trashy MVCI program.  RC owners get a boatload of points that they can use to exchange IF THEY WANT.  It is just an additional option for them.  I think the real problem is that these owners do not want peasants like us to stay at their properties.  Thy claim their value went down because of the Marriott affiliation but they affiliated because they couldn't sell anything at the prices they were asking.  The value was lost long before the Marriott affiliation.


----------



## gblotter (Jan 5, 2016)

I frankly don't blame the Aspen Highlands owners. Maui, Bachelor Gulch, Jupiter, Kauai Lagoons, and even San Francisco prove that Ritz Carlton Club is a failed business model. That really sucks for the Ritz owners who paid so much money. Some of these owners (Bachelor Gulch, Jupiter, etc) collectively found an exit path that gave them more control over their own destiny. Unfortunately, the Aspen Highlands owners are stuck with fewer options because Marriott owns most of the inventory and thus controls most of the voting power over decisions.

The courts will decide if their complaints have legal merit, but I sympathize with these owners. If I paid big bucks for the promise of exclusive access to luxury properties, I would be upset too at my diminished value and reduced options. That sucks, but that's life. There are countless examples of real estate investments that don't always work out as planned. Through the Destinations Club, at least Aspen Highlands has financial viability which allows these owner to still enjoy the beauty of their home resort. The same was not true for Maui.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 5, 2016)

BocaBoy said:


> Some people would apparently rather lose everything and go belly up than affiliate with the trashy MVCI program.  RC owners get a boatload of points that they can use to exchange IF THEY WANT.  It is just an additional option for them.  I think the real problem is that these owners do not want peasants like us to stay at their properties.  Thy claim their value went down because of the Marriott affiliation but they affiliated because they couldn't sell anything at the prices they were asking.  The value was lost long before the Marriott affiliation.



I don't disagree generally but I can sort of understand this point of view from some of the RC owners _based on how their product was marketed to them_ especially as to the exclusivity.  At least a portion of the DC availability is coming from RC owners, though, when they exchange their intervals for DC Points - so it's disingenuous for those owners to claim that any perceived value loss isn't at least partially their doing.

I expect that eventually at least a few owners at all of the Ritz-Carlton Residence Clubs will be in litigation with MI and MVW, even if only as a chain reaction thing.  What makes Vail unique under the RC umbrella is that relative to the DC, Vail isn't classified as a "Luxury Property" because intervals had been conveyed to the DC Trust prior to that classification being defined and administered differently.  In that respect Vail basically is more like the timeshares than the other fractional clubs.


----------



## vikingsholm (Jan 5, 2016)

gblotter or anyone, do you have a link to the information that shows how much of the Aspen inventory Marriott owns? 

This is what I found on a marriott-vacations.com site from a search yielding info from early 2015, and it seems to indicate a higher percent of member owners:

"Currently, more than 87% of the inventory at The Ritz-Carlton Club, Aspen Highlands, is Member owned and the remaining is available for purchase.  A broker from The Lore Institute has been engaged to assist with sell out of the remaining inventory. As a result, we are extending a unique opportunity to our Ritz-Carlton Destination Club Members to acquire a Membership at The Ritz-Carlton Club, Aspen Highlands, at preferred pricing."


----------



## gblotter (Jan 5, 2016)

vikingsholm said:


> gblotter or anyone, do you have a link to the information that shows how much of the Aspen inventory Marriott owns?
> 
> This is what I found on a marriott-vacations.com site from a search yielding info from early 2015, and it seems to indicate a higher percent of member owners:
> 
> "Currently, more than 87% of the inventory at The Ritz-Carlton Club, Aspen Highlands, is Member owned and the remaining is available for purchase.  A broker from The Lore Institute has been engaged to assist with sell out of the remaining inventory. As a result, we are extending a unique opportunity to our Ritz-Carlton Destination Club Members to acquire a Membership at The Ritz-Carlton Club, Aspen Highlands, at preferred pricing."


Pardon me for adding confusion to the discussion.

I believe it is Vail - not Aspen - that has a lot of RC inventory owned by Marriott. I was mistaken.


----------



## GregT (Jan 5, 2016)

gblotter said:


> Pardon me for adding confusion to the discussion.
> 
> I believe it is Vail - not Aspen - that has a lot of RC inventory owned by Marriott. I was mistaken.



You are correct, the Trust is loaded with Vail inventory.  I don't believe there is any Aspen in it.

Best,

Greg


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 5, 2016)

I am not sure that the affiliation with the MVC product is what cause the 80% loss in value. It is more likely the failed business model which was never really viable in the first place. If they removed the affiliation, would their values suddenly go up? I doubt it.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 5, 2016)

BocaBoy said:


> Some people would apparently rather lose everything and go belly up than affiliate with the trashy MVCI program.  RC owners get a boatload of points that they can use to exchange IF THEY WANT.  It is just an additional option for them.  I think the real problem is that these owners do not want peasants like us to stay at their properties.  Thy claim their value went down because of the Marriott affiliation but they affiliated because they couldn't sell anything at the prices they were asking.  The value was lost long before the Marriott affiliation.



It seems that the people that bought in to Ritz Carlton are a similar demographic as those that go yachting. Paying a hundred thousand or more for a week long yacht charter. Where those that frequent MVC properties are more mainline cruisers.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 5, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> I am not sure that the affiliation with the MVC product is what cause the 80% loss in value. It is more likely the failed business model which was never really viable in the first place. If they removed the affiliation, would their values suddenly go up? I doubt it.



I wonder what the numbers are of owners who are electing DC Points usage for portions of their RC fractionals, as opposed to the number who formerly or still are electing II exchanges.  The opportunity has always been there for us "timeshare riffraff" to exchange in but II availability has always been scarce.  Maybe the DC Explorer Club (read: similarly "exclusive") options are more attractive to the RC owners than II ever was, leading to more availability for timeshare owners exchanging in??

I agree with you that there are other economic issues at play with the RC value loss, but I wonder about the DC v. II exchange-by-RC-owners comparison.


----------



## GregT (Jan 5, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> I wonder what the numbers are of owners who are electing DC Points usage for portions of their RC fractionals, as opposed to the number who formerly or still are electing II exchanges.  The opportunity has always been there for us "timeshare riffraff" to exchange in but II availability has always been scarce.  Maybe the DC Explorer Club (read: similarly "exclusive") options are more attractive to the RC owners than II ever was, leading to more availability for timeshare owners exchanging in??
> 
> I agree with you that there are other economic issues at play with the RC value loss, but I wonder about the DC v. II exchange-by-RC-owners comparison.



I would speculate that for owners that do not use their interval, 80% of them rent them and 20% trade for DC Points (and nobody uses II).  I see a fair amount of rental listings on redweek.com at pretty high prices -- and the rental ads close.   

I was also surprised that the Ritz properties don't command as many Elected Points as I expected.   I worked it out at one point for Ritz STT and estimated that the 2BR Suite owner gets about 4,000 points for a week (2BR Villa and 3BR Villa get more).   

So....I don't think Points are overly compelling and the rental market is decent.   But...just my speculation.

Best,

Greg


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 5, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> I am not sure that the affiliation with the MVC product is what cause the 80% loss in value. It is more likely the failed business model which was never really viable in the first place. If they removed the affiliation, would their values suddenly go up? I doubt it.



