# lawsuit sterman v marriott - any more info?



## TUGBrian (Apr 4, 2015)

http://www.law360.com/florida/artic...-class-arbitration-in-11th-circ-timeshare-row

waiting on the registration for this site to go through so I can read it in fully, but this headline makes it look like ARDA is most certainly against the suit?


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 4, 2015)

this appears to be the original lawsuit/brief/info

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...KzTu3TgFlXMnYKA&bvm=bv.89947451,d.b2w&cad=rja


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 4, 2015)

Looks like they may have even copied some of the first part of the complaint from this lawsuit New class action suit [Abramson v. Marriott. Some of the text in the first couple paragraphs is verbatim. Though the new Sterman vs Marriott appears related to their purchase of Custom House where the Abramson is related to timeshares in California.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 4, 2015)

Can't find any news articles; here's the search result on Justia.com if any of the TUG lawyers want to take a look.

Reading Brian's link it strikes me that of all the classes who could maybe lodge a legitimate complaint that the DC system breaks up Weeks into single days to the detriment of Weeks Owners, the class of Custom House Weeks Owners is pretty low on that totem pole because it's a unique usage benefit every Owner there can use.  I'm sure this one item means nothing in the grand scheme of this suit but it caught my eye.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 4, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Can't find any news articles; here's the search result on Justia.com if any of the TUG lawyers want to take a look.
> 
> Reading Brian's link it strikes me that of all the classes who could maybe lodge a legitimate complaint that the DC system breaks up Weeks into single days to the detriment of Weeks Owners, the class of Custom House Weeks Owners is pretty low on that totem pole because it's a unique usage benefit every Owner there can use.  I'm sure this one item means nothing in the grand scheme of this suit but it caught my eye.



The odd thing about Custom House and the complaint is that Custom House already has daily use. This is what the plaintiff is specifically filing against in the complaint. Not sure how this one will stand up. Really, DC (checkin any day of the week for any length of time) already existed at Custom House before 6/20/2010


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 4, 2015)

I really don't understand the merits of these cases.

The only way an interval can move from the Weeks-based system into the DC Exchange system is if a current Weeks owner elects points, converts to Rewards points, or deposits to II, etc. While this takes a week out of the Weeks booking pool, it also takes out an owner, so there is one less person competing for the remaining weeks. The same balance is still there. It also doesn't seem to be any different than the old model when a weeks owner deposited with II - that week was then no longer available to book internally by another Marriott owner of that category/season, and in turn, the week now in II could be grabbed by an owner from another season or even a non-Marriott owner. 

I don't understand how the plaintiffs can claim that there is "competition from points based owners" that is really any different than "competition" from II members in the old system. The claim that they have "violated a core principle incorporated in every timeshare statute...which prohibits selling one use week to more than a single purchaser" seems preposterous to me.

Even the impact of single-day bookings breaking up a week seems to be a moot point since that week would not be in the DC Exchange System in the first place had a Weeks owner not voluntarily removed it and themselves from the Weeks system by their usage selection. The only people "harmed" by the ability of higher-status owners to break a week seem to be other points owners - not Weeks owners.

The law firms will earn a lot of billable time, but I can't see how anyone else benefits from these endeavors.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 4, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> The odd thing about Custom House and the complaint is that Custom House already has daily use. This is what the plaintiff is specifically filing against in the complaint. Not sure how this one will stand up. Really, DC (checkin any day of the week for any length of time) already existed at Custom House before 6/20/2010


Plaintiff is arguing that daily use *by DC members* affects usage rights of weeks owners.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Plaintiff is arguing that daily use *by DC members* affects usage rights of weeks owners.



I understand that, but wouldn't their own ability to reserve individual nights as a weeks owner be at odds with reserving a week too?

In the end, perhaps a successful lawsuit will require Marriott to be more transparent in how they divide up and allocate inventory between the weeks and points buckets when it comes to making reservations.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 4, 2015)

Ok, here's the scoop. 

- Plaintiff filed an arbitration in MA as set forth in Brian's 2nd link above against Marriott. 
- Marriott filed an action in FL federal court to get an order dismissing the arbitration, or alternatively, to move the arbitration to FL 
- Marriott lost its case in FL, the arbitration proceeds
- Marriott has appealed its loss, and the appeal is pending

As to the merits of the arbitration, here are my thoughts:

- this is one of the "best" attacks on the DC thus far, although I don't think they are quite there yet. 
- the claim essentially sets forth all the arguments made by many of us back when DC was started (millions of pages of threads here), as to what was feared Marriott might do to "hurt" weeks owners, primarily reserving weeks for use by DC members BEFORE weeks owners can reserve their week




Many have suspected (feared?) that Marriott would use some advantage to reserve better weeks for DC users to the detriment of weeks users. This is essentially what's alleged here, although they fall into some of the traps of prior lawsuits relating to how the system really works.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 4, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I really don't understand the merits of these cases.
> 
> The only way an interval can move from the Weeks-based system into the DC Exchange system is if a current Weeks owner elects points, converts to Rewards points, or deposits to II, etc. While this takes a week out of the Weeks booking pool, it also takes out an owner, so there is one less person competing for the remaining weeks. The same balance is still there. It also doesn't seem to be any different than the old model when a weeks owner deposited with II - that week was then no longer available to book internally by another Marriott owner of that category/season, and in turn, the week now in II could be grabbed by an owner from another season or even a non-Marriott owner.
> 
> ...


See my post above. They are focusing on a perceived "reservation advantage" that they claim Marriott employs to the detriment of weeks owners. Really nothing to do with the DC system itself.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> See my post above. They are focusing on a perceived "reservation advantage" that they claim Marriott employs to the detriment of weeks owners. Really nothing to do with the DC system itself.



Except it's everything to do with the DC set-up, because any reservation advantage that's given to DC Members is supposed to be applicable only to inventory available through the DC (Trust or Exchange Company.)  Like the other lawsuits this one doesn't appear winnable unless they can satisfactorily prove that MVW is making inventory available to the DC Members that rightly belongs to Weeks Owners.

Does anybody really believe that MVW is taking intervals that can't rightly be taken, that MVW is jeopardizing its entire business by not complying with the timeshare regulations related to overselling and/or any other inventory controls?  I suppose anything is possible but the idea is preposterous to me, with those actions being near if not at the top of the list of things that the reg agencies can use to shut down a timeshare company.

I don't see any of these suits as winnable unless it's proven that the DC's effect on Weeks Owners is first, detrimental (factually, as opposed to speculatively) and second, entirely a result of MVW's non-compliance.  It may well be true that the DC has a negative effect on Weeks Owners (even if only because MVW-held inventory is since the DC inception being made available to DC Members whereas prior to the DC it may have been made available to Weeks Owners) but a negative effect isn't the same as an unlawful one, is it?

It'd be great if any of these lawsuits result in MVW being compelled to release detailed information of their inventory controls.  But so far they've managed to escape that and (apparently, easily) get at least one suit dismissed by submitting and referring to the governing documents that spell out the Weeks Owners' usage rights and limitations.  They're all worth watching but I'm not expecting much.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> See my post above. They are focusing on a perceived "reservation advantage" that they claim Marriott employs to the detriment of weeks owners. Really nothing to do with the DC system itself.



What is that "reservation advantage" that they claim? It would seem there is no real advantage if the two pools are kept separate and in balance. Since a Weeks owner has to elect points, deposit to II, or convert to Rewards for their week to be available to DC owners, it would seem that the only way Marriott could manipulate this would be through their ability to "Swap" weeks with II. But if the week is already in II, it is no longer available for a Weeks owner to book at their home resort anyway. I'm missing their point.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Ok, here's the scoop.
> 
> - Plaintiff filed an arbitration in MA as set forth in Brian's 2nd link above against Marriott.
> - Marriott filed an action in FL federal court to get an order dismissing the arbitration, or alternatively, to move the arbitration to FL
> ...



Please, can you elaborate for us confused people?  I don't understand if this means that Marriott wasn't granted a dismissal and the original complaint is proceeding, or if Marriott lost the original complaint and is appealing, or something else??  Thanks.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 4, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Please, can you elaborate for us confused people?  I don't understand if this means that Marriott wasn't granted a dismissal and the original complaint is proceeding, or if Marriott lost the original complaint and is appealing, or something else??  Thanks.


The arbitration case (not technically a lawsuit) is proceeding in Massachusetts. 

Marriott filed a declaratory relief lawsuit in federal court in FL and sought: 1.)to avoid arbitration, or 2.) to move it to Florida. They lost both. They are appealing that ruling, but the arbitration continues (for now) in MA. The arbitrator in MA could still determine the case should be moved to FL, but that's another issue. 

As to the gravamen of the claims as I read them (again, I don't think the plaintiffs totally get the whole system): that Marriott is "unfairly" reserving (the best) weeks it controls (either through the trust or converted) for use in the DC,  ahead of weeks owners being able to reserve them. If Marriott is doing this, the plaintiffs should prevail.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 4, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> What is that "reservation advantage" that they claim? It would seem there is no real advantage if the two pools are kept separate and in balance. Since a Weeks owner has to elect points or Rewards for their week to be available to DC owners, it would seem that the only way Marriott could manipulate this would be through their ability to "Swap" weeks with II. But if the week is already in II, it is no longer available for a Weeks owner to book at their home resort anyway. I'm missing their point.


Or they could reserve the best times with the weeks they do control, before weeks owners get the chance to do so. Fair?


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Or they could reserve the best times with the weeks they do control, before weeks owners get the chance to do so. Fair?



How? As I understand it, all the weeks Marriott "controls" are actually owned by the Trust or are weeks that have been voluntarily contributed to the Points pool by Weeks owners. As such, they are not even available to Weeks owners to reserve - ever. The Weeks owners are pulling from a totally separate inventory pool.

It would seem that the plantiffs would have to prove that Marriott was violating their own rules on moving inventory between the two pools.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 4, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> How? As I understand it, all the weeks Marriott "controls" are actually owned by the Trust or are weeks that have been voluntarily contributed to the Points pool by Weeks owners. As such, they are not even available to Weeks owners to reserve - ever. The Weeks owners are pulling from a totally separate inventory pool.
> 
> It would seem that the plantiffs would have to prove that Marriott was violating their own rules on moving inventory between the two pools.


