# [ 2013 ] Resort Not Allowing Deposit



## poleary2000 (Mar 4, 2013)

I called my home resort and asked to deposit a certain week into RCI.  I own a floating week and as long as you reserve early enough you can get prime weeks.  The representative said, "We do not allow owners to bank summer weeks.  If we did, then we would have non-owners vacationing here during the time of year when most owners want to actually be here."  I explained to him nicely that that is how the concept of timesharing works, especially if you are a resort that joined with RCI or Interval.  He wouldn't budge.  I have a voicemail and an email into the reservations supervisor.  

Has anyone ever heard of this practice?  Of only allowing certain weeks to be deposited to RCI or Interval?  I've done the same thing at the same resort for two years now.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Mar 4, 2013)

What resort?  I worry about this becoming a trend.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 4, 2013)

Spinnaker Palace View


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 4, 2013)

poleary2000 said:


> I called my home resort and asked to deposit a certain week into RCI.  I own a floating week and as long as you reserve early enough you can get prime weeks.  The representative said, "We do not allow owners to bank summer weeks.  If we did, then we would have non-owners vacationing here during the time of year when most owners want to actually be here."  I explained to him nicely that that is how the concept of timesharing works, especially if you are a resort that joined with RCI or Interval.  He wouldn't budge.  I have a voicemail and an email into the reservations supervisor.
> 
> Has any ever heard of this practice?  Of only allowing certain weeks to be deposited to RCI or Interval?  I've done the same thing at the same resort for two years now.


There are a number of resorts that do this.  I'm in the minority here at TUG in that I think there that is a perfectly fine practice.

It comes down to a question of what the resort priorities are. I see nothing wrong with a floating weeks resort that says, "Our first priority is to be able to 'yes' to as many usage requests by returning owners as possible."  If that is the resort philosophy then it makes perfect sense to reserve the high demand weeks for use by returning owners.  Of course there will be a hit in trading power for owners who want to exchange, but since the resort's number one priority is to accommodate returning that is consistent with resort philosophy. Note that that also makes the resort more attractive to owners who are unable to plan their travel ten months to a year in advance.  

I also have no problem with a resort that says, "first come, first served" when it comes to reservations. I think it's a good thing to have resorts that operate differently, so that there can be more choices available and people can find resorts that best fit their personal situations.


----------



## DAman (Mar 4, 2013)

*Rules and Regulations*

I think this needs to be spelled out in the association rules.  

Unwritten policies are subject to the whim of individuals and can be selectively used. I would be upset if I was not allowed to deposit a prime week into RCI/II and later on I see a prime week available for exchange.

If an association decides to do this it needs to be in writing and approved by the board.  Then it needs to be enforced.

Could this be a violation of the association's agreement with RCI?  A resort can't have it both ways-an exchanger has no access to a resort's best weeks but the owners of the resort have access to other resorts best weeks by using non summer weeks to deposit then exchange.....

Just me two cents worth on a Monday morning.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 4, 2013)

DAman said:


> I think this needs to be spelled out in the association rules.
> 
> Unwritten policies are subject to the whim of individuals and can be selectively used. I would be upset if I was not allowed to deposit a prime week into RCI/II and later on I see a prime week available for exchange.
> 
> ...



I was just in the midst of writing something similar.  If the resort wants to structure things that way, that's fine.  It's their choice, but current owners should be notified and part of the approval process before making a change like this.  I would think that RCI would be interested in these types of practices - resorts cherry picking which weeks can and can't be deposited.  Though, maybe not.


----------



## MichaelColey (Mar 4, 2013)

Call back (and make sure you're talking to someone else) and try again.  Sounds like just one person's rules rather than company policy.

Have you considered that the summer weeks might already be taken?  I know I called in and deposited mine (prepaying the MFs) last June/July, 365 days before the check-in date of the week I wanted to deposit.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 4, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> Call back (and make sure you're talking to someone else) and try again.  Sounds like just one person's rules rather than company policy.
> 
> Have you considered that the summer weeks might already be taken?  I know I called in and deposited mine (prepaying the MFs) last June/July, 365 days before the check-in date of the week I wanted to deposit.



Yes, I have booked mine 365 days in advance per your previous advice.  These weeks are actually for weeks that I reserved during the purchase process of a new unit.  Thus, they are reserved in my name for those weeks and I now want to bank them.  

I'll try back.


----------



## BevL (Mar 4, 2013)

It's not terribly uncommon as far as resorts go.  But if you've not had a problem before and have a problem now, I'd definitely be following up.  Was there something in the AGM minutes or some correspondence sent out to owners about it?  If not, and you've been able to deposit summer weeks before, it shoudn't be arbitrrily changed without at least some discussion and notice, or that's my two cents worth.


----------



## DAman (Mar 4, 2013)

*Devaluation*

The more I think about it this would be a major devaluation of an owner's TS.  I know when I look at a purchase I often look at the TPU's available in RCI and I try to guess what the exchange would be worth in RCI.  Of course I try to follow the rule to purchase where I want to travel so if in case the exchanging thing goes away I like what I have.

Now rules are rules. If when I purchased the rule was no exchange of prime summer weeks into RCI then I am stuck.  If the board wants to change the rule then so be it. Of course all proper procedures should be followed.  Also the rule would need to apply to everyone.  Nothing galls me more than selective enforcement of rules.

What about renting?  Can they stop you from renting your reserved summer unit or privately exchanging? I'm sure there a re lot of TUGGERS out there smarter than me that can think of other issues related to this.  I think the owners through their board need to answer this.  Of course micromanaging has its own issues.

I would think that RCI and II would have issues with this too.

As with many things discussed here I would like to see how this plays out.


----------



## dougp26364 (Mar 4, 2013)

I find the excuse given amusing since Palace View is possibly the easiest resort to exchange into during summer months in Branson. It's one we regularly avoid because the construction/insulation in Palace View South is so poor that we could hear converstations in the units above, below and on the sides. 

This is also worrisome because we own a week at French Quarter Resort in Branson, which is now managed by Spinnaker. In the past we've used our resort week but we had been contemplating exchanging during our next usage year. Since we don't like RCI and no longer have an RCI membership, we were thinking about using SFX. I wonder if we'll not only be restricted to what weeks we can deposit but also if Spinnaker will attempt to limit who our week can be deposited with? If so, it might be time to just get rid of that week and buy another week at a resort we'd prefer to own.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 4, 2013)

DAman said:


> I think this needs to be spelled out in the association rules.
> 
> Unwritten policies are subject to the whim of individuals and can be selectively used. I would be upset if I was not allowed to deposit a prime week into RCI/II and later on I see a prime week available for exchange.
> 
> ...


The resorts that I am familiar with do have it in the timeshare program documents.  Usually these are resorts that operate bulk banking programs, and the bulk banking program is included in the resort's agreement with the exchange company.  For example, at Point at Poipu if an owner tries to deposit a reserved week, RCI won't accept the deposit.  And if they should happen to get the deposit made, then it will get bounced when RCI verifies the deposit with the resort.

The bigger problem occurs when poorly informed resort personnel try to apply those same rules with independent exchange companies, where the bulk banking rules don't apply. Or they tell the owner that the owner cannot deposit with the independent exchange company because the resort doesn't have an agreement with the company.


----------



## Quadmaniac (Mar 4, 2013)

It seems like a silly rule as in most places, it is first come first serve. Not sure why they care as long as the owners pay their MF, who cares who is using it ? If an owner really wants a summer week to use, they can be first in line when reservations open up. 

As long as the resort is maintaining the property and serving its guests well, what's the problem ?


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2013)

Management and developers sometimes make rules that they have no legal authority to make.  Always demand that they show you where in the Declaration it allows them to do this.  

Also, you might try filing a complaint with the state Real Estate Commission. Some will get involved to help timeshare owners, while some will not.  It is worth a try.

Crap such as this is one reason why I always believe it is better to own fixed weeks instead of floating weeks.  The cannot play games with you on fixed weeks.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 4, 2013)

They have ZERO right to tell you how you can use the week you OWN! What's next - you can't rent it either? Demand your week & the use you want or withhold fees/demand a discount. Read the docs. Unless they specifically say no trade of weeks X to X then you are being denied your rightful use of your ownership. Don't roll over & accept it.


----------



## california-bighorn (Mar 4, 2013)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> There are a number of resorts that do this.  I'm in the minority here at TUG in that I think there that is a perfectly fine practice.
> 
> It comes down to a question of what the resort priorities are. I see nothing wrong with a floating weeks resort that says, "Our first priority is to be able to 'yes' to as many usage requests by returning owners as possible."  If that is the resort philosophy then it makes perfect sense to reserve the high demand weeks for use by returning owners.  Of course there will be a hit in trading power for owners who want to exchange, but since the resort's number one priority is to accommodate returning that is consistent with resort philosophy. Note that that also makes the resort more attractive to owners who are unable to plan their travel ten months to a year in advance.
> 
> I also have no problem with a resort that says, "first come, first served" when it comes to reservations. I think it's a good thing to have resorts that operate differently, so that there can be more choices available and people can find resorts that best fit their personal situations.



