# We were ROFR'd



## vacationtime1 (Apr 12, 2011)

We thought we bought a WKORV-N eoy ocean front unit on eBay for $8,097.

Too good to be true.

Starwood exercised its ROFR (within 8 days) and bought a WKORV-N eoy ocean front unit for $8,097.


----------



## ada903 (Apr 12, 2011)

I am sorry!  I just posted in the other thread we passed at $10,900 Odd years Oceanview WKOVRN.

Keep trying, this rofr activity may be temporary, maybe they need inventory to sell on spring break.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 13, 2011)

Posted in another thread also.

WKORV annual 2 bedroom OV, ROFR exercised at $16,500.


----------



## jarta (Apr 13, 2011)

ada,   ...   " this rofr activity may be temporary, maybe they need inventory to sell on spring break."

ROFL!  IMO, the Starwood ROFR activity will continue until Starwood builds more inventory for retail sales at WKORV.  

And, the difference in ROFR activity only shows Starwood believes EOY Ocean Front is more valuable than EOY Ocean View.

Congratulations on your successful WKORV purchase.   ...   eom


----------



## ada903 (Apr 13, 2011)

This may be good news for sellers, since it keeps values higher.  I remember at Xmas when there were around 3,000 listings on ebay,a two bedroom annual oceanview went as low as $7,500.


----------



## tombo (Apr 13, 2011)

ada903 said:


> This may be good news for sellers, since it keeps values higher.  I remember at Xmas when there were around 3,000 listings on ebay,a two bedroom annual oceanview went as low as $7,500.



Around Christmas when they sold for $7500, they sold for $7500 and ROFR wouldn't have changed that one bit. If a seller finds a buyer willing to pay a price that he will accept, then a sale is made. If the seller could have found a buyer for $15,000 they would not have sold the week for $7500. Starwood would not have made an offer of $7500 for the week or even $1 for te week. Starwood does not make offers on weeks offered for sale by owners, Starwood decides if they need the inventory when they review all of the current ALREADY AGREED UPON SALE PRICES submitted to them. If it is cheap enough and they need the inventory they steal it, if not they don't. ROFR does not keep values higher, it keeps Starwood and other developers with a cheap supply of inventory if and only if Starwood decides they want itfor the exact price it already sold for.

ROFR does not keep prices high, it simply changes who owns the week for the identical price it already sold for. The OP purchased the week for $8097. The developer stold the week for the identical $8097, not one penny more. The seller received $8097, not one penny more. If a week sells for $1000 it sells for $1000. All that ROFR changes is who ends up owning the week for the $1000 the seller agree to sell it for. 

If the developerwould put a minimum sale price (exampleany unit selling for under $14,000 will be ROFR's byt the resort) that they would exercise ROFR EVERY TIME, then it would actually increase sale prices to that minimum. As long as they steal a week here and there when they need some inventory it doesn't help prop up prices at all.

Yes on occassion a buyer might increase their bid to try and get the developer to not steal it from them, but why would anyone pay more than they have to to buy ANYTHING? Would you look at a used car, a house, a TV and pay more than the seller asked? That makes no sense. On other occassions a buyer will lose a bid to ROFR and simply refuse to bid anymore for any weeks at any price, especially in this economy where timeshares are selling for all time lows. In this example ROFR actually lowers prices by lowering demand. Reduced demand lowers prices, simple econ 101. Most weeks simply sell for whatever price a seller is willing to accept from a buyer, and ROFR does nothing to change that equation.


----------



## jarta (Apr 13, 2011)

"This may be good news for sellers, since it keeps values higher."

I think there is a limit to the effect of ROFR on eBay auction prices.  HGVC buyers on eBay complain about ROFR all the time.  Yet owners at HGVC resorts get no better auction results on eBay than WKORV owners did before Starwood started exercising its ROFR.

For a variety of reasons, all of which are connected to the economy, eBay timeshare auction prices are not going to go up much any time soon, IMO.   ...   eom


----------



## ada903 (Apr 13, 2011)

When it becomes known to sellers and buyers that SVN exercises ROFR at a certain price ceiling, why would a seller agree to a price below that ceiling, when they know SVN would buy it for more?  An informed seller would sell the week to their cousin at a likely (higher) ROFR price than let it go to a buyer for less.  Besides, the buyers that are not willing to pay above that ceiling are just wasting time - which may keep them away from the market, leaving room for only those buyers willing to pay above the ceiling.

This of course assumes informed buyers and sellers, not always the case.


----------



## jarta (Apr 13, 2011)

"As long as they steal a week here and there ..."

What's wrong with developers using ROFR to "steal a week?"  OMG!  Isn't it a TUG maxim to buy on the secondary eBay auction market because the prices are so low?  Why shouldn't developers take advantage of people dumping their timeshares to pick up inventory that TUG members brag about picking up at the same auction prices?

Disclaimer:  I have purchased 3 timeshares on eBay at fire sale prices.  But, I'm not as hypocritical about the morality of doing so.  Business is business and eBay sellers are willing to sell at fire sale prices.  If you are careful, eBay's a terrific place to pick up a timeshare at a low price   ...   eom


----------



## ada903 (Apr 13, 2011)

Nothing wrong with ROFR - it just makes life harder for buyers and easier for sellers.  Although it makes me envision SVN as these sharks that sold the original week for a gazillion dollars, now will buy back from the seller on the resale market for a fraction of the original price, and will turn around and sell it a second time for the same gazillion dollars.  But hey, it's business.



jarta said:


> "As long as they steal a week here and there ..."
> 
> What's wrong with developers using ROFR to "steal a week?"  OMG!  Isn't it a TUG maxim to buy on the secondary eBay auction market because the prices are so low?  Why shouldn't developers take advantage of people dumping their timeshares to pick up inventory that TUG members brag about picking up at the same auction prices?
> 
> Disclaimer:  I have purchased 3 timeshares on eBay at fire sale prices.  But, I'm not as hypocritical about the morality of doing so.  Business is business and eBay sellers are willing to sell at fire sale prices.  If you are careful, eBay's a terrific place to pick up a timeshare at a low price   ...   eom


----------



## tombo (Apr 13, 2011)

ada903 said:


> Nothing wrong with ROFR - it just makes life harder for buyers and easier for sellers.  Although it makes me envision SVN as these sharks that sold the original week for a gazillion dollars, now will buy back from the seller on the resale market for a fraction of the original price, and will turn around and sell it a second time for the same gazillion dollars.  But hey, it's business.



