# class action suit [Desantis v. Marriott]



## TUGBrian (May 21, 2014)

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...s-marriott-timeshares-20140520,0,5094104.post

dont see this resulting in much, but you never know.


----------



## Ozz (May 21, 2014)

Could this lawsuit open the door to enrollment of weeks purchased after June 2010?

Ozz


----------



## Saintsfanfl (May 21, 2014)

Ozz said:


> Could this lawsuit open the door to enrollment of weeks purchased after June 2010?
> 
> Ozz



There is no reason why it would. The whole point to the lawsuit is weeks owned prior to the switch.


----------



## Superchief (May 21, 2014)

I don't understand the allegation that owners would have to pay $10k to upgrade to the points program. The conversion cost at that time was less than $1000.


----------



## GregT (May 21, 2014)

I'm not surprised to see a Class Action suit, but I do not know how they can prove that they were damaged.  Marriott did a good job of preserving the existing rights of owners, and it would be difficult to prove that weeks have gone down in value since June 2010.

If anything, they've gone up in value.

I don't understand the $10K to join comment from the article, which also suggests that plaintiff counsel doesn't understand the program.  Bizarre.

Best,

Greg


----------



## Saintsfanfl (May 21, 2014)

Perhaps the $10K has something to do with the current cost to enroll combined with additional points needed to equate the full value of the week into points. I am not saying it has merit but it is all I can come up with. 

Am I reaching?


----------



## SueDonJ (May 21, 2014)

I think they're in for a surprise when they find during discovery that Desantis doesn't appear to have a very good understanding of Marriott's points system or how it impacts existing Weeks Owners, and his lawyers probably less so.  It's an expensive way for him to learn when he could have just come here for free.  Hopefully his lawyers will find TUG in time to learn at least enough to save him some money during the process.

The blurb about, "the basis for determining value of points at various properties can be arbitrary or disputed" is somewhat intriguing; I'll be interested to see how that aspect is approached and explained.

Maybe there are a few here with unfettered access to Justia.com who want to check in occasionally?  For the rest of us, it's at least unrestricted enough to give us a one-stop-shop for links to access public records:  Desantis v. Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. et al


----------



## SueDonJ (May 21, 2014)

Saintsfanfl said:


> Perhaps the $10K has something to do with the current cost to enroll combined with additional points needed to equate the full value of the week into points. I am not saying it has merit but it is all I can come up with.
> 
> Am I reaching?



No, I'm thinking along the same lines, that he might be confused in thinking that in order to use his Week the same way if it's enrolled, he'd have to first purchase enough Points to cover the difference between the interval's points cost and his Week's allotment (the skim, of course.)


----------



## FractionalTraveler (May 21, 2014)

This one was mentioned in the last annual report along with all the other RC lawsuits.  Should be interesting.

Marriott's representation (i.e. Greenberg Traurig) is among the largest and one of the best firms in the United States. 

FT


----------



## puckmanfl (May 21, 2014)

good evening...

This could get some "legs"  All the plaintiffs attorneys need to do is find 15-20 Legacy owners that were told at sales tours that their weeks would have diminished value (AS II  dries up) if they didn't pay a fee and enroll...

Juries don't like large corporations!!!!

remember atthe sales tours, these folks did not purchase did not sign a disclaimer stating anything stated but not written is not valid.  Heck, they could pull up about 20 threads here.  Anything that starts with Sales tour or Sales Presentation at xxxxx...

just saying...


----------



## puckmanfl (May 21, 2014)

good evening

Of course the attorneys for MVCD will show the waivers that all the Legacy owners signed stating that the only  guarantee is "a week in your season".  Juries are funny animals!!!

Timeshare Companies are not the most trusted business model out there.  A jury of 12 (maybe 6) might have some inherent biases!!!


----------



## FractionalTraveler (May 21, 2014)

My guess is that this legal action will be a copycat suit from the current Ritz Carlton Destination Club class actions that have been established since the introduction of the points based system.

FT


----------



## nokaoi9 (May 21, 2014)

I agree with all the post so far and do not agree with the lawsuit, but I think it is a winnable case if it gets to a jury.  

I bought a Ko Olina week on the resale market and was encouraged to enroll my week in the DC for $1495 (I think that's what the fee was at the time).  If I choose to convert my week to DC points, I'll get 4025 for the year.  If I look at next year's point chart, I will need a minimum of 4550 and a maximum of 5600 points to book two separate weeks at Ko Olina.  

While I can most likely book my vacations as I had previously, I think the argument can be made that my weeks has been devalued.  Furthermore, as Puck previously mentioned, most jury's are ant big business so I wouldn't be the lease bit surprised to see Marriott lose this case, though I'm sure they'd settle out of court long before that.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 21, 2014)

Any settlement will likely result in owners getting a $25 credit on their MFs or annual fee and the lawyers make out like bandits.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (May 21, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> Any settlement will likely result in owners getting a $25 credit on their MFs or annual fee and the lawyers make out like bandits.



Oh the beauty of civil justice!


----------



## davidvel (May 21, 2014)

Here's the complaint. I haven't read it. Have fun.


----------



## GregT (May 21, 2014)

davidvel said:


> Here's the complaint. I haven't read it. Have fun.



This is incredibly weak.  

Plaintiff can't get the trades they used to get, doesn't like being skimmed, and blames the new system for the devaluation of his timeshare.

Several factual errors and poorly written.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 21, 2014)

good evening...

I am just a physician playing attorney!!! But this looks interesting!!!  The only incorrect fact in the complaint is the $10K fee..

This will come down to the question of what was sold... The defendant will state that all we sold was "deeded week in season".  Plaintiff will argue that they were sold a membership in a club with trading possibilities and that DC has devalued that!!!  I have all my initial brochures from my initial purchase.  MVCD will be hard pressed to show a jury that all that was sold was a "deeded week in season"....

This will settle long before it gets to a jury....  All they have to do is fing 25 legacy owners that were told that II will dry up and trading will disappear if they don't enroll...

The plaintiff attorneys aren't in the business of losing money.  There has to be a pot at end of this rainbow!!!

P.S. I believe DC has enhanced my membership!!!!


----------



## davidvel (May 21, 2014)

Ok, quickly read through the complaint. Essentially the claim is that the DC program has made trades harder in II. Anyone heard that one before? :hysterical: 

But it follows a convoluted and twisted path to set forth plaintiff's claims. Reading the allegations, it appears that they:  

-- Don't understand floating time vs. fixed week (the exhibits which were too big to post show plaintiff has a floating week not fixed week)

-- Don't understand the difference between the "owned week" reservation process, vs. trading through II (or otherwise)

-- think that pre-DC program, owners had the ability (right?) to trade with other owners through Marriott

-- think that the ability ("right"?) to trade was somehow sold or purchased 

-- confuses the "option" to buy into the DC program with the rights originally purchased 

I suspect that this may be a class action that is not settled as many are, as Marriott needs to make a point as to these claims.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 21, 2014)

good evening...

8 years from now, this may all get sorted out:whoopie::whoopie::whoopie:

back to NHL playoffs!!!


----------



## Numismatist (May 22, 2014)

I am eagerly awaiting my $100 off my next timeshare coupon!!!  :rofl:


----------



## FractionalTraveler (May 22, 2014)

Better yet, you may receive 50 Plus Points deposited in your DC account for the sales pitch torture.

FT


----------



## m61376 (May 22, 2014)

Very interesting....
I can see how they can justify their claim that the new system has diminished their ownership. I think for many it has, although there are some who have learned to manipulate the new system to their advantage. But Marriott salespeople have said repeatedly that II trades would dry up, that legacy points were worth less than trust points, etc. They have seen the resale value of many or the weeks plummet since the inception of the points program, despite the relative strengthening of the economy as compared to the few years immediately preceding the roll-out. They were sold not only a week but the concept of trading anywhere that Marriott has properties, both current and future developments, and now are being told that only Trust point owners will be able to access any new properties (at least in some sales pitches). And, while Marriott has promised that they only reserve their fair share of each reservation for the DC program, has it made it more difficult for weeks owners to reserve their preferences? So I think there is some real potential basis to their claim.

I don't know where the 10K figure came from, but suspect it will be modified if the suit goes forward. Since the plaintiff has 3 law firms involved, at least some people think it has merit. It will be interesting to see what develops.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 22, 2014)

davidvel said:


> Here's the complaint. I haven't read it. Have fun.





GregT said:


> This is incredibly weak.
> 
> Plaintiff can't get the trades they used to get, doesn't like being skimmed, and blames the new system for the devaluation of his timeshare.
> 
> Several factual errors and poorly written.





davidvel said:


> Ok, quickly read through the complaint. Essentially the claim is that the DC program has made trades harder in II. Anyone heard that one before? :hysterical:
> 
> But it follows a convoluted and twisted path to set forth plaintiff's claims. Reading the allegations, it appears that they:
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting the pdf, David.  Another TUGger sent it to me but you posted it in the interim.  (Thanks, Bunk!)

I agree, this suit is claiming a whole lot of untruths that should be easily disproven by Marriott.  But the thing that appears to have gotten Mr. Desantis so hot under the collar, his inability since the DC inception to exchange his Harbour Lake (formerly Horizons) week for a Grande Chateau week, might give Marriott some difficulty.  Not because the exchange didn't come through - Marriott could sufficiently argue that all reservations in a floating weeks system are subject to availability.

Like Puck says, it's a problem for them because many reps are _still_ saying during sales presentations that the DC will negatively impact II as far as high-demand intervals not being deposited to II.  That's one of the things that data from TUGgers appears to disprove but some of the reps just continue to say it anyway.  If the lawsuit's only result is that they're forbidden to say it forever after, it'll be worth it.  (Easy for me to say; Mr. Desantis would no doubt disagree.)


----------



## dioxide45 (May 22, 2014)

Any type of settlement could also require MVCI to deposit X number of intervals from every season in to II at a certain time or date prior to checkin. Right now they are depositing off season stuff pretty early and high season not at all or very last minute. Perhaps they may agree to deposit more prime inventory earlier on? Just some thoughts. Though it would perhaps help the plaintiff to maintain what they were originally sold.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 22, 2014)

m61376 said:


> Very interesting....
> I can see how they can justify their claim that the new system has diminished their ownership. I think for many it has, although there are some who have learned to manipulate the new system to their advantage. But Marriott salespeople have said repeatedly that II trades would dry up, that legacy points were worth less than trust points, etc. They have seen the resale value of many or the weeks plummet since the inception of the points program, despite the relative strengthening of the economy as compared to the few years immediately preceding the roll-out. They were sold not only a week but the concept of trading anywhere that Marriott has properties, both current and future developments, and now are being told that only Trust point owners will be able to access any new properties (at least in some sales pitches). And, while Marriott has promised that they only reserve their fair share of each reservation for the DC program, has it made it more difficult for weeks owners to reserve their preferences? So I think there is some real potential basis to their claim.
> 
> I don't know where the 10K figure came from, but suspect it will be modified if the suit goes forward. *Since the plaintiff has 3 law firms involved, at least some people think it has merit.* It will be interesting to see what develops.



About what I bolded - wouldn't we ALL agree that the suit would have merit _if all the claims in it were true_?  Doesn't appear that the attorneys did much fact-checking before filing, whatever their reasons for signing on.


----------



## windje2000 (May 22, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> Any settlement will likely result in owners getting a $25 credit on their MFs or annual fee and *the lawyers make out like bandits*.



The complaint has to be just good enough to survive summary judgement and get certification as a class action.  That done, the attorneys can negotiate a settlement and collect their fees.  

VAC has deep enough pockets to make lawyers drool.


----------



## DB-Wis (May 22, 2014)

Is this the first class action against Marriott since the DC program was instituted?  If so, I'm surprised it has taken this long.  Not that I think the suit has much merit, it's just that a small number of my fellow attorneys make a living filing class actions that challenge anything that causes a few consumers to grumble.  It's lucrative, but hardly an honest day's work.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 22, 2014)

good afternoon....

I specifically remember that "vacation 401K" speech.  "Tomorrows vacations at today's prices".  I was told current and future resorts.  Marilyn makes a really strong point.  All they need is a few Legacy Owners told that without new points (kind of extortion).  What was promised (access to future resorts) is now not available.  This is an act which diminishes value...

This one will generate some $$$ for the attorneys and at the end of the day , not much will change...

as Greg would say...

Interesting stuff...

especially for us folks with way too much time on our hands (especially me)...  just love some spicy drama here on TUG...


----------



## SueDonJ (May 22, 2014)

So essentially this boils down to misrepresentations by sales reps, right, with respect to both II availability and access to any new/future resorts?  Well, the only change in II that we on TUG have perceived/reported is that higher-demand intervals are being deposited to II closer in to check-in days, not that they're completely impossible.  And as far as new/future resorts we have no idea what will happen because there haven't been any new resorts since the DC inception (meaning there is no basis to claim that they will or won't be conveyed to the Trust and mingled in the inventory buckets the same as all other resorts, especially as the governing docs give Marriott leeway either way.)

Cost to enroll, fixed v. floating ownership rights, home usage rights, II exchange rights, a "severely depleted" II availability ... those alleged claims are simply not true.

So as far as Marriott's legal liability, what's the difference between the misrepresentations made by the sales reps when Weeks were the only game in town and now that DC Points are in the picture?  If it's expected that Marriott might have to settle this class action (as opposed to it being found without merit,) why wasn't a class action ever thought to have merit before??  Sales reps misstatements have been debunked for decades, haven't they?


----------



## puckmanfl (May 23, 2014)

good morning 

We are making this way too complicated.... 

We have customer (plaintiff) that feels value of his product has diminished based on the rollout of DC.  This decreased value is reflected in perceived diminished II trading.  We have MVCD (defendant) whose employees (sales reps) are telling customers such as plaintiff.  If you don't purchase the new product, your old product will lose value (II will dry up)

I don't know if a BBS is discoverable!!!  But all it would take is 30 Legacy Owners in deposition to confirm this "back of the bus, II devalue shpiel)  This case isn't about Has II has dried up but perception and MVCD employees saying that it has!!!!


----------



## windje2000 (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> So essentially this boils down to misrepresentations by sales reps, right, with respect to both II availability and access to any new/future resorts?  Well, the only change in II that we on TUG have perceived/reported is that higher-demand intervals are being deposited to II closer in to check-in days, not that they're completely impossible.  And as far as new/future resorts we have no idea what will happen because there haven't been any new resorts since the DC inception (meaning there is no basis to claim that they will or won't be conveyed to the Trust and mingled in the inventory buckets the same as all other resorts, especially as the governing docs give Marriott leeway either way.)
> 
> Cost to enroll, fixed v. floating ownership rights, home usage rights, II exchange rights, a "severely depleted" II availability ... those alleged claims are simply not true.
> 
> So as far as Marriott's legal liability, what's the difference between the misrepresentations made by the sales reps when Weeks were the only game in town and now that DC Points are in the picture?  If it's expected that Marriott might have to settle this class action (as opposed to it being found without merit,) why wasn't a class action ever thought to have merit before??  Sales reps misstatements have been debunked for decades, haven't they?



Is that the only change in II?

Those of us who are DC members who don't elect points should be aware of the fact that we are no longer members of II.  