I agree with the above 100%.   The prime weeks should be available for the owners for their use.


----------



## bogey21 (Mar 4, 2013)

Carolinian said:


> Crap such as this is one reason why I always believe it is better to own fixed weeks instead of floating weeks.  The cannot play games with you on fixed weeks.



I came to the same conclusion years ago; sold my Floating Weeks; and replaced them with Fixed Weeks (at other Resorts).

George


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 4, 2013)

Quadmaniac said:


> It seems like a silly rule as in most places, it is first come first serve. Not sure why they care as long as the owners pay their MF, who cares who is using it ? If an owner really wants a summer week to use, they can be first in line when reservations open up.
> 
> As long as the resort is maintaining the property and serving its guests well, what's the problem ?



What seems silly to me is how so many people have a problem that some resorts might choose to operate differently from other resorts.

Why should timesharing optimized for only one class of people - in this case those who have an ability to plan out a year in advance.  What is the problem with having some resorts set up for people in that situations, while other resorts might be more friendly to people who can't plan so far in advance?


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 4, 2013)

california-bighorn said:


> I agree with the above 100%.   The prime weeks should be available for the owners for their use.



First come first served is fine. But restricting use once the OWNER has the reservation is not unless it was agreed to at purchase disclosure. What you think about it doesn't matter. Real estate/condo laws are all that matter & they clearly state one owner cannot be favored over another.


----------



## csxjohn (Mar 4, 2013)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> What seems silly to me is how so many people have a problem that some resorts might choose to operate differently from other resorts.
> 
> Why should timesharing optimized for only one class of people - in this case those who have an ability to plan out a year in advance.  What is the problem with having some resorts set up for people in that situations, while other resorts might be more friendly to people who can't plan so far in advance?



My problem is that the OP could do this the past few years and without warning he has been told he can't do it now.

That's not right, unless it was done legally, no matter what anyone thinks about how timeshares should be run.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 4, 2013)

csxjohn said:


> My problem is that the OP could do this the past few years and without warning he has been told he can't do it now.
> 
> That's not right, unless it was done legally, no matter what anyone thinks about how timeshares should be run.



That's all going to depend on what's in the timeshare program documents. That information is not available as of now, yet there are many who have already decided the case.  Methinks that's because for many people what the program documents is not relevant to their opinion as to whether or not this is legitimate.

*****

I could add that when I was first learning about timeshares, I shared that opinion.  With a bit more experience, including owning at resorts with different types of setups (fixed week, fixed season, points, floating, floating with bulk banking), my thinking evolved.  Particularly when I realized that I didn't need to book weeks before I knew what my wife's vacation schedule would be. 

I got to a point where I can appreciate the value and benefits of all types of systems.  I realized that one size does not fit all.  Whenever this topic comes up it is readily apparent that I am in a distinct minority here with that viewpoint on this topic.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 4, 2013)

Didn't Starwood implement a policy of choosing which weeks are deposited when an owner exchanges out?  I seem to remember reading something about that when the change was made?!  Whatever the change was, TUGgers weren't happy about it and that's why I remember it.  

Marriott processes exchanges either way - owners can simply elect to exchange in which case Owner Services will choose the week to be deposited, or, owners can elect to book any available week in season and then deposit it with the exchange company on their own.  The docs appear to give Marriott plenty of leeway to institute practically any system we can think of when it comes to priorities and placements.



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> There are a number of resorts that do this.  I'm in the minority here at TUG in that I think there that is a perfectly fine practice. ...



I'm in this camp as well.  It doesn't bother me how it's done in the Marriott system right now but I wouldn't be complaining if they changed it, either.  (I also wouldn't complain if they gave owners staying on their own weeks a priority over guests who are renting from other owners, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish that riles up most TUGgers.)


----------



## Quadmaniac (Mar 4, 2013)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> What seems silly to me is how so many people have a problem that some resorts might choose to operate differently from other resorts.
> 
> Why should timesharing optimized for only one class of people - in this case those who have an ability to plan out a year in advance.  What is the problem with having some resorts set up for people in that situations, while other resorts might be more friendly to people who can't plan so far in advance?



Unfortunately that's life, first come first serve. Early bird gets the worm. It's like people going to a movie theatre late and complaining that they can't get a good seat. Worst case, guess what time might work, reserve the week and if it does not work, change it later. 

Would you expect the resort to hold back weeks for the late comers and deny the people who were in line first the best choice in weeks ? Doesn't make much sense.

When I am in the airport lining up to get to the front counter ticket agent, I would be miffed if late comers to my flight get ahead of me in line.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 4, 2013)

Quadmaniac said:


> Unfortunately that's life, first come first serve. Early bird gets the worm. It's like people going to a movie theatre late and complaining that they can't get a good seat. Worst case, guess what time might work, reserve the week and if it does not work, change it later.
> 
> Would you expect the resort to hold back weeks for the late comers and deny the people who were in line first the best choice in weeks ? Doesn't make much sense.


Huh? When did I say that?

What I did say was that it seemed to me to be perfectly fine for a resort to set up a system where those who reserve a summer week have to use the week instead of deposit it. If an owner isn't going to use  their summer week themselves, then it goes to the next owner in line.

Essentially, granting owner usage preference for the highest demand weeiks.

Nor am I saying the *every* resort needs to operate that way.  I guess unlike others I think that letting multiple options exist in the marketplace is a good idea.


----------



## Quadmaniac (Mar 4, 2013)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Huh? When did I say that?
> 
> What I did say was that it seemed to me to be perfectly fine for a resort to set up a system where those who reserve a summer week have to use the week instead of deposit it. If an owner isn't going to use  their summer week themselves, then it goes to the next owner in line.
> 
> ...



Sorry if I misread your message. I thought that is what you meant


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 4, 2013)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> That's all going to depend on what's in the timeshare program documents. That information is not available as of now, yet there are many who have already decided the case.  Methinks that's because for many people what the program documents is not relevant to their opinion as to whether or not this is legitimate.
> .



That is the key. What is in the original documents is what you agreed to. While I've never seen any that specifically says an owner cannot reserve/ deposit prime weeks I suppose they could exist (although who would buy would be even more limited than the pool of timeshare buyers already is). If it ISN'T spelled out in the documents the management/Board/HOA has no right to impose such a rule as it changes the rights granted & guaranteed to the buyer/owners.  If they try to impose such a rule the owners affected should rightfully revolt &, if needed, sue them for property rights interference.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 4, 2013)

bogey21 said:


> I came to the same conclusion years ago; sold my Floating Weeks; and replaced them with Fixed Weeks (at other Resorts).
> 
> George



And what if they told you your fixed week would be changed to a fall week if you planned to deposit it? Otherwise a dreaded exchanger / renter may be on site during the prime time!  It is the exact same thing as wild as it sounds. The owner of a float time week that includes the prime times gets what they reserve and then can do as they please with it. Just like a fixed week owner as they ARE the owner of that specific week for that use year. The resort and other owners have no say over what that owner does with it.  (Again, unless there was a restriction specifically spelled out in the sales disclosure and resort documents).


----------



## MichaelColey (Mar 5, 2013)

dougp26364 said:


> I find the excuse given amusing since Palace View is possibly the easiest resort to exchange into during summer months in Branson.


I think this is the key to it all.  If it's so easy to exchange into, obviously SOMEONE is able to deposit summer weeks.  If they weren't allowing owners to deposit summer weeks, there wouldn't be summer weeks in RCI for people to exchange into.  The excuse is just a lie.

Now if they said they didn't have any more summer weeks available, I might believe that.  Summer is just 3-6 months away.  People have been able to book summer weeks for 6-9 months now (like I did).  Even those who waited to pay their MFs until they were due have been able to book for 2 months.  Most people I know (even non-timeshare people) have already planned their summer vacations.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were all reserved/deposited already.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 5, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> And what if they told you your fixed week would be changed to a fall week if you planned to deposit it? Otherwise a dreaded exchanger / renter may be on site during the prime time!  It is the exact same thing as wild as it sounds. The owner of a float time week that includes the prime times gets what they reserve and then can do as they please with it. Just like a fixed week owner as they ARE the owner of that specific week for that use year. The resort and other owners have no say over what that owner does with it.  (Again, unless there was a restriction specifically spelled out in the sales disclosure and resort documents).


With the exception of Wastegate (which is in a class by itself) I am not aware of any resort with seasonal float that is switching seasons when depositing.  The resorts that I am familiar with that IMHO have deployed this appropriately are year round floats - no seasonal classifications.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 5, 2013)

Because I had confirmed reservation IDs, I called RCI and had them try to do the deposit.  They were not able to.  

I'll try again at the resort.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 5, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> Call back (and make sure you're talking to someone else) and try again.  Sounds like just one person's rules rather than company policy.
> 
> Have you considered that the summer weeks might already be taken?  I know I called in and deposited mine (prepaying the MFs) last June/July, 365 days before the check-in date of the week I wanted to deposit.



I called back (waited 20 minutes) and got someone else.  She said "sure, they should be requested today and deposited in the next day."