How does ROFR make life easier for the sellers? Does Starwood find a buyer for the seller? Nope. Does Starwood announce a price at which they will exercise ROFR so all buyers and sellers will know? Nope. Does Starwood list the resort for sale for the owner? Nope.

Nothing is made easier for the seller. Simple fact is the seller has to run an ad on TUG, E-bay, Redweek, etc,etc,etc at their own expense. The seller has to answer e-mails and phone cales from potential buyers who are usually wasting time. The seller has to negotiate a price with the buyer to come to an agreement. After the seller has advertised the week at their own expense, time, and effort. and after the seller has found a buyer on their own, and after the seller has negotiated an agreed upon price to finally sell their week after months or years of trying,  now Starwood gets to at their leisure decide if they want to steal the week from the only person the seller could find that would make them an acceptable offer. The sale is made before Starwood even enters the picture. How did Starwood make it easier for the seller?


----------



## tombo (Apr 13, 2011)

ada903 said:


> When it becomes known to sellers and buyers that SVN exercises ROFR at a certain price ceiling, why would a seller agree to a price below that ceiling, when they know SVN would buy it for more?  An informed seller would sell the week to their cousin at a likely (higher) ROFR price than let it go to a buyer for less.  Besides, the buyers that are not willing to pay above that ceiling are just wasting time - which may keep them away from the market, leaving room for only those buyers willing to pay above the ceiling.
> 
> This of course assumes informed buyers and sellers, not always the case.



Another bunch of ROFR myths.

 Where does Starwood list their price ceiling? They don't. How does it become known? It doesn't. If you are one of a few hundred TUGGERS you will hear about the occasional TUG member purchase and whether it was ROFR'd or not and at what price. That is a very small percentage of the total e-bay sales. TUG members will never know for sure which E-bay weeks were ROFR'd at a certain price or not because Starwood will never tell and most buyers are not posting on TUG.

Does Starwood exercise ROFR every time at a set price? Nope. Sometimes a week will pass at $7500 and the next one we hear about was ROFR'd at $9000. How many passed at $7500? Only Starwood knows. If you as a buyer see one sell on e-bay for $7500 would you set your own price ceiling at $7500 for future auctions? I know I would. I ALWAYS want my purchase to be as cheap if not cheaper than I have seen anyone else's go for. Whether it was ROFR'd or not at $7500 is irrelevant. All I know aFOR SURE is that that week sold for $7500 and I want one for that cheap or cheaper, but surelly not higher.

So buyers not willing to pay above what they have heard other weeks were ROFR'd for are wasting their time? The seller decides what offer is acceptable, not Starwood. There is not a huge pool of buyers out there willing to buy a week for ANY price, much less an imaginary ceiling. Right now finding weeks to buy is the easiest it has ever been, but finding a buyer willing to buy a week for even fire sale prices is getting harder and harder. NO SELLER that really wants to sell their week wants the pool of potential buyers reduced for any reason. In fact most have advertised many places before resorting to e-bay so that they can sell for some price, any price.

Try being the seller and see how you like knowing that you haven't had an offer in months or years and that the threat of ROFR might have cost you a potential sale. If you have a week you would sell for $7500 but no one will make an offer because they think it is a waste of time, then you are STUCK WITH YOUR WEEK THANKS TO ROFR. 

Can you call Starwood and offer it to them for $7500. Sure but they won't buy it. If you can somehow find someone to pay you $7500, then Starwood might steal it from that buyer, but they will not buy your week from you for any price. 

So now ROFR has reduced the number of buyers and thus the demand for the sellers week and that is construed to be a good thing? Not. If you owned a week you wanted to sell bad enough, no buyer is wasting your time, and you sure don't want ROFR to reduce your number of potential buyers. Try to sell a week and see if you are thrilled that ROFR might have prevented you from getting an offer that you would have accepted from a buyer that was led to believe that they would be wasting their time thanks to ROFR.


----------



## ada903 (Apr 13, 2011)

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.145.9232&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Like I said, Starwood wins.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 13, 2011)

tombo said:


> Can you call Starwood and offer it to them for $7500. Sure but they won't buy it. If you can somehow find someone to pay you $7500, then Starwood might steal it from that buyer, but they will not buy your week from you for any price.



How about this strategy?  Have a "friend" put in an offer (a little higher than what you think you could actually sell your property for) for your TS that you want to sell.  If Starwood doesn't excercise ROFR then just have your "friend" back out of the deal.  In this strategy, we beat Starwood at their own game; we make SVO pay more for our TS than we could sell it for.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 13, 2011)

BTW, does anyone know if or at what price Starwood has excercised ROFR of a WPORV unit (if they have ROFR at that resort)?


----------



## ada903 (Apr 13, 2011)

This would apply to tuggers, as it assumes a very well informed seller 



Westin5Star said:


> How about this strategy?  Have a "friend" put in an offer (a little higher than what you think you could actually sell your property for) for your TS that you want to sell.  If Starwood doesn't excercise ROFR then just have your "friend" back out of the deal.  In this strategy, we beat Starwood at their own game; we make SVO pay more for our TS than we could sell it for.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 13, 2011)

Westin5Star said:


> BTW, does anyone know if or at what price Starwood has excercised ROFR of a WPORV unit (if they have ROFR at that resort)?



Starwood has not exercised any Princeville that I am aware of.
I don't expect that they will begin doing so until they are sold out. Currently, they have ~30% of inventory remaining to be sold.


----------



## tombo (Apr 13, 2011)

Westin5Star said:


> How about this strategy?  Have a "friend" put in an offer (a little higher than what you think you could actually sell your property for) for your TS that you want to sell.  If Starwood doesn't excercise ROFR then just have your "friend" back out of the deal.  In this strategy, we beat Starwood at their own game; we make SVO pay more for our TS than we could sell it for.



That is called fraud and it is illegal. It might work and yes you might trick Starwood into ROFR'ing your week using a fraudulent buyer, and you probably would never get caught or in trouble, but it is still comitting fraud.


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 13, 2011)

tombo said:


> That is called fraud and it is illegal. It might work and yes you might trick Starwood into ROFR'ing your week using a fraudulent buyer, and you probably would never get caught or in trouble, but it is still comitting fraud.



I do not believe that this is fraud.  If no agreement is made between the buyer / seller prior to Starwood failing to execute the ROFR, then how could this be fraud?  