We are members of DClub.  That's where we pay our membership dues.  

Sure, we have 'access' to an II 'corporate account, but we're not members of II, and we are not covered by its rules.

IIRC, the DClub rules give Marriott broad powers to manage exchange activities.  When I first read the DC docs, I never thought about whether or not those broad powers would apply to the corporate II account.  I am starting to wonder if it does, and if that is contributing to the slowness in II trading.  There's a reason for the existence of the 'corporate account' and the fact that all DC members had to change from their old accounts to new ones.    

Dclub needs to have extensive inventory available for trust points buyers.  Moreover, points owners and exchangers are 'breaking' weeks, necessitating the need for even more inventory.  

Every trust points owner and exchanger considers him/herself as owning prime platinum occupancy  - - despite the fact that the trust is not 100% platinum.  And that - ultimately - is the problem.  Not all weeks are platimum, but all trust points owners believe they are platinum or its equivalent.  

And how does one explain points users reserving and paying for oceanfront with points(pacheco) and not getting what they paid for.  Too many folks wanting platinum . . . and not owning it?

I wonder if VAC is 'holding' DC member II deposits for release by II to the weeks owners only when Marriott feels it does not need them.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 23, 2014)

good morning....

Windje....

Before 6/2010  MVCD was a passive depositor with II.  Post DC MVCD is gthe #1 exchange partner with II.  If there is a MOC summer unit sitting in II andf there is a DSC request, who do you think is getting the unit....

Of course, no proof but just anectdotal evidence...

There has to be a logistical reason for these corporate II accts...

please don't misunderstand I still believe DC has increased my value but just sayin'....

a few reasons DC came out  MVCD had a bunch of off season inventory..most of plat HHI, ski Carribean sold...  Even the 1500 pts Trust believes they have platinum points!!!  MVCD also had to stop the " traded my november Branson for January Park City talk in the hot tubs.. I know this from personal experience...  A few years ago, I had some mountainside owners irate when I told them how I got a february week at MOU with a GV studio...

DC is a competing exchange company...it is a zero sum game..with fixed inventory If one exchange gets more inventory, the other gets less..


----------



## windje2000 (May 23, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> 
> DC is a competing exchange company...it is a zero sum game..with fixed inventory If one exchange gets more inventory, the other gets less..



The establishment of DClub took both supply and demand from II.  But for every week NOT DEPOSITED in II there was a week NOT DEMANDED in II and that would reduce BOTH supply and demand.  

ETA:  The other question is the mix of high and low value occupancy  -  did the change in supply mix match up with the change in demand mix?  Only VAC and II know the answer.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> ... Well, the only change in II that we on TUG have perceived/reported is that higher-demand intervals are being deposited to II closer in to check-in days, not that they're completely impossible. ...





windje2000 said:


> Is that the only change in II?
> 
> Those of us who are DC members who don't elect points should be aware of the fact that we are no longer members of II.
> 
> ...



Interesting discussion about how the DC and II exchange "buckets" might be mingled ... hmmm.  I think your last comment is definitely in play.

But with respect to my comment that you highlighted - I was looking at it from the perspective of Mr. Desantis, as a Weeks owner who hasn't enrolled his Week in the DC and is still using an individual II account.  I know reports to TUG aren't the be-all and end-all but it seems to me that we see far more comments from un-enrolled Weeks Owners who are successful with II exchanges than we do from folks like Mr. Desantis who apparently hasn't met with success since the DC inception.  Granted, many of those reports include a sarcastic blurb similar to, "whaddaya know, the sales reps are wrong about II availability," which certainly adds fuel to the suit's claims if Marriott sales reps' misrepresentations are included.  But again, how successful could a class action involving sales reps' misrepresentations turn out, when they've been a fact-of-timeshare-life for decades?

Now I don't mean for this thread to morph into the ongoing one here but since you mention it ... as far as TUGger pacheco's Ko 'Olina placement issue, was it ever confirmed that the resort staff placed him/her in a mountain view unit when s/he used DC Points to book ocean view?  I'm still unclear there on whether it was an issue of being placed completely incorrectly in a mv unit (is that what you're implying here?) or an issue of being placed in one of the worst units within the ov booked category.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 23, 2014)

good afternoon...

The II success stories here...are almost all shoulder stuff or with very short (2 months notice)..There was a whole thread dedicated to Platinum success stories and not much came up...

May at Frenchman's cove or October in Aruba doesn't cut it as a platinum.  Before DC.... I used to get plat ski weeks and summer hawaii with my GV weeks..  There is clearly a change!!!


----------



## SueDonJ (May 23, 2014)

You know, maybe I'm naive but I still have a very hard time accepting that the majority of people who buy timeshares direct from the developers come away from their purchase without understanding the simple premise that availability is THE driving factor in any floating system.  The comments here about (paraphrased), "every DC Points Member thinks their Points will get them into the highest-demand Plat intervals every time," confuse me, and quite honestly, are an insult against the purchasers' intelligence.

I do understand that the sales reps use the selling tool of (paraphrased again,) "owners can use DC Points to book any number of nights at any resort in any unit type."  Of course they use it, because it's true - that IS the flexibility of the DC system.  But a disconnect happens when I try to correlate that selling tool to any-and-all buyers thinking it means that every reservation request will be fulfilled.  It just isn't logical.


----------



## windje2000 (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> Interesting discussion about how the DC and II exchange "buckets" might be mingled ... hmmm.  I think your last comment is definitely in play.
> 
> But with respect to my comment that you highlighted - I was looking at it from the perspective of Mr. Desantis, as a Weeks owner who hasn't enrolled his Week in the DC and is still using an individual II account.  I know reports to TUG aren't the be-all and end-all but it seems to me that we see far more comments from un-enrolled Weeks Owners who are successful with II exchanges than we do from folks like Mr. Desantis who apparently hasn't met with success since the DC inception.  Granted, many of those reports include a sarcastic blurb similar to, "whaddaya know, the sales reps are wrong about II availability," which certainly adds fuel to the suit's claims if Marriott sales reps' misrepresentations are included.  But again, how successful could a class action involving sales reps' misrepresentations turn out, when they've been a fact-of-timeshare-life for decades?
> 
> Now I don't mean for this thread to morph into the ongoing one here but since you mention it ... as far as TUGger pacheco's Ko 'Olina placement issue, was it ever confirmed that the resort staff placed him/her in a mountain view unit when s/he used DC Points to book ocean view?  I'm still unclear there on whether it was an issue of being placed completely incorrectly in a mv unit (is that what you're implying here?) or an issue of being placed in one of the worst units within the ov booked category.



I haven't looked at the pacheco thread in a while, but my takeaway was he was put in the wrong place -  otherwise why would they ask if he wanted to move.  I could be wrong.

On the Desantis complaint, we don't know how far in advance he requested Grand Chateau, whether or not it was a high demand week requested, etc.

The fact that salespersons' missrepresentations have been a fact of life for decades doesn't make them any less wrong or actionable.

My hope is that we learn a little more about the inside workings of DClub as a result of the suit, although I would guess DClub will fight to maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets, unpatented technology and know-how.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 23, 2014)

good afternoon...

Sue

I respectfully disagree...

The sales reps are selling this to newbies as a reservation system, not an exchange system.  I have overheard this numerous times while on my sales tours.  They are not telling newbies that most of the ski weeks are already owned and they have to exchange in...  They are clearly telling the new Trust owners that they own everywhere...


----------



## windje2000 (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> You know, maybe I'm naive but I still have a very hard time accepting that the majority of people who buy timeshares direct from the developers come away from their purchase without understanding the simple premise that availability is THE driving factor in any floating system.  The comments here about (paraphrased), "every DC Points Member thinks their Points will get them into the highest-demand Plat intervals every time," confuse me, and quite honestly, are an insult against the purchasers' intelligence.
> 
> I do understand that the sales reps use the selling tool of (paraphrased again,) "owners can use DC Points to book any number of nights at any resort in any unit type."  Of course they use it, because it's true - that IS the flexibility of the DC system.  But a disconnect happens when I try to correlate that selling tool to any-and-all buyers thinking it means that every reservation request will be fulfilled.  It just isn't logical.




What successful timeshare salesperson would ever say to a prospect - You frequently will be subject to exchange availability and BTW, the existing resorts are mostly sold out and owners occupy their units most of the time, especially high demand weeks at popular resorts in ski or beach season, so prepare to be SOL with many of your occupancy requests.  (That is what the documents that no one reads are for.)  The old system of weeks and seasons was at least up front about the high and low demand seasons for occupancy and were priced accordingly.

What the buyers believe may not be logical, but lots of things people believe (or want to believe) are not logical.  They wish hope and pray what the salesperson said was true.  If wishes were horses beggars would ride.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 23, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good afternoon...
> 
> Sue
> 
> ...



Well now we're going off-tangent a bit to whether or not DC Trust Members should be considered owners of a sort (I say yes  ,) but even in a reservation system don't people expect that there are times when you'll come up against certain intervals not being available because of demand?  Hotels use a reservation system, right?  People don't seem to have a problem with understanding that every hotel room cannot be available every night.  Why is it expected that they will have a problem with understanding that the same premise applies in a floating timeshare system?


----------



## windje2000 (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> Well now we're going off-tangent a bit to whether or not DC Trust Members should be considered owners of a sort (I say yes  ,) but even in a reservation system don't people expect that there are times when you'll come up against certain intervals not being available because of demand?  Hotels use a reservation system, right?  People don't seem to have a problem with understanding that every hotel room cannot be available every night.  Why is it expected that they will have a problem with understanding that the same premise applies in a floating timeshare system?



They don't have an OWNERSHIP interest in the rooms in that hotel, do they?  That colors how people react to the lack of availability.  

It is like Lake Woebegone.  All the 'owners' are above average - read platinum.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 23, 2014)

Puck and windje -

Like I said, I must be naive.  Still.  Or I just had a very good first experience with my sales rep who mentioned the availability metric (although not quite the bleakest picture of it) and was happy to learn that we already understood it.


----------



## Beefnot (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> Well now we're going off-tangent a bit to whether or not DC Trust Members should be considered owners of a sort (I say yes  ,) but even in a reservation system don't people expect that there are times when you'll come up against certain intervals not being available because of demand? Hotels use a reservation system, right? People don't seem to have a problem with understanding that every hotel room cannot be available every night. Why is it expected that they will have a problem with understanding that the same premise applies in a floating timeshare system?


 
If you attempt to book a hotel at the earliest opportunity possible and you are told there is no availability when you know it is virtually impossible for the hotel to already be at capacity, then you would understandably have a problem with that.  If owners are being sold a reservation system when in fact it is not, then they might understably have a problem with that.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 23, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> If you attempt to book a hotel at the earliest opportunity possible and you are told there is no availability when you know it is virtually impossible for the hotel to already be at capacity, then you would understandably have a problem with that.  If owners are being sold a reservation system when in fact it is not, then they might understably have a problem with that.



But for Trust Members isn't it a reservation system?  "Trust Members have direct access to intervals conveyed to the Trust and available through the DC Exchange Company.  Enrolled/Exchange Members have direct access to only the intervals available through the Exchange Company."  That's how we here on TUG explain it, don't we?

Despite the appearance that most intervals are booked through the Exchange Company (as evidenced by the "MVC EXCHANGE" notation on most DC Points confirmations,) Trust Members are in fact entitled to reserve the intervals owned by/conveyed to the Trust in the same manner that Weeks Owners are entitled to reserve the intervals that correlate to the resort/season/unit designation intervals purchased.  Points, Weeks, add in II Exchanges, doesn't matter, they're all subject to availability.  When you purchase direct that's made clear in the documents that you take with you, and you're entitled to a rescission period in which you can review those docs and re-think your purchase.

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

Getting off the tangent and back to Mr. Desantis' lawsuit, it doesn't appear that he understood his ownership when he bought it, while he was using it pre-DC inception, and, now that the DC is established.  Is that because the sales reps along the way flat-out lied to him (for example, "you exchange your Week for other Weeks directly through Marriott," "enrolling your Week will cost you $10,000," "if you don't enroll you will not be able to exchange to other Marriotts? etc")  Or is it because he misunderstood what was said to him (for example, "Marriott Weeks are exchanged through II but there is a preference period during which deposited Marriott Weeks are made available to only Marriott Owners," "Enrolling your Week will cost you $X but if you want access to as many Points as you would need to book a similar interval to the Week you own, you'll have to purchase additional Points subject to a minimum," "If you don't enroll you'll still be able to exchange your Week through II but will not be able to utilize the DC Exchange Company inventory. etc)"  Or is it something in between?

If the sales reps have flat-out lied then by all means, let this suit be a wake-up call for Marriott AND give Mr. Desantis the moon and stars and every little thing his heart desires.  If the sales reps didn't flat-out lie but were just cagey enough to let him think things were/are different than reality, again, let it be a wake-up call for Marriott that forces them to institute more honest selling practices and maybe throw everyone in the class a bone - but I'm of two minds about that because we all know who ultimately pays when a class action is won.  But if the fault is with Mr. Desantis because all along the way he simply didn't take his "Buyer Beware" responsibility seriously enough, then IMO he doesn't deserve anything and neither do the rest of us.


----------



## Beefnot (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> But for Trust Members isn't it a reservation system? "Trust Members have direct access to intervals conveyed to the Trust and available through the DC Exchange Company. Enrolled/Exchange Members have direct access to only the intervals available through the Exchange Company." That's how we here on TUG explain it, don't we?
> 
> Despite the appearance that most intervals are booked through the Exchange Company (as evidenced by the "MVC EXCHANGE" notation on most DC Points confirmations,) Trust Members are in fact entitled to reserve the intervals owned by/conveyed to the Trust in the same manner that Weeks Owners are entitled to reserve the intervals that correlate to the resort/season/unit designation intervals purchased. Points, Weeks, add in II Exchanges, doesn't matter, they're all subject to availability. When you purchase direct that's made clear in the documents that you take with you, and you're entitled to a rescission period in which you can review those docs and re-think your purchase.
> 
> ...


 
This is not a tangent, it is directly related. They believe they have a simple reservation system, when it in fact is a rather complex reservation system that is intentionally misrepresented by salespeople. On this one hand you are citing what folks on TUG (a tiny minority of owners) have come to understand very acutely, as well as all the language in the contract documents (that no one reads), while on the other hand you suggest the majority of owners understand their ownership rather well. I do not believe that both points of view co-exist in reality.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 23, 2014)

While the DC program for trust users may be a reservation system. It isn't as simple as a hotel. A hotel may have 250 rooms and on day one there are 250 rooms available to book. With the DC trust, there may be 250 villas, but only 5 available for reservations. More may or may not come available later on. That is where the exchange company comes in.

In either case. It doesn't look like the plaintiff is effected by how DC reservations work. They don't appear to be an enrolled owner. Just feel they have been damaged by the fact that they believe II inventory is less than it was before 6/20/2010. That is what the sales reps keep saying. And as the Prime Exchange Inventory thread seems to indicate, it is based somewhat in fact.


----------



## pipet (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> But for Trust Members isn't it a reservation system?  "Trust Members have direct access to intervals conveyed to the Trust and available through the DC Exchange Company.



