# Direct buy to "legitimize" a resell buy



## BugDoc (Aug 26, 2009)

We are considering a direct buy of a Marriott timeshare.  We had previously bought a Marriott property off eBay by resale.  We were told that when we buy the second at full (direct buy) price from Marriott, that this would "legitimize" our prior purchase of the propery we bought off eBay.   By "legitimize", they said this would make the eBay property the same as if we had bought it by the direct buy method and it would be eligible for everything direct buy propery is, but resales aren't, such as reward points.   In other words, by buying the second Marriott timeshare by the direct buy method, it will be as if we had bought the first by that same method...the first property would no longer be the redheaded stepchild.

We have asked several times to verify that this is the case, and have been assured it is so.  SO....does this make sense and perhaps remove some of the arguments against buying by direct buy versus resale?  

Is this a win/win situation or am I overlooking something?


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 26, 2009)

BugDoc said:


> We are considering a direct buy of a Marriott timeshare.  We had previously bought a Marriott property off eBay by resale.  We were told that when we buy the second at full (direct buy) price from Marriott, that this would "legitimize" our prior purchase of the propery we bought off eBay.   By "legitimize", they said this would make the eBay property the same as if we had bought it by the direct buy method and it would be eligible for everything direct buy propery is, but resales aren't, such as reward points.   In other words, by buying the second Marriott timeshare by the direct buy method, it will be as if we had bought the first by that same method...the first property would no longer be the redheaded stepchild.
> 
> We have asked several times to verify that this is the case, and have been assured it is so.  SO....does this make sense and perhaps remove some of the arguments against buying by direct buy versus resale?
> 
> Is this a win/win situation or am I overlooking something?



That certainly flies in the face of everything I have been told.  I will be interested to hear how some of the seasoned folks reply.


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 26, 2009)

BugDoc said:


> We are considering a direct buy of a Marriott timeshare.  We had previously bought a Marriott property off eBay by resale.  We were told that when we buy the second at full (direct buy) price from Marriott, that this would "legitimize" our prior purchase of the propery we bought off eBay.   By "legitimize", they said this would make the eBay property the same as if we had bought it by the direct buy method and it would be eligible for everything direct buy propery is, but resales aren't, such as reward points.   In other words, by buying the second Marriott timeshare by the direct buy method, it will be as if we had bought the first by that same method...the first property would no longer be the redheaded stepchild.
> 
> We have asked several times to verify that this is the case, and have been assured it is so.  SO....does this make sense and perhaps remove some of the arguments against buying by direct buy versus resale?
> 
> Is this a win/win situation or am I overlooking something?



who told you this?


----------



## vacationtime1 (Aug 26, 2009)

Starwood does exactly what OP describes (search the Starwood board under "requalification" or "retro"), but I have never heard that Marriott does this also.


----------



## Beverley (Aug 26, 2009)

I do not think it does.    However, you could ask the salesperson.  

There was a time a while back that a resale purchase could be made "developer" by paying hte added 25% to cover I am not sure what, but none the less some people had their purchases enhanced.  I do not think they do this any more but it is worth asking at the time of your second purchase, possibly try to make it a "deal breaker".   With the slow sales as of late you might make it happen.  

Good luck.

Beverley


----------



## pfrank4127 (Aug 27, 2009)

I believe that I've read previous posts where that has happened, but the question is: does the ability to use Marriott reward points justify the extra cost.  At this point the only advantage to buying direct is the ability to trade your weeks in for points.


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 27, 2009)

bug doc, which location were you thinking of buying?  I am curious about the conversation with the sales reps, as this is different than some of the conversations I have had.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Aug 27, 2009)

BugDoc said:


> We are considering a direct buy of a Marriott timeshare.  We had previously bought a Marriott property off eBay by resale.  We were told that when we buy the second at full (direct buy) price from Marriott, that this would "legitimize" our prior purchase of the propery we bought off eBay.   By "legitimize", they said this would make the eBay property the same as if we had bought it by the direct buy method and it would be eligible for everything direct buy propery is, but resales aren't, such as reward points.   In other words, by buying the second Marriott timeshare by the direct buy method, it will be as if we had bought the first by that same method...the first property would no longer be the redheaded stepchild.
> 
> We have asked several times to verify that this is the case, and have been assured it is so.  SO....does this make sense and perhaps remove some of the arguments against buying by direct buy versus resale?
> 
> Is this a win/win situation or am I overlooking something?



I will be interesting to see responses on this.... but in general the answer is NECK NO!  It doesn't work that way with Marriott.  As mentioned a few posts up the chain here, that is not to say that a rule was not broken a time or two in the past.  But there are plenty of people in this boat that would have made this clear in the MANY discussions of "direct vs. resale".


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 27, 2009)

There was a Tugger here who had done just what the OP is asking. They bought a new unit from Marriott and Marriott reclassified their resale week as a developer purchase. So it can and has happened.


----------



## ldanna (Aug 27, 2009)

Beverley said:


> I do not think it does.    However, you could ask the salesperson.



Not ask the salesperson but make him write this on the contract. Sometimes salespeople promise things they can't delivery, things Marriott is not even aware of. 

But if this is true, it's a very interesting position from Marriott, a good strategy, better than rumors about an imaginary point system. If you can do this with the new properties and take advantage of the owner's discount, it might be attractive to some folks.


----------



## davidvel (Aug 27, 2009)

ldanna said:


> Not ask the salesperson but make him write this on the contract. Sometimes salespeople promise things they can't delivery, things Marriott is not even aware of.


I agree but one step further. Have him put it in writing before you go in to discuss a contract. 


ldanna said:


> But if this is true, it's a very interesting position from Marriott, a good strategy, better than rumors about an imaginary point system. If you can do this with the new properties and take advantage of the owner's discount, it might be attractive to some folks.