My original comments were, "If Starwood doesn't excercise ROFR then just have your "friend" back out of the deal."  This would have the decision of backing out of the deal taking place after Starwood's decision.  I would think that intent would have to be there and proved that a definite plan was in place at the time of offer.  Jarta or another attorney may be able to speak to the exact legality on this.

I did not suggest and I am not suggesting that any agreement take place between you and your "friend" before or at the time of offer.  If the "friend" and you decide to cancel after the ROFR is declined then so be it.  Timing of discussions, agreements, and decisions are important to this strategy but it could allow one to beat Starwood at its own games.

BTW, I would never personally do this as it would just be too much work and hassle for a few thousand dollars profit (at the most).


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 13, 2011)

Fredm said:


> Starwood has not exercised any Princeville that I am aware of.
> I don't expect that they will begin doing so until they are sold out. Currently, they have ~30% of inventory remaining to be sold.



Thanks Fred.  I was also curious about the approximate remaining inventory the resort and you answered that as well!


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 13, 2011)

Westin5Star said:


> I do not believe that this is fraud.  If no agreement is made between the buyer / seller prior to Starwood failing to execute the ROFR, then how could this be fraud?



ROFR does not come into play until there is an agreement.


----------



## tombo (Apr 13, 2011)

Westin5Star said:


> I do not believe that this is fraud.  If no agreement is made between the buyer / seller prior to Starwood failing to execute the ROFR, then how could this be fraud?
> 
> My original comments were, "If Starwood doesn't excercise ROFR then just have your "friend" back out of the deal."  This would have the decision of backing out of the deal taking place after Starwood's decision.  I would think that intent would have to be there and proved that a definite plan was in place at the time of offer.  Jarta or another attorney may be able to speak to the exact legality on this.
> 
> ...



When you submit a sale to Starwood based on a fake contract between you and a relative or friend, then it is fraud. You have to have an agreed upon sale price between a seller and a buyer to submit anything to Starwood for ROFR. You said if Starwood doesn't ROFR it your friend/relative simply backs out. If you submit a sale price to Starwood that is not going to ever  actually be a sale hoping that Starwood will exercise ROFR on your week, how can that not be considered fraud?


----------



## ada903 (Apr 13, 2011)

It seems to me that proving someone else's real intent is a difficult task that Starwood would never pursue.  How can you prove the difference between no original intent to buy and a buyer getting cold feet? They would be better of pursuing all the eBay PCC companies that submit fake contracts! Now that is fraud!  

A smart tugger will find a buyer willing to pay at least as much as Starwood.  Is there a shortage of buyers willing to pay the same price as SVN? It doesn't seem so from all the ROFR stories we hear.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 13, 2011)

As a somewhat tangent - and in my bizzare view of the TS world. I do think that the ROFR benefits Owners.  Why do I say such a crazy 'against-the-grain' thing? My justification is on another level... If SVO exercises a ROFR - this means they make a profit on a 'sold-out' resort and this keeps their interest up in that resort (vs. moving on...) and keeps the 'house of cards' afloat as long as they can still find profit (e.g. ROFR for $10K and resale for $50K - something that a resale seller cannot do...).  Sorry to offend, but it is reality - IMO.  This is one reason why WKOVNN does not benefit Owners because it will allow SVO to move-on from WKORV/N - as long as they can profit they will keep their interest in WKORV/N.  I worry about the time when they no longer can profit and move on since they have Owners over a barrel with control of the HOA BOD.
bash away...

Did I mention IMO, and I that am not an expert in any manner or form...?


----------



## YYJMSP (Apr 13, 2011)

DavidnRobin said:


> As a somewhat tangent - and in my bizzare view of the TS world. I do think that the ROFR benefits Owners.  Why do I say such a crazy 'against-the-grain' thing? My justification is on another level... If SVO exercises a ROFR - this means they make a profit on a 'sold-out' resort and this keeps their interest up in that resort (vs. moving on...) and keeps the 'house of cards' afloat as long as they can still find profit (e.g. ROFR for $10K and resale for $50K - something that a resale seller cannot do...).  Sorry to offend, but it is reality - IMO.  This is one reason why WKOVNN does not benefit Owners because it will allow SVO to move-on from WKORV/N - as long as they can profit they will keep their interest in WKORV/N.  I worry about the time when they no longer can profit and move on since they have Owners over a barrel with control of the HOA BOD.
> bash away...
> 
> Did I mention IMO, and I that am not an expert in any manner or form...?



I agree -- if ROFR keeps SVO active at a property, I think it's a good thing...


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 13, 2011)

I also do not look forward to the day when WKORV-NN moves forward.  It will even further open up inventory which means fewer people will feel the need to actually buy in Hawaii when they can just buy a cheap trader and exchange in.  

We have a few things going for us, though.  One is the property tax issue is really taking its toll on MFs.  The more Maui takes, the harder it is for Starwood to collect a quick buck.  So how aggressively will they pursue it until that's taken care of?  Secondly, I think that Maui county will fight this development tooth and nail. They've made it abundantly clear that they don't like timeshares.  So look for a long legal battle.  

Finally, with oil prices spiking, it will be very costly to take on a new project now.  Every component of building rises as oil prices rise.  Even if it's not an oil-based commodity (e.g. carpeting), the shipping costs on everything will increase -- especially when you're 2000 miles in the middle of the ocean.


----------



## ada903 (Apr 13, 2011)

I always wondered what explains the difference in maintenance fees between Marriott Lahaina and Napili Villas and WKORV - why is Westin charging about a third more?


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 13, 2011)

ada903 said:


> I always wondered what explains the difference in maintenance fees between Marriott Lahaina and Napili Villas and WKORV - why is Westin charging about a third more?



Because they CAN!


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 13, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> I also do not look forward to the day when WKORV-NN moves forward.  It will even further open up inventory which means fewer people will feel the need to actually buy in Hawaii when they can just buy a cheap trader and exchange in.



That's me!  



> We have a few things going for us, though.  One is the property tax issue is really taking its toll on MFs.  The more Maui takes, the harder it is for Starwood to collect a quick buck.  So how aggressively will they pursue it until that's taken care of?  Secondly, I think that Maui county will fight this development tooth and nail. They've made it abundantly clear that they don't like timeshares.  So look for a long legal battle.