My point exactly.  RC couldn't sell many of their fractional ownership intervals to the public and the owners could not have resold at the higher prices either.  The value was gone long before the MVCI affiliation began.  Kind of like a football team blaming its loss on a 4th quarter fumble when they were behind by 30 points after three quarters.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 7, 2016)

GregT said:


> I would speculate that for owners that do not use their interval, 80% of them rent them and 20% trade for DC Points (and nobody uses II).  I see a fair amount of rental listings on redweek.com at pretty high prices -- and the rental ads close.
> 
> I was also surprised that the Ritz properties don't command as many Elected Points as I expected.   I worked it out at one point for Ritz STT and estimated that the 2BR Suite owner gets about 4,000 points for a week (2BR Villa and 3BR Villa get more).
> 
> ...



In the suit they're alleging that Marriott's foray into the Destination Club, specifically the timeshare owners being able to access R-C Aspen Highlands intervals, is what's driving the devaluation.  MVW must be getting access to Aspen units somehow, if what's alleged is true?  Are they using the intervals that are given up by R-C Owners for rentals through Marriott?


----------



## Padad (Jan 8, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> In the suit they're alleging that Marriott's foray into the Destination Club, specifically the timeshare owners being able to access R-C Aspen Highlands intervals, is what's driving the devaluation.  MVW must be getting access to Aspen units somehow, if what's alleged is true?  Are they using the intervals that are given up by R-C Owners for rentals through Marriott?



I think the Marriott timeshare owners are using units MVC owns (they were never purchased on the primary market).  Marriott probably owns enough to control the real estate trust.

The units the RC owners don't use are available for the other owners to use on a deeply discounted per diem rate (maybe $250/ night vs $750 rack rate)

In addition to paying in the high 6 figures for their units, the RC owners also are paying in the 5 digits for maintenance fees.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Jan 8, 2016)

Location, location, location...not sure why it didn't work here. Several times I was tempted to buy here and have to remind myself about the $15,000 MF in perpetuity.


----------



## saabman (Jan 8, 2016)

SkyBlueWaters said:


> Location, location, location...not sure why it didn't work here. Several times I was tempted to buy here and have to remind myself about the $15,000 MF in perpetuity.



The place is gorgeous but the location is lousy IMO and there is very limited scenic views. Too remote for my taste. Much rather stay in town --St. Regis, Little Nell, Jerome--where the restaurant selection is huge and there's action.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 8, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> In the suit they're alleging that Marriott's foray into the Destination Club, specifically the timeshare owners being able to access R-C Aspen Highlands intervals, is what's driving the devaluation.  MVW must be getting access to Aspen units somehow, if what's alleged is true?  Are they using the intervals that are given up by R-C Owners for rentals through Marriott?



Or it is the 20% that trade their intervals for DC points. I think MVW also has a lot of unsold inventory there. They are probably bulk banking it in to the MVC Exchange Company if it doesn't rent on Marriott.com.


----------



## elleny76 (Apr 4, 2016)

LOL.. that's a good one..:rofl:

Now ...
1.) MVC are the ones that owns "points' only right? and can be bough by resale?
2.) Are all the RC properties available to book with the MVC?...or just the Aspen?  
Thanks







dioxide45 said:


> It seems that the people that bought in to Ritz Carlton are a similar demographic as those that go yachting. Paying a hundred thousand or more for a week long yacht charter. Where those that frequent MVC properties are more mainline cruisers.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Apr 4, 2016)

BocaBoy said:


> Some people would apparently rather lose everything and go belly up than affiliate with the trashy MVCI program.  RC owners get a boatload of points that they can use to exchange IF THEY WANT.  It is just an additional option for them.  I think the real problem is that these owners do not want peasants like us to stay at their properties.  Thy claim their value went down because of the Marriott affiliation but they affiliated because they couldn't sell anything at the prices they were asking.  The value was lost long before the Marriott affiliation.



So true...


----------



## saabman (Jun 1, 2016)

Back in news again. Saga continues:

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/22259364-113/ritz-carlton-lawsuit-moves-to-federal-court


----------



## Padad (Jun 1, 2016)

SkyBlueWaters said:


> Location, location, location...not sure why it didn't work here. Several times I was tempted to buy here and have to remind myself about the $15,000 MF in perpetuity.



I've wrestled many times with purchasing at the Ritz residences in St Thomas, the perpetual $12k annual MF stops me every time.   
I'll look into the exchange with the points at Marriott


----------



## saabman (Dec 30, 2016)

Update

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/more...ritz-carlton-club-at-aspen-highlands-lawsuit/


----------



## Bill4728 (Dec 30, 2016)

So now 200 of the 700 owners have joined the suit  That seems like alot of owners to me


----------



## K2Quick (Dec 30, 2016)

_"The suit suggests that the fractional-units, which are deeded and come with condo association fees, are now *more like timeshare units* because of the Ritz-Carlton Club’s recent affiliation with Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp."_

I have to laugh at the implication that the fractional concept is somehow superior in nature to timeshares.  Fractionals are timeshares.  You just own four weeks per year in this particular concept instead of one - and there's a good chance that two of those four weeks are pretty worthless mud weeks.  What the owners are really angry about is that, like timeshare owners, they are realizing that what they bought from the developer is worth a fraction of what they paid.


----------



## amanda14 (Dec 30, 2016)

I remember looking at one of these in Florida I think just to see what it was all about and the idea seemed great.  Then I saw the MFs and then returned to the atmosphere of a generic Marriott Timeshare Owner.  I


----------



## saabman (Jun 22, 2017)

This legal saga continues. It's now in the judges hands.

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/volleys-exchanged-in-ritz-carlton-club-at-aspen-highlands-suit/

Plaintiffs position: "Approximately 400,000 (Marriott Vacation Club) members — who paid a small fraction of the purchase prices plaintiffs paid, and who pay lower annual fees — have access to the once exclusive Ritz-Aspen."


----------



## Fasttr (Jun 22, 2017)

^^^ The same way the Target people feel when the Walmart people start shopping in their store.  ;-)


----------



## rthib (Jun 22, 2017)

Doing some back of the napkin math from Article.  They own fractional unit of 4 weeks.
Complaining they are paying $12,000 - $16,000 maintenance fee (or $3K-4K week)
They obviously don't understand points program. Looked at point charts - between 8K - 17K points a week or $4K-$8.5K in maintenance fee for those points.

As for loss of value $200,000 - $400,000 (or $50 -$100K / week) Now selling for $28-$48 or ($7K to $12K a week.)
That looks about right for resale market. People just thought that because it had the Ritz name it would not behave the way all other time share values have.

Also, someone mentioned the number of plaintiffs - once it got class action, you have to ask to not be included so most folks figure what's the harm.

I can't see this lawsuit going anywhere base on those complaints but I can see why Marriott wants it dismissed instead of trial. 
Won't be great PR for them to argue that they loss in value is what everyone should expect in a timeshare.


----------



## Sapper (Apr 9, 2018)

Federal judge denies Marriotts motion to dismiss:

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/loc...itz-carlton-ownerss-suit-clears-legal-hurdle/


----------



## saabman (Apr 9, 2018)

Way to go Sapper. Nice to see I'm not the only following this story . . . . as it slowly continues on.