I'll check on it and report back.


----------



## deannak (Mar 6, 2013)

poleary2000 said:


> I called back (waited 20 minutes) and got someone else.  She said "sure, they should be requested today and deposited in the next day."
> 
> I'll check on it and report back.



I'm glad you got a better answer! Hope it all goes through OK.  

It really makes me wonder why the first person you talked to had some other idea of the rules, though.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Mar 6, 2013)

*Your Week Should be Your Week*



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> There are a number of resorts that do this.  I'm in the minority here at TUG in that I think there that is a perfectly fine practice.
> 
> It comes down to a question of what the resort priorities are. I see nothing wrong with a floating weeks resort that says, "Our first priority is to be able to 'yes' to as many usage requests by returning owners as possible."  If that is the resort philosophy then it makes perfect sense to reserve the high demand weeks for use by returning owners.  Of course there will be a hit in trading power for owners who want to exchange, but since the resort's number one priority is to accommodate returning that is consistent with resort philosophy. Note that that also makes the resort more attractive to owners who are unable to plan their travel ten months to a year in advance.
> 
> I also have no problem with a resort that says, "first come, first served" when it comes to reservations. I think it's a good thing to have resorts that operate differently, so that there can be more choices available and people can find resorts that best fit their personal situations.



I understand the reasons that a resort might not want someone to deposit a prime summer week, however, it is YOUR week.  You paid a higher price for the prime summer week, you pay the maintenance, you want to deposit and exchange to another resort with the most trading power that you are owed.  We own RCI points so this is never an issue.  February and March is prime winter  in South Florida.  Our Week 8 at Misner Place is automatically deposited every year.  We can reserve week 8 or any other week we want there or use our points at another resort.  We spend February and March using our Hilton Timeshares at the Hilton Hawaiian Village.  We wouldn't think of coming home to use week 8 in South Florida.  We would go off the wall if we had weeks and Misner Place said that we couldn't deposit our week 8.  Making more rules to limit the use of YOUR owned property is not in the best interest of timesharing.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 6, 2013)

Tamaradarann said:


> I understand the reasons that a resort might not want someone to deposit a prime summer week, however, it is YOUR week.  You paid a higher price for the prime summer week, you pay the maintenance, you want to deposit and exchange to another resort with the most trading power that you are owed.  We own RCI points so this is never an issue.  February and March is prime winter  in South Florida.  Our Week 8 at Misner Place is automatically deposited every year.  We can reserve week 8 or any other week we want there or use our points at another resort.  We spend February and March using our Hilton Timeshares at the Hilton Hawaiian Village.  We wouldn't think of coming home to use week 8 in South Florida.  We would go off the wall if we had weeks and Misner Place said that we couldn't deposit our week 8.  Making more rules to limit the use of YOUR owned property is not in the best interest of timesharing.



As I indicated in a later post (I can see I should have been clear in my first post) I'm not talking about giving people weeks that are outside of their usage pool.  I'm referring to weeks that are inside the usage pool for the owner.  

So if they have a summer week, they might not be able to deposit a Fourth of July week, but might be able to deposit a June or September week.  

And to further reiterate, this needs to be appropriately incorporated into the timeshare program documents.


----------



## Bill4728 (Mar 6, 2013)

As Steve has said  _"this needs to be appropriately incorporated into the timeshare program documents"_

Also as others have said that some TS companies don't let you deposit reserved weeks but the system "bulk banks" a whole bunch of weeks and those weeks are what owners are trading. Many of the point based TS companies do this.  

So there are many TS systems that don't let you deposit the week you could have reserved.


----------



## dougp26364 (Mar 6, 2013)

Bill4728 said:


> As Steve has said  _"this needs to be appropriately incorporated into the timeshare program documents"_
> 
> Also as others have said that some TS companies don't let you deposit reserved weeks but the system "bulk banks" a whole bunch of weeks and those weeks are what owners are trading. Many of the point based TS companies do this.
> 
> So there are many TS systems that don't let you deposit the week you could have reserved.



With points programs I have no issue with what week might be deposited because points have an assigned constant value for exchange within the exchange companies. 

The question becomes, do all weeks have the same exchange power within the exchange company when the resort deposits a specific week? With Branson, summer weeks are considerably more valuable than Spring/Fall/Winter weeks. If the week deposited by the HOA has the same value in the exchange comanies eyes, then I could care less which week is deposited. Save the higher value summer weeks for owners of the resorts if, and only if, all things are equal.

If all things are not equal then the HOA is giving owners less value for their ownership when they assign a less than desirable week with the exchange company. They're potentially devalueing the ownership based on the owners desire to exchane. I have yet to sit through a sales presentation where the value of exchange is not sold as a benefit by the salesman. In fact I've sat through several presentations where a salesman has said buy here because the MF's are lower and trade into resorts with high MF. Why own a premium resort with premium MF's when you can buy cheap and trade in. A practice that has been commonly stated here on TUG as well (South African weeks as an example. There are others as well). 

Now I'll agree that salesmen are your WORST source for advice but, when you have a lot of owners who bought direct and have heard that line, then it's a problem when the HOA tells an owner something different. When I'm told that any week is equal to any other week in trade power, my common responce has been, "Then just deposit the week I'm telling you to deposit. You just told me it doesn't make a difference." 

Logic tells an owner that demand does make a different in a barter system. The more in demand, the more you can get in  trade. The example is exemplified by sports teams trading players. The more valuable the player, the more they can get in exchange.

I realize that how things appear and how they really are may often be two different things. It's still tough to argue when the weeks are sold by telling lies and when life experience teaches us the opposite of what we're being told. It would be helpful to have the exchange company tell us it doesn't make a difference but, they seem to remain mute on the subject.


----------



## stevedmatt (Mar 6, 2013)

I think this is common for Spinnaker. I own at Waterside and they do the same thing there. 

If you own a fixed week in the summer, you may deposit it if you wish. That would be silly IMO as it will rent for above fees, but your prerogative. This may explain why you do see some summer weeks available for exchange. 

If you own a float week, you can reserve a summer week and rent it, again for above fees, but they will not allow you to deposit it. If you plan to deposit, the ideal time to reserve would be for another peak week outside of summer, like Easter or Christmas.

I personally have no problem with these rules but understand why some would, especially if it isn't explained in any documentation.


----------



## tschwa2 (Mar 6, 2013)

Don't forget this is the same management company that decided to require that resale buyers pay $1500 to Southwind management for prepaid MF's before recognizing new resale purchases.  They control the HOA's and make up their own rules and until someone challenges them and wins in court I think they will continue to make rules that benefit themselves first and owners second.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 6, 2013)

dougp26364 said:


> With points programs I have no issue with what week might be deposited because points have an assigned constant value for exchange within the exchange companies.
> 
> The question becomes, do all weeks have the same exchange power within the exchange company when the resort deposits a specific week? With Branson, summer weeks are considerably more valuable than Spring/Fall/Winter weeks. If the week deposited by the HOA has the same value in the exchange comanies eyes, then I could care less which week is deposited. Save the higher value summer weeks for owners of the resorts if, and only if, all things are equal.
> 
> ...



Yep, your thought process makes perfect sense.  But it still comes down to whether the big bad timeshare companies have given themselves the right to do things their way, and in many cases that answer is yes.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 6, 2013)

tschwa2 said:


> Don't forget this is the same management company that decided to require that resale buyers pay $1500 to Southwind management for prepaid MF's before recognizing new resale purchases.  They control the HOA's and make up their own rules and until someone challenges them and wins in court I think they will continue to make rules that benefit themselves first and owners second.



Yes, lucky for me, my seller paid that entire amount up front.


----------



## Beefnot (Mar 6, 2013)

poleary2000 said:


> I called back (waited 20 minutes) and got someone else.  She said "sure, they should be requested today and deposited in the next day."
> 
> I'll check on it and report back.



Always ask for Janine (sp., pronounced Jay-neen) when you seek to deposit. That other gal over there pulls that silliness about not depositing prime weeks 21-31.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 7, 2013)

I received a voicemail last night and haven't been able to reach anyone back there yet today.  I am being told that there is an addendum by the developer to only allow deposits for weeks 1-20 and weeks 36-52.  

I'll share more as I get in touch with someone.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 7, 2013)

For this time only, they are going to allow me to finish the deposit as my reservation shows.  I was emailed an addendum that states there is a Owners Usage period for weeks 21-33 that will not allow "spacebanking".  

Anyhow, I have what I want for now.  We'll see what next year brings.


----------



## bogey21 (Mar 7, 2013)

Just proves that making noise and being persistant pays off.  Worked for me with Deed Backs and worked for you here.

George


----------



## jlr10 (Mar 7, 2013)

I agree that a resort can do what ever is agreed to with their deposit process.  I also agree that it would be frustrating to not be able to use a prime week for deposit to have good trading power.  But I also think it would be frustrating to not be able to obtain a week at a home resort because the weeks have been snapped up by people reserving them simply for an exchange. I am not talking about calling weeks before the planned vacation but calling at 9:01 and being told that all the weeks were snapped up in less than a minute and better luck next year.  This leaves the only option having to pay an exchange fee to get the week that another owner deposited at their home resort. But if those are the rules then they are the rules.  No way is ideal.  The only way to be successful is to really know the rules of the resort and the timeshare system.   (Easy for me to say because we can travel off season and get our exchange where we want and when we want.)

