# Kaanapali vote to offer 33 units as float



## ocjohn

Hello everyone,
We own a fixed week at Kaanapali, and yesterday got notice of a special election to sell 33 units (weeks 1-50) as floating weeks.  I gather this is a big decision, but am not sure if its good or bad for existing owners.  Any opinions?


----------



## vacationtime1

It shouldn't matter for existing owners.  They own what they own and Hyatt cannot change that.  It may be that as a result, 67 owners will be competing for 67 units each week rather than 100 owners chasing after 100 units.

I suspect that Hyatt will not sell these 33 floating weeks; it will put them into their points program (if the points program ever happens) in order to give them more flexibility.


----------



## Panina

It says existing fixed week owner won't be impacted so that is good. 

Float is a marketing strategy where buyers are led to believe they can get any week from 1-50, not realizing the prime weeks are hard to get as they are competing with many other owners. 

Ultimately they must have determined overall they will make more money selling float then fixed.


----------



## Kal

My guess is those units are in unfavorable weeks.  Just a fantasy that a buyer would be able to get a superior week or any week they want to visit Maui.  A shell game.


----------



## vacationtime1

Kal said:


> My guess is those units are in unfavorable weeks.  Just a fantasy that a buyer would be able to get a superior week or any week they want to visit Maui.  A shell game.



No, it has to be 33 full units (i.e. 52 weeks available in each unit).  Otherwise Hyatt wouldn't be able to sell them as float weeks.

Although maybe it plans to sell these float weeks for the same price as it has been selling prime weeks.


----------



## WalnutBaron

If there is one location where the float week system can work, it would be Hawaii. The mild climate year-round makes float weeks more acceptable. We used to own float week at Westin Princeville and never had a problem getting our desired week during the eight years we owned there.


----------



## lizap

vacationtime1 said:


> It shouldn't matter for existing owners.  They own what they own and Hyatt cannot change that.  It may be that as a result, 67 owners will be competing for 67 units each week rather than 100 owners chasing after 100 units.
> 
> I suspect that Hyatt will not sell these 33 floating weeks; it will put them into their points program (if the points program ever happens) in order to give them more flexibility.




The original plan did not call for Kaanapali to be in PPP.  I don't know how selling these as floating versus fixed would change this.  I agree with Kal.  They probably view these as less desirable weeks and think it will make them easier to sell.


----------



## ocjohn

If I read the pdf right attached to the original post, they say they are selling 33 units, all weeks except weeks 51 and 52.  So these aren't "undesirable weeks"- it's everything except Christmas for 33 units.  And again, if I'm reading it right, they can do this??


----------



## lizap

John Clarke said:


> If I read the pdf right attached to the original post, they say they are selling 33 units, all weeks except weeks 51 and 52.  So these aren't "undesirable weeks"- it's everything except Christmas for 33 units.  And again, if I'm reading it right, they can do this??



Sounds like they're having trouble selling units.  Have they heard the term 'elasticity of demand'?


----------



## Kal

vacationtime1 said:


> No, it has to be 33 full units (i.e. 52 weeks available in each unit).  Otherwise Hyatt wouldn't be able to sell them as float weeks.
> 
> Although maybe it plans to sell these float weeks for the same price as it has been selling prime weeks.


Remember, they are not selling a unit, but rather a unit in a grouping of floors.  Even then it would likely be impossible to a single unsold unit that spans the full year.


----------



## vacationtime1

Kal said:


> Remember, they are not selling a unit, but rather a unit in a grouping of floors.  Even then it would likely be impossible to a single unsold unit that spans the full year.



This may be correct, but they would still need to have a unit each week (even if not the same unit) if they want to sell a floating 1-50 unit.

I suppose they could have one unit for each desirable week (such as week 7 -- Presidents' Day week) and a whole lot of weeks 48, 49, and 50 (less desirable weeks) in the pool.  But if they do, there will be a lot of disappointed owners owning float weeks.


----------



## Kal

vacationtime1 said:


> This may be correct, but they would still need to have a unit each week (even if not the same unit) if they want to sell a floating 1-50 unit.
> 
> I suppose they could have one unit for each desirable week (such as week 7 -- Presidents' Day week) and a whole lot of weeks 48, 49, and 50 (less desirable weeks) in the pool.  But if they do, there will be a lot of disappointed owners owning float weeks.


Those owners wouldn't even know about the floating inventory.  All they would know is the target week is not available.  For all anyone knows is there is no floater in that week (or many other weeks).


----------



## ocjohn

but bringing it back around, if you owned a fixed week in Kaanapali (like us), would you

1. vote for letting float week units happen
2. vote against
3. not care either way since you could always use your fixed week?  (-:


----------



## WalnutBaron

John Clarke said:


> but bringing it back around, if you owned a fixed week in Kaanapali (like us), would you
> 
> 1. vote for letting float week units happen
> 2. vote against
> 3. not care either way since you could always use your fixed week?  (-:


If I owned a fixed week at Ka'anapali, I'm ambivalent. On the plus side, anything that helps HRC sell more timeshare intervals is a good thing, since it spreads the costs of maintenance and upgrades to more owners. On the downside, however, maintenance fees are probably being subsidized right now by Hyatt/ILG in order to help sell those intervals and--once HRC believes Hyatt Ka'anapali is comfortably sold--maintenance fees will start to ratchet up more rapidly.


----------



## lizap

I'd vote for no.2 since anything ILG wants to do probably isn't good for us.


----------



## taffy19

I wonder how happy the new buyers of floating weeks at the HKB are going to be when they find out that the best weeks are not in the floating pool so can only be accessed when one of the fixed week owners would like to reserve a different week in another season or go to a different location?

I also wonder if that material fact is going to be mentioned during the sales presentation in Maui to a new prospective buyer?  I hope they will mention this important fact.

I would assume that the non-included floating weeks would also be included in the legal documents that you sign when you buy a timeshare week but then they offer to mail the package to your home so you do not have to take it with you on the plane.

They did that with us.  If you agree, you may not even read this material fact of the non-included floating weeks and all the other complicated legalese, rules and regulations in the big package of legal documents in the contract until you get home and it may be too late then to rescind the purchase contract.  Some people stay additional weeks like we always do.

We were made aware at the presentation that we had the right to rescind the contract within a certain time period and we signed that separately in one of the other documents and it was right at the top of our documents when we opened the big package at home but some people may stay longer in Hawaii so they better read it first and then let them ship it later to their residence.

I was so annoyed when we found out a month or so later that the Hyatt Residence Club was sold to the parent company (ILG) of Interval World as that was the last company (II) I wanted to business with ever again after the Marriott introduction to the new trust points program.  I would rather use their own Destination Club as that seems to work much better for us.  This is mainly for the Marriott fixed wee/units as floating weeks do not have that same problem, I believe.

This sale to ILG had to be pending already so it should have been disclosed to us one way or the other because it is an important material fact to base a purchase on when we bought.  I contacted our sales manager and asked him why it wasn't mentioned and he told me on the phone that he didn't know any sooner than when it was public notice on Wall Street.  He even forwarded me an email when he was notified but had it been discussed already between them in the sales department?  I will never know but the contract documents had several legal identities mentioned but I didn't notice the ILG name so I agree with Lizap 100% that this is very underhanded again to the prospective buyers in Maui and present customers too if they can choose to enroll in the new program later that they are rolling out slowly for a lot less money than what they they are offering now.

All these big timeshare companies will keep changing the rules to their advantage constantly because they have to improve their bottom line to keep their investors happy.  The customer doesn't count anymore so buying a timeshare today is risky to say the least and I would wonder about a re-sale purchase too?

Caveat emptor - "Let the buyer beware".


----------



## taffy19

John Clarke said:


> Hello everyone,
> We own a fixed week at Kaanapali, and yesterday got notice of a special election to sell 33 units (weeks 1-50) as floating weeks.  I gather this is a big decision, but am not sure if its good or bad for existing owners.  Any opinions?


Hi John, welcome to TUG.  You will read and learn a lot here.   I sent you a private message this morning.  Do you know how to open it?  Click on "Inbox" at the top and you should find it from taffy19.  I do not get notified when a message comes in because I do not want it on my phone.


----------



## bdh

lizap said:


> I'd vote for no.2 since anything ILG wants to do probably isn't good for us.



Absolutely correct - no. 2 is the correct answer.


----------



## dioxide45

lizap said:


> The original plan did not call for Kaanapali to be in PPP.  I don't know how selling these as floating versus fixed would change this.  I agree with Kal.  They probably view these as less desirable weeks and think it will make them easier to sell.


The weeks they are looking to convert to float are 1-50 in the 33 units. So it isn't less desirable weeks. It looks to perhaps be units where they haven't sold a single week from yet. So they are unbroken units. They will sell weeks 51 and 52 at fixed. So they will have a season that is weeks 1-50 at these 33 units. It is quite possible that they will dump them in to the new Pure Points since that will just be a land based trust.

_Edited to add: Thinking about this more. Hyatt doesn't need the weeks to be floating in order to dump them in to Pure Points. They could do that now with any week at any resort. Not sure the motive behind this. It is probably easier to sell a float week given how the industry has changed._


----------



## alexadeparis

In my opinion, this resort probably should have been sold as floating from the beginning. The fixed week/fixed unit is a dinosaur in the timeshare world and a points overlay is required in today's timesharing world for flexibility. I love to travel, but I definitely don't always want to travel to the same place at the same time every year. Boring. There are some weeks that we are always out of town like our two birthday weeks, July 4th and thanksgiving; but it's always somewhere new.


----------



## bdh

alexadeparis said:


> In my opinion, this resort probably should have been sold as floating from the beginning. The fixed week/fixed unit is a dinosaur in the timeshare world and a points overlay is required in today's timesharing world for flexibility. I love to travel, but I definitely don't always want to travel to the same place at the same time every year. Boring. There are some weeks that we are always out of town like our two birthday weeks, July 4th and thanksgiving; but it's always somewhere new.



Due to the configuration of the HRC program with deeded fixed weeks that are easily converted to points for an internal exchange to other weeks and other resorts, there isn't too much of a reason to have floating weeks - the exception is the Colorado ski properties that have floating weeks.  The Colorado properties were set up as fractional in lieu of TS - so when you bought a deeded ski week, you also got floating points.  Since its hard to sell mud weeks in ski country, they were able to "sell" all 52 weeks by tying floating points to the deeded week.  With HKB weeks all being 2200 point prime weeks, no need to sell floating points (based on the calendar/season).


----------



## dagger1

bdh said:


> Due to the configuration of the HRC program with deeded fixed weeks that are easily converted to points for an internal exchange to other weeks and other resorts, there isn't too much of a reason to have floating weeks - the exception is the Colorado ski properties that have floating weeks.  The Colorado properties were set up as fractional in lieu of TS - so when you bought a deeded ski week, you also got floating points.  Since its hard to sell mud weeks in ski country, they were able to "sell" all 52 weeks by tying floating points to the deeded week.  With HKB weeks all being 2200 point prime weeks, no need to sell floating points (based on the calendar/season).



Well said!


----------



## Kal

alexadeparis said:


> In my opinion, this resort probably should have been sold as floating from the beginning. The fixed week/fixed unit is a dinosaur in the timeshare world and a points overlay is required in today's timesharing world for flexibility...


The Hyatt program, including HKB, has always been a fixed week with a points overlay.  Matter of fact, they MAY have been one of the first to establish that type of program.  As other properties were opened, they added in a floating week component to the fixed week.  Other non-Hyatt resorts saw the points program as a way to substantially increase their profit, so they convinced owners to go strictly with points.


----------



## WalnutBaron

Kal said:


> The Hyatt program, including HKB, has always been a fixed week with a points overlay.  Matter of fact, they MAY have been one of the first to establish that type of program.  As other properties were opened, they added in a floating week component to the fixed week.  Other non-Hyatt resorts saw the points program as a way to substantially increase their profit, so they convinced owners to go strictly with points.


And that's why I view my ownership of fixed weeks in Hyatt as so valuable. HRC provides owners with the security of a fixed week, guaranteed view and unit, based on what I bought at the time of my initial purchase. If I decide to give up that view and unit because I want to visit someplace else or in a different season, I have that option through the points assigned to my ownership. It's the ultimate flexibility at what I view as a very reasonable price for a luxury vacation.


----------



## ocjohn

true walnutB- although comparing renting your week through redweek vs what it'd cost to *rent* almost anything else that's *available* in the system (private party)- it seems to me it doesn't make sense to do anything other than use your week in Ka'anapali or rent it and go anywhere.  As if- this particular resort is an island.  Probably like Colorado resorts during ski season.

BUT- the proposal will take 33 units and segment them in a different pool.  I count 126 units at Ka'anapali.  So for existing owners, the resort just got 26% smaller.  So for any fixed week owner that did want to give up their unit and trade in Ka'anapali for a different date, it would be harder.  Another reason to just say no.

The developer can probably vote it in by themselves given apathy and how many shares they have voting as a block though.


----------



## WalnutBaron

I agree, John. To me, ownership in Hawaii--like ski weeks in Colorado or California--are definitely not for trading, either within HRC or II, for that matter. Hawaii MF's are higher than just about anyplace else in the world, owing to high energy costs in Hawaii, high taxes, high costs of maintenance, and other costs which are borne by the owners through their MF's. When one buys in Hawaii, it's because they've decided they love Hawaii and want to go there every year. It's a commitment--and worth the higher cost as long as the units are used for Hawaii and not for trading to Florida or Arizona, for example.


----------



## Kal

My guess is there are all kinds of things going on behind the curtain, none of which would be good for the current owners or the buyers of those 33 units.

The resort is already a floating points system where you can use the point value of the owned week to stay in a different week, or days, in a different size unit.  So why the change??  Buyers would have to fight for the "best weeks".

The first thing that comes to mind is to boost sales beyond the current 50% level for the resort.  Then why 33 units?  Maybe that's what you get when you add up units where the "floor groupings" show 50 continuous weeks of unsold units.  Those units were held by the developer, so there would be no impact to current owners on availability.

Then I see the PPP coming into play where they want to do anything possible to include Maui in the portfolio.  For this to work, these 33 units would be outside the HRC system.

And there's the issue of multi developers in the resort.  Maybe one developer wanted to go into the PPP while the others wanted to stay in the HRC.  Who knows???

For an owner to be fully informed, he/she would want to see ALL the fine print.  This wasn't something that Hyatt thought up overnight.  Open the curtain to see what's behind this offer.  Based on past history, there will be very little supporting documentation, other than vote YES or NO.


----------



## lizap

Already difficult, but likely going to make it that much harder for other HRC owners to exchange into HKB.  Sure glad we own a mandatory Westin.. Any way to encourage other owners to vote 'no' or is this a 'done 'deal?


----------



## Kal

lizap said:


> Already difficult, but likely going to make it that much harder for other HRC owners to exchange into HKB.  Sure glad we own a mandatory Westin.. Any way to encourage other owners to vote 'no' or is this a 'done 'deal?


I say this is a done deal.  If less than 50% of the units are sold, that means >50% of the units are held by the developers.  All they want is to sell units and get their capital back, so they will likely vote YES.  Hyatt probably worked the deal with the developers in advance so as to avoid a negative outcome.


----------



## lizap

Kal said:


> I say this is a done deal.  If less than 50% of the units are sold, that means >50% of the units are held by the developers.  All they want is to sell units and get their capital back, so they will likely vote YES.  Hyatt probably worked the deal with the developers in advance so as to avoid a negative outcome.




Kal, if less than half of the units are sold, why is it so hard for existing HRC owners to book there?  Do we not have access to this inventory?


----------



## Kal

lizap said:


> Kal, if less than half of the units are sold, why is it so hard for existing HRC owners to book there?  Do we not have access to this inventory?