FWIW, I'm at WKORV this week and yesterday I had a conversation with a few people scheduled for a presentation today or tomorrow, and I mentioned the tax issue to them. They were amazed that Maui would have such a lopsided assessment, and then (as they were experienced timeshare owners, tho not at Starwood) immediately said to me "I bet the salesperson won't tell us that!" :hysterical:


----------



## Fredm (Apr 13, 2011)

*Another one!*

This is ROFR day.

Starwood exercised a KOR-N annual ocean front at $20,000, with buyer paying 2011 fees.


----------



## PamMo (Apr 13, 2011)

Fredm said:


> This is ROFR day.
> 
> Starwood exercised a KOR-N annual ocean front at $20,000, with buyer paying 2011 fees.



Wow! I'm sure glad I bought last summer. What a difference in eight months!


----------



## nodge (Apr 13, 2011)

Is anyone willing to try my untested, but totally legal with no fraud required, method of beating SVO's ROFR?

-nodge


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 13, 2011)

Fredm said:


> This is ROFR day.
> 
> Starwood exercised a KOR-N annual ocean front at $20,000, with buyer paying 2011 fees.



SVO sold/sells these in the range of $68K-$74K - we rescinded an OF WKORVN at $74K in Dec 2005 (lucky us - we found TUG)

As well as WKORVNN - I think WSJ-BV had devalued WSJ-VG - IMO and view - but the drop in resale prices have coincided with WSJ-BV availability  - not an expert... and certainly could be multifactorial.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 13, 2011)

nodge said:


> Is anyone willing to try my untested, but totally legal with no fraud required, method of beating SVO's ROFR?
> 
> -nodge



I'm glad you referenced this post. I was thinking of it earlier as I read this thread. I'd do it, but I am not in the market for another week right now... Of course, if you're selling an ocean front week for cheap, then I might reconsider :hysterical:


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 13, 2011)

Ken555 said:


> "I bet the salesperson won't tell us that!" :hysterical:



Or if they do - they will somehow spin it in a positive way (sure they are currently working on a response...)


----------



## jarta (Apr 13, 2011)

"Is anyone willing to try my untested, but totally legal with no fraud required, method of beating SVO's ROFR?"

I don't think you will have any takers.  Whoever would try such a hare-brained scheme would end up not being able to make a reservation or have a week deposited in II and would have to convince a judge why "beating" a valid ROFR should be honored by the resort's HOA.  Nodge or anyone else who took his advice and submitted such a "totally legal" contract would be laughed out of court if they sued for the right to make reservations.

But, it's all for yuks anyway.  It's not a post meant to be taken seriously.   ...   eom


----------



## nodge (Apr 13, 2011)

jarta said:


> Whoever would try such a hare-brained scheme would end up not being able to make a reservation or have a week deposited in II and would have to convince a judge why "beating" a valid ROFR should be honored by the resort's HOA.  Nodge or anyone else who took his advice and submitted such a "totally legal" contract would be laughed out of court if they sued for the right to make reservations.



Really?!?  

So, armed only with its ROFR, SVO now has a right to regulate and ignore the terms of all agreements entered into between two parties so long as a portion of that agreement involves a SVO ROFR property being transferred in the deal?  As long as the additional non-timeshare terms are even mildly beneficial for one side or the other, I wonder whom would really be laughed out of court on that one.

Moreover, SVO will exercise its ROFR or not exercise it, or I guess protest the deal under some mysterious self-proclaimed right to do so that it doesn't have, well before the actual deal closes, so I really doubt the buyer would ever find himself or herself in a situation where he/she held title but SVO refused to honor it simply because of a Chrysler Cordoba clause in the purchase agreement.  

If you don't try new things once in a while you just do the same thing over and over again.

-nodge


----------



## Denise L (Apr 13, 2011)

Fredm said:


> This is ROFR day.
> 
> Starwood exercised a KOR-N annual ocean front at $20,000, with buyer paying 2011 fees.



This actually makes me happy as an owner at WKORV who, of course, paid full freight  .


----------



## jarta (Apr 13, 2011)

"So, armed only with its ROFR, SVO now has a right to regulate and ignore the terms of all agreements entered into between two parties so long as a portion of that agreement involves a SVO ROFR property being transferred in the deal?"

Yes.  But, of course, you jest!

The desires of your two parties do not trump the ROFR recorded as a covenant running with the land and binding on all future owners of property which are affected by the recording.  But, I doubt you understand a word I'm posting.   ...   eom


----------



## Westin5Star (Apr 14, 2011)

tombo said:


> When you submit a sale to Starwood based on a fake contract between you and a relative or friend, then it is fraud. You have to have an agreed upon sale price between a seller and a buyer to submit anything to Starwood for ROFR. You said if Starwood doesn't ROFR it your friend/relative simply backs out. If you submit a sale price to Starwood that is not going to ever  actually be a sale hoping that Starwood will exercise ROFR on your week, how can that not be considered fraud?



I feel that you read WAY too much into what I wrote.  In fact, it appears to me that you created your own strategy of fraud by what you wrote because it certainly doesn't align with what I wrote.  

I never suggested a fake contract.  The contract that I suggested be sent to Starwood from the buyer and seller would obviously have an agreed upon sales price.  I did say if (after) Starwood doesn't excercise ROFR then at that point you could have your "friend" back out.  I never suggested to discuss or agree to the backing out prior to the refusal of ROFR.  I also never said that your "friend" wouldn't or couldn't buy the TS after ROFR was refused if he or she wanted to continue with the deal.  

I have read stories many times on here on TUG where people who know each other sell TSs way above what I have seen as ebay prices.  Maybe its because they know and trust each other.  Maybe one friend is good at sales and talks the other friend into an above ebay price.  This type of situation is jsut one example that I was using of finding a "friend".

If you can find fraud in what I wrote that I would be happy to revise / rescend my suggestion.  Until then, I would appreciate your not insinuating that I wrote or meant things that I did not.  Thanks.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 14, 2011)

nodge said:


> Really?!?
> 
> So, armed only with its ROFR, SVO now has a right to regulate and ignore the terms of all agreements entered into between two parties so long as a portion of that agreement involves a SVO ROFR property being transferred in the deal?  As long as the additional non-timeshare terms are even mildly beneficial for one side or the other, I wonder whom would really be laughed out of court on that one.
> 
> ...



Nodge.

Where is the seller in your equation?

I can understand a buyer wanting to thwart the ROFR process in some creative way. But, why would the seller go along? 
The seller just wants it sold, and closed as soon as possible. 
They would care less if Starwood became the buyer. 