This is why I like TUG. Everyone has a fair and honest opinion, and we are able to learn from each other how to get the best out of what we have.


----------



## MichaelColey (Mar 7, 2013)

poleary2000 said:


> I received a voicemail last night and haven't been able to reach anyone back there yet today. I am being told that there is an addendum by the developer to only allow deposits for weeks 1-20 and weeks 36-52.


So I wonder how they explain all the inventory in RCI and II for weeks 21-35?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 7, 2013)

jlr10 said:


> I am not talking about calling weeks before the planned vacation but calling at 9:01 and being told that all the weeks were snapped up in less than a minute and better luck next year.



It's often much worse than that.  In many reservation systems, if you are booking a multiweek stay you can book the entire reservation based on the check-in day.  So people who have mulitple week ownerships (or sufficient points) simply start their reservation the week before. So let's say you want to rent out Christmas and New Years in Hawaii, because those are money maker weeks.  You create the reservation the week before Christmas, and book all three weeks, even though Christmas and New Years Weeks are not yet generally available.  

Now when the Christmas week reservations window opens up, people calling up first thing in the morning on those days find that the resort is already half-booked.  And a portion of those people will now book both Christmas and New Years weeks.  So when New Years week opens up there is only limited availability.


----------



## Beefnot (Mar 7, 2013)

jlr10 said:


> I agree that a resort can do what ever is agreed to with their deposit process.  I also agree that it would be frustrating to not be able to use a prime week for deposit to have good trading power.  But I also think it would be frustrating to not be able to obtain a week at a home resort because the weeks have been snapped up by people reserving them simply for an exchange. I am not talking about calling weeks before the planned vacation but calling at 9:01 and being told that all the weeks were snapped up in less than a minute and better luck next year.  This leaves the only option having to pay an exchange fee to get the week that another owner deposited at their home resort. But if those are the rules then they are the rules.  No way is ideal.



Agree in principle. However, with Palace View, you could likely call right now three months out and still get a prime week reservation for 2013. There is no good reason for them to disallow prime deposits.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 7, 2013)

Everyone has good points.  I can see it from all angles.  However, if they want to create different classes of floating weeks, they should have had the foresight to do so when they deeded the units.  Changing the rules after someone becomes an owner, just isn't a good business practice in my eyes; especially when you fail to compensate the owners you have bias against and are the ones that are typically paying maintenance fees on-time, often 6 months early, without fail.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 7, 2013)

Here's a weird rule for limiting deposits: Aquamarine Villas (in Oceanside, CA, north of San Diego) only permits weekday check-ins to be deposited into RCI. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday check-ins can not be deposited. I'm not sure if that rule is just for summer weeks (for which there is intense competition), or year-round. I own there, but I have only booked summer weeks.


----------



## MichaelColey (Mar 7, 2013)

poleary2000 said:


> Everyone has good points. I can see it from all angles. However, if they want to create different classes of floating weeks, they should have had the foresight to do so when they deeded the units. Changing the rules after someone becomes an owner, just isn't a good business practice in my eyes; especially when you fail to compensate the owners you have bias against and are the ones that are typically paying maintenance fees on-time, often 6 months early, without fail.


TOTALLY AGREE.

And they still need to explain why there are so many summer weeks available in RCI and II if owners are not allowed to deposit them...


----------



## Beefnot (Mar 7, 2013)

dougp26364 said:


> Since we don't like RCI and no longer have an RCI membership, we were thinking about using SFX. I wonder if we'll not only be restricted to what weeks we can deposit but also if Spinnaker will attempt to limit who our week can be deposited with? If so, it might be time to just get rid of that week and buy another week at a resort we'd prefer to own.



Doug, just saw your comment here.  Spinnaker absolutely limits what weeks can be deposited with exchanges outside of RCI and II, at least with Palace View.  Doesn't matter who you talk to, they will not let you deposit weeks 21-31 at all with SFX.  Only positive is that at least SFX considers 32 to still be a prime deposit, though not as highly valued as, say, weeks 23-27.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 7, 2013)

poleary2000 said:


> Everyone has good points.  I can see it from all angles.  However, if they want to create different classes of floating weeks, they should have had the foresight to do so when they deeded the units.  Changing the rules after someone becomes an owner, just isn't a good business practice in my eyes; especially when you fail to compensate the owners you have bias against and are the ones that are typically paying maintenance fees on-time, often 6 months early, without fail.



Not only isn't good business practice it is illegal! Any change to the sales documents made after the sale has to be approved by both parties. In the case of a condo / timeshare that means an affirmative vote by the majority of members to implement such a change. Neither the Board or Management can unilaterally impose any restriction on the deeded rights.

This whole idea of  "we prohibit it but really we don't (wink wink)" is BS.  It is either in the docs and thus not allowed OR it isn't and they are breaking the law by creating non-existent restriction on use.  The rules are what were agreed to at the original time of sale. If that means someone can "jump ahead" and grab weeks  before other owners then it's too bad - the buyers agreed to it!  If it says you can't rent then you can't. No exceptions for "blessed" parties or those who deal with special entitlements or insider knowledge and contacts. 

It sounds like they have created a monster and had better revert to whatever the documents allow or plan to lose to a legitimate owners lawsuit.  The Board and Management could be held liable if they continue to break the law after it has been pointed out to them.  If I were an owner there I'd be phoning my attorney about now.


----------



## poleary2000 (Mar 7, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Not only isn't good business practice it is illegal! Any change to the sales documents made after the sale has to be approved by both parties. In the case of a condo / timeshare that means an affirmative vote by the majority of members to implement such a change. Neither the Board or Management can unilaterally impose any restriction on the deeded rights.
> 
> This whole idea of  "we prohibit it but really we don't (wink wink)" is BS.  It is either in the docs and thus not allowed OR it isn't and they are breaking the law by creating non-existent restriction on use.  The rules are what were agreed to at the original time of sale. If that means someone can "jump ahead" and grab weeks  before other owners then it's too bad - the buyers agreed to it!  If it says you can't rent then you can't. No exceptions for "blessed" parties or those who deal with special entitlements or insider knowledge and contacts.
> 
> It sounds like they have created a monster and had better revert to whatever the documents allow or plan to lose to a legitimate owners lawsuit.  The Board and Management could be held liable if they continue to break the law after it has been pointed out to them.  If I were an owner there I'd be phoning my attorney about now.



Just relaying what I've been told so far, in one of the notes I was told that the addendum was instituted by the developer so no votes were necessary.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 7, 2013)

poleary2000 said:


> Just relaying what I've been told so far, in one of the notes I was told that the addendum was instituted by the developer so no votes were necessary.



Just because they decide to do it doesn't mean they can. Look at Wastegate. Who says they can impose it?  There are no provisions for anyone - not even the developer - to change the docs once even one unit has been sold. If they don't hold a clear majority vote they can't change things. And no change can alter/restrict previous buyers terms only new buyers after the date if any change. It's not retroactive.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Mar 7, 2013)

*I Love these arbitrary deposit and check-in rules!*



JudyS said:


> Here's a weird rule for limiting deposits: Aquamarine Villas (in Oceanside, CA, north of San Diego) only permits weekday check-ins to be deposited into RCI. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday check-ins can not be deposited. I'm not sure if that rule is just for summer weeks (for which there is intense competition), or year-round. I own there, but I have only booked summer weeks.



I think that the arbitrary rules that resorts make are ridiculous.  Aquamarine probably has few if any weekday check-ins so that you cannot deposit your weeks that you bought, pay maintenance, and OWN.  I love the Hilton points system, it is the closest thing to a hotel booking system there is.  Your resort is  automatically deposited into points, you use the points to check-ins any day of the week for as many days as you want in any resort in the system.  You get home resort priority from 12-9 months out and after that all members have the 
same priority. 

We also own an RCI Points resort.  In 2008 when we wanted to book from Monday to Thursday RCI told us there was no A side(full kitchen big Lanai) availability and had to book a sister resort down the street.  When we got to the resort that we own and we wanted to stay at we checked and there was A side availability but they were renting out nightly to walk-ins for the nights we wanted.  They switched our reservation to the resort we wanted and actually moved people out of the apartment that we were getting into a B side apartment.  We were accommodated, however, what a struggle since they should have given the availability to RCI and let us book Monday-Thursday from home.


----------



## stevedmatt (Mar 7, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> TOTALLY AGREE.
> 
> And they still need to explain why there are so many summer weeks available in RCI and II if owners are not allowed to deposit them...



If there are fixed week owners, they deposit their fixed week. Only float owners may not reserve the summer window and spack bank.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 8, 2013)

Tamaradarann said:


> ... Aquamarine probably has few if any weekday check-ins so that you cannot deposit your weeks that you bought, pay maintenance, and OWN.  ...