HRC members only have access to HRC units which have been deposited into the Club.  Other units are held by the developer and they can do anything they desire with those units.  Renting would be preferable, but using them for sales development (i.e. low cost Hyatt 3-4 day stays) and of course they could turn them into the Club.  In the later case, they might not get anything in return as the Club is a points transaction and not cash.


----------



## lizap

Kal said:


> HRC members only have access to HRC units which have been deposited into the Club.  Other units are held by the developer and they can do anything they desire with those units.  Renting would be preferable, but using them for sales development (i.e. low cost Hyatt 3-4 day stays) and of course they could turn them into the Club.  In the later case, they might not get anything in return as the Club is a points transaction and not cash.



Might be a good strategy for the developer to put more inventory in for HRC owners. If we can visit, we just might decide to buy there. Guess this is too logical...


----------



## ocjohn

I just received an email below regarding this... and from it it appears they have 33 units left ("our remaining...").   There are 131 units total per the sales brochure. Per the By Laws re Amendments (section 11), 67% of eligible votes must be obtained to amend the by-laws.

So, looks to me like there are 131 units * 52 weeks / year = 6,812 votes possible.  67% of that would be 4,564
and the developer has
33 units * 52 weeks = 1,716 votes

So if I'm right they can't "slam" this without existing owners actively voting for it. 

SO- IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA- DON'T VOTE FOR IT!  (-:


Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,

You may have received in the mail already a proposed amendment to release our remaining 33 2-bedroom units as "floating" units (weeks 1 to 50).  This amendment to the use plan requires approval from Maui owners.  If you have not done so already, please complete the attached proxy and return it to me via email adam.alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com or fax to my attention 808-662-4701.  Your response is greatly appreciated!

If you have any questions about the proposed amendment or anything else relating to your Maui ownership (such as upgrading or adding a 2-bedroom floating week to your portfolio), please don't hesitate to contact me.  It's my pleasure to assist you.

Aloha,

Adam


-------------------------------
Adam Alexander
Sales Operations Manager
Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club


----------



## Kal

Normally, only about 20-25% of the owners vote.  As expected, there are few if any details on how this impacts current owners.

As of last March they had sold less than 60 units.  So in the last 3 months they sold 40 units? 

At least these word are coming from a timeshare sales person.  For sure, 110% of it is absolutely TRUE.  Would a huckster say something otherwise?


----------



## lizap

Any way to get the word out to current owners to vote "no"?  Is there a list of owners somewhere?



John Clarke said:


> I just received an email below regarding this... and from it it appears they have 33 units left ("our remaining...").   There are 131 units total per the sales brochure. Per the By Laws re Amendments (section 11), 67% of eligible votes must be obtained to amend the by-laws.
> 
> So, looks to me like there are 131 units * 52 weeks / year = 6,812 votes possible.  67% of that would be 4,564
> and the developer has
> 33 units * 52 weeks = 1,716 votes
> 
> So if I'm right they can't "slam" this without existing owners actively voting for it.
> 
> SO- IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA- DON'T VOTE FOR IT!  (-:
> 
> 
> Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,
> 
> You may have received in the mail already a proposed amendment to release our remaining 33 2-bedroom units as "floating" units (weeks 1 to 50).  This amendment to the use plan requires approval from Maui owners.  If you have not done so already, please complete the attached proxy and return it to me via email adam.alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com or fax to my attention 808-662-4701.  Your response is greatly appreciated!
> 
> If you have any questions about the proposed amendment or anything else relating to your Maui ownership (such as upgrading or adding a 2-bedroom floating week to your portfolio), please don't hesitate to contact me.  It's my pleasure to assist you.
> 
> Aloha,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> Adam Alexander
> Sales Operations Manager
> Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club


----------



## WalnutBaron

lizap said:


> Any way to get the word out to current owners to vote "no"?  Is there a list of owners somewhere?


Unfortunately, the only owner's list that exists is in the possession of HRC, and there is no way in the world--at any price--they're going to release it. Honestly, that is one of the real downsides of owning a timeshare as part of one of the big development companies: they have, as Kal has intimated, pretty much complete control of how the property is run and managed. On very rare occasions, owners have been able to wrest control from the developer, but that usually only happens with smaller, independent resorts.


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> The weeks they are looking to convert to float are 1-50 in the 33 units. So it isn't less desirable weeks. It looks to perhaps be units where they haven't sold a single week from yet. So they are unbroken units. They will sell weeks 51 and 52 at fixed. So they will have a season that is weeks 1-50 at these 33 units. It is quite possible that they will dump them in to the new Pure Points since that will just be a land based trust.
> 
> _Edited to add: Thinking about this more. Hyatt doesn't need the weeks to be floating in order to dump them in to Pure Points. They could do that now with any week at any resort. Not sure the motive behind this. It is probably easier to sell a float week given how the industry has changed._



Since we are all speculating, I will go with the above and add: 

To 'sell' the points program, reasonable availability must be there for most of the year.  Marriott didn't have this problem because they had floating weeks. Just have one week available in each season, and voila! You can say there is availability any week you want!

Hyatt can't do this in their current resort portfolio, so must buy up weeks throughout the year. Imagine how much that would cost at Ka'anapali Beach.  If they could change it to floating, they would theoretically need only one week and they could add Hawaii to the points program.

Thoughts?


----------



## WalnutBaron

Theoretically, you're right. But would ILG/Hyatt really want to risk creating a Wyndham-like fiasco at HKB by selling points in a system where--realistically--points owners cannot ever seem to get a reservation confirmed at one of the most desirable locations in the HRP system? I doubt it. ILG _needs _to make sure HRP works, and that happy HRP owners are passing the word along. If a groundswell of discontent is expressed on these boards or on TripAdvisor or other social media, that will not be good for ILG.


----------



## dioxide45

WalnutBaron said:


> Theoretically, you're right. But would ILG/Hyatt really want to risk creating a Wyndham-like fiasco at HKB by selling points in a system where--realistically--points owners cannot ever seem to get a reservation confirmed at one of the most desirable locations in the HRP system? I doubt it. ILG _needs _to make sure HRP works, and that happy HRP owners are passing the word along. If a groundswell of discontent is expressed on these boards or on TripAdvisor or other social media, that will not be good for ILG.


This isn't any different from any other points overlay or trust based points program. DRI started adding mainland resorts to the Hawaii trust so they could sell more cheap to develop points with access to Hawaii. Marriott has the same problem in a lot of their South Carolina properties. Vistana sells properties with having the ability to reserve Hawaii, St John and the Bahamas. St John is especially difficult to get with StarOptions, but it doesn't stop them from touting it as an available reservation with StarOptions from your Vistana Villages week in Orlando.

Having about a quarter of the units at Ka'anapali in the trust is actually pretty good considering that many of Marriott's properties are less than 15%. I would see no issue with them having 33 units available for Pure Points reservations. I don't see why Hyatt/ILG would want to do this differently. Having the ability to tell potential customers that they can reserve Hawaii with their pure points is a HUGE selling point, even if the prospect of actually getting it is small. Still though, with 33 available units, the prospects may actually be fairly good.


----------



## Pathways

Agree totally!....but then, the "fiasco" at Wyndham, (other than the new website) hasn't slowed sales one bit, and their stock just keeps on rolling!  
As far as the 33 units, I don't see where they would even need all of them. They could still sell a lot of them conventionally


----------



## dioxide45

John Clarke said:


> I just received an email below regarding this... and from it it appears they have 33 units left ("our remaining...").   There are 131 units total per the sales brochure. Per the By Laws re Amendments (section 11), 67% of eligible votes must be obtained to amend the by-laws.
> 
> So, looks to me like there are 131 units * 52 weeks / year = 6,812 votes possible.  67% of that would be 4,564
> and the developer has
> 33 units * 52 weeks = 1,716 votes
> 
> So if I'm right they can't "slam" this without existing owners actively voting for it.
> 
> SO- IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA- DON'T VOTE FOR IT!  (-:
> 
> 
> Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,
> 
> You may have received in the mail already a proposed amendment to release our remaining 33 2-bedroom units as "floating" units (weeks 1 to 50).  This amendment to the use plan requires approval from Maui owners.  If you have not done so already, please complete the attached proxy and return it to me via email adam.alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com or fax to my attention 808-662-4701.  Your response is greatly appreciated!
> 
> If you have any questions about the proposed amendment or anything else relating to your Maui ownership (such as upgrading or adding a 2-bedroom floating week to your portfolio), please don't hesitate to contact me.  It's my pleasure to assist you.
> 
> Aloha,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> Adam Alexander
> Sales Operations Manager
> Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club





Kal said:


> Normally, only about 20-25% of the owners vote.  As expected, there are few if any details on how this impacts current owners.
> 
> As of last March they had sold less than 60 units.  So in the last 3 months they sold 40 units?
> 
> At least these word are coming from a timeshare sales person.  For sure, 110% of it is absolutely TRUE.  Would a huckster say something otherwise?



With Hyatt able to vote in block all of those 33 units, plus any other units that they still happen to own, I suspect it will be pretty easy to pass given how few owners actually vote. If all they have lefts is the 33 units and less than 15% of the other owners vote and all voted no, this will still go through. I suspect that they have other weeks, just that some of them are already broken with some of the prime weeks sold and they can't include those in those they convert to float.


----------



## Pathways

John Clarke said:


> I just received an email below regarding this... and from it it appears they have 33 units left ("our remaining...").   There are 131 units total per the sales brochure. Per the By Laws re Amendments (section 11), 67% of eligible votes must be obtained to amend the by-laws.



Just curious - Is this By Law 67% of the votes available, or cast?

Ie: If you don't vote, does that lower the threshold needed to pass the amendment?

Sorry, typing while you pretty much answered this


----------



## Kal

This proposal really doesn't pass the sniff test.  If passed, there will be two classes of owners.  Those with a fixed week and those with floating weeks.  Hyatt would have to set aside those floating weeks to accommodate the float owners.  Sounds kinda like a "portfolio"?  This should prevent the HRC fixed week people from getting access to the floating weeks, and vice-versa the floater people should not access the HRC points usage weeks.  If not, the HRC people will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Yes, Hyatt is clearly up to something evil.


----------



## ocjohn

Hey everyone.  My better half is a lawyer, and I finally got him to look into this.
What I was looking at before are bylaws.  The proposal is to amend the CC&Rs.  Different Rules.

In order to amend the CC&Rs, a special meeting of the owners must be called.  In order for the special meeting to be valid, it must have a quorum.  A quorum means at 50% of the owners (including the developer as owners of the unsold units) attend or give proxies to Hyatt to vote.  Once a quorum is reached, then the amendment to the CC&Rs can pass so long as at least 50% of the attendees approve.  

So, here's the math.  There are 131 units x 52 weeks = 6,812 owners.  In order for a quorum to exist to run the special meeting, 3,406 owners must attend or give proxies. We suspect the developer owns the remaining 33 unsold units which they want to convert to floating.  So, 33 units x 52 weeks = 1,716 "owners" are the developer.  Since we know the developer will attend, that means they need another 1,690 owners to attend or submit proxies.  

Let's assume exactly 1,690 other owners attend or give proxies.  Now, a quorum exists.  So, in order for the amendment to pass, 50% of the attendees (3,406 owners x 50%) or 1,703 owners must approve of it.  Given that the developer already has 1,716 votes, the amendment passes.

So, the bottom line is this: *if you don't want this to happen, you cannot submit anything.* This prevents the developer from getting a quorum. If the developer gets a quorum, game over.  This is most important: you can't even vote No.  Once you vote No, you are helping the developer get a quorum.  The only way your No vote helps is if almost everyone submits a No vote so that it overwhelms the developer's Yes votes.


----------



## dioxide45

Kal said:


> This proposal really doesn't pass the sniff test.  If passed, there will be two classes of owners.  Those with a fixed week and those with floating weeks.  Hyatt would have to set aside those floating weeks to accommodate the float owners.  Sounds kinda like a "portfolio"?  This should prevent the HRC fixed week people from getting access to the floating weeks, and vice-versa the floater people should not access the HRC points usage weeks.  If not, the HRC people will be at a distinct disadvantage.
> 
> Yes, Hyatt is clearly up to something evil.


Aren't fixed owners tied to their week and unit already? Aren't they fixed week fixed units? So the 33 units being float really has no impact on existing fixed owners. If Hyatt decides to sell these as float instead of points, then there is still no impact since those float owners would be reserving in to one of the 33 units. If a float owner books inside the club using the points assigned to their float week to stay at another property, then that float week opens up to others using points in the club. No? I don't really see how there is any impact on other owners at Ka'anapali. If they put the float weeks in to Pure Points, then I can see an impact to owners at other properties trying to use points to book in to Ka'anapali since they will effectively be locked out of these units unless an owner of these units book in to another week through the club.

I just don't see how there can be any impact to current owners that own fixed weeks.


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> Aren't fixed owners tied to their week and unit already? Aren't they fixed week fixed units? So the 33 units being float really has no impact on existing fixed owners. If Hyatt decides to sell these as float instead of points, then there is still no impact since those float owners would be reserving in to one of the 33 units. If a float owner books inside the club using the points assigned to their float week to stay at another property, then that float week opens up to others using points in the club. No? I don't really see how there is any impact on other owners at Ka'anapali. If they put the float weeks in to Pure Points, then I can see an impact to owners at other properties trying to use points to book in to Ka'anapali since they will effectively be locked out of these units unless an owner of these units book in to another week through the club.
> 
> I just don't see how there can be any impact to current owners that own fixed weeks.



I tend to agree.

 Future state holds the possibility that the more FW/FU's sold, eventually more of those owners may want a 'different' week or want to trade to another Hyatt or RCI, opening up more units to non Ka'anapali Beach owners.  If these go into a points program, the current state will remain.


----------



## lizap

dioxide45 said:


> This isn't any different from any other points overlay or trust based points program. DRI started adding mainland resorts to the Hawaii trust so they could sell more cheap to develop points with access to Hawaii. Marriott has the same problem in a lot of their South Carolina properties. Vistana sells properties with having the ability to reserve Hawaii, St John and the Bahamas. St John is especially difficult to get with StarOptions, but it doesn't stop them from touting it as an available reservation with StarOptions from your Vistana Villages week in Orlando.
> 
> Having about a quarter of the units at Ka'anapali in the trust is actually pretty good considering that many of Marriott's properties are less than 15%. I would see no issue with them having 33 units available for Pure Points reservations. I don't see why Hyatt/ILG would want to do this differently. Having the ability to tell potential customers that they can reserve Hawaii with their pure points is a HUGE selling point, even if the prospect of actually getting it is small. Still though, with 33 available units, the prospects may actually be fairly good.




We're speculating they are going to put these units in PPP.  HKB was not intended to be part of PPP (at least that was the original plan). Could be they're doing this to make the weeks easier to sell and plan to keep them in HRC..


----------



## ocjohn

Dioxide the only reason it would matter is- if you every HAD to give up your week (death in the family, something comes up)- and you didn't have time to rent your week- you'd release your week and search for any other date.  I checked yesterday- there's nothing available in Ka'anapali for a year right now, so it's already hard.  If 33 units get split off in a separate pool, our resort will have just gotten 25% smaller and it would just make trading if you ever had to impossible.  

And I see your point pathways- but wouldn't you prefer being in a larger pool than a smaller one?   Increases possibilities I'd think? 

So, again, you don't want this to happen?  Don't vote yes, don't vote no, don't do anything (-:


----------



## lizap

John Clarke said:


> Dioxide the only reason it would matter is- if you every HAD to give up your week (death in the family, something comes up)- and you didn't have time to rent your week- you'd release your week and search for any other date.  I checked yesterday- there's nothing available in Ka'anapali for a year right now, so it's already hard.  If 33 units get split off in a separate pool, our resort will have just gotten 25% smaller and it would just make trading if you ever had to impossible.  So, again, you don't want this to happen?  Don't vote yes, don't vote no, don't do anything (-:



Your're unlikely to see units until 6 months out.  I recently saw units available in December (for less than a week).  I suspect HRC owners are putting in requests. Would like to know if any HRC owners at other resorts have gotten a week there using points.