At the very least, your suggestions would tie up the closing, and prevent Starwood from updating its owner records. More likely, the seller would not get paid, their listing would be off the market, and the seller would get nothing for their trouble.


----------



## nodge (Apr 14, 2011)

jarta said:


> . . .  But, I doubt you understand a word I'm posting.   ...   eom



Hmmm.  I agree that one of us doesn't know what he's talking about.  We just disagree on who that is.  

I know, I know, I really need to stop engaging, but  . . . .

a ROFR does indeed "run with the land," but it still doesn't allow the holder of that right to cancel/ignore select terms of a deal between the original parties. . . hence the name . . .Right of First Refusal.  The ROFR holder can take the deal between the parties, or leave it.  Period.  

It isn't a RTITATBTPYAH. . . Right To Ignore Terms Agreed To By The Parties . . . (I'll let you figure the last three letters out yourself.)

-nodge


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 14, 2011)

posts that contain statements such as:
_*"But, I doubt you understand a word I'm posting. ... eom"*_

that tilts me (and I assume others) - AND is insulting AND is totally unnecessary...
{and very tiresome}

please ban... eom


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 14, 2011)

I also grow weary of your posts Jarta, if you cannot play nice here...you wont play at all.

there will be no more moderator *edits* of your posts, or warnings given.


----------



## jarta (Apr 14, 2011)

"it still doesn't allow the holder of that right to cancel/ignore select terms of a deal between the original parties"

Still posting in jest I see.  Hilarious conclusion!  

Where do you get these ideas that two parties (both bound by the original, recorded ROFR) can all by themselves legally add "select terms" to a sale of real property in fee simple to defeat a covenant running with the land?  This is really funny stuff.  :rofl:    ...   eom


----------



## jarta (Apr 14, 2011)

TUGBrian,   ...   I said nodge did not understand what I was talking about.  I did not say he didn't know what he was talking about.  Big difference.   ...   eom


----------



## nodge (Apr 14, 2011)

Fredm said:


> Nodge.
> 
> Where is the seller in your equation?
> 
> ...



There's the rub.  

If SVO is a timely payer when it executes its ROFR right, then that particular seller probably doesn't care who is paying him.  

But, if SVO drags its feet with payment, while the original buyer has fully funded the purchase into an escrow account so that money is ready for the plucking . . . . then the quick payment may be a sufficient motivator for the seller to test the waters with this type of deal.

Of course, if we take a macro-view of ROFR, and assume there is a chilling effect on sales prices because some interested buyers aren't willing to tie up cash to press their luck on clearing it, then having a reliable system for beating ROFR that is routinely used by all ROFR burdened property sellers would better stabilize the market by bringing the maximum pool of buyers to the table, not just the ones who are willing to press their luck.  

But . . .THAT would require individual sellers to internalize this externality (which is fancypants, pompous, pseudo-intellectual speak for "make other peoples' problems my problems"), which we all know given our me, me, me society isn't going to happen anytime soon.  So there is indeed the rub, and it is probably the fatal flaw to my plan.  

Well I'm off to go run with the land, if I only knew what that meant.. . .. eieio.

-nodge


----------



## Fredm (Apr 14, 2011)

nodge said:


> But . . .THAT would require individual sellers to internalize this externality (which is fancypants, pompous, pseudo-intellectual speak for "make other peoples' problems my problems"), which we all know given our me, me, me society isn't going to happen anytime soon.  So there is indeed the rub, and it is probably the fatal flaw to my plan.
> 
> -nodge



Ya!

It takes two to tango.


----------



## ada903 (Apr 14, 2011)

nodge, you and I are overthinkers.  I think it has something to do with all this rain around us.



nodge said:


> There's the rub.
> 
> If SVO is a timely payer when it executes its ROFR right, then that particular seller probably doesn't care who is paying him.
> 
> ...


----------



## nodge (Apr 14, 2011)

jarta said:


> "Where do you get these ideas that two parties (both bound by the original, recorded ROFR) can all by themselves legally add "select terms" to a sale of real property in fee simple to defeat a covenant running with the land?  This is really funny stuff.  :rofl:    ...   eom




Do you really not understand this?

My plan doesn't "defeat a covenant running with the land."  That covenant is always there and will run and run and run as far as it wants to go.  (FWIW, to folks playing the home game, to “run with the land” means that a particular limitation on a particular property automatically transfers to the next owner and there isn’t anything the buyer or seller can do to change that.  In this case, no one is disputing that the ROFR “runs with the land” and can’t be avoided simply by the buyer and seller agreeing to waive it as Jarta is suggesting that I’m saying,  which I’m not, not that it matters to Jarta that I didn’t actually say that though.)

I'm simply proposing doing a purchase agreement between two parties whereby more than mere money changes hands, thereby making SVO's decision to exercise its ROFR "covenant running with the land" less desirable  and therefore less likely to happen.

If I want to trade my SVO timeshare for a Marriott timeshare, and I find a Marriott owner willing to do a one for one trade with me, I can do that deal without resorting to cash changing hands and there isn't a darned thing SVO can do about it.  Of course, with its ROFR, SVO could always go buy an identical Marriott timeshare to the one I wanted in trade, and then trade it with me instead of the original trader's unit. But, it can't STOP the deal from going through just because there is a "covenant running with the land" thing going on there.

My plan simply plays with this concept a little more than that, and there is nothing, repeat nothing, except of course matching the terms of the original deal, SVO can do about it no matter how many legal buzzwords someone is able to throw at it to try to confuse this very simple concept.

-nodge


----------



## jarta (Apr 14, 2011)

nodge,   ...   I guess you actually are serious about this.   

Let me know when you get a taker and your ROFR plan is successful.   ...   eom


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Apr 15, 2011)

If the ROFR problem for the seller is a matter of the time it takes to fund and close the contract, it appears to me that a simpler method is simply to add a deadline for closing to the sales contract. "Time is of the essence in the closing of this contract. In the event that the contract fails to close and fund on or before #/##/####, then in that event the contract is void."

Hmm, just figured out that that does not work, because then Starwood has the right to exercise ROFR on the next contract to come along. 

