# What happens to Starwood's owners at mandatory resorts when others have sold out?



## zeke013 (Apr 19, 2007)

I am just curious what you folks think Starwood's practice of having both mandatory and non-mandatory participation in the SVN network will do to those of you that have weeks at mandatory resorts.  Think of it this way - you bought in, in part, because you knew you would have the ability to access other resorts in trade.  And you bought at mandatory resorts, in part, to keep re-sale prices up knowing that the next buyer could participate.

But what happens 10 years from now (15?  20?) when the voluntary resorts have been churned (as have the mandatory - but it doesn't matter for this equation) and the rate of owners at non-mandatory resorts who could participate in SVN has gone from 100% at initial sales to 50%?  25%?  10%?

What happens when those of you at mandatory resorts (myself included) don't have inventory to trade into at other locations - as the new owners are FORCED to vacation there since they can't go anywhere else?

Is this a legitimate concern or am I over-simplifying?


----------



## mesamirage (Apr 19, 2007)

I think you have a good point, but I wonder what percentage of owners never use their week??  15%... 33%... higher.  I know even among owners who are active in TUG or other groups (Yahoo for Hyatt) don't always get to using their weeks... I would only guess the % is even higher for those who are truely out to lunch with their TS ownership.

Example.. one of my SDO resale weeks I picked up was from a gentleman who originally purchased from the developer... bought it for $9,000... financed for 8 years thru developer so paid xxx interest... never used the resort EVEN once in the 8 years... 6 months after finally paying it off sold it to me for $925. Ouch... and I believe he could trade in SVN since he purchased from developer!! (grandfathered in, think he would have had to pay like $350 to join SVN) CRAZY!!

Steve


----------



## BarryTX (Apr 19, 2007)

I am not yet an owner of any TS, but rather am researching Starwood as one possibility - so I may not be representative of who you are looking for response from, but for what it's worth.... 

If I buy anywhere, it will be where I intend to predominantly visit (which is Hawaii for me).  The exchange feature in SVN or through outside exchange companies is a nice option, but I would expect to go to my home resort most years.  I do see a value in the exchange possibilities, but I would not for example buy in a resort that I only intended to trade.  The value of the resort to me is primarily where it is and what it is like because I intend to use it, so the real question for me is whether the cost of buying the resort worth what I'm getting in total as compared to similar alternatives.

....and if I buy and don't use it, someone should kick me in the head.  And probably will.

Barry


----------



## KOR5Star (Apr 19, 2007)

Since I intend to use all my weeks at my home resort, it doesn't really mean anything to me.

Being on Maui, I'd be able to rent for the cost of renting somewhere else.  I might even make money, depending on where I would want to go.  In any case, I wouldn't lose much.


----------



## Transit (Apr 19, 2007)

Many advise to buy where you want to go but it would likley take along time before even 50% of ownership unts would go to resale. There also will be a large percentage of people who will trade through II.


----------



## zinger1457 (Apr 19, 2007)

mesamirage said:


> I think you have a good point, but I wonder what percentage of owners never use their week??  15%... 33%... higher.  I know even among owners who are active in TUG or other groups (Yahoo for Hyatt) don't always get to using their weeks... I would only guess the % is even higher for those who are truely out to lunch with their TS ownership.
> 
> Steve



Agree with Steve on this.  I own at Westin Kierland and my last two stays (Jan/Feb 07) the occupancy was at about 50%.  And this is at a location where all the units are sold.  As long as you have some flexibility in your schedule I doubt you'll have trouble getting into any of the resorts.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 20, 2007)

*Good question to ponder*

At some point internal trade opportunities do decrease if all remains as they are.  The ground rules can change, however, and that is not factored into  the O/P's supposition. 

Nothing prevents Starwood from accepting SVN membership applications from resale buyers of Voluntary resorts. It is a restriction they currently impose. But, a self-imposed restriction is not a prohibition from doing so. Right now Starwood chooses to be restrictive for reasons it believes beneficial to its new inventory marketing.  Dwindling trade inventory affects everyone, even new owners who buy directly from Starwood. At some point Starwood will have to decide if they want a viable system or not. If it does not work well, it's value as a sales tool is diluted and compromised.
If that outcome does not make business sense to you, you can bet it does not make sense to Starwood either.   
Then what does?
  SVN membership is a revenue source for Starwood as well.  The annual dues amount to healthy change.SVN enrollment fees of $600 or more will make the picture nicer yet if they relax membership restrictions. I suspect that they will not overlook the revenue potential when it is in their interest to do so. In fact, the current trend to classify all new construction as Voluntary does not necessarily mean that the O/P's assumptions follow. It does insure that Starwood gets a new enrollment fee every time one sells if my scenario has any basis. Currently, Starwood gets no SVN enrollment fee from the resale of a mandatory ownership interest, and never will.
 That is a motive that makes sense to me.  
 In the meantime, mandatory resort owners have an increasingly desirable timeshare interest.

Fredm


----------



## msweaver (Apr 20, 2007)

Fredm said:


> At some point internal trade opportunities do decrease if all remains as they are.  The ground rules can change, however, and that is not factored into  the O/P's supposition.
> 
> Nothing prevents Starwood from accepting SVN membership applications from resale buyers of Voluntary resorts. It is a restriction they currently impose. But, a self-imposed restriction is not a prohibition from doing so. Right now Starwood chooses to be restrictive for reasons it believes beneficial to its new inventory marketing.  Dwindling trade inventory affects everyone, even new owners who buy directly from Starwood. At some point Starwood will have to decide if they want a viable system or not. If it does not work well, it's value as a sales tool is diluted and compromised.
> If that outcome does not make business sense to you, you can bet it does not make sense to Starwood either.
> ...



You make a really good point.  Although Starwood and other developers seem to be doing quite profitably in extending the timeshare resorts, there will probably be a time in the future where timeshare development will level off, and the developers may see the potential of SVN memberships and annual fees as just as beneficial to them as the profits they [supposedly] make by "encouraging" developer-bought units.

I actually think that Starwood is exceedingly short-sighted in not allowing resale owners into SVN - I can't tell you how many hot-tub discussions I've had with other owners who are actually quite well informed about how the loss of SVN privileges would affect their resale value if they ever decide to sell.  As more owners become properly informed of how Starwood is deflating their resale values to prop up Starwood's own marketing machine, it might benefit Starwood to follow Hilton's path of allowing SVN membership to resales.  As Marriott considers how to implement an internal trading scheme for its resorts (with a possible points-based scheme similar to Starwood and Hilton) hopefully they will follow Hilton as well.


----------



## Bill4728 (Apr 20, 2007)

Starwood can take back units thru forclosure. Which allows them to sell more units even at resorts which are sold out. 

ROFR could also add inventory, but does Starwood have ROFR?


----------



## Lewis (Apr 20, 2007)

*Voluntary vs. Mandatory Resales*

There are some different ways to think about this.

I would tend to agree that an "all-mandatory" resort system would have its benefits ... resale values would be supported evenly across the system if all resale buyers could access the SVN.

However, with the current situation (some voluntary & some mandatory resorts with lots of resales), I would have a concern if Starwood suddenly allowed existing voluntary resale owners the opportunity to join SVN for a modest (e.g. $600 to $1000) fee.  

There are lots of owners who have "cheap" resale weeks at voluntary resorts ... many voluntary resale owners would no doubt love to join SVN and try to get into Maui, Haborside, etc.   I don't think that very many Hawaii, Harborside, or even Kierland owners are anxious to exchange their points for time at most of the existing "voluntary" resorts.  Thus, a surge of voluntary re-quals into the SVN would make SVN trades into the most popular resorts more difficult for existing developer and mandatory resale owners.


----------



## barndweller (Apr 20, 2007)

> Thus, a surge of voluntary re-quals into the SVN would make SVN trades into the most popular resorts more difficult for existing developer and mandatory resale owners.



Not if Sheraton went to a home resort advantage and a points value system for internal trades. The more desirable resorts would have higher points assigned & lesser resorts would have lesser chance of trades. DVC does it well. Everyone gets a chance for any resort at any time beyond home resort advantage. But at a high points cost. There's enough non-demand time that everyone gets a chance at any resort eventually.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 20, 2007)

Lewis said:


> I would have a concern if Starwood suddenly allowed existing voluntary resale owners the opportunity to join SVN for a modest (e.g. $600 to $1000) fee.



I would also be very concerned if Starwood did this, but I don't think it will.

Starwood makes Big Bucks selling developer units.  One of the major incentives it provides for buying developer is the ability to exchange within Starwood via StarOptions.  That incentive explains most of the discrepancy between resale prices at mandatory resorts and resale prices at voluntary resorts.  Compare Kierland and Mission Hills, both upscale desert properties which had comparable developer prices.  Kierland resales sell for far more than Mission Hill resales.  Starwood apparently wants to make money off of that differential.

Starwood's current tack is to make its new resorts voluntary and to include a right of first refusal when the buyer eventually becomes a seller.  My belief is that Starwood is doing this for the express purpose of destroying the resale market for these units.  When the seller has to sell for 40% of original purchase price (such as Mission Hills sellers), Starwood will exercise its ROFR and resell it itself at full retail with StarOptions.  It cannot do this if it allows too many requalifications or buy-ins.

OP's concern is lack of future inventory for SVN exchanges using StarOptions.     Starwood will solve this problem by increasing the SVN inventory through selective exercise of its ROFR on resales of the existing properties most desired by SVN exchangers.  Starwood's new properties will obviously be highly desirable in the exchange pool as well.  The result will be a SVN exchange pool which is more upscale than Starwood's properties taken as a whole.  This would help Starwood price its new properties even higher.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 20, 2007)

I agree with Fred and have posted the same theory in the past.  I don't think Starwood will be able to turn its back on the revenue when the next large economic downturn comes.  Just think of what Hilton makes on its HGVC members -- $89 a year, $49 per reservation (something like that -- I'm a member, but don't pay close attention to the "little" costs ).  

I think they'll eventually offer some sort of affiliate membership with a relatively large upfront cost to join and transactional fees for everything except reserving your own week.  Developer buyers will be "charter" members (e.g., no fees).  Affiliate membership will not transfer.

My company employs an entire department to run revenue/profitability projections on stuff like this.  You can bet there will come a time when Starwood's bean counters "prove" that today's practices are not maximizing revenue.  

Yes -- it will hurt sales a little.  But, the other majors (Marriott, Hilton, Disney, Hyatt) aren't exactly hurting despite their lack of Starwood's punitive practices.  As Marriott's growth rate indicates, there are still plenty of potential buyers out there who don't their research, or whose research leads them to believe that the ability to convert to Hotel points is worth the premium.

Starwood -- are you out there?  I'm expensive, but will gladly come implement the program for the right price (oh, and I need 13 weeks of vacation per year so I can use all my timeshares.)


----------



## Fredm (Apr 20, 2007)

*Which is it?*



vacationtime1 said:


> I would also be very concerned if Starwood did this, but I don't think it will.
> 
> Starwood makes Big Bucks selling developer units.  One of the major incentives it provides for buying developer is the ability to exchange within Starwood via StarOptions.  That incentive explains most of the discrepancy between resale prices at mandatory resorts and resale prices at voluntary resorts.  Compare Kierland and Mission Hills, both upscale desert properties which had comparable developer prices.  Kierland resales sell for far more than Mission Hill resales.  Starwood apparently wants to make money off of that differential.
> 
> ...


----------



## oneohana (Apr 21, 2007)

vacationtime1 said:


> I would also be very concerned if Starwood did this, but I don't think it will.
> 
> Starwood makes Big Bucks selling developer units.  One of the major incentives it provides for buying developer is the ability to exchange within Starwood via StarOptions.  That incentive explains most of the discrepancy between resale prices at mandatory resorts and resale prices at voluntary resorts.  Compare Kierland and Mission Hills, both upscale desert properties which had comparable developer prices.  Kierland resales sell for far more than Mission Hill resales.  Starwood apparently wants to make money off of that differential.
> 
> ...



Has anyone encountered a rofr with *wood? I have have purchased a few resales that were under the 40% mark.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 21, 2007)

BarryTX said:


> I am not yet an owner of any TS, but rather am researching Starwood as one possibility - so I may not be representative of who you are looking for response from, but for what it's worth....
> 
> If I buy anywhere, it will be where I intend to predominantly visit (which is Hawaii for me).  The exchange feature in SVN or through outside exchange companies is a nice option, but I would expect to go to my home resort most years.  I do see a value in the exchange possibilities, but I would not for example buy in a resort that I only intended to trade.  The value of the resort to me is primarily where it is and what it is like because I intend to use it, so the real question for me is whether the cost of buying the resort worth what I'm getting in total as compared to similar alternatives.
> 
> ...



Barry - You have the system figured out far better than some long term owners. Buy what you want where you want and only use a trade if you want  to or on the few occasions when you can't use your resort for some reason. It is a "nice to have" option not the reason for owning. If you do buy you are likely to be very very happy with your purchase.


----------



## chemteach (Apr 21, 2007)

*Do I misunderstand SVN??*

I was under the impression that at 8 months out, anyone who officially has staroptions can make a reservation at any starwood (SVN) resort that has an opening.  If many units at voluntary resorts are sold by their original owners, and these owners do not make their reservations before 8 months out, the units will be available to anyone who has staroptions.  

If all people who purchase non-mandatory resorts are very savvy and make reservations before 8 months out, then yes, there will be less inventory available overall.  I don't see this being a huge issue because whether the owner is the original owner or a resale purchaser, the person has that first 4 month window to reserve their unit and then at 8 months the units are open to all staroption owners.  

What am I missing here??


----------



## skim118 (Apr 21, 2007)

chemteach said:


> What am I missing here??



The 8-month reservation window is a SVN rule and as such that only applies to the units in a Voluntary resort that is available for SVN usage.

Assume ten years from now Westin Lagunamar Cancun has a 50% turnover and is still a "Voluntary" resort;  These new owners are not in SVN and therefore half these units are not available in the SVN pool.   At the 8-month window, SVN members from other resorts will have to fight over whatever was left out of the 50% remaining units.