I wonder what happend to the OP? He registered and posted but now no word? It would be interesting to see if he/she followed up and what specfic response they received. Was this a test baloon?


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 27, 2009)

davidvel said:


> I agree but one step further. Have him put it in writing before you go in to discuss a contract.
> 
> 
> I wonder what happend to the OP? He registered and posted but now no word? It would be interesting to see if he/she followed up and what specfic response they received. Was this a test baloon?



The OP stayed online for about 2 hours after their original post, but never commented again, despite questions asked about his original post.

If he/she does come back on, I'd like to ask, "Does Bob D. know you are using Tugs again?  Especially after you told him you weren't in the first place.?


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 27, 2009)

dioxide45 said:


> There was a Tugger here who had done just what the OP is asking. They bought a new unit from Marriott and Marriott reclassified their resale week as a developer purchase. So it can and has happened.



That was Dean, in DaveM's thread about a possible new internal exchange system.  Here's one of his posts there, and this is an excerpt from it:



> However, part of the SW deal was that my 2 Grande Ocean weeks that were resale became retail units with no cost involved. Do you know anyone else that is able to get points on a Marriott week that was bought resale but not through Marriott in any way?


----------



## modoaruba (Aug 27, 2009)

From my experiences,if Marriott caught wind that any owner could actually come out ahead with anything that they can't get the better of they would put the kabosh on it.


----------



## m61376 (Aug 27, 2009)

Dean did post about Marriott having done that several years ago, but clearly it was an exception and there have been no posts over the last several years of anyone having been offered that option.

As mentioned, it has been a commonly practice Starwood option.


----------



## Bill4728 (Aug 27, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Dean did post about Marriott having done that several years ago, but clearly it was an exception and there have been no posts over the last several years of anyone having been offered that option.
> 
> As mentioned, it has been a commonly practice Starwood option.


This is a common practice with Starwood,  BUT  it is because unlike Marriott which currently treat their resale buyers with respect, Starwood treats their resell buyer like ?**?.   A resale buyer at starwood is allowed to make reservation at their home resort. BUT is completely locked out of all starwood internal trading. 

So let us all hope that the new Marriott internal trading program which is being discussed doesn't look anything like Starwood's system.


----------



## thinze3 (Aug 27, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Dean did post about Marriott having done that several years ago, but clearly it was an exception and there have been no posts over the last several years of anyone having been offered that option.
> 
> As mentioned, it has been a commonly practice Starwood option.



I believe this "requalify" option was being offered at one of the HHI resorts a few years ago. I think it was Barony. I'll see if I can find info about it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 27, 2009)

dioxide45 said:


> There was a Tugger here who had done just what the OP is asking. They bought a new unit from Marriott and Marriott reclassified their resale week as a developer purchase. So it can and has happened.





thinze3 said:


> I believe this "requalify" option was being offered at one of the HHI resorts a few years ago. I think it was Barony. I'll see if I can find info about it.



It must have been SurfWatch, that's what Dean mentioned he purchased.

He's the only one I've ever seen post here that he was able to have his previous resales re-classified.  It's interesting that you say it was an option with (any? only certain?) direct sales at SurfWatch at one time.


----------



## JimC (Aug 27, 2009)

It can be done.  Dean has done it.  But you must have it written into the contract.


----------



## BugDoc (Aug 27, 2009)

Trying to get a straight answer from Marriott...as soon as I have it to my satisfaction, I will post an update, but until then, I'm leery of giving either bad info, or getting anyone in trouble, etc.  

I appreciate all who have posted, and will give an update within a couple of days.


----------



## billymach4 (Aug 27, 2009)

BugDoc said:


> Trying to get a straight answer from Marriott...as soon as I have it to my satisfaction, I will post an update, but until then, I'm leery of giving either bad info, or getting anyone in trouble, etc.
> 
> I appreciate all who have posted, and will give an update within a couple of days.



"Live Long and Prosper, and May the Force Be With You"


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 28, 2009)

*ok, got the official answer*

and it's all crystal clear.  Well, sort of, except, well, not really.

I copied the OP's entire post and sent it to one of Marriott's rgl sales Veeps.

Here's his reply, cut and pasted:

"_The TUG question is not entirely clear.   There could be a variety of scenarios that could apply.    We do not have any set policy in this area.   There could be situations that would be mutually beneficial and others that would not work.  I would really need more specifics_.  "

So, there you have it!


----------



## larryallen (Aug 28, 2009)

_"The TUG question is not entirely clear. There could be a variety of scenarios that could apply. We do not have any set policy in this area. There could be situations that would be mutually beneficial and others that would not work. I would really need more specifics. "_

That guy went to law school for sure!   Being a lawyer I can say a quasi lawyer joke.


----------



## Whirl (Aug 28, 2009)

*For an additional  25% -- would you upgrade your resale week for MR points option?*



Beverley said:


> ....
> There was a time a while back that a resale purchase could be made "developer" by paying hte added 25% to cover I am not sure what, but none the less some people had their purchases enhanced. ....
> Beverley




Interesting...as cheaply as some weeks are being picked up these days...the 25% ( were it an executable option, and assuming 25% of *your *purchase price, not 25% of Marriott's current selling price) perhaps could be justifiable.   If you are are a heavy user MR points  ( business traveler, perhaps) then that could be interesting AND especially that one could argue that  it certainly could improve your longer term resale values now that your week is fully pedigreed. 

Interesting....I would consider it further....Money maker for Marriott in lean times and perceived added value for the right owner. Hmmmm...

Curious what others think....Obviously, you have to be a believer in points at some level to consider ( I am. We have taken a few very nice points based trips), but for those that are...would you consider?

Thanks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 28, 2009)

Whirl said:


> Interesting...as cheaply as some weeks are being picked up these days...the 25% ( were it an executable option, and assuming 25% of *your *purchase price, not 25% of Marriott's current selling price) perhaps could be justifiable.   .