----------



## lizap

John Clarke said:


> Dioxide the only reason it would matter is- if you every HAD to give up your week (death in the family, something comes up)- and you didn't have time to rent your week- you'd release your week and search for any other date.  I checked yesterday- there's nothing available in Ka'anapali for a year right now, so it's already hard.  If 33 units get split off in a separate pool, our resort will have just gotten 25% smaller and it would just make trading if you ever had to impossible.
> 
> And I see your point pathways- but wouldn't you prefer being in a larger pool than a smaller one?   Increases possibilities I'd think?
> 
> So, again, you don't want this to happen?  Don't vote yes, don't vote no, don't do anything (-:



In essence, if a HKB owner gave up his week, he would be competing with the rest of us (who don't own there).  I suspect they are doing this to make the units easier to sell (and not to put them in PPP), but there does need to be more disclosure to current HKB owners before they vote. In HRC, there would be a huge difference between a buying a floating and fixed week.  I might buy a floating week at HKB, but would never buy a fixed week, as the week we could travel might change from one year to the next. At the price I would be paying, the flexibility would be a critical part of my decision to buy.


----------



## dioxide45

John Clarke said:


> Dioxide the only reason it would matter is- if you every HAD to give up your week (death in the family, something comes up)- and you didn't have time to rent your week- you'd release your week and search for any other date.  I checked yesterday- there's nothing available in Ka'anapali for a year right now, so it's already hard.  If 33 units get split off in a separate pool, our resort will have just gotten 25% smaller and it would just make trading if you ever had to impossible.
> 
> And I see your point pathways- but wouldn't you prefer being in a larger pool than a smaller one?   Increases possibilities I'd think?
> 
> So, again, you don't want this to happen?  Don't vote yes, don't vote no, don't do anything (-:


But even if they continued to sell them all as fixed, you would end up having that many more owners to compete against for those same units. Right now it doesn't seem like Hyatt is putting the unsold units in to the club. Having owners of 98 units vying for 98 units is really no different than 131 vying for 131. As they continue to sell the resort, the numbers don't really change. The property is hard to book, I don't think the additional units would make a difference because you also have that many more owners competing for them. Even if they do sell them as float, those units would still be available for other owners when a float owner books inside the club to somewhere else.


----------



## taffy19

Pathways said:


> I tend to agree.
> 
> Future state holds the possibility that the more FW/FU's sold, eventually more of those owners may want a 'different' week or want to trade to another Hyatt or RCI, opening up more units to non Ka'anapali Beach owners.  If these go into a points program, the current state will remain.


Hyatt exchanges with II currently so why do you mention RCI?


----------



## lizap

I think ILG is making a mistake to not open up more HKB inventory to existing owners using points since there is likely a greater chance of one of us buying (if we had a chance to stay there) than all those visiting using 3-4 night packages that cost little. Just a real lack of leadership at ILG..


----------



## Pathways

taffy19 said:


> Hyatt exchanges with II currently so why do you mention RCI?



Sorry, I had a brain ____!  Thanks for catching that.


----------



## Kal

The booking dot com site shows a 3-BR, 1 night stay at Kaanapali at $1,539 plus a $34.03 resort fee.


----------



## lizap

Kal said:


> The booking dot com site shows a 3-BR, 1 night stay at Kaanapali at $1,539 plus a $34.03 resort fee.




Yes, I think ILG is making $ off of much of the remaining inventory instead of opening it up to other HRC owners.  I still wonder if any HRC owner has been able to reserve a 7 night stay at HKB using points?


----------



## bdh

lizap said:


> Yes, I think ILG is making $ off of much of the remaining inventory instead of opening it up to other HRC owners.




ILG or the developer?  I don't believe ILG/HRC are the developers at HBK - so the bulk of any money made from the use of unsold units goes to the developer.  In the typical HRC property, another entity is the developer that partners with Hyatt to use the "Hyatt" brand name and management company.  The bulk of the money to develop/construct a property comes from the developer in lieu of Hyatt.  So the unsold units are not Hyatt's to put into the exchange program - only units that are sold to John Q. Public are put into the HRC exchange program.   

From what I remember: in Key West, the developer of each property was Spottswood and in Colorado, the developer at each property was East-West Partners.  The only ones that I'm aware of where Hyatt is the developer is Wild Oak and Coconut Plantation. 

If anyone knows others or has a correction on the above, feel free to chime in.


----------



## lizap

bdh said:


> ILG or the developer?  I don't believe ILG/HRC are the developers at HBK - so the bulk of any money made from the use of unsold units goes to the developer.  In the typical HRC property, another entity is the developer that partners with Hyatt to use the "Hyatt" brand name and management company.  The bulk of the money to develop/construct a property comes from the developer in lieu of Hyatt.  So the unsold units are not Hyatt's to put into the exchange program - only units that are sold to John Q. Public are put into the HRC exchange program.
> 
> From what I remember: in Key West, the developer of each property was Spottswood and in Colorado, the developer at each property was East-West Partners.  The only ones that I'm aware of where Hyatt is the developer is Wild Oak and Coconut Plantation.
> 
> If anyone knows others or has a correction on the above, feel free to chime in.



We have no way of knowing what the arrangement is between the developer and ILG.   It might well be in the developer's best interest to allow ILG to put some of the unsold inventory in HRC (temporarily), allowing for exchanges using points.  Would be a great way to market the units, and I suspect they would make some sales this way.


----------



## Kal

Traditionally the developer does not have the marketing capability for the unsold units.  So they partner with Hyatt to get the units either sold or rented.  That way the developer gets some cash flow, but Hyatt will take a substantial share because they provided the marketing function.  If Hyatt placed those units into the HRC, there would be no cash back to the developer.

Now lots of things could happen as the calendar gets close to the developer's unit-week.


----------



## gdonnersc1

I can think of lots of questions that could impact how I vote.  For example, it seems to me that an owner with a fixed week and who uses the resort virtually every year will have more of a sense of ownership than a points member that rotates from resort to resort and that this may impact maintenance fees.  I don't know that to be the case but I would bet that ILG has some information on that which they could share.

I would also be curious how they will assign units to reservations.  I would assume that now they do it on some kind of timestamp.  So that if there are 8 units in the upper 3 bedroom (floors 5-12), I would assume that currently, the first timestamp gets 12, the second 11, etc.  How would that work if this is approved and if one of the 33 units is a 3 bedroom.  Since the booking process for those would be different, would they handle the assignment the same or differently?

As with everything, the devil is in the details and there is little to no transparency.

What we really need is someone that would step up to be a proxy to vote as follows: a) if a quorum is not otherwise reached, do not vote so as not to facilitate a quorum.  If a quorum is reached, vote no.  I am not an attorney.  Does anyone know how that can be done?

In the mean time, I am going to send Lisa Trosset a list of questions and say that I don't think that a vote can be valid without answers to these questions in the hands of all owners with sufficient time to consider the impact of the responses prior to voting.


----------



## ocjohn

I have guessed the 33 units and their associated weeks would be "walled off"- we never seem them, they don't see us.  As if the resort were smaller.  But that's my guess.

But for the proxy - it seems easier than that to me gdon...  We know that no more than 20%-25% of the non-developer owners will probably vote (see previous post on this)... and even if every single one of those votes was a "no" that wouldn't be enough to counter the developers' yes votes.  So even if you had an agent there it wouldn't matter.  

So it remains simple- if you don't want this to happen- don't vote at all.  
Any vote, yes or no, helps establish a quorum.  And if there'
s a quorum, this will happen.  
John


----------



## Kal

Based upon my understanding of the proposal, it is really, really bad for the owners:
- There is no proxy, you have to be present
- Included in the proposal is a deletion of a line item where in the event of a sale of the resort, fixed week owners are no longer guaranteed their fixed week
- The float is for 33 2-BR units, Weeks 1-50 (1650 unit weeks, divided up into the various floor groupings)

Let's say you are the first buyer.  All the float program has to do is provide a week in the 50.  Then what if that week is on Floor 9-12 and you bought in on a lower floor?

This has all the ear markings as a set up for a points program.


----------



## Tucsonadventurer

Kal said:


> Based upon my understanding of the proposal, it is really, really bad for the owners:
> - There is no proxy, you have to be present
> - Included in the proposal is a deletion of a line item where in the event of a sale of the resort, fixed week owners are no longer guaranteed their fixed week
> - The float is for 33 2-BR units, Weeks 1-50 (1650 unit weeks, divided up into the various floor groupings)
> 
> Let's say you are the first buyer.  All the float program has to do is provide a week in the 50.  Then what if that week is on Floor 9-12 and you bought in on a lower floor?
> 
> This has all the ear markings as a set up for a points program.


I agree Kal. The district rep who, we spoke with did tell us that Hawaii would eventually be in the Portfolio program but that it would take awhile until the units were sold. He then said he could not tell us everything yet.I am just glad that not all of the units will be.


----------



## dioxide45

Kal said:


> Based upon my understanding of the proposal, it is really, really bad for the owners:
> - There is no proxy, you have to be present


What are you talking about? This is what is in the PDF in post #1.


----------



## Kal

Let me clarify...There is no proxy for a NO vote.


----------



## taffy19

dioxide45 said:


> The weeks they are looking to convert to float are 1-50 in the 33 units. So it isn't less desirable weeks. It looks to perhaps be units where they haven't sold a single week from yet. So they are unbroken units. They will sell weeks 51 and 52 at fixed. So they will have a season that is weeks 1-50 at these 33 units. It is quite possible that they will dump them in to the new Pure Points since that will just be a land based trust.
> 
> _Edited to add: Thinking about this more. Hyatt doesn't need the weeks to be floating in order to dump them in to Pure Points. They could do that now with any week at any resort. Not sure the motive behind this. It is probably easier to sell a float week given how the industry has changed._


I agree with you, dioxide45 that we should know the real motive behind this.



ocjohn said:


> but bringing it back around, if you owned a fixed week in Kaanapali (like us), would you
> 
> 1. vote for letting float week units happen
> 2. vote against
> 3. not care either way since you could always use your fixed week?  (-:


A few of us don't see it that way, John.  Please, read page 6 where they struck-through the following text.  Are you sure that you know what that means?

The paragraph starts with a faint or greyed out heading of the word "Weeks".
Then the words "Fixed Weeks" are added (double underlined) plus more text and then the important strike-through text that may affect us who bought at the Hyatt Residence Club in Maui (H.M.K), including you.  If anyone wants to read these documents, I will try to attach them in a private conversation or even here in this thread if that works.

This is how MAD I am at the Hyatt and ILG for not letting us know that a sale was pending in March 2014 when we bought.  That sale had to be in the works already but it wasn't mentioned.

To me that is leaving off a very important material fact to a prospective buyer and may affect others too who bought in the first few months when they started selling the resort until it was announced publicly so was no longer a secret.

We wouldn't have bought there if we knew this fact because our plan was to mainly use our week in this Hyatt Residence Club tower (H.M.K) on the *main* *Ka'anapali Beach* in a 1 BR ocean view condo on the higher floors (5 - 10) and not on a different beach somewhere in Maui where there may be a sewer smell or anywhere else where there is a beach and not just in a "same Resort Unit Type unit" anywhere.  This is not what we bargained for!

Here is the struck-through text

_"In the event that the *Resort Agreement is terminated* (letters bolded by me) in accordance with its terms, the owner of each Timeshare Interest shall nevertheless retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed Week in a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type in which the Timeshare Interest is owned."_​Doesn't this mean that we no longer have this right when the Resort Agreement is terminated since it is struck-through?  They certainly do not explain it well except that "nothing changes for the fixed week owners" in the cover letter we received the second time. It seems to stay the same for a fixed week owner of week 52 and 53 but not for any other weeks as far as I understand it.

It is my opinion that ILG should have explained it in layman's language to all of us like they do in our voting booklet because that language is often also hard to understand plus they give us the "for" and "against" explanation too in simple English.  Here, they gave us nothing and it is almost like they do not want us to understand what it means but, legally, they have to let us know.

When we bought, our salesman told us that all our rights, including using the Hyatt Resort amenities next door, would stay with the contract and transfer to the next owner.  Is that still the case?

He also told us that ILG had the right to use their name on the Club as long as the quality remains to the Hyatt standards plus they wanted them to build a certain amount of new resorts within a reasonable time.

As far as I know, they haven't built one single resort yet since 2014 so I wonder if the developer of our resort wants to pull a group of condos out as that is his right to do.  We were aware of that but not that they also had the right to take away what was deeded to us and is recorded too in the State of Hawaii.

Our salesman made a big deal about the fact that some other resorts lose these perks when the contract is sold but not here.  I don't even care about losing the hotel amenities either or if II is replaced with RCI but I do care if we lose our location where we bought at a developer's high purchase price for the view and quality of the resort.  This is totally unfair how they will change our legal documents when this 2nd amendment is replacing what we bought.

I wonder if the next step will be that we are no longer allowed to sell it ourselves if we want to keep these perks for the next owner or if we still can rent our week if, for any reason, we cannot use it ourselves one year.  I knew already that we can use one of their brokers and pay a 25% commission but we could also rent the condo out ourselves, if we wanted to do that, or sell the condo with no perks taken away.

There were rumors floating around about a Marriott merger (which is less likely now from what I read on June 30 in Trading Alpha) but that was only a personal opinion.

Even Hilton is rumored too but, if that is true, then we will have RCI as the exchange company, I guess.  Not that I care because it was never our plan to use any exchange company or visit another Hyatt resort since we only own one Hyatt timeshare but it will affect people who like to make exchanges with II and the other perks they have with them.

There is a lot of text that the proposed "floating unit owners" also need to read when they buy at this resort so start bugging them to get that information shown to you when you go on a presentation there and have them explain it to you in simple, plain English.  I have seen some interesting terms mentioned that I have not seen before but too much to add on to this long post already.  We never liked floating units so I didn't even finished reading it.


ocjohn said:


> I have guessed the 33 units and their associated weeks would be "walled off"- we never seem them, they don't see us.  As if the resort were smaller.  But that's my guess.
> 
> But for the proxy - it seems easier than that to me gdon...  We know that no more than 20%-25% of the non-developer owners will probably vote (see previous post on this)... and even if every single one of those votes was a "no" that wouldn't be enough to counter the developers' yes votes.  So even if you had an agent there it wouldn't matter.
> 
> So it remains simple- if you don't want this to happen- don't vote at all.
> Any vote, yes or no, helps establish a quorum.  And if there'
> s a quorum, this will happen.
> John


----------



## taffy19

dioxide45 said:


> Aren't fixed owners tied to their week and unit already? Aren't they fixed week fixed units? So the 33 units being float really has no impact on existing fixed owners. If Hyatt decides to sell these as float instead of points, then there is still no impact since those float owners would be reserving in to one of the 33 units. If a float owner books inside the club using the points assigned to their float week to stay at another property, then that float week opens up to others using points in the club. No? I don't really see how there is any impact on other owners at Ka'anapali. If they put the float weeks in to Pure Points, then I can see an impact to owners at other properties trying to use points to book in to Ka'anapali since they will effectively be locked out of these units unless an owner of these units book in to another week through the club.
> 
> I just don't see how there can be any impact to current owners that own fixed weeks.



No, we do not own a fixed week/unit at this resort.  We own a fixed week and a unit in groups of higher, medium, and lower floors and they are different for the 1, 2 or 3 BR condos.  I posted about it here because you requested that information, for when you get ready. 