I dislike Starwood for destroying the resale values of voluntary resorts; I know that they lost a sale from us because they made Princeville a voluntary resort;  of course they do not care at this point in time because their sales are still booming


----------



## chemteach (Apr 21, 2007)

skim118 said:


> The 8-month reservation window is a SVN rule and as such that only applies to the units in a Voluntary resort that is available for SVN usage.
> 
> Assume ten years from now Westin Lagunamar Cancun has a 50% turnover and is still a "Voluntary" resort;  These new owners are not in SVN and therefore half these units are not available in the SVN pool.   At the 8-month window, SVN members from other resorts will have to fight over whatever was left out of the 50% remaining units.
> 
> I dislike Starwood for destroying the resale values of voluntary resorts; I know that they lost a sale from us because they made Princeville a voluntary resort;  of course they do not care at this point in time because their sales are still booming



But does Starwood keep track of the units that were reserved by non-SVN members vs. SVN members?  In other words, if only 50% of the owners at a non-mandatory resort are members of SVN, and at 8 months out, there are 2 units available for a specific week, I would think an SVN member could still reserve that week after 8 months, even if all the other units for that particular week had been reserved by SVN members who owned at the resort.  Trying to track which weeks/units had been reserved by SVN owner members vs. owner non-SVN members seems almost impossible, particularly because the weeks are for the most part floating weeks at all the resorts being built.  Holiday weeks are the main fixed weeks, and there aren't many of these.

Do people think that Starwood would track a season (platinum, gold, silver) within each resort and the percent of units owned in each season by SVN members, and then "shut-down" SVN reservations once the percentage of reservations within a season of SVN owner members hit the percent of owner members?  

I don't think that would happen.  I think Starwood would allow SVN members to reserve after 8 months out if units were available and then if they filled up and a non-SVN owner tried to reserve a unit, they would just be told that the weeks were all reserved, and the owner should have phoned earlier in the year to make the reservation.  Also, within a season, there are often so many weeks that are not as desirable, so at 8 months out, SVN members will all phone up to make reservations, and if an owner calls to make a reservation for a high demand week, they will be told they have to reserve a different week within their season.  It just seems to me this will be a non-issue and resales of non-mandatory resorts actually could benefit SVN members because there will be fewer members to compete with.  

To explain:  in a place like Kauai, if 50% of the owners are resale purchasers at some point, it is true that only 50% of the units there would be available within SVN if they do track numbers of SVN owners and SVN owner reservations from all SVN resorts at Kauai.  But there would likely be a lot of January, September, October, November, and December weeks that were not booked up because these are the lowest demand week.  The whole year is platinum, so SVN members from other resorts could still probably book March or June or July weeks at 8  months out (particularly since these weeks are toward the front end of the year).

I hope that all made sense...

Edited to add this:

On second thought, if Starwood tried to limit SVN reservations to the number of people who are owners/SVN members at the resort, there is a potential for a big problem for the SVN owners at the resort!  Say at a resort where 50% of the ownership is SVN members, and for some reason 1/2 of those owners (25 % of the total membership) did not make reservations early.  Along comes October, and through reservations from SVN owners at the resort and 8 month out reservations from SVN members at other resorts, 50% of all inventory for the next year has been reserved at the resort.  An SVN owner calls on October 31 for a reservation for the next year (at 12 months out) and is told that the resort has maxed out its SVN use for that year and the person cannot use their week at their home resort - they must try to make a reservation at an alternate SVN resort.  The HOAs are going to have a headache no matter what they do if this type of thing starts happening.  I think it is far more likely that the Starwood would not create these limits and that if non-SVN owners try to make their reservations beyond 8 months out, they will be told that they waited too long to make a reservation and nothing is available.  That, too will cause problems...

One can never predict what will happen in the timesharing world in the future...


----------



## skim118 (Apr 22, 2007)

chemteach said:


> Do people think that Starwood would track a season (platinum, gold, silver) within each resort and the percent of units owned in each season by SVN members, and then "shut-down" SVN reservations once the percentage of reservations within a season of SVN owner members hit the percent of owner members?



Yes.

I would say Starwood is legally bound "shut-down" SVN reservations.  The issue has been moot until now since the voluntary resorts currently are not in great demand.  Once Princeville & Cancun resales start occuring Starwood has no other choice.

Assume I am a resale Princeville owner;  I do not have to follow any 8 month rule since I have deeded access only to my unit;  ALL units have to be made available to me or other Princeville owners only each year.  The fact SVN allowed outsiders at the 8-month window is of no consequence to me;   I expect some week to be made available for my use each calendar year.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 22, 2007)

This is an interesting topic.  I believe that the SVO reservation window is the same at a V resort whether it is SVO or resale purchased.  In reading the Owners Manual for WPORV - they do not differentiate.  If a resale V buyer waits until the last minute to reserve at less than 8 months - they could be SOL.


----------



## skim118 (Apr 23, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> This is an interesting topic.  I believe that the SVO reservation window is the same at a V resort whether it is SVO or resale purchased.  In reading the Owners Manual for WPORV - they do not differentiate.  If a resale V buyer waits until the last minute to reserve at less than 8 months - they could be SOL.



The owner's manual you received applies to SVN owners at Princeville;  to these owners, after 8 months all Starwood has to provide is a week in any SVN  network resort in return for your Princeville week and they have fulfilled their end of the deal.

Let's assume there are 100 units in Princeville;  50 weeks gives a total of 5000 week owners.  If in the future there are 50% resale owners, clearly the SVN has access only to a total of 2500 Princeville weeks.  At 8 months it's SVN prerogative to allow any non-Princeville owner to have access to Princeville weeks and that's not the concern of resale owners.

As a resale owner if SVN does not allocate 2500 weeks to the resale owners then they will be subject to lawsuits.  It's true at the last-minute I may not find any weeks and could be SOL, but it better be that the resale pool of 2500 weeks was exhausted for that year(used by resale Princeville owners + units that stayed empty).


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 23, 2007)

As a Scientist by profession - I enjoy theory and hypothicals, but... 50% resale at WPORV, owners who all don't call in... etc?

****
We are looking forward to WPORV in '09, but first we have WSJ, WKORVx2, WKV, WSJ, WKORVx2, WKV, WSJ, and then, maybe, hopefully if the bees are still around, then...WPORVx2

****
Personally, I am way more concerned about the bees....
{enter silly emoticon}


----------



## chemteach (Apr 23, 2007)

skim118 said:


> Yes.
> 
> I would say Starwood is legally bound "shut-down" SVN reservations.  The issue has been moot until now since the voluntary resorts currently are not in great demand.  Once Princeville & Cancun resales start occuring Starwood has no other choice.
> 
> Assume I am a resale Princeville owner;  I do not have to follow any 8 month rule since I have deeded access only to my unit;  ALL units have to be made available to me or other Princeville owners only each year.  The fact SVN allowed outsiders at the 8-month window is of no consequence to me;   I expect some week to be made available for my use each calendar year.



Then what would happen to the SVN owner who calls at more than 8 months out, but SVN reservations have hit their limit and no additional units can be reserved for any weeks through the end of the calendar year?  

Davidnrobin - I agree that the 50% this or that idea is not too worrysome - but in order to look at how Starwood might deal with the system, they have to consider different possibilities, including extremes.  

If Starwood tracks the SVN vs. non-SVN owner reservations and closes reservations to SVN owners or members when the cap is hit, I think it would not be too unlikely that SVN owners at highly desireable resorts with all year floating platinum weeks would not be able to get end of year reservations because SVN owners from other resorts would cause the "shut-down" of SVN reservations at the resort with 8 month out reservations before the end of the calendar year prior to the use year.  Okay - long run-on sentence...


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 23, 2007)

I would advise everyone who signs a contract with SVO (esp for a V resort) to read the CCRs/Owners Manual that they agree to.  While no resale owner signs such a contract - the terms are passed onto the buyer.

Has anyone seen a bee?
{google: "what is happening to the bees")


----------



## duke (Apr 23, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> I
> Has anyone seen a bee?
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 25, 2007)

*Answer From Starwwod*

I am at WKV right now having an awesome week.  I didn't want to spend the time for the owner's update but I did pose the question to the SM on premises.  What happens to a resale owner of a voluntary resort that doesn't reserve at least 8 months out?  He had to make some calls (I believe to Orlando) to get the correct answer:  IF YOU ARE VOLUNTARY RESALE AND YOU DO NOT MAKE YOUR RESERVATION 8 MONTHS OUT YOU RISK LOSING GETTING YOUR UNIT; YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH II SINCE YOU CAN'T CONVERT TO POINTS OR EXCHANGE OPTIONS.  They do not hold rooms for owners that buy resale or even have a system to separate that data.  The bottom line is that if you buy resale at a voluntary resort you need to make sure to put in your reservation at least 8 months in advance.  I hope that this answers any questions or speculation.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 25, 2007)

I really don't think the 8-month rule appears anywhere in the language of the CCRs for the pre-Starwood units!  Nor is it anywhere in the user guides on mystarcentral.  

Of course, it is theoretically possible that an owner who calls too late could be out of luck.  But, in practice, Starwood bulk banks with II based on historical patterns, then offers a late requesting owner a previously deposited II week if there are no weeks left for usage.

I can't believe it would be legal for them to commingle the two inventories for reservation purposes.  Even RCI purports to balance the inventories betweens points and weeks!


----------



## Bill4728 (Apr 25, 2007)

I own several TS which have this same thing going on. two sets of owners. One set which own at that one resort location and one set which own points and can reserve at any of the companies several locations. What they do (and what I believe starwood is legally required to do) is keep seperate pools of units. If you are a single location owner, you reserve your time from the pool of units which are owned by similar owners. If you're a points owner, you reserve all the units owned by company which manages the points inventory. 

To allow the single resort owners inventory to be used by non single resort owners would appear to be illegal.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 25, 2007)

I agree Bill.  But, lets give the SM two points for a nice try.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 25, 2007)

*Appeal to the vanity - it works*

How do the weasels answer the obvious question from all these ploys to degrade what prior buyers already bought and paid for? 

"What surprises will you have for ME if I buy one of these weeks/memberships?" 

Of course most never ask as the weasels know they are appealing to the "I'm better than everyone else" gene by making them "VIP" or "Gold" or whatever. By the time they realize they paid way too much to get a bogus title the 7 or 10 days are over and the weasel is using their money to pay the lease on the beemer.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 25, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> I agree Bill.  But, lets give the SM two points for a nice try.



I specifically asked this question.  According to Starwood, if you don't reserve 8 months out on a resale voluntary you risk losing your week (or having to II it).  The SM and Starwood had a vested interest in giving me a good answer as they obviously wanted to sell me on Princeville which is a voluntary resort.  They told me that they are not required in the CC&Rs or by law to hold weeks for resale owners or voluntary resorts after 8 months out.  I also reviewed my Lagunamar (also voluntary) paperwork thoroughly and found nothing to support your idea that Starwood is somehow legally bound to protect or reserve rooms after the 8 month point for resale voluntary.


----------



## Pit (Apr 25, 2007)

Westin5Star said:


> I also reviewed my Lagunamar (also voluntary) paperwork thoroughly and found nothing to support your idea that Starwood is somehow legally bound to protect or reserve rooms after the 8 month point for resale voluntary.



Playing devil's advocate here. Did you see anything which gives Starwood the legal right to trade away usage rights of non-SVN owners after the 8-month point? I would think that by law, rights are conferred to the property owner and can only be traded away by same (unless of course the owner gave up those rights somewhere in the fine print).


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 25, 2007)

Pit said:


> Playing devil's advocate here. Did you see anything which gives Starwood the legal right to trade away usage rights of non-SVN owners after the 8-month point? I would think that by law, rights are conferred to the property owner and can only be traded away by same (unless of course the owner gave up those rights somewhere in the fine print).



I didn't look up that information, nor did I ask.  I did get the impression that these weeks could be given traded away at 8 months regardless of SVN status.  I believe that one of the initial points of this blog was related to voluntary owners of resale weeks.  The reason for this is that there is only a handful of mandatory resorts and most if not all future properties will be voluntary; thus mandatory and SVN owners should be able to easily exchange into other resorts using StarOptions.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 25, 2007)

> They told me that they are not required in the CC&Rs or by law to hold weeks for resale owners or voluntary resorts after 8 months out. I also reviewed my Lagunamar (also voluntary) paperwork thoroughly and found nothing to support your idea that Starwood is somehow legally bound to protect or reserve rooms after the 8 month point for resale voluntary.



Your Lagunamar CCR was created post SVN -- my point related to the pre-SVN units.  Not surprising if the post-SVN voluntary CCRs don't deal with this issue, but not very well thought out either.



> The SM and Starwood had a vested interest in giving me a good answer as they obviously wanted to sell me on Princeville which is a voluntary resort.



I agree that they gave you a "good" answer (for their purpose -- trying to sell you a voluntary unit).  The question is whether or not they gave you a legally defensible answer.

I'm too tired to think through the "calendar year" vs. "float year" ramifications of their statement, but I think it adds a complication they couldn't possibly have accounted for with their statement to you.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 25, 2007)

> thus mandatory and SVN owners should be able to easily exchange into other resorts using StarOptions.



I think you're absolutely correct about this regardless of the answer to the other question.  Realistically speaking, only a very small number of members sell each year.  Therefore, the majority of owner weeks will remain SVN eligible for many years to come.  Despite my opinion on the other issue, I don't think members at voluntary resorts have anything to worry about from a reservation point-of-view (but should be concerned about resale value should the need ever arise.)


----------



## skim118 (Apr 26, 2007)

Westin5Star said:


> He had to make some calls (I believe to Orlando) to get the correct answer:  IF YOU ARE VOLUNTARY RESALE AND YOU DO NOT MAKE YOUR RESERVATION 8 MONTHS OUT YOU RISK LOSING GETTING YOUR UNIT; YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH II SINCE YOU CAN'T CONVERT TO POINTS OR EXCHANGE OPTIONS.  They do not hold rooms for owners that buy resale or even have a system to separate that data.  The bottom line is that if you buy resale at a voluntary resort you need to make sure to put in your reservation at least 8 months in advance.  I hope that this answers any questions or speculation.



I do not see how it answers all the questions.

If I am a resale buyer at a voluntary resort, Starwood is excluding me from SVN & how am I forced to follow the rules of SVN ?

I am legal deeded owner to that property and if there are 51 other resale owners I clearly expect 1 unit to be removed from SVN pool permanently.

Just because Starwood is currently is not following these rules does not mean it correct and cannot be challenged in the future.  

It's Starwood fault for selling this hybrid deed/staroptions sytem & then complicating it up further by removing the "staroptions" for resale buyers in some resorts.  

Until now the issue has been moot; but now with the advent of attractive voluntary resorts like (Cancun, Princeville) we are in uncharted territory.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 26, 2007)

skim118 said:


> I do not see how it answers all the questions.
> 
> If I am a resale buyer at a voluntary resort, Starwood is excluding me from SVN & how am I forced to follow the rules of SVN ?
> 
> ...



***Nothing in this or my other posts are intended to discuss preStarwood properties.

I do not believe that the 8 months rule is a SVN rule; I understand it to be a rule of all (if not most) of their resorts that applies to all owners (mandatory, voluntary, direct, & resale).  