I know nothing of the program, but can guaranty it was/is 25% of the current Marriott selling price, not 25% of what one paid resale.


----------



## billymach4 (Aug 28, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> and it's all crystal clear.  Well, sort of, except, well, not really.
> 
> I copied the OP's entire post and sent it to one of Marriott's rgl sales Veeps.
> 
> ...



"Live Long and Prosper, and May the Force Be With You"


----------



## m61376 (Aug 28, 2009)

Whirl said:


> ...AND especially that one could argue that  it certainly could improve your longer term resale values now that your week is fully pedigreed.



Whether you bought direct or resale has no impact on resale value. The ability to trade for points does not transfer with the sale, so a developer purchase has the same resale value as a resale week again being resold.


----------



## Whirl (Aug 28, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Whether you bought direct or resale has no impact on resale value. The ability to trade for points does not transfer with the sale, so a developer purchase has the same resale value as a resale week again being resold.



...unless you have a week that you can sell through Marriott, which can only happen if the week is is fully pedigreed, right?

This isn't even a real option, as far as I know, just a "what if", so just knocking around ideas.


----------



## rsackett (Aug 29, 2009)

Whirl said:


> ...unless you have a week that you can sell through Marriott, which can only happen if the week is is fully pedigreed, right?



I have heard of YUG members that bought re-sale (not from Marriott) that have sold through Marriott. I know CMF sold his gold MGV that way.

Ray


----------



## Steve (Aug 29, 2009)

Marriott sold my platinum Manor Club week, which I had purchased from an independent third party, for me.  They won't do it for all properties or seasons, but when they do, it can be quite profitable for the seller.

Steve


----------



## davidvel (Aug 29, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> The OP stayed online for about 2 hours after their original post, but never commented again, despite questions asked about his original post.
> 
> If he/she does come back on, I'd like to ask, "Does Bob D. know you are using Tugs again?  Especially after you told him you weren't in the first place.?



Can you please explain, clearly and concicely what you mean by the above post? Who is Bob D., and why would he want to know the OP in on TUG? What do you mean that the OP told Bob D. the OP was not on TUG?


----------



## tahoeJoe (Aug 29, 2009)

*Starwood or Hyatt systems*



Bill4728 said:


> So let us all hope that the new Marriott internal trading program which is being discussed doesn't look anything like Starwood's system.



Interesting observation. When I was staying at Ko Olina in January I attended a presentation and asked the salesman about the rumored points based internal trading system. He said it was coming. I then asked it it would be more like Hyatt, where resale buyers are treated the same as developer buyers, or Starwood. The salesman said it would be more like Starwood. 

Lets hope he was lying or misinformed. 

-TJ


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 29, 2009)

davidvel said:


> Can you please explain, clearly and concicely what you mean by the above post? Who is Bob D., and why would he want to know the OP in on TUG? What do you mean that the OP told Bob D. the OP was not on TUG?



That was a question for the original poster.  Interesting we have never seen him since his two posts on this subject?


----------



## falmouth3 (Aug 29, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> That was a question for the original poster.  Interesting we have never seen him since his two posts on this subject?



He said he'd post in a couple of days, when he had more information.  That was only 3 days ago.  Hopefully we'll hear what he finds out.

Sue


----------



## wildgrizzly (Aug 30, 2009)

I was just at sales presentation on August 29, 2009. I currently owned 1 week at KoOlina from resale market. I was told that changes are coming and resale owners are probably only going to be given a 6 month reservations system and would be lowest of the pecking order as far as room choices... that would be position 9/9 from the chart I was shown... yes lower than renters!!!

Their solution to me was to purchased a cheapest possibly property from Marriott directly, and they would grandfathered my resale purchase into a pseudo direct purchase. I cannot exchange into the Marriott points w/ my Ko Olina unit but can with whatever new purchased unit. This would also continue to let me make reservations at Ko Olina 12 months out.

In summary, this would protect my Ko Olina from all the new restrictions which they plan on rolling out in the next year or so along w/ the ability to use the proposed internal trading system coming forth.

Anyone else hear similar things?


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 30, 2009)

wildgrizzly said:


> I was just at sales presentation on August 29, 2009. I currently owned 1 week at KoOlina from resale market. I was told that changes are coming and resale owners are probably only going to be given a 6 month reservations system and would be lowest of the pecking order as far as room choices... that would be position 9/9 from the chart I was shown... yes lower than renters!!!
> 
> Their solution to me was to purchased a cheapest possibly property from Marriott directly, and they would grandfathered my resale purchase into a pseudo direct purchase. I cannot exchange into the Marriott points w/ my Ko Olina unit but can with whatever new purchased unit. This would also continue to let me make reservations at Ko Olina 12 months out.
> 
> ...



It seems to me from my experience, and what I've read on tugs, is that the more desparate the times get for the salespeople, the more wild their tales get.  I wouldn't believe anything a timeshare salesperson tells me unless they put it in writing, on company letterhead, and sign it.   In blood.


----------



## mpizza (Aug 30, 2009)

Very interesting . . . a few years ago a saleswomen agreed to grandfather my resale unit(s) if I purchased another unit direct.  Of course when it came time to put it in writing, the she reneged stating that corporate wouldn't allow it.

Maria


----------



## AMJ (Aug 30, 2009)

wildgrizzly,

A Marriott salesman actually told me he believed that all resales purchased before Marriott announces the new points program would most likely be grandfathered in. All resales purchased after the announcement would be treated differently.

Joyce


----------



## m61376 (Aug 30, 2009)

wildgrizzly,
I wonder if this was the same salesperson who told another Tugger something similar and started a whole discussion several months back on this. The consensus was, after much discussion and actually a few lawyer Tug members piping in after reading their resort's documents, that Marriott cannot impose unequal restrictions on resale buyers wrt reservations at their home resort. 