When selling points, the reps don't tell exactly what % ownership the Trust has vs weeks owners ... ie what a point owner is actually buying. I doubt even the sales reps actually know! Here on TUG we have dioxide so we know how little the Trust actually owns at many high demand resorts.  We also know the sales people make a big deal about banking & borrowing to show how people can actually get into a high demand week, making it seem like if you have the points, you can get the week.  Additionally, many sales reps downplay availability issues even if you bring it up as a question!

I'm still waiting for the Hawaii club my sales rep told me was coming...


----------



## UthTrvlr (May 23, 2014)

Here is the official statment from Marriott Vacations Worldwide on this matter:

_"We are aware of the lawsuit filed in March 2014 by Salvatore DeSantis.  We dispute the material allegations in this complaint and intend to defend against this action vigorously.  Marriott Vacation Club is proud of our position as a leader in the vacation ownership industry and our innovative weeks and points vacation ownership programs, which provide unforgettable vacations for our more than 415,000 owner families.  We are also proud of the consistently high level of customer satisfaction with our resorts, our exchange programs and the services and amenities that we offer our valued owners and guests."_

Should be interesting to see how this turns out.


----------



## answeeney (May 23, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> So essentially this boils down to misrepresentations by sales reps, right, with respect to both II availability and access to any new/future resorts?  Well, the only change in II that we on TUG have perceived/reported is that higher-demand intervals are being deposited to II closer in to check-in days, not that they're completely impossible...
> 
> ...a "severely depleted" II availability...



As a European owner last minute availability is more or less the same as no availability so the first statement sort of proves the second statement. Maybe we poor Europeans should start our own class action.


----------



## bazzap (May 24, 2014)

"As a European owner last minute availability is more or less the same as no availability"

This is certainly true.
With none of the "proposed" new European developments ever coming to fruition and only 4x MVC resorts here , our exchange choice is becoming severely more constrained unless we pay very high charges for late transatlantic flight bookings.
Pre DC, this was never an issue for us.


----------



## csalter2 (May 24, 2014)

*Lawsuit is frivoulous*

In my opinion, this lawsuit is almost frivolous. First, it's laden with many, many false premises. The plaintiff obviously does not understand his own timeshare. Like most who do not understand their timeshare, the owner is frustrated because of their lack of frustration.  They think someone has wronged them. 

Next, when you exchange with II, there is no guarantee that it is a Marriott that you would get. Thus, if there is no Marriott ever, your membership with II never promised that.  

Perhaps the biggest issue I see for the plaintiff is when the paperwork is to be reviewed. What is in writing is what the courts will really review. Remember, you have a week to rescind. Marriott has not changed anything for you as a weeks owner. It's is a choice to to join the DC. You still can make a reservation 12 months out. Many weeks owners still get the weeks they want. Points are in a different bucket. When these FACTS are clarified, the plaintiffs will have no claim. In addition, Marriott will fight this because they need to slam shut the flood gates. 

As for hotels, there is no comparison. You don't pay for that room in January. You pay after you have actually arrived. There is no prepayment penalty for a reservation unless you don't get there that night. 


The facts will speak.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 24, 2014)

csalter2 said:


> Perhaps the biggest issue I see for the plaintiff is when the paperwork is to be reviewed. What is in writing is what the courts will really review.



Often however, it is that actual paperwork that gets companies in to trouble. It doesn't always come down to what is in writing. If MVCI said one thing in promotional material or sales presentation and it is then contradicted in the written contract, they can still be liable. It doesn't always come down to the contract. Also, contracts can violate the law. You can't sign certain rights away.

Even if they say in the contract that you are only agreeing to what is written, if there is evidence that MVCI sales reps often are promising many more. The courts may see those promises as a contract also. Doesn't matter what is always in writing.


----------



## m61376 (May 24, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> You know, maybe I'm naive but I still have a very hard time accepting that the majority of people who buy timeshares direct from the developers come away from their purchase without understanding the simple premise that availability is THE driving factor in any floating system.  The comments here about (paraphrased), "every DC Points Member thinks their Points will get them into the highest-demand Plat intervals every time," confuse me, and quite honestly, are an insult against the purchasers' intelligence.
> 
> I do understand that the sales reps use the selling tool of (paraphrased again,) "owners can use DC Points to book any number of nights at any resort in any unit type."  Of course they use it, because it's true - that IS the flexibility of the DC system.  But a disconnect happens when I try to correlate that selling tool to any-and-all buyers thinking it means that every reservation request will be fulfilled.  It just isn't logical.


Sue- sometimes logic and emotion don't mix we'll. I can tell you from conversations with friends who are extremely intelligent that they've bought the hype that salespeople have proffered. Back in the weeks system, they believed that a direct purchased unit had more value (and I am not talking about being ale to trade for MRPs). They believed their requests would get fulfilled first, both in direct reservations and through II. They believed that perceived preference was worth the added cost, and that a resale purchase couldn't possibly give them the same benefits. 

Fast forward to 2014- I have no doubt that intelligent, well educated people, on a vacation "high," fully believe that their newly purchased points will be able to get them those coveted reservations just with a simple phone call, as the Marriott reps allude to. They don't think about what the availability will be, because the sales presentation doesn't address that issue. They assume if they have the points, they'll get what they want. 

And if they do get it- they're convinced it's because they made the purchase directly through Marriott and were somehow treated as being in a special category. I've heard this over and over- its easy to convince people that what they want or they're doing is the best course and the right decision. Sometimes even the smartest people can be gullible.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 24, 2014)

good afternoon...

pretty simple stuff

Plaintiff feels trading value in II is diminshed by action of defendant (DC start-up)

Employees of defendant (sales reps) are telling customers (such as Plaintiff)
"if you don't pay $$$ for new product (DC) old product (II) will dry up and you will be left in "back of bus"

hope this BBS isn't discoverable....


----------



## taffy19 (May 24, 2014)

I am against class action lawsuits and get sick on my stomach when I hear all the commercials on TV and there are many. A few may be justified because people didn't know about the dangers they were in but not today with so much information about everything. 

Most of these attorneys are hardly interested in their clients if they do not even understand what they are suing about. They are only interested in a fast buck and a quick settlement. IMO.

PS. I do agree that Marriott should stop the sales force from puffing or lying as I have heard it myself several times but know better now not to believe anything anymore unless it is in writing.

 Keep on educating, TUG!


----------



## suzannesimon (May 24, 2014)

Agreed, Emmy.  How many times have we received 35 cents in the mail for some class action lawsuit that we "won" and the lawyers got $6 million for their efforts?  They really need to pass a law that  the loser has to pay the winners' legal fees.  That would stop a lot of it.  How many defendants settle in order to just stop the bleeding of the legal costs?


----------



## Luckybee (May 25, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> But for Trust Members isn't it a reservation system?  "Trust Members have direct access to intervals conveyed to the Trust and available through the DC Exchange Company.  Enrolled/Exchange Members have direct access to only the intervals available through the Exchange Company."  That's how we here on TUG explain it, don't we?
> 
> Despite the appearance that most intervals are booked through the Exchange Company (as evidenced by the "MVC EXCHANGE" notation on most DC Points confirmations,) Trust Members are in fact entitled to reserve the intervals owned by/conveyed to the Trust in the same manner that Weeks Owners are entitled to reserve the intervals that correlate to the resort/season/unit designation intervals purchased.  Points, Weeks, add in II Exchanges, doesn't matter, they're all subject to availability.  When you purchase direct that's made clear in the documents that you take with you, and you're entitled to a rescission period in which you can review those docs and re-think your purchase.
> 
> ...



To date I am not unhappy with the trades we have made as non enrolled weeks owners (but without doubt we have noticed less availability in certain locales but for us we've managed to work within II for our normally limited trades). 
That said, when we purchased Aruba waaaayyyy back when we did so to use in Aruba and not really to trade which is perhaps why I ignored all the rhetoric from the sales mgr (not our rep) about how if we traded "far enough in advance we could get any Marriott anywhere in the world no problem" . He went on to say that "Marriott always "holds some units so that people could get trades they want". This nonsense has been going on for yrs and if you have no understanding of the timeshare market you could be easily led to believe what the sales people say. Our rep who was actually decent went on to later become the sales mgr and she was a gem but the sales mgr at the time was full of ----, but quite convincing . We were buying without the crap but I can see how he could have swayed others.


----------



## siesta (May 25, 2014)

suzannesimon said:


> Agreed, Emmy.  How many times have we received 35 cents in the mail for some class action lawsuit that we "won" and the lawyers got $6 million for their efforts?  They really need to pass a law that  the loser has to pay the winners' legal fees.  That would stop a lot of it.  How many defendants settle in order to just stop the bleeding of the legal costs?


I respectfully disagree. The English rule is what you are suggesting, which the loser pays the winner's fees. The American rule is that the default is each side pays for their own attorney fees, however there are times when you can recover your attorney fees for various reasons (ex - if authorized by statute, frivolous claim, etc.)

"The rationale for the American rule is that people should not be discouraged from seeking redress for perceived wrongs in court or from trying to extend coverage of the law. The rationale continues that society would suffer if a person was unwilling to pursue a meritorious claim merely because that person would have to pay the defendant's expenses if they lost."

^This is the core of why we adopted the American rule. Many plaintiffs would not sue if threatened with paying thousands+ if they lost, the poor and uneducated especially.  Many meritorious claims lose in court for one reason or another.  A meritorious claim that appeared to be a slam dunk can appear drastically different months later after discovery, etc.  The American rule, IMHO, is absolutely a superior method than to having the loser pay for the winner. 

Furthermore, your and Emmy's point about Class Action plaintiff only getting a few bucks while the attorney gets much more misses the point of why Class Actions are so useful.  For example, if a big corp. such as a bank, etc. acted unlawfully somehow, but you as a plaintiff were only damaged to the tune of $12, you would be hard pressed to find an attorney to take the case, and if you did, the attorney would likely charge you more than the recovery.  Thus, you are discouraged from filing suit, and the defendant gets away with its wrong doing and that $12 times thousands or millions of customers/plaintiffs adds up.  But, if an attorney were allowed to represent you, and 30,000 other plaintiffs in the same suit, he would be willing to take the case, you and all the other plaintiffs would be willing to press forward with the case, and the defendant would potentially be held accountable.  You were damaged, defendant was liable, you are entitled to your damages award and nothing more.  Your attorney, who spent hundreds if not thousands of hours on the case representing thousands of clients, gets compensated.  Additionally, he is bearing the risk, he is putting up the TREMENDOUS capital that is required, and only gets paid if he wins, and often years down the road.

Typically, many of the class actions allow class plaintiffs to opt out (depending how the class is certified). If you don't like it, don't participate, and hire your own lawyer.  Or, sit on your rights, which is your right.


----------



## larryallen (May 25, 2014)

iconnections said:


> I am against class action lawsuits and get sick on my stomach when I hear all the commercials on TV and there are many. A few may be justified because people didn't know about the dangers they were in but not today with so much information about everything.
> 
> Most of these attorneys are hardly interested in their clients if they do not even understand what they are suing about. They are only interested in a fast buck and a quick settlement. IMO.
> 
> ...



I think it's unfair to say "most of these attorneys...."  How do you know what most of the attorneys think?  My dad was a class action attorney and he LOVED to stop the big corporate giants from taking advantage of individuals.  He died 30 years ago so maybe now days it's different but I know for him and his colleagues it really wasn't about the money primarily. That was secondary.  Yes, the attorney sometimes makes big money but in most cases they spend years and years fighting and thus they earn their hourly rate. The change might not affect the actual class participants but rather the future consumers. Many frivolous cases but lots of very valuable ones too!


----------



## dioxide45 (May 25, 2014)

My only issue with class action suits and any of that matter is that in a lot of cases, the costs are simply passed down to the customer. The customer pays for everything and a class action suit may end up being just a cost of doing business. And customer, us, pay those costs. If we didn't the company would not be in business very long.


----------



## siesta (May 25, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> My only issue with class action suits and any of that matter is that in a lot of cases, the costs are simply passed down to the customer. The customer pays for everything and a class action suit may end up being just a cost of doing business. And customer, us, pay those costs. If we didn't the company would not be in business very long.


I think you have your issues mixed up.  Your issue should be with the defendant, who committed the wrongdoing, and after he/she/it was held accountable, passed on the cost to their consumers.  Your issue shouldn't be with a plaintiff seeking compensation/recourse.

Furthermore, your suggestion that a price increase will follow a settlement or judgment isn't typically the case.  Typically, corporations/big businesses etc. have litigation costs/legal fees already built into their budget, just like retailers have anticipated theft/fraud/shoplifting/loss prevention built into theirs. They don't wait until they've coughed up money in a lawsuit to then raise prices and recoup losses, or wait until they've been fleeced by shoplifters, instead a retailer adds ~3% etc. to the retail price in anticipation of such events. For big business, legal fees are a cost of doing business: Procter and Gamble getting sued because swiffer sweeper wet jet cleaning solution was toxic to pets doesn't settle and then raise the price of swiffer sweeper.

So although you are correct that consumers (and shareholders) often pay the price, the price isn't paid after the fact, its often paid up front.  Don't like a company's business practice of passing losses onto consumers, especially because of their own wrongdoing? I'd take my business elsewhere.  Blame the company, blame the management, demand executives take pay cuts to offset losses by their own willful or negligent behavior, but don't blame the plaintiff who was wronged, or his attorney aiding him in seeking justice.


----------



## Docklander (May 26, 2014)

siesta said:


> I think you have your issues mixed up.  Your issue should be with the defendant, who committed the wrongdoing, and after he/she/it was held accountable, passed on the cost to their consumers.  Your issue shouldn't be with a plaintiff seeking compensation/recourse.



I think it depends on the suit being brought. If the plaintiff has a real, justifiable gripe then ok, yes, there shouldn't be an issue with the plaintiff at all...in fact we should support them. However, we appear to be living in a time when the idea to sue is a knee-jerk reaction to just about any situation where someone feels aggrieved (and sues, often, with little regard to the merit of a suit). In this case I tend to agree with Dioxide, we the customers often end up footing the bill for someone else's tantrum.


----------



## Beefnot (May 26, 2014)

Docklander said:


> I think it depends on the suit being brought. If the plaintiff has a real, justifiable gripe then ok, yes, there shouldn't be an issue with the plaintiff at all...in fact we should support them. However, we appear to be living in a time when the idea to sue is a knee-jerk reaction to just about any situation where someone feels aggrieved (and sues, often, with little regard to the merit of a suit). In this case I tend to agree with Dioxide, we the customers often end up footing the bill for someone else's tantrum.



Like here in California where all these ADA shakedown lawsuits get filed against small businesses because a toilet is 1/4" to close to the wall and crap like that.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (May 26, 2014)

The experience before and after DC was rolled out is tangibly different. Has not anyone noticed this? Prime weeks are rolled out weeks before check in as opposed to at least a year or months in previous years. And every year, there seems to be some scheme to add some hardship to trading for legacy weeks not enrolled or unable to enroll in the DC Program. Just because everyone is knowledgeable with strategies in tug does not mean that the plaintiffs and other legacy weeks owners have no legitimate complaints. 