Having a deeded ownership does not mean that you do not have to follow the rules of being an owner at the property.  Therefore, your expectation of having a week set aside for you after the 8 month period (from what I was told and from what I read) is not going to happen.

What rules is Starwood not following?  I agree that this doesn't seem fair; but they are following the rules as I can see it.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 26, 2007)

Again - read the CC&R/Owners Manual that is agreed to in becoming an SVO owner.  Reservation rules are clearly stated.  Especially note that an owner who doesn't reserve within the stated reservation windows may lose the ability to reserve the week.

I have both the WPORV and WSJ-BV CCR/OM (both V resorts) - and they clearly state that (regardless of what type of ownership) that an owner may lose their week if not reserved in time - so... if you buy a resale Voluntary SVO week under these conditions - I would advise not waiting until the last minute to make a reservation because you think that since you are deeded into the resort that SVO is legally bound to get you a week - they are not.

Re: Bees - I have a Brazilian Pepper Tree in my backyard that normally is swarming with bees at this time of year - zilch right now...


----------



## skim118 (Apr 26, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> Again - read the CC&R/Owners Manual that is agreed to in becoming an SVO owner.  Reservation rules are clearly stated.  Especially note that an owner who doesn't reserve within the stated reservation windows may lose the ability to reserve the week.



Reservation rules are clearly stated for SVO owners who belong to SVN("the network").

What kind of timeshare is Starwood selling ?  Is it truly deeded where one has an ownership interest(1 week/year) in a specific property or is it a points club(Worldmark) with it's own set of CCR's ?

Even after the home resort preference period, SVO owners who belong to the SVN & call in late, legally have to be allocated some "network" week for that Calendar year.  

Since the concept of "network" week does not exist for the Voluntary resale owners, does this mean that SVO can legally "comandeer"  this week for "network" usage and tell this SVO "deeded" owner to take a hike and get nothing in return.  

Also as a resale owner even after making reservations promptly at 12 months out, think about the nightmare of having to make any changes to it less than 8 months out !

Thank you Starwood for creating an excellent second-class ownership system and effectively trashing the resale values of voluntary resorts (WMH and Kierland price difference says it all).


----------



## Bill4728 (Apr 26, 2007)

skim118 said:


> Reservation rules are clearly stated for SVO owners who belong to SVN("the network").
> 
> 
> Since the concept of "network" week does not exist for the Voluntary resale owners, does this mean that SVO can legally "comandeer"  this week for "network" usage and tell this SVO "deeded" owner to take a hike and get nothing in return.


Yes, that is why I don't believe what westin5* was told


> IF YOU ARE VOLUNTARY RESALE AND YOU DO NOT MAKE YOUR RESERVATION 8 MONTHS OUT YOU RISK LOSING GETTING YOUR UNIT; YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH II SINCE YOU CAN'T CONVERT TO POINTS OR EXCHANGE OPTIONS. They do not hold rooms for owners that buy resale or even have a system to separate that data.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 26, 2007)

skim118 said:


> Reservation rules are clearly stated for SVO owners who belong to SVN("the network").
> 
> What kind of timeshare is Starwood selling ?  Is it truly deeded where one has an ownership interest(1 week/year) in a specific property or is it a points club(Worldmark) with it's own set of CCR's ?
> 
> ...



I have these as PDF files - and if I could copy/paste the sections that discuss this - I would.  Whether knowingly or unknowingly a resale buyer is aware of this is really not SVO's concern (I would gather) and certainly not something a seller would tell the resale buyer.  SVN is merely the mechanism for performing SVO reservations and SVN exchanges - the reservation windows are part of SVO usage.

Thus, therefore, and why perhaps V resorts have lower resale value - but unlikely any buyer would have deep enough understanding of these nuances (especially when CCR/OM may not available to them)

Yet - I still bought WPORV from SVO - for reasons I have stated in other posts - knowing that if I were to ever sell - I would lose substaintial part of my investment.  If I did sale, iit is unlikely that I would tell the prospective buyer about all the 'ifs' that would have to occur for this scenerio to become a reality (other than they do not get SVN privledges, SO-SP conversion, and would need to use II for external exchanges) - it is part of their DD, not mine.
aka Caveat Emptor.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 26, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> Yes, that is why I don't believe what westin5* was told



Bill - It is true according to my reading of the two V resort CC&Rs/OMs that I have looked at (WPORV, WSJ-BV).


----------



## duke (Apr 26, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> Has anyone seen a bee?
> {google: "what is happening to the bees")




http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/home/la-hm-bees26apr26,1,1736418.story

Don't worry David, (LA Times 4-26-07) they are still here.


----------



## skim118 (Apr 26, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> Bill - It is true according to my reading of the two V resort CC&Rs/OMs that I have looked at (WPORV, WSJ-BV).



I believe you about WPORV documents and your interpretation based on it.

I just seems so highly inequitable and soon the word would spread in the timeshare world(you think Marriott sales will not pick up on it ?)

We orginally wanted to buy in WPORV; when we found out it was Voluntary we said no way and we will wait for resales.  Now for sure we will not buy in WPORV ever & we plan to buy resale WKORV-N instead.  

Clearly resale prices of mandatory resorts are heading higher !


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 26, 2007)

skim118 said:


> I believe you about WPORV documents and your interpretation based on it.
> 
> I just seems so highly inequitable and soon the word would spread in the timeshare world(you think Marriott sales will not pick up on it ?)
> 
> ...



Actually - they state it pretty clearly in the OM for those who actually bother reading it (which I assume are few) - the WSJ-BV OM states it in capital letters.

I think (and hope if we ever have to sell) that WPORV will be a different V resort because of it's uniqueness of being in Princeville, it's relationship with the St Regis Hotel being converted from the Princeville Hotel, being on a world-class championship golf course, and there are only 179 units being built.  I am not sure how many owners will be interested in spending the $599 to be in SVN (plus the $104 per year SVN fee) since some will just want to go there every year - certainly the SO-SP conversion is not worth it (86K SPs).

I do know how many TSers really even pay attention to the TS market (or read their CC&R/OM) - I believe from my discussions with other TSers while at WKORV, WSJ, and WKV that more than 90% don't pay attention or really care - especially those who have spent ~$50K or more on a prime TS unit - as they seem to be a different breed than those who are in the cheap TS game using RCI exchanges and points to find the best travel deals.  The prime SVO owners just want a great TS and vacation experience - and cost isn't as great an issue to them.  Heck - the sellers of our WSJ unit donated this unit because it was too hard for them to go anymore, and they are too busy to attempt to sell it.

Just think of the 10s of thousands of SVO owners (#resorts x #units x 52 weeks) out there who never heard of TUG, TS resales, or know if they have a V or M resort (or what it even means).  SVO resales, Tuggers, etc. are just a 'drop in the bucket' to SVO as a whole.  They buy these expensive TS and never plan to sell - just pass them onto their kids...

I am not so sure M resales are increasing - WKORV costs seem to be dropping over the last 16 months that I have paid attention - going from ~32K to below $30K for OV - with the addition of WKORV-N and WKORV-NN - based on supply and demand - just not sure if this going to be the case.  I think WKV offers some price increase (for the 81K+ SO units), but recent sales of the lesser SO WKV units have seemed to drop.

I think I could get more than what we paid just a few months ago for our 81K SO WKV unit. For WKORV - this was one reason we paid a premium for OF - because these types of units are in short supply - even WKORV-N OF units could not be considered 'true' OF like the WKORV OF units are.  Time will tell.


----------



## duke (Apr 26, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> I am not sure how many owners will be interested in spending the $599 to be in SVN (plus the $104 per year SVN fee)




How does this apply to WPORV (princeville)??


----------



## grgs (Apr 26, 2007)

duke said:


> How does this apply to WPORV (princeville)??



I believe what he's saying (and correct me if I wrong!) is that WPORV owners will be buying mainly to use and thus will not be interested in trading within Starwood.  David thinks that if a resale owner was to be offered the opportunity to buy into SVN for $599, they wouldn't take the offer.

Glorian


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 26, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> Yes, that is why I don't believe what westin5* was told



Bill, it is not just what I was told but is also what is in writing in the documents that I have reviewed and are in my possession.  I have not read anything that would dispute what I was told.  

The answer that came back to me also was not an instant answer.  Several calls and checking were done at Starwood's main office to verify that the answer that I was given was correct!  

I don't agree with the policy; I was just trying to be a good TUGer by reporting back on a quesiton that was asked but not verified and then answered.

If you have the wording or proof to dispute what I have found out then I will welcome it and take it back to Starwood for clarification.


----------



## Bill4728 (Apr 26, 2007)

Westin5Star said:


> Bill, it is not just what I was told but is also what is in writing in the documents that I have reviewed and are in my possession.  I have not read anything that would dispute what I was told.
> 
> The answer that came back to me also was not an instant answer.  Several calls and checking were done at Starwood's main office to verify that the answer that I was given was correct!
> 
> ...



It isn't that I don't believe that you were told that. I simply saying that what Starwood told you is so outrageously unfair that I find it very hard to believe that it is true.


----------



## Transit (Apr 26, 2007)

I was under the impression that SVN members were also SVO members if that being so then any SVN member would have access to any SVO inventory isn't that what the whole II SVO priority based on. I'm in agreement with Davenrobin on this You can be SOL if you have a floating week at a V resort and you don't book at the 8th month mark that inventory will be booked by SVN members after that at some point it would be space banked to II for all SVO ,then general exhanges.FROM THE SVO WEBSITE  What is vacation ownership ?

In the simplest terms, vacation ownership allows you to purchase, under deeded ownership, a certain amount of *time you can use *to take a vacation in one of our all-villa resorts, every year, or every other year.I belive Westin 5star is correct.

Depending on the type of villa, you *may *exchange or trade your accommodations, split larger accommodations into smaller accommodations for longer periods of time, or take advantage of the flexibility of exchanging your accommodations within the Starwood Vacation Network or with our Starwood Preferred Guest® program.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 27, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> It isn't that I don't believe that you were told that. I simply saying that what Starwood told you is so outrageously unfair that I find it very hard to believe that it is true.



It is not only what they say - it is also stated via contract (and agreeing to CC&R,SVO,SVN, and other assocation conditions).

I just don't get the concern (why this is so unfair?) - sorry, maybe I am missing something...(or dense)  It is relatively straight forward - they set the terms, you accept those terms.  It is thier Biz Model (right or wrong - which can change...) and their system which a buyer agrees to by contract.  Are the terms of the contract unfair? 

If someone buys a V resort resale - the buyer cannot use the SVN system (cannot buy in), along with the others conditions as with buyers of resale M resorts (who can use SVN).  A V resale buyer *must * reserve their deeded float week within their deeded season to get Home Ownership usage between the 12 to 8-month mark before it goes in to the SVN exchange system.  There is no guarentee a week going to be available for them after this mark - this is true for *every * SVO Float Owner (V and M) whether they purchase from SVO or bought resale.

This is in the terms of the contract.  An V owner may not be aware of these condition when they buy from SVO (although they should) - but a resale buyer sure should be.  

I don't believe SVO is selling V resorts telling potential buyers that privledges they receive as a SVO owner is transferred to the resale buyer.  They actually say this is one of the reasons why you should buy from them if asked about resales (true).

I do think the WPORV can buck the trend of value loss to a point.  I expect the value may drop up to $10K - if more than that I will be disappointed - if less than this - gravy.  Why?  This is what I put our cost of the incentive SPs, Requal of WKORV, 3*Elite/Gold that we got upon purchase (which I shared here).  

Of course - this is only a loss if we decide to sale.  Is SVO obligated to tell me that our V purchase will be a loss? (right...)


----------



## ketamine (Apr 27, 2007)

skim118 said:


> I dislike Starwood for destroying the resale values of voluntary resorts; I know that they lost a sale from us ..... of course they do not care (



I am so angry at how devalued my 2 WMH's units are that despite being a 3* elite I will NEVER buy Westin again. It is such a shame because the resort and the units are so beautiful. Being a voluntary network (which I did not undersand back then) I feel ripped off realizing I've lost over 50% of my initial costs.  Unfortunately I didn't know about TUG or Marriott then. And to think the sales people at SVO bad mouth Marriott!!


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 27, 2007)

ketamine said:


> I am so angry at how devalued my 2 WMH's units are that despite being a 3* elite I will NEVER buy Westin again. It is such a shame because the resort and the units are so beautiful. Being a voluntary network (which I did not undersand back then) I feel ripped off realizing I've lost over 50% of my initial costs.  Unfortunately I didn't know about TUG or Marriott then. And to think the sales people at SVO bad mouth Marriott!!



Isn't this decrease in value true for most (almost all) TSs whether they are SVO, Marriott, or others?  We only own SVO (all resale except WPORV) - so I don't have direct experience, but from what I read on TUG - this loss is common across TS companies and in some cases almost a total loss (please do not post the few instances that had an increase or held, because SVO also has these examples - e.g. WSJ-VG).

It is only an actual loss if you sale - other than that it is a paper loss.  As a SVO buyer of a V resort you still get the 'benenfits' of ownership - especially the one that allows you to use SVN (as the others aren't really that big of a benefit).  So with the relatively low MFs (and enough SOs - that can be combined as a SVO buyer) you can exchange into other SVN resorts.  You said it yourself - you think the resort is great - you haven't sold (or are you trying to? are you forced to?) - then why be so angry over a paper loss?  You still have every benefit available to you - and the use of a great resort from what you write.

The resale buyer of a V resort does not get this benetfit, but then they paid a lot less for their TS. Would have you preferred that?  Some who choose the 5* Elite Requal route actually use these low V values to their benefit.

I am not trying to minimize your value loss, and I certainly not a shill for SVO - I luckily found TUG in time.  We are very happy with our choices and like the SVO system over the Marriott (our other choice that we considered) - although we could have saved more with better research and patience - but we prefer to look forward in how to maximize value with what we have.

TS sales is a slimy business - and I believe this only hurts them over time (most people I discuss TSs with generally talk about some bad experience) the industry can use improvement and business model could be improved (from what I understand SVO, Marriott and others are doing this), but no where did they hold a gun to someones head and forced them to buy.  There may not be upfront and honest about V and M, resale and direct sales, owner experiences, devaluation , etc. - their business is to sell TSs and hopefully a great vacation experience - it would be a pretty lousy sales tactic to be totally honest?


----------



## KOR5Star (Apr 27, 2007)

ketamine said:


> I am so angry at how devalued my 2 WMH's units are that despite being a 3* elite I will NEVER buy Westin again. It is such a shame because the resort and the units are so beautiful. Being a voluntary network (which I did not undersand back then) I feel ripped off realizing I've lost over 50% of my initial costs.  Unfortunately I didn't know about TUG or Marriott then. And to think the sales people at SVO bad mouth Marriott!!