Because they still have to get a reservation for those weeks. If Marriott has x number of weeks in Maui, and reserves the best summer dates for those x number of weeks before other owners can, this is not "fair." I don't know that they are doing this, but it seems that is what is being alleged.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> The arbitration case (not technically a lawsuit) is proceeding in Massachusetts.
> 
> Marriott filed a declaratory relief lawsuit in federal court in FL and sought: 1.)to avoid arbitration, or 2.) to move it to Florida. They lost both. They are appealing that ruling, but the arbitration continues (for now) in MA. The arbitrator in MA could still determine the case should be moved to FL, but that's another issue.
> 
> As to the gravamen of the claims as I read them (again, I don't think the plaintiffs totally get the whole system): that Marriott is "unfairly" reserving (the best) weeks it controls (either through the trust or converted) for use in the DC,  ahead of weeks owners being able to reserve them. If Marriott is doing this, the plaintiffs should prevail.



Thanks.  

I agree, if Marriott is taking Weeks out of the inventory pool prior to when they [] should be able to access them, they're doing something wrong and should be made to pay for it. {Edited to remove "and or the Weeks Owners" from that space, because the only thing that matters is whether Marriott is in compliance or not with the rules as they pertain to Marriott's rights to inventory.  Right?}

In my perfect world Marriott shouldn't have to produce evidence that they're NOT doing this unless it's to counter something concrete that the plaintiff produces that makes it appear Marriott is doing it.  (Likened to, innocent until proven guilty.)  But I don't know enough - can you take an educated guess as to whether or not Marriott will ever release inventory control metrics in an effort to respond to the unsupported speculation that each of these cases contends?  Or will they wait until they're made to do it, if they ever are?


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Because they still have to get a reservation for those weeks. If Marriott has x number of weeks in Maui, and reserves the best summer dates for those x number of weeks before other owners can, this is not "fair." I don't know that they are doing this, but it seems that is what is being alleged.



interestingly, the SurfWatch docs contain language that gives Marriott less of a reservation advantage than Weeks Owners, in that Marriott can't use the 13-mos window to reserve multiple consecutive/concurrent Weeks.  I don't know if the other resort docs have similar language, or if there's other language/rights in the SW docs that counter it.  And, of course we have no idea if Marriott complies with it or not.

Just another tidbit while we're talking about reservation rights and windows ...


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Because they still have to get a reservation for those weeks. If Marriott has x number of weeks in Maui, and reserves the best summer dates for those x number of weeks before other owners can, this is not "fair." I don't know that they are doing this, but it seems that is what is being alleged.



I'm still not "getting" the point. Why would Marriott be reserving dates? As I understand it, this is how the system works:

The inventory in the Trust is made up of specific intervals at specific resorts - say week 26 in unit 524 at Maui Ocean Club, week 34 in unit 435 at Hilton Head Grand Ocean, etc etc. Those weeks are owned by the Trust and as such, those intervals are _never_ available to Weeks owners, but can be booked by points owners. If I own week 9 in unit 253 at Barony Beach Club and choose to elect for DC Points, then that week goes into the DC Exchange pool and is now available to book as a points reservation, but is no longer available to Weeks owners. But I control that decision, not Marriott.

Similarly, if I owned week 26 in unit 310 at Maui Ocean Club and did not enroll it or elect it for DC points, then that interval can never be claimed by a Points owner unless I choose to deposit it in II or exchange it for Rewards Points. My decision to deposit in II or get Rewards gives Marriott some control of that week because I, as an owner, relinquished my own usage rights for that week. As I understand it, Marriott can opt to swap weeks with II, so in that way they can cherry pick some weeks to include in the points pool, but from what I've read on TUG, that is about all they can do to impact what weeks are available in each pool. They can also exercise ROFR on desirable weeks to put them into the Trust, but that is also an owner that has made a decision to sell their week.

I am not under the impression that Marriott can go and just randomly claim a prime week out of the Weeks pool because they want to reserve it for points owners. As I understand it, Points owners can only book intervals owned by the Trust or which other wise find their way into the DC Exchange system by virtue of usage choices made by the owners of those weeks.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 4, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I'm still not "getting" the point. Why would Marriott be reserving dates? As I understand it, this is how the system works:
> 
> The inventory in the Trust is made up of specific intervals at specific resorts - say week 26 in unit 524 at Maui Ocean Club, week 34 in unit 435 at Hilton Head Grand Ocean, etc etc. Those weeks are owned by the Trust and as such, those intervals are _never_ available to Weeks owners, but can be booked by points owners. If I own week 9 in unit 253 at Barony Beach Club and choose to elect for DC Points, then that week goes into the DC Exchange pool and is now available to book as a points reservation, but is no longer available to Weeks owners. But I control that decision, not Marriott.
> 
> ...


This is not correct. Marriott can reserve any 7-day period in the season of its week, regardless of who owns that week (as can you).

The use of the word "week" is confusing here. I will 7-day period to mean the "reserved date," and week to mean the deeded interval.

The "pools" are irrelevant in a way to this issue. They only define who owns the week/interval, not which particular 7 day period is available to reserve. In your example, Marriott owns "week 26 in unit 524 at Maui Ocean Club." This is not a fixed week, it is a floating week. (It is merely an interval giving Marriott the right to reserve the actual "week" of time, in accordance with the governing documents for that resort.) 

Now, Marriott can reserve *any* 7-day period in that season, according to the governing docs, out of all the regardless of who owns that week. If you own week 26 in unit 525, you likewise can reserve *any* week in that season, according to the governing docs, regardless of who owns that week.

So Marriott could reserve the 7-day period that is week 25 at the appropriate time even though it doesn't own week 25, as could you. 

Marriott cannot reserve more 7-day periods than weeks that it owns, but it reserve any 7 day period in that season regardless of who owns it.The question is whether they are taking unfair advantage in reserving their 7-day intervals.


----------



## Frisbeeace (Apr 4, 2015)

The privileges of the points owners is a secondary problem. The main issue is that some seasons in some resorts were sold out and there was a 1:1 relation between weeks in a certain season and owners whose only problem was "when" but not "if" they would get a week. Now points owners (sourced by MVC mostly from low season unsold weeks rather than the few weeks traded in by week owners) compete for the same weeks so the ratio is no longer 1:1 and "if" you will get a week is a real scenario. I hope best of luck to Mr. Sterman.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 4, 2015)

Frisbeeace said:


> The privileges of the points owners is a secondary problem. The main issue is that some resorts were sold out and there was a 1:1 relation between weeks in a certain season and week owners whose problem was "when" but not "if" they would book their week. Now points owners (sourced by MVC from low season undesireable weeks) compete for the same weeks so the ratio is no longer 1:1 and "if" you will get a week is a real scenario. I hope best of luck to Mr. Sterman.


This is not true. Marriott can only reserve (for DC or otherwise) as many 7-day periods as weeks it owns at the resort. As Sue noted, no one thinks Marriott is violating the 1:1 rule.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 4, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I'm still not "getting" the point. Why would Marriott be reserving dates? As I understand it, this is how the system works:
> 
> The inventory in the Trust is made up of specific intervals at specific resorts - say week 26 in unit 524 at Maui Ocean Club, week 34 in unit 435 at Hilton Head Grand Ocean, etc etc. Those weeks are owned by the Trust and as such, those intervals are _never_ available to Weeks owners, but can be booked by points owners. If I own week 9 in unit 253 at Barony Beach Club and choose to elect for DC Points, then that week goes into the DC Exchange pool and is now available to book as a points reservation, but is no longer available to Weeks owners. But I control that decision, not Marriott.
> 
> ...



But in the same way that a Week Owner's deed contains a specific Week/Unit number, it also stipulates that the identifying info is for inventory purposes only and that the ownership is actually floating usage of a particular unit size and view at a particular resort.  That stipulation conveys with the deed so I would expect that it's applicable to all Marriott-held floating ownerships including those Weeks conveyed to the Trust.

What I'm getting from the complaint is that Mr. Sterman thinks Marriott is giving an unfair advantage to DC Members who are able to book at the 13-mos window, the Custom House Weeks that he can book as an owner but not until his 12-mos window opens.  And obviously, it can happen that a DC Member will be able to book the particular floating interval he wants, in the exact same way that another Weeks Owner might get in ahead of him for it - the difference being that each is taking the interval from a different inventory pool.  But Marriott has said since the DC inception that inventory allocation is not happening in a manner that usurps Weeks Owners equal rights, that they're making available to the DC only a proportionate amount of each interval in the Week Calendars.  IOW, if they own 10 SurfWatch Plat 3BR oceanvista Weeks (which there are only 10 of those units on property,) they're not making all 10 available to DC Members for, let's say, the July 4th holiday.  They've been saying all along that if they own 20% of a certain interval, that's the percentage they're making available for each Week in the calendar.  So in my example, they're making 2 SW Plat 3BR oceanvista Weeks available to the DC Members each week.  Some TUGgers have been told that even the check-in days are proportionally allowed DC reservations but with multiple check-in days allowed for each Week the numbers obviously will be skewed somewhere.

Mr. Sterman seems to think that they're raiding the coffers disproportionately AND prior to when DC Members eligible for the 13-mos window should have access, and in turn prior to when Weeks Owners eligible for the 12-mos window can access them.  The pre-designation isn't a problem if it's proportionate, I don't think.  But anything that Marriott does to access intervals prior to when the governing docs give Marriott the rights to it, or to prevent a Week Owner gaining access to a certain interval within his floating ownership rights -  now those are problems.

That's my take, anyway.


----------



## Harry (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> The arbitration case (not technically a lawsuit) is proceeding in Massachusetts.
> 
> Marriott filed a declaratory relief lawsuit in federal court in FL and sought: 1.)to avoid arbitration, or 2.) to move it to Florida. They lost both. They are appealing that ruling, but the arbitration continues (for now) in MA. The arbitrator in MA could still determine the case should be moved to FL, but that's another issue.
> 
> As to the gravamen of the claims as I read them (again, I don't think the plaintiffs totally get the whole system): that Marriott is "unfairly" reserving (the best) weeks it controls (either through the trust or converted) for use in the DC,  ahead of weeks owners being able to reserve them. If Marriott is doing this, the plaintiffs should prevail.



Dave is correct.  It is somewhat strange that Marriott filed DR in Fl understanding their corporation is there and it is home of their general counsel. It would seem more beneficial simply to proceed with the arbitration in MA which as Susan indicated is going to be tough for the Plaintiffs to prove.  It seems that those filing the action are not quite up to speed on the overall problem.  Having said that there is a lot of speculation by Plaintiffs and us at this point.  

Harry


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 4, 2015)

davidvel said:


> This is not correct. Marriott can reserve any 7-day period in the season of its week, regardless of who owns that week (as can you).
> 
> The use of the word "week" is confusing here. I will 7-day period to mean the "reserved date," and week to mean the deeded interval.
> 
> ...