----------



## TXTortoise (Apr 9, 2018)

Let's see: Ritz-Carlton original four week ownership low end @ $200K, with four weeks of MFs at $12,000, also low end.  

Marriott Maui Lahaina/Napili Winter Fixed Weeks - Four weeks currently from $150K to $300K, with MFs at $10K to $12K.  (Original prices around $300K+)

Wonder what the specific old/new values look like for Maui Ritz-Carlton four-week fractional, as the MOC values seem to be about the same now.


----------



## Quilter (Apr 9, 2018)

From the above link:

“More than 240 owners of timeshares at the Ritz-Carlton Club at Aspen Highlands scored a recent legal victory in their litigation claiming their properties' values dropped by more than 80 percent.“

Is this a victory for the Aspen owners or job security for their attorneys?


----------



## Quilter (Apr 9, 2018)

The article also says RC fractional sales began in Aspen.  

If sales were so low that MVC held the majority of the vote, what would have happened to unsold inventory?  Could it have been rented on a nightly basis on Marriott.com?


----------



## Sapper (Apr 9, 2018)

saabman said:


> Way to go Sapper. Nice to see I'm not the only following this story . . . . as it slowly continues on.




I almost didn't post for fear of "bringing an old thread back from the dead".


----------



## saabman (Jun 8, 2018)

The saga continues and possibly will continue for some time. 

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/loc...n-highlands-owners-can-seek-punitive-damages/


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 8, 2018)

I hope Marriott gives the fractional owners a fair settlement so we MVC owners can continue to access and enjoy the Ritz. The only reason we bought MVC DC Points is to access the Ritz.


----------



## kds4 (Jun 8, 2018)

saabman said:


> The saga continues and possibly will continue for some time.
> 
> https://www.aspentimes.com/news/loc...n-highlands-owners-can-seek-punitive-damages/



Not a positive reflection on Marriott to be the subject of statements like this one from the article above - _*"Since the suit was filed, Marriott has been sanctioned twice for concealing integral evidence in the case..."*_


----------



## Superchief (Jun 8, 2018)

GregT said:


> You are correct, the Trust is loaded with Vail inventory.  I don't believe there is any Aspen in it.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg


That explains why I have been able to find good availability at Vail, but very limited options at Aspen. The Vail resort is outstanding and the staff treats us lowly MVC members very well. I'm making my second trip there Labor Day. 

Regarding devaluation, I think most of us will agree that virtually all timeshare values decrease and the policies change. We purchased our MVC's partially due to the option for MR points. Those are virtually worthless now.


----------



## Superchief (Jun 8, 2018)

The following statement in the article is not really accurate:

'*The Aspen Highlands Ritz-Carlton owners say they must pay condo association fees ranging from $12,000 to $16,000 a year, while Marriott point-holders do not.* They also contend they had no influence on the affiliation with Marriott, though they were informed nearly two years before the affiliation was made official that it was being negotiated.'

MVC point owners do pay annual MF's, although they aren't as expensive. It appears the RC owners are paying about 3000-4000 per week. If traveling during ski season, I would expect the DC point cost to be over 4000 points, so that would be over $2000.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 8, 2018)

Ski season weeks at the Ritz are super high, if you can even get one. More than 4000 points. I just joined MVC Points program and I can’t get any ski weeks at Ritz Carlton Tahoe. The cash rate for a ski week at the Ritz is about $60K a week for President’s Day week - or something outrageous like that.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Jun 8, 2018)

TravelTime said:


> Ski season weeks at the Ritz are super high, ...The cash rate for a ski week at the Ritz is about $60K a week for President’s Day week - or something outrageous like that.



If that is the case, I would simply rent my week and use the profits elsewhere.

The RC owners had an expectation of exclusivity and access.  MVC owners do not.
However there is prob wording buried in the contract that enables RC to change rules.

This lawsuit may be a bellwether on post merger access to Hyatt, Vistana etc.


----------



## Sapper (Jun 10, 2018)

Superchief said:


> The following statement in the article is not really accurate:
> 
> '*The Aspen Highlands Ritz-Carlton owners say they must pay condo association fees ranging from $12,000 to $16,000 a year, while Marriott point-holders do not.* They also contend they had no influence on the affiliation with Marriott, though they were informed nearly two years before the affiliation was made official that it was being negotiated.'
> 
> MVC point owners do pay annual MF's, although they aren't as expensive. It appears the RC owners are paying about 3000-4000 per week. If traveling during ski season, I would expect the DC point cost to be over 4000 points, so that would be over $2000.



I read that as Marriott owners do not pay the same amount in maintenance fees, not that Marriott owners do not pay any maintenance fees. In your example, a Marriott owner pays $2k per week. A Ritz Aspen owner pays $16k per month, or $4k per week. So a Ritz Aspen owner pays $4k per week while a Marriott owner pays $2k per week. A Ritz owner pays double what a Marriott owner pays. The author would have been more accurate (and in my opinion should have said) to have said "... while Marriott point-holders do not pay the same amount.". I agree this is not what was said, but how I read the intent of the sentence. 

My guess is the owners did not have any influence on the direction of the affiliation. No matter how much time they were given (cited as two years), they had no control over the direction of their ownership. My guess is this is actually the reason this lawsuit exists, lack of control. This lawsuit is the expression of the displeasure of a number of owners lack of control over the direction of their ownership. My guess is (due to the original sales price putting it out of reach of a normal person) that the original purchasers were high end attorneys, doctors with lawyer friends, business folk with lawyer friends, etc. surgeons like to cut, lawyers like to sue. Get a bunch of lawyers together who are all pissed about the direction of the properties, and lack of control, they are going to figure out how to bring a suit against the most winnable grievance. To me, this suit has less to do with the money involved (though if they get money out of the deal, then that's a bonus from their perspective), and more to do with communicating a message. What's the message?  My guess based on how things look from an outside perspective, something along the lines of: management cannot treat us how they treat other timeshare properties. If management does something to us that we do not like, we will do something management does not like. In fact, to this end, the owners have already won. Even if the owners lose the suit, they have won in the sense that they have cost Marriott money to deal with this suit, they have created a distraction for the top folk at Marriott, and they have created negative publicity for Marriott. Being caught concealing evidence, twice... And sanctioned by the court for this, twice... This is a huge win for the owners in the sense that they have created the opposite of good will for Marriott.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 10, 2018)

What Four Seasons has done is limit timeshare owners to using their two resorts in San Diego and Scottsdale. In order to stay at the more expensive fractionals in Punta Mita or Costa Rica, timeshare owners must enter the lottery. But I already knew this when I purchased FSA.

I hope that does not happen with MVC and the Ritz because I bought DC Points for access to the Ritz -although we do not have enough points for more than one week at the Ritz in low season. And availability at the Ritz is very limited.

I think the reason Ritz owners pay so much in fees is because they own many weeks at the Ritz - at least 1/12 (one month). Fractionals are 4+ weeks minimum per year. You would need to be Chairman level or above to get 4 weeks at the Ritz Carlton Residence Clubs. So in the end, if a DC Points owner only wanted to stay at the Ritz Carltons, esp in high season, the MFs would probably be about the same or maybe higher. If they are paying $12,000 - $16,000 a year in MFs, they are paying about $3000 - $4000 per week. That does not seem like a lot for a week at the Aspen Highlands, esp if they have ski weeks. Also remember the Ritz Carlton residence Clubs are mostly 3 and 4 bedroom units. The 2 bedroom units are very limited in some locations.