It's always greener on the other side of the fence... until you get over there.  

Good luck with Marriott.  My sister owns there.  You had better own more than one week if you want any chance at high demand weeks.


----------



## duke (Apr 27, 2007)

ketamine said:


> I am so angry at how devalued my 2 WMH's units are that despite being a 3* elite I will NEVER buy Westin again. It is such a shame because the resort and the units are so beautiful. Being a voluntary network (which I did not undersand back then) I feel ripped off realizing I've lost over 50% of my initial costs.  Unfortunately I didn't know about TUG or Marriott then. And to think the sales people at SVO bad mouth Marriott!!



Have you ever purchased a car?


----------



## Bill4728 (Apr 28, 2007)

Starwood’s  policy of  opening up all units to any network owner at 8 months is illegal!! It doesn’t matter what the CCR say, it is illegal! It because Starwood policy of pooling all (network and non-network) units together at a voluntary resort is illegal.. 

Before you all flame me, let me explain.

We all agree that it is illegal to sell more shares than there are units. RIGHT?  Starwood policy of allowing network access at 8 months to non-network owned units (resale units at voluntary resorts) is basically the same thing. They are required to have units available for the owners of the units. If in the CCR, they say “at 8 months you have access to any network unit not just the units at your deed resort” is fine because they are still working with a pool of units (just a bigger pool), which haven’t been oversold. BUT, if you say to one owner ( the vouluntary resale owner), we promised you a unit at resort “A” but gave all the units to people from resort “B”. You must offer the “A” owner a unit in resort  “B” or you have basically oversold.  This is very different than saying to someone in December trying to reserve a December unit, sorry we don’t have a unit for you (because the unit sat empty in March). 

So, Starwood policy toward voluntary resales is illegal, unless Starwood starts to separate the pool of units, which are network vs. non-network unit. OR Starwood must allow some access to non-network owners to some network inventory (even if it is II banked units) because their current policy is “overselling of the TS intervals”.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 28, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> Starwood’s  policy of  opening up all units to any network owner at 8 months is illegal!! It doesn’t matter what the CCR say, it is illegal! It because Starwood policy of pooling all (network and non-network) units together at a voluntary resort is illegal..
> 
> Before you all flame me, let me explain.
> 
> ...



Sorry - I must be dense and not following your logic (and certainly wouldn't flame a open/fair discussion - whereas if you had some unreasonable beef because you bought without reading and understanding Owner documents...).

Of course they cannot sell more than they have, BUT... how are they doing this?  They are not selling more than they have - if a resale owner of a V resort does not reserve their unit (because they are clueless - or what to challenge the system) they lose their week (by contract).  

Is SVO responsible because an resale V owner doesn't adhere to the contrated conditions. This unreserved week goes into a pool for SVN exchange.

Resale owners of V resorts cannot use the SVN system to exchange - 2nd sentence (did I read correctly that you stated that they can do this? did you mean to say 'not allowed'? or did I misinterpret?)

SVO is not required to have a week available if the resale V owner does not reserve their week at the 8th month mark - this doesn't mean they are cut out of being to get a week at their Home resort if weeks are still available.

If an owner (SVO or resale) of any resort (V or M) waits until the 8 month mark to reserve a week 50 (for float 1-50 weeks in this case) and the week is sold out - the SVO owners and resale M owners have other recourse at this point - the resale owner of a V resort - does not.

Sorry - maybe I am missing the point here in this hypothetical discussion if the perfect storm for the resale V owner were to occur. (no flame intended - actually this has no impact for me that I can foresee - I have total understanding of the limitatons placed on us for our WPORV week)


----------



## dcdowden (Apr 28, 2007)

It sure seems clear to me that Starwood would claim that an owner at a Voluntary resort is guaranteed a unit if they reserve in the 8-12 month window. After that, it would seem that they are taking a very big risk. Do these owners have access to II for external exchanges? Maybe Starwood would offer that as an alternative if their home resort is totally reserved for the whole year.
Doug


----------



## Transit (Apr 28, 2007)

Starwood does not support resales ...if you buy a resle unit at a V resort you are entitled to only what the deed states there are lots of details in those deeds unless your a lawyer, have one or really know what you doing be carefull.I think the voluntary/ manditory issue is done purposely to deter resales.I really don't know if there are 2 pools of units or exactly how those units will be distributed in the future but much of the contracts wording states "At Starwoods Discression" and "Subject to change" .I think your missing the flavor of how the V/M works. All Starwood units are SVO .If you own a M resort you are required to join SVN. You may join SVN if you buy fron Starwood  at a V resort or you can opt not to. Now if you buy a resale it becomes the choice of Starwood weather or not to let you join SVN. When buying resale some privleges may be lost.I don't think(hope) Starwood overlooked a simple legality issue like overselling resorts.Or then again I could be completely wrong


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 28, 2007)

I think Duke is correct and that the various state timeshare regulations will require Starwood to book/hold something for those "clueless" SVN members who do not reserve something at the 8-month mark -- even if it's a bunch of off season weeks deposited to II.

I'm not debating the language in the CCR (I haven't seen a "post SVN voluntary" one), but I'm sure we've all worked with enough attorneys to know they don't think of every possiblity when they're putting these things together.


----------



## Bill4728 (Apr 28, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> SVO is not required to have a week available if the resale V owner does not reserve their week at the 8th month mark - this doesn't mean they are cut out of being to get a week at their Home resort if weeks are still available.
> 
> If an owner (SVO or resale) of any resort (V or M) waits until the 8 month mark to reserve a week 50 (for float 1-50 weeks in this case) and the week is sold out - the SVO owners and resale M owners have other recourse at this point - the resale owner of a V resort - does not.



Let me ask this another way. Can SVO rent out units at resort "A" at 8 months to the general public, just because they haven't been reserved yet by the owners and not offer the owners some compensation?  I don't think so. .


And as far as overselling. A resort can't sell all the intervals then rent them out just because they were not reserved early enough. SVO must either let the unit sit empty or keep it available for owners or offer the owner some compensation. They can't say "tough, you didn't reserve before 8 months so you're out of luck"  If you substitue "rent" for "allow use by another SVN owner", you are doing the same thing. SVO is allowing someone to use a unit which SVO doesn't have the right to allow.


----------



## Transit (Apr 28, 2007)

After rereading and thinking about this post Bill4728 may be right in that there are probably 2 pools of units . This is done at Vistana where only Lakes and Cascades are in SVN. Vistana Villages is now also V and M in different sections.Cave Creek and Jensen beach are SVO but SVN members need to book through II.I think the 8th month mark is of concern only because its the last chance to  get a prefered week.I believe at some point of the year Starwood can provide an owner with a unit (maybe not a good one) , weather there are 2 seperate pools of units or not.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 28, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> Let me ask this another way. Can SVO rent out units at resort "A" at 8 months to the general public, just because they haven't been reserved yet by the owners and not offer the owners some compensation?  I don't think so. .
> 
> 
> And as far as overselling. A resort can't sell all the intervals then rent them out just because they were not reserved early enough. SVO must either let the unit sit empty or keep it available for owners or offer the owner some compensation. They can't say "tough, you didn't reserve before 8 months so you're out of luck"  If you substitue "rent" for "allow use by another SVN owner", you are doing the same thing. SVO is allowing someone to use a unit which SVO doesn't have the right to allow.



If no one has made a reservation and the room is open then Starwood reserves the right to rent the room.  This is exclusive of the 8 month or less rule so Starwood can do this at anytime.  Starwood does not have to compensate anyone when they do this.

*It would be really nice if people started quoting what is in the Starwood documents and not what they "think" is legal unless they are an expert on the laws in the given territory. * It would have prevented many of the posts on this topic from even taking place.  We can all say what we think is right and wrong.  At the end of the day the legal documents will govern these issues unless the courts find them unlawful.

Starwood cannot oversell units.  However and as stated before, the exchange policies for mandatory and direct voluntary purchases could squeeze resale voluntary owners out of their stays at the 8 month point!  Again, I don't agree that this is right but it is what is written; I will assume that it is legal until the courts determine otherwise.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 28, 2007)

I thought it was common sense, but if you want legalities, start here with HRS Chapter 514E:

http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/pvl/programs/timeshare/statute_rules/

Scroll down to section  514E-8.6

Some notable quotes:

An operator shall not offer or dispose of a timeshare unit or a timeshare interest unless the one-to-one use night requirement is currently satisfied and will continue to be satisfied for the duration of the timeshare plan. 

If the timeshare plan has more than one class of timeshare interest, then the requirement must be satisfied within each class.

A use night counted to satisfy the requirement for one class may not also be counted to satisfy the requirement for a competing class.

This section shall not be deemed to prohibit the timeshare instruments from including provisions permitting rental by the association or the developer, or reservation and use by owners, of use nights which remain unreserved as of *sixty *or fewer *days *in advance of the use night.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 28, 2007)

Westin5Star said:


> If no one has made a reservation and the room is open then Starwood reserves the right to rent the room.  This is exclusive of the 8 month or less rule so Starwood can do this at anytime.  Starwood does not have to compensate anyone when they do this.



As the property _manager_, Starwood must attribute the rental compensation to the rightful _owners_, less a healthy commission of course.  You should be seeing this line on your annual financial reports -- I know it shows up on the five Starwood resorts I've owned over the last six or seven years.


----------



## Bill4728 (Apr 28, 2007)

So we all agree " no matter what the starwood documents say, their policy of releasing non- network units to network owners at 8 months is not legal" (at least in Hawaii).


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 28, 2007)

We'll never all agree, but we can read the statute and draw our own conclusions.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 28, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> I thought it was common sense, but if you want legalities, start here with HRS Chapter 514E:
> 
> http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/pvl/programs/timeshare/statute_rules/
> 
> ...



Thank you for forwarding this and I am sorry that to me this was not and is not common sense.  

It "appears" that according to this document and Starwood's policies in Hawaii that there may be a discrepancy.  However, it also "appears" that Starwood has a legit out from this; when Starwood allows for the deposit of the week into II, it satisfies the "use night requirement".  

This is how I read it but I will definitely contact Starwood to get their response of this "seeming" discrepancy.  I would invite David to review his Princeville (voluntary Hawaii) documents for any meaningful input.


----------



## msweaver (Apr 28, 2007)

Westin5Star said:


> Starwood cannot oversell units.  However and as stated before, the exchange policies for mandatory and direct voluntary purchases could squeeze resale voluntary owners out of their stays at the 8 month point!  Again, I don't agree that this is right but it is what is written; I will assume that it is legal until the courts determine otherwise.



Absolutely not!  I am a former voluntary resale owner at Sheraton Mountain Vista, so I have some experience with this situation.  The legal contract that a voluntary (resale) owner has with the developer for a "floating" week ensures that they will be able to book a week in that season as long as weeks are available.  While it is technically possible some weeks early in a season could go unoccupied, thereby leading to owners not being able to reserve their units, such a situation would be an exception rather than a rule, and would be the result of the owner's lack of prudence.

However, if SVO opens up all that available inventory to other SVN owners at 8 months out, the possibility of voluntary owners being denied space would increase.  In raising this issue with sales reps at SMV (yes, sales reps), I was assured that there is separate pool of units per season set aside for resale use, and those units are not made available to SVN.  In fact, one of the legal statements you can get from Starwood is a listing of their resorts and the amount of units participating in the SVN program.  Some of the older units (Vistana, Desert Oasis) have surprisingly low participation.

My own experience was that ski weeks at SMV were available much later than I would have thought (beyond the 8th month window) which anecdotally supports the idea that resale units are kept in a separate pool.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 28, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> As the property _manager_, Starwood must attribute the rental compensation to the rightful _owners_, less a healthy commission of course.  You should be seeing this line on your annual financial reports -- I know it shows up on the five Starwood resorts I've owned over the last six or seven years.



As I said Starwood does not have to compensate "anyone" for renting a room; the obvious exception is when we deposit our time into their rental pool with the expectation of receiving rental income.  It is in all of our interest for Starwood to rent rooms when they are not used as we "are all" compensated which supposedly will help to keep our fees lower.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 28, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> We'll never all agree, but we can read the statute and draw our own conclusions.



Yes we will not all agree until we get the proper answer directly from Starwood; and even then we might not do so until a court rules on this.  I will be forwarding Starwood the legalease from my docs and the Hawaii requirements that you forwarded.  I will post my findings, hopefully with direct quotes and backup from Starwood.  Thanks again for providing me with that great information!


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 28, 2007)

msweaver said:


> Absolutely not!  I am a former voluntary resale owner at Sheraton Mountain Vista, so I have some experience with this situation.  The legal contract that a voluntary (resale) owner has with the developer for a "floating" week ensures that they will be able to book a week in that season as long as weeks are available.  While it is technically possible some weeks early in a season could go unoccupied, thereby leading to owners not being able to reserve their units, such a situation would be an exception rather than a rule, and would be the result of the owner's lack of prudence.
> 
> However, if SVO opens up all that available inventory to other SVN owners at 8 months out, the possibility of voluntary owners being denied space would increase.  In raising this issue with sales reps at SMV (yes, sales reps), I was assured that there is separate pool of units per season set aside for resale use, and those units are not made available to SVN.  In fact, one of the legal statements you can get from Starwood is a listing of their resorts and the amount of units participating in the SVN program.  Some of the older units (Vistana, Desert Oasis) have surprisingly low participation.
> 
> My own experience was that ski weeks at SMV were available much later than I would have thought (beyond the 8th month window) which anecdotally supports the idea that resale units are kept in a separate pool.



How did the TS sales person assure you?  I hope that they did it in writing.  I had Starwood direct tell me that they do not have two separate pools (this was either from legal or Sr. Mgmt. as the call had to be escalated from sales); and it was in their interest to tell me otherwise.  I would not have accepted their telling me that there was two pools without getting it in writing.  Please forward me the assurance that the TS sales rep gave to you.  I would love that for future use and I will also forward it to Starwood with the clarification that I will be requesting from my last post.  Starwood is obviously telling different people different things so all we have is what we have in writing.  We are all on the same team / side here and they (Starwood) owes it to us to give us clarification.


----------



## KOR5Star (Apr 28, 2007)

I was curious, so I spoke to Orlando (SVN headquarters) regarding a resale at a voluntary resort.

It's very simple and it's as I suspected.  It's not the unit that doesn't belong to SVN, it's the owner.  

A resale owner, not in the SVN, has no rights to trade their week in the system.  They are subject to the same rules as everyone else in regards to securing their home resort.  If they don't book it fast enough, they may not get their week... no difference.  They are neither discriminated against nor favored.  But the unit is available to the entire SVN.  It never loses it's membership unless Starwood ceases to manage the property.