AH HA...NOW I understand. Thank You. Not sure why I didn't connect the dots and was making the weeks/intervals fixed as opposed to floating. Now it makes sense.

Without pouring through the legal docs for the DC program, does anyone know what reservation rights Marriott has as a Trust owner? The operative question is when can they exercise their reservation rights?

Using a simplistic example - If there are 52 intervals at Maui Ocean Club and Marriott's Trust owns 20 of them, when can the Trust reserve their dates? If it is the same as other Owners - 9:00AM Eastern 12 months out, can Marriott program their system to reserve the best dates at 9:00:01 before someone on a phone or keyboard can move that quickly - sorta like the automated ticket-buying bots that Ticketmaster tries to stay ahead of.

If that is the case, the Trust would seem to have an unfair advantage, correct?


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 4, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> What I'm getting from the complaint is that Mr. Sterman thinks Marriott is giving an unfair advantage to DC Members who are able to book at the 13-mos window, the Custom House Weeks that he can book as an owner but not until his 12-mos window opens.  And obviously, it can happen that a DC Member will be able to book the particular floating interval he wants, in the exact same way that another Weeks Owner might get in ahead of him for it - the difference being that each is taking the interval from a different inventory pool.  But Marriott has said since the DC inception that inventory allocation is not happening in a manner that usurps Weeks Owners equal rights, that they're making available to the DC only a proportionate amount of each interval in the Week Calendars.  IOW, if they own 10 SurfWatch Plat 3BR oceanvista Weeks (which there are only 10 of those units on property,) they're not making all 10 available to DC Members for, let's say, the July 4th holiday.  They've been saying all along that if they own 20% of a certain interval, that's the percentage they're making available for each Week in the calendar.  So in my example, they're making 2 SW Plat 3BR oceanvista Weeks available to the DC Members each week.  Some TUGgers have been told that even the check-in days are proportionally allowed DC reservations but with multiple check-in days allowed for each Week the numbers obviously will be skewed somewhere.



This posted while I was writing my post just above, so that allocation system - if it is as you suggest - would seem to address the issue of Marriott monopolizing the prime weeks. 

If the suits result in Marriott offering more transparency into that process, that would be a good outcome.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 4, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> What I'm getting from the complaint is that Mr. Sterman thinks Marriott is giving an unfair advantage to DC Members who are able to book at the 13-mos window, the Custom House Weeks that he can book as an owner but not until his 12-mos window opens.  And theoretically, it can happen.  But Marriott has said since the DC inception that it's not happening in a manner that usurps Weeks Owners equal rights, that they're making available to the DC only a proportionate amount of each interval in the Week Calendars.  IOW, if they own 10 SurfWatch Plat 3BR oceanvista Weeks (which there are only 10 of those units on property,) they're not making all 10 available to DC Members for, let's say, the July 4th holiday.  They've been saying all along that if they own 20% of a certain interval, that's the percentage they're making available for each Week in the calendar.  So in my example, they're making 2 SW Plat 3BR oceanvista Weeks available to the DC Members each week.  Some TUGgers have been told that even the check-in days are proportionally allowed DC reservations but with multiple check-in days allowed for each Week the numbers obviously will be skewed somewhere.



This is what we heard very early in the infancy of the DC program. I believe it was DaveM or some other Tugger that reported it. I don't know if it was ever in writing from a Marriott honcho. It is possible that they are still doing this and have been all along. Or they never have done this or they are no longer doing this. This allocation is written no where in the governing trust or exchange documents. It also isn't in any FAQ or other literature related to the program. Transparency of this entire process would eliminate the need for the lawsuit, unless Marriott is trying to hide something.


----------



## rpk113 (Apr 5, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> AH HA...NOW I understand. Thank You. Not sure why I didn't connect the dots and was making the weeks/intervals fixed as opposed to floating. Now it makes sense.
> 
> Without pouring through the legal docs for the DC program, does anyone know what reservation rights Marriott has as a Trust owner? The operative question is when can they exercise their reservation rights?
> 
> ...



Actually this situation would imply that Marriott has already reserved the time for DC owners PRIOR to 9am.  Since I would assume their inventory isn't exactly realtime.  Hence, the lawsuit could possibly have some legs with this explanation.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Apr 6, 2015)

I'm curious if anyone knows if SVN has a similar lawsuit. Why only Marriott?

I'm also curious about MVCI's rational for having two/three systems of exchange/booking going on. Why not just make the system uniform or equal? It would make it simpler and remove resentment from this perceived unfair hierarchy of ownership created by MVCI for the weeks owners, many of whom did not anticipate the radical change in the enjoyment of their TS ownership under the new system.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 6, 2015)

SkyBlueWaters said:


> I'm curious if anyone knows if SVN has a similar lawsuit. Why only Marriott?
> 
> I'm also curious about MVCI's rational for having two/three systems of exchange/booking going on. Why not just make the system uniform or equal? It would make it simpler and remove resentment from this perceived unfair hierarchy of ownership created by MVCI for the weeks owners, many of whom did not anticipate the radical change in the enjoyment of their TS ownership under the new system.


Because each resort has its own governing documents, recorded in states with differing applicable laws, etc. When you boil it down, ownership in "Marriott" resorts is just a right to reserve a week in your season, at your resort, run by your HOA (delegated to Marriott). Everything else is just an overlay, which must comply with this underlying right.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 6, 2015)

SkyBlueWaters said:


> I'm curious if anyone knows if SVN has a similar lawsuit. Why only Marriott?



SVN = Starwood?  That's what I'm guessing ... They've only officially announced in the last month or so that they're spinning off the timeshares from the parent company to a separate one; the start date/name/etc haven't been announced yet.

They have yet to officially announce anything about the rumored changes to their system from individual resort Weeks to Trust-based Points.  The change seems destined to happen but it's anybody's guess when as well as which of the rumored incantations talked about by the sales staffs will eventually take place.

If these are what you're referencing, it's difficult to file a lawsuit against something that hasn't happened yet.  

(On a somewhat related note, I'm astounded that the TUG Starwood forum isn't overrun with posts these days the way that this forum was when the Marriott DC Trust system and spin-off rumors were very close to happening, when it became impossible to ignore the many, many indications.  Starwood TUGgers must be a lot less vocal - and more resigned to changes - than we Marriott TUGgers are!)



SkyBlueWaters said:


> I'm also curious about MVCI's rational for having two/three systems of exchange/booking going on. Why not just make the system uniform or equal? It would make it simpler and remove resentment from this perceived unfair hierarchy of ownership created by MVCI for the weeks owners, many of whom did not anticipate the radical change in the enjoyment of their TS ownership under the new system.



From about 2006/7 it was pretty obvious that eventually Marriott would get into Points.  Their choice was either to keep the existing Weeks inventory completely separate and introduce the Points Trust with new resorts which wouldn't be sold as Weeks, or, figure out a way to integrate the existing Weeks into the Points system somehow.  Because they needed many of the existing sold Weeks to populate the Exchange Company introduced with the Points Trust in order to satisfy the Trust Owners' expectations of access to the entire Marriott portfolio, and they also needed to preserve the existing Weeks Owners history of access to new resorts as they came online, it was a no-brainer that they really only had one choice.  IMO, the convoluted exchange system between Weeks and Points intervals is the only way they could have preserved the ownership rights of every Owner and still integrate the two programs.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 7, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> This is what we heard very early in the infancy of the DC program. I believe it was DaveM or some other Tugger that reported it. I don't know if it was ever in writing from a Marriott honcho. It is possible that they are still doing this and have been all along. Or they never have done this or they are no longer doing this. This allocation is written no where in the governing trust or exchange documents. It also isn't in any FAQ or other literature related to the program. Transparency of this entire process would eliminate the need for the lawsuit, unless Marriott is trying to hide something.



The now former head of customer advocacy was quite emphatic that all reservation periods- down to not only the weeks but even the reservation days- would be fairly allocated according to Trust ownership + real and anticipated legacy week exchange (based on actuarial analysis of past habits to project an anticipated figure), with units also removed for MRP exchanges in a similar fair allocation.

However, there is/was nothing in writing and we are stuck relying on Marriott's integrity. But there doesn't seem to be any hoarding of prime weeks or reservation dates, at least from the posts I've read. While there has been frustration at certain resorts getting certain dates, that existed well before the onset of the DC program, and we still read about some Tuggers managing to get those highly sought after reservations. That said, you are right that transparency would go a long way, but it might be difficult for them to be transparent when the system relies heavily on projections, since legacy week exchanges for DC points can occur through three-quarters of the following year's reservation period (since week owners have until Sept. 30th, while reservations for the following year started at the beginning of the year). I think that's where it might be very hard to quantify a system based on speculation/projections/actuarial analysis but without any solid data.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Apr 7, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> SVN = Starwood?  That's what I'm guessing ... They've only officially announced in the last month or so that they're spinning off the timeshares from the parent company to a separate one; the start date/name/etc haven't been announced yet.
> 
> They have yet to officially announce anything about the rumored changes to their system from individual resort Weeks to Trust-based Points.  The change seems destined to happen but it's anybody's guess when as well as which of the rumored incantations talked about by the sales staffs will eventually take place.
> 
> ...



There are lots odf ways to ahve intergrarted the two systems, other than the one chosen.

Here's one, off of the top of my head. Charge a $5,000 fee to convert to points, and give the converted owner the full value (weighted aggregate) of the season (and resort) in question. I chose $5,000 (it could vary by property) to provide cash flow to MVCI during the conversion, and to discourage arbitrage between the secondary market and primary points sales markets. But that would not provide the maximum profit to MVCI...


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Apr 8, 2015)

And how about this, without further fees, just give the weeks owners access to points. It all goes to the same pool anyway. Simple as that. Nothing would have prevented them...except bad will and greed.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 8, 2015)

SkyBlueWaters said:


> And how about this, without further fees, just give the weeks owners access to points. It all goes to the same pool anyway. Simple as that. Nothing would have prevented them...except bad will and greed.



They are a for profit company, after all, so why should we expect them to give away a new program/benefit for free? Giving stuff away is not a good way to stay in business. They incurred costs to set up the new program - so why should owners who want to take advantage of the benefits of that system not expect to pay something for it?

I wasn't a Marriott owner back then when the DC program started, but based on what I've read here, they offered enrollment for only $595. Given the costs they incurred to set up the program, that seems very, very reasonable to me. Anyone that was an owner at that time had that option as I understand it.