DC Points owners pay that much for a summer week in Hawaii at a Marriott in a 2 bedroom, more for holiday weeks. DC Points owners pay that or more for a week at the Ritz, unless you can get a low season week at the Ritz. A ski week at the Ritz in Tahoe, if you can get it, is something like 8000 - 10,000 points, and up to 22,000 points for a holiday week. The MVC point chart is deceiving for Ritz Tahoe because they only have two 2 bedroom units so you will rarely, if ever, get it.

I think what they are really complaining about is how hard it is to resell their fractionals and they are blaming MVC for the loss of value. This is silly because all timeshares (a fractional is a timeshare with more weeks) lose 75% of their value once you drive off the timeshare’s lot. They should have purchased with the intention to be lucky if any value is left, just like everyone else.


----------



## vikingsholm (Jun 10, 2018)

TravelTime said:


> What Four Seasons has done is limit timeshare owners to using their two resorts in San Diego and Scottsdale. In order to stay at the more expensive fractionals in Punta Mita or Costa Rica, timeshare owners must enter the lottery. But I already knew this when I purchased FSA.
> 
> I hope that does not happen with MVC and the Ritz because I bought DC Points for access to the Ritz -although we do not have enough points for more than one week at the Ritz in low season. And availability at the Ritz is very limited.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree that your last paragraph captures the real reason they are suing, and that it is a similar risk for other timeshare buyers. Also, that the conversion of Ritzes to a Marriott owned property is not the main cause of the price decline, though it may have played a small part. Proving that to a judge would be very interesting, IMO. It's just that they have a lot more to lose at those Ritz purchase prices, so you can see why they're not happy. 

With the number of DC points the Ritz owners get, they could enroll just one of their higher value four fractional weeks and probably reserve 3-5 off peak weeks or 5-6 day stays at their own and other Ritz properties, and even more at good Marriott properties. So it's not like they're not getting the potential value in points for the fees they pay compared to Marriott only DC owners. If all the owners decide to use their weeks at Aspen, availability would be even skimpier than now for any of the Marriott DC "interlopers" who try to reserve there.

Having stayed at several of the Ritz's, but mostly in off peak seasons, I can say that we've enjoyed them, mainly because they have such nice interiors. We don't really want, need or use most of those extra little services or attention that they provide. Other Marriott properties at various locations have provided us just as good of experiences overall, often located closer to the action, for example at Tahoe, where the Ritz is removed from everything and you need to drive or shuttle to do anything outside of the property. 

None of the publicity around this will affect my attitude towards using Marriott, except the one about their potentially suppressing evidence of some sort. That is not what I expect from this company, and I'd like to better understand what went on in that case. If true and meaningful, that is not acceptable behavior by Marriott. I will continue to follow this case out of curiosity though.


----------



## bogey21 (Jun 10, 2018)

I'm not into lawsuits but if I had spent a bunch of money buying into one of the Ritz's, I think I would be upset with MCV Timeshare Owners being able to stay at my Resort.  My gut tells me that one of the reasons I would have bought was exclusivity and that with MCV Owners getting access I would have lost this.

George


----------



## Superchief (Jun 10, 2018)

I hope MVC learns from this experience that they need to be careful when they incorporate other timeshare company properties into their point system programs. Although they may believe they are providing value, those who bought into the original Ritz Carlton program liked it the way it was. I'm concerned they may do the same thing to legacy MVC owners when they integrate programs from ILG. MVC has lost their transparency and it is difficult to determine whether they are meeting contractual requirements, as evidenced recently in some of their actions after the hurricanes. As they continue to get bigger, we may all lose.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 10, 2018)

I am a bit confused about one comment above. I thought the Ritz Carlton fractional owners have been able to maintain what they bought. Was their ownership converted into points or do they still own their 1/12 fractional (4 weeks). I assume they still own the fractional because it is deeded weeks, right? So technically they have not lost anything if they still own their fractional and have the same rights to use it as before. I am guessing that there is excess Ritz Carlton Residence Club inventory and that is why MVC DC Points owners can book them. Frankly it is very expensive to book a prime week at a Ritz Carlton with DC Points. The price per point for MFs converts to more than fractional owners are paying per week, assuming they still have their deeded 4 weeks.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 10, 2018)

BTW, I would like to see MVC add more Ritz Carlton Residence Club inventory where we can use DC Points. There are only 5 clubs now.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 10, 2018)

TravelTime said:


> I am a bit confused about one comment above. I thought the Ritz Carlton fractional owners have been able to maintain what they bought. Was their ownership converted into points or do they still own their 1/12 fractional (4 weeks). I assume they still own the fractional because it is deeded weeks, right? So technically they have not lost anything if they still own their fractional and have the same rights to use it as before. I am guessing that there is excess Ritz Carlton Residence Club inventory and that is why MVC DC Points owners can book them. Frankly it is very expensive to book a prime week at a Ritz Carlton with DC Points. The price per point for MFs converts to more than fractional owners are paying per week, assuming they still have their deeded 4 weeks.


Correct, they still own their deeded fractional weeks. I think @Sapper comments are they key. They think they bought something that shouldn't have lost value like a lowly timeshare does. They bought something better! Little did they know, they still bought a timeshare. Just a much more expensive one.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Jun 10, 2018)

IMO "Fractionals" began as a large luxury single family home or townhouse in a resort location that was split by 4 - 8 owners. With significant owner control over the property, they acted more like a co-op home and tended to hold their value. At some Fractionals, I heard the owners can select the furnishings as well. 

RC owner perception of value probably stemmed from this pattern, as these units were marketed as "Fractionals" instead of "Luxury Timeshares with 4 week intervals."


----------



## Superchief (Jun 10, 2018)

If more of the inventory becomes available for DC points, there are fewer weeks to reserve by fractional owners. Their inventory for desired weeks may be impacted. I think many legacy MVC owners have seen the same thing happen for availability for reserving their desired weeks in their season. MVC 'controls' the inventory and it is impossible for anyone to really know whether they are following the rules. Their motivation is to maximize profits, which is why they gave sales package reservations priority over II MVC owner exchanges during the hurricane limited inventory situation.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 10, 2018)

My hope is MVC will develop more timeshares under its various brands and expand inventory. I would be especially interested in more Ritz timeshares.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Jun 11, 2018)

bogey21 said:


> I'm not into lawsuits but if I had spent a bunch of money buying into one of the Ritz's, I think I would be upset with MCV Timeshare Owners being able to stay at my Resort.  My gut tells me that one of the reasons I would have bought was exclusivity and that with MCV Owners getting access I would have lost this.
> 
> George



George has it bang on. The target market for those Ritz-Carltons were high end lawyers, doctors, and C-suite executives. People who could afford an Aspen condo, but didn't want the headaches of real estate ownership. Nor did they want to be around their underlings. They wanted the same exclusivity that owning a $1 million plus condo would get them. along with the convenience of ongoing permanent site management.

