# Marriott's 13-Month Reservation Policy



## Dave M (Jun 7, 2005)

*Marriott's 13-Month Reservation Policy - Part I*

*I transferred the following, nearly intact, from a lengthy thread on the old BBS:*

mcpower

Non Member
Posts: 5
From: 
Registered: Mar 2005 
  posted 04-05-2005 11:12                  

Is it true that if you purchase two silver weeks, you can deposit those weeks under the 13 month rule and get basically any Marriott season or resort? 

-------------------------------------------

Dave M
Administrator 
TUG Member
Posts: 6375
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Dec 2000 
  posted 04-05-2005 11:43                  

No. Exchanging and using the "13 month rule" are unrelated.
The 13-month rule relates to the opportunity, if you own two or more Marriott weeks, to call 13 months in advance (instead of the normal 12 months) to reserve consecutive or concurrent weeks at your home resort. Note I used the term reserve. Thus, if you have to exchange a week from (for example) your season to another season in order to reserve two weeks together, you can't use that procedure.

As an owner, you must first reserve your week before you can request an exchange.

Once you have reserved one or both of your weeks at 12 or 13 months out, you can then (and only then) try to exchange one or both of those weeks for other Marriott weeks. Whether your exchanges will be confirmed depends on how strong your weeks are as traders, how early you deposit your weeks and/or request your exchange and whether other owners deposit the weeks you want.

If you join TUG ($15), you can use the Search function (link in the upper right section of this page) to search past threads for more extensive explanations of what I have summarized here.

-------------------------------------------------

ACCfan

TUG Member
Posts: 353
From: 
Registered: Jun 2003 
  posted 04-05-2005 11:53               

(responding to mcpower)
That's a new twist on the 13 month rule that I've never heard of before. Who told you that one? I don't think there's any validity to that statement.

The 13 month rule is for multiple weeks owners. It allows them to book those multiple weeks 13 months before check in instead of the usual 12 month window. The caveat is that the weeks that you book have to be either consecutive or concurrent. 

It really doesn't have anything to do with trading except if you use the 13 month rule to book what you conceive to be the strongest trading week in that Silver season and then deposit that week or weeks in II for trading purposes. Once you do that, then the standard trade power issues with II come into play. Trading can sometimes be a crapshoot and in no way is any particular trade a guarantee.

While some silver weeks can be very good traders, in general they're silver for a reason

-------------------------------------------

capekong

TUG Member
Posts: 547
From: Southeast Missouri
Registered: Mar 2004 
  posted 04-05-2005 16:53                  

For clarification: If I own two weeks at different Marriott resorts, I can call and try to reserve 13 months out, if I reserve concurrent or consective weeks at the two Resorts? IE: I could try to reserve week 1 at Marriott Resort A and Marriott Resort B or I could try to reserve week 1 at Marriott Resort A and week 2 at Marriott Resort B. Correct?

------------------------------------------

ciscogizmo1

TUG Member
Posts: 533
From: 
Registered: Aug 2002 
  posted 04-05-2005 17:05               

True, if the seasons overlap or piggy back off each other (where one season ends when another seasons begins the next week). So, if you own a platinum week in Hawaii that is weeks 1 through 51 and a Platinum summer at Timberlodge then you could reserve concurrent or consective weeks during Timberlodge's Summer-platinum weeks only. However, if you own a gold week at Timberlodge and a platinum week at Shadow Ridge where probably none of the weeks over lap then, you couldn't reserve two consective or concurrent weeks. Hopefully, this makes sense...

----------------------------------------------

joepoe

TUG Member
Posts: 10
From: BWV, OKW
Registered: Feb 2004 
  posted 04-07-2005 08:52                  

We were told by our sales guide at Ko Olina that you MUST own two weeks at the SAME resort to use the 13 month option.

------------------------------------------------

ACCfan

TUG Member
Posts: 353
From: 
Registered: Jun 2003 
  posted 04-07-2005 12:24               

There's always some confusion about this, but the way Marriott is interpreting the rule is that you can book 13 months out if you own two weeks at any of their resorts. The caveat is that you need to book the two weeks either consecutively or concurrently. You can confirm this by either calling telesales or the MVCI reservation number.
The local sales guys are probably telling you that they MUST be at the same resort as it's in their best interest for them to be able to sell you two weeks. The telesales will tell you that it can be any two weeks as it doesn't matter to them which resort you purchase at.

It makes sense to have it as any two weeks because I think the way Marriott telesales likes to sell it is so people can coordinate their travel between resorts. For instance, if you own 1 week at Ko'Olina and 1 week at Maui, you can use the 13 month rule to coordinate going to one resort one week immediately followed by another resort the next week.