There is absolutely no illegality.  No rights or priveleges of the non-member are being denied.  The only thing being denied is their ability to trade in the SVN... which Starwood is completely up front about and it's spelled out in contracts.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 28, 2007)

I give up!


----------



## Pit (Apr 29, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> There is absolutely no illegality.  No rights or priveleges of the non-member are being denied.  The only thing being denied is their ability to trade in the SVN... which Starwood is completely up front about and it's spelled out in contracts.



I don't believe its the right to use SVN which is in question here. It is the right to use one's own property. I do think the rights of the non-member are violated if they are prevented from using their personal property.

I don't know the "correct" answer here either, but my common sense says if I own a piece of property, and I pay for the maintenance and upkeep of that property, then I darn well have a right to use it. And, if someone else (Starwood, who doesn't own the property) lets others use it without my permission, I'd be steamed. I believe all states have laws which protect the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's personal property.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 29, 2007)

Pit said:


> I don't believe its the right to use SVN which is in question here. It is the right to use one's own property. I do think the rights of the non-member are violated if they are prevented from using their personal property.
> 
> I don't know the "correct" answer here either, but my common sense says if I own a piece of property, and I pay for the maintenance and upkeep of that property, then I darn well have a right to use it. And, if someone else (Starwood, who doesn't own the property) lets others use it without my permission, I'd be steamed. I believe all states have laws which protect the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's personal property.



Don't give up J-Girl - I hear what you are saying - I just don't agree with the interpretation.  Considering all the SVO week owners (now and in future) for HI, and that these SVO contracts are reviewed by HI - it seems unlikely that this would go unnoticed by attorneys on both sides.

There are not two separate pools.

SVO is not selling more units than they have to deed.

These are float units that we are speaking about - just because you are deeded a week/unit - doesn't mean you get that week/unit (only a week within the float season - and unit type - if reserved before 8-months)

They are also not denying resale V usage - the owners are denying themselves if they do not resrve in time.

I do think if an owner fails to follow-thru that SVO will compensate regardless, but since most V resort weeks are not hard to reserve - it shouldn't be an issue.  WPORV may be different as it may be a sold out resort for quite a while.

If any owner fails to call at the 8-month point - they lose their right of usage for their deeded week/unit if all is sold out (according to contract) - all owners (except resale V owners) have a recourse if this happens.  In reality, I don't see this happening.

Taken to the extreme (as this seems to be scope of this thread) - can a V resale owner never call to reserve and then wait until a week beforehand for their usage (i.e. week 50 for a float season week 1-50) - or 30, 60, 90 days before for that matter - and insist that they have a right to usage? I think not, and I would advise against trying.  What exactly would be the cut-point if not 8-months - none?


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 29, 2007)

D & R --

I do agree that the extreme will probably never occur, but I'm sticking with my interpretation that Hawaii statutes require two separate pools of weeks once they create two separate classes of ownership.

It's okay to agree to disagree!  I have no dog in this fight -- my only SVN week is at Harborside, where it doesn't apply, thank goodness.  I hate long flights way too much to ever become a Hawaii owner!

- Jerseygirl


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 29, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> D & R --
> 
> I do agree that the extreme will probably never occur, but I'm sticking with my interpretation that Hawaii statutes require two separate pools of weeks once they create two separate classes of ownership.
> 
> ...


Yeah - we have a looonnnngggg flight to STJ in a couple of weeks - thanks to Ambien - it goes buy quicker.  You must get out to HI sometime - really nice islands (much different than the Carib).


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 29, 2007)

Heading there in January -- my d's choice (I have to bribe her with a vacation to get her to spend time with me between college terms!).  Who knows, maybe I'll become a convert!


----------



## KOR5Star (Apr 29, 2007)

Pit said:


> I don't believe its the right to use SVN which is in question here. It is the right to use one's own property. I do think the rights of the non-member are violated if they are prevented from using their personal property.
> 
> I don't know the "correct" answer here either, but my common sense says if I own a piece of property, and I pay for the maintenance and upkeep of that property, then I darn well have a right to use it. And, if someone else (Starwood, who doesn't own the property) lets others use it without my permission, I'd be steamed. I believe all states have laws which protect the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's personal property.


But you *DO *have the right to use it.  You have to play by the rules you signed up for when you bought the unit.  You have to reserve your week, just like you agreed to and just like the rest of the owners... whether they are members or not.

How are you being denied usage of your unit?  How are your rights different than anyone elses?... other than being able to trade to other SVN locations.


----------



## KOR5Star (Apr 29, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> D & R --
> 
> I do agree that the extreme will probably never occur, but I'm sticking with my interpretation that Hawaii statutes require two separate pools of weeks once they create two separate classes of ownership.
> 
> ...


There are not two classes of ownership.  I think you're confusing rights and privileges within SVN with the rights and privileges of real estate ownership.

Whether someone buys timeshare through Westin or resale makes absolutely no difference with regards to the real estate ownership portion of timeshare.   The rest, the part you think is unfair, is not real estate.  It's membership in a program and as such is not subject to any real estate statutes to which you refer.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 29, 2007)

I'm not confused by your statements -- I just don't agree with them.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 29, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> I'm not confused by your statements -- I just don't agree with them.



I still see both sides of this arguement from both an ethical and legal aspect.  As promised and now that I am home from WKV, I will be contacting Starwood via email to see what I can get out of them.  I will post my findings; hopefully by using cut and paste!


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 29, 2007)

That's very nice of you to offer to do.  We used to have the name of the Starwood attorney who handled voluntary/mandatory issues floating around here, but I've lost track of it.  Personally, I wouldn't trust an answer from anyone but her (assuming it's still a "her!").


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 30, 2007)

I really (really) hate to bring this up - I was curious about issues discussed in this thread and decided to read parts of the WPORV CC&R/OM (>400 pages) - and... I cannot find the info that says that WPORV is a Voluntary resort (meaning that SVN privledges are not passed onto a resale buyer) - yes seriously...

Anybody - have the location of this section?  I could have sworn that someone posted it months ago.  In re-reading the WPORV OM - it reads much like WKORV.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 30, 2007)

It was my previous post originally found at http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=252077#post252077 which I copy below:

The Purchase Agreement for the Westin Princeville Ocean Resort Villas (which I signed and rescinded) contains a paragraph 7, entitled "Starwood Vacation Network", which provides

" . . . . Membership and participation in SVN is entirely voluntary . . . . "

The Starwood Vacation Network Owner Membership Agreement for the property includes the following language:

16(a) "Owner's membership in SVN is voluntary",

16(h) "If Owner elects to sell the Vacation Ownership Interest(s) or otherwise elects not to participate in SVN, SVN Operator will not refund any payments or fees paid by Owner", and

16 "Owner acknowledges that his or her membership in SVN . . . cannot be transferred or assigned."


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 30, 2007)

vacationtime1 said:


> It was my previous post originally found at http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=252077#post252077 which I copy below:
> 
> The Purchase Agreement for the Westin Princeville Ocean Resort Villas (which I signed and rescinded) contains a paragraph 7, entitled "Starwood Vacation Network", which provides
> 
> ...


This explains why i couldn't find it (altough it should be in the OM)-  it is in the PA - I will take a look at mine tonite.


----------



## KOR5Star (Apr 30, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> I'm not confused by your statements -- I just don't agree with them.


You don't agree that membership in the SVN and ownership of a deeded week of timeshare are two separate things?

Hawaii only cares about the deed and real estate ownership issues.  Why should they care whether or not Starwood allows you to trade outside of your home resort within the SVN?  

May I assume you also think the State of Hawaii should also care that Starwood doesn't allow conversion to StarPoints for resales?

I'm not being sarcastic.  I see the issue being one and the same.  The StarPoints, like the ability to trade within the SVN, is a privilege given by the developer IN ADDITION TO interval ownership.  It is not an integral part of the ownership.

As far as real estate goes.  All we own is the particular unit and particular week on our contracts.  That's it.  Everything else could be considered as temporary benefits from a "club" we belong to.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 30, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> This explains why i couldn't find it (altough it should be in the OM)-  it is in the PA - I will take a look at mine tonite.




The CC&R/OM does state that participation is entirely voluntary in the Disclosure statement. (Sec 3.2.D)
Never Mind.


----------



## Bill4728 (Apr 30, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> You don't agree that membership in the SVN and ownership of a deeded week of timeshare are two separate things?
> 
> Hawaii only cares about the deed and real estate ownership issues.  Why should they care whether or not Starwood allows you to trade outside of your home resort within the SVN?
> 
> ...



THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT.  Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal. They must allow the ability to use my unit up until 60 days. THey have taken the unit and not compensated the owner. Starwood could simply say they will give any owner who can't get into their own resort a banked week with II but they aren't saying that. They are saying if you don't reserve at 8 months starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation.


----------



## Transit (Apr 30, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT.  Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal. They must allow the ability to use my unit up until 60 days. THey have taken the unit and not compensated the owner. Starwood could simply say they will give any owner who can't get into their own resort a banked week with II but they aren't saying that. They are saying if you don't reserve at 8 months starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation.



With floating weeks you would have ample opportunity to book something between week 1-52 the deeded unit you own is for recording purposes you can actually go past you deeded unit date and stiil book a unit* .If you can't book a unit you can bank it to your II accoun*t.I don't know how a t/s could be any more flexable.Nowhere does it state in any Starwood document that I've read that at 8 months that Starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation. The 8th month point has to do with being the latest you can probably book a prefered season .


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 30, 2007)

What he said! 


Edit:  Oops -- Transit snuck in a post.

What Bill said!


----------



## skim118 (Apr 30, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT.  Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal.



I fully agree with Bill.  

Moreover what happens to a Voluntary owner's reservation made at 12 months if he needs to make any changes due to change in travel plans at 7 months ?  

Under current policy,  are the only choices to rent it out or deposit with II or SFX ?

Resale Voluntary resort owners are treated different than SVN owners even at their "home resort" !!


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 30, 2007)

Transit said:


> With floating weeks you would have ample opportunity to book something between week 1-52 the deeded unit you own is for recording purposes you can actually go past you deeded unit date and stiil book a unit* .If you can't book a unit you can bank it to your II accoun*t.I don't know how a t/s could be any more flexable.Nowhere does it state in any Starwood document that I've read that at 8 months that Starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation. The 8th month point has to do with being the latest you can probably book a prefered season .



That's not my understanding of what's being said.  Starwood is saying that resale (i.e. non-member) owners can lose their week if they don't book it by the 8-month mark because they are not keeping two separate pools of inventory.

In other words, at the 8-month mark, SVN members from other resorts can book weeks that may in fact belong to non-SVN members who have no ability to book at other resorts.

Example:  

Year One 


100 Member Weeks at Mandatory Resort A
100 Member Weeks at Voluntary Resort B
All 200 Member Weeks are in the SVN network as resales are not yet available

Year Five

100 Member Weeks at Mandatory Resort A
50 Member Weeks at Voluntary Resort B
50 Non-Member (Resale) Weeks at Voluntary Resort B

At the 8 month mark of Year 5:

25 of the non-member (resale) owners have failed to book their weeks at Resort B
25 members from Mandatory Resort A grab those weeks as part of their SVN privileges (Resort B has become much more in demand... it is newer and in a not unprecedented move, Starwood has allowed Resort A to get a little run down )
The 25 non-member (resale) owners have no recourse -- they're not allowed to book at another resort

What Bill and I are saying is that Starwood MUST keep two separate inventories once there is a combination of "members" and "non-members" at a voluntary resort.  We do not believe that Hawaii law permits them to allow members to use the weeks that belong to non-members who have no recourse to book elsewhere.

That's where the difference of opinion comes into play.

I have no dispute with the legality of the network itself (and I agree it's a great system).  I just disagree with the information Starwood gave to Westin5Star.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 30, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT.  Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal. They must allow the ability to use my unit up until 60 days. THey have taken the unit and not compensated the owner. Starwood could simply say they will give any owner who can't get into their own resort a banked week with II but they aren't saying that. They are saying if you don't reserve at 8 months starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation.



I didn't realize you owned a resale V resort?

I did have a chance to go through WPORV docs more carefully.  Turns out that this is something that impacts both a SVO owner (that doesn't join SVN) and a resale owner (who can't join SVN) - they are actually are treated exactly the same in this case.  Non-SVN members (as they are classified) have an opportunity to reserve their float VOI season up to 60 days before check-in.  HOWEVER, this is based on availability since the 'RESERVATION RULES' are applicable to all VOI owners.

Again - SVO is not denying non-SVN members the use of their VOI, but they must follow the same Reservation Rules as owners who are SVN members, or they could potentially lose their annual week.  The SVO reservation system would fall apart otherwise.

btw, SVO and SVN are 2 separate entities

Bill - send me an email address that can handle large docs (36K KBs) and I will gladly send you the very large (400+ pages) PDF file of the WPORV Disclosure docs so you can go through them yourself and then contact the State of Hawaii to tell them that SVO has an illegal TS contract (that has already been reviewed and approved by the State of Hawaii).

Here's a scenerio - since we are talking hypothetical extremes - what if no WPORV owner becomes a member of SVN and therefore all are classified as non-SVN members - and then every single one of them waited to 60 days out to make their reservation? (because according to the HI TS law - SVO must hold their float VOI week) What a clusterf*ck that would be.  

btw, I do not plan to become a SVN member for WPORV since I plan to use it - and reserve 12 months out.  I was trying to find out if I my SVN membership from our 3 M SVO resorts applies to WPORV, but could not.  Also, if I read it correctly, the docs state that the SVN membership is paid for during the first year of ownership, but after that the owner has a choice on whether to continue SVN or not (of course by paying the necessary SVN use fees)


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 30, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> That's not my understanding of what's being said.  Starwood is saying that resale (i.e. non-member) owners can lose their week if they don't book it by the 8-month mark because they are not keeping two separate pools of inventory.
> 
> In other words, at the 8-month mark, SVN members from other resorts can book weeks that may in fact belong to non-SVN members who have no ability to book at other resorts.
> 
> Example:



Don't need examples - because there is an easier one - since we are talking about a SVO Voluntary resort - NO owner is required to become a SVN member - and non-SVN members are classified exactly the same whether buying directly from SVO or resale.

btw, as stated above - the cut-off mark is 60-days for non-SVN members - not 8-months - but according to the Reservation Rules' all reservations are subject to availability - so every owner (SVN member and non-SVN member) can lose their right to use their Home VOI.  Of course, SVN members have an out using an SVN exchange, and SVO owners can convert to SPs, but neither will be guarenteed their Home VOI (what - isn't that also against the law!? since what is being stated above is that any owner is entitled to use their Home VOI regardless of what they contractually agreed to.)