Aquamarine Villas actually has quite a few weeks with weekday check-ins, so getting a weekday check-in for deposit into RCI isn't the problem. The issue is that you have to book a full two years in advance in order to get a summer week at Aquamarine Villas. I don't know two years ahead of time what I will do with my week --  use it myself, deposit it into RCI, or rent the week out. I might even decide to sell before the two years are up. 

So, I'm always faced with the dilemma of whether to book a weekend check-in or a weekday check-in. If I book a weekend check-in and then decide I want to deposit in RCI, I can't.  But if I book, say, a Tuesday check-in so as to retain my ability to deposit with RCI, the check-in day will make it harder if I decide to rent the week, sell my ownership, or use the week myself. 

All the summer weeks book up as soon as reservations open two years in advance, so canceling and rebooking means getting a much less valuable week.

Also, the TPU value would probably be a bit higher on a weekend check-in. However, summer weeks at Aquamarine Villas have excellent trade value, even though they are all weekday check-ins, so I really can't complain there. 

I mostly brought up  Aquamarine Villas as an example of an odd way to limit peak-season deposits into exchange companies. I don't really blame the resort for having the rules. It's a SoCal beach resort with a long float season (it may float 1-52; I'm not sure), and those *always* have problems with competition for summer weeks, no matter how they set the rules. At least there haven't been any fist-fights between owners trying to book July 4th week, as there was at another SoCal resort I own!


----------



## Tamaradarann (Mar 9, 2013)

*So the Arbitrary Rules do Cause a Problem*



JudyS said:


> Aquamarine Villas actually has quite a few weeks with weekday check-ins, so getting a weekday check-in for deposit into RCI isn't the problem. The issue is that you have to book a full two years in advance in order to get a summer week at Aquamarine Villas. I don't know two years ahead of time what I will do with my week --  use it myself, deposit it into RCI, or rent the week out. I might even decide to sell before the two years are up.
> 
> So, I'm always faced with the dilemma of whether to book a weekend check-in or a weekday check-in. If I book a weekend check-in and then decide I want to deposit in RCI, I can't.  But if I book, say, a Tuesday check-in so as to retain my ability to deposit with RCI, the check-in day will make it harder if I decide to rent the week, sell my ownership, or use the week myself.
> 
> ...



We have no interest in SoCal in the summer so this would not be a dilemma for us.  We strive to be in warm summer like climate to get away from the NY winter and Hawaii fills that bill just fine. 

While we haven't stayed there, The Hilton system does have some resorts in SoCal and as a Hilton owner you can book any day you want if you want to stay there or let Hilton use your points and deposit your week with RCI with excellent trading power.  A much less contrived system.


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Mar 9, 2013)

*Spinnaker*

My understanding is that Spinnaker has always had this policy, at least in Hilton Head, of not allowing RCI/II deposit of summer weeks reserved through the float system.  I seem to recall they even post this policy on their web site, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone performing due diligence on a Spinnaker purchase.  It's one reason I have never bought a Spinnaker float week even though I could have had them by the bushel basketload for $1 in 2008.


----------



## dougp26364 (Mar 9, 2013)

Beefnot said:


> Doug, just saw your comment here.  Spinnaker absolutely limits what weeks can be deposited with exchanges outside of RCI and II, at least with Palace View.  Doesn't matter who you talk to, they will not let you deposit weeks 21-31 at all with SFX.  Only positive is that at least SFX considers 32 to still be a prime deposit, though not as highly valued as, say, weeks 23-27.





Maple_Leaf said:


> My understanding is that Spinnaker has always had this policy, at least in Hilton Head, of not allowing RCI/II deposit of summer weeks reserved through the float system.  I seem to recall they even post this policy on their web site, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone performing due diligence on a Spinnaker purchase.  It's one reason I have never bought a Spinnaker float week even though I could have had them by the bushel basketload for $1 in 2008.



It could be interesting since the resort we own that is managed by Spinnake was not originally developed by Spinnaker. We've never attempted to deposit a week from this resort as we purchased it to use. We still may very well continue to use it rather than exchange it. It's an EOY week and this isn't our usage year. So much changes from year to year and this year we were burnt out on Branson, so we're not planning on going at all (typically we go 2 to 4 times/year). 

We had one other resort that was managed by Spinnaker while it was part of a bankruptcy proceeding. During the time Spinnaker managed that resort, we were always able to reserve/deposit with I.I. any summer week we wanted. We have owned at that particular resort now for maybe 8 years and have only stayed at it once, exchanging a summer week for all the other years. After the bankruptcy it's management contract was sold to a different company, so we won't be able to test the waters with that particular week.


----------



## grgs (Mar 10, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Didn't Starwood implement a policy of choosing which weeks are deposited when an owner exchanges out?  I seem to remember reading something about that when the change was made?!  Whatever the change was, TUGgers weren't happy about it and that's why I remember it.



Yes, Starwood did take away the ability of an owner to deposit a specific week (except in a few minor exceptions).  The week Starwood deposits with Interval on your behalf is not a specific week, but an average week for your resort/season.  

The rationale is that Starwood is able to offer higher demand weeks to Starwood owners seeking a trade using StarOptions.  At this point, I'm not sure we know one way or the other internal availability improved.  However, I don't think the new system has diminished a Starwood owner's trading in power in Interval.

I will say that one of things that has put me off of Marriott was to hear about the difficulty of owners being unable to make reservations at 12 months out for their home resorts.  This issue doesn't come nearly as often for Starwood owners.  For example, I have owned Westin Kierland Villas in Scottsdale since 2006.  I have never had an issue reserving a March spring training week.  Yet, I have heard on TUG many times that it can be difficult for Marriott Canyon Villa owners to reserve those weeks.  I suspect that owners looking to use or rent those weeks, combined with owners reserving those weeks for maximum trade power in Interval, greatly increases the demand for those very few weeks.

Glorian


----------



## janej (Mar 10, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Just because they decide to do it doesn't mean they can. Look at Wastegate. Who says they can impose it?  There are no provisions for anyone - not even the developer - to change the docs once even one unit has been sold. If they don't hold a clear majority vote they can't change things. And no change can alter/restrict previous buyers terms only new buyers after the date if any change. It's not retroactive.





Are you still on the board of Cypress Pointe?   I am pretty sure Diamond is practicing the same rule with Cypress Pointe and Grande Villas Resort.   I own at the GVR.   I made a reservation for a March week in January.   They would not deposit my reservation for me.   I called at least four different times and talked to two supervisors.   I ended up renting it out since it is the spring break week in my area.    When I have a confirmed renter, I called them to switch the reservation name for me.   They found that someone messed up and cancelled my reservation.   But the week was still available in February.   I can understand restricting a week for deposit for the first few weeks/months of opening.   It makes no sense when the week is available 5 weeks before check in.   

I hope you will be able to bring this issue up to the board if you still have the connection.

Thanks,

Jane


----------



## bkellyb (Mar 10, 2013)

This must be  a newly enforced policy, as I deposited my summer week last July at Palace View.  I am concerned if I will be unable to deposit in the future as this has been a pretty good trader in the past.  I have an EOY week so won't be depositing until next summer, so if anyone gets any more information on this matter it would be appreciated.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 10, 2013)

Beefnot said:


> Doug, just saw your comment here.  Spinnaker absolutely limits what weeks can be deposited with exchanges outside of RCI and II, at least with Palace View.  Doesn't matter who you talk to, they will not let you deposit weeks 21-31 at all with SFX.  Only positive is that at least SFX considers 32 to still be a prime deposit, though not as highly valued as, say, weeks 23-27.




The best bet is to buy a fixed week and then the developer cannot play these silly games with members.

Having different rules for depositing with independent exchange companies than with RCI and II is a monopolistic practice in violation of most state consumer protection law.  Complaints should be made with the Real Estate Commission and the Consumer Protection Division of the state Attorney Generals office.  In a few states those offices may be rather willing to jump in once they find out what is going on.  With most it will probably take multiples of complaints to get their attention, but one has to start somewhere.  These scoundrels of developers should not be allowed to get away with this crap.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 10, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Just because they decide to do it doesn't mean they can. Look at Wastegate. Who says they can impose it?  There are no provisions for anyone - not even the developer - to change the docs once even one unit has been sold. If they don't hold a clear majority vote they can't change things. And no change can alter/restrict previous buyers terms only new buyers after the date if any change. It's not retroactive.



There are too many times that developers or management companies assert rules that they have made which are not worth the paper they are written on, because they violate or infringe upon members rights under the covenants.  At some resorts, ownership transfer fees that are charged are not legal.  If I ran into anything suspect, I would insist on their showing me how that item was legal under the covenants.

Fortunately, all of my summer weeks - 2 in the UK and 1 on the OBX are fixed weeks, so I can do what I want with them.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 10, 2013)

Bill4728 said:


> As Steve has said  _"this needs to be appropriately incorporated into the timeshare program documents"_
> 
> Also as others have said that some TS companies don't let you deposit reserved weeks but the system "bulk banks" a whole bunch of weeks and those weeks are what owners are trading. Many of the point based TS companies do this.
> 
> So there are many TS systems that don't let you deposit the week you could have reserved.