The expectations from when their contract was executed are substantially different from their present experience. The court has to look if there is a material change of circumstances constituting breach or even fraud. As one European weeks owner stated in this thread, release of these prime weeks just weeks before check in (if at all), is tantamount to not having the ability to trade. In fact, having this two tiered system of ownership is prejudicial to legacy weeks owners. Giving them an opportunity to enroll when they rolled out the program does not cure their original obligations. They cannot change the scheme or system just for MVDC's benefit leaving the rest of us behind and experiencing hardship in using our investments.

As a legacy weeks owner who is not enrolled and cannot enroll her weeks, I feel the hardship even with my prime ski week, even those whom I know who own DC points notice the harder trades through II and the skim from converting into points. We should not have a need to game a system, and having the prognosis that trades are going to be harder if you don't join the DC and dishing out the old tug wisdom that we should have bought where we want to go every year does not help nor is it material.

Let the jury decide. Frankly, I don't care about the reputation of MVDC's attorneys. The law applies or should apply equally to all, and I just want justice to prevail.


----------



## davidvel (May 26, 2014)

I understand all the arguments about representations at the sales pitch, but courts usually uphold the terms of the contract where they contradict, to avoid "he said-she said" claims. The Marriott contract does contain a disclaimer of verbal claims in it. This does not mean I think its right, or can't be pursued, but... 

Looking through the exhibits to the complaint (which are too large to post), I see nothing in the brochures, declarations or contract that implies an guaranteed trade. The docs do have the following disclaimers:


----------



## davidvel (May 26, 2014)

And, contract language:


----------



## puckmanfl (May 26, 2014)

good evening...

I am no attorney, but it's simpler than all that... at least 20 sales reps (MVCD employees) have told Legacy Owners, that the product will be diminished ifg they don't join DC

They have been told II will dry up and "left at back of bus" and they were told they would not have access to future properties...in the club...  when the employees of the defendant state this...it will go a long way with a jury...

p.s.  my favorite show is Law and Order.... Most lawyers I know love "ER" especially with Dr. Greene...


----------



## dioxide45 (May 26, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> MVCD also had to stop the " traded my november Branson for January Park City talk in the hot tubs.. I know this from personal experience...  A few years ago, I had some mountainside owners irate when I told them how I got a february week at MOU with a GV studio...



The problem though, is that for years under the weeks system they sold "buy winter Branson and ski Park City". This was the big sale, you didn't need to buy that expensive week, you could buy el cheapo and trade in. This was the pitch before 620/2010.

Then Marriott decided on 6/20/2010 to change the game. Not the pitch is that they had to make the system more fair. But they activly sold the unfairness before. Was pulling the rug out legal? That is up to the court to decide.


----------



## tschwa2 (May 26, 2014)

SkyBlueWaters said:


> The experience before and after DC was rolled out is tangibly different. Has not anyone noticed this? Prime weeks are rolled out weeks before check in as opposed to at least a year or months in previous years. And every year, there seems to be some scheme to add some hardship to trading for legacy weeks not enrolled or unable to enroll in the DC Program. Just because everyone is knowledgeable with strategies in tug does not mean that the plaintiffs and other legacy weeks owners have no legitimate complaints.
> 
> The expectations from when their contract was executed are substantially different from their present experience. The court has to look if there is a material change of circumstances constituting breach or even fraud. As one European weeks owner stated in this thread, release of these prime weeks just weeks before check in (if at all), is tantamount to not having the ability to trade. In fact, having this two tiered system of ownership is prejudicial to legacy weeks owners. Giving them an opportunity to enroll when they rolled out the program does not cure their original obligations. They cannot change the scheme or system just for MVDC's benefit leaving the rest of us behind and experiencing hardship in using our investments.
> 
> ...



The experience definitely is different now but it isn't as though. those that are enrolled but still exchanging through II are able to confirm months in advance and only un-enrolled owners are being shafted by II exchanges.  As long as MVCI isn't pulling out the best owner deposits in II and substituting 1, 2 or even 3 Orlando, Williamsburg or off season weeks for every prime beach, Europe, or Hawaii, etc week deposited they aren't doing anything wrong.  If they want to keep the inventory they own, or inventory from the trust or inventory from any member who exchanged in for points be they DC or MR points, those are weeks Marriott has the right to withhold.  Even if in the past they deposited this inventory into II earlier doesn't mean that owners had a right to expect that they would always have easy and early access to unused Marriott inventory through II.


----------



## davidvel (May 26, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good evening...
> 
> I am no attorney, but it's simpler than all that... at least 20 sales reps (MVCD employees) have told Legacy Owners, that the product will be diminished ifg they don't join DC
> 
> ...



But what's wrong with this? What's "diminishing" (ability to trade for a better week) is not a benefit that was purchased, but expressly disclaimed. The "product" purchased was the right to reserve A WEEK in your season.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 26, 2014)

good evening...

First of all..I love DC it has enhanced not diminished my ownership...

however..playing devil's advocate...

I have my initial purchase package and paper work...it clearly lists usage options  including II trade...trading is not guaranteed (everyone understands that) but action of defendant has diminished this option.. Their own employees are using this as part of a sales pitch..if employees of the company are stating it..it has to be true to a jury.. I would not mind being a young Perry Mason and presneting this to the 12 in the box...


----------



## Beverley (May 26, 2014)

siesta said:


> Furthermore, your and Emmy's point about Class Action plaintiff only getting a few bucks while the attorney gets much more misses the point of why Class Actions are so useful.  For example, if a big corp. such as a bank, etc. acted unlawfully somehow, but you as a plaintiff were only damaged to the tune of $12, you would be hard pressed to find an attorney to take the case, and if you did, the attorney would likely charge you more than the recovery.  Thus, you are discouraged from filing suit, and the defendant gets away with its wrong doing and that $12 times thousands or millions of customers/plaintiffs adds up.  But, if an attorney were allowed to represent you, and 30,000 other plaintiffs in the same suit, he would be willing to take the case, you and all the other plaintiffs would be willing to press forward with the case, and the defendant would potentially be held accountable.  You were damaged, defendant was liable, you are entitled to your damages award and nothing more.



I am one that is thankful for attorneys that are willing to take on class action suits.  It is a way to help keep entities in check.  Even if it is only a few dollars.  I was part of the class action suit against Chase back in 2008/2009 when they tripled their minimum payments required on their credit cards with remaining balances.  We had a card from them that had balances at 3% until the balance was paid.  Tripling the minimum due didn't put us in a hardship however, potentially could have.  If a payment was missed the rate would immediately go into default and the interest would be so high that 19 cents would have been paid toward principal while $320 would have been interest. Shameful in my opinion. Long and short of it a class action suit was filed and in the end we received $150.  I was surprised it was so high however, I was particularly satisfied that Chase bank was kept in check so to speak.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 26, 2014)

I think we're better off having class actions available, even when their only result is that companies are forced to engage in more open and honest business.  But the problem I have with this particular suit is that so much of what's being claimed is simply incorrect.  It appears that the lawyers involved didn't do one bit of investigating before agreeing to take the case - when/if it goes before a Court Marriott is going to find it very easy to refute a majority of the claims.  I would think that would sway the arbitrator (or jury or whatever if it goes beyond arbitration) to Marriott's side?  It would me, anyway, I'd be prejudiced against attorneys who take on cases without any prior knowledge of the subject, or who have an apparent indifference to learning about it.  

Plus I have the same question Davidvel does, asked it previously in this thread - if sales-speak is punishable by filing suit, why haven't we ever heard of a successful suit during all the years before the DC inception?  It's not as though the DC ushered in a new practice of questionable sales tactics - they've generated complaints for decades.


----------



## siesta (May 27, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> Plus I have the same question Davidvel does, asked it previously in this thread - if sales-speak is punishable by filing suit, why haven't we ever heard of a successful suit during all the years before the DC inception?  It's not as though the DC ushered in a new practice of questionable sales tactics - they've generated complaints for decades.


thats an easy one to answer, because its hard to prove! The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish fraud, misrepresentation, duress, etc. But its often essentially a he said, she said. So the court, with nothing more, will often rely on the terms the offeror presented and what the offeree signed.

That doesnt mean a timeshare company cant be held liable, actually quite the contrary. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior (also called vicarious liability), an employer is liable for wrongdoing committed by an employee if the employee was acting in the scope of his employment. Therefore, if such allegations are proven, the employer will also be held liable.


----------



## siesta (May 27, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> p.s.  my favorite show is Law and Order.... Most lawyers I know love "ER" especially with Dr. Greene...


 Law and Order is painful for attorneys to watch, at least to those who litigate. Very unrealistic, and sometimes just plain wrong(I'm referring to criminal procedure). I assume its a similar experience for physicians watching ER. Doesnt surprise me if Drs watch law and order while lawyers watch ER.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 27, 2014)

good morning....


ER comes pretty close to the real ED experience... Of course, all of that drama and exciting stuff doesn't happy every day.  They have taken the career experience of a gazillion ED cases and put it in a one hr TV show..butthe cases are based on reality.  The relationships amongst the staff are pretty close as well... all of the drama...

St. Elsewhere in the 1983-1988 was also a favorite of mine with Wayne Fiscus (Howie Mandel) as the young ED doc... Remember, this is the show that put Denzel Washington on the map, as chjief resident Philip Chandler... William Daniels, before Boy meets world...

I stopped watching ER after the episode where DR. Greene got taken down a rough patch with the labor case gone amok... Love Labor's lost..basically, a anything that can, will go wrong case  even for well meaning hard working docs...

How this anything to do with a class action lawsuit, I have no idea...


----------



## windje2000 (May 27, 2014)

davidvel said:


> But what's wrong with this? What's "diminishing" (ability to trade for a better week) is not a benefit that was purchased, but expressly disclaimed. The "product" purchased was the right to reserve A WEEK in your season.



That is a pretty limited view of the bundle of rights purchased. 

It's a little like saying a stock that you bought that was traded on the NYSE . . . that went private . . . and is now only traded by the company itself . . . for a fee . . . has not had a change in value.  (IT HAS)  

You bought that stock.  One of the attributes of that listed stock was your ability to trade it in an active organized market.  You lost that right when the company went private, and that represents a material adverse change.

The timeshare week is loosely analgous.

ETA:  Suppose you were offered (pre DCLUB) two identical weeks, one that was allowed to trade in II and one which was not.  Price is the same.  Which would you take?  Whichever one you would take has more value.  End ETA

When you bought your week, one of its attributes was the ability to trade on an active organized market, namely II.  MVC didn't guarantee that that independent exchange company would always be II (what company will guarantee the existence of another?) but it could have been RCI or another independent.  

The creation of a captive company by MVC which negatively affects the breadth and depth of the existing II exchange market and from which 

1.  MVC extracts substantial additional fees to join
2.  bars certain resale weeks from joining
3.  charges skim to participate 
4.  engages in high pressure 'chicken little' sales tactics as regards the future II trading market to encourage existing owners to join

can be argued to be a material adverse change.

Will the suit be successful?  Opinions vary.  That's why we have trials.  

But whatever is publicly disclosed in discovery regarding the management of the exchange activities by MVC should be of great interest to all of us on this board.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 27, 2014)

good morning

Thanks Windje...

You summarized my point in a more organized professional fashion!!!

Yes trading is not guaranteed, but you have a direct action by the defendant which has diminished it.  Makes it worse, the employees arer saying so!!!


----------



## tlwmkw (May 27, 2014)

I have read through this with interest.  It does sound like these attorneys haven't really researched what they are litigating.  I agree that many sales people have made ambiguous statements (and even outright lies) but I think it will be difficult for anyone to prove that they are doing this in any type of an organized fashion.  Yes, there are many anecdotes out there saying that this is so but really how easy will it be to prove?  Plus you have pretty ironclad contracts that state what you actually bought.  I know when we bought retail there was always a manager who came in a the end and described the exact thing you were buying and you had to sign in many places that you understood that.  

If this gets Marriott to crack down on the sales folks telling stories to make the sale then it will have been useful, but if it causes Marriott to pay a large fee and just give a largely worthless coupon to members of the class without any real changes happening then it is a waste of time.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

tlwmkw


----------



## davidvel (May 27, 2014)

windje2000 said:


> That is a pretty limited view of the bundle of rights purchased.
> 
> It's a little like saying a stock that you bought that was traded on the NYSE . . . that went private . . . and is now only traded by the company itself . . . for a fee . . . has not had a change in value.  (IT HAS)
> 
> ...



Are you saying that owners of stock that goes private when the company (through its rights to do so) buys back the stock can sue? 

Following your analogy, I guess Ford can't come out with a way better model of Explorer than the one you bought because it "devalues" the "old model" that you own, and you had "an expectation" that you could sell or trade it in. 

Once Marriott sells you the timeshare, they have no duty or obligation to keep your unit's value up, maintain existing trading opportunities, or anything else, unless the contract and governing docs require them to (which they do not.)

Believe me, I'm no defender of Marriott, but I don't see this one here. But as you said, we don't get to decide the outcome.


----------



## windje2000 (May 27, 2014)

davidvel said:


> Are you saying that owners of stock that goes private when the company (through its rights to do so) buys back the stock can sue?
> 
> *Absolutely - Google 'fair value' and 'appraisal rights in going private transactions' and see what you find*
> 
> ...



My analogy has nothing to do with new and improved Ford Explorers or whether or not the value of the timeshare changed.  

It has to do with the reasonable(?) expectation that the benefits (lauded in MVC's own promotional materials) provided by an independent exchange company (II, RCI  or another) would not be trashed in favor of an in-house captive (and some might argue predatory) replacement exchange scheme designed to enhance MVC's ability to sell points.


----------



## Beefnot (May 27, 2014)

By creating the DC, one may choose to argue that Marriott effectively created a competing exchange platform to II, thus severely diminishing the weeks ownerships they previously pushed.  But does Marriott have any contractual restriction from doing this?  I struggle to see how such a restriction exists.  

Not that it would actually happen, but I could more realistically envision a scenario by which Marriott removes the post-2010 restrictions from entry into the DC.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 27, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> By creating the DC, one may choose to argue that Marriott effectively created a competing exchange platform to II, thus severely diminishing the weeks ownerships they previously pushed.  But does Marriott have any contractual restriction from doing this?  I struggle to see how such a restriction exists.
> 
> Not that it would actually happen, but I could more realistically envision a scenario by which Marriott removes the post-2010 restrictions from entry into the DC.



I don't really see where the plaintiff is arguing anything about post 6/20/2010 resales. If anything, they could perhaps remove the enrollment fee. Though since Marriott made no promises to post 6/20/2010 resale buyers (or even the pre), I don't see where they would have to remove the current restriction.


----------



## Beefnot (May 27, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I don't really see where the plaintiff is arguing anything about post 6/20/2010 resales. If anything, they could perhaps remove the enrollment fee. Though since Marriott made no promises to post 6/20/2010 resale buyers (or even the pre), I don't see where they would have to remove the current restriction.