The inferior room assignments bit has been a repeated salesperson's fabrication over the years, except it is just that. There hasn't been one Tugger who reported feeling that their resale units received inferior room placements and many of us have enjoyed some of the best rooms in the resorts.

This was one of the more interesting embellishments, because here the salesperson was offering quasi direct status. He/she was offering to allow you to continue to book at 12 months and equal room assignment rights as direct purchasers-easy to promise, since these rights already exist. Wonder what they were going to call this "new" category?


----------



## Dean (Aug 30, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> I believe this "requalify" option was being offered at one of the HHI resorts a few years ago. I think it was Barony. I'll see if I can find info about it.


It was at Surfwatch in 2006, I know of it happening a couple of times otherwise.  They had a specific form to do this.  However, it is not a common practice.  IF it ends up being an option, make sure that paperwork is included WHEN one signs everything else.  Make sure you have a copy of it for reference when you walk out.


----------



## davidvel (Aug 30, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> That was a question for the original poster.  Interesting we have never seen him since his two posts on this subject?



Just a helpful hint: Cryptic references to things that no one reading the thread knows about makes the thread confusing. Generally posts are intended for public consumption with appropriate explanation of the context. If you have a comment that is only pertinent to someone in particular, you could send them a pm. 

(I am not trying to bust your chops, it is just that since registering you have started a number of threads that seem to be just between you and another person. It is confusing for us who don't understand the context of the conversation/dispute.)


----------



## wildgrizzly (Aug 30, 2009)

wildgrizzly said:


> I was just at sales presentation on August 29, 2009. I currently owned 1 week at KoOlina from resale market. I was told that changes are coming and resale owners are probably only going to be given a 6 month reservations system and would be lowest of the pecking order as far as room choices... that would be position 9/9 from the chart I was shown... yes lower than renters!!!
> 
> Their solution to me was to purchased a cheapest possibly property from Marriott directly, and they would grandfathered my resale purchase into a pseudo direct purchase. I cannot exchange into the Marriott points w/ my Ko Olina unit but can with whatever new purchased unit. This would also continue to let me make reservations at Ko Olina 12 months out.
> 
> ...



Well, just returned from the sales office to do final signing...

After reviewing the documents they wanted me to sign there was nothing mentioned about grandfathering in my external week at Ko Olina. All documents pertained to the new cheapest developer week available.

So I asked for evidence in writing about the verbal promises. Of course, they bring one of the sales reps down and he cannot give me anything in writing but it is what's going to happen he says. He cannot give me anything because the program is not rolled out yet. So how come he can be so sure that what he knows will happen when there is no official program!!!

My argument also was that I'm not at all interested in this cheap week from the developer, it is only to protect my external week. I explained further that my interest in more in Disney Vacation Club (DVC) as I have a little one now. So sales guy tells me that if I don't want to purchase, it's not a big deal, that the deal is only a $12K deal. And then proceeds to follow up that, that when the new plan rolls out, that Marriott will also be going to lease timeshares and will no longer be deeded... what a bunch of hogwash....

He also reminds me not to forget the list of where my current external week will be treated in future visit and what terrible views I will be given based upon my external week. What a waste of time dealing w/ reps that will say anything to make a sale.


----------



## Dean (Aug 31, 2009)

wildgrizzly said:


> Well, just returned from the sales office to do final signing...
> 
> After reviewing the documents they wanted me to sign there was nothing mentioned about grandfathering in my external week at Ko Olina. All documents pertained to the new cheapest developer week available.
> 
> So I asked for evidence in writing about the verbal promises. Of course, they bring one of the sales reps down and he cannot give me anything in writing but it is what's going to happen he says. He cannot give me anything because the program is not rolled out yet. So how come he can be so sure that what he knows will happen when there is no official program!!!


They really don't need to give you any future promise, certainly they can't speak to the future.  But what they can potentially do is convert your current week to being a blessed week NOW also giving you the option of reward points and any future applicable benefits.


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 31, 2009)

Steve said:


> Marriott sold my platinum Manor Club week, which I had purchased from an independent third party, for me.  They won't do it for all properties or seasons, but when they do, it can be quite profitable for the seller.



Same for me.  They sold a prime Monarch Week for me that I had purchased from an independent third party, and yes, I too made a good buck on it.

George


----------



## Whirl (Aug 31, 2009)

bogey21 said:


> Same for me.  They sold a prime Monarch Week for me that I had purchased from an independent third party, and yes, I too made a good buck on it.
> 
> George



Interesting...thanks for the hard data points...I guess in the end, it would really just depend on what week you owned.  I guess paying up to get pedigreed,  could make it a sure thing since it would always remain a gamble  --since there is no guarantee, despite isolated historical occurrences, --that Marriott would sell your "illegitimate" week. Therefore, any decision to pay up the 25% on a third-party resale if would really have to be based on how important that points option is for a buyer….

Not so easy…it never is


----------



## kjd (Aug 31, 2009)

*Questons about TS owners associations*

I find that the information about this subject is very confusing.  I too have heard sales people talk about Marriott looking into an internal exchange system but there are never any concrete specifics given.  A lot of conjecture also takes place on TUG which is loaded with resale buyers afraid of the unknown.  Again, most of it is heresay.

Eventually Marriott will not own a majority of the units in any timeshare complex they market.  All owners receive a deeded unit whether they bought from Marriott or bought resale.  As I understand it, in most instances Marriott has a management contract with the owners association.  How does that play into the question of treating rightful owners of the same property differently?  

Is Marriott able to control these owners associations even after all units have been sold?   Why would a legitimate owners association allow Marriott to discriminate against their owners by agreeing to a two-tiered reservation system?  Or, are these management contracts so skewed in Marriotts' favor that they can do anything they choose to do?