A place where they could discuss business deals, entertain high end clients, ect., without looking over their shoulders, or rubbing shoulders with the _hoi pilloi .
_
Now the typical TUGger, this is snobbish and arrogant. (It is, but it is also a market segment.)

Which is why the lawsuit. Very well heeled people were sold with the promise of exclusivity, and had that taken away. They aren't happy about it, _and they have the wherewithal to try to do something about it!
_
Whether or not they succeed is another question. . . .


----------



## vikingsholm (Jun 11, 2018)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> George has it bang on. The target market for those Ritz-Carltons were high end lawyers, doctors, and C-suite executives. People who could afford an Aspen condo, but didn't want the headaches of real estate ownership. Nor did they want to be around their underlings. They wanted the same exclusivity that owning a $1 million plus condo would get them. along with the convenience of ongoing permanent site management.
> 
> A place where they could discuss business deals, entertain high end clients, ect., without looking over their shoulders, or rubbing shoulders with the _hoi pilloi .
> _
> ...


Well Hi-Dee-Ho, aren't we special?  I think I'll start reserving at Aspen more often just to annoy them with my presence. Frankly though, there are so many other great timeshares across the Western mountains that whether this one stays or goes won't make a whole lot of difference.

I could see this factor being more of an element at Aspen, but I haven't really gotten this feeling at Vail, probably because so many hoi-polloi are swarming the place with our swarthy selves, due I'd guess to Marriott owning a good number of the weeks still. The staff at both places has always treated us just like we're any other owners too. They don't seem to create an A team and a B team from different types of users.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Jun 11, 2018)

Trust me, I'm not one of them. Just a cheap computer programmer. But at the same time, those people do exist. . . .


----------



## vikingsholm (Jun 11, 2018)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Trust me, I'm not one of them. Just a cheap computer programmer. But at the same time, those people do exist. . . .


Sorry Ralph, I did not mean YOU!

Just reacting to your comment about the owners....because I suspect you are right in large part.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Jun 11, 2018)

No offence taken, Vikingholm. Lawsuits take money, gobs of it. That's why companies can get away with things "close to the knuckle". Average people can't afford to sue about it.

Rich people, on the other hand. . . .

(To get an idea of what I'm talking about, consider the following. Say 30 interval owners at Aspen decided to sue about this issue. And they were sufficiently annoyed to put 1X their annual maintenance fee, a year, in the lawsuit kitty. That would get a pool of around $500,000 a year for the lawsuit. That would keep it rolling, even without an ambulance chaser's 40%. . . )


----------



## Pathways (Jun 11, 2018)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> No offence taken, Vikingholm. Lawsuits take money, gobs of it. That's why companies can get away with things "close to the knuckle". Average people can't afford to sue about it



And don't forget, given the probable ownership roster, the lawsuit costs may be a type of 'pro bono' work for a fellow law firm partner.  And even if they don't win anything, how many new billable clients do you think they might snare from the resulting publicity?


----------



## Sapper (Jun 12, 2018)

I'm still thinking this has more to do with the owners wanting to show Marriott that they will not stand to be treated the same way Marriott treats their timeshare owners. To that end, putting mud on Marriotts face via this lawsuit is the method they have chosen.


----------



## CO skier (May 21, 2019)

I noticed the thread in the Hyatt forum that the same attorneys have filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of Hyatt Grand Aspen owners.  In the article linked in the other thread, there is a reference to the Aspen Ritz-Carlton suit moving to Federal Court in Denver.  So I went looking for it, and to my surprise found it to be interesting reading.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-01301/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-01301-2.pdf


Until reading the court documents, I thought all the talk about "exclusivity" was just the usual sales spiel.  Some degree of exclusivity _is_ written into the Aspen Ritz-Carlton documents:

"The Master Declaration sets forth various aspects of a planned community and includes a section entitled “No Timeshare,” which states: 

Each Owner acknowledges that Declarant intends to create Fractional Ownership lnterests with respect to certain Units within Aspen Highlands Village. Other than the right of Declarant . . . and specific assigns . . . to create Fractional Ownership lnterests . . ., no Unit shall be used for the operation of a timesharing, fraction-sharing, or similar program whereby the right to exclusive use of the Unit rotates among participants in the program on a fixed or floating time schedule over a period of years."

There is another section in the Declaration titled "Limit on Timesharing".

I agree with all the posts that timeshares lose at least 75% of its value the moment the rescission period ends.  I do not know how the plaintiffs will be able to put a price on the "exclusivity" that they allege losing.  I just thought it interesting that the exclusivity is actually written into their Declaration of Ownership.


----------



## Sapper (May 23, 2019)

CO skier said:


> I noticed the thread in the Hyatt forum that the same attorneys have filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of Hyatt Grand Aspen owners.  In the article linked in the other thread, there is a reference to the Aspen Ritz-Carlton suit moving to Federal Court in Denver.  So I went looking for it, and to my surprise found it to be interesting reading.
> 
> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-01301/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-01301-2.pdf
> 
> ...




Might Marriott be able to argue that because the Aspen fractionals were already part of a time sharing scheme through the Hyatt Residence Club that they are just continuing an existing practice with HPP?

Further, isn’t fractional ownership the same as a timeshare, but in a different time block size?


----------



## 4Sunsets (May 23, 2019)

Fractionals were marketed and sold as more akin to vacation home ownership without the expense of full ownership. Several of the Ritz Carlton club resorts have tried to vote out of Marriott management (Aspen, Vail, Jupiter, some others). Only one that I know of has been successful, the one in Jupiter Florida.

That said, this is one that I fully agree with Marriott on. YES, I just said that 

AND Aspen remains a fairly exclusive location. Not many can afford the points to visit, except some who don't mind mud weeks in summer--and not many owners even want to visit during mud season.


----------



## Sapper (May 23, 2019)

I wonder if the original Aspen ownership docs specifically defined fractional and timeshare ownership?  I think of Hyatt “timeshare” units we own as vacation homes with out the expense of full ownership.  Also, they are deeded as a fraction ownership in one unit, I imagine similar to how the deeds are written for Aspen (different fractions of course). I suppose owners of all the deeded Hyatt properties could honestly state that have fractional ownership.


----------



## CO skier (May 24, 2019)

Sapper said:


> I wonder if the original Aspen ownership docs specifically defined fractional and timeshare ownership?


Does the Declaration define timeshare ownership as "the right to exclusive use of the Unit rotates among participants in the program on a fixed or floating time schedule over a period of years"?

I am not an attorney.  If I were a juror on this case, I would have to agree with the plaintiffs on this point. jmo


----------



## TravelTime (May 24, 2019)

I think the issue is with the RC owners is they are upset the value on their fractionals (in which they get 3 weeks a year) has declined and they are blaming Marriott. However, fractionals are not a financial investment like a condo or house, that usually goes up in value. The entire market for fractionals has fallen across all luxury brands.


----------



## 4Sunsets (May 24, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> I think the issue is with the RC owners is they are upset the value on their fractionals (in which they get 3 weeks a year) has declined and they are blaming Marriott. However, fractionals are not a financial investment like a condo or house, that usually goes up in value. The entire market for fractionals has fallen across all luxury brands.



Fractionals were overvalued, but pricing has corrected to market value.