Contract law is definitely not my forte.

elaine


----------



## crewtoo (Apr 15, 2011)

*Exactly.*



tombo said:


> Around Christmas when they sold for $7500, they sold for $7500 and ROFR wouldn't have changed that one bit. If a seller finds a buyer willing to pay a price that he will accept, then a sale is made. If the seller could have found a buyer for $15,000 they would not have sold the week for $7500. Starwood would not have made an offer of $7500 for the week or even $1 for te week. Starwood does not make offers on weeks offered for sale by owners, Starwood decides if they need the inventory when they review all of the current ALREADY AGREED UPON SALE PRICES submitted to them. If it is cheap enough and they need the inventory they steal it, if not they don't. ROFR does not keep values higher, it keeps Starwood and other developers with a cheap supply of inventory if and only if Starwood decides they want itfor the exact price it already sold for.
> 
> ROFR does not keep prices high, it simply changes who owns the week for the identical price it already sold for. The OP purchased the week for $8097. The developer stold the week for the identical $8097, not one penny more. The seller received $8097, not one penny more. If a week sells for $1000 it sells for $1000. All that ROFR changes is who ends up owning the week for the $1000 the seller agree to sell it for.
> 
> ...



Examplary Logic


----------



## siesta (Apr 15, 2011)

Fredm said:


> Nodge.
> 
> Where is the seller in your equation?
> 
> ...


 the only way I see a seller going along is if they had a vested interested in who the property goes to, for example: a family member that isn't immediate family, or a friend.  The seller will get the same $$ either way, so might as well let their friends or family get it instead of starwood.  

This "scheme" runs parrallel to what we touched upon in another thread, regarding people simply fudging the sales agreement.  Your response was to the extent of "why would a seller be inclined to participate in that", again the former is a possible reason for why someone would partake in that fraud.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 15, 2011)

Had a feeling you couldnt resist...hopefully in your time off you can learn how to play well with others.

cleaned up this thread and reopened it, hopefully itll remain on topic.


----------



## mstoyanov (Apr 15, 2011)

tombo,

A single ROFR does not create a visible price increase because market participants are quite a lot but regular ROFR exercise increase the price simply because there are less units available for roughly the same amount of buyers.
Clear example can be seen with prices of Hilton Timeshare on EBay in the last year (and I keep track of all Hilton that goes on EBay since I plan to buy several more) - in the 3 months after Hilton started exercising regular ROFR final prices on Hilton properties increased by almost 50% across the board (ones in Orlando slightly less than 50%, while the ones in Las Vegas more like 75%). Even the Flamingo that doesn't have ROFR saw prices increased since it is perfect substitute for other 2 HGVC properties in Las Vegas.

Just because you and me remember lower EBay prices "pre-ROFR period" and are not willing to bid more that does not mean that there are no buyers willing to do so. 
Me and you are simply deciding not to participate in market since new (lower) supply intersect demand curve at higher prices than what we are willing to pay but this is perfectly normal for any market. There are always participants on the market willing to pay more than equilibrium price and well as participants willing to pay less than equilibrium price.
Equilibrium price is the one at which number of willing sellers is exactly equal to the number of willing buyers.
So there is nothing "Mythical" that REGULAR EXERCISE of ROFR rise prices.
And keep attention - it is not the mere existence of the ROFR that rise prices, it is the regular exercise of that right.



tombo said:


> Around Christmas when they sold for $7500, they sold for $7500 and ROFR wouldn't have changed that one bit. If a seller finds a buyer willing to pay a price that he will accept, then a sale is made. If the seller could have found a buyer for $15,000 they would not have sold the week for $7500. Starwood would not have made an offer of $7500 for the week or even $1 for te week. Starwood does not make offers on weeks offered for sale by owners, Starwood decides if they need the inventory when they review all of the current ALREADY AGREED UPON SALE PRICES submitted to them. If it is cheap enough and they need the inventory they steal it, if not they don't. ROFR does not keep values higher, it keeps Starwood and other developers with a cheap supply of inventory if and only if Starwood decides they want itfor the exact price it already sold for.
> 
> ROFR does not keep prices high, it simply changes who owns the week for the identical price it already sold for. The OP purchased the week for $8097. The developer stold the week for the identical $8097, not one penny more. The seller received $8097, not one penny more. If a week sells for $1000 it sells for $1000. All that ROFR changes is who ends up owning the week for the $1000 the seller agree to sell it for.
> 
> ...


----------



## mstoyanov (Apr 15, 2011)

Fredm,

There can be a logical reason for seller to willingly submit higher ROFR price.
Here is theoretical example why both seller and buyer may benefit from such "fake" ROFR:
Lets just say that informed buyer and informed seller agree to transfer annual 2BR WKORV at $10k and both seller and buyer knows that probability this price to pass ROFR is 0%. Informed buyer then offer to the informed seller to submit "fake" ROFR at $15k. What buyer gains - he gains from probability such ROFR to pass to go from 0% to 50%. What seller gains - he gains 50% chance to sell his property at $15k instead of negotiated $10k so AVG expected price for seller becomes $12.5K

Seller has no benefit to submit "fake" price only at very high levels when expected probability of ROFR to be exercised is 0%. In the cases where probability is >0% seller benefits from higher reported price due to the chance that he can end up selling the timeshare at higher price. 



Fredm said:


> Where is the seller in your equation?
> 
> I can understand a buyer wanting to thwart the ROFR process in some creative way. But, why would the seller go along?
> The seller just wants it sold, and closed as soon as possible.
> ...


----------



## Fredm (Apr 15, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> Fredm,
> 
> There can be a logical reason for seller to willingly submit higher ROFR price.
> Here is theoretical example why both seller and buyer may benefit from such "fake" ROFR:
> ...



Never mind.
This is going off in an entirely different direction. 
I was responding to nodge, who was hypothetically proposing to add non-cash components to the terms of the sale contract.

What you are suggesting is simple fraud.  In that case the contracts don't apply in the first place. The seller and buyer would have to trust each other to transact the 'real" agreement outside escrow.

A legitimate escrow company and broker would not touch it.


----------



## mstoyanov (Apr 15, 2011)

FredM,

I understand that this is fraud but I was pointing that there is a real reason why seller may be willing to go along with fictitious offer.
I do not condone fraud but was simply showing that there is motivation for the seller to do something like this. 
And I am also sure that no reputable escrow company will want to touch it.



Fredm said:


> Never mind.
> This is going off in an entirely different direction.
> I was responding to nodge, who was hypothetically proposing to add non-cash components to the terms of the sale contract.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredm (Apr 16, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> FredM,
> 
> I understand that this is fraud but I was pointing that there is a real reason why seller may be willing to go along with fictitious offer.