---------------------------------------------

WiTraveler

TUG Member
Posts: 16
From: Racine, WI, Westin Ka'anapli, Marriott Beach Place
Registered: May 2002 
  posted 04-07-2005 18:46                  

Currently on the Marriott Website in an area that explains the benefits of owning more than one week, it now indicates that both weeks must be at the same resort for the 13 month rule. I'm certain I've seen it in the past, without the word same.

----------------------------------------------

ACCfan

TUG Member
Posts: 353
From: 
Registered: Jun 2003 
  posted 04-07-2005 19:07               

It's had that wording for as long as I can remember and that wording has been debated on these BBS multiple times in the past. However, it's not how Marriott currently interprets or has been interpreting the rule. This may be because telesales has been touting the 13 month rule and has been using it as a sales tactic in order to get current single week owners to buy a second week at another resort for awhile. As such, there are a lot of people who've purchased two weeks at two different resorts through telesales with the use of the 13 month booking rule as a primary factor behind their purchase. If Marriott were to change the interpretation of the rule they would probably alienate a lot of owners who purchased their weeks through Marriott telesales.

-------------------------------------------------

Cappy

TUG Member
Posts: 427
From: Michigan
Registered: Mar 2001 
  posted 04-07-2005 20:55                  

Does the 13th month rule go to a EOY owner also if both weeks are Platinum & even years?

--------------------------------------------

Dave M
Administrator 
TUG Member
Posts: 6375
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Dec 2000 
  posted 04-08-2005 05:15                  

Cappy -
Yes. You could use the 13-month rule. That's based on a letter I received from Marriott recently offering EOY weeks and touting the 13-month rule for multiple same-year EOY weeks. 

-----------------------------------------------------

kukla56

Non Member
Posts: 5
From: 
Registered: Mar 2004 
  posted 04-08-2005 04:32                  

How about if I own a silver and a platinum at the same resort? Can I call 13 months in advance to book my silver week and then call 13 months in advance to book my platinum? 
Thx!

-------------------------------------------

Dave M
Administrator 
TUG Member
Posts: 6375
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Dec 2000 
  posted 04-08-2005 05:11                  

No. You lose on two counts. First, you must make both reservations at the same time. Second, the weeks must be concurrent or consecutive weeks. 
The only way it would work is if the two seasons were adjacent to each other and you booked the last week of one season and the first week of the other season.

You can call 13 months before the check-in date for the first week. *Edit on June 1, 2010: Note that 13-month reservations must be made by calling Owner Services. Although MVCI is reportedly working on a system change that would allow online reservations of multiple weeks at 13 months, there is no known timetable for such an implementation.*

-------------------------------------------------

llp479

TUG Member
Posts: 34
From: Gurnee, IL - DVC - BWV, OKW MVC - Ko Olina, Grande Vista
Registered: Jan 2004 
  posted 04-11-2005 16:15               

The 13 month rule was in a written doc that we were given, not the salesman's spiel. It clearly stated that you had to own 2 weeks at the SAME resort, and they had to be booked in consecutive or concurrent weeks. 
We even asked him about the confusion regarding the interpretation by the reservation folks, and he stated again the same resort, and referred us to the "official" MVC doc.

----------------------------------------------------

ACCfan

TUG Member
Posts: 353
From: 
Registered: Jun 2003 
  posted 04-11-2005 17:16               

Nobody here is disputing that as that's what's written in most if not all of the resorts CC&R's, but if you think about it, that's pretty much how it needs to be written in each resorts CC&R's because there's no guarantee that Marriott will continue to manage each individual resort. In other words, it wouldn't be practical for Marriott to commit in writing in the CC&R's of each individual resort about the "benefits" of owning multiple weeks in the Marriott system. If they did that and then changed their mind and no longer wanted to continue their management of that resort, then they would be in a legal sticky situation that those owners of that resort could hang them on. As such, it's much safer to use the SAME terminology in the CC&R's which would make a future divorce easier.

I'll now cut and paste this from my previous post:

However, it's not how Marriott currently interprets or has been interpreting the rule. This may be because telesales has been touting the 13 month rule and has been using it as a sales tactic in order to get current single week owners to buy a second week at another resort for awhile. As such, there are a lot of people who've purchased two weeks at two different resorts through telesales with the use of the 13 month booking rule as a primary factor behind their purchase. If Marriott were to change the interpretation of the rule they would probably alienate a lot of owners who purchased their weeks through Marriott telesales.

-------------------------------------------------

KathyPet

TUG Member
Posts: 187
From: Chantilly Va
Registered: Apr 2001 
  posted 04-11-2005 16:59                  

I don't care what the official rules say, We own a week at Barony and a week at Grand OCean in Gold season and for two years running we have book a week at each resort in consecutive order 13 months in advance

------------------------------------------------

ACCfan

TUG Member
Posts: 353
From: 
Registered: Jun 2003 
  posted 04-11-2005 17:21               

I think that's the way Marriott probably prefers it. I've heard telesales folks tout getting two weeks in Hawaii for use in the same manner. Most people who go to Hawaii for two or more weeks would like to go to more than one island and Marriott knows that and sells it as such. Spend one week at Ko'Olina immediately followed by another week in Kauai or Maui.