If we only owned a true fixed week/unit like at the Marriott next door, they couldn't do this to us but here they can, I guess, which is totally unfair.  I doubt if that can be done with a proper fixed week/unit to which you hold an old-fashioned deed?  I hope not.  You know that ARDA is a very powerful lobby for the developers and get some of these laws changed in favor of the industry.

The irony is that we had no intention to buy at this resort but my husband loved the Lanai so much that he wanted to own there because we still needed that week to string our four weeks together and not having to rent anymore or stay in hotels.

Later that week, I started to get curious about the re-sale market so checked RedWeek and found a 3 BR fixed week/unit on the 9th floor in the Lahaina tower for the week we needed so I wanted to rescind the contract but my husband didn't want to and I couldn't do it alone and now this shenanigan here at the Hyatt tower next door.  If I had only known this but I didn't so I am very upset about the whole thing.

I also agree with gdonnersc1 in post #60 that there are many questions that need to be answered and I feel the same way about the other comments too.  Too much wear and tear from people checking in and out daily and we are going to have to pay the extra maintenance fees because the developer will not.



gdonnersc1 said:


> I can think of lots of questions that could impact how I vote.  For example, it seems to me that an owner with a fixed week and who uses the resort virtually every year will have more of a sense of ownership than a points member that rotates from resort to resort and that this may impact maintenance fees.  I don't know that to be the case but I would bet that ILG has some information on that which they could share.
> 
> I would also be curious how they will assign units to reservations.  I would assume that now they do it on some kind of timestamp.  So that if there are 8 units in the upper 3 bedroom (floors 5-12), I would assume that currently, the first timestamp gets 12, the second 11, etc.  How would that work if this is approved and if one of the 33 units is a 3 bedroom.  Since the booking process for those would be different, would they handle the assignment the same or differently?
> 
> As with everything, the devil is in the details and there is little to no transparency.
> 
> What we really need is someone that would step up to be a proxy to vote as follows: a) if a quorum is not otherwise reached, do not vote so as not to facilitate a quorum.  If a quorum is reached, vote no.  I am not an attorney.  Does anyone know how that can be done?
> 
> In the mean time, I am going to send Lisa Trosset a list of questions and say that I don't think that a vote can be valid without answers to these questions in the hands of all owners with sufficient time to consider the impact of the responses prior to voting.



There are several legal entities but the developer seems to be the "Maui Timeshare Venture, LLC." as that question was asked by bdh in post #57.


----------



## ecwinch

Kal said:


> Let me clarify...There is no proxy for a NO vote.



It is easy to get confused about how HOA (i.e. corporate elections) work. While you may receive a ballot to vote, in most states your mail-in ballot is a directed proxy authorizing the Club Secretary to vote on your behalf in the manner you mark your ballot. In most states, all votes must be cast in person. So if you cannot vote in person, they you are either giving someone a general proxy to vote as they see fit or a directed proxy to vote as you marked your ballot. In a corporate election, there is not the concept of mail-in ballot as you find in a public election.


----------



## ocjohn

Kal said:


> - Included in the proposal is a deletion of a line item where in the event of a sale of the resort, fixed week owners are no longer guaranteed their fixed week...
> This has all the ear markings as a set up for a points program.



Good catch Kal and Taffy... sure enough page 6.  
So the developer's plan sounds to me like "we want to convert to pure points.  To do so, first snatch 33 unsold units for float by way of this amendment.  Then wait for an inevitable sale, since selling the resort will eliminate fixed weeks (page 6).  So it would sell for way more because of fixed weeks going away.  Huge incentive for it to sell!  So it probably will.  

Now image existing owners.  Our mid level 2 bedroom ranged in price from $61.8k (starting week 36) to $115k (week 52).  Everyone gets a letter- "the resort sold- you all have floating weeks now... have a nice day".  

So- if you don't want this to happen, don't "go to the light".  If you are in Ka'anapali on Aug 1, *stay away from the meeting*.  If you go, they must record your name and that will help them get quorum.  If they get quorum, this PASSES.  

No matter how many more emails we get from Hyatt saying "everybody vote!  Come on, weigh in!", don't listen.  Every vote, yes or no, helps get quorum.  And if they get quorum, this passes. 

They have all the cards.  They will continue to email all owners, and all we can do is reach owners that happen to see this board.  It's a David and Goliath story.  But maybe our fight here will end up like that one did (-:


----------



## lizap

If I was a fixed week owner here, I would be extremely upset about this. Heck, I'm a HRC owner hoping to stay there once in a while, and I'm upset.  There has to be a way to get the word out to existing owners (e.g., carrying signs outside the resort, which might get some attention, posting on internet, contacting an attorney).  Somebody needs to take the lead on this.. BTW, there is little doubt that ILG will eventually sell Vistana and/or Hyatt.  They are in way over their head..


----------



## WalnutBaron

If ocjohn is right--and he may very well be--the current owners of HKB are in the process of getting screwed. My sense is that ILG has decided that HKB is too valuable a property to simply leave in the traditional HRC system as it is presently configured. A sale of the property triggers the clause that eliminates fixed weeks ownership at HKB. The 33 units is the straw man, but the _*real*_ objective is to take back the use rights from existing owners. I wouldn't even be surprised if the developer and HRC are already working in concert behind the scenes and have a buyer lined up once this thing passes.


----------



## taffy19

ocjohn said:


> Hey everyone.  My better half is a lawyer, and I finally got him to look into this.
> What I was looking at before are bylaws.  The proposal is to amend the CC&Rs.  Different Rules.
> 
> In order to amend the CC&Rs, a special meeting of the owners must be called.  In order for the special meeting to be valid, it must have a quorum.  A quorum means at 50% of the owners (including the developer as owners of the unsold units) attend or give proxies to Hyatt to vote.  Once a quorum is reached, then the amendment to the CC&Rs can pass so long as at least 50% of the attendees approve.
> 
> So, here's the math.  There are 131 units x 52 weeks = 6,812 owners.  In order for a quorum to exist to run the special meeting, 3,406 owners must attend or give proxies. We suspect the developer owns the remaining 33 unsold units which they want to convert to floating.  So, 33 units x 52 weeks = 1,716 "owners" are the developer.  Since we know the developer will attend, that means they need another 1,690 owners to attend or submit proxies.
> 
> Let's assume exactly 1,690 other owners attend or give proxies.  Now, a quorum exists.  So, in order for the amendment to pass, 50% of the attendees (3,406 owners x 50%) or 1,703 owners must approve of it.  Given that the developer already has 1,716 votes, the amendment passes.
> 
> So, the bottom line is this: *if you don't want this to happen, you cannot submit anything.* This prevents the developer from getting a quorum. If the developer gets a quorum, game over.  This is most important: you can't even vote No.  Once you vote No, you are helping the developer get a quorum.  The only way your No vote helps is if almost everyone submits a No vote so that it overwhelms the developer's Yes votes.


John, did your better half read this paragraph?  You have the complete document and I may and hope that I am mistaken and understood the document wrong because I do not understand all the legalese but he is a lawyer.

I just can't believe that a Big Corporation would do that to us but what else is new in the timeshare industry?  So many big timeshare developers are corrupt and let the salesforce lie during their presentation so long they get a sale.

We already knew that our value would drop at least by 50% the moment we had signed the dotted line.  We could live with that but not with taking our rights away also.


----------



## lizap

I was hoping ILG wouldn't stick it to Hyatt owners, but looks like that's exactly what they're going to do. The pattern is becoming increasingly clear. We're going to have to reassess our Hyatt ownership.


----------



## gdonnersc1

I sent the following e-mail to Lisa Trosset and will report on the response if and when I receive it:

I have four questions and do not feel that I have adequate information to vote.  I also feel that this is true for the other owners.


My first question is as follows:


Your e-mail states the following:


“The usage rights you have for your fixed week, floating unit type will not be effected by this change.”


Based on this statement, as a fixed week owner I can continue to use the fixed weeks in the same floor band as I currently do if this passes.  Is that correct?  My confusion is that it appears that the following language is being removed from the current rules:


“In the event that the Resort Agreement is terminated (letters bolded by me) in accordance with its terms, the owner of each Timeshare Interest shall nevertheless retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed Week in a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type in which the Timeshare Interest is owned."


What does this mean and if it means that we are less protected in the case of a sale then we currently are, how can you say that our usage rights are not changed?


My second question has to do with maintenance fees.  It would seem to me that floating week users have less of a sense of ownership then fixed users and as a result, maintenance costs and fees would increase under the proposal.  Do you have data that would either support or refute this?


My third question is how units are assigned today and how they would be assisgned when some of the weeks are floating and some are fixed.  Please describe that to me.


My fourth and final question is specifically which units are included in the 33 that are being proposed for floating.


I look forward to your answer.  I believe that this information is relevant to all owners and that you should provide this information and other relevant Q&A to all owners prior to the vote so that we can make good informed decisions.  I believe that a failure to do this could invalidate the outcome of the vote.


----------



## lizap

I'm not an attorney but I would guess a good attorney could get an injunction for stopping the vote until the information is made clear.


----------



## ocjohn

taffy19 said:


> John, did your better half read this paragraph?



Yes he read it before I posted it and said it was correct (regarding don't let quorum happen).  John


----------



## dahntahn

gdonnersc1 said:


> I sent the following e-mail to Lisa Trosset and will report on the response if and when I receive it:
> 
> I have four questions and do not feel that I have adequate information to vote.  I also feel that this is true for the other owners.
> 
> 
> My first question is as follows:
> 
> 
> Your e-mail states the following:
> 
> 
> “The usage rights you have for your fixed week, floating unit type will not be effected by this change.”
> 
> 
> Based on this statement, as a fixed week owner I can continue to use the fixed weeks in the same floor band as I currently do if this passes.  Is that correct?  My confusion is that it appears that the following language is being removed from the current rules:
> 
> 
> “In the event that the Resort Agreement is terminated (letters bolded by me) in accordance with its terms, the owner of each Timeshare Interest shall nevertheless retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed Week in a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type in which the Timeshare Interest is owned."
> 
> 
> What does this mean and if it means that we are less protected in the case of a sale then we currently are, how can you say that our usage rights are not changed?
> 
> 
> My second question has to do with maintenance fees.  It would seem to me that floating week users have less of a sense of ownership then fixed users and as a result, maintenance costs and fees would increase under the proposal.  Do you have data that would either support or refute this?
> 
> 
> My third question is how units are assigned today and how they would be assisgned when some of the weeks are floating and some are fixed.  Please describe that to me.
> 
> 
> My fourth and final question is specifically which units are included in the 33 that are being proposed for floating.
> 
> 
> I look forward to your answer.  I believe that this information is relevant to all owners and that you should provide this information and other relevant Q&A to all owners prior to the vote so that we can make good informed decisions.  I believe that a failure to do this could invalidate the outcome of the vote.


 I hate to sound like the grammar police, but in the line # 5 above the spelling of the word "effected" makes the meaning of the sentence as it stands to be your rights will NOT be carried out.  You want the spelling to be "Affected" which would mean that your rights will be protected.  Just say'in.


----------



## Sapper

WalnutBaron said:


> I wouldn't even be surprised if the developer and HRC are already working in concert behind the scenes and have a buyer lined up once this thing passes.



Yeah... Besides owning a Hyatt unit in Key West, I don't have a bone in what appears to be becoming a legal problem for the Hawaii owners. However, I'm going to put my two cents in anyway.

I have been in the board room when high level discussions and planning are being done, both when building a company up and when the company is being pulled apart.  First, the strategy for what we are seeing was probably planned months ago. Second, with out seeing the meeting minutes and notes (assuming they didn't kick the secretary out of the meeting when this stuff was discussed) we are all just playing speculation checkers while they are playing high level chess. We are not even on the same game board with the developer, management company, and who ever is financially backing this. The only way to be on the same game board is to band together, hire some damn good lawyers, and fight to have a place at the table. Otherwise, the owners are just pawns on their chess board.


----------



## WalnutBaron

And the problem is that the vote takes place exactly three weeks from today. Not much time, unless--as was suggested here--we move for a temporary injunction to stop the vote before it happens to give time for clarification.


----------



## Kal

Let's see what Lisa Trosset has in her reply.  My guess is there will be double talk and "everything will be alright".  If she was protecting the interest of the homeowners, she would clearly address each issue and develop an approach to full transparency.  A reasonable person would propose the vote be postponed until the homeowners have an opportunity to review a full and complete disclosure.

Okay Lisa, you're on the count down clock!

As an alternative course of action here's what I recommend:

- Send a copy of the list of Lisa's questions to Andrew Carter, Director of Association Compliance
- Tell him he needs to step in and assure there is full and complete disclosure to the homeowners
- Ask for a delay in the vote

I'm not a Maui owner but I am concerned this game plan if successful will expand to other Hyatt properties.  Maybe it's a situation where they don't have confidence in the Pure Points fiasco, and are desperate to get Maui in the PPP bucket as bait.  There would be a huge incentive for ILG to sell the Hyatt System but all the legacy deeded weeks doesn't make it very attractive to a new buyer.  Then again, ILG could do a behind the curtain shell game and sell Hyatt to itself, thereby triggering the Maui meltdown to points.


----------



## WalnutBaron

Great advice, Kal, as always. I was thinking about sending out a "call to action" among Hyatt owners, since I agree with you that the machinations being foisted on HKB owners are only the first step in master plan by ILG that could potentially affect all HRC owners.

The problem is threefold: 1) most owners will say 'this is an issue affecting Ka'anapali owners only, and it's their problem to solve' so why should I be concerned? 2) the number of Hyatt owners that even realize there is such an ominous developing threat is literally a fraction of 1%; 3) there is so little time to organize effective opposition before the vote 20 days from now.

What would the call to action entail? 

Hire a highly capable attorney familiar with timeshares, how they work, and the laws in the big states where most timeshares reside--Hawaii, Florida, Nevada. Have the attorney review the documents HKB sent to its owners a couple of weeks ago, particularly the clause that would remove fixed weeks usage in the event of an ownership change.
Request a temporary injunction to halt the vote on August 1 to allow time for complete disclosure and full consideration by HKB owners before the vote is held.
Seek to have ILG/Hyatt conduct a webinar/call-in meeting with owners to provide direct answers to the questions posed by gdonner as well as others so that this proposed action is fully disclosed and fully understood.
The issue, of course, is who pays the attorney? My own feeling is that HKB owners are going to need to take the lead on this and can certainly ask the rest of us to contribute for the good of the cause. I, for one, would be willing to help but this is not my fight right now and I think HKB owners will need to be the ones in front on this looming situation.


----------



## ocjohn

Lisa Trosset is the president of the owners association.  She is also an employee of the developer.  I've noticed the same thing when we bought a new house for a developer, it's common.  But as president, she has a fiduciary duty to all owners in the association.  Davis Sterling dot com has a nice summary on that I just found.

I would think the easiest thing to do now would be to ask that the association hire an independent attorney to prepare a a clear "pros and cons" assessment of the proposed amendment, and to delay the vote until that can be distributed to all owners.


----------



## dagger1

"Included in the proposal is a deletion of a line item where in the event of a sale of the resort, fixed week owners are no longer guaranteed their fixed week"

Kal, obviously as a recent purchaser of 3 fixed weeks at HWOR and a fractional ownership at HMSS, your point above intrigued me.  How exactly would the sale of a Hyatt resort effect a Hyatt week at this resort deeded and recorded in the county that the resort is located...  What overrides the deed?  Is there already a clause in Hyatt's rules/regulations that describes this right (of Hyatt) and something I agreed to when I signed the sales documents?  Or is this a new rule they are trying to implement in Hawaii and perhaps in all the resorts eventually?