Sure, there may be a corner case that can be imagined. But, you are over thinking this.

In every REAL situation I can think of, the subterfuge benefits the seller. The seller is the initiator of the fraud, not simply "going along" with it. That is, the seller submits a fraudulent inflated contract hoping that the inflated price IS exercised. Then the buyer is out in the cold, and the seller gets more than the actual sale price a buyer is willing to pay and the seller is willing to accept. 
The buyers signature on the inflated purchase contract makes them a party to the fraud (so, why would they go along?). Or, the seller fraudulently signed the buyers name to the inflated contract.

In the example being discussed (proposed by nodge), the *buyer* is placing non-cash compensation terms into the agreement. They only obfuscate the real deal, and provide no benefit to the seller. Indeed, it works to the sellers detriment. So, the seller has no motivation to go along.

I suggest that there are legal, and binding, ways to approach an ROFR exercise without the deception.  In some instances this may mean that the buyer will pay more. But, that would be their decision. The seller then benefits from a higher sale price whether the ROFR is exercised or not. This is what "informed buyers and informed sellers" (to use your phrase) do in my experience.  
If the buyer is not willing to up the offer, the seller has a sale on the original terms with a substitute buyer. So, the honest seller is happy nonetheless. 

Of course, as with many things in life, some folks just can't help themselves.
They will try to find an angle even if doing it honestly is easier. 
It is sociopath behavior. Unfortunately, there is no drought of it.
If that is what you are saying, I agree with you.


----------



## mstoyanov (Apr 16, 2011)

Fredm,

What I meant by "informed buyer" and "informed seller" means buyer and seller that know about ROFR process and are informed at what levels there is 0% probability and at what levels there is 50% probability ROFR to pass.
All this was simply a theoretical example to show there exist a real motivation of why both seller and buyer may try to submit fake ROFR.
As for how they can arrange that - this is not something that I am interested in since I do not condone fraud. But such possibility exist especially in a case when buyer and seller are not total strangers to each other (relatives, friends and so on) and to dismiss such possibility is simply not looking at every possible angle. 

As for nodge suggestion I agree that this will only complicate the transaction so seller who has no relation to the buyer will probably refuse to agree to such condition.



Fredm said:


> Sure, there may be a corner case that can be imagined. But, you are over thinking this.
> 
> In every REAL situation I can think of, the subterfuge benefits the seller. The seller is the initiator of the fraud, not simply "going along" with it. That is, the seller submits a fraudulent inflated contract hoping that the inflated price IS exercised. Then the buyer is out in the cold, and the seller gets more than the actual sale price a buyer is willing to pay and the seller is willing to accept.
> The buyers signature on the inflated purchase contract makes them a party to the fraud (so, why would they go along?). Or, the seller fraudulently signed the buyers name to the inflated contract.
> ...


----------



## aeroflygirl (Apr 17, 2011)

*ROFR Question*

What if they seller and buyer agree to the exchange of timeshares for a given amount of money.  Example: seller agrees to sell WKORV for $4,000 plus two 2BR EOY summer weeks at Lakeside Terrace.  Lakeside Terrace is not in active sales, so what if Starwood was not able to meet the conditions of the sale?


----------



## Fredm (Apr 17, 2011)

aeroflygirl said:


> What if they seller and buyer agree to the exchange of timeshares for a given amount of money.  Example: seller agrees to sell WKORV for $4,000 plus two 2BR EOY summer weeks at Lakeside Terrace.  Lakeside Terrace is not in active sales, so what if Starwood was not able to meet the conditions of the sale?



I actually brokered a similar transaction. It involved a trade of Mountain Vista, plus cash. It went off OK.

Edited to add:

Note this was an actual transaction. Not the superfluous addition of a non-cash item. Both deeds were transferred as part of the process.


----------



## nodge (Apr 17, 2011)

Fredm said:


> I actually brokered a similar transaction. It involved a trade of Mountain Vista, plus cash. It went off OK.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> Note this was an actual transaction. Not the superfluous addition of a non-cash item. Both deeds were transferred as part of the process.



See.  One can indeed include non-cash terms in a ROFR property transfer without the sky falling and without messing with SVO's right to "run with the land."

Moreover, I'm pretty sure that there is no box on the purchase contract to check for "superfluous addition of non-cash item."  AND, even if there were, SVO still wouldn't have a right to just ignore those terms and exercise its ROFR anyway, especially if the non-cash term was at least sort of reasonable (and I bet if we all used our collective noodles instead of beating each other up over simply presenting a new idea, we could think up a bunch of 'em).  

There are other problems with my "non-cash rider" theory, that we've already discussed.  But, those are along the lines of non-related buyers and sellers not going for it.  Theoretically, it is totally doable once this negative perception issue is resolved.

-nodge


----------



## Fredm (Apr 17, 2011)

nodge said:


> See.  One can indeed include non-cash terms in a ROFR property transfer without the sky falling and without messing with SVO's right to "run with the land."
> 
> Moreover, I'm pretty sure that there is no box on the purchase contract to check for "superfluous addition of non-cash item."  AND, even if there were, SVO still wouldn't have a right to just ignore those terms and exercise its ROFR anyway, especially if the non-cash term was at least sort of reasonable (and I bet if we all used our collective noodles instead of beating each other up over simply presenting a new idea, we could think up a bunch of 'em).
> 
> -nodge



I don't think there is a need to use our collective noodles. 
Either the transaction is legit, or it is a contrived attempt to "beat" the ROFR. If "collective noodles" are needed, then it's pretty much a give away as to intent.
If this ever got to the point of being contested (which remains to be seen), that would be the issue, IMO.

If it is legit, the terms will appear reasonable to all. A deed trade (reciprocal signed deeds) with cash kicker falls into this category.


----------



## LisaH (Apr 17, 2011)

Interesting...I also bought a Hyatt week with "superfluous addition of non-cash item" included in the contract. It went through without triggering Hyatt's ROFR. That was a few years ago, before timeshare resale market collapsing.


----------



## SDKath (Apr 17, 2011)

Fredm said:


> I don't think there is a need to use our collective noodles.
> Either the transaction is legit, or it is a contrived attempt to "beat" the ROFR. If "collective noodles" are needed, then it's pretty much a give away as to intent.
> If this ever got to the point of being contested (which remains to be seen), that would be the issue, IMO.
> 
> If it is legit, the terms will appear reasonable to all. A deed trade (reciprocal signed deeds) with cash kicker falls into this category.