 
True, although this whole deal reminded me of the RCI lawsuit where all the members got a few dollar settlements, and RCI also rolled out a completely redesigned TPU exchange model. I may have this all wrong, but the TPU model was not necessarily a direct byproduct of the class action suit, but it ended up being quite an acceptable byproduct. Perhaps farfetched, but I could see a rejiggering of the marketing and mechanics of Marriott's DC program as a byproduct of the suit, one of which is that all owners have the ability to operate on equal footing.


----------



## KauaiMark (May 27, 2014)

*10K??*



GregT said:


> I'm not surprised to see a Class Action suit, but I do not know how they can prove that they were damaged.  Marriott did a good job of preserving the existing rights of owners, and it would be difficult to prove that weeks have gone down in value since June 2010.
> 
> If anything, they've gone up in value.
> 
> ...



We own a Kauai week bought in 1996. We've used, rented, traded it every year and did sign up for the points option when Marriott offered it.

At the time the fee to add the points system option was $595 not $10k and it WAS optional. Unlike certain politician promises: "...If you like your plan, you can keep it" 

I haven't had any problems reserving MY OWNED week a year out so I don't see how that affects trading with II unless there are fewer weeks being submitted to II for trades in favor of getting points for direct Marriott exchanges. Even then, I don't see how the guy has a leg to stand on.

I don't think a guaranteed II trading power level was part of the contract.

...Mark


----------



## Ec4 (May 27, 2014)

I can assure you that my ability to use my legacy weeks have been impacted by the points system - negatively!   For example, I attempted to make a reservation in December last year for my 2 weeks at Playa Andaluza.  The reservation system informed me that all units in my season had been reserved and none were available.  I called reservations and was told the same thing.  I asked how that was possible since we weren't even in 2014 yet.  The persn said "the reservation window had been open for some time."  I told her I understood that, but since no weeks during that time period could possibly have been used, that 1) either Marriott had oversold Playa for my season (something we were told would not happen). Or 2) more weeks during my season had been placed in trust weeks than should have been (which we also were told would not happen).  Either way it impacted my ability to reserve.  She got a supervisor who agreed with me that it should not be impossible to reserve a week since all weeks were still in the future.  I finally got my reservation a couple of days later after "Marriott checked what was gong on".  I assumed it was a hiccup in the system, but wondered if it would happen again.   Fast forward, this just happened again with 3 legacy gold season weeks in Phuket (part of Marriott Asia Pacific points program).  Went to reserve and was told they were fully booked.   I said - gold season hasn't started yet.  Reservations person said she saw that , but it doesn't change the fact that all are reserved.  I asked for supervisor and I again explained that all weeks couldn't possibly be reserved unless they oversold weeks or put too many weeks into points.  He hemmed and hawed for a bit and finally asked what three weeks I wanted.  Said. Didn't care, was going to trade them this year.  Suddenly there was no problem getting me a reservation.  Clearly Marriott is playing with points and weeks to the disadvantage of weeks users (and probably points users too).
I own legacy weeks in US, Spain, and Thailand and points n Destinations and Asia Pacific program.  Unfortunately it s getting way too complicated to even try and pay maintenance fees, which cant be handled by the same people.  Marriott needs to make the system easier, but hasn't figured out a way to do that - to their detriment -and ours.


----------



## MALC9990 (May 28, 2014)

Ec4 said:


> I can assure you that my ability to use my legacy weeks have been impacted by the points system - negatively!   For example, I attempted to make a reservation in December last year for my 2 weeks at Playa Andaluza.  The reservation system informed me that all units in my season had been reserved and none were available.  I called reservations and was told the same thing.  I asked how that was possible since we weren't even in 2014 yet.  The persn said "the reservation window had been open for some time."  I told her I understood that, but since no weeks during that time period could possibly have been used, that 1) either Marriott had oversold Playa for my season (something we were told would not happen). Or 2) more weeks during my season had been placed in trust weeks than should have been (which we also were told would not happen).  Either way it impacted my ability to reserve.  She got a supervisor who agreed with me that it should not be impossible to reserve a week since all weeks were still in the future.  I finally got my reservation a couple of days later after "Marriott checked what was gong on".  I assumed it was a hiccup in the system, but wondered if it would happen again.   Fast forward, this just happened again with 3 legacy gold season weeks in Phuket (part of Marriott Asia Pacific points program).  Went to reserve and was told they were fully booked.   I said - gold season hasn't started yet.  Reservations person said she saw that , but it doesn't change the fact that all are reserved.  I asked for supervisor and I again explained that all weeks couldn't possibly be reserved unless they oversold weeks or put too many weeks into points.  He hemmed and hawed for a bit and finally asked what three weeks I wanted.  Said. Didn't care, was going to trade them this year.  Suddenly there was no problem getting me a reservation.  Clearly Marriott is playing with points and weeks to the disadvantage of weeks users (and probably points users too).
> I own legacy weeks in US, Spain, and Thailand and points n Destinations and Asia Pacific program.  Unfortunately it s getting way too complicated to even try and pay maintenance fees, which cant be handled by the same people.  Marriott needs to make the system easier, but hasn't figured out a way to do that - to their detriment -and ours.


Unfortunately it is technically possible for there to be no availability but I agree that if you are booking well in advance and are totally flexible on dates then it should not happen. 
Actually MVCI has the right to take weeks that are not reserved at 70 days before check-in for that week so if you try to book a week at your home resort less than 70 days before check-in then you can be told there is no availability.

It has happened to me when the close on a resale week took far too long to complete because Marriott delayed the transfer so long. However I also only wanted a week to deposit with II and a week was found and the problem solved.

I am surprised at the situation in Phuket since Gold Season is low season and is usually available easily even close to the 70 day mark.

Paying MFs where there are foreign currencies involved is always an issue and Thailand is definitely an example of where MVCI could and should bring the payment system into line with at least Europe but it does involve a currency exchange. I usually end up paying with my Marriott UK Mastercard and at least get the MR points but always get hit with a 2.99 % fee for the exchange and then there is the exchange rate that the card uses - which is usually reasonable since it is set by Mastercard.


----------



## bazzap (May 28, 2014)

At least, we are finally getting a few UK credit cards which don't charge the ~2.99% foreign exchange fee.
Nothing like the choice of US credit cards though.
Now if the UK Marriott MasterCard were also to waive these fees, that would be good news.


----------



## dougp26364 (May 28, 2014)

With timeshare all your really buying is a right to use a specified space, sometimes in perpetuity, sometimes for a defined #of years, and very little else. The contract you sign gives you very few rights and typically obsolves the seller of any verbal statements or promises made by the salesman. I don't see this going anywhere other than as an expensive way for this single owner to dispose of his owned MVCI timeshare in the settlement offered out of court.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 28, 2014)

Ec4 said:


> I can assure you that my ability to use my legacy weeks have been impacted by the points system - negatively!   For example, I attempted to make a reservation in December last year for my 2 weeks at Playa Andaluza.  The reservation system informed me that all units in my season had been reserved and none were available.  I called reservations and was told the same thing.  I asked how that was possible since we weren't even in 2014 yet.  The persn said "the reservation window had been open for some time."  I told her I understood that, but since no weeks during that time period could possibly have been used, that 1) either Marriott had oversold Playa for my season (something we were told would not happen). Or 2) more weeks during my season had been placed in trust weeks than should have been (which we also were told would not happen).  Either way it impacted my ability to reserve.  She got a supervisor who agreed with me that it should not be impossible to reserve a week since all weeks were still in the future.  I finally got my reservation a couple of days later after "Marriott checked what was gong on".  I assumed it was a hiccup in the system, but wondered if it would happen again.   Fast forward, this just happened again with 3 legacy gold season weeks in Phuket (part of Marriott Asia Pacific points program).  Went to reserve and was told they were fully booked.   I said - gold season hasn't started yet.  Reservations person said she saw that , but it doesn't change the fact that all are reserved.  I asked for supervisor and I again explained that all weeks couldn't possibly be reserved unless they oversold weeks or put too many weeks into points.  He hemmed and hawed for a bit and finally asked what three weeks I wanted.  Said. Didn't care, was going to trade them this year.  Suddenly there was no problem getting me a reservation.  Clearly Marriott is playing with points and weeks to the disadvantage of weeks users (and probably points users too).
> I own legacy weeks in US, Spain, and Thailand and points n Destinations and Asia Pacific program.  Unfortunately it s getting way too complicated to even try and pay maintenance fees, which cant be handled by the same people.  Marriott needs to make the system easier, but hasn't figured out a way to do that - to their detriment -and ours.



Similar problem with Royal Palms...If you try to get week 51 or 52, and you don't get it, you may not get _any_ week in that years. If any week went unclaimed in the period from week 1 through the next 68 days, (75-7) _somebody_ who tried to get week 51/52 won't get anything. This effective makes 51/52 unavailable for booking, unless you want to play Russian Roulette with your week...

I have found this out the hard way....

Furthermore, the Vacation Club "front runs" the owners...(i.e. gets its request honored before the other owners can get their requests honored.)


----------



## siesta (May 28, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> The contract you sign gives you very few rights and typically obsolves the seller of any verbal statements or promises made by the salesman. I don't see this going anywhere other than as an expensive way for this single owner to dispose of his owned MVCI timeshare in the settlement offered out of court.


you cant commit misrepresentation or fraud in contracts and claim safe haven by including a provision or a form that absolves you of it.

Just because its in writing and agreed to doesnt mean it has legal effect. For example, an unconscionable contract or even the disclaimer terms on the valet ticket claiming thtey are not liable ... they often are, its typically a simple issue of bailment.

The hurdle the plaintiffs face in these cases is not that worthless piece of paper purporting to absolve the developer/sales force. The hurdle is the burden the plaintiff must carry which is to prove what was said, and that it was a misrepresentation of a material fact.

I find many of the comments in this thread about the merit of the suit and outcomes of the legal issues very interesting. Its great perspective into the mind of the layman. If I could only get jurors to be so candid after a verdict, but alas, they aren't required to talk to counsel after a trial unless they choose to.


----------



## Frisbeeace (May 28, 2014)

GregT said:


> I'm not surprised to see a Class Action suit, but I do not know how they can prove that they were damaged.  Marriott did a good job of preserving the existing rights of owners, and it would be difficult to prove that weeks have gone down in value since June 2010.



Not true. I have official price lists prior to 2010 in which my Sabal Palms weeks were valued at $25,000 while the current price that Marriott just informed me by mail is $9,000 and they offer to purchase it for $4,200 less fees and taxes... I do see a damage here.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 28, 2014)

good afternoon...

siesta

I can tell you what I was told...

In 2004 I was told that I can occupy my unit, lock-off, Trade thru II for current and future MVCD resorts or redeem for MRP points.  I was also told I can do a private rental...

In 2011 I was told that due to DC, II trades would dry iup and that I would not be able to trade for future MVCD resorts, unless I bought TRUST points....

I still LOVE DC, but just sayin'....
p.s I have always wondered about that car parking disclaimer thing... they take my $$$ then say whatever happens while car is in their custody is not their responsibilty....


----------



## windje2000 (May 28, 2014)

Frisbeeace said:


> Not true. I have official price lists prior to 2010 in which my Sabal Palms weeks were valued at $25,000 while the current price that Marriott just informed me by mail is $9,000 and they offer to purchase it for $4,200 less fees and taxes... I do see a damage here.



Actually what you are observing is a change in one indication of value (developer price) , which is not necessarily the same as the size or amount of damage.

What must be proven in the case at bar is whether or not the cause of the change in value is attributable to the actions of the defendant.


----------



## siesta (May 28, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good afternoon...
> 
> siesta
> 
> ...


 it seems as if you weren't the only one told this, definitely a recurring theme.

On your "p.s." check out my post on this issue in the following thread, post #7

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209658&highlight=Bailment


----------



## puckmanfl (May 29, 2014)

good morning...

I wasn't just "told", about usage options.  It is in writing in my usage brochures... in print!!!  Yes, these is one fine print in the back end of contract about "subject to change"..but if a direct action of the defendant changes some of these options...

interesting stuff..


----------



## Bunk (May 29, 2014)

A few comments:

1.	There may be a divergence in interests between those Week Owners who enrolled in the Vacation Club and those who chose not to do so.  I believe many of those who enrolled in the Vacation Club would like it to continue and do not want their rights impacted by the settlement of the class action lawsuit.  But what would happen if plaintiff succeeds?  Would you want Marriott enjoined from operating the new system? 

2.	I suspect that any class action settlement may result in court approval of the new Marriott system, while the plaintiff’s attorneys get a nice fee, the named plaintiffs get some money and the members of the class get trinkets.  Isn’t that what happened with RCI.  I don’t think most people object to the concept of a class action lawsuit, but we have gotten cynical when we see how usually they end up with the offending defendants getting away with their conduct and now at the cost of paying a nice sum of money to the plaintiff’s attorney, they receive a court approved pass to continue a business practice that started out as being called unacceptable or unconscionable behavior.

3.	 One of the problems with the RCI class action lawsuit was that by the time it was settled, nobody really wanted to listen to the objection that the settlement didn’t solve any problems; instead it whitewashed them.  With that in mind, wouldn't it be interesting if we would be able to articulate and form a class of members that might be affected by this settlement and to intervene in the lawsuit to see that our interests were properly protected?  Among other things, this might allow us to raise problems concerning whether the resorts are adequately compensated for the cost of use of a unit for less than seven days, or if that skim is strictly profit to MVC, and whether the owners of weeks who deposit those weeks with II are being treated fairly in how space is now being reserved for those owners.   Most readers of this forum are more concerned with protecting their ability to use the program as opposed to receiving money for “diminution of value”.  I believe that many of you know how this system works and how it should work much better than the class action lawyers will learn and that your motivation to protect the system is stronger than any of the parties to the class action lawsuit.


----------



## dougp26364 (May 29, 2014)

siesta said:


> you cant commit misrepresentation or fraud in contracts and claim safe haven by including a provision or a form that absolves you of it.
> 
> Just because its in writing and agreed to doesnt mean it has legal effect. For example, an unconscionable contract or even the disclaimer terms on the valet ticket claiming thtey are not liable ... they often are, its typically a simple issue of bailment.
> 
> ...



I agree, and, as you've mentioned, there is a burden of proof which, historically, has been difficult to show in court. 

Timeshare salesmen have lied for years. On TUG you read "If their lip are moving......" all the time, and yet, there are so few successful outcomes that it doesn't slow the timeshare weasles down. So either they're not lying or, it's a nearly impossible task to an organized effort to defraud the public. 

That is not to say there has not been some success. I recall reading in recent years that the Missouri state AG had some success against timeshare/travel clubs in proving organized material misrepresentation by their sales force. I don't recall having read of a successful case brought by an individual or group of individuals. Unless, of course, you're inclined to count the case brought against RCI, which netted individual members what?

Personally, I think it would be interesting to bring MVCI's sale staff to some accountability. Those who insinuate that there has been a material change that devalues or makes worthless what one already owns should have their feet held to the proverbial fire. One of the reasons we no longer attend "owners updates" is the misrepresentation that what we own is worthless UNLESS we pay the kings ransom and join the new and improved system. 

Ironically, we did join MVCI's Desintation Club. Not because of fear of losing benefits but for the additional benefits it offered. We have been able to make use of partial week bookings and, our last week long vacation was booked with check in/out as Wed., which allowed us to buy lower airfare and save my wife's paid time off, which had been depleated because of illness and injury.