----------



## davidvel (Aug 31, 2009)

kjd said:


> Is Marriott able to control these owners associations even after all units have been sold?   Why would a legitimate owners association allow Marriott to discriminate against their owners by agreeing to a two-tiered reservation system?  Or, are these management contracts so skewed in Marriotts' favor that they can do anything they choose to do?


While my expertise is limited to CA law, I have posted many times on this subject. While Marriott can and does "control" the HOA in many instances, the HOA cannot discriminate among owners. They cannot set up a two-tiered reservation system, as reservation rights are deeded. Any contract for management cannot override the deeded rights/docs.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 31, 2009)

davidvel said:


> While my expertise is limited to CA law, I have posted many times on this subject. While Marriott can and does "control" the HOA in many instances, the HOA cannot discriminate among owners. They cannot set up a two-tiered reservation system, as reservation rights are deeded. Any contract for management cannot override the deeded rights/docs.



I appreciate that you have a level of expertise that most of us do not, but still wonder why you disregard the fact that at one time MVCI did most certainly set up a two-tiered reservation system that significantly impacted and did not grandfather the owners at the time.  The 12/13 month rule differentiating between single- and multi-week owners hasn't been the rule since the inception of MVCI, but still it has applied since it's implementation to every MVCI ownership.

Is there something in the wording, or not, of the documents that allowed MVCI to "get away with" changing reservation rights then that is missing, or in place, in more recent documents?  Did they take a risk that they wouldn't be challenged by assuring that 50% of the available units would always be accessible by single-week owners?  If that's the case, then why wouldn't they be willing to take a similar risk differentiating between resale and direct purchasers?

Don't get me wrong, I like the system exactly as it works right now and am not advocating what Perry terms "a caste system" which would negatively impact resale purchasers.  I also think that the more parameters MVCI might put in place for reservations, etc, the more of a logistical nightmare their reps as well as owners will have to deal with.  There's enough "work" to ownership as far as reserving choice weeks and attempting exchanges, that I don't want this to have to become a part-time "job."

But I agree with those who say that MVCI/Marriott developed and wrote the contract terms with company preservation first and foremost, and the historical track record of them devaluing ownership for certain owners shouldn't be overlooked.  Isn't it best to try to figure out how they managed to do what they did in the past, to more completely understand what they MAY be able to do in the future?


----------



## m61376 (Aug 31, 2009)

Sue- Not to rehash an old discussion, but I don't think you can equate implementing the 13/12 rule to any changes that would discriminate against any subset of owners who hold equal legal property rights. Current resale owners enjoyed equal usage rights at the time of purchase as direct purchasers, and are protected by the same owner's documents.

My guess is that they were able to implement the 13/12 rule because they guaranteed at least half of the reservations to still be available to all owners, although perhaps Davidvel can chime in with his expertise onthat.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 31, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Sue- Not to rehash an old discussion, but I don't think you can equate implementing the 13/12 rule to any changes that would discriminate against any subset of owners who hold equal legal property rights. Current resale owners enjoyed equal usage rights at the time of purchase as direct purchasers, and are protected by the same owner's documents.
> 
> My guess is that they were able to implement the 13/12 rule because they guaranteed at least half of the reservations to still be available to all owners, although perhaps Davidvel can chime in with his expertise onthat.



Well that's all I mean by rehashing this, m, is how MVCI was able to devalue certain ownerships in the past, and why they couldn't do so again in the future.

Think about it - at the time of the 12/13-month reservation rule implementation, every owner at a specific resort held the same rights as any other owner at that resort; and in a more broad sense, every MVCI owner held similar (differentiated slightly by state laws, possibly?) rights to every other MVCI owner.  That's not any different than what you're saying above about legal property rights but still, MVCI did implement a significant reservation rule change that negatively impacted a significant number of owners.  How and why is what I want to know, and I think that someone like David and the others with legal expertise can answer that better than you or I.

My guess would be similar to yours, except that I'd say that our explanation leaves an opening for MVCI to negatively impact resale purchasers if what they implement still offers an acceptable percentage of available units at the 13/12-month marks for those owners.  Couldn't that make acceptable a reservation system that allowed direct purchasers an opportunity to book the remaining percentage at, say, the 15/14-month marks?  Maybe, if the percentages correspond to the number of resale v. direct purchasers at each resort?  Again, a logistical nightmare, but I don't know.  And that's why I keep asking.


----------



## wildgrizzly (Aug 31, 2009)

Dean said:


> They really don't need to give you any future promise, certainly they can't speak to the future.  But what they can potentially do is convert your current week to being a blessed week NOW also giving you the option of reward points and any future applicable benefits.



Thus I elected not to purchase a direct developer property. I really don't see any benefit buying direct but to protect my resale from the future changes I may have entertained the idea w/ something written...


----------



## m61376 (Aug 31, 2009)

Sue- The only difference I can think of is that they may have been able to proffer the argument that the 13/12 rule allowed owners who had purchased multiple weeks to use consecutively or concurrently to reserve their weeks in the manner in which they were sold. I can see that as a valid argument.

Let's face it- Marriott never intended the 13/12 month rule to be used the way many have manipulated the system. It was (and is) only supposed to be for consecutive or contiguous usage and not for enhancing trade value or to capture a hard to get week. I wouldn't be surprised if under any new system Marriott actually begins to enforce those rules. 

I can't see any way for Marriott to justify treating direct and resale purchasers differently wrt reservations, because all owners enjoy all the same legal rights wrt property usage. That is a huge factor in my opinion.