----------



## bazzap (Apr 8, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> They are a for profit company, after all, so why should we expect them to give away a new program/benefit for free? Giving stuff away is not a good way to stay in business. They incurred costs to set up the new program - so why should owners who want to take advantage of the benefits of that system not expect to pay something for it?
> 
> I wasn't a Marriott owner back then when the DC program started, but based on what I've read here, they offered enrollment for only $595. Given the costs they incurred to set up the program, that seems very, very reasonable to me. Anyone that was an owner at that time had that option as I understand it.


The initial DC enrolment offer in 2010 was limited to US/Caribbean weeks owners. 
The cost has subsequently risen significantly.
The option to enrol European weeks was not added until 2012.
There is still no option to enrol Asian weeks (they have a separate AP points programme)
This was promised by end 2014, then end Q1 2015, now suggested to be second half of 2015.
It is still not clear though how this might work and whether it will be a weeks enrolment option or an AP/DC points exchange option?
Fortunately, I decided to enrol all my eligible US/Caribbean weeks in 2010 and added my European weeks in 2012.
However, I still have absolutely no idea what I will be able to do with my Asian weeks (which I never overlaid in the AP programme)
Not simple!


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Apr 9, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> They are a for profit company, after all, so why should we expect them to give away a new program/benefit for free? Giving stuff away is not a good way to stay in business. They incurred costs to set up the new program - so why should owners who want to take advantage of the benefits of that system not expect to pay something for it?
> 
> I wasn't a Marriott owner back then when the DC program started, but based on what I've read here, they offered enrollment for only $595. Given the costs they incurred to set up the program, that seems very, very reasonable to me. Anyone that was an owner at that time had that option as I understand it.



You don't think they make money out of the skim and managing our resorts? Goodwill goes a long way.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 9, 2015)

SkyBlueWaters said:


> You don't think they make money out of the skim and managing our resorts? Goodwill goes a long way.



Of course they do. But most companies have many revenue streams because they create value in many different ways. 

One of the first rules of any business is you look at all the ways you add value for your customers and assess, "Will my customers pay for that value I'm delivering? Am I adding enough value that it should be worth paying for?" They create value for their customers and in turn, can get paid for creating that value. Creating that value also usually costs money, so unless I as a businessman get paid for the value I am creating for my customers, why spend the money to create that value?

Adding the points option adds flexibility for legacy owners. That adds value. So I think Marriott deserves to be paid for adding that value. If they can't profit from the value they create, why even be in business?

Creating goodwill is also very important, of course, but a successful company must find ways to create goodwill without foregoing a potentially valuable revenue opportunity.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 9, 2015)

SkyBlueWaters said:


> You don't think they make money out of the skim and managing our resorts? Goodwill goes a long way.



I think the goodwill would backfire though. Sure it would be goodwill to the minority of owners that bought post 6/20/2010 resale weeks, but it certainly wouldn't be good will to the pre 6/20/2010 owners that paid fees to enroll in DC. Those people are the majority.


----------



## nakyak (Apr 10, 2015)

m61376 said:


> The now former head of customer advocacy was quite emphatic that all reservation periods- down to not only the weeks but even the reservation days- would be fairly allocated according to Trust ownership + real and anticipated legacy week exchange (based on actuarial analysis of past habits to project an anticipated figure), with units also removed for MRP exchanges in a similar fair allocation.
> 
> However, there is/was nothing in writing and we are stuck relying on Marriott's integrity. But there doesn't seem to be any hoarding of prime weeks or reservation dates, at least from the posts I've read. While there has been frustration at certain resorts getting certain dates, that existed well before the onset of the DC program, and we still read about some Tuggers managing to get those highly sought after reservations. That said, you are right that transparency would go a long way, but it might be difficult for them to be transparent when the system relies heavily on projections, since legacy week exchanges for DC points can occur through three-quarters of the following year's reservation period (since week owners have until Sept. 30th, while reservations for the following year started at the beginning of the year). I think that's where it might be very hard to quantify a system based on speculation/projections/actuarial analysis but without any solid data.



Customer Advocacy's job is to simply tow the company line while throwing a bone or two to the loudest complainers.

As long as projections are involved in selecting their inventory they have the ability to do some funny business with the weeks they elect to hold under the Trust.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 11, 2015)

*Actual reservations vs potential reservations*

Another way to understand how points devalue weeks is that before you only had to compete against people making actual reservations. All of us were trying to get into the phone queue at the same time...so it was annoying but fair.  Now, even if Marriott is being completely 'above board' in their allocation of peak weeks those weeks converted to points are unavailable BEFORE I call.

Making people convert actual reserved weeks into points would be one of the dozen or so ways Marriott could have overlaid points onto the existing system in a way that preserved the value of existing weeks. But they chose to inflict a system that maximized revenue and treated existing owners as poorly as possible.


----------



## amluckau (Apr 11, 2015)

On a somewhat similar line as this thread ... I paid a premium to get a fixed week, fixed unit at Maui Ocean Club Lahaina. I joined DC and bought a few points when they rolled that out. My frustration is that the point value they give me, if I turn in my week, is noticeably less than what it takes to reserve that same week. Why should I not feel like I got shafted?


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 11, 2015)

*A tale of three cities*

About a decade ago I researched timeshares (thank you TUG) and bought resale into three systems - Disney, Hilton, and Marriott.  Research revealed that Marriott was the most annoying to use but that if I bought two weeks at my desired resort (MAW) I would be one of the relatively few who could book at the 13 month window.

In the beginning, everything was easy (aside from the phone queue).  Then Marriott changed (oh, I mean 'clarified') the reservation window so that anyone booking two consecutive weeks anywhere in the world could book at 13 months. Now, the points weeks are pulled from inventory before the 13 month window opens.

Unsurprisingly, the resale value of my Marriott weeks has plummeted about 80%.  My Hilton weeks have remained steady and my Disney points have gone up a bit in value.  I've bought more Hilton and Disney over time.  But I would never buy more Marriott in a million years.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 11, 2015)

amluckau said:


> My frustration is that the point value they give me, if I turn in my week, is noticeably less than what it takes to reserve that same week. Why should I not feel like I got shafted?


Well...you should.  I was so excited when I heard that Marriott was adding a points system.  I thought, 'Great! - it will be like Hilton or Disney...where there isn't the same insane need to call the instant the reservation window opens.' But instead, Marriott did everything in their power to make the new system as inconvenient as possible for their existing owners.


----------



## bazzap (Apr 11, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> About a decade ago I researched timeshares (thank you TUG) and bought resale into three systems - Disney, Hilton, and Marriott.  Research revealed that Marriott was the most annoying to use but that if I bought two weeks at my desired resort (MAW) I would be one of the relatively few who could book at the 13 month window.
> 
> In the beginning, everything was easy (aside from the phone queue).  Then Marriott changed (oh, I mean 'clarified') the reservation window so that anyone booking two consecutive weeks anywhere in the world could book at 13 months. Now, the points weeks are pulled from inventory before the 13 month window opens.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, the resale value of my Marriott weeks has plummeted about 80%.  My Hilton weeks have remained steady and my Disney points have gone up a bit in value.  I've bought more Hilton and Disney over time.  But I would never buy more Marriott in a million years.


I don't believe this is correct, you still need to own 2+ weeks at the MVC resorts to book consecutive / concurrent weeks.
"anyone booking two consecutive weeks anywhere in the world could book at 13 months"

One might speculate, but I have yet to see any evidence that this is correct.
"the points weeks are pulled from inventory before the 13 month window opens"


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 11, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> Another way to understand how points devalue weeks is that before you only had to compete against people making actual reservations. All of us were trying to get into the phone queue at the same time...so it was annoying but fair.  Now, even if Marriott is being completely 'above board' in their allocation of peak weeks those weeks converted to points are unavailable BEFORE I call.



But while Marriott allocates a certain number of weeks for Points reservations and those are no longer available to weeks owners, by design, the people booking with Points are no longer competing with weeks owners for weeks inventory either. So as long as Marriott keeps that supply-demand ratio in balance, neither weeks nor points owners should be hurt.

If Marriott didn't do such an allocation - thus allowing weeks owners to reserve the high demand weeks - Points owners would be the ones hurt. The only way to be fair is a pro-rata allocation of inventory between the two pools - which is what happens according to those "in the know" here on TUG.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

bazzap said:


> I don't believe this is correct, you still need to own 2+ weeks at the MVC resorts to book consecutive / concurrent weeks.
> "anyone booking two consecutive weeks anywhere in the world could book at 13 months"


Yes, the first change was 2+ weeks at MAW to 2+ weeks at any MVC resort. There were fewer owners booking multiple weeks at MAW compared to one week at MAW and one week somewhere else (eg MMO).


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> ...the people booking with Points are no longer competing with weeks owners for weeks inventory either.


The people booking with points are no longer competing with weeks owners only in the sense that they've already won.

In the old system, if there were 50 rooms still available in a prime week (after previous consecutive week bookers had already taken the rest) I could get one of those weeks so long as I was one of the 1st 50 MAW owners in the phone queue that morning. But now, if say 25 of those remaining weeks are converted to points I need to be one of the 1st 25 MAW owners in the queue.  It doesn't matter how late a points owner chooses to book their nights - they have already 'won' those weeks.


----------



## bazzap (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> Yes, the first change was 2+ weeks at MAW to 2+ weeks at any MVC resort. There were fewer owners booking multiple weeks at MAW compared to one week at MAW and one week somewhere else (eg MMO).


I am still having trouble following this 
Are you saying that if you own 2+ weeks at any MVC resort you can book 2+ weeks at MAW even if you only own one week there?
If so, how exactly does that work when presumably you would need to add to your home week with an Interval exchange or DC points...
or are you saying that if you own 2+ weeks at any MVC resort you can book even 1 week at 13 months at MAW
or...?


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

bazzap said:


> I am still having trouble following this...?


Sorry...I may have been too cryptic. When I bought my weeks at MAW you needed to book two consecutive/concurrent weeks AT THAT RESORT to book at the 13 month window.  Later, Marriott sent all their resorts and owners notice that changed that policy ('clarified' in Marriott-speak) so that anyone booking two consecutive/concurrent weeks at ANY Marriott resort could book at the 13 month window. You still needed one week at MAW...but the second week could be anywhere.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> The only way to be fair is a pro-rata allocation of inventory between the two pools - which is what happens according to those "in the know" here on TUG.