I'm not sure this case, which appears to be about MVCI devaluing something already purchased, has legs. If it was more about the sales force telling material lies, which led to an unnessary purchase, maybe I'd feel different.


----------



## dougp26364 (May 29, 2014)

Frisbeeace said:


> Not true. I have official price lists prior to 2010 in which my Sabal Palms weeks were valued at $25,000 while the current price that Marriott just informed me by mail is $9,000 and they offer to purchase it for $4,200 less fees and taxes... I do see a damage here.



My cars, when they were new, had a list price of $25,000. Trade in value is likely around $5,000 and, if I sold them outright, would maybe be $7,500. 

The misrepresentation would be a salesman leading the client to believe that timeshare values increase with his knowledge that the developer does everything in their power to devalue resale weeks by limiting the rights of resale buyers. 

Hey, maybe that's a new class action law suit we should consider. 

I think, meaing I could be wrong, this case is about devaluing the usage rights of the existing weeks owner unless they purchase new trust points to "supercharge" their legacy points from their traditional weeks ownership. That, IMHO, will be difficult to prove. Proving the salesmen tell that lie might not be impossible but could be difficult. Proving this is a standard practice known to be occuring by MVCI might be even more difficult. Exactly what threshold needs to be proven for the case to be successful is something I do not know. I do know I'd have a difficult time validating the expense of such a case for whatever gain I might think there would be.


----------



## dougp26364 (May 29, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good afternoon...
> 
> siesta
> 
> ...



To me, there are 2 questions that must be answered in this case.

1. Has there been a material change in your original rights to occupy, trade or rent?

2. Do the salesmen lie to create an atmosphere of fear in order to make a sale? 

I have been through only one owners update since the change (we enrolled online) and, it was never stated I would lose benefits from my original agreement. It was, however, insinuated that we would gain an advantage over traditional owners if we purchased trust points.

As a former insurance agent I can state our view was the disclaimer did NOT release liability. Twice I've had damage done, twice they weakly attempted to stand behind the disclaimer and twice damages were paid. I suppose it depends on what piece of ground you're standing on as to how valid that disclaimer may or may not be. All state laws vary as I understand it.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 29, 2014)

good morning

Doug...

the answers to my mind...

#1  No...occupancy, trading and renting has become BETTER with DC for me...

#2  definitely, sales people are lying (stretching truth) to make a sale...DC hasn't changed this, just changed the lie..) The old lie was.."sure ..you can trade Branson studio in November for Pres. week in Park City..I do it all the time

I am not the plaintiff... The Plaintiff feels differently about #1, he is an un enrolled owner..who feels he was extorted to join DC (I don't)

If they put me on the stand..I would have to say my ownership is better!!!


----------



## Docklander (May 29, 2014)

I guess the crux of the matter lies here - did the creation of the DC program negatively impact the ownership of existing owners who chose not to participate in the DC program? 

I know that we were told, at various owner updates, that our trades through II would become harder and harder as the years go by if we chose to sit outside the DC. If this was a scare tactic then I'm not sure it's any more actionable than all the other dubious 'facts' that salespeople have been known to tell but, if it's true, then that's a whole other matter.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 29, 2014)

good morning

Docklander....

It doesn't matter if creation of DC has diminished II trades...

The plaintiff believes it, and MVCD employees are telling you (and others) in official capacity (sales presentations and owner updates) that it has...


----------



## suzannesimon (May 29, 2014)

I have an idea!  Let's send Jeff Rossen with NBC News in for an undercover sting at one of the timeshare presentations!


----------



## dougp26364 (May 29, 2014)

suzannesimon said:


> I have an idea!  Let's send Jeff Rossen with NBC News in for an undercover sting at one of the timeshare presentations!



I would enjoy watching an undercover news presentation of the sales practices at some timeshare developers. They could go from the well known bottom feeders like Westgate, Wyndham and Fesitiva and move all the way up to the "class acts" like HGVC, DVC and Marriott. It would be interesting to see officials squirm if they couldn't deny the actions filmed by the undercover news crew.


----------



## Docklander (May 29, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning
> 
> Docklander....
> 
> ...



This suggests an interesting situation. It suggests that a corporation can be sued for something that isn't actually true. It suggests that, even though II trades haven't been diminished (let's assume they haven't been diminished for argument's sake), if people have been told they've been diminished then a suit can be brought for damages caused as a result of that diminishment (that never happened).

I'm struggling to imagine a court in the US that would uphold that kind of suit....but then I'm no lawyer


----------



## puckmanfl (May 29, 2014)

good afternoon...

truth has nothing to do with it...

It is the perceptions of 12 Humans sitting in a jury box!!!!


These are the same courts, that upheld the "hot coffee" spill was  the defendants fault!!!!

the only point I am trying to make is  Plaintiff feels defendant has diminished value.  Defendant's employees are telling prospective customers that this is true!!!  to a jury, that goes a long way!!!


----------



## Beefnot (May 29, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good afternoon...
> 
> truth has nothing to do with it...
> 
> ...


 
By the way, you should watch the documentary "Hot Coffee".  I felt the same way as you about that case until I watched it.


----------



## puckmanfl (May 29, 2014)

good afternoon....

In closing my commentary on this subject...

I can see the defendant's attorney in closing telling the jurors

"If the Timeshare doesn't fit, you must acquit"

I still love my Marriott Timeshare!!!!


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 31, 2014)

If they wanted to win a class-action lawsuit, they need to catch Marriott in an error in their own documentation. Otherwise it's a he said, she said, situation.

Here is a sample.

A weeks owner has a Red/Platinum season that is a multi-split season, with 2 weeks at the end of the year as part of the season.

So far, so good? There are multiple Marriott timeshares with this setup.

The owner is sold a guaranteed week somewhere inside the season. (Not a fixed week, so it could be anywhere inside the season.) I don't think anyone here could argue against this point.

They are also guaranteed the access to try and book any week inside the season. Once again, I don't think anyone here would argue against this.

Both claims are in the docs.

Finally, Marriott will reclaim any week not book inside a window (which may vary from complex to complex (usually 60-75 days). Once again, inside the docs.

This leads to the following situation. Somebody tries to book week 52. They don't get it, too many people trying to book that week. Answer - book another week...

But can you?

Since you had to wait to 52 weeks before the week to try to book the week 52, _you can't book inside the first 2 months or so, because they are inside the reclaim window_.

Doesn't matter? If it is a fully sold timeshare, there are no other weeks to make up for the claimed week (inside those first 2 months or so). Therefore, the person is denied his/her week...

But you were guaranteed a week in the season. And reasonable ability to access it. Right upfront in the docs...But you can't. If you try to book in the other portions of the season, you are guaranteed a week, none of the season would fall into "reclaim window". But week 51/52, well...to attempt that means you may lose your week that year...Which was not what was being promised, in writing...

That, I suspect, would be considered a "material misrepresentation" of the object being sold....

One class action lawsuit, should one want to follow up...

(Just to make it worse, Marriott VC "front runs" each week at the initial booking window each week, as MVCI sees fit...)


----------



## MALC9990 (May 31, 2014)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> If they wanted to win a class-action lawsuit, they need to catch Marriott in an error in their own documentation. Otherwise it's a he said, she said, situation.
> 
> Here is a sample.
> 
> ...



My experience of this situation (well very similar) where there were no weeks left in my season when I came to book - called in and explained what had happened and a week that Marriott had claimed under "not claimed rule" was released for me to book. They asked me what I week I would prefer and came back and said yes it was available and booked for me.


----------



## csalter2 (Jun 1, 2014)

*It's Bad When Ignorance Is Not Bliss*

Perhaps the most difficult thing is some owners is grasping the understanding of their timeshares. This mostly comes because they don't take the time to READ their contract or other information.  That's why so many buy them and pay maintenance fees each year and don't use them complaining about they can't make reservations, can't trade, can't etc. etc. etc. It is this lack of knowledge that keeps many frustrated unnecessarily. 

After reading this lawsuit, I become frustrated by the ignorance of the program displayed in the suit.  Their are two main points here. First, value of the timeshare is determined by the market not Marriott. In the same way your home is determined by market and not by you. What people are willing to pay is what determines its value. 

Secondly, Marriott has not taken anything away from this owner.  Their is a misunderstanding or should I say an expectation that people have always had that they could trade through II and get a Marriott to trade.  Well, that was never the case. When you traded through II, you could possibly get a Marriott or you could get a Westin, Hilton or some no name timeshare.  II always has provided options other than Marriott not just to Marriott owners but to owners of other timeshare companies.  When you trade you often have a CHOICE of where you can trade into but it's based upon availability. NEVER has one been guaranteed they will be able to stay in a specific resort.  When is able to stay in a Marriott that is a plus. Sometimes it's better to stay at a Westin or a Four Seasons.

Many folks have just become so spoiled with trading up from one bedrooms to 2 bedrooms or from blue seasons to platinum seasons that they feel ENTITLED to get more than they bought into.  

The internal exchange with the skim gives a Marriott owner the inside opportunity to stay at a Marriott before owners in other timeshare systems. Now owners in Marriott are competing against one another as opposed to people from outside of the system. Yes, there is a skim. If you want Marriott, and want the convenience getting cheaper airfares and such, that's the cost. You can still use II but you may have to stay in a timeshare outside of Marriotts. That's what you pay for when you join II.  II takes what the other timeshare companies give them. You're not ENTITLED to Marriotts when you exchange with them.


----------



## bogey21 (Jun 1, 2014)

csalter2 said:


> You're not ENTITLED to Marriotts when you exchange with them.



I sold my 4 Marriott Weeks many years ago for reasons not related to this discussion but if I still owned them, the above statement would really bother me.  When I bought it was because of Marriott quality and the ability to vacation at Marriott Resorts.

Interestingly back when I bought, Marriott was affiliated with RCI.  What if some others who bought when I did bought based on the availability of RCI Resorts and was later told they were no longer available to them?   Just a thought.

George


----------



## tschwa2 (Jun 1, 2014)

The Marriott resorts that exchanged through RCI can still use RCI.  Most don't because they get a preference period with II but there are still some that are deposited in RCI.  They just aren't called Marriotts.



> StreamSide: Birch, Douglas (not Evergreen) [Aspen & Cedar are no longer managed by Marriott.]
> Cypress Harbour
> Desert Springs Villas I (not Desert Springs Villas II)
> Harbour Club
> ...


----------



## tlwmkw (Jun 1, 2014)

Some of this discussion is getting a bit ridiculous.  For example when we bought (sadly retail so the price was high- that's another story) we were told that we could trade our timeshares for DVC via II and that was a big part of our desire to buy.  Since then DVC left II and is now RCI.  Should we have a class action suit against DVC now because they have removed a trading option that was previously available to us?  And has this lowered the value of my timeshare and all the other timeshare owners that trade via II?  Of course not but that is about the same argument that the Plaintiff is making in this suit.  I knew when I purchased that everything was subject to availability and that all I was guaranteed was a week at my home resort in a certain time period.  I have to say that Marriott made that very clear when we bought and we signed many documents stating that we understood that.  I am sure that this is a standard across all the Marriott resorts and that the plaintiff had to sign the same documents that we did.  

The only thing I will agree with is that some of the sales people stretch the truth and some even tell outright lies to get the sale.  If this lawsuit is able to prove that this is a pervasive problem throughout the Marriott system, and is actually encourage by Marriott, then they might have some mileage and might get somewhere (I think they will have a hard time proving this though).  The other arguments are easily disproven by showing all the documents that were signed at the original purchase.

JMHO, tlwmkw


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 1, 2014)

tlwmkw said:


> The only thing I will agree with is that some of the sales people stretch the truth and some even tell outright lies to get the sale.  If this lawsuit is able to prove that this is a pervasive problem throughout the Marriott system, and is actually encourage by Marriott, then they might have some mileage and might get somewhere (I think they will have a hard time proving this though).  The other arguments are easily disproven by showing all the documents that were signed at the original purchase.
> 
> JMHO, tlwmkw



I am not sure it is hard to prove. They don't need to find evidence that Marriott encourages their sales people to stretch the truth. The sales people are acting in an official capacity on behalf of their employer. Their employer is responsible for their actions whether they encourage it or not.


----------



## siesta (Jun 2, 2014)

deleted ...


----------



## bogey21 (Jun 2, 2014)

Marriott is doing something right.  VAC stock is now about $57 per share.  I think price when it was spun off was around $30 per share.

George


----------



## rwallmeier (Jun 2, 2014)

*Opportunity to Buy Add'l Points vs. Deed of Ownership*

I knew it was  bad idea…fundamentally.   That is why we did NOT convert to the "points system".   Why would you give back something that you purchased (a deed of ownership that you can leave in a will) outright for something that only "allows you the opportunity" to continue purchasing points for more money…???


----------



## suzannesimon (Jun 2, 2014)

You didn't have to give back your week to join the points program.  You just have the option of converting to points in any year that you might want to go that route.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 2, 2014)

rwallmeier said:


> I knew it was  bad idea…fundamentally.   That is why we did NOT convert to the "points system".   Why would you give back something that you purchased (a deed of ownership that you can leave in a will) outright for something that only "allows you the opportunity" to continue purchasing points for more money…???



Owners of deeded Weeks who enrolled them in the Destination Club did NOT "give back" their Weeks and convert them to DC Points.  Enrollment of Weeks simply means that the Owner can choose on an annual basis to convert them to the specified allotment of DC Points for use in the DC Exchange Company.  Many Weeks Owners have enrolled their Weeks and will likely never convert them to DC Points but instead will continue using them as they've always done, more often than not at a cost savings because the annual DC Dues cover Marriott and II transaction fees for Enrolled Weeks.  Those who have elected to convert Enrolled Weeks to Points are doing it on a situational basis, using Weeks or Points depending on which gives the better value.

Selling a deeded Week is the same regardless of whether the Week is enrolled or not, except that a) any post-6/20/10 (US) or post-6/18/12 (Euro) re-sold Weeks cannot be enrolled in the DC by the new Owners because those are the cutoff dates for enrollment of externally re-sold Weeks; and, b) same as always, externally re-sold Weeks are not eligible for the Marriott Rewards Points exchange benefit.  Passing on a deeded Week to a defined Family Member is also the same whether it's enrolled or not, and the new Owner/heir may elect to continue the Week's DC enrollment if desired.

Also, a purchase of DC Trust Points by a Trust Member is a deeded purchase that can be re-sold and passed to heirs.

This forum's FAQ - MVC DESTINATIONS Points Program goes into all this in much more detail, if you're interested in learning how the DC program works for both Exchange Members (Owners of Enrolled Weeks) and Trust Members (purchasers of DC Trust Points.)

By the way, welcome to TUG!  We're happy to help you make your way through all of this - we all were confused by the Destination Club introduction and it's taken us a good long time to figure it out.  Should you have additional comments or questions, I'll be moving your post and any related follow-ups to a new TUG thread (so that the focus of this one will remain the class action lawsuit that's been filed.)


----------



## dougp26364 (Jun 2, 2014)

rwallmeier said:


> I knew it was  bad idea…fundamentally.   That is why we did NOT convert to the "points system".   Why would you give back something that you purchased (a deed of ownership that you can leave in a will) outright for something that only "allows you the opportunity" to continue purchasing points for more money…???