I certainly hope that the new system is no more complicated than the old. As resorts move to 5 day reservation systems (which makes sense from a housekeeping/cost control standpoint perhaps), things start to get complicated enough for limited unit views. Some resorts have 20 or so of the more specialized villas- OF, 3BR, etc., and the 13/12 rule delineates as few as 2 villas or so being available for each reservation day. Further breakdowns would just be a nightmare and might even be logistically impossible at certain resorts for certain categories. Thankfully, I feel certain that the legal restrictions will prevent a reservation breakdown such as you suggest as a possibility.


----------



## m61376 (Aug 31, 2009)

wildgrizzly said:


> Thus I elected not to purchase a direct developer property. I really don't see any benefit buying direct but to protect my resale from the future changes I may have entertained the idea w/ something written...



Worst case scenario is that it will cost more for resale buyers to join any possible future program. Most likely scenario is that at least all current owners will be treated equally. So- why pay for something now that likely will be a non-issue (unless you want a second low cost week)? Of course, since the salesperson was giving a meaningless sales pitch this discussion is academic, but my guess is that you are better off that the salesperson was making empty promises so you didn't bite.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 31, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Sue- The only difference I can think of is that they may have been able to proffer the argument that the 13/12 rule allowed owners who had purchased multiple weeks to use consecutively or concurrently to reserve their weeks in the manner in which they were sold. I can see that as a valid argument.
> 
> Let's face it- Marriott never intended the 13/12 month rule to be used the way many have manipulated the system. It was (and is) only supposed to be for consecutive or contiguous usage and not for enhancing trade value or to capture a hard to get week. I wouldn't be surprised if under any new system Marriott actually begins to enforce those rules.
> 
> ...



You and I are very close to agreement in all of this, except for the one little thing ....

Try this. Substitute "single- and multi-week owners" for "direct and resale purchasers" in your statement and you get this:

>>_I can't see any way for Marriott to justify treating single- and multi-week owners differently wrt reservations, because all owners enjoy all the same legal rights wrt property usage._<<

And now tell me how MVCI was able to legally differentiate between the two, offering a reservation advantage to one and not the other, without grandfathering in a continuation of the rule in effect for current owners at the time of the rule change.  And why a similar differential couldn't be made between any other groups of owners at any time in the future.

That's what I want to know - how and why it was legally possible to change the reservation procedure so that specific owners were given an advantage, once before.


----------



## m61376 (Aug 31, 2009)

Sue- I don't know how they were able to justify that. I am only surmising that they got away with arguing that at least half of the spots were reserved for single week owners and that they were trying to sustain a right of purchase, whereby multiple week owners bought for consecutive/concurrent use. Seems a bit of a far reach for me. Maybe no one called them to task and sued them; it is possible that it would not have been upheld.

But I think if they were foolish enough to impede on ownership usage rights and create a caste system based on purchase mode when the property rights conveyed are the same, it would not be met with a passive response.

Actually, I'd like to understand the legal justification for the 13/12 month change (if there was one).


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 31, 2009)

m61376 said:


> ... Actually, I'd like to understand the legal justification for the 13/12 month change (if there was one).



YES!!!  That's my whole point!!  Oh thank goodness, now we can rest.


----------



## beckster914 (Aug 31, 2009)

m61376 said:


> As resorts move to 5 day reservation systems



What does this mean?


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 31, 2009)

beckster914 said:


> What does this mean?



Several resorts have recently changed their calendars so that check-in is now available on five days - Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun and Mon - instead of the three days (Fri, Sat, Sun) that previously were available.  Aruba Surf Club is one of the resorts with a recent change; if you search around you might find the threads that mention the others.


----------



## beckster914 (Sep 1, 2009)

Oh I get it, thank you!


----------



## davidvel (Sep 1, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> I appreciate that you have a level of expertise that most of us do not, but still wonder why you disregard the fact that at one time MVCI did most certainly set up a two-tiered reservation system that significantly impacted and did not grandfather the owners at the time.  The 12/13 month rule differentiating between single- and multi-week owners hasn't been the rule since the inception of MVCI, but still it has applied since it's implementation to every MVCI ownership.
> 
> Is there something in the wording, or not, of the documents that allowed MVCI to "get away with" changing reservation rights then that is missing, or in place, in more recent documents?


Hi Sue! I admit that I have only reviewed the governing docs  for Shadow Ridge and my comments are generally limited to the language in those. I read some posts in the past about the change that you refer to but honestly am not familiar with the change other than it appears that at some point Marriott started to allow multiple week owners to reserve 13 months out when this was not permitted previously. 

Because I don't know anything about the structure of these resorts (ie. are they deded, do they have governing documents and an HOA, and what do they say?), it is impossible to provide any opinion as to whether the change was legal or not. If I could review actual documents I would be happy to do so. 

That being said, my *guess* is that at the time they made this "change", they began adding this to the governing documents for new resorts (as opposed to just being a "rule" for existing resorts.) If this is what happened, then there may be different "rights" among owners of different resorts, as those with deeded rights cannot have them changed. 

An aside, which would require another thread with 500+ posts, is that my opinion (based upon MRD's docs) is that the HOA is violating the CCRs by allowing owners who do not own at least 2 weeks at MRD to reserve at 13 months. In other words, my interpretation of the CCRs is that you must own both weeks at _your resort_ to qualify for the 13 month rule, as the CCRS say nothing about owning at another resort.


----------



## m61376 (Sep 1, 2009)

David- Your last point is interesting. My impression of the whole 13 month rule was that its initial intent was for owners to be able to use 2 or more weeks either together or consecutively so they could enjoy either a vacation with friends/family or a longer vacation. Along the way I think the 13 month rule has been perverted from its original intent.

Owners can't possibly be in two places at the same time, and they are unlikely to go from one end of the country to another in consecutive weeks. Yet the system allows this very large loophole and, whereas a few years ago single reservation numbers were given unless specifically requested, today separate numbers are pretty much routinely given (allowing one of the weeks to be canceled and/or traded).