----------



## Kal

That's a very good point.  The deeds are real property and it would seem a change in the by-laws to confiscate a deed would not go well.  Hopefully Maui is an outlier where a significant amount of the resort is not yet sold and is held by a number of developers.  It's bad enough when a developer sits on the BOD, but when an officer of the corporation is the president of the BOD, in addition to the developer seats, that is not good for the homeowners.

From the perspective of a HRC member, it has always been very difficult to exchange into Maui, but when Hyatt takes 30% of the property out of the exchange pool it harms the HRC.  I know, those units have not yet been sold but the expectation for HRC is that they would eventually be sold and become candidates for exchange.  Therefore this proposed action AND the PPP removal of units definitely harms the HRC (legacy) owners.

For members in the east, Hawaii is maybe too many time zones away.  For me hanging out on the left coast, Hawaii is a relatively short hop over the lake.


----------



## WalnutBaron

Dagger, I've read the Proposed Amendment document. There is a fascinating strikethrough, located near the bottom of Page 6 of the proposed amendment. Referring to Fixed Week ownership, this sentence--which is in the current ownership by-laws--is proposed to be struck as part of the amendment: "In the event that the Resort Agreement is terminated in accordance with its terms, the Owner of each Timeshare Interest shall nevertheless retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed Week in a resort unit of the same resort unit type in which the Timeshare Interest is owned."

Thus, the proposed change would affect Hyatt Ka'anapali Beach owners only. However, if ILG is successful with this highly questionable maneuver at Ka'anapali, you can bet they will begin trying the exact same thing at other Hyatt properties.


----------



## dagger1

WalnutBaron said:


> Dagger, I've read the Proposed Amendment document. There is a fascinating strikethrough, located near the bottom of Page 6 of the proposed amendment. Referring to Fixed Week ownership, this sentence--which is in the current ownership by-laws--is proposed to be struck as part of the amendment: "In the event that the Resort Agreement is terminated in accordance with its terms, the Owner of each Timeshare Interest shall nevertheless retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed Week in a resort unit of the same resort unit type in which the Timeshare Interest is owned."
> 
> Thus, the proposed change would affect Hyatt Ka'anapali Beach owners only. However, if ILG is successful with this highly questionable maneuver at Ka'anapali, you can bet they will begin trying the exact same thing at other Hyatt properties.


I agree completely, WalnutBaron, otherwise why strike it from the Amendment.  But I wonder how they propose to "override" a lawfully executed and filed deed?  Can a super majority vote override deeds owned by the minority?  Is there another rule that is in the original sales agreement and Hyatt rules/regulations that gives a super majority this power, a rule that I agreed to when I signed these documents?  Interesting....!


----------



## ocjohn

Lawyer husband says if the deed says unit x, week 6, that's what we own.  But what we can occupy and how is governed by CC&Rs, which is being amended (if there is a quorum).


----------



## lizap

WalnutBaron said:


> Great advice, Kal, as always. I was thinking about sending out a "call to action" among Hyatt owners, since I agree with you that the machinations being foisted on HKB owners are only the first step in master plan by ILG that could potentially affect all HRC owners.
> 
> The problem is threefold: 1) most owners will say 'this is an issue affecting Ka'anapali owners only, and it's their problem to solve' so why should I be concerned? 2) the number of Hyatt owners that even realize there is such an ominous developing threat is literally a fraction of 1%; 3) there is so little time to organize effective opposition before the vote 20 days from now.
> 
> What would the call to action entail?
> 
> Hire a highly capable attorney familiar with timeshares, how they work, and the laws in the big states where most timeshares reside--Hawaii, Florida, Nevada. Have the attorney review the documents HKB sent to its owners a couple of weeks ago, particularly the clause that would remove fixed weeks usage in the event of an ownership change.
> Request a temporary injunction to halt the vote on August 1 to allow time for complete disclosure and full consideration by HKB owners before the vote is held.
> Seek to have ILG/Hyatt conduct a webinar/call-in meeting with owners to provide direct answers to the questions posed by gdonner as well as others so that this proposed action is fully disclosed and fully understood.
> The issue, of course, is who pays the attorney? My own feeling is that HKB owners are going to need to take the lead on this and can certainly ask the rest of us to contribute for the good of the cause. I, for one, would be willing to help but this is not my fight right now and I think HKB owners will need to be the ones in front on this looming situation.



I agree. Since this will affect HKB owners (at least initially), they need to take the lead on this.  Having said that, we are willing to make a contribution toward legal expenses. I know there are other active TUG members that are posting, but just not on the Hyatt forum right now for some reason.  How do we get the word out to them?


----------



## taffy19

This clause was not there when we bought originally from the Hyatt in Maui but what happened after ILG purchased the HRC, I am not so sure if the purchase documents were changed.  You all need to check your documents carefully when you buy re-sale too, IMO.

PS.  My other comments will follow later when I am home as I cannot see the icons on my phone so accidentally must have posted it.


----------



## dagger1

ocjohn said:


> Lawyer husband says if the deed says unit x, week 6, that's what we own.  But what we can occupy and how is governed by CC&Rs, which is being amended (if there is a quorum).


Not being a lawyer, I need a little clarification.  So just because I own unit xxxxL every week 23 at a Hyatt resort, that doesn't mean I get to occupy that unit on week 23?  An HOA and or the CCR's can "take" this week from me, even though I am current on all MF's/dues/taxes?  This makes no sense to me, but as I said, I'm not a lawyer...
It would seem that if this kind of "seizure" is actually implemented that will be the end of Hyatt timeshares...


----------



## ocjohn

I'm not a lawyer either dagger (but have access to one if I don't abuse the privilege (-: )  - but our deed says we "own unit 5608 (for example) week 7".  But they can actually put us in any 2 bedroom unit from floors 5-8, per the CC&Rs.  Perhaps this is just a Ka'anapali thing I don't know.  Also  if I don't book during the HRPP, I'm not guaranteed getting anything in Ka'anapali even though I "own" it.  That's cool with us we knew that going in.


----------



## dagger1

ocjohn said:


> I'm not a lawyer either dagger (but have access to one if I don't abuse the privilege (-: )  - but our deed says we "own unit 5608 (for example) week 7".  But they can actually put us in any 2 bedroom unit from floors 5-8, per the CC&Rs.  Perhaps this is just a Ka'anapali thing I don't know.  Also  if I don't book during the HRPP, I'm not guaranteed getting anything in Ka'anapali even though I "own" it.  That's cool with us we knew that going in.


Thanks ocjohn, it's probably the same at all Hyatt resorts...  But the new change might mean that even during HRPP we can be dispossessed of our week.  I find this incredible...


----------



## WalnutBaron

While possible, I will tell you that it would not happen without a massive legal fight. Whether ILG is prepared to have that fight or not is still to be seen. Right now, of course, the issue resides squarely with owners of HKB. But all of us Hyatt owners need to be on alert--and I think this discussion thread certainly has achieved that.


----------



## bdh

ocjohn said:


> I'm not a lawyer either dagger (but have access to one if I don't abuse the privilege (-: )  - but our deed says we "own unit 5608 (for example) week 7".  But they can actually put us in any 2 bedroom unit from floors 5-8, per the CC&Rs. * Perhaps this is just a Ka'anapali thing I don't know.* _*Also  if I don't book during the HRPP, I'm not guaranteed getting anything in Ka'anapali even though I "own" it.*_  That's cool with us we knew that going in.



The "putting you in any 2 bd unit on floors 5-8" is an HKB thing - the HKB units are not/were not sold as specific deeded week/units, however each HKB owner is guaranteed a unit in the "floor band" purchased.  In lieu of specific units, the 2 bd units are purchased by "floor band". ie: floors 1-4, floors 5-8 and floors 9-12.  At all other HRC properties, the deed lists a specific week and a specific unit - if reserved in HRPP, the owner is guaranteed the specific week and specific unit listed on the deed.  HBK is the same as all other HRC properties relative to HRPP - if not reserved during HRPP, the owner is not guaranteed anything.



dagger1 said:


> Thanks ocjohn, it's probably the same at all Hyatt resorts...  But the new change might mean that even during HRPP we can be dispossessed of our week.  I find this incredible...



As far as the current scenario unfolding at HBK occurring at other HRC properties: 

As long as the HOA board and owners at the mature/sold out HRC properties are semi-awake, the board could terminate the Hyatt management contract for changing of sheets and cleaning of toilets.   The positive side is that Hyatt would be out and the owners retain the property - the negative for owners that don't use there deeded week would be the ability to exchange to other HRC properties via an HRC internal exchange.

At properties actively being sold with new buildings/units under construction (HWO & HCP), expect the existing sold out buildings/units to be the same scenario as the older/mature HRC properties to terminate the Hyatt management contract.  Not an issue at the new buildings/units as the PPP purchaser doesn't own anything to began with.

Hacienda Del Mar owners would probably welcome the chance to escape from their weeks. haha


----------



## ocjohn

Hey Ka'anapali owners, look at the amendment, amended section 3.2 (d) on page 7.  This may protect our fixed week(s) even if the development is sold?  Opinions?  So there may not be a plot here?


----------



## alexadeparis

dagger1 said:


> Not being a lawyer, I need a little clarification.  So just because I own unit xxxxL every week 23 at a Hyatt resort, that doesn't mean I get to occupy that unit on week 23?  An HOA and or the CCR's can "take" this week from me, even though I am current on all MF's/dues/taxes?  This makes no sense to me, but as I said, I'm not a lawyer...
> It would seem that if this kind of "seizure" is actually implemented that will be the end of Hyatt timeshares...



Ok, I am an attorney, but I will step in only to explain this. It's not unique to Hyatt, it is common with all timeshares. Let's say that there are 10 units. With 52 weeks, that makes 520 unit-weeks, lets say ranging numerically for reference/inventory purposes from 01/01 (unit one, week one) to 10/52 (unit 10/week 52). So in order to sell "the building" they must account for all 520 units, with no duplicates. So each of the 520 deeds will have a different ID number within the range. (Leave aside the question of biennials for the example, but there could be more than 520 deeds if there were biennials). Each deed provides that singular unit-week SUBJECT TO the CC&Rs which control the HOA. This is right there on the deed. In the case of floating time, it will say something along the lines of "This is a Platinum Interest" or "365,000/987,000,000 points" or something that would alert you there is an underlying scheme you are under. 

In the CC&Rs, (which stands for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), are the actual rules, which by virtue of purchasing, you are agreeing to abide by. Most commonly this would be in a condo setting, and you have to abide by the condo rules, such as: no pets, no BBQ grills, only certain window decorations at Halloween, whatever. In the timeshare context, this is the entirety of the rules of the "Club" (which operates like a master association) as well as whatever the particular resort is offering: floating season, points, fixed unit, (or in this particular case a certain band of floors), reservation windows, points allocated for the unit-week, etc. Here, the CC&RS currently call for the use of what specific week you purchased, but NOT the unit week, so you ALREADY do not have the deeded week use. (Contrast this to say Key West where their CC&RS DO call for that specific unit/week on the deed to be used.)

It sounds like HRC is asking to be freed from having to provide the fixed week via a change to the CC&RS, in case they decide to sell the company, to make it more attractive. I don't own there so I haven't seen the documents. If they are perhaps going to offer the floating concept later, this may be why they are asking. No comment on that since I haven't looked at it.


----------



## ocjohn

amended section 3.2 or 3.5 (d)... again... looks like fixed week owners would be protected in a sale?


----------



## dagger1

bdh said:


> The "putting you in any 2 bd unit on floors 5-8" is an HKB thing - the HKB units are not/were not sold as specific deeded week/units, however each HKB owner is guaranteed a unit in the "floor band" purchased.  In lieu of specific units, the 2 bd units are purchased by "floor band". ie: floors 1-4, floors 5-8 and floors 9-12.  At all other HRC properties, the deed lists a specific week and a specific unit - if reserved in HRPP, the owner is guaranteed the specific week and specific unit listed on the deed.  HBK is the same as all other HRC properties relative to HRPP - if not reserved during HRPP, the owner is not guaranteed anything.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the current scenario unfolding at HBK occurring at other HRC properties:
> 
> As long as the HOA board and owners at the mature/sold out HRC properties are semi-awake, the board could terminate the Hyatt management contract for changing of sheets and cleaning of toilets.   The positive side is that Hyatt would be out and the owners retain the property - the negative for owners that don't use there deeded week would be the ability to exchange to other HRC properties via an HRC internal exchange.
> 
> At properties actively being sold with new buildings/units under construction (HWO & HCP), expect the existing sold out buildings/units to be the same scenario as the older/mature HRC properties to terminate the Hyatt management contract.  Not an issue at the new buildings/units as the PPP purchaser doesn't own anything to began with.
> 
> Hacienda Del Mar owners would probably welcome the chance to escape from their weeks. haha


I quickly read through


alexadeparis said:


> Ok, I am an attorney, but I will step in only to explain this. It's not unique to Hyatt, it is common with all timeshares. Let's say that there are 10 units. With 52 weeks, that makes 520 unit-weeks, lets say ranging numerically for reference/inventory purposes from 01/01 (unit one, week one) to 10/52 (unit 10/week 52). So in order to sell "the building" they must account for all 520 units, with no duplicates. So each of the 520 deeds will have a different ID number within the range. (Leave aside the question of biennials for the example, but there could be more than 520 deeds if there were biennials). Each deed provides that singular unit-week SUBJECT TO the CC&Rs which control the HOA. This is right there on the deed. In the case of floating time, it will say something along the lines of "This is a Platinum Interest" or "365,000/987,000,000 points" or something that would alert you there is an underlying scheme you are under.
> 
> In the CC&Rs, (which stands for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), are the actual rules, which by virtue of purchasing, you are agreeing to abide by. Most commonly this would be in a condo setting, and you have to abide by the condo rules, such as: no pets, no BBQ grills, only certain window decorations at Halloween, whatever. In the timeshare context, this is the entirety of the rules of the "Club" (which operates like a master association) as well as whatever the particular resort is offering: floating season, points, fixed unit, (or in this particular case a certain band of floors), reservation windows, points allocated for the unit-week, etc. Here, the CC&RS currently call for the use of what specific week you purchased, but NOT the unit week, so you ALREADY do not have the deeded week use. (Contrast this to say Key West where their CC&RS DO call for that specific unit/week on the deed to be used.)
> 
> It sounds like HRC is asking to be freed from having to provide the fixed week via a change to the CC&RS, in case they decide to sell the company, to make it more attractive. I don't own there so I haven't seen the documents. If they are perhaps going to offer the floating concept later, this may be why they are asking. No comment on that since I haven't looked at it.


Thank you for a great explanation!  So, as a follow up, if both your fixed week AND unit are specified in the recorded deed, can a change in the CC&R's at a later date make null and void what is on the recorded deed?  Thanks!


----------



## alexadeparis

dagger1 said:


> Thank you for a great explanation!  So, as a follow up, if both your fixed week AND unit are specified in the recorded deed, can a change in the CC&R's at a later date make null and void what is on the recorded deed?  Thanks!


 Theoretically, if enough people voted to change the CC&R's to make it completely floating, yes. But the threshold of yes votes is usually very high, usually well above 50%; like 75% or 90%.


----------



## dagger1

alexadeparis said:


> Theoretically, if enough people voted to change the CC&R's to make it completely floating, yes. But the threshold of yes votes is usually very high, usually well above 50%; like 75% or 90%.


Thanks!!  Kind of like eminent domain by the HOA...


----------



## dagger1

alexadeparis said:


> Theoretically, if enough people voted to change the CC&R's to make it completely floating, yes. But the threshold of yes votes is usually very high, usually well above 50%; like 75% or 90%.


This is a rabbit hole...  If the HOA can negate the fixed unit portion of a recorded deed, I am guessing they could negate the fixed week as well...  That would effectively make everyone a "floating" owner, first come, first serve...
Might be hard to do if it takes a 75% or more supermajority to implement.  But, as wisely said above, worth thinking about...