As mentioned, you don't give your week back or exchange your deeded week for a trust ownership. I don't believe MVCI even has a mechanism to do that.......yet. 

We enrolled both our weeks in the DC when the cost was $695. We still have our deeds, the reservations process is the same as is the exhchanges process. We we received in exchange was the OPTION to convert out deeded weeks to a points equivalent and then the right to use those points like trust owners to reserve nights at MVCI resorts. We picked up the flexibility to check in/out any night of the week and stay as short or long as we can afford. The DC also offers one yearly fee that includes the II membership fee and waives all the ala carte fees (except II exchange fees to NON MVCI resorts). 

Originally we choose to enroll because, at the time, we were paying two lock off fees and exchanging with other MVCI resorts 3 times/year. We covered our enrollment fee in the first 2 years and now we're ready to drop our personal II account, which will be an additional saving of approx $89/year. 

The DC has taken nothing away for weeks owners. It has given weeks owners another option. It's unfortunate that MVCI sales weasels have used fear as a tool to sell trust points, making owners believe what they currently own is now worthless. That sales tactic is going to cost MVCI some litigation fees at the very least. In the end it will cost all owners as the expense to defend this case will be passed on to us.


----------



## hcarman (Jun 6, 2014)

OK, here is a question............since we are talking about devaluation of one's week.

Would it be considered a devaluation if Destination Club points owners can buy the points needed to get into the same property and same season that you own - for 25% less than what week's owners paid for that same property/season prior to the conversion?

I know that isn't the case at many properties - usually the opposite - but there are some.............


----------



## nokaoi9 (Jun 6, 2014)

Would a week be devalued when you converted your week to the DC and are now being told that in order to be able to get into future resorts you need to buy trust points?

While I think the suit itself is frivolous, I think it will not look favorably on Marriott solely from how much they skim on existing week owners.  I paid $1595 to convert my resale into the DC, pay an additional $165 per week for II, and if I elect to convert to points, would get 4025 points for something that would require 4050 to 5550 points to book the same week.

In short, if this were to get to a jury, I could see Marriott losing.


----------



## jeepie (Jun 6, 2014)

*Interesting question*



hcarman said:


> OK, here is a question............since we are talking about devaluation of one's week.
> 
> Would it be considered a devaluation if Destination Club points owners can buy the points needed to get into the same property and same season that you own - for 25% less than what week's owners paid for that same property/season prior to the conversion?
> 
> I know that isn't the case at many properties - usually the opposite - but there are some.............


Please give an example. Are you comparing today's points cost to a past date's retail week purchase? Thx.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 7, 2014)

hcarman said:


> OK, here is a question............since we are talking about devaluation of one's week.
> 
> Would it be considered a devaluation if Destination Club points owners can buy the points needed to get into the same property and same season that you own - for 25% less than what week's owners paid for that same property/season prior to the conversion?
> 
> I know that isn't the case at many properties - usually the opposite - but there are some.............



I don't think this is necessarily a devaluation. We already know that a week will rarely have the resale value of what you pay for it from the developer. So what MVCI is selling the equivalent for today doesn't really matter.



nokaoi9 said:


> Would a week be devalued when you converted your week to the DC and are now being told that in order to be able to get into future resorts you need to buy trust points?
> 
> While I think the suit itself is frivolous, I think it will not look favorably on Marriott solely from how much they skim on existing week owners.  I paid $1595 to convert my resale into the DC, pay an additional $165 per week for II, and if I elect to convert to points, would get 4025 points for something that would require 4050 to 5550 points to book the same week.
> 
> In short, if this were to get to a jury, I could see Marriott losing.



I certainly don't think the skim will help MVCI's case here if the platiff opts to us that. Though reading through the suit, I don't see where skim was even addressed. Though this document shows how skim effects us all by providing the season average cost to reserve a week. In almost all cases, one gets fewer points than it takes to on average reserve a week in the same season they own at their home resort.

MVCI never really explained the skim. Perhaps this suite could force them to do that.


----------



## Bunk (Jun 7, 2014)

*Thoughts about intervening in Marriott class action lawsuit*

The Marriott class action lawsuit may represent our best chance to suggest changes and get information about how the system works.

Assume that you were able to intervene or participate as a class representative in the class action lawsuit, what issues would you raise?

Here are some issues I think might be worth examining:

1.	Are the fees that the Vacation Club charges to Legacy Owners who want to purchase points on the retail market reasonable and proper?  Similarly, once I’ve enrolled in the Vacation Club, if I purchase another retail unit, what rights should I have to enroll that unit in the Vacation Club and at what cost to me?

2.	As to the “skim”, is it proper to charge a Legacy Owner a higher price (i.e. more points) for booking a unit through the Vacation Club than the Vacation Club awards the Legacy Owner when he deposits that unit into the Vacation Club? 

3.	When a unit is rented out for less than seven days, there are additional costs, such as housekeeping costs.  Who absorbs those additional costs, the Vacation Club or the HOA?

4.	When I as a legacy owner deposit my week with Interval, what rights does Marriott Vacation Club have to grab that week? If for example I deposit a Christmas week with Interval and Marriott Vacation Club takes that week from Interval and uses it for the Trust, is Marriott unreasonably interfering with my right to achieve quality exchanges through Interval?  If the Vacation Club gets first dibs on the most desirable weeks, so that those weeks are not available for exchange with Interval, it dilutes my ability to use and enjoy Interval?  Because if I deposit that Christmas week and find that I can’t book comparable weeks through Interval because Marriott is grabbing them, I will be reluctant to use Interval any more. 

5.	I find that a unit owned by a Legacy Owner who joined the Vacation Club has become a hybrid that might be more valuable than buying points only. In particular, my ability to rent points every year on the open market from other Legacy Owners makes my Unit in many ways extremely valuable because I have tremendous flexibility in where to go and for how long and the cost of renting additional points is not outrageous.  But is Marriott unfairly interfering with my ability to sell my hybrid unit by charging too much fees to my potential buyer or not permitting the buyer to enroll even though we’ve already enrolled?  And is Marriott interfering with the value of my hybrid units when its sales force inaccurately denigrates it to my potential buyer?

I’m not as well versed as many of you in how this system works and I certainly don’t think the Vacation Club should be scrapped.  And I’m not sure how accurate my assumptions are about costs and charges and whether Marriott is manipulating weeks that are being deposited with II.  Further, I think most of us appreciate the ability to rent for less than 7 days, even if we pay a premium for that. So it’s possible that the system Marriott set up to allow Legacy Owners to enroll their units is essentially fair.  Although I instinctively think that a strong Interval International is best for all the Legacy Owners, both those who enrolled in the Vacation Club and those who chose not to enroll, I haven't spent a lot of time thinking that through.  But I started reading TUG more seriously about the time the RCI class action was settled and I remember how deflated many people were when the final settlement essentially approved RCI's conduct and did not appear to benefit the unit owners at all.  Then yesterday I read how a Court of Appeals reversed a class action settlement in which the benefit to the class was a coupon discount.  So putting aside for the moment questions about logistics and cost, I think it is worth considering what improvements we would like to make to the system if we had any input.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 7, 2014)

Bunk said:


> The Marriott class action lawsuit may represent our best chance to suggest changes and get information about how the system works.
> 
> Assume that you were able to intervene or participate as a class representative in the class action lawsuit, what issues would you raise?
> 
> ...



The thing is, there are no more retail weeks for sale. Except in Europe, and if you buy a developer week in Europe, you can enroll that week. I think they are enrolled for free.

Any week you buy through MVCI Resales, is still a resale unit. MVCI is just acting as a broker.



> 2.	As to the “skim”, is it proper to charge a Legacy Owner a higher price (i.e. more points) for booking a unit through the Vacation Club than the Vacation Club awards the Legacy Owner when he deposits that unit into the Vacation Club?



I agree, if anything positive comes out of the class action, elimination of the skim would be a good thing.



> 3.	When a unit is rented out for less than seven days, there are additional costs, such as housekeeping costs.  Who absorbs those additional costs, the Vacation Club or the HOA?



This is one place where MVCI is not transparent and I think the costs are being passed on to weeks owners (and trust owners) in the MFs. This isn't what we were told early on when the program was launched.



> 4.	When I as a legacy owner deposit my week with Interval, what rights does Marriott Vacation Club have to grab that week? If for example I deposit a Christmas week with Interval and Marriott Vacation Club takes that week from Interval and uses it for the Trust, is Marriott unreasonably interfering with my right to achieve quality exchanges through Interval?  If the Vacation Club gets first dibs on the most desirable weeks, so that those weeks are not available for exchange with Interval, it dilutes my ability to use and enjoy Interval?  Because if I deposit that Christmas week and find that I can’t book comparable weeks through Interval because Marriott is grabbing them, I will be reluctant to use Interval any more.



I agree. If MVCI and II have some special deal setup where MVCI can scoop the prime intervals before they make it through the ongoing searches and general inventory, they have provided themselves an unfair advantage.



> 5.	I find that a unit owned by a Legacy Owner who joined the Vacation Club has become a hybrid that might be more valuable than buying points only. In particular, my ability to rent points every year on the open market from other Legacy Owners makes my Unit in many ways extremely valuable because I have tremendous flexibility in where to go and for how long and the cost of renting additional points is not outrageous.  But is Marriott unfairly interfering with my ability to sell my hybrid unit by charging too much fees to my potential buyer or not permitting the buyer to enroll even though we’ve already enrolled?  And is Marriott interfering with the value of my hybrid units when its sales force inaccurately denigrates it to my potential buyer?



I do think that this will be a big thing where it may be seen that MVCI has caused damage. By restricting post 6/20/2010 resale weeks from being able to enroll, they are in effect driving the market value of those weeks down artificially.



> I’m not as well versed as many of you in how this system works and I certainly don’t think the Vacation Club should be scrapped.  And I’m not sure how accurate my assumptions are about costs and charges and whether Marriott is manipulating weeks that are being deposited with II.  Further, I think most of us appreciate the ability to rent for less than 7 days, even if we pay a premium for that. So it’s possible that the system Marriott set up to allow Legacy Owners to enroll their units is essentially fair.  Although I instinctively think that a strong Interval International is best for all the Legacy Owners, both those who enrolled in the Vacation Club and those who chose not to enroll, I haven't spent a lot of time thinking that through.  But I started reading TUG more seriously about the time the RCI class action was settled and I remember how deflated many people were when the final settlement essentially approved RCI's conduct and did not appear to benefit the unit owners at all.  Then yesterday I read how a Court of Appeals reversed a class action settlement in which the benefit to the class was a coupon discount.  So putting aside for the moment questions about logistics and cost, I think it is worth considering what improvements we would like to make to the system if we had any input.


----------



## bazzap (Jun 7, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> The thing is, there are no more retail weeks for sale. Except in Europe, and if you buy a developer week in Europe, you can enroll that week. I think they are enrolled for free.
> 
> The retail (Marriott Developer) weeks sold in Europe are very expensive.
> Yes, you can enrol those weeks.
> I would be very surprised if you could enrol them for free though, unless as part of a special promotion, except if you have previously paid an enrolment fee for another week you own.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 7, 2014)

bazzap said:


> dioxide45 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, there are no more retail weeks for sale. Except in Europe, and if you buy a developer week in Europe, you can enroll that week. I think they are enrolled for free.
> ...


----------



## Fasttr (Jun 7, 2014)

Bunk said:


> 1.	Are the fees that the Vacation Club charges to *Legacy Owners *who want to purchase points on the retail market reasonable and proper?



Just pointing out that the fees MVC charges to bring resale points into the program for unfettered use is the same for Legacy Owners as it is for current Trust point owners and also for previous non-owners buying points via the resale market.    



Bunk said:


> 4.	When I as a legacy owner deposit my week with Interval, what rights does Marriott Vacation Club have to grab that week? If for example I deposit a Christmas week with Interval and Marriott Vacation Club takes that week from Interval and uses it for the *Trust*, is Marriott unreasonably interfering with my right to achieve quality exchanges through Interval?



Just a clarification that MVC is not using that week picked from II for the *Trust*, but it is used to fulfill an open request for the MVC Exchange company.  




Bunk said:


> 5.	I find that a unit owned by a Legacy Owner who joined the Vacation Club has become a hybrid that might be more valuable than buying points only. In particular, my ability to rent points every year on the open market from other Legacy Owners makes my Unit in many ways extremely valuable because I have tremendous flexibility in where to go and for how long and the cost of renting additional points is not outrageous.  But is Marriott unfairly interfering with my ability to sell my hybrid unit by charging too much fees to my potential buyer or not permitting the buyer to enroll even though we’ve already enrolled?  And is Marriott interfering with the value of my hybrid units when its sales force inaccurately denigrates it to my potential buyer?



Tough argument here...hard to argue both sides of things.  First, you say that by starting the DC, your enrolled Legacy week is now "extremely valuable" and was given "tremendous flexibility" because of the new program.  Then you turn around and say MVC is depressing the value of your week if you were to re-sell it to a new buyer who cannot then re-enroll the unit in the DC.  Seems like in the end, the value is likely back to the same place it was originally.  One could also argue that because of the renewed ROFR activity from MVC to repurchase weeks for the Trust, that the resale market values of weeks has actually risen as a result of the DC.


----------



## bazzap (Jun 7, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> bazzap said:
> 
> 
> > I should point out, I was speculating on that point. Given that when you buy DC points, Marriott will provide a credit for enrollment of your legacy weeks. I would have thought they would do something similar with European weeks. Perhaps they don't.
> ...


----------



## Bunk (Jun 7, 2014)

Just to clarify, when I use the term retail sale, I don't mean a purchase from or involving Marriott; instead I mean a purchase directly  from an existing Legacy Owner.


----------



## hcarman (Jun 7, 2014)

jeepie said:


> Please give an example. Are you comparing today's points cost to a past date's retail week purchase? Thx.



To answer your question, I was comparing what I paid to buy my weeks property from the developer, to what someone would pay for the points to get that same week through Destination Club.  My week cost about 25% more (6-7 years ago), than it costs to buy the points needed today.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jun 7, 2014)

good morning....

a couple of quick points....

#1  you have an on going request for a 2 bedroom MOC in July.  MVCD needs that week for a DC Exchange request.  Who do you think is getting the week???
Hint MVCD is now II's #1 customer... all speculative of course but just sayin'

#2  Post 2010 resales were given te scarlet letter... everyone who purchased one of these knew they aren't eligible for DC...  Want to see a class action..wait until they make post 2010 resales eligible.  Every Legacy owner that purchased Trust is going to go bonkers!!!!


----------



## csalter2 (Jun 8, 2014)

*This lawsuit just makes more speculation...*

I remember before Marriott revealed the Destination Club, everyone on this board was just a buzzin' with conspiracy theories and getting all upset and excited about absolutely nothing.  I recall many a time stating to wait and see and to not jump to conclusions.  However, as is the nature of a tugger we could  not sit back and wait to listen for the news before handing in a verdict. 

Well, I feel a similar kind of feeling with this lawsuit. However, it will be years before we hear a verdict unless it gets thrown out before that.  