This is one of the pitfalls of points and floating weeks if you ever want to exchange.


----------



## janej (Mar 10, 2013)

Maple_Leaf said:


> My understanding is that Spinnaker has always had this policy, at least in Hilton Head, of not allowing RCI/II deposit of summer weeks reserved through the float system.  I seem to recall they even post this policy on their web site, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone performing due diligence on a Spinnaker purchase.  It's one reason I have never bought a Spinnaker float week even though I could have had them by the bushel basketload for $1 in 2008.



I owned a floating summer week at Waterside for 2 years and sold last summer.  I think they had this rule when I had it.   They also have a rental program but did not take summer weeks.   For other seasons, the rent I could get after deducting their commission is much less than my MF.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 11, 2013)

janej said:


> I owned a floating summer week at Waterside for 2 years and sold last summer.  I think they had this rule when I had it.   They also have a rental program but did not take summer weeks.   For other seasons, the rent I could get after deducting their commission is much less than my MF.


Could you book a summer week and rent it out yourself? 

If there is no rule in the original condo documents limiting which float weeks can be rented, can a resort or HOA institute such a rule?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 11, 2013)

JudyS said:


> Could you book a summer week and rent it out yourself?
> 
> If there is no rule in the original condo documents limiting which float weeks can be rented, can a resort or HOA institute such a rule?


That will depend on how it is worded in the original documents.  The documents could lay out specific components of a timeshare program to be provided, or it may simply that the resort will set up and operate a timeshare exchange program.  One of ours is like the latter, and it also says that the primary purpose of the timeshare ownership program is owner usage and operation of the timeshare program is only an added benefit.


----------



## tschwa2 (Mar 11, 2013)

JudyS said:


> Could you book a summer week and rent it out yourself?
> 
> If there is no rule in the original condo documents limiting which float weeks can be rented, can a resort or HOA institute such a rule?



This is the response I received from the management group about the "owners usage only" period-which is from the Saturday/Sunday before Memorial day until the Saturday/Sunday after Labor day.



> Thank you for your email. We do not allow SFO (Spinnaker Flexible Ownership) units to be put up for rent during weeks 21-35 or to be deposited during that time as well. Those 14 weeks are in such high demand by our owners that they are strictly for 'Owners Usage Only'. However, if you choose to rent the unit out on your own or allow a friend to come in your place that is completely up to you.  We would simply need your guests' information to put them in the system as a 'Guest of Owner'.




This is the quote from the owners users guide (for Hilton Head).  They have separate guides for their Florida and Missouri resorts. 


> Reservation Time Periods. No reservation request may be made more than
> Three Hundred Sixty (360) days prior, nor less than Thirty (30) days
> prior, to the first day of the period being reserved. The Seller reserves
> the right to change the reservation time periods as appropriate. To
> ...


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 11, 2013)

tschwa2 said:


> This is the quote from the owners users guide (for Hilton Head).  They have separate guides for their Florida and Missouri resorts.


That's the Users Guide.  The relevant question is how that Guide is integrated into the purchase documents (assuming it's integrated at all).  If it's not integrated into the sales documents in some fashion at the time of purchase, I question whether it can be added later on.  But if the docs say something to the effect that the resort shall set up and operate a timeshare exchange program, then I think an argument can be made that the program can be crafted and modified however the resort sees fit.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 11, 2013)

I've been following this thread with great interest and there are a lot of great posts. I wanted to add something about the topic. 

Back in 2009 Starwood stopped allowing the deposit of specific weeks and went to the current system where they control the weeks deposited with Interval and RCI. When this happened Starwood claimed they had the right to do this even though there was nothing in the documents that allowed it.  Myself and other owners sent letters to several states AGs and Real Estate Commissions and not one took any interest.

We contacted several attorneys and I spoke to more than one myself, including an attorney who was involved with previous litigation against RCI. Every attorney had pretty much the same opinion. Yes, what Starwood is doing violating the owner agreements and is actionable, however damages are not clear. Without clear damages and obvious fraud, none of the attorneys would take on the case. All advised us to contact the state AGs and Real Estate Commission's which was already done to no avail. 

It became obvious to me that the timeshare companies will pretty much do what they want until someone with deep pockets or an Attorney General puts a stop to it. 

And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## flexible (Mar 11, 2013)

DAman said:


> The more I think about it this would be a major devaluation of an owner's TS.  I know when I look at a purchase I often look at the TPU's available in RCI and I try to guess what the exchange would be worth in RCI.  Of course I try to follow the rule to purchase where I want to travel so if in case the exchanging thing goes away I like what I have.
> 
> Now rules are rules. If when I purchased the rule was no exchange of prime summer weeks into RCI then I am stuck.  If the board wants to change the rule then so be it. Of course all proper procedures should be followed.  Also the rule would need to apply to everyone.  Nothing galls me more than selective enforcement of rules.
> 
> ...





Resorts have refused to deposit reservations for us too.
Two different resorts insisted we could only deposit to RCI Weeks and not an independent timeshare exchange company like DAE. I told them if they did not deposit the week, I would not be sending the mf the following year. So it suddenly got deposited.


RE: the reason cited by the OP's resort: CO (contract owners) might object to exchangers obtaining weeks they wanted. I observed a woman get crazy when she realized someone in the beach lounge chair next to her got into one of the two most highly demanded buildings by making a HOTEL reservation on the internet (probably Expedia, Travelocity etc). The CO (contract owner) was at the resort for possibly 4-6 weeks. And the internet/hotel guest had the exact category of unit this CO thought she had the highest classification of priority to demand.

Do the HOTEL/timeshare systems like Starwood, Hilton & Marriott have "inventory management" employees that move "hotel inventory" to "timeshare inventory" and the reverse like a chocho train? And perhaps 40% of inventory is timeshare while 60% is hotel until maybe the hotel side hasn't received enough reservations for the higher prices. This might explain the occasions when nothing is available then suddenly lots of rooms are available closer to check-in.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 11, 2013)

During the decades that Blackwell Brogden was the timeshare guy at the NC Real Estate Commission, he would have jumped on something like this with both feet.  He even went after RCI Points when it was called GPN and forced them to make some significant changes in their system to the benefit of members.  Brogden would engage on these issues just because they were wrong.  For most however, it takes building up a big enough head of steam by generating enough compleints.

As to AG's, again, the number of complaints often is what perks up their interest, ao you need volume.  The other route, since these guys are political animals (AG often translates as ''Aspiring Governor'') is to have someone with political connections talk to the right people to get their attention.

On private lawsuits, state laws vary somewhat and in some states, it may be easier to interest an attorney.  In North Carolina, for example, the court can award attorney fees on a successful Consumer Protection lawsuit, and if an attorney considers a case a slam dunk that might be enough to get them to take it, even if injunctive relief was all that was likely.  Usually for ~$100 an atttorney will write a threatening letter for you, and that would leave the developer having to guess if it is a bluff or not.

Also, it seems to me that it would be a worthwhile investment for the independent exchange companies to club together and finance a member lawsuit against one of these out of control developers / management companies.  Once they win one, a threat from the same lawyers should bring a white flag from any other arrogant developers who are goosestepping over member rights.




gmarine said:


> I've been following this thread with great interest and there are a lot of great posts. I wanted to add something about the topic.
> 
> Back in 2009 Starwood stopped allowing the deposit of specific weeks and went to the current system where they control the weeks deposited with Interval and RCI. When this happened Starwood claimed they had the right to do this even though there was nothing in the documents that allowed it.  Myself and other owners sent letters to several states AGs and Real Estate Commissions and not one took any interest.
> 
> ...


----------



## skimble (Mar 14, 2013)

For floating resorts that bulk-bank, there needs to be a flat rate TPU allocation for every person who deposits.   All early bird and worm aside, MF'$ are the same.  Few owners knew the value of their trade 5 years ago, but everybody knew the cost of their MF were the same.  
Management companies have historically offered RCI deposit credits for bulk-banked weeks to "give you maximum trading power."  Some people blindly got credit for a summer prime, others got a weak trader--luck of the draw.  But nobody knew the value difference.  
It's only a matter of time before this changes.  When push comes to shove, the real damages here are the (transparent) inequity of value in MF$ to assigned TPU.  
RCI has negotiated bulk banking from some resorts.  They can alleviate a lot of problems by assigning a flat-rate average for all owners who choose to deposit.  If the high TPU for the year is 50 and the low is 20, everybody with a floater gets 35.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 14, 2013)

Thanks, Steve and tschwa2, for the post about restrictions on renting summer weeks. To say prime weeks can neither be exchanged nor rented is certainly a huge restriction for owners. I would hope such a rental restriction would only stand up in court if it were written into the original condo docs.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 14, 2013)

poleary2000 said:


> ....However, if they want to create different classes of floating weeks, they should have had the foresight to do so when they deeded the units. ....


It seems to me that this gets at the root of the problem. The developers created these problems when they sold "prime season" or "platinum season" that included a lot of lower-demand weeks, and then marketed these seasons as being able to book summer. There are beach resorts where the "prime" float period is 40 weeks long and owners are fighting (sometimes literally) to book just eight weeks in summer. 