----------



## Sapper (May 24, 2019)

CO skier said:


> Does the Declaration define timeshare ownership as "the right to exclusive use of the Unit rotates among participants in the program on a fixed or floating time schedule over a period of years"?
> 
> I am not an attorney.  If I were a juror on this case, I would have to agree with the plaintiffs on this point. jmo



That’s my point. If they defined what the terms fractional ownership and timeshare ownership mean in the document, then there may be a case. If they failed to make the definition, then I think the defense attorneys (Marriott) can fight this. If they did define the terms, then the Hyatt Aspen owners may have something.


----------



## CO skier (May 28, 2019)

Sapper said:


> That’s my point. If they defined what the terms fractional ownership and timeshare ownership mean in the document, then there may be a case. If they failed to make the definition, then I think the defense attorneys (Marriott) can fight this. If they did define the terms, then the Hyatt Aspen owners may have something.


Again, just as a neutral layman timeshare owner, as I read the quoted sections of the Declaration in the court documents, the Declaration not only defines fractional and timeshare ownership, it defines who can exclusively create fractional ownerships -- the developer.   An owner, even if that owner is a timeshare developer in a different system, cannot create fractional ownerships or create a timeshare from owned Aspen Highlands Ritz fractionals. jmo

The intent of the Aspen Highlands Ritz Declaration for exclusivity is clear.  Is this exclusivity legal under Colorado law?  That is how I see the direction of the court case.

I would like to see the case go to a full trial.  I doubt that Marriott would just fold.  If the Ritz owners are serious, I do not think they will settle for anything less than the exclusivity they paid big bucks for.  As someone else mentioned, the Ritz owners have the financial resources to put up a fight.


----------



## rthib (May 28, 2019)

As with other lawsuits, it should be noted that all but one of the claims were dismissed by the judge.  And the latest judgement did not go well for them either, they are making a bunch of technical objections and the judge does not seem to care for them. So they appealed that then appealed that appeal. The latest "ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Their Request to Designate a New Expert to Analyze New Data [Docket No. 395] are OVERRULED."


----------



## Dean (May 29, 2019)

CO skier said:


> Again, just as a neutral layman timeshare owner, as I read the quoted sections of the Declaration in the court documents, the Declaration not only defines fractional and timeshare ownership, it defines who can exclusively create fractional ownerships -- the developer.   An owner, even if that owner is a timeshare developer in a different system, cannot create fractional ownerships or create a timeshare from owned Aspen Highlands Ritz fractionals. jmo
> 
> The intent of the Aspen Highlands Ritz Declaration for exclusivity is clear.  Is this exclusivity legal under Colorado law?  That is how I see the direction of the court case.
> 
> I would like to see the case go to a full trial.  I doubt that Marriott would just fold.  If the Ritz owners are serious, I do not think they will settle for anything less than the exclusivity they paid big bucks for.  As someone else mentioned, the Ritz owners have the financial resources to put up a fight.


And the reality is that it's not the possibility of the "timeshare" riffraff having access that has affected values, rather it's the market forces and the way they do or don't translate very well in this situation since this is very much a specialty option.  More likely they simply overpaid as is almost always the case for a retail timeshare purchase.  A fractional that's a larger segment than 3 weeks, say 1/4 of the year, is likely to work out better depending on seasonality.  Rather than going this route they might be better off playing the timeshare system to get to other high end options including other Ritz.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 29, 2019)

CO skier said:


> Again, just as a neutral layman timeshare owner, as I read the quoted sections of the Declaration in the court documents, the Declaration not only defines fractional and timeshare ownership, it defines who can exclusively create fractional ownerships -- the developer.   An owner, even if that owner is a timeshare developer in a different system, cannot create fractional ownerships or create a timeshare from owned Aspen Highlands Ritz fractionals. jmo
> 
> The intent of the Aspen Highlands Ritz Declaration for exclusivity is clear.  Is this exclusivity legal under Colorado law?  That is how I see the direction of the court case.
> 
> I would like to see the case go to a full trial.  I doubt that Marriott would just fold.  If the Ritz owners are serious, I do not think they will settle for anything less than the exclusivity they paid big bucks for.  As someone else mentioned, the Ritz owners have the financial resources to put up a fight.



Unless Marriott can prove some form of discrimination (or other reason, against the public good), the contract is what the contract is. Like all timeshare owners , they are held by the governing documents rules. (I'm taking other poster's opinion, I have not read the docs myself.) In buying Ritz Carlton, they are restricted by the existing docs, same as Ritz Carlton was. Nor can they claim ignorance, they had adequate legal staff, and clearly made the decision to buy with full knowledge of what they were buying.

Sounds like Marriott will lose this one. . .


----------



## Pathways (May 29, 2019)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Sounds like Marriott will lose this one. . .



Two parts to all lawsuits like this.  Win/lose on the complaint, and damages.  

Let's say the Ritz owners win on the facts of the case.  What really are their damages?  Just kick Marriott out and not allow timeshare rentals, leaving empty units and no fees to collect?  I sure don't see an easy path to prove a devaluation on the fractional resales as they were already in the tank and still dropping before Marriott changed the usage.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (May 29, 2019)

4Sunsets said:


> Fractionals were marketed and sold as more akin to vacation home ownership without the expense of full ownership. Several of the Ritz Carlton club resorts have tried to vote out of Marriott management (Aspen, Vail, Jupiter, some others). Only one that I know of has been successful, the one in Jupiter Florida.
> 
> That said, this is one that I fully agree with Marriott on. YES, I just said that
> 
> AND Aspen remains a fairly exclusive location. Not many can afford the points to visit, except some who don't mind mud weeks in summer--and not many owners even want to visit during mud season.





I do recall reading at one time that there was one in Jupiter, Florida.   Does anyone know the exact address as to where it was?

I plan to visit West Palm Beach in the near future and would enjoy driving past it to see what it looked like




.


----------



## Dean (May 29, 2019)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Unless Marriott can prove some form of discrimination (or other reason, against the public good), the contract is what the contract is. Like all timeshare owners , they are held by the governing documents rules. (I'm taking other poster's opinion, I have not read the docs myself.) In buying Ritz Carlton, they are restricted by the existing docs, same as Ritz Carlton was. Nor can they claim ignorance, they had adequate legal staff, and clearly made the decision to buy with full knowledge of what they were buying.
> 
> Sounds like Marriott will lose this one. . .


Likewise the buyers knew or should have known what they were getting into including that there could and would be changes over time.  Other than having to slum with a different clientele there really isn't any loss that is timeshare related that I can see.  They'd have to prove it was the timeshare connection that caused the depreciation I'd think and I don't think any reasonable person thinks that is the case.


----------



## Dean (May 29, 2019)

TheTimeTraveler said:


> I do recall reading at one time that there was one in Jupiter, Florida.   Does anyone know the exact address as to where it was?
> 
> I plan to visit West Palm Beach in the near future and would enjoy driving past it to see what it looked like
> 
> ...


*115 Eagle Tree Ter
Jupiter, FL 33477*


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (May 29, 2019)

Thanks Dean!


.