----------



## alexadeparis

dagger1 said:


> This is a rabbit hole...  If the HOA can negate the fixed unit portion of a recorded deed, I am guessing they could negate the fixed week as well...  That would effectively make everyone a "floating" owner, first come, first serve...
> Might be hard to do if it takes a 75% or more supermajority to implement.  But, as wisely said above, worth thinking about...




As I said I don't own at that resort, but having dealt with (regular) how issues, I know there is usually a clause specifying what percentage is needed, so I would assume one exists here.


----------



## bdh

dagger1 said:


> If the HOA can negate the fixed unit portion of a recorded deed, I am guessing they could negate the fixed week as well...  That would effectively make everyone a "floating" owner, first come, first serve...
> Might be hard to do if it takes a 75% or more supermajority to implement.  But, as wisely said above, worth thinking about...



While possible by a developer controlled HOA, it's difficult to imagine by a deeded week owner controlled HOA.  Unless it's an extremely poorly run property that owners want to escape the POS property and MF, what owner votes to turn over their deeded week/unit???  Depending on where you own if its really worth thinking about.


----------



## WalnutBaron

bdh said:


> While possible by a developer controlled HOA, it's difficult to imagine by a deeded week owner controlled HOA.  Unless it's an extremely poorly run property that owners want to escape the POS property and MF, what owner votes to turn over their deeded week/unit???  Depending on where you own if its really worth thinking about.


The issue, though--at least in my mind--is that owners of HKB may unwittingly vote in favor of losing this right because of the underhanded way ILG has worded this plebiscite. The proposed amendment--which is purportedly aimed at releasing 33 units which are currently earmarked as fixed weeks to become floating weeks--also contains a provision which would strike _all _fixed weeks owners' rights to use their fixed weeks in the event of a sale of the property. See posts 62, 66, and 85 in this thread for more information on this. The specific language is quoted in 66 and 85. I agree, bdh, with your premise--no owner would willingly give up that right. But if an owner has not read carefully the 48-page proposal which is littered with legalese and misses this unrelated and by all appearances innocuous clause inserted at the bottom of Page 6 of the document, they may put themselves in the position where they absolutely *would lose those rights *if the vote results in an affirmative outcome and the resort is later sold.


----------



## ocjohn

Walnut I think the struck through section of the amendment that made he believe we'd lose fixed weeks on sale was added back in 3.2(d)- see the attached.


----------



## lizap

ocjohn said:


> Walnut I think the struck through section of the amendment that made he believe we'd lose fixed weeks on sale was added back in 3.2(d)- see the attached.



Are you saying that ILG went back and changed it? Did you receive another e-mail with that change?


----------



## ocjohn

no that's the original amendment- but you have to read the whole darn thing carefully and there it is.  This is hard to evaluate without a summary or independent pros and cons page... but... this may not be a sneaky deal


----------



## WalnutBaron

ocjohn said:


> Walnut I think the struck through section of the amendment that made he believe we'd lose fixed weeks on sale was added back in 3.2(d)- see the attached.


First, thanks ocjohn for working with me to try to understand what I believe is deliberately circuitous and obscure language in the Proposed Amendment document. ILG's lawyers certainly did NOT want to make it easy for HKB owners to understand what the heck they're supposed to voting on.

In any case, I believe your assertion that the right of ownership HKB owners currently have is restored in Section 3.2 is not correct. Here's my interpretation: the specific language states "[In the event the Resort Agreement is terminated] (my abbreviation of the actual language), the owner of each timeshare interest, other than a Floating timeshare interest, shall retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed week in a resort unit of the *same resort unit type *(my emphasis) in which the timeshare interest is owned."

This is different from a traditional Fixed Week ownership. At the two resorts I own in--Highlands Inn and Pinon Pointe--I not only own the Fixed week (which the above language provides for), but I also own *the exact unit* I purchased (which the above language does _not_ provide for). If I were an owner at HKB, I would be pretty unhappy knowing that I will still get a higher floor 2BR unit (i.e. the same unit type), but not the specific unit I had bought with the specific view I had purchased.

Maybe HKB's ownership rights are different in the first place. Maybe a guaranteed unit is_ not_ part of the current Fixed Week ownership there, as it is at other Hyatt properties. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. But if HKB's Fixed Week ownership is the same as other properties, then Section 3.2 restores only the time of year and unit type, but not the specific actual unit.


----------



## bdh

WalnutBaron said:


> The issue, though--at least in my mind--is that owners of HKB may unwittingly vote in favor of losing this right because of the underhanded way ILG has worded this plebiscite. The proposed amendment--which is purportedly aimed at releasing 33 units which are currently earmarked as fixed weeks to become floating weeks--also contains a provision which would strike _all _fixed weeks owners' rights to use their fixed weeks in the event of a sale of the property. See posts 62, 66, and 85 in this thread for more information on this. The specific language is quoted in 66 and 85. I agree, bdh, with your premise--no owner would willingly give up that right. But if an owner has not read carefully the 48-page proposal which is littered with legalese and misses this unrelated and by all appearances innocuous clause inserted at the bottom of Page 6 of the document, they may put themselves in the position where they absolutely *would lose those rights *if the vote results in an affirmative outcome and the resort is later sold.



WB - totally agree. 

The thread was started on the HKB property, however there's been some mixing of apples and oranges as some of the comments across the various pages have been perceived to be on all properties in the HRC system in lieu of just the HKB location.  With HKB not being sold out, the developer owns a significant portion of the units and accordingly makes HBK a developer controlled HOA.  My comments have been to note the different scenario that exists at HBK from the other mature/sold out HRC properties (so that owners at mature/sold out HRC properties are clear that their deeded weeks are not involved/at risk).


----------



## WalnutBaron

bdh said:


> WB - totally agree.
> 
> The thread was started on the HKB property, however there's been some mixing of apples and oranges as some of the comments across the various pages have been perceived to be on all properties in the HRC system in lieu of just the HKB location.  With HKB not being sold out, the developer owns a significant portion of the units and accordingly makes HBK a developer controlled HOA.  My comments have been to note the different scenario that exists at HBK from the other mature/sold out HRC properties (so that owners at mature/sold out HRC properties are clear that their deeded weeks are not involved/at risk).


Thanks for the clarification, bdh--and I agree with you. I guess my big takeaway from this whole HKB issue is the vital importance of all of us owners--wherever we own--being vigilant. If ILG gets away with this at HKB, any of the other HRC properties could and likely will be next. Yet another reason I am so grateful for this new forum is that it gives us owners an avenue to try to mobilize owners in these kinds of situations. True--there are only a handful of participants on this Bulletin Board right now, but if we stay with it, we will hopefully attract other owners to learn more and be more active participants in their ownership.


----------



## ocjohn

WalnutBaron said:


> ...
> Maybe HKB's ownership rights are different in the first place. Maybe a guaranteed unit is_ not_ part of the current Fixed Week ownership there, as it is at other Hyatt properties. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. But if HKB's Fixed Week ownership is the same as other properties, then Section 3.2 restores only the time of year and unit type, but not the specific actual unit.



hey we're trying to figure this out togehter.  And I'm not a lawyer so reader beware (-:  And all we own is Ka'anapali so can't speak to anything else.  But our deed shows a unit number on the 6th floor, however we will be assigned any available unit on floors 5 - 8 when we get there.  We just get a unit in a band of floors.  The attached is from the first amendment passed a long time ago, page 8.  So this has been the rule for a long time in Ka'anapali.  hope this helps.  

still- Hyatt- a little help here?


----------



## bdh

WalnutBaron said:


> First, thanks ocjohn for working with me to try to understand what I believe is deliberately circuitous and obscure language in the Proposed Amendment document. ILG's lawyers certainly did NOT want to make it easy for HKB owners to understand what the heck they're supposed to voting on.
> 
> In any case, I believe your assertion that the right of ownership HKB owners currently have is restored in Section 3.2 is not correct. Here's my interpretation: the specific language states "[In the event the Resort Agreement is terminated] (my abbreviation of the actual language), the owner of each timeshare interest, other than a Floating timeshare interest, shall retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed week in a resort unit of the *same resort unit type *(my emphasis) in which the timeshare interest is owned."
> 
> This is different from a traditional Fixed Week ownership. At the two resorts I own in--Highlands Inn and Pinon Pointe--I not only own the Fixed week (which the above language provides for), but I also own *the exact unit* I purchased (which the above language does _not_ provide for). If I were an owner at HKB, I would be pretty unhappy knowing that I will still get a higher floor 2BR unit (i.e. the same unit type), but not the specific unit I had bought with the specific view I had purchased.
> 
> Maybe HKB's ownership rights are different in the first place. Maybe a guaranteed unit is_ not_ part of the current Fixed Week ownership there, as it is at other Hyatt properties. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. But if HKB's Fixed Week ownership is the same as other properties, then Section 3.2 restores only the time of year and unit type, but not the specific actual unit.



When it comes to deeded weeks, HKB is different than all other HRC properties.  HBK owners are NOT guaranteed a specific unit - they are only guaranteed a specific band of floors in which they purchased.  Refer to the top half of post #34.  

While one of the core basics of the HRC product from day one with the deeded week and unit has been an owner has a guaranteed week and unit if reserved during HRPP, HRC did not incorporate that core basic at HBK.


----------



## WalnutBaron

Thanks to both ocjohn and bdh for this clarification. In that case, I do think ocjohn is correct--Section 3.2d does indeed restore the right which was for some unknown reason removed in Section 3.2a. Why ILG's lawyers wrote the thing that way is a mystery to me, but--call me cynical if you will--whenever a relatively simple thing is deliberately obscured by circuitous language that seemingly is meant to create confusion, I always get suspicious.


----------



## bdh

WalnutBaron said:


> I guess my big takeaway from this whole HKB issue is the vital importance of all of us owners--wherever we own--being vigilant. If ILG gets away with this at HKB, any of the other HRC properties could and likely will be next.



Not suggesting that it's not possible at other HRC properties, but it is not probable.  In order for there to be the potential for a change at other HRC properties, HRC/ILG would first need to acquire/purchase ownership of a significant number of deeded weeks, then get their minions in place on the board to make even the voting scenario possible.  Refer to the bottom half of post #34.

IE:  Use HSH as example, it is a mature/sold out property and HRC/ILG/Developer owns only a handful of units.  If HSH owners and HOA see HRC/ILG/Developer making a significant move to purchase deeded weeks in an attempt to take control of the property, the owners/HOA can vote to cancel the Hyatt contract/affiliation - without the ability for HRC/ILG/Developer to exchange their owned units to other HRC properties, HSH is no longer a desirable location for them - and the individual deeded owners retain their deeded property.  Note: this is an Armageddon scenario that I personally don't believe is even remotely possible in occurring.  FWIW: the HSH board hasn't changed since Moby-Dick was a minnow (I think there might be 1 member that's been on the board for 20 years.)

The key at HKB and other HRC properties is the HOA - is it developer controlled or deeded week owner controlled?


----------



## TFTG

A little late on this topic, but I received the info in the mail and also via email from XXXX{edited per TFTG to remove name} (Sales Ops Manager at HRC).  I asked him some questions to which he replied fairly quickly, *here is some of that info (taken with a grain of salt as he likely has a vested interest in all of us responding to reach a quorum)*

*Answers (in italics) from general questions I asked in regards to fixed vs float, pricing, relation to points program, etc:*
_Prices have not been finalized yet but will probably be in the high 70's for an annual and high 40's for an every other year.  I'll be able to share official prices with you after the vote on Aug. 1.  Based on the response we've received from owners so far, I expect the amendment to pass.  
I am also a 2-bedroom fixed week Maui owner (week X {edited per TFTG to remove week owned}).  I voted in favor of the amendment for the following reasons:_

_It makes the fixed weeks more scarce and therefore, in my opinion, ultimately more valuable.  20 years from now, if I ever want to sell my unit, I feel there might be more demand for a fixed week / guaranteed reservation and guaranteed view.  Again, this is just my opinion and of course very speculative._
_I also thought about exchange opportunities for fixed week owners.  Fixed week owners tend to return to their home property more than floating week owners.  If a floating week owner decides not to return to Maui then that week becomes available to all club members, including fixed week Maui owners.  So I think this amendment potentially increases exchange opportunities for owners like you and me.         _
_I certainly would not have vote in favor of the amendment if I thought it would negatively affect my fixed week ownership.  And for those owners who might want a little more exchange flexibility from year to year, then I think the floating program will help.  If you don't plan to return to Maui during your week and anticipate always trying to move your week, then you might consider a floating week.  For the floating week, there is no view category, so you could be anywhere floors 1 to 12.  Not sure if you see this as a pro or con.  

The points program is something entirely different and will not affect Maui owners (fixed or floating) at all.  The great thing about Maui is that there will always be a 1 to 1 ratio between owners and deeds.  Our ownership can never be diluted and we have a guaranteed reservation in Maui every year forever._

*And finally when asking about the fixed week language on page 6 of the amendment - answer came from Lisa Trosset:*
_The section you reference is struck through, however, the prior sentence in the amendment clarifies that if the Timeshare Plan is terminated that the Owner of each Timeshare Interest, other than a Floating Timeshare Interest, shall have the exclusive right to reserve and use a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type that such Owner owns during the Owner's Fixed Week, subject to the provisions of the Timeshare Plan and the Hyatt Residence Club Documents. 

The Owners of the Fixed Week intervals will continue to have access to their fixed week even if the timeshare plan is terminated. 

Sorry for the confusion._


----------



## lizap

TFTG said:


> A little late on this topic, but I received the info in the mail and also via email from XXXX{edited per TFTG to remove name} (Sales Ops Manager at HRC).  I asked him some questions to which he replied fairly quickly, *here is some of that info (taken with a grain of salt as he likely has a vested interest in all of us responding to reach a quorum)*
> 
> *Answers (in italics) from general questions I asked in regards to fixed vs float, pricing, relation to points program, etc:*
> _Prices have not been finalized yet but will probably be in the high 70's for an annual and high 40's for an every other year.  I'll be able to share official prices with you after the vote on Aug. 1.  Based on the response we've received from owners so far, I expect the amendment to pass.
> I am also a 2-bedroom fixed week Maui owner (week X {edited per TFTG to remove week owned}).  I voted in favor of the amendment for the following reasons:_
> 
> _It makes the fixed weeks more scarce and therefore, in my opinion, ultimately more valuable.  20 years from now, if I ever want to sell my unit, I feel there might be more demand for a fixed week / guaranteed reservation and guaranteed view.  Again, this is just my opinion and of course very speculative._
> _I also thought about exchange opportunities for fixed week owners.  Fixed week owners tend to return to their home property more than floating week owners.  If a floating week owner decides not to return to Maui then that week becomes available to all club members, including fixed week Maui owners.  So I think this amendment potentially increases exchange opportunities for owners like you and me.         _
> _I certainly would not have vote in favor of the amendment if I thought it would negatively affect my fixed week ownership.  And for those owners who might want a little more exchange flexibility from year to year, then I think the floating program will help.  If you don't plan to return to Maui during your week and anticipate always trying to move your week, then you might consider a floating week.  For the floating week, there is no view category, so you could be anywhere floors 1 to 12.  Not sure if you see this as a pro or con.
> 
> The points program is something entirely different and will not affect Maui owners (fixed or floating) at all.  The great thing about Maui is that there will always be a 1 to 1 ratio between owners and deeds.  Our ownership can never be diluted and we have a guaranteed reservation in Maui every year forever._
> 
> *And finally when asking about the fixed week language on page 6 of the amendment - answer came from Lisa Trosset:*
> _The section you reference is struck through, however, the prior sentence in the amendment clarifies that if the Timeshare Plan is terminated that the Owner of each Timeshare Interest, other than a Floating Timeshare Interest, shall have the exclusive right to reserve and use a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type that such Owner owns during the Owner's Fixed Week, subject to the provisions of the Timeshare Plan and the Hyatt Residence Club Documents.
> 
> The Owners of the Fixed Week intervals will continue to have access to their fixed week even if the timeshare plan is terminated.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion._




This may be true and it may not. Remember they work for and are paid by ILG.