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 30, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> I didn't realize you owned a resale V resort?
> 
> I did have a chance to go through WPORV docs more carefully.  Turns out that this is something that impacts both a SVO owner (that doesn't join SVN) and a resale owner (who can't join SVN) - they are actually are treated exactly the same in this case.  Non-SVN members (as they are classified) have an opportunity to reserve their float VOI season up to 60 days before check-in.  HOWEVER, this is based on availability since the 'RESERVATION RULES' are applicable to all VOI owners.



D&R --

Your documentation actually supports what Bill and I are saying.  All float systems are based on availability -- that's never been the issue.  The only remaining issue (at least in my mind) is whether or not Starwood is required to maintain two separate inventories.  The sales rep told Westin5Star that they are not, but the statute is pretty clear:

If the timeshare plan has more than one class of timeshare interest, then the requirement must be satisfied within each class.

A use night counted to satisfy the requirement for one class may not also be counted to satisfy the requirement for a competing class.

-JG


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 30, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> Don't need examples - because there is an easier one - since we are talking about a SVO Voluntary resort - NO owner is required to become a SVN member - and non-SVN members are classified exactly the same whether buying directly from SVO or resale.



The example wasn't for you -- it was in response to Transit's post.

Re non-SVN members are classified exactly the same whether buying directly from SVO or resale

Not suprising, why wouldn't they be?  A non-member is a non-member.





> Of course, SVN members have an out using an SVN exchange, and SVO owners can convert to SPs, but neither will be guarenteed their Home VOI (what - isn't that also against the law!?



That's timesharing 101  ....



> since what is being stated above is that any owner is entitled to use their Home VOI regardless of what they contractually agreed to.)



Where was that said?  Certainly not by me.


----------



## Transit (Apr 30, 2007)

I think Westin 5 star is correct in that the only true way to see the validity in this sceanario is to veiw the documents involved. I'm confident that it will show that owners are bound by Starwoods contracts and resevation system. I also doubt that legal issues pertaining to owner useage were just disregarded...........Or I could be wrong


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 30, 2007)

I contacted two different people at Starwood corporate this morning via email with our issue.  I already received a reply back that this was sent to the legal department and that I will get a reply with an answer.  I will forward that reply as soon as I receive it.  I do want to reiterate that I was definitely told by an executive at Starwood last week that there are not two different pools!  The person that I talked to could have been wrong, however, if that was the case my email this morning would have been easily answered.  Until then...


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 30, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> D&R --
> 
> Your documentation actually supports what Bill and I are saying.  All float systems are based on availability -- that's never been the issue.  The only remaining issue (at least in my mind) is whether or not Starwood is required to maintain two separate inventories.  The sales rep told Westin5Star that they are not, but the statute is pretty clear:
> 
> ...


Hey JG -

Sorry - I do not see how it supports it, and...  I am not sure, but when I read about TS classes within the docs (as they are written) - they are referring to (for example) different seasons, and different VOI types (fixed, float, premium, etc.)

Again - if they were forced to keep a separate inventory units/weeks for non-SVN members (not mention ANYWHERE in the docs) - how would this work for float weeks?  How could they possibly account for the variety of owners at any given point in time who are/are-not SVN members - and add in those who decide on their whim as to when to reserve - they would never be able to have SVN exchanges at 8 months.

Overall - I give up in this discussion - it doesn't have any gain what so ever for me - I was looking thru the docs for other things and was curious.  I am not sure if anyone on the other side of this discussion even owns a resale V resort that this discussion even impacts - so I am not sure what the point is - other than to bash SVO (?)

If you or Bill, or anyone else, actually wants to read the docs and find the offending text is - I will be happy to send - it is large so one's email will have to accomadate.  They go over every concievable issue in boring detail.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 30, 2007)

D&R --

I completely agree that it's no longer a productive conversation!  I'll attempt to clarify and then I'm done as well.



DavidnRobin said:


> Sorry - I do not see how it supports it, and...



Your mention of 60 days (from your documentation) actually agrees with the statute I posted yesterday.  This is completely different than the 8-month "date" that was used when this post started (and which was the basis for my disagreement).  



> I am not sure, but when I read about TS classes within the docs (as they are written) - they are referring to (for example) different seasons, and different VOI types (fixed, float, premium, etc.)



I'm sure you're correct about what the documents say in regard to different classes.  But, I don't think their failure to identify "member" and "non-members" as different classes relieves them of the obligation to treat them as such.  Just my opinion...



> Again - if they were forced to keep a separate inventory units/weeks for non-SVN members (not mention ANYWHERE in the docs)



I mentioned this earlier, but I don't think they they're required to outline their specific procedures.  But, I do think they're required to comply with state statutes.  



> how would this work for float weeks?  How could they possibly account for the variety of owners at any given point in time who are/are-not SVN members - and add in those who decide on their whim as to when to reserve - they would never be able to have SVN exchanges at 8 months.



Every resale account is coded as such.  They keep inventory for 12 (??) resorts ... it's a simple matter of keeping inventory for 24.  



> I am not sure if anyone on the other side of this discussion even owns a resale V resort that this discussion even impacts - so I am not sure what the point is - other than to bash SVO (?)



I said I don't have a dog in the fight, but as I thought more about it, I really do.  I own 2 resale units at Broadway Planation, where, historically, most owners were not SVN members.  But, they've been expanding and I'm sure the majority of new owners are SVN members.  I'm sure many of these SVN members give up their BP weeks to exchange into Maui, Harborside, etc.  I have no problem whatsoever with Starwood giving their exchanged units to other SVN members.  But, I have a real problem with Starwood giving my unit to an SVN member at the 8-month mark since I don't have the reciprocal right to make the same exchange.  I've read my documentation many times, and no where does it warn me that non-owners will have the ability to book my unit at the 8-month mark.

I also have the exact same situation with a PGA unit.



> If you or Bill, or anyone else, actually wants to read the docs and find the offending text is - I will be happy to send - it is large so one's email will have to accomadate.  They go over every concievable issue in boring detail.



Thanks for the offer, but I believe everything you're saying about the documentation.  I only care about what they actually do at the reservation center.

It's really not my intent to bash Starwood.  I think it's an excellent system -- I wouldn't own 4 weeks (albeit only one mandatory) if I didn't think so.  But, their "voluntary" and "mandatory" practices are set up for one reason only -- to help them sell units.  They're harmful to their owners -- and I'm always a little suspicious of companies with blatent "anti-consumer" practices.  So, I'll just keep doing what I've been doing -- buying resale, taking my chances with II, etc.!  And, if I find out they're letting SVN members book a prime summer week at BP from unreserved inventory of non-SVN members, I'll call those people who are handling the RCI case!


----------



## KOR5Star (May 1, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT.  Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal. They must allow the ability to use my unit up until 60 days. THey have taken the unit and not compensated the owner. Starwood could simply say they will give any owner who can't get into their own resort a banked week with II but they aren't saying that. They are saying if you don't reserve at 8 months starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation.


Let's back up a minute and go one step at a time.

Are you saying that you never signed any agreements regarding the usage of your unit?  

When you bought the unit you signed a contract, putting your unit into the pool of units so you could have it float.  It was part of the paperwork pile.  The initial owner obligated that unit to the pool and the obligation is transferred with the unit. 

If you didn't want a unit with that obligation (to be part of the pool and provide the ability to float in both time and unit location) you had the option of waiting for a fixed week/fixed unit owner to sell.  It would have been more expensive, but you wouldn't be obligated to the SVN pool.

Is anything I wrote not true?


----------



## Bill4728 (May 1, 2007)

OK, I give up! You are right!!   


 Starwood can write anything they want into the CCR, even though it is clearly against Hawaiian law, they can make you do it.

I'm done


----------



## KOR5Star (May 1, 2007)

Bill4728 said:


> OK, I give up! You are right!!
> 
> Starwood can write anything they want into the CCR, even though it is clearly against Hawaiian law, they can make you do it.
> 
> I'm done


Oh.  Now we all completely understand your point.


----------



## skim118 (May 1, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> When you bought the unit you signed a contract, putting your unit into the pool of units so you could have it float.  It was part of the paperwork pile.  The initial owner obligated that unit to the pool and the obligation is transferred with the unit.
> ..................................................
> ..................................................
> Is anything I wrote not true?



The initial owner obligated his unit to the pool(SVN) and in return had access to that pool.  

The issue in question is whether Starwood can put a week in pool and not provide anything in return to the resale owner.

This issue is not so clear-cut as you or your Starwood contacts imply.


----------



## Pit (May 1, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> When you bought the unit you signed a contract, putting your unit into the pool of units so you could have it float.  It was part of the paperwork pile.



Not necessarily. I have purchased multiple resale units without any written contract whatsoever.

Surely, you are not arguing that Starwood documents trump Hawaii law, are you? 



KOR5Star said:


> If you didn't want a unit with that obligation (to be part of the pool and provide the ability to float in both time and unit location) you had the option of waiting for a fixed week/fixed unit owner to sell. It would have been more expensive, but you wouldn't be obligated to the SVN pool.



This is irrelevant.


----------



## BradC (May 2, 2007)

I'm still not sure how anyone feels like they should be guaranteed a reservation, regardless of whether they're mandatory, voluntary, resale, or any combination of the above.

As an extreme example, let's say I own a voluntary-resale week and wait until mid-December to make my reservation.  Do you still feel that Starwood is required to hold a unit for my use?  What if (nearly) everyone did that?  There simply isn't enough inventory to handle all the requests from all the late-reserving owners.

I think we all agree it would be ridiculous to complain in this case that Starwood didn't hold a unit for me.  But I don't see how that's any different from the situation where folks are stating that Starwood needs to hold separate inventory for voluntary-resale owners.

There is plenty of inventory for everyone at the beginning of the year, regardless of separate inventory pools.  But even keeping separate inventory pools doesn't help everyone get a guaranteed week.

Actually, this has always been one of my concerns about timesharing.  Assuming there are 52 floating-week owners of a particular unit, it requires an amazing game of musical chairs for all 52 owners to actually get a reservation.  For the whole thing to work out, it really does require some subset of owners to lose out altogether (by either giving up or failing to make a reservation), since the odds of everyone falling into one of those 52 slots seems nearly impossible.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 2, 2007)

Pit said:


> Not necessarily. I have purchased multiple resale units without any written contract whatsoever.


Here's the verbage from the SVN Contract:

*BINDING NATURE OF YOUR PROMISES.*  Each consent approval, acceptance, appointment, agreement, and promise that you make in this deed is a "covenant running with the land," and "equitable servitude" and a "lein".  This means that your consents, approvals, appointments, acceptances, agreements and promises in this deed are binding on (i) you; and (ii) anyone who later owns the property or any interest in it ...

It goes on to give examples.  The SVN contract is painfully clear and simple to understand.   The terms *"covenant running with the land"* and *"equitable servitude"* and a *"lein"* are all recognized legal vehicles to bind and convey responsibilities associated with a property.

If a resale buyer is not fully informed, their only recourse would be with the previous owner, not SVN.

Of course, if you have no contract, all the previous owner has to say is they told you verbally.  In fact, having no contract means there are no protection whatsoever.  It's your word against theirs.  It's possible that Hawaii may assume and expect the buyer to perform due diligence and any liabilities the previous owner has may not survive closing, leaving you absolutely no recourse.  

The idea that some Hawaiian statute exists that demands a timeshare management company to offer all it's clients identical access to it's worldwide network of properties is a bit far fetched.  State laws usually can only demand compliance within the State.  It's jurisdiction usually ends at the State line.


----------



## Pit (May 2, 2007)

BradC said:


> There is plenty of inventory for everyone at the beginning of the year, regardless of separate inventory pools.  But even keeping separate inventory pools doesn't help everyone get a guaranteed week.



Separate pools doesn't guarantee that every owner will get a week, much the less the week they want. Units may sit empty if owners don't book their units. 

But that is quite a different result compared to owners who are unable to book a unit from their pool because Starwood has given them all away to non-owners at 8-months out.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 2, 2007)

BradC said:


> Actually, this has always been one of my concerns about timesharing.  Assuming there are 52 floating-week owners of a particular unit, it requires an amazing game of musical chairs for all 52 owners to actually get a reservation.  For the whole thing to work out, it really does require some subset of owners to lose out altogether (by either giving up or failing to make a reservation), since the odds of everyone falling into one of those 52 slots seems nearly impossible.


So true... especially if you've got school aged kids and are limited to school vacation weeks.  

We were told they only sell 51 weeks and hold one week out per unit for renovations.  I don't actually believe it.


----------



## Pit (May 2, 2007)

KOR5Star

I don't disagree that coventants referrenced in the deed are transferred with the deed. That's different from a sales contract, which is not required to purchase a t/s (particularly among friends ).

However, I'm curious if the language you quote is from a V resort? The text makes it sound as if the SVN membership transfers to the new owner (which we know is not the case at a V resort). And, what say you if the original owner does not join SVN. Then there are no SVN commitments at all.

The Hawaii statutes were simply an example, posted by JG. Given that WPORV is a V resort, I'd say a very relevant example.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 2, 2007)

Pit said:


> I'm curious if the language you quote is from a V resort?


No.  It's for WKORV, a mandadory resort.

But I would ass-u-me  that the verbage would be the same.  The verbage simply says whatever you agree to binds the next guy.  It doesn't say what was agreed to.  They could have agreed that membership to the SVN was for the first buyer only. 



Pit said:


> The Hawaii statutes were simply an example, posted by JG. Given that WPORV is a V resort, I'd say a very relevant example.


*jerseygirl* bailed out of the conversation before I had a chance to digest her position and comment.  Since you bring it up, I'll do it here.

I believe *jerseygirl* took the statute completely out of context.  She was selective in her quotes, but please view the document she refers to: 
http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/pvl/areas/pvl/main/hrs/hrs_pvl_514e.pdf

514E-8.5 & 514E-8.6 are the sections *jerseygirl *quoted from.  The sections refer to *classes of time share interests *and the *One-to-one use-right to use-night requirement*.

After reading the sections in their entirety, it will become clear it applies to what the timeshare seller can sell.  They may not sell more weeks than they have.  That's all it says.

*jerseygirl* was implying this statute guarenteed the end user/owner a one-to-one use-right, but it does not.  The end user/owner's rights are not addressed in this section at all.


----------



## Pit (May 2, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> No.  It's for WKORV, a mandadory resort.
> 
> But I would ass-u-me  that the verbage would be the same.  The verbage simply says whatever you agree to binds the next guy.  It doesn't say what was agreed to.  They could have agreed that membership to the SVN was for the first buyer only.



I don't think your assumption is valid. In fact, I would bet that the language is different for a V resort in that SVN membership does NOT transfer to the next owner.