Well, no. The only way to be fair was for Marriott to only allow actual reserved weeks to be put into the points pool. In a perfect world Marriott would then have assigned a point value for that week based on desirability to balance demand vs point price (ala Disney).

When I first heard Marriott was introducing a points system what I foolishly thought Marriott was doing is replacing the week based II trading with a system more like Hilton's. Where from 12 to 9 months out all you can do is reserve a week at your home resort. But from then on you can use your weeks as points to reserve day by day anywhere - including a week at your home resort if you want.  Arguably biased in favor of weeks owners - but back then I didn't know Marriott wanted to sell new buyers infinitely fungible points. Or know Marriott wanted to give existing owners a 'haircut' on the points value of their weeks.

But what we got instead was the current system - biased in favor of points owners - which pre-reserves weeks for people using points. Marriott decided there was more money to be made by convincing existing owners to pay for the privilege of trading their week for fewer points than it costs to reserve that week and convincing new owners that it is a good idea to buy points with no value or rights beyond what Marriott chooses to give them that year.

And as Marriott has shown with the recent changes to their status tiers, they have no compunction against devaluing points over time.  But that's OK - they've also made the fees they take for 'reselling' points so huge that owners are better off keeping the points no matter what Marriott does.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> The people booking with points are no longer competing with weeks owners only in the sense that they've already won.
> 
> In the old system, if there were 50 rooms still available in a prime week (after previous consecutive week bookers had already taken the rest) I could get one of those weeks so long as I was one of the 1st 50 MAW owners in the phone queue that morning. But now, if say 25 of those remaining weeks are converted to points I need to be one of the 1st 25 MAW owners in the queue.  It doesn't matter how late a points owner chooses to book their nights - they have already 'won' those weeks.



But if Marriott allocates the inventory based on the percentage of Trust ownership and percentage of weeks elected for points (as has been posted on here numerous times), they should be reducing the supply of rooms by the same proportion as the number of people trying to claim those rooms has declined, so the system stays in balance. If there are less people in the weeks pool, there should be fewer people trying to book that week, so it should be easier to be one of the first 25 than before the inventory and owners were split into two pools..

Using your example, while there are now only 25 units available to weeks owners,  Points owners are having to compete for their 25 allocated units in the same way that the weeks owners are competing for theirs. If I am trying to book with Points, I also need to be one of the first 25 callers or online bookings, but I only have to worry about the other points owners, the weeks inventory is totally separate.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I wasn't a Marriott owner back then when the DC program started, but based on what I've read here, they offered enrollment for only $595.


This is all from memory so I might be slightly off, but it was $595 if you were a single week owner who bought from Marriott, $1095 if you were a multiple week owner who bought from Marriott, $1095 for a single week owner who bought resale, and $2095 if you were a multiple week owner who bought resale.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> This is all from memory so I might be slightly off, but it was $595 if you were a single week owner who bought from Marriott, $1095 if you were a multiple week owner who bought from Marriott, $1095 for a single week owner who bought resale, and $2095 if you were a multiple week owner who bought resale.



The fees were as follows.

Single Week Owner (Internal Purchase) - $595
Multiple Week Owner (Internal Purchase) - $695
Single Week Owner (External Purchase) - $1495
Multiple Week Owner (External Purchase) - $1995

It was possible as a multiple week owner to enroll only a single week and pay the single week enrollment price.


----------



## nakyak (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> Well, no. The only way to be fair was for Marriott to only allow actual reserved weeks to be put into the points pool. In a perfect world Marriott would then have assigned a point value for that week based on desirability to balance demand vs point price (ala Disney).
> 
> When I first heard Marriott was introducing a points system what I foolishly thought Marriott was doing is replacing the week based II trading with a system more like Hilton's. Where from 12 to 9 months out all you can do is reserve a week at your home resort. But from then on you can use your weeks as points to reserve day by day anywhere - including a week at your home resort if you want.  Arguably biased in favor of weeks owners - but back then I didn't know Marriott wanted to sell new buyers infinitely fungible points. Or know Marriott wanted to give existing owners a 'haircut' on the points value of their weeks.
> 
> ...



Devaluation and fear of loss are Marriott's #1 selling tools for points.

WE watched them devalue the Ritz Carlton Club program at the expense of those owners just so they could sell points to MVCI owners.  At first it was required that owners buy enough points to get to a certain level in order to reserve Ritz properties but then Marriott decided to devalue those benefits of premier and premier plus owners by extending the right to book at this properties to ANY owner regardless of level.

They have now come up with the new new tiers and will use these as selling tools over the next few years until they reach their sales goals.  At that point it will be wash, rinse, repeat with additional tiers and further devaluation to get owners to open their wallets for to buy more points.

It will be a never ending cycle with them.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Apr 12, 2015)

Let's look at it this was...

There are 25 rooms (weeks) and 25 rooms (points).

There are 40 (yes, 40) people total who own either way, 25 weeks owners and 15 points owners.

The 25 weeks owners are 100% mapped to the weeks allocations. The 15 points owners are mapped to the 25 points week allocation. They're only 60% mapped. Much easier for them to get a particular week, because the slack in the system is totally allocated to them.

(Those "unsold" weeks are either sold by Marriott for cash reservations or dumped II at the end of the booking window.)

Before points, weeks owners had the "unsold" weeks available for booking, along with the "sold" weeks, with Marriott then selling the remainder for cash reservations or dumped into II. 

This is a net loss for the weeks owners....


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:
			
		

> The people booking with points are no longer competing with weeks owners only in the sense that they've already won.





JIMinNC said:


> But if Marriott allocates the inventory based on the percentage of Trust ownership and percentage of weeks elected for points...


At Marrriott there are two 'scrums' for weeks - at 13 months out and at 12 months out.  At first, I was only competing against multiple week owners at MAW on that 13 month morning and never had any problems (beyond the phone queue wait time).  Then after they made it concurrent/consecutive at any Marriott resort I was competing against more owners...but still ones who were willing to commit to two weeks in Hawaii 13 months out. I would hear phrases like - 'Oh good, we still have some left.'  Now, ANY MAW week that gets put into the points pool gets taken out before I get to call.  And the last time I called I got, 'I don't think we have...oh wait, I see two - let me grab them and I'll get your information after.'

Part of the reason for all the vitriol is that Marriott started out as the most annoying to use, I bought two weeks to reduce the annoyance, and that double purchase is helping less and less.  Another is that the value of my Marriott timeshares have plummeted - largely because of their new policies - while my Hilton and Disney timeshares have not.

But most of the reason is that if they had been ever so slightly less greedy Marriott could have had the best vacation club out there.  II was a pain to use, restricted people to weekly stays, and created feeding frenzies over high demand weeks to get better trading values. Overlaying a Hilton style points system over the existing agreements would have been relatively easy to do and allowed owners to go anywhere in the world in a way that just isn't possible with Hilton. But it was not to be.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> Well, no. The only way to be fair was for Marriott to only allow actual reserved weeks to be put into the points pool. In a perfect world Marriott would then have assigned a point value for that week based on desirability to balance demand vs point price (ala Disney).
> 
> When I first heard Marriott was introducing a points system what I foolishly thought Marriott was doing is replacing the week based II trading with a system more like Hilton's. Where from 12 to 9 months out all you can do is reserve a week at your home resort. But from then on you can use your weeks as points to reserve day by day anywhere - including a week at your home resort if you want.  Arguably biased in favor of weeks owners - but back then I didn't know Marriott wanted to sell new buyers infinitely fungible points. Or know Marriott wanted to give existing owners a 'haircut' on the points value of their weeks.
> 
> ...



The difference is Marriott had to find a way to create a pure points system on top of a mature weeks system. If Marriott had provided weeks owners a 3 month booking advantage as Hilton does, high demand weeks/locations would be gone before points owners even got a chance. Doing something like the current Marriott allocation system insures there is inventory for both owner pools.

Hilton still sells weeks as the basis of their points (so they don't have the two-pool issue), and since such a high percentage of their inventory is based on Vegas and Orlando, I would suspect owner occupied bookings are a much lower proportion of their total bookings than Marriott which has a lot of resorts with higher owner occupation rates. I think the Hilton model would have been much, much harder to implement in the Marriott resort network.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> The fees were as follows...


Thanks for the real numbers.  The clear memories were $595 and '$2,000 for my two resale weeks - you have GOT to be kidding.'


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 12, 2015)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Let's look at it this was...
> 
> There are 25 rooms (weeks) and 25 rooms (points).
> 
> ...



I do think this point makes sense, that because the unsold inventory went into the Trust as the funding for points, that "slack" in the system is no longer available to weeks owners. That is certainly a potential net reduction in total weeks available to weeks owners. But much of that unsold inventory was not in peak seasons. If Marriott allocates weeks/points inventory by interval, then I suspect there is more balance in the high demand weeks and less slack. I would guess that for a high demand summer week, you example would be closer to 25 rooms (weeks) and 25 rooms (points), and 50 people total who own either way, 25 weeks owners and 25 points owners.  

In the real world, the way the Trust is funded with points probably creates more competition for Points owners than the competition for weeks, however. Since the Trust was likely initially populated with a lot of Silver and Bronze weeks, those low demand weeks are funding points owners who essentially combine the points values created by multiple Bronze/Silver weeks to compete with other points owners for high demand gold and platinum season bookings. Were it not for enrolled owners electing DC points, Rewards Points, etc. the potential bookings available to points owners would be very poor. As it is, every Points owner is a potential competitor for booking any high demand interval in the points pool with the only limiting factor being the total points required. That is the equalizer in the points system - if you want to book a high demand time period, you better have a lot of points.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> The difference is Marriott had to find a way to create a pure points system on top of a mature weeks system. If Marriott had provided weeks owners a 3 month booking advantage as Hilton does, high demand weeks/locations would be gone before points owners even got a chance.


I know I'm beating a long dead horse...but no they didn't HAVE to do this. What they HAD to do to stay competitive was replace II with a point based system. They could have only used booked weeks and then given them a demand based point value. Or they could have assigned a fixed point value for different rooms/resorts and then opened it up to point based reservations after a 'home week' window settled availability down.

But that would have meant continuing to sell weeks at actual resorts rather than points with no fixed value or rights. And not taking a cut of the points every time someone traded. And not expecting your existing owners to pay $1000 per week to use your point system instead of II. And not being able to force people to buy more and more points to have the same access to their desired resort.