I believe folks have to remember that the DC is a voluntary opportunity for weeks owners. You are not forced to join. If you want the added flexibility the program offers then you can utilize it, but it's your choice. 

I don't know much about value of the timeshare. I firmly believe that value is determined by how much someone is willing to pay for something.  However, I wonder when I see that Marriott has sold out two bedroom mountain view units for $629 per night , if they could use that to show there is value. What about when they show the studios being sold for $3500 per week. I think Marriott may present that kind of data as well. The buyer determines the value because they are the ones that determine if they are going to purchase at your price or not. 

I believe this lawsuit is much ado about nothing.


----------



## bazzap (Jun 8, 2014)

csalter2 said:


> I believe folks have to remember that the DC is a voluntary opportunity for weeks owners. You are not forced to join. If you want the added flexibility the program offers then you can utilize it, but it's your choice.
> 
> Yes, for sure DC is a voluntary opportunity for weeks owners.
> I would say it is a judgement call though, as to whether individually owners feel a level of compulsion to pay their enrolment fee and hop on board in order to achieve the same successes as they did pre DC.
> ...


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 9, 2014)

Marriott seeks dismissal of suit

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...santis-timeshare-case-20140609,0,6976912.post


just spoke to this reporter today about this very issue!  Hope he continues to cover it!


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 9, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> Marriott seeks dismissal of suit
> 
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...santis-timeshare-case-20140609,0,6976912.post
> 
> ...



Not really unexpected, pretty much a procedural move I would think.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 10, 2014)

A TUGger has sent me the pdf file of Marriott's Motion to Dismiss.  Thank you!  (We'll let him/her decide whether to put a name here, which I'll be happy to credit as soon as s/he asks.   )

Marriott Motion to Dismiss

There were also two Declarations filed, one that attached a copy of the Public Offering Statement for Horizons-Orlando in effect at the time of Mr. DeSantis' purchase and the other that attached a copy of the II Buyer's Guide.  Included were the Declarations but not the attachments - if I can stop being a dope long enough to figure out how to post multiple pdf files I'll post the Declarations as well.  But it looks like we have plenty of reading material as is.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 10, 2014)

csalter2 said:


> I remember before Marriott revealed the Destination Club, everyone on this board was just a buzzin' with conspiracy theories and getting all upset and excited about absolutely nothing.  I recall many a time stating to wait and see and to not jump to conclusions.  However, as is the nature of a tugger we could  not sit back and wait to listen for the news before handing in a verdict.
> 
> Well, I feel a similar kind of feeling with this lawsuit. However, it will be years before we hear a verdict unless it gets thrown out before that.
> 
> ...



I agree about the lawsuit although Marriott's motion raises a few questions, maybe unrelated and probably unanswerable, about how intervals are mingled among the inventory "buckets" and whether or not DC Members have a priority over un-enrolled Weeks Owners for II intervals.  I'm still thinking on how to put the thoughts into questions that make sense on paper.   

But to that point, they're basically the same questions that were raised during that humungous pre-DC introduction thread.  Which of course leads to your first comment about that thread and what you call the "conspiracy theories" that were discussed in it.  I pretty much disagree with the idea that it was equally as "much ado about nothing" as this lawsuit is (if that's the inference you're making.)  That thread allowed many of us to flesh out the myriad possibilities and put into cogent phrases the ideas that we had, and then ultimately proved to be of enormous help when we had only the governing documents to peruse when the DC was introduced.  As it was it took TUGgers a very long time to figure out the DC's intricacies - and we're a smart bunch collectively!  I can't imagine how much longer it would have taken if we hadn't had the opportunity to speculate beforehand.

I do understand that sometimes a whole lot of noise hurts an objective rather than helps, and that some folks can't process through the noise.  But it helps me a whole lot to think out loud.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jun 11, 2014)

good afternoon 

reporting from balcony of 6206  watching waves roll in...

I actually read the pdf...

From my Law and Order mentality...

defendant... is going to pound plaintiff with the 10K thing.  That is a gross misrepresentation of facts.  They will also use the "exchanging is not guaranteed" thing.  The contract states exchange company  can be changed.  I never saw the clause that states exchanging/trading can be eliminated.

plaintiff.. will try to get by with the...defendant created a competing trading company.  charged a fee to join it, diminished the value of the first trading company by poaching units (thru DC exchange) and of course changed it in to a 7 for 6 exchange company with the skim...

Best hope for defendant is dismissal with judge  thinking, this cant be valid if plaintiff can't get the fees correct!!!

Best hope for plaintiff.. it moves on to discovery with exploration of the II /MVCD relationship and ?poaching of units.  The rampant statements from sales folks will not help regarding "II will dry up"

as Greg would say..Interesting stuff...

All I know is that without DC I would not be in 6206 and KL next week... if called to stand I would have to be a defendant witness...my value has gone UP!!!!  since DC...


----------



## SnowDogDad (Jun 29, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good afternoon...
> 
> truth has nothing to do with it...
> 
> It is the perceptions of 12 Humans sitting in a jury box!!!!



Perceptions are shaped by skilled attorneys.  A good trial attorney is first and foremost a skilled orator.  And psychologist.


----------



## bogey21 (Jun 29, 2014)

I have scanned the Motion to Dismiss and suspect it will fail.  The weak part of Marriott's argument is that if the guy suing had only taken advantage of the offer to pay $595 and convert to Points, he would not have been damaged.  Had they offered to allow conversions for $0 for a limited period, they would have a better argument.  

If the Motion to Dismiss fails, I suspect the suit will be settled because Marriott cannot afford to lose and juries are unpredictable.

George


----------



## simpsontruckdriver (Jun 30, 2014)

Think about it... 20 years ago, a jury found OJ Simpson NOT GUILTY of double-homicide. A few years ago, a jury found Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY of killing her daughter. A couple years ago, a jury found George Zimmerman NOT GUILTY of murder. Good attorneys can sway a jury in no time.

TS


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jun 30, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> truth has nothing to do with it...
> 
> It is the perceptions of 12 Humans sitting in a jury box!!!!





SnowDogDad said:


> Perceptions are shaped by skilled attorneys.  A good trial attorney is first and foremost a skilled orator.  And psychologist.



Not 12. The case was filed in FL so there would only be 6 jurors.

Marriott would likely not let it come to a jury trial.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 4, 2014)

I found a plainsite.org page here that indicates activity related to this suit through 8/29.  Can anybody access any of the links, and want to explain what's happening?  Thanks!


----------



## dougp26364 (Sep 4, 2014)

bogey21 said:


> I have scanned the Motion to Dismiss and suspect it will fail.  The weak part of Marriott's argument is that if the guy suing had only taken advantage of the offer to pay $595 and convert to Points, he would not have been damaged.  Had they offered to allow conversions for $0 for a limited period, they would have a better argument.
> 
> If the Motion to Dismiss fails, I suspect the suit will be settled because Marriott cannot afford to lose and juries are unpredictable.
> 
> George



And it would be cheaper to just buy back his week(s) vs the cost of defending their case.


----------



## kds4 (Sep 5, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I found a plainsite.org page here that indicates activity related to this suit through 8/29.  Can anybody access any of the links, and want to explain what's happening?  Thanks!



The highlights include 3 new/additional attorneys joining the case for the defendant as well as some new legal players on defendant's side. 

On 7/1/14, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (which I have not downloaded/viewed). 

On 7/2/14, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint based on a new superseding complaint having been filed.

On 7/31/14 a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.

On 8/29/14, plaintiff's response was just filed with the court.


----------



## pedro47 (Sep 6, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> And it would be cheaper to just buy back his week(s) vs the cost of defending their case.



Now that was a sound suggestion, but some lawyer wants/likes to made some big money in legal fees.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 6, 2014)

kds4 said:


> The highlights include 3 new/additional attorneys joining the case for the defendant as well as some new legal players on defendant's side.
> 
> On 7/1/14, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (which I have not downloaded/viewed).
> 
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## kds4 (Sep 6, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> Thanks!



One correction. I misspoke on my original post. 3 new attorneys have joined the case for the plaintiff, as well as a couple of new attorneys for the defendant.


----------



## KauaiMark (Sep 6, 2014)

*I don't think this will go anywhere...(legacy week owner)*



bogey21 said:


> ... if the guy suing had only taken advantage of the offer to pay $595 and convert to Points, he would not have been damaged.
> George



The word "convert" should actually be "add". We did "add" the DC points option for the initial $595 offer.  We have "gained" options that we previously didn't have. We still have our original deal to get any single week of the year at our resort directly from Marriott without DC club involvement.

The DC points we receive for our week is about 50 *more *than it takes to get a DC week at our resort in the seasons we like to travel. (..ie not enough for Christmas, thanksgiving, New year)  If we wanted one of those, I can still not hand it over to DC and reserve it through Marriott just like the original deal).

What we DID get is the option (that we didn't have before) to bank/borrow DC points for multiple weeks in the same year that we didn't have before and still have a few DC points left over. I sold the piddly leftover points to another TUG member for a few bucks. 

We now have three weeks the same week to make the family vacation in spring a reality that we wouldn't be able to do without DC Club.

The access to II getaways are more attractive as it is included with the DC program where before it was an separate yearly fee to keep.

So far we're pretty satisfied with the arrangement.

...Mark


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 6, 2014)

kds4 said:


> One correction. I misspoke on my original post. 3 new attorneys have joined the case for the plaintiff, as well as a couple of new attorneys for the defendant.


Who is going to pay for all the legal fees?  Are big companies insured for this or will Marriott pass the legal bill on to all of us?


----------



## kds4 (Sep 7, 2014)

iconnections said:


> Who is going to pay for all the legal fees?  Are big companies insured for this or will Marriott pass the legal bill on to all of us?





I suspect the case is on a contingency fee to the plaintiff and since any financial settlement would benefit the lawyers first, it's easy to explain why several different lawyers/firms would step in to represent an individual plaintiff/s in a case like this. 

If MVCI prevails in getting the case dismissed or they are acquitted, corporate insurance will cover the legal costs. However, it is completely reasonable to expect that if there is a premium increase in the future as a result of legal defense expenses to the insurance company, MVCI will simply allocate those increased premiums across the membership in higher per point costs and/or annual membership fees.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 8, 2014)

I have never heard of corporate insurance for legal defense expenses. Is that common? In the couple Fortune 500 companies I have worked for, we budgeted for legal expenses, with those direct expenses hitting the P&L.


----------



## SMHarman (Sep 8, 2014)

^ D&O policies but they are not for the co but the ees


----------



## DB-Wis (Sep 8, 2014)

Class actions suits work this way:  The plaintiffs' attorneys bring the lawsuit and then the defendants' attorneys file various motions (either a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment) challenging the plaintiffs' claims.  If the motions are successful, the case is dismissed and the plaintiffs' attorneys don't get paid (unless they appeal and are successful).  If the motions are unsuccessful in getting the entire lawsuit dismissed, the plaintiffs and defendants continue the litigation and at some point they negotiate a settlement, the terms of which include payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  Of course, the settlement must be approved by the court, and the court will do so only if the fees are reasonable, but the plaintiffs' attorneys always get paid.  That's why class actions have such a bad name -- the plaintiffs' attorneys always recover more than individual class members.


----------



## dougp26364 (Sep 8, 2014)

DB-Wis said:


> Class actions suits work this way:  The plaintiffs' attorneys bring the lawsuit and then the defendants' attorneys file various motions (either a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment) challenging the plaintiffs' claims.  If the motions are successful, the case is dismissed and the plaintiffs' attorneys don't get paid (unless they appeal and are successful).  If the motions are unsuccessful in getting the entire lawsuit dismissed, the plaintiffs and defendants continue the litigation and at some point they negotiate a settlement, the terms of which include payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  Of course, the settlement must be approved by the court, and the court will do so only if the fees are reasonable, but the plaintiffs' attorneys always get paid.  That's why class actions have such a bad name -- the plaintiffs' attorneys always recover more than individual class members.



And, I would imagine, the expenses of any settlement are passed along to all the class plaintiffs as a legal expense of MVCI doing business.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 8, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> And it would be cheaper to just buy back his week(s) vs the cost of defending their case.





pedro47 said:


> Now that was a sound suggestion, but some lawyer wants/likes to made some big money in legal fees.



Or, even if Marriott offered this and his lawyers suggested accepting the offer, the owner instead wants to make a point and make sure that Marriott is taken to task for what he believes they've done wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time somebody goes against his lawyer's recommendation, or that the lawyers are unfairly blamed.

But of course, we don't know what - if anything - has already been offered.


----------



## rylan (Sep 9, 2014)

While I don't think it will, I actually do hope this case goes somewhere and gets some attention.  Most of us legacy weeks owners were pitched/sold on the whole concept of  being able to trade our week within the MVC system through II, and getting priority for trades to other Marriott properties before non-marriott owners get access to them in II.

If they reduce the availability of weeks in II for trade to the point where it is no longer possible to reasonably exchange to other resorts, then Marriott has effectively 'forced' owners into buying points in order to 'trade' to other locations, and thereby devalued the legacy weeks.


----------



## DB-Wis (Sep 9, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> And, I would imagine, the expenses of any settlement are passed along to all the class plaintiffs as a legal expense of MVCI doing business.



I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Litigation and settlement costs are expenses of doing business, and I'm sure MVC will try to pass along or recover those costs from whomever they can.  Ultimately, such costs will undoubtedly be reflected in the costs of points, the purchasers of which might include some "class plaintiffs" but most will be people who aren't.  The costs will be passed along to class plaintiffs and anyone else who does business with MVC and agrees to buy what it's selling.


----------



## StevenTing (Sep 23, 2014)

Has anyone heard any new info on this?  Just trying to keep up with things.


----------



## csalter2 (Nov 19, 2014)

*Marriott Lawsuit Dismissed*

Has anyone posted about this yet? 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...-program-lawsuit-dismissed-20141117-post.html


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 19, 2014)

appears this case was dismissed...shame.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 19, 2014)

csalter2 said:


> Has anyone posted about this yet?
> 
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...-program-lawsuit-dismissed-20141117-post.html



Thanks for the update!



TUGBrian said:


> appears this case was dismissed...shame.



While I'm all for the timeshare companies being made to explain themselves, and goodness knows there's a lot that needs explaining, this dismissal isn't a shame at all IMO.  The guy and his lawyers appeared to know next to nothing about his ownership or Marriott's products, and they didn't present a good case.  This outcome isn't a surprise - I'm actually glad MVW fought it (easy as it was) and didn't instead go for a quiet settlement.


----------



## davidvel (Nov 19, 2014)

*Ruling*

Here's the Court's ruling.


----------



## pacheco18 (Nov 19, 2014)

davidvel said:


> Here's the Court's ruling.



The plaintiff was pro se.  Apparently he could not find a lawyer to take the case.  That speaks volumes for the merits.


----------



## davidvel (Nov 19, 2014)

pacheco18 said:


> The plaintiff was pro se.  Apparently he could not find a lawyer to take the case.  That speaks volumes for the merits.


This is incorrect. Plaintiff (class representative) was represented by Varnell & Warwick, PA  throughout the action. The "unrepresented party" may refer to class members.


----------