What if you "swap" timeshares.  Person X sells you WKORV for $10,000 and their WMH timeshare, for example.  The assumed value would be about $5000 for WMH, let's say.  So you end up "paying" $15,000 for your WKORV but the actual cash exchanged is $10,000 only.  Could that get ROFR'd?

katherine


----------



## Fredm (Apr 17, 2011)

SDKath said:


> What if you "swap" timeshares.  Person X sells you WKORV for $10,000 and their WMH timeshare, for example.  The assumed value would be about $5000 for WMH, let's say.  So you end up "paying" $15,000 for your WKORV but the actual cash exchanged is $10,000 only.  Could that get ROFR'd?
> 
> katherine



Could it? Sure. If Starwood wanted to meet those terms.
It is a deed swap with a cash kicker.

Would it? I don't know. Deed swaps make the matter much more complicated for them than a straight sale.
My guess is that they would not exercise where a legitimate deed swap is involved. 

I think we need to remember that the exercise of an individual ROFR is not the be-all and end-all for Starwood. 
At the end of the day, they can just move on to the next transaction overflowing their in-box.

I believe they will act against what appear to be a rash of contrived arrangements because it threatens their ability to generally enforce their reserved rights.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 17, 2011)

Just for fun, what if a buyer offered cash plus one or two 5-night stays at cat 4 Starwood property? It's almost the same as bonus points that Starwood offers. If the price is low enough, I wonder if SVN would exercise it's right to buy even with the right to use 80,000 StarPoints (or equivalent).


----------



## Fredm (Apr 17, 2011)

Ken555 said:


> Just for fun, what if a buyer offered cash plus one or two 5-night stays at cat 4 Starwood property? It's almost the same as bonus points that Starwood offers. If the price is low enough, I wonder if SVN would exercise it's right to buy even with the right to use 80,000 StarPoints (or equivalent).



My opinion:

It would have no effect, as a practical matter.  Starwood would view it the same as it views the use-year issue. They would value the HOA dues in the ROFR decision.


----------



## nodge (Apr 18, 2011)

Fredm said:


> I don't think there is a need to use our collective noodles.
> Either the transaction is legit, or it is a contrived attempt to "beat" the ROFR. If "collective noodles" are needed, then it's pretty much a give away as to intent.



OK Grasshopper . . . how about this?

Suppose a BUYER makes an offer to a seller that includes what could or could not be interpreted as a "superfluous addition of a non-cash item" (aka "a Chrysler Cordoba clause") depending on how creative he/she is in thinking up something to add to the deal.  If THAT were to happen, the seller then has a choice . . . 1) take the deal as offered; 2) counter without the non-cash item clause; or 3) reject the offer and hope for another seller to come along.  

If the seller goes with option 1, is that term really superfluous then?  The buyer added it to beat the ROFR he/she is competing with; a totally legitimate and legal goal of a buyer who has no contractual obligation to SVO at that point; and the seller took the deal because the buyer wouldn't have made the offer had that term not been in there.   That sounds like good ol' fashioned, bargained-for, enforceable, "consideration" to me.  

I agree that if a seller had a choice, he or she would not seek a "superfluous addition of a non-cash item" in the deal.  But it seems to me that a knowledgeable BUYER can force the seller to take a ride in the Cordoba.

-nodge


----------



## Fredm (Apr 18, 2011)

Nodge, I also said "If it is legit, the terms will appear reasonable to all". Tangible value is not hard to identify.

Get a seller to sign an agreement with a "Cordoba clause" that has no tangible benefit to them, and see what happens. 
Jarta is a property attorney of notable standing. He says Starwood has grounds to ignore them. I wouldn't know. But, his is a qualified,  professionally informed opinion. If this discussion is about ways to legally thwart a developers preemption rights, why ignore a qualified opinion just because you don't like the way the message was delivered? 
The conversation can become more productive when practical legal solutions are the ones under consideration. If he is right (and I have no reason to believe he is not), then your example is not a viable one.

My issue is a different one. Personally, I could care less about what a willing buyer and willing seller agree to. Starwood can take care of themselves.

Your point of view is from a buyer perspective. I understand that. Mine is from a transaction perspective. 
Either the Cordoba clause has a tangible value to the seller, or it does not. If it does not, then it has the practical effect of potentially being detrimental to the seller. I won't bore you with real world examples of that statement. But, in the real world they exist.

If contract terms are genuine, I have no problem with it. If they are not, I do. Pretty simple.

There are legitimate ways to beat an ROFR. Ways that may not always be beneficial to the buyer only. They may or may not include an additional benefit to the seller. If successful, Starwood is thwarted.  IF that is the objective, mission accomplished. 
But, if the real objective is for the buyer to gain at a potential loss to the seller, then just say so. At least we will all know what we are talking about.


----------



## gregb (Apr 18, 2011)

I agree with Fred completely.



Fredm said:


> If contract terms are genuine, I have no problem with it. If they are not, I do. Pretty simple.



This thread is starting to sound like a bunch of "wanna be" lawyers arguing about how to put it to "the man".  It kinds of reminds me about when engineers start analyzing contracts to figure out ways to justify why their product doesn't do what it was supposed to do.

Greg

(Full disclosure, I am an Engineer  )


----------



## esk444 (Apr 18, 2011)

Fredm said:


> Jarta is a property attorney of notable standing. He says Starwood has grounds to ignore them. I wouldn't know. But, his is a qualified,  professionally informed opinion.



To me, he is just some unidentified dude on the internet.  Just like me.  Take any advice on the internet, especially legal advice, with a grain of salt.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 18, 2011)

I am just some unidentifiable dude on the internet as well - but at least with enough fortitude to post our photos and videos (or maybe they are frauds as well...? wait a minute - people have actually met us - so never mind... they goes that hypothesis...).  Well, at least try and play nicely with others as much as possible. 

The practical effort to bypass the ROFR is not worth the potential benefit unless the TS is worth 10s of 1000s of $s (beyond the benefit sticking it to 'The Man' - which is just silly) and the seller would get screwed by a ROFR by letting it get that far.

In Reality, expensive SVO VOIs (>$20K) are very rare.  A potentially expensive SVO VOI is WSJ (Plat season) - and they do not have a ROFR (either does WKV).  I doubt HRA has a ROFR either (but not sure..)

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 19, 2011)

Gentlemen - I think we are done here.


----------