Thanks for your interpretation. It would make sense that perhaps the CCRs were changed along the way, such that certain rights appeared in the governing documents of newer resorts as the MVCI program evolved. We also have to remember that it was easier for Marriott to make changes even 5 years ago than it is today, because it is just so much easier for owners today to get information here on Tug and elsewhere. It is possible that while Marriott may have only felt a ripple when they implemented the 13/12 rule in the past, today such a change might be met with a tidal wave of protest.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 1, 2009)

Thanks for your thoughts, David.  I admit, sometimes I get more confused by the terminology you use in your posts, insofar as applying it to every MVCI ownership.  For example, when you say "HOA," I think "MVCI as the property manager for all MVCI resorts" (as opposed to MVCI as the developer, or, MVCI as the HOA of only one specific resort.)  And then I start wondering how it is that the HOA/MVCI can establish and implement rules that apply generally to every floating week available at every resort which comes under the MVCI umbrella, because each resort was developed at different times and the specifics of each resort's CCR are not identical.  What protects Marriott/MVCI so that they can establish such blanket rules?  

These two issues in particular - the 12/13-month reservation rule change and the intended usage of the consecutive/concurrent reservations - cause such confusion, don't they?  I wish there was a way to ask MVCI Legal Dept. for the definitive answers of how and why they were legally able to implement the rule change, and how and why they are legally able to interpret the reservation usage as they do.

But of course, no company will offer their legal justifications until and unless they are forced in a court proceeding to do so, and it benefits MVCI greatly to be as vague as possible with the specifics to cover themselves.  So we just keep thinking and typing ...


----------



## Dean (Sep 1, 2009)

wildgrizzly said:


> Thus I elected not to purchase a direct developer property. I really don't see any benefit buying direct but to protect my resale from the future changes I may have entertained the idea w/ something written...


My point was that you asked for a future guarantee and I was offering you a current solution and different question to ask.  One that I asked and was successful in getting done including paperwork that documents it and confirmation from my advisor that it is set up correctly.


----------



## davidvel (Sep 1, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Thanks for your thoughts, David.  I admit, sometimes I get more confused by the terminology you use in your posts, insofar as applying it to every MVCI ownership.  For example, when you say "HOA," I think "MVCI as the property manager" (as opposed to MVCI as the developer.)


Sue,

You have hit on somehting that even many of the most seasoned TUGGERs miss. It is not an easy legal concept.  (Note, this explanation is limited to the HOA/CONDO model in CA, that may apply elsewhere but I have not reviewed those docs.)

People believe their resort is owned by Marriott, and Marriott makes all the rules for reservations, etc.,  which is not true. MVCI simply sells condo interests in a project. Once the units are sold, they don't own the resort, and until then only own the unsold units. They are no different than a developer of a new home tract. Your rights are governed by the CC&Rs and HOA, and MVCI only acts as a manager to provide those services and reservation systems. they only sold you the rights to use/reserve your project nothign else (except the points add-on which is legally a separate contractual obligation.)

From a legal standpoint, Marriott cannot "implement" anything that is at odds with the individual CC&Rs. As important, there is no "MASTER CC&R" that covers all resorts.  Marriott has been able to implement a successful program to make it appear as though there is one big MVCI resort system/program, but legally this is not true. Each resort is basically an indpedently operating condo project.



SueDonJ said:


> And then I start wondering how it is that the HOA/MVCI can establish and implement rules that apply generally to every floating week available at every resort which comes under the MVCI umbrella, because each resort was developed at different times and the specifics of each resort's CCR are not identical.  What protects Marriott/MVCI so that they can establish such blanket rules?


Now this is where you have noted an important point. The short answer is they cannot implement a blanket rule, if anything they do conflicts with any of the language in the governing docs of any resort. This is where the fun analysis really begins.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 1, 2009)

davidvel said:


> Sue,
> 
> You have hit on somehting that even many of the most seasoned TUGGERs miss. It is not an easy legal concept.  (Note, this explanation is limited to the HOA/CONDO model in CA, that may apply elsewhere but I have not reviewed those docs.)
> 
> ...



Okay, now I'm a little less confused about some things and a little more confused about others.   

There is Marriott, the parent company.  Then there is MVCI, the timeshare developer, which markets and sells the weeks.  Then there is MVCI, the management company, which (1) contracts with the developer at the outset and with the owners subsequently for renewal, (2) holds ownership rights to common areas of the various resorts, and (3) holds voting rights for matters pertaining to the various resorts.  Then there are the individual BOD's for each resort which (1) have MVCI employee(s) in at least one board position, (2) act as liason between MVCI the management company and the owners, (3) determine the budgets and m/f for their respective resorts, and (4) other things that I'm sure are necessary but I can't think of them now.    Is that right so far?

What confuses me is what you're saying about MVCI not making the rules for all reservations.  I get that they can't implement a blanket reservation policy across all MVCI resorts if the policy conflicts with CCR's of any one or more resorts, and I get that at least at some resorts, the reservation policy is stipulated in the CCR's.  But how is it that each individual resort follows the same 12/13-month reservation procedure through a centralized reservations office, if MVCI as the management company for all of the resorts does not have the authority to determine and implement that policy?  Are you saying that each individual BOD has the right to vote on whether or not to accept singular components (such as the reservations policy) of a management contract when they are considering renewal of the contracts, if the components are not stipulated in the CCR's?  I've always thought that if the resort owners elect to continue the contract with MVCI, then implicit in that election is the acceptance of all terms set by MVCI the developer within that contract, as well as the non-stipulated terms set by MVCI the management company.

Hmmmm.