And so over time I've bought more Disney and Hilton while regretting but using my Marriott weeks. At some point I'm sure I'll no longer be able to reserve 'my' week at MAW and I'll be forced to sell it for pennies (or at best dimes) on the dollar. But I do share my painfully bought wisdom with anyone who asks.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> ... And as Marriott has shown with the recent changes to their status tiers, they have no compunction against devaluing points over time.



That's an odd way to define devaluation, when the status tier restructures give added benefits to more members without taking anything away from existing members.  In fact, they're grandfathering existing members to higher tiers when they could have (as stipulated by the governing docs) required them to conform to the restructured Points amounts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 12, 2015)

I'm not completely convinced that MVW is pre-reserving specific intervals for DC Points Members, but rather they're pre-designating all intervals proportionately.  Then when the Reservation Windows open it's first-come-first-served up to the limits of how many intervals can be used for each system.

Here's how I think it works, assuming:
- 100 Weeks of the same resort/view/size/season
- 80 sold as Weeks; these pre-designated as "W"
- 20 of those sold Weeks enrolled in the DC; these pre-designated as "E"
- 10 of those enrolled Weeks exchanged for DC Points by Owners; these pre-designated as "EP"
- 20 remaining Weeks conveyed to the DC Trust; these pre-designated as "P"

Taking into consideration that for the majority of intervals the Weeks Reservation Window opens prior to the Points window, assume:
- the 13-mos window for multi-consecutive/concurrent Weeks opens 6/1
- the 13-mos window for Points opens 6/3
- the 12-mos window for single Weeks opens 7/1
- the 12-mos window for Points opens 7/3

Then:
- on 6/1, up to half of the (80W less 10EP equals 70,) or 35, intervals can be made available to multi-Weeks Owners for the following year's 7/1 intervals
- on 6/3, up to half of the (20P plus 10EP equals 30,) or 15, intervals can be made available to DC Points Members for the following year's 7/1 intervals
- on 7/1, whatever is remaining of the 70 Weeks can be made available to single-Weeks Owners
- on 7/3, whatever is remaining of the 30 Points intervals can be made available to DC Points Members

Of course this is the basic metric.  It naturally expands to include all of the other Reservation Windows, the check-in days allowed for each Weeks intervals, and every other usage option that's pre-designated by Weeks Owners and Points Members including MRP exchanges, II deposits, intervals given to MVW's Rental Program, etc., but always proportionately so that neither Weeks Owners nor Points Members can access what isn't rightfully available to them.

It also expands when Weeks Owners and Points Members lose usage of their ownership due to non-payment of fees, not processing transactions according to the deadlines, and simply letting their usage go un-used (which happens more often than TUGgers may think.)  The difference here is that these intervals are then in MVW's control, and I think it's correct that MVW may be using this breakage more as Points inventory than as Weeks inventory.  But that's their right, which is _given_ to them by the dormant (for lack of a better word?) Weeks Owners as opposed to MVW _taking_ them with no rights to do so.

It all sounds very convoluted when you have to put it into words (and it's math which should be banned on Sundays!) but for a computer system these inventory metrics are a piece of cake.  And again, although some may call it blind faith, I think the risks to MVW for managing inventory incorrectly are far too great, especially when the system already gives them an advantage by way of the dormant Owners/Members.  If MVW is ever compelled to release the metrics I think it's more likely than not that they'll be in compliance.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> I know I'm beating a long dead horse...but no they didn't HAVE to do this. What they HAD to do to stay competitive was replace II with a point based system. They could have only used booked weeks and then given them a demand based point value. Or they could have assigned a fixed point value for different rooms/resorts and then opened it up to point based reservations after a 'home week' window settled availability down.
> 
> But that would have meant continuing to sell weeks at actual resorts rather than points with no fixed value or rights. And not taking a cut of the points every time someone traded. And not expecting your existing owners to pay $1000 per week to use your point system instead of II. And not being able to force people to buy more and more points to have the same access to their desired resort.
> 
> And so over time I've bought more Disney and Hilton while regretting but using my Marriott weeks. At some point I'm sure I'll no longer be able to reserve 'my' week at MAW and I'll be forced to sell it for pennies (or at best dimes) on the dollar. But I do share my painfully bought wisdom with anyone who asks.



Anything that would have required a different Weeks metric for existing Owners who would not want to participate in the new Points system (such as the "home week" advantage re-vamp that you suggest) would have involved MVW re-filing and getting approval of amended Timeshare Declarations and other governing docs with the regulatory agencies.  Overlaying the Points system as an exchange feature on the existing Weeks product, as they've done, didn't require any such changes and preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners, while it also allows for all inventory to be mingled in such a way that the DC Trust Members (purchasers of DC Trust Points) gain access to previously-sold Weeks not being used as home usage by Owners.

Admittedly, though, the DC introduction does reinforce exactly how limited those rights are and always have been - we just never had to give much thought to how much inventory was in MVW's control, never considered that they probably had been using breakage inventory in our favor.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Anything that would have required a different Weeks metric for existing Owners who would not want to participate in the new Points system (such as the "home week" advantage re-vamp that you suggest)...


I wasn't suggesting any change in the rights of the existing week owners.  They would be free to reserve and use, trade, or rent their weeks as they did previously.

What I was suggesting was that instead of blowing up the existing reservation system - a change much to the detriment of existing multiple week owners - Marriott could have overlayed a new point based trading system over the existing one.  They could have managed the the mismatch between supply and demand for prime weeks by either...

(a) requiring the weeks that go into the point system to be actual reserved weeks and then assigning point values based on demand ...or...
(b) assign fixed points based on resort/room/season and then allow points reservations at the (say) 9 month mark.

It IS true that prime weeks would have continued to be occupied mainly by existing owners using their weeks in their home resort.  And since Marriott was determined to switch over to selling only points and to sell them with the promise that 'you can go anywhere' they would never have gone for such a system.

But arguing that the new system makes it easier for points owners to get prime weeks while not making it any harder for existing owners to get those weeks - particularly existing multiple week owners - is logically inconsistent.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> That's an odd way to define devaluation, when the status tier restructures give added benefits to more members without taking anything away from existing members.  In fact, they're grandfathering existing members to higher tiers when they could have (as stipulated by the governing docs) required them to conform to the restructured Points amounts.


My apologies, you are right.  I had read complaints from other members about the new status tiers without actually looking into it further (having no DPs myself).


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 12, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> It all sounds very convoluted when you have to put it into words (and it's math which should be banned on Sundays!).


If ever a post needed a 'like' button this is it.  Thank you for your efforts on this glorious, sunny Sunday (at least up here in NY).


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> I wasn't suggesting any change in the rights of the existing week owners.  They would be free to reserve and use, trade, or rent their weeks as they did previously.
> 
> What I was suggesting was that instead of blowing up the existing reservation system - a change much to the detriment of existing multiple week owners - Marriott could have overlayed a new point based trading system over the existing one.  They could have managed the the mismatch between supply and demand for prime weeks by either...
> 
> ...



What I'm arguing is that Weeks Owners and Points Members are rightfully entitled to a proportionate amount of like intervals - Weeks Owners to the intervals owned and that haven't been designated by Weeks Owners for other usage options, and Points Members to the intervals that are conveyed to the Trust as well as made available by Weeks Owners and MVW through the DC Exchange Company.

Your ownership entitles you to "a" Week that conforms to the specific resort/unit/size/view/season that you purchased.  If there are 100 of those and they're all owned and not given up by any of you owners for other usage, then all 100 of them are available to be reserved by you according to the reservation rules.  The DC system hasn't changed that right of ownership.

It has always been true that any of your fellow 99 Owners choosing instead of home usage any of the other options, or not electing any usage, or not being eligible for usage because of non-conformance, reduced the number of available intervals for your use.  But those elections reduce at the same time the number of Owners competing for the same intervals.  Nothing is different with the DC introduction.  It will never impact your ownership to the extent that you will not have access to "a" Week if you conform to the reservation rules.  True, you may not get the particular interval that you want, but the only time any Owner has been guaranteed a particular interval is with a fixed ownership.

The Trust conveyances are ongoing and contrary to a stubbornly-heldfast notion, it does not consist of mainly low-demand un-sellable Weeks.  (See this TUG thread - Recorded Trust Documents - and thanks to dioxide once again for maintaining it.)   DC Trust Members have clearly-defined rights to those intervals which don't in any way usurp the rights of Weeks Owners.  In addition, many Weeks Owners have enrolled their Weeks and are finding usage value in electing DC Points instead, which also doesn't usurp the rights of Weeks Owners who don't elect other usage options.

When you argue that Weeks Owners should be given first (and ongoing for a limited arbitrary time) access to all Weeks in a particular Resort Calendar, you're usurping the rights of DC Members.  I don't understand that; I'm arguing for the notion that each type of owner/member has separate and distinct rights that can't be infringed by the other, and aren't being infringed if MVW is proportionately allocating the inventory.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 12, 2015)

Sue,

You've done a wonderful job explaining the points that I was struggling to explain in a coherent manner. I think you've nailed it. As long as Marriott is not playing funny games with inventory (which I agree would be a huge risk on their part), the current system should fairly balance access for both weeks and points owners. Weeks owners do not have a right to access inventory that has been voluntarily relinquished by weeks owners to the points pool.

Jim


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Apr 12, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm not completely convinced that MVW is pre-reserving specific intervals for DC Points Members, but rather they're pre-designating all intervals proportionately.  Then when the Reservation Windows open it's first-come-first-served up to the limits of how many intervals can be used for each system.
> 
> Here's how I think it works, assuming:
> - 100 Weeks of the same resort/view/size/season
> ...



You have made one untrue assumption in your math. For every sold week, there is an owner (user). However, it is _not_ true that for every enrolled week (class "E") that there is a corresponding owner. There is not a 1:1 correspondence, or else Marriott would have to stop selling points. 

Because there is this slack inherent in the points system, it is used to make the points owners happy, vis a vis week owners...


----------



## Cmore (Apr 12, 2015)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> You have made one untrue assumption in your math. For every sold week, there is an owner (user). However, it is _not_ true that for every enrolled week (class "E") that there is a corresponding owner. There is not a 1:1 correspondence, or else Marriott would have to stop selling points.
> 
> Because there is this slack inherent in the points system, it is used to make the points owners happy, vis a vis week owners...



How can you say there is not an owner for every enrolled week ?  There is.  An enrolled owner simply has a choice each year between keeping their "week" in the weeks system or electing to trade it for DC points.  This is no different than when weeks owners elect to take MR points for their weeks if available to them.  