----------



## Fasttr (May 29, 2019)

TheTimeTraveler said:


> I do recall reading at one time that there was one in Jupiter, Florida.   Does anyone know the exact address as to where it was?
> 
> I plan to visit West Palm Beach in the near future and would enjoy driving past it to see what it looked like


Isn't that Trump National Jupiter.  This article seems to say that Trump purchased it from Marriott Vacations Worldwide.  
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...pany-loses-lawsuit-filed-by-golf-club-members


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 30, 2019)

Dean said:


> Likewise the buyers knew or should have known what they were getting into including that there could and would be changes over time.  Other than having to slum with a different clientele there really isn't any loss that is timeshare related that I can see.  They'd have to prove it was the timeshare connection that caused the depreciation I'd think and I don't think any reasonable person thinks that is the case.



I am not concerned with the depreciation portion of the suit. That may not be provable.

But if the governing docs explicitly say that they units cannot be used as timeshare intervals, then Marriott cannot use them as timeshare intervals, even if they bought out Ritz Carlton. What's in the governing docs rule.

Let me give you a non-timeshare example (which really happened).

US Government buys land for a new lake. Some of the land had old "stripper" oil wells on it. The government bought the producing lease. rather than buying the lease and the minerals as well. Their goal was to permanently shut in all oIl and gas production. They thought that by buying the lease, they controlled the production. They did - as long as there was production. When they shut it in, their lease went away, and all the value they had paid for reverted to the mineral owners. Who then sued to get paid the same amount, plus back interest - after the lake filled up. . . (They won.)

The moral? The terms of the contract _matter_, no matter who you are. . .


----------



## Dean (May 30, 2019)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> I am not concerned with the depreciation portion of the suit. That may not be provable.
> 
> But if the governing docs explicitly say that they units cannot be used as timeshare intervals, then Marriott cannot use them as timeshare intervals, even if they bought out Ritz Carlton. What's in the governing docs rule.
> 
> ...


Sure but a POS isn’t a contract in a truest sense because it can be changed, often somewhat unilaterally.  We’d have to go through the entire POS and state law to formulate a good opinion on what they can and can’t do, there certainly isn’t enough here to do so.  Generally the developer retains lots of leeway and rights, esp on unsold inventory or inventory under their control.  I’d bet there was an exchange provision in the POS as well.  My understanding was the loss of value was at the core of the suite and the issue with allowing timeshare exchanges was a major cause thus the inclusion was based on loss of value.  My point is that I don’t think there’s a cause and effect.  Certainly when things get into courts you never know what’s going to happen and it’s often not along the lines of what the contract or laws say (or even common sense) but more along activist or emotional lines.  Plus sometimes a company will cut their losses from a financial standpoint rather than spending more defending somethings they can likely win.  And those 2 points are often the very reason than many lawsuits are filed.


----------



## mj2vacation (Jun 4, 2019)

Fasttr said:


> Isn't that Trump National Jupiter.  This article seems to say that Trump purchased it from Marriott Vacations Worldwide.
> https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...pany-loses-lawsuit-filed-by-golf-club-members


That’s just the Golf Club, not the resort. 
“Trump bought the struggling golf club from Marriott Vacations Worldwide.”


----------



## rthib (Jun 4, 2019)

For those wondering about the lawsuit, Motions on Motions to dismiss some expert testimony are due by 7/29 so no updates until then


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 4, 2019)

The Jupiter property voted to change to a different management company. They are now managed by Timbers.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 4, 2019)

I am staying at the Ritz St Thomas club now using DPs. It is one of the best timeshares I have visited so far. It seems really empty right now. Maybe bc it is shoulder season or bc the hotel side is not yet open. Everything is really nice, the unit, layout, service, pool area, etc. I guess all I could wish for more would be more restaurants and stores nearby.


----------



## ontilt (Jun 14, 2019)

I was looking at this recently and I've heard a rumor that with all of the Marriott / Starwood consolidation, that there's a "rumor" that the developer wants to settle. Let me restate that this is rumor and hearsay.  That said, if there was a settlement with a class of owners, where would those funds come from?  I would have a concern that somehow the developer would pass that to the rest of the owners in the form of a special assessment.  Alternatively, it could be covered via some liability insurance of the HOA.  Another possibility is that the developer just settles independently to make it go away, but this last possibility seems the least likely imo.  

Wondering if others have insight or thoughts on the above?


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 14, 2019)

ontilt said:


> I was looking at this recently and I've heard a rumor that with all of the Marriott / Starwood consolidation, that there's a "rumor" that the developer wants to settle. Let me restate that this is rumor and hearsay.  That said, if there was a settlement with a class of owners, where would those funds come from?  I would have a concern that somehow the developer would pass that to the rest of the owners in the form of a special assessment.  Alternatively, it could be covered via some liability insurance of the HOA.  Another possibility is that the developer just settles independently to make it go away, but this last possibility seems the least likely imo.
> 
> Wondering if others have insight or thoughts on the above?



I would hate to see the developer settle in the case. It seems unfair to punish all the other owners bc one class made a bad investment. All fractionals lose value the moment we sign the dotted line. The Four Seasons has seen terrible depreciation too whereas now you can bu an EOY week for a couple thousand and still get full owner privileges. Frankly, Ritz fractional owners get 3 weeks and several weeks in high season. Let's say they paid $200K for their fractional. To buy enough DPs to stay 3 weeks at the Ritz including high season weeks, you would need to be at least Chairman's level. Maybe higher. So assume we bought 15,000 DPs at $11 per point, that is $165K retail. So what on earth are the Ritz owners whining about? Did they pay more than $200K for 3 weeks? Plus I assume they get extra perks as a Ritz fractional owner that we know nothing about such as exchanging on elite networks as well as first opportunity to book high season weeks and other weeks. Not to mention the allure and self esteem that being a Ritz fractional owner probably gives them.


----------



## ontilt (Jun 14, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> I would hate to see the developer settle in the case. It seems unfair to punish all the other owners bc one class made a bad investment. All fractionals lose value the moment we sign the dotted line. The Four Seasons has seen terrible depreciation too whereas now you can bu an EOY week for a couple thousand and still get full owner privileges. Frankly, Ritz fractional owners get 3 weeks and several weeks in high season. Let's say they paid $200K for their fractional. To buy enough DPs to stay 3 weeks at the Ritz including high season weeks, you would need to be at least Chairman's level. Maybe higher. So assume we bought 15,000 DPs at $11 per point, that is $165K retail. So what on earth are the Ritz owners whining about? Did they pay more than $200K for 3 weeks? Plus I assume they get extra perks as a Ritz fractional owner that we know nothing about such as exchanging on elite networks as well as first opportunity to book high season weeks and other weeks. Not to mention the allure and self esteem that being a Ritz fractional owner probably gives them.



I agree we could qualify it as a "bad investment".  But when the developer/seller is stating that the property will hold value during sale, that's a mis-characterization that many of the folks here are aware of, but to the average buyer, that may not be very clear.  Further, "fairness" seems to be something that falls to the wayside as it relates to owners vs. developers.  

I also agree with you that these owners claiming that they are "damaged" is a stretch given the point exchange value and the fact that the exchange is voluntary.  From what I understand, MVC owners don't get access unless weeks are exchanged out of RC.  