I'll bet many of the same developers who sold these overly-long "prime" seasons also told buyers that they would be able to exchange their weeks or rent them out. 

If the rules were spelled out in the beginning (when the resort went into sales), then I wouldn't have a problem with them. But, I'll bet that's not the case.

I think Spinnaker still has resorts that are in active sales. Anyone done a tour with them lately? Do they say you can use a floating week to book summer and then bank/rent it, or are they upfront and say that summer weeks are for owners' personal use only?


----------



## JudyS (Mar 14, 2013)

Maple_Leaf said:


> My understanding is that Spinnaker has always had this policy, at least in Hilton Head, of not allowing RCI/II deposit of summer weeks reserved through the float system.  I seem to recall they even post this policy on their web site, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone performing due diligence on a Spinnaker purchase.  It's one reason I have never bought a Spinnaker float week even though I could have had them by the bushel basketload for $1 in 2008.


I just looked on the Spinnaker website, and couldn't find anything. Maybe it's in the owners' area? In that case, a prospective buyer wouldn't know about the policy until after buying. 

Looking at the Spinnaker website, it seems the "Spinnaker Flexible Ownership" program that tschwa2 mentioned is actually an internal exchange program that covers three different Spinnaker resorts, rather than a floating ownership at one resort. So, I don't think the Spinnaker Flexible Ownership rules are relevant to the OP's problem with depositing a floating week that s/he owns.  However, the same restriction against renting summer weeks appears in the owner's guide excerpt that tschwa2 posted. Tschwa2, is that owner guide for the "Spinnaker Flexible Ownership" internal exchange program, or does it also apply to floating weeks that are owned at a particular resort?


----------



## poleary2000 (Jun 18, 2013)

*Update*

We are closing in on the 12 month window for the prime week of the year - July 4th week.  I couldn't wait that long because I wanted to get some points into RCI to set up some longer term searches. I went to the deposit calculator in RCI and found a 6/7 week for 2014 that gives good points, but not the maximum.  It was a 3 TPU difference across two units, so I wasn't too concerned.  

I called the resort and told them what I wanted to do.  The first thing the operator said is "OK.  That sounds good.  However, I would be happy to look for another date for you because we cannot deposit weeks 21-35 into RCI or Interval.  In fact, it looks like we have flagged all 'traders' accounts to ensure this is caught this year."

I talked to the manager and was given the same reasoning as before.  Because I wanted to get some points in, I ended up taking a deposit that gave 20% less TPU but gets it in faster for me.  Which...while not ideal, is fine for my purposes right now.  

While talking to the manager, her reasoning was that they want to reserve prime weeks for owners instead of depositing (same as previous).  I told her that's fine, I would just reserve it and rent it.  She said, that is allowable because I wouldn't be renting to a "stranger".  I just laughed and told her that she must think my Facebook circle of friends is pretty large, because I would be renting it on Redweek.com.  Of course, I am not renting it...I just wanted to make a point.  LOL

Anyhow...I don't have the time at the moment to put into more research or to fight further.  I took what I could get and posted here to see if anyone else has better luck than I've had.  It's a shame that resorts treat customers this way.


----------



## Lauraine (Jun 18, 2013)

*Also happened to me*

Lagonita Lodge did block me from depositing a summer week last year. Their reasoning was the same, to reserve summer weeks for owner use. I steamed about it for a year because I didn't recall that being a resort rule. This year when I called to reserve my summer week for deposit with RCI, I was prepared to argue the point that as an owner I have the right to book and deposit whichever week I want. When I told the reservation agent what happened last year, it was obvious by his response that this is NOT a resort policy, but merely the "policy" of the person I dealt with last year!!! My advice, stand your ground, speak with management!!


----------



## poleary2000 (Jun 18, 2013)

I think the issue now is that all reservations are going through the central corporate switchboard.  So...they are all following the rules.  This was the 3rd person I've talked to.  I received the same story from everyone.


----------



## tschwa2 (Jun 18, 2013)

I had them clarify the rental policy.  Owners can rent prime weeks they just can't use the resorts rental program to rent prime weeks.

My guess is that they are certainly pushing what is legal but are relying that no one takes them to court over it.  No one has challenged them over the $1500 prepaid MF to transfer to resale owners.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 18, 2013)

All of these problems point to the advantage of owning fixed weeks and fixed units.  That way, you own what you own.

I read on a UK board of a resort in Spain, where the management staged a vote to combine all floating periods into one, and everyone could have a go at that one.  The high season owners were outvoted by lower seasons, and now had to fight them for the weeks they paid higher purchase prices for.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jun 19, 2013)

Yet there are probably weeks available on RCI to exchange *into*, so *someone* was able to deposit a prime week...

If they try to pull this on me, I'll just reserve them and rent them out.  I'm not going to let them force me to take inferior weeks when I own the right to prime floating weeks.


----------



## poleary2000 (Jun 19, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> Yet there are probably weeks available on RCI to exchange *into*, so *someone* was able to deposit a prime week...
> 
> If they try to pull this on me, I'll just reserve them and rent them out.  I'm not going to let them force me to take inferior weeks when I own the right to prime floating weeks.



Yep, I'm right there with you Michael.  I would have done so this year but I wanted to get some points accrued in RCI for some future planning.  I'll probably start looking for other solid resort exchange options and rent out the prime Spinnaker weeks.


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 19, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> Yet there are probably weeks available on RCI to exchange *into*, so *someone* was able to deposit a prime week...
> 
> If they try to pull this on me, I'll just reserve them and rent them out.  I'm not going to let them force me to take inferior weeks when I own the right to prime floating weeks.





poleary2000 said:


> Yep, I'm right there with you Michael.  I would have done so this year but I wanted to get some points accrued in RCI for some future planning.  I'll probably start looking for other solid resort exchange options and rent out the prime Spinnaker weeks.



You would think that RCI's agreement with the resorts would prohibit this type of action.  After all, what good is an affiliation with a resort if they can't get some prime weeks to offer up?


----------



## MuranoJo (Jun 19, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> Yet there are probably weeks available on RCI to exchange *into*, so *someone* was able to deposit a prime week...
> 
> If they try to pull this on me, I'll just reserve them and rent them out.  I'm not going to let them force me to take inferior weeks when I own the right to prime floating weeks.




Me too!  One of my resorts supposedly deposits a week within my ownership 'season,' but no guarantee of the exact week or location.  I've been successful in nicely telling them I'd prefer a certain location and week, and sometimes they've met my request (or have asked RCI to--who knows who really makes the final decision, but I guess it would have to be RCI who now controls the bulkbank).

At any rate, my preference is to rent vs. take whatever, as long as my TPU bank is built up.


----------



## poleary2000 (Jun 20, 2013)

Deposits are now taking significantly longer to show up in the system.  It used to show up in RCI same day.  They told me on the phone it will take at least 3 days.  I assume that is so they can properly vet the exchange before allowing it.


----------



## cmh (Jun 20, 2013)

For some reason, I thought you could be stuck.... not get your reserved week possibly deposited with RCI but could do so if you deposited in another exchange.......that this was a problem only with RCI.  Did I dream this?


----------



## MuranoJo (Jun 21, 2013)

Far as I know, that's true, though I've never done it myself:  You can reserve your week then turn it over to one of the independents for exchange and you'll get your exact reserved week (and its value) in their exchange pool.  

It may not be as seamless as with RCI or II, so it wouldn't hurt to double-check the process with the ingoing independent, but I've heard of many on this board who have done this with no problems.


----------



## timeos2 (Jun 21, 2013)

muranojo said:


> Far as I know, that's true, though I've never done it myself:  You can reserve your week then turn it over to one of the independents for exchange and you'll get your exact reserved week (and its value) in their exchange pool.
> 
> It may not be as seamless as with RCI or II, so it wouldn't hurt to double-check the process with the ingoing independent, but I've heard of many on this board who have done this with no problems.



As long as the independent accepts that resort then this is true. It is ridiculous that RCI (or II) allows a resort to override an owners rights to the time they own by enforcing rules that they have no business being part of. Whatever the owner has reserved using the documented request system should be used to establish the trade power they get. The exchange company saying no - we only accept what the resort decides to tell us we can have - breaks the agreement between them and the member. Why doesn't it work the other way? An owner gets a bad week so the exchange company says no - resort, you must give us something better and they do it.  That doesn't occur so why can they step in and degrade the time deposited? 

You should be complaining non-stop to the resort, management & Board to stop this practice. Any owner preference the resort owners are entitled to is already blended into the reservation process. Stepping in after the fact and grabbing a slot that the owner legitimately obtained and giving it to some late comer isn't fair to the first owner as it is a favoritism toward the second owner they don't deserve. If they can't do the same for every owner then it shouldn't happen at all. Should an owner that bought in 2000 get their reservation yanked for one that bought in 1998 because they are a longer term owner? Of course not - both had to follow the same rules to make their reservation and arbitrarily changing that wouldn't be allowed so why is the deposit for an exchange, a perfectly legal use of the ownership, overridden? 