The one thing I will agree with is that because of the DC, the amount of Marriott bulk deposits is far less than it used to be both because there is less construction of new units and I imagine they are keeping them for points availability first.  That said, there was never a requirement for Marriott to keep doing large amounts of bulk deposits whether the DC came along or not.   Those are their weeks to use as they see fit, just as yours are yours to use in the manner you deem appropriate.


----------



## tschwa2 (Apr 12, 2015)

I think the slack is the trust is fairly far from being sold out.  Also while they are selling points, many are buying less than what would be required for a full week.  In the mean time MVCI is buying back deeds, exercising ROFR and depositing more weeks into the trust.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 12, 2015)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> You have made one untrue assumption in your math. For every sold week, there is an owner (user). However, it is _not_ true that for every enrolled week (class "E") that there is a corresponding owner. There is not a 1:1 correspondence, or else Marriott would have to stop selling points.
> 
> Because there is this slack inherent in the points system, it is used to make the points owners happy, vis a vis week owners...



It IS true that for every enrolled Week there is a Weeks Owner because it's not possible for a Week to be enrolled unless an Owner chooses to enroll it.  Enrollment of an owned Week by an Owner is not the same thing as conveyance of an unsold Week by MVW.  We don't know if MVW has enrolled Weeks in their control as opposed to conveying them; I think it's possible for them to do either but the clear advantage for them is to convey.

I think I do somewhat understand what you're saying though, that my example didn't include what you call "slack" Weeks, i.e. any unsold Weeks that have not been conveyed to the Trust.  These are still in MVW's control and can be used by MVW to the DC Points Members' advantage.  (Bearing in mind, we don't know if there are any unsold Weeks remaining that MVW has not conveyed to the Trust.)

I agree with you that in my example there were no slack Weeks.  A similar example this time including them would be:

- 100 Weeks of the same resort/view/size/season
- 70 sold as Weeks; these pre-designated as "W"
- 20 of those sold Weeks enrolled in the DC; these pre-designated as "E"
- 10 of those enrolled Weeks exchanged for DC Points by Owners; these pre-designated as "EP"
- 20 Weeks conveyed to the DC Trust; these pre-designated as "P"
- 10 Weeks unsold/unconveyed; these pre-designated as "S"

Taking into consideration that for the majority of intervals the Weeks Reservation Window opens prior to the Points window, assume:
- the 13-mos window for multi-consecutive/concurrent Weeks opens 6/1
- the 13-mos window for Points opens 6/3
- the 12-mos window for single Weeks opens 7/1
- the 12-mos window for Points opens 7/3

Then:
- on 6/1, up to half of the (70W less 10EP equals 60,) or 30, intervals can be made available to multi-Weeks Owners for the following year's 7/1 intervals
- on 6/3, up to half of the (20P plus 10EP plus 10S equals 40,) or 20, intervals can be made available to DC Points Members for the following year's 7/1 intervals
- on 7/1, whatever is remaining of the 60 Weeks can be made available to single-Weeks Owners
- on 7/3, whatever is remaining of the 40 Points intervals can be made available to DC Points Members

So yes, in that example MVW choosing to make the 10S Weeks available to DC Points Members is a definite advantage for DC Members, because MVW could just as easily make them available to Weeks Members (as they're not rightfully owned by either Weeks Owners or DC Trust Members.)  But again this isn't MVW taking something from Weeks Owners that they have no right to take because there are no corresponding Weeks Owners to slack Weeks.  And, adding them to the equation the way I did also results in 10 fewer Weeks Owners in competition for the sold Weeks that are not exchanged for any other usage.  The inventory allocation is still proportionate and that's what should be MVW's intended result.

There are other metrics not included in my examples, things like the projections that can be forecast by MVW and which they plug into the system at some points after the Reservation Windows have been opened.  Which again won't be any different than the forecasting they did when Weeks were the only game in town, as long as their projections are proportionate and supported.  This may be where the number of E Weeks comes into play because at the time any windows open the E Weeks mean nothing, their only relevance at that time is whether they're in play as W (not exchanged by Owners for DC Points) or EP (exchanged by Owners for DC Points.)

I'm not sure where/why the 1:1 correlation is made between the DC Trust and Enrolled Weeks.  MVW is constrained in that they have to correlate sold DC Trust Points to the Points values of Weeks conveyed to the DC Trust; they can't sell more DC Points than can be correlated to the total of all Weeks conveyed.  There isn't a similar constraint for correlating the DC Trust Points values given to Enrolled Weeks and the DC Trust conveyances, and I think it's been shown by another TUGger (Greg, I think?) that the Points values of conveyed Weeks do not equate with the Points values of enrolled Weeks.


----------



## bazzap (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> Sorry...I may have been too cryptic. When I bought my weeks at MAW you needed to book two consecutive/concurrent weeks AT THAT RESORT to book at the 13 month window.  Later, Marriott sent all their resorts and owners notice that changed that policy ('clarified' in Marriott-speak) so that anyone booking two consecutive/concurrent weeks at ANY Marriott resort could book at the 13 month window. You still needed one week at MAW...but the second week could be anywhere.



Perhaps it is too much sunshine today, but my poor brain is still struggling with this.
OK, I own 2+ weeks at resort A and I can book consecutive/concurrent weeks there at 13 months - yes, I do this all the time.
I own say 1 week at resort A and 1 week at another resort B, so I can book consecutive/concurrent weeks one each at resort A and resort B at 13 months    - I have not tried this but if I understand correctly I could do so?
Surely though I can't just book 1 week at resort A at 13 months just because I happen to own at resort B as well as at resort A?
And there was me thinking I understood how all this works!


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 12, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> I know I'm beating a long dead horse...but no they didn't HAVE to do this. What they HAD to do to stay competitive was replace II with a point based system. They could have only used booked weeks and then given them a demand based point value. Or they could have assigned a fixed point value for different rooms/resorts and then opened it up to point based reservations after a 'home week' window settled availability down.
> 
> But that would have meant continuing to sell weeks at actual resorts rather than points with no fixed value or rights. And not taking a cut of the points every time someone traded. And not expecting your existing owners to pay $1000 per week to use your point system instead of II. And not being able to force people to buy more and more points to have the same access to their desired resort.
> 
> And so over time I've bought more Disney and Hilton while regretting but using my Marriott weeks. At some point I'm sure I'll no longer be able to reserve 'my' week at MAW and I'll be forced to sell it for pennies (or at best dimes) on the dollar. But I do share my painfully bought wisdom with anyone who asks.



I think the problem with Marriott simply overlaying points on top of their weeks system was that during the financial crunch they were very asset heavy. They had to sell weeks that were otherwise un-sellable. They went from selling something that cost at a minimum of $20K to being able to sell something for under $10K. There were very successful at selling small packages to current weeks owners. With a pure overlay system they would have still had the same problem. Weeks were un-sellable for Marriott. Selling points was really the only option that they had that was viable.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 12, 2015)

bazzap said:


> Perhaps it is too much sunshine today, but my poor brain is still struggling with this.
> OK, I own 2+ weeks at resort A and I can book consecutive/concurrent weeks there at 13 months - yes, I do this all the time.
> I own say 1 week at resort A and 1 week at another resort B, so I can book consecutive/concurrent weeks one each at resort A and resort B at 13 months    - I have not tried this but if I understand correctly I could do so?
> Surely though I can't just book 1 week at resort A at 13 months just because I happen to own at resort B as well as at resort A?
> And there was me thinking I understood how all this works!



Yep, you've got it.  When using the 13-mos Weeks Reservation Window the only requirement is that the Owner must book at least two Weeks concurrently and/or consecutively.  The Weeks do not have to be at the same resort or have the same seasonal designation - as long as the intervals being reserved line up concurrently and/or consecutively in the calendar year and there is availability, then the 13-mos window can be used.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Apr 12, 2015)

I have a question - maybe I'm just badly missing something here, but the allegations don't seem all that difficult to either prove or debunk.  Wouldn't a simple audit of a high volume travel week do the trick? If the Trust owns only 10% of a season, but there are high demand weeks reserved almost exclusively by points owners, then obviously there is a problem.  I can't imagine that Marriott would be doing anything like this because its very traceable.  Privacy rules can be waived in the event of legal conflict.  I can almost guarantee Marriott will be asked to provide a complete list of the people who reserved the units for the week(s) in question.  Marriott can also be asked to provide Marriott's copy of the deed / TS agreement with those people to verify the type of owners that they are.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 13, 2015)

twinmommy19 said:


> I have a question - maybe I'm just badly missing something here, but the allegations don't seem all that difficult to either prove or debunk.  Wouldn't a simple audit of a high volume travel week do the trick? If the Trust owns only 10% of a season, but there are high demand weeks reserved almost exclusively by points owners, then obviously there is a problem.  I can't imagine that Marriott would be doing anything like this because its very traceable.  Privacy rules can be waived in the event of legal conflict.  I can almost guarantee Marriott will be asked to provide a complete list of the people who reserved the units for the week(s) in question.  Marriott can also be asked to provide Marriott's copy of the deed / TS agreement with those people to verify the type of owners that they are.



Sure, if MVW is compelled to release their inventory metrics it's probably an easy thing for them to do.  But it's not good practice for any company to release anything that's not necessary because it could be used against them in future.  They've been able to successfully thwart other similar matters by submitting the documents that show the Owners'/Members' rights and limitations which refute the claims made.  I'd expect that will continue to be their tactic until it doesn't work for them or they're ordered otherwise.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 13, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Overlaying the Points system as an exchange feature on the existing Weeks product, as they've done, didn't require any such changes and preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners...


Well...that is the question. My CC&Rs state that the only reservations that can be made at 13 months are multiple week owners booking concurrent or consecutive weeks at 'the resort' - not 'any resort' or 'any Marriott Vacation Club property'. Also at the time, the page of Marriott's website that explained the benefits of owning more than one week said that to book 13 month in advance both weeks had to be at the same resort.

The website (though not the CC&R) was later changed to allow 13 month reservations for concurrent/consecutive weeks at any resort. But on a practical level it still meant that someone booking their reservation 13 months out had to own more than one week in the proper season (and want to use/trade/rent those weeks).

Now, ANY week converted to points is taken out of inventory BEFORE the 13 owner reservation window opens. It is difficult to see how Marriott can claim that this is consistent with the resort's CC&R or preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners...


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 13, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> Weeks owners do not have a right to access inventory that has been voluntarily relinquished by weeks owners to the points pool.


In a way I think you've nailed my complaint. I have no issue with points owners whatsoever. However, there is nothing in the CC&R (or past practice) to suggest that a weeks owner has the right to voluntarily relinquish their week BEFORE they have the right to reserve it.