KOR5Star said:


> After reading the sections in their entirety, it will become clear it applies to what the timeshare seller can sell.  They may not sell more weeks than they have.  That's all it says.



I disagree. It says alot more than that.



> 514E-8.6(b) The time share instruments shall contain provisions assuring satisfaction of the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement for the duration of the time share plan...



These are requirements imposed on day-to-day operation of the time share plan, not just developer sales.



> 514E-8.6(c) The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement is satisfied:
> 
> (1) If the time share plan has more than one class of time share interest, then the requirement must be satsified within each class;
> ...
> (3) A use night counted to satisfy the requirement for one class may not also be counted to satisfy the requirement for a competing class;



This says if the developer creates multiple classes of owners (e.g. SVN members and non-members), they are required to ensure that each class of owners has access to the use-nights owned within that class.



> 514E-8.6(d) This section shall not be deemed to prohibit the time share instruments from including provisions permitting rental by the association or the developer, or reservation and use by owners, of use nights which remain unreserved as of sixty or fewer days in advance of the use night.



Translation: The developer is allowed to offer owners and non-owners access to unreserved time with check-in of sixty days or less (but not at 8-months).


----------



## KOR5Star (May 2, 2007)

Pit said:


> I don't think your assumption is valid. In fact, I would bet that the language is different for a V resort in that SVN membership does NOT transfer to the next owner.


The verbage I copied only said that any binding agreements on the property are lasting... no matter who owns the unit in the future.  It did not imply that any perks given to the first owner would also be given to subsequent owners.

I believe this is where the disconnect in understanding is rooted.  You and jerseygirl believe since you're not a member of the SVN, neither is your unit.  But the two ideas are separate and distinct.  Your unit is bound to the SVN pool by it's original owner and that obligation travels with the unit, no matter who buys it.  Membership of a person in the SVN is a perk given by Starwood.  It is not connected to the fact that the unit is part of the SVN pool.



Pit said:


> I disagree. It says alot more than that.
> 
> These are requirements imposed on day-to-day operation of the time share plan, not just developer sales.
> 
> This says if the developer creates multiple classes of owners (e.g. SVN members and non-members), they are required to ensure that each class of owners has access to the use-nights owned within that class.


No disrespect intended, but I believe you've completely misread the meaning of some of these passages.



Pit said:


> Translation: The developer is allowed to offer owners and non-owners access to unreserved time with check-in of sixty days or less (but not at 8-months).


This is the only one we agree on, but you left out of your translation that fact that the developer can rent it.  This is an 11th hour protection clause.  It can be assumed that any units still available after 60 days are probably not wanted by owners, so they can be rented out to help differ the carrying costs for everyone... owners and property managment alike.


----------



## Pit (May 2, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> Your unit is bound to the SVN pool by it's original owner and that obligation travels with the unit, no matter who buys it.



This is only true at a M resort. I don't believe this is true at a V resort, where original owners are not compelled to join SVN and membership does not transfer upon resale.

Putting a non-SVN unit in the SVN pool, without giving the owner access to that pool would violate 514E-8.6(c)(1).



KOR5Star said:


> No disrespect intended, but I believe you've completely misread the meaning of some of these passages.



No offense taken. It reads pretty clearly to me. I think you are adding meaning which simply isn't there. We'll just have to agree to disagree.



KOR5Star said:


> This is the only one we agree on, but you left out of your translation that fact that the developer can rent it.  This is an 11th hour protection clause.  It can be assumed that any units still available after 60 days are probably not wanted by owners, so they can be rented out to help differ the carrying costs for everyone... owners and property managment alike.



I didn't leave out renters. The term "non-owners" includes renters. 

This statute requires that inventory be held for owners until sixty days to check-in. How can Starwood meet that requirement and also make inventory available to SVN members at 8 months out? The only way is to maintain separate inventory pools.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 2, 2007)

Pit said:


> This is only true at a M resort. I don't believe this is true at a V resort, where original owners are not compelled to join SVN and membership does not transfer upon resale.
> 
> Putting a non-SVN unit in the SVN pool, without giving the owner access to that pool would violate 514E-8.6(c)(1).


I'd bet good money the units at voluntary resorts are bound to the SVN just like mandatory resorts.  The only difference is the flexibility in the owner's membership.

We'd have to see the documents from someone that bought a volunatry resort from Starwood.  

I can't believe Starwood would make a program that individual weeks could drop out of.



Pit said:


> No offense taken. It reads pretty clearly to me. I think you are adding meaning which simply isn't there. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


So at least we agree that the other is adding meaning which simply isn't there.  



Pit said:


> This statute requires that inventory be held for owners until sixty days to check-in. How can Starwood meet that requirement and also make inventory available to SVN members at 8 months out? The only way is to maintain separate inventory pools.


Well, we just agreed to disagree about this.  I don't think this statute says what you think is says.  

Think about it.  How could that EVER be true?  Forget the issue of voluntary versus non-voluntary.... membership in SVN versus non-membership.  

That statement could NEVER be true for ANY timeshare on the planet.  This should cause you to pause and rethink your interpretation of that statute.  If your interpretation results in something impossible, either your interpretation is wrong or the author(s) had their heads where the sun don't shine.


----------



## Pit (May 2, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> I can't believe Starwood would make a program that individual weeks could drop out of.



Starwood forces weeks out of SVN by making SVN membership non-transferable. They have good reason to do this, as it allows them to differentiate the developer product from the resale.



KOR5Star said:


> That statement could NEVER be true for ANY timeshare on the planet.



Apparently, I was not clear. Allow me to rephrase that.... 

The statute says a developer cannot release unreserved owner inventory to non-owners (i.e. renters, II exchangers, or SVN exchangers) until sixty days out. The owner is not bound by this statute, but the developer is. The developer cannot abscond with the non-SVN owner's right-to-use at 8 months out. Thus, separate inventory pools are necessary.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 2, 2007)

Pit said:


> Starwood forces weeks out of SVN by making SVN membership non-transferable. They have good reason to do this, as it allows them to differentiate the developer product from the resale.


Agreed.  People drop out.  Units can't.  Units that were available to the SVN wiht the first owner are always available, even if sold and resold.



Pit said:


> Apparently, I was not clear. Allow me to rephrase that....
> 
> The statute says a developer cannot release unreserved owner inventory to non-owners (i.e. renters, II exchangers, or SVN exchangers) until sixty days out. The owner is not bound by this statute, but the developer is. The developer cannot abscond with the non-SVN owner's right-to-use at 8 months out. Thus, separate inventory pools are necessary.


Forgive me, but I'm going to ask you to rephrase again.  

This is the part that I just can't wrap my brain around.  How exactly is the developer absconding with the non-SVN owner's right to use?


----------



## Pit (May 2, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> Agreed.  People drop out.  Units can't.  Units that were available to the SVN wiht the first owner are always available, even if sold and resold.



Your distinction between people and units is illogical to me. Your suggesting that all units are available to SVN members even though they are not owned by SVN members. Can't be true. I can't prove you wrong, but I don't believe it. 

Even if I accept what you say, not all first owners join SVN. So, there would still be non-SVN units.



KOR5Star said:


> Forgive me, but I'm going to ask you to rephrase again.
> 
> This is the part that I just can't wrap my brain around.  How exactly is the developer absconding with the non-SVN owner's right to use?



Perhaps an example will help. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that when sold-out 1) all WPORV owners are non-SVN members, and 2) all WPORV owners wait until 6 months from their desired check-in to attempt a reservation. Now, suppose that Starwood has allowed all weeks at WPORV to be reserved 8 months from check-in by SVN members (i.e. non-owners). The result is that no WPORV owners can use their week (nor can they go elsewhere within SVN, since they are not members). That is what I call absconding with the owner's right-to-use. No way that is legit.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 2, 2007)

Pit said:


> Your distinction between people and units is illogical to me. Your suggesting that all units are available to SVN members even though they are not owned by SVN members. Can't be true. I can't prove you wrong, but I don't believe it.


That's been by point from post number 74 in this thread.  Membership of the owner has nothing to do with the fact that the unit is part of the pool.  



Pit said:


> Even if I accept what you say, not all first owners join SVN. So, there would still be non-SVN units.


I believe the only units not part of the pool are fixed week/fixed unit ownerships.



Pit said:


> Perhaps an example will help. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that when sold-out 1) all WPORV owners are non-SVN members, and 2) all WPORV owners wait until 6 months from their desired check-in to attempt a reservation. Now, suppose that Starwood has allowed all weeks at WPORV to be reserved 8 months from check-in by SVN members (i.e. non-owners). The result is that no WPORV owners can use their week (nor can they go elsewhere within SVN, since they are not members). That is what I call absconding with the owner's right-to-use. No way that is legit.


The original owner bound all subsequent owners to play by the reservation rules.  

What you describe can happen to any home resort owner, whether they are part of SVN or not.  It's first come, first serve.  If we don't make a reservation fast enough, we could find ourselves without the ability to use our units.

Non-SVN members can exchange into II, if they are members.  SVN members can exchange into II or within the SVN that year if a desireable week and unit are available.  In this case, the SVN is exactly like II, except they aren't letting resale owners join SVN.

Currently, non-SVN members are not being discriminated against.  They have the same exact opportunity to enjoy their home resort as any other owner.  What you imply is SVN members should be discriminated against at their home resorts simply because they bought from the developer (at a much higher price) and received an extra perk... the ability to trade within SVN.

I think you guys are fighting the wrong battle.  I've heard rumors of some resale owners being invited to join the SVN.  I'd think if Starwood lets in one, they should have to let in everyone, otherwise it's discrimination.


----------



## Pit (May 2, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> What you describe can happen to any home resort owner, whether they are part of SVN or not.  It's first come, first serve.  If we don't make a reservation fast enough, we could find ourselves without the ability to use our units.



First come, first served is fine so long as there is no outside competition for reservations. The HI law referenced in this thread makes clear that the developer cannot release unreserved owner inventory to non-owners until sixty days out. SVN does that at 8 months. Thus the need for separate inventory pools.



KOR5Star said:


> Currently, non-SVN members are not being discriminated against.  They have the same exact opportunity to enjoy their home resort as any other owner.



Not to make this political, but this is like arguing that gay people have the same marriage rights as everyone else (i.e. they can marry someone of the opposite sex ). While technically correct, your comment misses the point.

The point is that HI law does not permit the developer to allow competition for reservations, aside from other owners, until sixty days out. They can do this with SVN inventory, because SVN members have agreed to it. They cannot do so with non-SVN inventory, because the law prohibts it.

Again, this comes back to the distinction between units and owners, which requires someone with the actual paperwork from a V resort to clear up. I don't have those documents. Hopefully, someone that does will jump in.



KOR5Star said:


> I think you guys are fighting the wrong battle.  I've heard rumors of some resale owners being invited to join the SVN.



This speaks to the original topic of this thread. When Starwood realizes they don't have enough inventory for SVN exchanges (due to resale drop-outs), they need to allow non-SVN owners into the club to increase the SVN inventory pool. I'm sure this will be done only as needed and by invitation. They don't want to let that cat out of the bag.


----------



## Westin5Star (May 2, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> I'd think if Starwood lets in one, they should have to let in everyone, otherwise it's discrimination.



Discrimination is legal!  You can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, smelly people, etc.; just not protected groups and even then only in certain situations (employment and other misc.) qualify.  

BTW, I still have not heard back from Starwood legal and its been two days.  I will follow up by the end of the week if I haven't heard anything.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 2, 2007)

Pit said:


> First come, first served is fine so long as there is no outside competition for reservations. The HI law referenced in this thread makes clear that the developer cannot release unreserved owner inventory to non-owners until sixty days out. SVN does that at 8 months. Thus the need for separate inventory pools.


We can't talk about this without going 'round and 'round.  I sincerely think you are misinterpreting the statute.  The wording is pretty clear to me.  Our problem is the wording is pretty clear to you too... only we have significantly different interpretations.  



Pit said:


> Not to make this political, but this is like arguing that gay people have the same marriage rights as everyone else (i.e. they can marry someone of the opposite sex ). While technically correct, your comment misses the point.
> 
> The point is that HI law does not permit the developer to allow competition for reservations, aside from other owners, until sixty days out. They can do this with SVN inventory, because SVN members have agreed to it. They cannot do so with non-SVN inventory, because the law prohibts it.


If what you claim is true, NO timeshare could open it's doors to anyone but owners until 60 days out.  Think about that.  It's impossible.  This has nothing to do with SVN member or not.  All timeshares would be effected. 

Considering the costs of going to Hawaii and the necessity of planning ahead for airlines and such, this statue would effectively kill timeshareing in the State of Hawaii.  

Either you have it wrong or the authors really screwed up.



Pit said:


> Again, this comes back to the distinction between units and owners, which requires someone with the actual paperwork from a V resort to clear up. I don't have those documents. Hopefully, someone that does will jump in.


Yes, but I fear we lost everyone else on the last page.  :rofl: 



Pit said:


> This speaks to the original topic of this thread. When Starwood realizes they don't have enough inventory for SVN exchanges (due to resale drop-outs), they need to allow non-SVN owners into the club to increase the SVN inventory pool. I'm sure this will be done only as needed and by invitation. They don't want to let that cat out of the bag.


I did a search, but couldn't find anything.  I seem to remember reading that someone bought a voluntary resale and was offered SVN membership for something like $600.  I remember reading it clearly, but can't find it.


----------



## jerseygirl (May 2, 2007)

I only dropped out of the conversation because it was getting personal and non-productive, which was certainly never my intention.

Pit has stated my position more eloquently than I could have ever done.  I agree with everything he's stated.  

As far as someone with voluntary paperwork posting the language, D&R did just that -- and it's my belief that the reference to "60 days," as posted by D&R, completely supports what we've been saying.


----------



## Pit (May 2, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> We can't talk about this without going 'round and 'round.  I sincerely think you are misinterpreting the statute.  The wording is pretty clear to me.  Our problem is the wording is pretty clear to you too... only we have significantly different interpretations.



Agreed. We just disagree.  



KOR5Star said:


> If what you claim is true, NO timeshare could open it's doors to anyone but owners until 60 days out.  Think about that.  It's impossible.  This has nothing to do with SVN member or not.  All timeshares would be effected.
> 
> Considering the costs of going to Hawaii and the necessity of planning ahead for airlines and such, this statue would effectively kill timeshareing in the State of Hawaii.
> 
> Either you have it wrong or the authors really screwed up.



Again, the developer is bound by this statute, not the owner. The owner is free to make reservations at any time, well in advance of their check-in.