----------



## Tucsonadventurer

lizap said:


> This may be true and it may not. Remember they work for and are paid by ILG.


You have it in writing however which I put more stake in than a verbal reply


----------



## gdonnersc1

I had sent questions to Lisa Trosset and received a reply.  She said I could share them here.  She also indicated that there is likely to be a Q&A released.  I will put each of my questions and her responses in a separate posting.  Here goes the first:

My first question is as follows:


Your e-mail states the following:


“The usage rights you have for your fixed week, floating unit type will not be effected by this change.”


Based on this statement, as a fixed week owner I can continue to use the fixed weeks in the same floor band as I currently do if this passes.  Is that correct?  My confusion is that it appears that the following language is being removed from the current rules:


“In the event that the Resort Agreement is terminated (letters bolded by me) in accordance with its terms, the owner of each Timeshare Interest shall nevertheless retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed Week in a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type in which the Timeshare Interest is owned."


What does this mean and if it means that we are less protected in the case of a termination of the Resort Agreement then we currently are, how can you say that our usage rights are not changed?

Her response was as follows:

Your usage rights remain protected and have not changed.  The language you cited was relocated from 3.2(a) to Section 3.2(d).  In addition, new language was also added to Section 3.2(d) to recognize the new Floating Timeshare Interests.  In the event that the Resort Agreement were to be terminated, Owners in the Fixed Week use plan retain the exclusive right to reserve and use the same Fixed Week in a Unit Type in which their timeshare interest is owned.


----------



## gdonnersc1

My second question has to do with maintenance fees.  It would seem to me that floating week users have less of a sense of ownership then fixed users and as a result, maintenance costs and fees would increase under the proposal.  Do you have data that would either support or refute this?

Her response follows:

Question #2

The annual HKB Vacation Owners’ Association budget is divided equally among all timeshare interests in the same resort unit type, regardless of the specific use plan.  Your assessments will not change as a result of the new use plan. The owners in the new use plan will still have deeded ownership in the property and will be making a significant financial investment to acquire their timeshare interests.


----------



## WalnutBaron

TFTG said:


> A little late on this topic, but I received the info in the mail and also via email from XXXX{edited per TFTG to remove name} (Sales Ops Manager at HRC).  I asked him some questions to which he replied fairly quickly, *here is some of that info (taken with a grain of salt as he likely has a vested interest in all of us responding to reach a quorum)*
> 
> *Answers (in italics) from general questions I asked in regards to fixed vs float, pricing, relation to points program, etc:*
> _Prices have not been finalized yet but will probably be in the high 70's for an annual and high 40's for an every other year.  I'll be able to share official prices with you after the vote on Aug. 1.  Based on the response we've received from owners so far, I expect the amendment to pass.
> I am also a 2-bedroom fixed week Maui owner (week X {edited per TFTG to remove week owned}).  I voted in favor of the amendment for the following reasons:_
> 
> _It makes the fixed weeks more scarce and therefore, in my opinion, ultimately more valuable.  20 years from now, if I ever want to sell my unit, I feel there might be more demand for a fixed week / guaranteed reservation and guaranteed view.  Again, this is just my opinion and of course very speculative._
> _I also thought about exchange opportunities for fixed week owners.  Fixed week owners tend to return to their home property more than floating week owners.  If a floating week owner decides not to return to Maui then that week becomes available to all club members, including fixed week Maui owners.  So I think this amendment potentially increases exchange opportunities for owners like you and me.         _
> _I certainly would not have vote in favor of the amendment if I thought it would negatively affect my fixed week ownership.  And for those owners who might want a little more exchange flexibility from year to year, then I think the floating program will help.  If you don't plan to return to Maui during your week and anticipate always trying to move your week, then you might consider a floating week.  For the floating week, there is no view category, so you could be anywhere floors 1 to 12.  Not sure if you see this as a pro or con.
> 
> The points program is something entirely different and will not affect Maui owners (fixed or floating) at all.  The great thing about Maui is that there will always be a 1 to 1 ratio between owners and deeds.  Our ownership can never be diluted and we have a guaranteed reservation in Maui every year forever._
> 
> *And finally when asking about the fixed week language on page 6 of the amendment - answer came from Lisa Trosset:*
> _The section you reference is struck through, however, the prior sentence in the amendment clarifies that if the Timeshare Plan is terminated that the Owner of each Timeshare Interest, other than a Floating Timeshare Interest, shall have the exclusive right to reserve and use a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type that such Owner owns during the Owner's Fixed Week, subject to the provisions of the Timeshare Plan and the Hyatt Residence Club Documents.
> 
> The Owners of the Fixed Week intervals will continue to have access to their fixed week even if the timeshare plan is terminated.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion._



Thanks, TFTG, for the information. Ultimately, we all have to believe that this Amendment Proposal is being done for the benefit of ILG and NOT for the benefit of HKB owners. bdh's comments in posts 103, 109, and 112 pretty well summarize the reason why ILG felt they had a unique opportunity--they still controlled a substantial voting bloc through the unsold units, and they're going for it--to the direct detriment of HRC owners who would have wanted to trade into HKB.


----------



## gdonnersc1

My third question is how units are assigned today and how they would be assisgned when some of the weeks are floating and some are fixed.  Please describe that to me.

Her response follows:

Question #3

Units today are reserved by owners during their Home Resort Preference Period based on their fixed week and their resort unit type (resort unit types are based on the type of unit and the floor band).  When assigning a particular unit for an owner’s use, we give consideration to the order in which reservations are made and any special requests.   This process will not change.  With the addition of the 33 units, there will, of course, be more units available for reservation and additional owners seeking to obtain reservations within certain resort unit types; but the proposed amendment sets aside for fixed week timeshare interest owners that number of reservations required in each resort unit type to fully accommodate such fixed week owners’ reservation rights.     Please see Section 3.6(d) of the proposed amendment which ensures that all fixed week owners will continue to be able to make a reservation for their fixed week during their Home Resort Preference Period by restricting the number of reservations available to floating timeshare interest owners.


----------



## gdonnersc1

My fourth and final question is specifically which units are included in the 33 that are being proposed for floating.

Her response follows:

Question #4

Please see attached a copy of the exhibit that list the unit numbers for the 33 units.

I can forward the list to anyone that wants it but it was all 2 bedroom units--8 lower level, 13 mid level and 12 upper level


----------



## gdonnersc1

My conclusion as it relates to our units--I do not feel that the language change changes our protection for our fixed week and floor band.  I would have liked to have received better information on how units are assigned and the potential impact on maintenance fees.

I do wish that we could better negotiate and understand what they would want and what we should want in return.  But that is not how timeshares work.

So we will probably vote in favor since it would be good to have the property sold out in my opinion


----------



## WalnutBaron

Great questions, gdonner, and thanks for posting the answers. I admit I'm pretty incredulous that ILG/Hyatt did not provide this kind of information in an FAQ document at the time they sent the proposed amendment to the HKB owners. The vote is only 16 days away and likely many owners have already voted, without having the benefit of this information. Probably exactly what ILG was hoping would happen.


----------



## lizap

My, how gullible some are. No type of response is binding until signed and officially notarized. WalnutBaron is correct in that whatever they plan to do, the odds are excellent that it is not in the best interest of the owners.  It is interesting that the people who emailed did not ask about PPP. Is it in the best interest of HRC owners?  We all know the likely answer.  Let us not forget that these same ILG representatives likely are aware that HRC owners are very concerned and confused about how PPP will affect them.   I would encourage those who have received emails to request formal notarized correspondence. In your emails, please also ask these ILG representatives to address specifically how the PPP program will impact current HRC owners. When you receive this correspondence, please post on  TUG for us all to view. I seriously doubt this will happen though...


----------



## taffy19

Why are they sending this to us if it doesn't affect the 1 or 3 BR condos?  I would like to know.

Are they hoping that the 1 and 3 BR condo owners are going to send these proxies back too so that they will reach the quorum that they need?  We are not sending anything in because we do not want our original purchase changed in any way.


----------



## Kal

Does anyone have the numbering for the units at Ka'anapali?


----------



## taffy19

ocjohn said:


> Walnut I think the struck through section of the amendment that made he believe we'd lose fixed weeks on sale was added back in 3.2(d)- see the attached.


Can someone please explain what these clauses mean in simple English?

I have tried to read them over and over again and especially the text in the image on the right?  Thank you. 

PS.  See post #105 where the images are visible.


----------



## Bill4728

Everyone seems to believe that all owners will have the same voting rights (ie one vote per week owner)  BUT as I saw in the Club Intrawest (CI) vote last year there may be things in the master agreement which vastly favor the developer. In the case of the CI vote where more than 90% of the resorts were sold. the master agreement allowed any developer votes to be counted as 15 times more than plain owner votes.  So the developer was able to vote in a "new developer" basically without the support of the owners.

I'm not sure if this is what is happening at the Hyatt  but these master agreements are written to favor the developer.


----------



## WalnutBaron

Kal said:


> Does anyone have the numbering for the units at Ka'anapali?


Kal, see post #122. Hopefully gdonner can forward it to you.


----------



## Kal

I'm actually looking for the numbering convention so I can determine the locations of those units.


----------



## taffy19

Bill4728 said:


> Everyone seems to believe that all owners will have the same voting rights (ie one vote per week owner)  BUT as I saw in the Club Intrawest (CI) vote last year there may be things in the master agreement which vastly favor the developer. In the case of the CI vote where more than 90% of the resorts were sold. the master agreement allowed any developer votes to be counted as 15 times more than plain owner votes.  So the developer was able to vote in a "new developer" basically without the support of the owners.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what is happening at the Hyatt  but these master agreements are written to favor the developer.


Thank you, Bill, but how do we get a hold of the Master Agreement?  I don't even know what it is exactly because I have no legal background or enough timeshare knowledge but I have always trusted that American timeshare developers do things legally and are upfront with us but my trust has gone out of the window when they sold us something that they were in the process of selling to another company but didn't disclose it or mentioned it.

I wonder too if they changed the purchase documents afterwards, when the sale was completed, so can do these things legally but do not tell us all the changes that they are planning already to make.  The more people are warned, the better!

Why did we have to send our proxy in if we are supposedly not affected at all in the 1 and 3 BR condos?  This doesn't make sense to me unless they wanted to get as many proxy forms back from the people who do not read the fine print.  I am so suspicious now that we will get another big surprise later.


----------



## ocjohn

just received this


----------



## ocjohn

You recently received a packet in the mail outlining a proposed second amendment to your association Declaration.

Maui Timeshare Venture, LLC (“Developer”) and the entire Hyatt Residence Club team remain committed to the quality of Hyatt Residence Club Maui, Ka’anapali Beach (“HKB”), and the timeshare experience the existing HKB owners have come to count on.

Below are answer to questions we have been receiving related to the proposed Second Amendment to the Declaration.

Your feedback is important to us. Please use the form enclosed in your packet (or download here) and send in your vote by 10:00 a.m. Hawaii Time on Tuesday, August 1, 2017.

Should you have questions, please feel free to contact me directly via phone at +1 727.803.9497 or email at lisa.trosset@hyattvoi.com. 

Sincerely,

Lisa Trosset
Vice President - Compliance, Closing, and Loan Administration

 Questions & Answers

1. Why is the amendment being proposed?
We have received many requests for more flexibility from potential purchasers who loved the resort but could not commit to vacationing there during the same week each year. The proposed amendment is being offered as an alternative for these purchasers. The proposed addition of the float use plan will not affect the guaranteed reservation rights that our existing HKB owners enjoy under the current use plan. 

2. What does the proposed amendment do?
The proposed amendment creates a new use plan for 33 two-bedroom units which are built, but not yet included, in the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association.  None of the interests in these 33 units have previously been offered for sale, so there are no reservation rights for these units today.  Purchasers in the new use plan will be able to book their week stay reservations on a floating basis rather than a fixed week program. These purchasers will be owners of the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association and members of Hyatt Residence Club on the same basis as our current fixed week owners.  

3. Do I have a right to vote on this amendment if I own a 1- or 3-bedroom unit?
Yes, all owners have a right to vote.

4. Can the Developer change the use plan on the interval that I have already been deeded?
No. Your fixed week rights are protected by the timeshare declaration which provides that the timeshare plan documents may not be amended without the written consent of an Owner to materially diminish an Owner’s ownership rights or to change an Owner’s fixed week rights. 

5. Will my annual assessment change as a result of the change?
Your assessments will not change as a result of the new use plan. The annual HKB Vacation Owners’ Association budget is divided equally among all timeshare interests in the same resort unit type, regardless of the specific use plan. 

6. How will units be assigned if the amendment is approved? 
Units today are reserved by owners during their Home Resort Preference Period and are based on the fixed week and resort unit type owned (resort unit types are based on the type of unit and the floor band). When assigning a unit for an owner’s use, we give consideration to the order in which reservations are made and any special requests. This process will not change as a result of the new use plan.  

With the addition of the 33 units, there will, of course, be more units available for reservations, but also additional owners seeking reservations. The proposed amendment sets aside the number of reservations required in each resort unit type to fully accommodate such fixed week owners’ reservation rights. Section 3.6(d) of the proposed amendment provides that all fixed week owners will continue to be able to make a reservation for their fixed week during their Home Resort Preference Period by restricting the number of reservations available to floating timeshare interest owners during this period. 

7. How can I transfer my ownership from my current fixed week product to the new float week product?
There will be some availability for owners to transfer from the fixed week use plan to the new float week use plan, if they find it to be more desirable. For specific information, please contact the Sales Department at +1 808.662.4700

8. Is there a plan to sell HKB to another developer? 
There is no plan to sell HKB inventory to another developer. 

9. Is the intent to create this new use plan so that the 33 units can be put into the new Hyatt Residence Club Portfolio Program?
No. The Developer has designed the new use plan to respond to the many requests we received from interest purchasers who loved the resort but could not commit to vacationing at the resort during the same week each year. We intend to sell these new timeshare interests to new purchasers at the HKB property, who will be owners of the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association and members of Hyatt Residence Club on the same basis as our current fixed week owners.

10. If the amendment is approved, which units will go into the new use plan?
Please is a list of the unit numbers and locations for the 33 units: 
8 units on Floor 4 (3404 - 3411)
4 units on Floor 7 (3708 - 3711)
9 units on Floor 8 (3803 - 3811)
4 units on Floor 11 (4115 - 4118)
8 units on Floor 12 (4121 - 4128)


----------



## vacationtime1

If nothing else, Hyatt is skimming units located on high floors for this floating weeks program.