The whole thing stinks. If it were my resort they would not get away with it.


----------



## MuranoJo (Jun 22, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> As long as the independent accepts that resort then this is true. It is ridiculous that RCI (or II) allows a resort to override an owners rights to the time they own by enforcing rules that they have no business being part of. Whatever the owner has reserved using the documented request system should be used to establish the trade power they get. The exchange company saying no - we only accept what the resort decides to tell us we can have - breaks the agreement between them and the member. Why doesn't it work the other way? An owner gets a bad week so the exchange company says no - resort, you must give us something better and they do it.  That doesn't occur so why can they step in and degrade the time deposited?
> 
> You should be complaining non-stop to the resort, management & Board to stop this practice. Any owner preference the resort owners are entitled to is already blended into the reservation process. Stepping in after the fact and grabbing a slot that the owner legitimately obtained and giving it to some late comer isn't fair to the first owner as it is a favoritism toward the second owner they don't deserve. If they can't do the same for every owner then it shouldn't happen at all. Should an owner that bought in 2000 get their reservation yanked for one that bought in 1998 because they are a longer term owner? Of course not - both had to follow the same rules to make their reservation and arbitrarily changing that wouldn't be allowed so why is the deposit for an exchange, a perfectly legal use of the ownership, overridden?
> 
> The whole thing stinks. If it were my resort they would not get away with it.



I'm absolutely on the same page as you, John.  It irritates the heck out of me that by virtue of owning a floating week (as do all owners at the same resort), but deciding to exchange, somehow limits my ownership rights. This appears to be fairly typical of floating weeks &/or resorts that bulk bank.

My solution is to reserve a good week, rent and then use the proceeds to rent where I want to go (at least they don't limit my renting rights--so far).  I realize are different viewpoints on TUG about this, but that's the way I see it.


----------



## cmh (Jul 5, 2013)

muranojo said:


> I'm absolutely on the same page as you, John.  It irritates the heck out of me that by virtue of owning a floating week (as do all owners at the same resort), but deciding to exchange, somehow limits my ownership rights. This appears to be fairly typical of floating weeks &/or resorts that bulk bank.
> 
> My solution is to reserve a good week, rent and then use the proceeds to rent where I want to go (at least they don't limit my renting rights--so far).  I realize are different viewpoints on TUG about this, but that's the way I see it.



Yes, however renting it out is more hassle than a simple deposit.  I've never rented out a week previously.....and then there are the concerns of a bad rental deal. But if it got down to it, I would definitely do it, out of principle.


----------



## poleary2000 (Jul 22, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> Yet there are probably weeks available on RCI to exchange *into*, so *someone* was able to deposit a prime week...
> 
> If they try to pull this on me, I'll just reserve them and rent them out.  I'm not going to let them force me to take inferior weeks when I own the right to prime floating weeks.


Did it work out for you Michael?  I ended up taking April weeks because I needed to get some points entered for ongoing searches I wanted to setup.  I would have missed a match had I waited.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 24, 2013)

I called on a Friday afternoon and the agent informed me that weeks 20-35 are reserved for owner usage, no deposits. We politely debated for several minutes and ended the conversation with my intent to deposit a prime week, for which he was going to have a manager call me back on Monday.  From the substance of our conversation, he sounded like a sales guy.

I didn't hear back on Monday, but to my chagrin, did get a notification from RCI a week later that a mud week had been deposited by the resort. I promptly called RCI to reverse hat deposit, which they did. I then called resort reservations on a Saturday and again asked about their deposit policy.  This agent said I could deposit any week I wanted, no restrictions. So we first booked a confirmed reservation, and then she told me the person who handles the RCI deposits would be in on Monday to do the deposit.

I checked RCI every day, thinking they were going to once again try to pull an okiedoke again. But three bus. Days later, there was my deposit for the exact week I had confirmed. Tah dah.

What I've learned, or at least am guesstimating, is that (1) Sales folks, or those who have come from sales, also work the phones, (2) keep calling back until you get someone who sees eye to eye wi you. The last two years that has happened for me on Saturdays. (3) Make a reservation first and deposit that confirmed reservation, rather than have them deposit a week based on a verbal handshake.


----------



## poleary2000 (Jun 28, 2014)

I'm on hold with them right now for 2015, and it doesn't seem to be an issue at all.  I didn't bring it up, just asked for a specific week and she said ok.  

However, she is telling me that next years dues are $842, I had paid ~$575 last year.  Pretty big discrepancy.  Anyhow, she says that accounting is working on issues related to my account and any other 3 Bedroom Lockout owner.  Supposedly, the ~$575 rate is only for 3 Bedrooms that CANNOT be locked out.  And that mistakenly, all 3 BR Lockout owners have been charged the lower rate for a few years.  Accounting is supposed to be working on it and notifying folks.

Anyhow, I wasn't going to argue at the moment.  I paid my fees for 2015, got premium weeks deposited to RCI for two 3 BR Lockout units split as 2 BR , 1 BR and will plan out vacations.  I'll deal with the fees discussion with them later.  If anyone else has the same experience, let me know.  

Assuming those new fees hold, my $ / TPU at this resort will have increased from $11 / TPU to $20 / TPU in a few short years.  Has me thinking about the future and if I should make some changes.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jun 28, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> I called on a Friday afternoon and the agent informed me that weeks 20-35 are reserved for owner usage, no deposits. We politely debated for several minutes and ended the conversation with my intent to deposit a prime week, for which he was going to have a manager call me back on Monday.  From the substance of our conversation, he sounded like a sales guy.
> 
> I didn't hear back on Monday, but to my chagrin, did get a notification from RCI a week later that a mud week had been deposited by the resort. I promptly called RCI to reverse hat deposit, which they did. I then called resort reservations on a Saturday and again asked about their deposit policy.  This agent said I could deposit any week I wanted, no restrictions. So we first booked a confirmed reservation, and then she told me the person who handles the RCI deposits would be in on Monday to do the deposit.
> 
> ...



We've had resorts that have changed their policies in the past from reserve/deposit any week you want to bulk deposits made on behalf of the owners. In the beginning I found what you've noted. Make a reservation as if you'll occupy your unit, then later deposit that reservation with the exchange company. Eventually, management catches on an the policy is changed so that no prime weeks are confirmed with the exchange company and a lessor week is sent instead. Spinnaker will probably catch in to this trick if enough owners use it. 

Almost every resort we own now uses some type of points based reservations system for interal reservations as well as exchanges. I prefer these systems as it gives owners a "fixed" value with the exchange companies. It a
So allows the resort to hold the most desirable weeks for their owners, keeping owners happy by allowing owners to more easily book the weeks they bought and paid for at their home resort. 

Spinnaker has a new product they appear to be selling with Bluewater in HHI and Palave View Heights in Branson. It looks to be an internal sort of system where owners can reserve a stay at any resort in that group. As they look for new products to sell existing owners, I'd bet they jump on the trust ownership or points bandwagon and start typifying to move deeded weeks owners into some sort of internal points reservations program........for a fee of course.

One thing I'd like to make note of is that Palace View isn't a particularly difficult exchange for a summer week using II (they appear to be dual affiliated). I wonder if they got tired of RCI renting prime summer weeks and refuse to give them to RCI anymore? Just a thought.


----------



## tschwa2 (Jun 28, 2014)

poleary2000 said:


> I'm on hold with them right now for 2015, and it doesn't seem to be an issue at all.  I didn't bring it up, just asked for a specific week and she said ok.
> 
> However, she is telling me that next years dues are $842, I had paid ~$575 last year.  Pretty big discrepancy.  Anyhow, she says that accounting is working on issues related to my account and any other 3 Bedroom Lockout owner.  Supposedly, the ~$575 rate is only for 3 Bedrooms that CANNOT be locked out.  And that mistakenly, all 3 BR Lockout owners have been charged the lower rate for a few years.  Accounting is supposed to be working on it and notifying folks.
> 
> ...



If I were you I wouldn't be surprised if you received a notification from RCI in the next week or two telling you that the resort refused to verify the deposits.


----------



## Bourne (Oct 11, 2014)

The Palace View saga continues...with a positive outcome.

For 2015, my plans were to book any red weeks and farm them for points via pfd. For kicks, I tried to hedge my bets and requested for prime summer. Not allowed as you can only pick outside 21-32 for deposit. Asked for 33, and was told that I would have to take these rez nbrs to RCI and initiate a deposit as i explicitly picked the weeks. 

Out of curiosity, I asked what was my alternative. And I was told they put your request into a new software tool that picks best weeks for deposit on a first come first server basis. I went with the latter option as pfd does not differentiate between 10-52 at this resort.

And 48 hrs later, I have two July weeks with 1 TPU off the max July 4 sitting in my weeks acct. Needless to say, they are spread PFD'd


----------



## abdibile (Dec 22, 2014)

I never had any problems depositing my July 4 reservations at Palace View Branson into II.

I just requested reservations via eMail, got my reservation confirmations via eMail and entered these reservation numbers into my II account under "deposit a week".

No problems whatsoever.


----------