------------------------------------------------


----------



## Dave M (Jun 7, 2005)

*Part II*

Dean

TUG Member
Posts: 2708
From: Disney's Old Key West, Marriott's Grande Ocean, Marriott's Harbour Pt. and La Cabana, Aruba
Registered: Dec 2000 
  posted 04-11-2005 19:02                  

Most of the CC&Rs / POS I've seen only say you have to own 2 weeks and doesn't specify they have to be at the same resort. One might be able to infer that but it is definitely not clearly stated in the paperwork I've seen from 5 or 6 different resorts. And I've looked at Surfwatch POS in the last week for this specific issue.

----------------------------------------

Dave M
Administrator 
TUG Member
Posts: 6375
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Dec 2000 
  posted 04-11-2005 21:26                  

Perhaps I can clear up a bit of confusion about the language in the CC&Rs. I'm looking at the legal language (in front of me) for Custom House, Grande Ocean and Grand Chateau.
All three state that if you own two or more weeks at the resort, you can make concurrent or consecutive week reservations 13 months in advance. 

Taken casually, that would appear to mean you must own your multiple weeks at the same resort to use the 13-month reservation system. However, that's not what the rules state.

The key is that nowhere in the language is there a statement that says you can make reservations 13 months in advance only if your multiple weeks are at the same resort. 

Thus, Marriott has concluded that they will honor the rules as stated in various resort CC&Rs, but they believe they have the freedom to allow those who own at different resorts to also use the 13-month reservation system. The printed rules are permissive for those who own multiple weeks at the same resort, but do not restrict Marriott from applying the rule more liberally. 

I think it's pretty clear that Marriott's legal experts have utilized that aspect of the written terms to expand the rule into the current practice.

------------------------------------------

cdiver

TUG Member
Posts: 4
From: Irvine, CA
Registered: Apr 2005 
  posted 04-12-2005 13:08               

Just called Marriott Owners services and asked them whether one needs to own two weeks at the same resort to get 13-months booking. The answer was NO. The only requirement is that the weeks that you book have to be either consecutive or concurrent.

-----------------------------------------------------

ACCfan

TUG Member
Posts: 353
From: 
Registered: Jun 2003 
  posted 04-12-2005 14:23               

I’ve never had the opportunity to personally use the 13 month rule myself, but it’s clear to me why Marriott chooses to have their written terminology as THE or SAME yet choose to interpret it as being two weeks at any resort as long as the weeks are concurrent or consecutive. I’m sure they find it in their best interests to have any written documents on each resort refer only to that resort and not tie itself in with the other resorts in MVCI. That way, a future divorce is made easier and cleaner should Marriott decide to go that route. Just look at Streamside and you can see why Marriott doesn’t want to tie their resorts (in Streamside’s case it’s the different buildings that are tied together in an unbreakable way in written documents) together in writing.
The way Marriott currently interprets the rule is a win-win for them and I don’t see them having any motivation to change it. Telesales can sell multiple weeks at different resorts as well as extra weeks to single week owners and tout the rule while the local sales folks can point to the website or the local resorts CC&R’s to convince their clients that they need to purchase two weeks at the resort their selling and not a second week elsewhere.

Again, I’ve never had the opportunity to use the 13 month rule myself, but it doesn’t cause me as much heartburn as others as I can see why Marriott interprets it the way it does. I think Marriott compensates for their loose interpretation of the rule by counterbalancing it with the 50% rule to be fair to the single week owners. I don’t think there’s any good reason for Marriott to change their interpretation so I’ve accepted it and I don’t loose any sleep over it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Dean

TUG Member
Posts: 2708
From: Disney's Old Key West, Marriott's Grande Ocean, Marriott's Harbour Pt. and La Cabana, Aruba
Registered: Dec 2000 
  posted 04-12-2005 15:27                  

The issue is actually not a formal part of GO, at least it wasn't previously. The wording for Surfwatch, which I am pretty sure was the same for OP, OW and Barony (because I've seen those)is this. "Owners, excluding Declarant, who who own more than one Time Sharing interest may reserve...." and it goes on to describe reserving concurrent and consecutive weeks at 13 months out. There is no "the resort" or similar wording. One might attempt to argue that since it's in the POS specific to that resort that it only means that resort, but again, it doesn't say that in any way I can come up with. I know many people who have done this including myself. IMO, Marriott is stuck with the current interpretation else they are at significant risk for a class action legal battle if they try otherwise. Others have reported that places like Tahoe and Maui are worded differently but unless I had the entire document to go over it wouldn't mean much to me.


----------