----------



## Tucsonadventurer

ocjohn said:


> You recently received a packet in the mail outlining a proposed second amendment to your association Declaration.
> 
> Maui Timeshare Venture, LLC (“Developer”) and the entire Hyatt Residence Club team remain committed to the quality of Hyatt Residence Club Maui, Ka’anapali Beach (“HKB”), and the timeshare experience the existing HKB owners have come to count on.
> 
> Below are answer to questions we have been receiving related to the proposed Second Amendment to the Declaration.
> 
> Your feedback is important to us. Please use the form enclosed in your packet (or download here) and send in your vote by 10:00 a.m. Hawaii Time on Tuesday, August 1, 2017.
> 
> Should you have questions, please feel free to contact me directly via phone at +1 727.803.9497 or email at lisa.trosset@hyattvoi.com.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Lisa Trosset
> Vice President - Compliance, Closing, and Loan Administration
> 
> Questions & Answers
> 
> 1. Why is the amendment being proposed?
> We have received many requests for more flexibility from potential purchasers who loved the resort but could not commit to vacationing there during the same week each year. The proposed amendment is being offered as an alternative for these purchasers. The proposed addition of the float use plan will not affect the guaranteed reservation rights that our existing HKB owners enjoy under the current use plan.
> 
> 2. What does the proposed amendment do?
> The proposed amendment creates a new use plan for 33 two-bedroom units which are built, but not yet included, in the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association.  None of the interests in these 33 units have previously been offered for sale, so there are no reservation rights for these units today.  Purchasers in the new use plan will be able to book their week stay reservations on a floating basis rather than a fixed week program. These purchasers will be owners of the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association and members of Hyatt Residence Club on the same basis as our current fixed week owners.
> 
> 3. Do I have a right to vote on this amendment if I own a 1- or 3-bedroom unit?
> Yes, all owners have a right to vote.
> 
> 4. Can the Developer change the use plan on the interval that I have already been deeded?
> No. Your fixed week rights are protected by the timeshare declaration which provides that the timeshare plan documents may not be amended without the written consent of an Owner to materially diminish an Owner’s ownership rights or to change an Owner’s fixed week rights.
> 
> 5. Will my annual assessment change as a result of the change?
> Your assessments will not change as a result of the new use plan. The annual HKB Vacation Owners’ Association budget is divided equally among all timeshare interests in the same resort unit type, regardless of the specific use plan.
> 
> 6. How will units be assigned if the amendment is approved?
> Units today are reserved by owners during their Home Resort Preference Period and are based on the fixed week and resort unit type owned (resort unit types are based on the type of unit and the floor band). When assigning a unit for an owner’s use, we give consideration to the order in which reservations are made and any special requests. This process will not change as a result of the new use plan.
> 
> With the addition of the 33 units, there will, of course, be more units available for reservations, but also additional owners seeking reservations. The proposed amendment sets aside the number of reservations required in each resort unit type to fully accommodate such fixed week owners’ reservation rights. Section 3.6(d) of the proposed amendment provides that all fixed week owners will continue to be able to make a reservation for their fixed week during their Home Resort Preference Period by restricting the number of reservations available to floating timeshare interest owners during this period.
> 
> 7. How can I transfer my ownership from my current fixed week product to the new float week product?
> There will be some availability for owners to transfer from the fixed week use plan to the new float week use plan, if they find it to be more desirable. For specific information, please contact the Sales Department at +1 808.662.4700
> 
> 8. Is there a plan to sell HKB to another developer?
> There is no plan to sell HKB inventory to another developer.
> 
> 9. Is the intent to create this new use plan so that the 33 units can be put into the new Hyatt Residence Club Portfolio Program?
> No. The Developer has designed the new use plan to respond to the many requests we received from interest purchasers who loved the resort but could not commit to vacationing at the resort during the same week each year. We intend to sell these new timeshare interests to new purchasers at the HKB property, who will be owners of the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association and members of Hyatt Residence Club on the same basis as our current fixed week owners.
> 
> 10. If the amendment is approved, which units will go into the new use plan?
> Please is a list of the unit numbers and locations for the 33 units:
> 8 units on Floor 4 (3404 - 3411)
> 4 units on Floor 7 (3708 - 3711)
> 9 units on Floor 8 (3803 - 3811)
> 4 units on Floor 11 (4115 - 4118)
> 8 units on Floor 12 (4121 - 4128)


Interesting because I was told directly by some regional sales manager at Pinon Pointe, who was in the process of going through training on the portfolio program, that Hawaii would later be added to the program after most of the units were sold. Unless he said that to entice us to join the portfolio program. Hmmm, no wonder this is confusing.


----------



## lizap

Tucsonadventurer said:


> Interesting because I was told directly by some regional sales manager at Pinon Pointe, who was in the process of going through training on the portfolio program, that Hawaii would later be added to the program after most of the units were sold. Unless he said that to entice us to join the portfolio program. Hmmm, no wonder this is confusing.



HKB was never intended to be a part of the portfolio program. Sounds like the PP salesperson was trying to make a sale.


----------



## taffy19

vacationtime1 said:


> If nothing else, Hyatt is skimming units located on high floors for this floating weeks program.


I agree with you 100%.


----------



## taffy19

ocjohn said:


> You recently received a packet in the mail outlining a proposed second amendment to your association Declaration.
> 
> Maui Timeshare Venture, LLC (“Developer”) and the entire Hyatt Residence Club team remain committed to the quality of Hyatt Residence Club Maui, Ka’anapali Beach (“HKB”), and the timeshare experience the existing HKB owners have come to count on.
> 
> Below are answer to questions we have been receiving related to the proposed Second Amendment to the Declaration.
> 
> Your feedback is important to us. Please use the form enclosed in your packet (or download here) and send in your vote by 10:00 a.m. Hawaii Time on Tuesday, August 1, 2017.
> 
> Should you have questions, please feel free to contact me directly via phone at +1 727.803.9497 or email at lisa.trosset@hyattvoi.com.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Lisa Trosset
> Vice President - Compliance, Closing, and Loan Administration
> 
> Questions & Answers
> 
> 1. Why is the amendment being proposed?
> We have received many requests for more flexibility from potential purchasers who loved the resort but could not commit to vacationing there during the same week each year. The proposed amendment is being offered as an alternative for these purchasers. The proposed addition of the float use plan will not affect the guaranteed reservation rights that our existing HKB owners enjoy under the current use plan.
> 
> 2. What does the proposed amendment do?
> The proposed amendment creates a new use plan for 33 two-bedroom units which are built, but not yet included, in the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association.  None of the interests in these 33 units have previously been offered for sale, so there are no reservation rights for these units today.  Purchasers in the new use plan will be able to book their week stay reservations on a floating basis rather than a fixed week program. These purchasers will be owners of the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association and members of Hyatt Residence Club on the same basis as our current fixed week owners.
> 
> 3. Do I have a right to vote on this amendment if I own a 1- or 3-bedroom unit?
> Yes, all owners have a right to vote.
> 
> 4. Can the Developer change the use plan on the interval that I have already been deeded?
> No. Your fixed week rights are protected by the timeshare declaration which provides that the timeshare plan documents may not be amended without the written consent of an Owner to materially diminish an Owner’s ownership rights or to change an Owner’s fixed week rights.
> 
> 5. Will my annual assessment change as a result of the change?
> Your assessments will not change as a result of the new use plan. The annual HKB Vacation Owners’ Association budget is divided equally among all timeshare interests in the same resort unit type, regardless of the specific use plan.
> 
> 6. How will units be assigned if the amendment is approved?
> Units today are reserved by owners during their Home Resort Preference Period and are based on the fixed week and resort unit type owned (resort unit types are based on the type of unit and the floor band). When assigning a unit for an owner’s use, we give consideration to the order in which reservations are made and any special requests. This process will not change as a result of the new use plan.
> 
> With the addition of the 33 units, there will, of course, be more units available for reservations, but also additional owners seeking reservations. The proposed amendment sets aside the number of reservations required in each resort unit type to fully accommodate such fixed week owners’ reservation rights. Section 3.6(d) of the proposed amendment provides that all fixed week owners will continue to be able to make a reservation for their fixed week during their Home Resort Preference Period by restricting the number of reservations available to floating timeshare interest owners during this period.
> 
> 7. How can I transfer my ownership from my current fixed week product to the new float week product?
> There will be some availability for owners to transfer from the fixed week use plan to the new float week use plan, if they find it to be more desirable. For specific information, please contact the Sales Department at +1 808.662.4700
> 
> 8. Is there a plan to sell HKB to another developer?
> There is no plan to sell HKB inventory to another developer.
> 
> 9. Is the intent to create this new use plan so that the 33 units can be put into the new Hyatt Residence Club Portfolio Program?
> No. The Developer has designed the new use plan to respond to the many requests we received from interest purchasers who loved the resort but could not commit to vacationing at the resort during the same week each year. We intend to sell these new timeshare interests to new purchasers at the HKB property, who will be owners of the HKB Vacation Owners’ Association and members of Hyatt Residence Club on the same basis as our current fixed week owners.
> 
> 10. If the amendment is approved, which units will go into the new use plan?
> Please is a list of the unit numbers and locations for the 33 units:
> 8 units on Floor 4 (3404 - 3411)
> 4 units on Floor 7 (3708 - 3711)
> 9 units on Floor 8 (3803 - 3811)
> 4 units on Floor 11 (4115 - 4118)
> 8 units on Floor 12 (4121 - 4128)


Thank you ocjohn but we didn't receive this in the mail or by email either but we do not own a 2 BR condo so it will not affect us, supposedly, but why did they send the proxy form to us to send back to them?  They needed a quorum so they wanted our votes too.  Read what is posted in post #129 in this thread as we may end up with some other big surprises later.

Some of us understood that 33 condos (last Phase) were going to be sold as floating condos but it looks to me like they are the highest floors in most bands so it are the *present 2 BR condo owners* who are going to be losing the opportunity to request these higher floors in their own tower where they bought, I believe.

If they want to go during another week but still want to end up in a higher floor, they will have to give up their choice week but may end up in a lower floor here or convert or exchange to the new floating week program.  How is that going to be handled?  I still believe that the end goal is, even at this resort, to belong to the new program that they are rolling out slowly.

Those type of plans have different tiers of owners and some can reserve much earlier if they own more points and request the best views too even in our tier of 1 BR condos, I believe.

Read what some VSE owners are complaining about already that they cannot occupy the 1 BR condo in Nanea that they recently purchased so have to use star options to occupy a 1 BR next door. I am aware that not all 1 BR condos are built yet but the competition seems to be fierce already for 2 BR owners to stay longer and downgrade to a 1 BR condo to stretch the points and there aren't enough 1 BR condos.  We may get the same problem in our resort too in the 1 BR condos.

I also would like to know why this information wasn't shared with us before what floors are going to end up in the floating week program?  Some owners may have decided not to send in their proxy form if they were aware of that fact but now it is too late if they sent it in already.

John and later owners may not have received a copy of the first amendment either because you weren't owners yet at this resort but we never received it either unless this paperwork is the first amendment?  We bought long before it was built by a different developer.  I asked the other day why the first amendment wasn't sent to us and the answer was that it wasn't necessary because we didn't have to vote on it.  We don't even know if that was before or after the sale of the HRC.  I asked this person to send me a copy of it and he promised to do so two weeks ago.  We didn't even know that there was a Board nor did we get anything about the "old business" either.  I believe that we received two newsletters in total so far.

Please, read this old thread that TUGBrian posted over two years ago and you may not be so trusting anymore either that they cannot touch you if you own a fixed week/unit once their plan is to go ahead with the Hyatt Residence Club Portfolio Program.

*New florida bill SB932: non-consumer friendly Timeshare law changes*
House Bill 453 / Senate Bill 932 seems to have a good bit of contentious issues within it as it relates to timeshares.......
Thread by: TUGBrian, Mar 12, 2015, 80 replies, in forum: US - Florida Timesharing

Once this new program owns 50% of the trust, they can amend the CC&Rs just like they are planning to do at our resort in Maui and have a new set of rules to make reservations for everyone.  I believe that this is the goal of all the big timeshare developers all along so they have total control over what we own and ARDA was a big help to them trying to get these bills passed.

This is even my worry next door at the Marriott now too where we own a fixed week/unit.  One good thing for you is that they are about eight years ahead of you so you don't have to worry about it yet.


----------



## ocjohn

From: Adam Alexander <Adam.Alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:58 PM
Subject: Hyatt Residence Club Maui / Floating Plan Update
To: 


Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,


The proposed amendment to release the remaining unsold 33 2-bedroom units as floating units was approved by a majority of the Maui owners.  Next, these 33 units will be registered with the State of Hawaii, and then they will be released for sale.

The floating plan will not affect a fixed week owner's guaranteed reservation or guaranteed view category.  There are no changes to the fixed week reservation plan.  Fixed week owners will continue to reserve their guaranteed Maui week during their Home Resort Preference Period (HRPP) - 12 to 6 months prior to their guaranteed week.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Aloha,  


-------------------------------
Adam Alexander
Sales Operations Manager
Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club
180 Nohea Kai Dr, Lahaina, HI 96761
tel. 808-662-4706

http://kaanapalibeach.hyatt.com


----------



## lizap

ocjohn said:


> From: Adam Alexander <Adam.Alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com>
> Date: Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:58 PM
> Subject: Hyatt Residence Club Maui / Floating Plan Update
> To:
> 
> 
> Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,
> 
> 
> The proposed amendment to release the remaining unsold 33 2-bedroom units as floating units was approved by a majority of the Maui owners.  Next, these 33 units will be registered with the State of Hawaii, and then they will be released for sale.
> 
> The floating plan will not affect a fixed week owner's guaranteed reservation or guaranteed view category.  There are no changes to the fixed week reservation plan.  Fixed week owners will continue to reserve their guaranteed Maui week during their Home Resort Preference Period (HRPP) - 12 to 6 months prior to their guaranteed week.
> 
> Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
> 
> Aloha,
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> Adam Alexander
> Sales Operations Manager
> Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club
> 180 Nohea Kai Dr, Lahaina, HI 96761
> tel. 808-662-4706
> 
> http://kaanapalibeach.hyatt.com



Oh well...


----------



## WalnutBaron

Very sorry for all Hyatt Ka'anapali owners, as well as those of the rest of us who may have wanted to trade in. I'm afraid the conclusion was foregone, so this outcome is no surprise.


----------



## taffy19

I had no idea that timeshare resorts in the USA are as corrupt as in Mexico but now I know.  Don't believe a word of what they tell you at a timeshare presentation EVER!!!!  Rescind while you have time to rescind so you save yourself a lot of money and heartache too.


----------



## taffy19

ocjohn said:


> From: Adam Alexander <Adam.Alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com>
> Date: Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:58 PM
> Subject: Hyatt Residence Club Maui / Floating Plan Update
> To:
> 
> 
> Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,
> 
> 
> The proposed amendment to release the remaining unsold 33 2-bedroom units as floating units was approved by a majority of the Maui owners.  Next, these 33 units will be registered with the State of Hawaii, and then they will be released for sale.
> 
> The floating plan will not affect a fixed week owner's guaranteed reservation or guaranteed view category.  There are no changes to the fixed week reservation plan.  Fixed week owners will continue to reserve their guaranteed Maui week during their Home Resort Preference Period (HRPP) - 12 to 6 months prior to their guaranteed week.
> 
> Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
> 
> Aloha,
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> Adam Alexander
> Sales Operations Manager
> Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club
> 180 Nohea Kai Dr, Lahaina, HI 96761
> tel. 808-662-4706
> 
> http://kaanapalibeach.hyatt.com


I received this email too but we never received the Q&A email or letter in the mail yet nor did I receive the copy of the 1st Amendment that was promised to be sent to me.

If the email address didn't work, what stopped them from sending this by regular mail like they did with the first request to send the proxy form back?  They were hoping that we would fall for the feature of floating weeks and they succeeded.

They are not *upfront* with anyone of us who bought during the time that the sale was pending.  IMO, you were suckers who sent the proxy form back in because you have no leg to stand on now.

I am going write the Attorney General in Florida unless they come up with a good explanation why this is beneficial to us.  The best views of every band have gone to the floating weeks but they are most likely the worst weeks that they weren't able to sell.

It is a total SCAM, IMO!  Everyone is going to be scammed who is going to buy in the new system because it all depends on "if available" and that may not be the case but you can keep on "dreaming".


----------



## Pathways

ocjohn said:


> ...........





taffy19 said:


> ........



A year + since this issue was passed.  I would like to know from many who participated in this thread what their current thoughts are.  Still think it is detrimental to your ownership?  Did it help sales? Other comments?


----------