All of that said, my question is really, who pays for it if the developer does settle?  If they settle and 2/3 of the ownership has to pay an assessment, doesn't that just open the door for another class action?  I'm just curious how one would navigate the risk of a special assessment here and if that's a possibility if the case were to be settled.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 14, 2019)

ontilt said:


> All of that said, my question is really, who pays for it if the developer does settle? If they settle and 2/3 of the ownership has to pay an assessment, doesn't that just open the door for another class action? I'm just curious how one would navigate the risk of a special assessment here and if that's a possibility if the case were to be settled.


I highly doubt there would be a special assessment to other owners. That is far to obvious and if they settle, fault would be on Marriott so passing these on as direct costs to owners would be a problem. That said, it is always said that the customer pays for everything. So those costs will get passed on in some way or another, just not as a transparent special assessment.


----------



## Dean (Jun 14, 2019)

Usually companies look at this as a financial issue rather than on principle so they likely will settle it if they think that route is cheaper.  IMO this is short term thinking with long term risk but that's often the way it goes whether it be malpractice or a large company.  That's why I've commented a couple of times on TUG that a settlement does not equate to guilt, that and the fact that judge's and jury's are often activist rather than by the book.  

As for passing it on to the owners, that'd be difficult with audits and a BOD.  About the most they could do would be to try to recoup it over time through the management contract and on the sale of any units.  They likely do have secondary insurance to cover this type of risk and that's probably where most of any payment would come from if applicable.  

The bottom line issue seems to be the fact that the cold value of a timeshare is a fraction of the actual cost, the value is in the usage.  It's kind of like having a fender bender when you drive a new car off a lot but you didn't have insurance.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Jun 14, 2019)

The real question will be whether or not Marriott will continue to be able to allow non-RC timeshare owners to book the RC resorts involved.


----------



## Dean (Jun 14, 2019)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> The real question will be whether or not Marriott will continue to be able to allow non-RC timeshare owners to book the RC resorts involved.


Long term I suspect the answer will be no because they will likely move to a different management company when they can.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 14, 2019)

ontilt said:


> I agree we could qualify it as a "bad investment".  But when the developer/seller is stating that the property will hold value during sale, that's a mis-characterization that many of the folks here are aware of, but to the average buyer, that may not be very clear.  Further, "fairness" seems to be something that falls to the wayside as it relates to owners vs. developers.
> 
> I also agree with you that these owners claiming that they are "damaged" is a stretch given the point exchange value and the fact that the exchange is voluntary.  From what I understand, MVC owners don't get access unless weeks are exchanged out of RC.
> 
> All of that said, my question is really, who pays for it if the developer does settle?  If they settle and 2/3 of the ownership has to pay an assessment, doesn't that just open the door for another class action?  I'm just curious how one would navigate the risk of a special assessment here and if that's a possibility if the case were to be settled.



Marriott needs to absorb it out of their bottom line and not push it to owners.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 14, 2019)

Dean said:


> Long term I suspect the answer will be no because they will likely move to a different management company when they can.



This has been my fear. I hope the few RC resorts available through MVC do not move. This is a major selling point to me buying into MVC. Just visited RC STT and it is my favorite timeshare so far - other than my DVCs, LOL.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Jun 14, 2019)

Dean said:


> Long term I suspect the answer will be no because they will likely move to a different management company when they can.



I strongly suspect that if the plaintiff win, part of the settlement will be to cut off Marriott access. That is the part of the contract that is in breach. according to what I've read here. (I also suspect if it gets settled out of court, that will be one of the terms of the settlement.)


----------



## ontilt (Jun 20, 2019)

Thanks for all the comments and thoughts on this.  Just FYI - Here's another one as well for Hyatt: https://www.aspentimes.com/news/suit-hyatt-grand-aspen-timeshares-dropped-in-value/ 

I suspect that this would make it drag out as settling one will open the doors for settling others.


----------



## rthib (Jul 13, 2019)

Update, on June 14, "MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/18/2019, re: 410 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Robert A. Sklar; 411 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Greg Jacobson. ORDERED that, all claims of plaintiffs Robert A. Sklar and Greg Jacobson against Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Ritz-Carlton Management Company, LLC, Cobalt Travel Company, LLC, and The Lion & Crown Travel Co., LLC were dismissed with prejudice as of the entry of the Stipulations for Dismissal"


----------



## Norcal5 (Jul 13, 2019)

rthib said:


> Update, on June 14, "MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/18/2019, re: 410 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Robert A. Sklar; 411 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Greg Jacobson. ORDERED that, all claims of plaintiffs Robert A. Sklar and Greg Jacobson against Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Ritz-Carlton Management Company, LLC, Cobalt Travel Company, LLC, and The Lion & Crown Travel Co., LLC were dismissed with prejudice as of the entry of the Stipulations for Dismissal"


Thank you rthib


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 14, 2019)

rthib said:


> Update, on June 14, "MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/18/2019, re: 410 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Robert A. Sklar; 411 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Greg Jacobson. ORDERED that, all claims of plaintiffs Robert A. Sklar and Greg Jacobson against Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Ritz-Carlton Management Company, LLC, Cobalt Travel Company, LLC, and The Lion & Crown Travel Co., LLC were dismissed with prejudice as of the entry of the Stipulations for Dismissal"



They were the only two named in the suit, weren't they? So does it mean this one's done with no harm to MVW, or that a settlement occurred, or something else??

Thanks for keeping this updated, rthib.


----------



## Sapper (Jul 14, 2019)

SueDonJ said:


> They were the only two named in the suit, weren't they? So does it mean this one's done with no harm to MVW, or that a settlement occurred, or something else??
> 
> Thanks for keeping this updated, rthib.



My legalese is rusty, but dismissed with prejudice means that the case is over and cannot be brought back on the same grounds.  Someone had to pay Marriotts lawyers and I think Marriott can try to recover their costs from the folks who brought the suit.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 14, 2019)

Sapper said:


> My legalese is rusty, but dismissed with prejudice means that the case is over and cannot be brought back on the same grounds.  Someone had to pay Marriotts lawyers and I think Marriott can try to recover their costs from the folks who brought the suit.



So, no chance this signals a possible mutual agreement to settle? I'm just wondering if Marriott had to concede any of the points brought up, even if the details are hidden.


----------



## CO skier (Jul 14, 2019)

SueDonJ said:


> They were the only two named in the suit, weren't they? So does it mean this one's done with no harm to MVW, or that a settlement occurred, or something else?


The list of plaintiffs in the lawsuit is 5 pages long.  

ROBERT A. SKLAR TRUST, 
ROBERT A. SKLAR, Trustee of the Robert A. Sklar Trust,
GREG JACOBSON

are just three of the listed plaintiffs.

I do not think the dismissal means the lawsuit is resolved.


----------



## Sapper (Jul 14, 2019)

CO skier said:


> The list of plaintiffs in the lawsuit is 5 pages long.
> 
> ROBERT A. SKLAR TRUST,
> ROBERT A. SKLAR, Trustee of the Robert A. Sklar Trust,
> ...



Ok, so the case is over for these three. Why would the case for these three be dismissed, but not everyone else?


----------



## saabman (Oct 3, 2019)

Latest update on the Aspen Highlands Condominium Association and timeshare owners at the Ritz-Carlton Club . . .

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/loc...-between-ritz-owners-aspen-condo-association/


----------



## rthib (Nov 21, 2019)

Latest update. Court approves settlement between owners and Association over Marriott's objection.


----------