This makes perfect sense, as it prevents the DEVELOPER from renting or exchanging owned units prior to sixty days out. It has no bearing on when the OWNER makes a reservation or what the owner does with that reservation (use, rent, or exchange).



KOR5Star said:


> I did a search, but couldn't find anything.  I seem to remember reading that someone bought a voluntary resale and was offered SVN membership for something like $600.  I remember reading it clearly, but can't find it.



I would be very interested to know which resort this was at, if you happen to find it again.


----------



## jerseygirl (May 2, 2007)

Owners at the pre-Starwood resorts (Broadway Plantation, Desert Oasis, Vistana Resort -- possibly others) received multiple (annual?) offers to join SVN when the network was new.  The offers were _theoretically _limited to those who purchased from the original developer (Embassy, Vistana) but there were numerous reports of resale buyers getting offers as well.  The various theories at the time (5 years ago???) were:

-- Starwood couldn't easily distinguish between "original developer buyers"  and "pre-Starwood resale buyers," or
-- It was too much trouble to figure it out, or 
-- They didn't really care (at the time) 'cuz they needed members to get the network up and running

There were also numerous reports that Desert Oasis continued to extend the offer to additional (post-SVN) resale buyers, or said yes to those who requested membership.  These people were allowed to "buy in" at a blended StarOptions point value (the original units were sold as Float 1-52).  Note that when these Desert Oasis resale buyers called HQ and made the request, they were told no.  But, the resort itself was getting the memberships through for a while.  

Over the last 3 years or so, I haven't personally heard/read of anyone receiving the offer or being allowed to join for just a fee.  Of course, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


----------



## RLG (May 2, 2007)

This thread is of interest to me as a potential SVO resale purchaser.

The "one pool" method of allocation means that a resale purchaser of SMV today, could find that their unit has already lost its right to 2008 occupancy.

Two observations:
1) this is manifestly inequitable;
2) it may or may not be permitted by the relevant documents and applicable laws and regulations.

I don't think the legality will be known unless and until it is litigated in the appropriate jurisdictions.

I am quite puzzled by the number of people who seem to think that this treatment is standard for floating week timeshares.  In fact KOR5Star seems to think it's so typical that timesharing in Hawaii would be wipe out if it were prohitited.

I'll use a simplified example to illustrate why I don't believe this is correct. 

Assume a timeshare with 2 units and a platinum season of weeks 1-16.  The developer sells 32 floating weeks.

1) Standalone resort.

Every floating week owner is *guaranteed* that they will get a week, so long as they reserve before any weeks go unoccupied.  One holder could theoretically wait until 12/31 to book for 2008, and still know that there will be exactly 1 week available

2). Trading with traditional exchange companies.

Owners can deposit their weeks with exchange companies.  Exchange companies can only use the number of weeks which are deposited by owners. The last reserving owner is still guaranteed a week as long as he reserves before the first week goes empty.

3) SVN trading

During months 12-8, owners can choose to deposit floating weeks with SVN in consideration for staroption points  After month 8, owners who are participating in SVN have agreed that their week will automatically be deposited for staroptions if they haven't reserved it themselves.

a) the way some think it should work:

SVN only has access to the number of weeks which have been deposited with it in return for staroptions (i.e. just like RCI/II).  As a result until some weeks have gone unused, there will always be at least as many unreserved weeks as there are non-SVN owners who haven't reserved.

b) the way some think it does work:

Once it has used up the weeks which it acquired in return for staroptions, SVN can take for it's own use and for no consideration any remaining weeks which would otherwise have been available to non-SVN owners.  As early as 210 days before the start of the year, non-SVN owners could find their next year useage has been wiped out.

The key difference from "normal" in case 3a is that SVN is allowing itself to exchange more weeks than were deposited.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 3, 2007)

Westin5Star said:


> Discrimination is legal!  You can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, smelly people, etc.; just not protected groups and even then only in certain situations (employment and other misc.) qualify.



This explains a lot.  I've been kicked out of places for being fat, smelly and ugly.  I went to a lawyer, asking to sue.  He kicked me out because I was stupid. 

Now I realize I just didn't have a case.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 3, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> I only dropped out of the conversation because it was getting personal and non-productive, which was certainly never my intention.
> 
> Pit has stated my position more eloquently than I could have ever done.  I agree with everything he's stated.
> 
> As far as someone with voluntary paperwork posting the language, D&R did just that -- and it's my belief that the reference to "60 days," as posted by D&R, completely supports what we've been saying.


I searched through the thread and couldn't find any quoted contract verbage.

I'm most interested if the section "BINDING NATURE OF YOUR PROMISES." is in the voluntary contract.  If so, all subsequent owners are bound.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 3, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> I searched through the thread and couldn't find any quoted contract verbage.
> 
> I'm most interested if the section "BINDING NATURE OF YOUR PROMISES." is in the voluntary contract.  If so, all subsequent owners are bound.



OK - eventhough I said I would no longer comment.

I have offered the PDF file of the WPORV CCE&Rs if anyone wants to read it  - no takers.  I have looked at it and no where would I interpret anything else but the following:  {quite simple really}

1) Owners of a V resort are given a chance to be SVN-members if they so decide - and should be aware of the consequences (below) if they decide not to be SVN members

2) Resale buyers of a V resort do not have a chance to be SVN-members- and should be aware of the consequences (below) if they decide to buy a V resort resale
[btw, it is not SVO responsibility to inform them of the Rules&Regulations of accepting a contract to buy a V resort - but they certainly are bound by the R&R as stated within the CCE&Rs that the original buyer contractually accepts.
SVO also states that they may decide to let non-SVN members become SVN members at SVO's disgression and they must pay the associated SVN fees]

3) There is no mention of separate pool of units for non-SVN members - however, there is mention of other pools of unit types.

The consequences:
A) All owners must abide by the Rule&Regulations of the CCE&Rs - most importantly the "Reservation Rules" which are spelled out - and discussed here ad naseum.

B) Non-SVN members (just like SVN members) can reserve a Home unit up to 60-days beforehand - HOWEVER - there is no guarentee of availability (based on the "Reservation Rules")


*AGAIN - Owners are given a choice whether or not to participate in SVN - AND - Resale buyers are given a choice of either accepting the terms of the CCE&Rs which means they are de facto accepting the consequences of not being SVN members, or not buying the resale V resort in the first place.*

If I were a seller of a V resort to a resale buyer - I would make certain that the buyer was given a copy if the CCE&Rs and acknowledged receipt of theses documents within the purchase agreement (just like SVO makes a buyer do when they sign a SVO VOI contract).

WARNING to those who are thinking about purchasing a float resale V unit - DO NOT rely on some of the statements made in this thread (e.g. that the Home resort is required by law to hold a unit for you). If so, you may be very disappointed with the outcome.

Good luck - and have happy vacations.

Out - I promise this time.  (no need to respond to this post)


----------



## jerseygirl (May 3, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> I searched through the thread and couldn't find any quoted contract verbage.



In D&R's Post #96:

I did have a chance to go through WPORV docs more carefully. Turns out that this is something that impacts both a SVO owner (that doesn't join SVN) and a resale owner (who can't join SVN) - they are actually are treated exactly the same in this case. _Non-SVN members (as they are classified) have an opportunity to reserve their float VOI season up to 60 days before check-in. _  HOWEVER, this is based on availability since the 'RESERVATION RULES' are applicable to all VOI owners.




> I'm most interested if the section "BINDING NATURE OF YOUR PROMISES." is in the voluntary contract.  If so, all subsequent owners are bound.



Yes ... there is "binding successor-type" language in every CCR I've ever seen.  However, there is no mention of SVN (since it was not in existence) in the original CCRs (to which I agreed to be bound) for two of the voluntary resorts I've owned.

I agree that post-SVN CCRs will be entirely different, but I do not agree that they can trump the Hawaii (or other state) statutes.


----------



## jerseygirl (May 3, 2007)

Westin5Star said:


> I contacted two different people at Starwood corporate this morning via email with our issue.  I already received a reply back that this was sent to the legal department and that I will get a reply with an answer.  I will forward that reply as soon as I receive it.  I do want to reiterate that I was definitely told by an executive at Starwood last week that there are not two different pools!  The person that I talked to could have been wrong, however, if that was the case my email this morning would have been easily answered.  Until then...



Still no response?  That's disappointing.  

I'm sticking with my stated opinion until I see a response to the contrary from Starwood's Legal Department.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 3, 2007)

jerseygirl said:


> In D&R's Post #96:
> 
> I did have a chance to go through WPORV docs more carefully. Turns out that this is something that impacts both a SVO owner (that doesn't join SVN) and a resale owner (who can't join SVN) - they are actually are treated exactly the same in this case. _Non-SVN members (as they are classified) have an opportunity to reserve their float VOI season up to 60 days before check-in. _  HOWEVER, this is based on availability since the 'RESERVATION RULES' are applicable to all VOI owners.


This makes no sense to me no matter how many times I read it.  I think I'm making the same mistake over and over, but can't see my own error. 

Doesn't this apply to everyone?  What owner can't reserve their float week up to 60 days before check-in?... depending on availability of course.



jerseygirl said:


> Yes ... there is "binding successor-type" language in every CCR I've ever seen.  However, there is no mention of SVN (since it was not in existence) in the original CCRs (to which I agreed to be bound) for two of the voluntary resorts I've owned.


You might have given your voting rights away when you first bought or were in the minority when the transition happened.  The SVN contracts have a provision in them that allows the management company to make decisions for me.  I stumbled on it when I was looking through the papers.  I can't quote it without finding it again, but it basically gave them a limited power of attorney for decisions regarding the property.



jerseygirl said:


> I agree that post-SVN CCRs will be entirely different, but I do not agree that they can trump the Hawaii (or other state) statutes.


Yeah...well... that's an issue we won't get anywhere on.  I've been having the same conversation with Pit.  I believe you guys are completely misinterpreting that statute.  I think it's clear intent is only to bar timeshare operators from selling more inventory than they have and goes to great lengths to describe how inventory should be counted. 

If it were intended as you and Pit believe, every timeshare in the State of Hawaii would be in violation. 

There's nothing either of us are going to say to convince the other on this one, I'm afraid.


----------



## KOR5Star (May 3, 2007)

DavidnRobin said:


> Out - I promise this time.  (no need to respond to this post)


You'll be back.    It's like opening a bag of Hershey's Kisses.  You eat a couple and say "that's it... no more today", but you keep going back to the bag to steal "just one more".


----------



## califgal (May 3, 2007)

This has taken on a life of its own! :rofl: Yet, I'm so curious I have to keep reading!


----------



## jerseygirl (May 3, 2007)

KOR5Star said:


> This makes no sense to me no matter how many times I read it.  I think I'm making the same mistake over and over, but can't see my own error.
> 
> Doesn't this apply to everyone?  What owner can't reserve their float week up to 60 days before check-in?... depending on availability of course.



Although you don't agree, Pit and I intrepret the Hawaii statute to govern more than just over-selling.  If that were the case, the 60-day rule wouldn't come into play at all.  We believe it's saying that timeshare operators/developers/etc. cannot give away an owner's right to use his/her property until the 60-day mark.  

I think we all understand and completely agree with the availability factor and its affect on floating weeks.  As long as all owners have the same rights, each and every one of them is subject to the availability clause.  No one is questioning that point.  

The difference of opinion comes into play with regard to whether members and non-members represent different classes.  Pit and I believe they do, regardless of whether they are identified as such in the documentation (failure to address an issue does not make the issue disappear).  This is the point on which D&R and I have agreed to disagree.  

If we're correct, then the Hawaii statue trumps any clause in the SVO/SVN paperwork and Starwood is not permitted to give inventory that belongs to a non-member (who does not have reciprocal rights to book elsewhere) to an SVN-member from a different resort until the 60-day mark (not the 8-month mark).

We find no fault whatsoever with releasing unbooked "member" inventory at the 8-month mark.  All members have identical rights and therefore belong to the same "class."



> You might have given your voting rights away when you first bought or were in the minority when the transition happened.  The SVN contracts have a provision in them that allows the management company to make decisions for me.  I stumbled on it when I was looking through the papers.  I can't quote it without finding it again, but it basically gave them a limited power of attorney for decisions regarding the property.



Yes, that's possible -- I think all timeshares have a similar clause.  But, the management company and HOA are also subject to state statutes, so I don't think they can give away the basic ownership rights afforded to me by law. Same issue.





> There's nothing either of us are going to say to convince the other on this one, I'm afraid.



Ah hah -- finally something on which we agree!    That's why I'm anxiously awaiting the response from Starwood's legal department.  If you don't get one soon, I'm happy to have my attorney send an official inquiry with regard to inventory procedures at Broadway Plantation.  (I went with a retainer plan this year as it was time to update wills, create a trust, etc. -- have to make him earn it!).


----------



## chemteach (May 4, 2007)

I have a simple solution for Starwood.  They can hold back enough of the September, October, non-thanksgiving November, and non-holiday December weeks to cover the resale purchasers who didn't reserve at the 8 month mark.  When someone phones, Starwood can simply explain that come Septermber of the prior year, these units will be available (for the person calling in August), but unfortunately, all rooms have been booked up for January though April with owners and SVN members at 8 months out.   

Any owner should phone before 8 months out to make sure they get the best chance of getting a week they want.  There is no guarantee even at 8 1/2 months that the week desired would be available.  To get a prime week, an owner (SVN member or not) should phone a year in advance!


----------



## zeke013 (May 4, 2007)

califgal said:


> This has taken on a life of its own! :rofl: Yet, I'm so curious I have to keep reading!




No kidding!  I didn't realize that when I posted the question 6 pages ago I would be starting a firestorm.  Interesting reading!


----------



## Westin5Star (May 12, 2007)

*Starwood Legal Response*

As promised, here is the response from Starwood Legal.  I debated even forwarding this as I hate to reopen a can off worms.  As I was told before, this response definitely confirms that there are not two separate pools for SVN and non-SVN owners.  Here we go:

If the resale owner has a floating ownership, he may reserve any week in his deeded season and deeded villa type and at his home resort.  From twelve to eight months, he will compete only with other owners of the same season at his home resort.  Beginning at eight months prior to his desired arrival date, he will compete with Starwood Vacation Network Members for his reservation.  The reservations process for returning to the home resort work exactly as it does for a home resort owner who qualifies for Starwood Vacation Network membership.  



As with any floating ownership, planning in advance is important for success in making reservations.  If the owner has an exchange company membership, he may choose to deposit his week at any time.  



Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.


----------



## jerseygirl (May 12, 2007)

Thanks for posting the response.  I can't challenge it on behalf of a Hawaii resort since I don't own one.  But, I will attempt to find a similar statute on South Carolina's books and send an official request for information with regard to my non-SVN platinum Broadway Plantation week.


----------