----------



## Bill4728 (Sep 1, 2009)

> What confuses me is what you're saying about MVCI not making the rules for all reservations. I get that they can't implement a blanket reservation policy across all MVCI resorts if the policy conflicts with CCR's of any one or more resorts, and I get that at least at some resorts, the reservation policy is stipulated in the CCR's. But how is it that each individual resort follows the same 12/13-month reservation procedure through a centralized reservations office, if MVCI as the management company for all of the resorts does not have the authority to determine and implement that policy?


Every Marriott resort has a contract with MVCI ( the management company) so that MVCI would run the resort and reservations for each resort. So in the agreement there must be a clause which lets MVCI set up the 12/13 month rules. That contract may allow things that are not spelled out in the original resorts CCRs.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 1, 2009)

Bill4728 said:


> Every Marriott resort has a contract with MVCI ( the management company) so that MVCI would run the resort and reservations for each resort. So in the agreement there must be a clause which lets MVCI set up the 12/13 month rules. That contract may allow things that are not spelled out in the original resorts CCRs.



Right.  So MVCI did set up the 12/13-month rule for all resorts - it's contained in the management agreement even if it's not stipulated in the individual resorts' CCR's.  That's what I thought but it confused me when David wrote, "... People believe their resort is owned by Marriott, and Marriott makes all the rules for reservations, etc., which is not true."

But then of course this is all getting quite technical, and he is technically correct that Marriott (the parent company) does not set the rules, that MVCI (the management company) does.

Bill, were you an owner at the time the 12/13-month rule change was implemented?  Do you have any insight about how and why?


----------



## Dean (Sep 1, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Right.  So MVCI did set up the 12/13-month rule for all resorts - it's contained in the management agreement even if it's not stipulated in the individual resorts' CCR's.  That's what I thought but it confused me when David wrote, "... People believe their resort is owned by Marriott, and Marriott makes all the rules for reservations, etc., which is not true."
> 
> But then of course this is all getting quite technical, and he is technically correct that Marriott (the parent company) does not set the rules, that MVCI (the management company) does.
> 
> Bill, were you an owner at the time the 12/13-month rule change was implemented?  Do you have any insight about how and why?


I came on board around the time this rule started but own at GO where the written rules are quite a bit different.  It is my opinion that it would not withstand a legal challenge even though it is potententially available to all owners there though some might have to buy another week to take advantage.  The rules do say that Marriott can change the reservation system without input but I believe this rule conflicts with the other parameters and likely with the state laws in most states if not included in the POS.  BTW, joining a points system would take that arguement away in all likelihood.  My approach was to join them rather than try to beat them thus I now own 3 GO weeks, 5 HH weeks (2 at Surfwatch) and 8 weeks total with Marriott all that can be booked together and at least 2 of which that have reservations starting on Thursday.


----------



## davidvel (Sep 1, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> But how is it that each individual resort follows the same 12/13-month reservation procedure through a centralized reservations office, if MVCI as the management company for all of the resorts *does not have the authority to determine and implement that policy*?  Are you saying that each individual BOD has the right to vote on whether or not to accept singular components (such as the reservations policy) of a management contract when they are considering renewal of the contracts, if the components are not stipulated in the CCR's?  *I've always thought that if the resort owners elect to continue the contract with MVCI, then implicit in that election is the acceptance of all terms set by MVCI the developer within that contract, as well as the non-stipulated terms set by MVCI the management company.*


As I said before, I cannot comment on whether they had/have the authority or not without reviewing the opertive docs for the particular resort. Board cannot vote in new rules, and cannot "agree" to any contract term, that CONFLICTS or is inconsistent with deeded docs.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 1, 2009)

Bill4728 said:


> Every Marriott resort has a contract with MVCI ( the management company) so that MVCI would run the resort and reservations for each resort. So in the agreement there must be a clause which lets MVCI set up the 12/13 month rules. That contract may allow things that are not spelled out in the original resorts CCRs.


Our resort contract documents are from the time that the 12/13 month rules didn't exist yet but there is a clause in the contract that the MVC has the right to make changes to the reservation system.  I remember reading it many years after we bought but before we traded up to Maui.

I wished I could find these original documents.  I had put them aside to give them to one of the members here but we never met up so they ended up somewhere in a pile of papers but I lost the whole folder too.  I do not remember throwing that folder away and my SO keeps telling me that he didn't either.  If I find the documents, I will copy the text and post it here but there have to be other members who bought many years ago and still have the original papers too.  It would be nice if they look in the old documents and post the answer here.  This is for the MDSV-I and I don't know what other resorts date back to before the change.

In reality, nothing was taken away from us because we still have the 12 month reservation window but the inventory was cut in half and that made it much more difficult to get an exchange if you weren't very flexible like us.

If they would change the reservation window to 6 months only for some owners, then they are taking away a basic reservation right unless they have themselves covered in legal language that most people do not understand so not question either when they read the contract.


----------



## davidvel (Sep 2, 2009)

iconnections said:


> If I find the documents, I will copy the text and post it here but there have to be other members who bought many years ago and still have the original papers too.  It would be nice if they look in the old documents and post the answer here.  This is for the MDSV-I and I don't know what other resorts date back to before the change.


I would be very interested in seeing the orginal documents for DSVI (and exactly what those docs are comprised of.)


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 2, 2009)

davidvel said:


> I would be very interested in seeing the orginal documents for DSVI (and exactly what those docs are comprised of.)


I will look some more when we get back from Europe with a MRPs' trip.    I wished someone else would post it as there have to be other owners too since the beginning and bought from the Marriott direct but they may not be TUGgers.  How about *Cathyb*?  I know that she bought from the developer and has owned there many years. 

This is also one of the resorts that do not have the ROFR clause in the contract either but it makes no difference now because *ALL* prices are depressed.  Have a look here and it will make you feel awful if you bought from the developer direct unless you hold on and try to enjoy the resort.  Times will change again and certainly if inflation takes off which it has to.  Let's be honest.


----------