It gets a little weird with weeks that Marriott owns - they obviously are a multiple week owner and I can only get so upset that Marriott thinks it's OK to 'reserve' the weeks it owns before anyone else gets to.  But taking a single week owners' week out of inventory at the 13 month mark (never mind before) seems to be a straightforward violation of the CC&R.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 13, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> In a way I think you've nailed my complaint. I have no issue with points owners whatsoever. However, there is nothing in the CC&R (or past practice) to suggest that a weeks owner has the right to voluntarily relinquish their week BEFORE they have the right to reserve it.
> 
> It gets a little weird with weeks that Marriott owns - they obviously are a multiple week owner and I can only get so upset that Marriott thinks it's OK to 'reserve' the weeks it owns before anyone else gets to.  But taking a single week owners' week out of inventory at the 13 month mark (never mind before) seems to be a straightforward violation of the CC&R.



I think Susan explains it perfectly with her examples in post #64. To preserve Points owners' right of access to their _*prorata*_ share of a desired week (based on the percentage of weeks that have been conveyed or elected as points, etc) Marriott must allocate the availability between the two pools. Otherwise, all the weeks owners could call up or log in on their release day, book everything, and leave nothing left over for points owners. 

This whole process actually seems very similar to what they have always done for weeks booking, in that they allocate a percentage of the weeks to the 13 month release, but hold the remainder until the 12 month release so that the multi-week owners don't book everything and leave nothing left over for single week owners to book at 12 months. To me the new allocation seems to be just a more sophisticated version of the allocations they have always done.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 13, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I think Susan explains it perfectly with her examples in post #64. To preserve Points owners' right of access to their _*prorata*_ share of a desired week (based on the percentage of weeks that have been conveyed or elected as points, etc) Marriott must allocate the availability between the two pools. Otherwise, all the weeks owners could call up or log in on their release day, book everything, and leave nothing left over for points owners.


I don't see anything wrong with this scenario. The only "owner" of weeks in the trust is the trust. The trust only has a right to use the week in accordance with the particular governing docs recorded as to that deeded interest. 

Otherwise, I could add my week to a trust, then make new rules that allow me to book at 24 months (that conflict with the recorded documents) and claim that I now have a right to do so.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 13, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> Well...that is the question. My CC&Rs state that the only reservations that can be made at 13 months are multiple week owners booking concurrent or consecutive weeks at 'the resort' - not 'any resort' or 'any Marriott Vacation Club property'. Also at the time, the page of Marriott's website that explained the benefits of owning more than one week said that to book 13 month in advance both weeks had to be at the same resort.
> 
> The website (though not the CC&R) was later changed to allow 13 month reservations for concurrent/consecutive weeks at any resort. But on a practical level it still meant that someone booking their reservation 13 months out had to own more than one week in the proper season (and want to use/trade/rent those weeks).
> 
> Now, ANY week converted to points is taken out of inventory BEFORE the 13 owner reservation window opens. It is difficult to see how Marriott can claim that this is consistent with the resort's CC&R or preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners...


I feel like I've been sent back to 2010. My post in regard to the 50% rule.  


davidvel said:


> This "policy" is not in the reservation rules for Shadow Ridge, and thus violates multiple week owner's rights to reserve at 13 months at Shadow Ridge. At the same time, allowing people who own only 1 week at Shadow Ridge and a week at another resort (ie. don't own 2 weks at MRD that they want to reserve consecutive or concurrent) to reserve at 13 months also violates the rights of single week owners at Shadow Ridge.
> 
> So what's to stop them from doing anything they want?  All of our talk about governing documents, CCRs and legal rights is meaningless to Marriott.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 13, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> ... Now, ANY week converted to points is taken out of inventory BEFORE the 13 owner reservation window opens. It is difficult to see how Marriott can claim that this is consistent with the resort's CC&R or preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners...





ljmiii said:


> ... But taking a single week owners' week out of inventory at the 13 month mark (never mind before) seems to be a straightforward violation of the CC&R.



I don't understand this.  It doesn't appear to me that any inventory is being taken out of the pool by MVW or anyone else prior to any Reservation Windows opening, at the 13-mos mark or any other time.  If that were the case, if MVW had free reign to scoop up all the good stuff before Weeks Owners could try to reserve it, we would be seeing many more instances of the highest-demand intervals not being available for Weeks Owners at either the 13-mos or 12-mos windows or at any other time.  And that's just not the case - since the DC inception there have been plenty of reports posted to TUG of successful Weeks reservations.  There have also been plenty of reports from Members not being able to successfully book high-demand Points intervals.

As I and others have said, it appears that what's happening is that intervals are pre-designated as to whether they can be used by Weeks Owners or Points Members or MVW, but they're not pre-reserved by anybody.  The pre-designations are based on whether a Week is owned by an Owner in good standing and hasn't been relinquished for other usage, conveyed to the DC Trust, relinquished for II or MRP exchanges, given to MVW's rental program, not usable by the Owner because of unpaid fees, etc, thus proportionately - and correctly according to the ownership rights of both Weeks Owners and Points Members - designating some Weeks to Owners and others to Points Members.  Then at the opening of each Reservation Window it's first-come-first-served for everyone, the same way floating Weeks have always worked.

About whether MVW can use the 13-mos Reservation Window to book consecutive/concurrent multi-Weeks, as noted earlier by me there is at least one mention in the SurfWatch governing docs that says MVW is not allowed that usage option for the Weeks it owns.  I don't know if it says something different elsewhere in the docs or how MVW has ever booked multi-Weeks, pre- or post-DC.  Another post somewhere in this thread mentioned whether or not MVW has a bot or uses some other automatic system to book exactly at the moment any Reservation Windows open - again, the docs with which I'm aware expressly forbid any automatic system usage by anyone, MVW included.

I guess I just don't understand the automatic and immediate allegations against MVW when things don't go the way Owners (Weeks or Points) want them to go.  Sure it's possible that MVW may be doing something counter to the governing documents at any time; even I'm not naive enough to say that they can be nothing but perfect.  But why do so many people who aren't able to get a desired high-demand reservation make that immediate leap to MVW being guilty of gross mismanagement?  Why isn't there more of an effort to try to figure out how a floating timeshare system works, how the two MVW products exist separately and together at the same time, why MVW is legally-bound to consider the rights of ALL owners including themselves, why the answer to whatever you're asking may possibly be something other than The Big Bad Marriott Machine Conspiring Against You?


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 13, 2015)

davidvel said:


> I don't see anything wrong with this scenario. The only "owner" of weeks in the trust is the trust. The trust only has a right to use the week in accordance with the particular governing docs recorded as to that deeded interest.
> 
> Otherwise, I could add my week to a trust, then make new rules that allow me to book at 24 months (that conflict with the recorded documents) and claim that I now have a right to do so.



I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly but MVW didn't make new rules that say the Trust can book anything at 24-months or any other mark that conflicts with the 12- and 13-mos Reservation Windows for Weeks.  DC Points Members have similar 12- and 13-mos windows to Weeks Owners, although notably most Points windows open days after the Weeks windows.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 13, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly but MVW didn't make new rules that say the Trust can book anything at 24-months or any other mark that conflicts with the 12- and 13-mos Reservation Windows for Weeks.  DC Points Members have similar 12- and 13-mos windows to Weeks Owners, although notably most Points windows open days after the Weeks windows.


Nor did I say that they were booking at 24 months. I was responding to this 


> I think Susan explains it perfectly with her examples in post #64. To preserve Points owners' right of access to their prorata share of a desired week (based on the percentage of weeks that have been conveyed or elected as points, etc) Marriott must allocate the availability between the two pools. Otherwise, all the weeks owners could call up or log in on their release day, book everything, and leave nothing left over for points owners.


My point being there is no right of the Trust/DC program to any "pro rata share" of the weeks. The CCRs don't permit "allocation" of reservations among groups of owners. The governing documents require that all owners are treated equally, in their ability to reserve their week. DC "owners" have NO right whatsoever to reserve anything. The Trust/DC program can only reserve weeks, and then make them available to DC "owners" as they see fit, according to the rules they have created for their "Club." 

In doing so Marriott cannot put itself on a better footing than you or me. And given that they control the entire secret reservation system (*which the HOA boards appear to have no understanding of*), *and they wrote CCRs that allow them to run such a "club" but forbids others owners from doing so*, there is special scrutiny required.

This of course begs the question, "How does the Trust/DC program reserve its x thousands of weeks?" No one knows the answer. 

Do they hire x thousand people to call in and reserve, like you or me? (Of course not.)
Do they hire x thousand people to log in and reserve, like you or me? (Of course not.)  
Do they use a computer to reserve their weeks directly (of course).
How do they program the computer? (we don't know)
Is the HOA at your resort knowledgeable and able to do its due diligence to ensure weeks are being reserved according to YOUR CCRs, when controlled by Marriott insiders? ( :ignore: ) 

Some people say the solution Marriott has for the above is to use some formula (pro-rata?) to reserve the best weeks. No one really knows. But if they do, this is not allowed by the governing documents, certainly not in this state (CA). Even if it seems "fair", or "reasonable", that is not the standard. 

So this makes people wonder whether they are doing it right. And those people don't believe that the Trust/DC program could work if they were doing it right.


----------



## sparty (Apr 14, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Do they use a computer to reserve their weeks directly (of course).
> How do they program the computer? (we don't know)
> Is the HOA at your resort knowledgeable and able to do its due diligence to ensure weeks are being reserved according to YOUR CCRs, when controlled by Marriott insiders? ( :ignore: )



This was brought up in February.  I was trying to find specific references to CCRs that spelled out how this process worked.  Answer was that a former VAC person, John Goodman knew something about it and said the process was based off actuarial tables based on previous years usages.  Assuming that's true, it may seem fair at a high level but still could be manipulated in favor of the management company.  The problem is the process is not in the CCR's. Someone does need to force out a detailed description of how the reservation and mgmt hold back process works.  In most of the HOA stuff I'm involved in - there always has to be openness and transparency  - I don't see how Marriott can hide the details of the process, someone should challenge the lack of transparency here.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 14, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't understand this.  It doesn't appear to me that any inventory is being taken out of the pool by MVW or anyone else prior to any Reservation Windows opening, at the 13-mos mark or any other time....As I and others have said, it appears that what's happening is that intervals are pre-designated as to whether they can be used by Weeks Owners or Points Members or MVW, but they're not pre-reserved by anybody.


My CC&Rs didn't have any wording for 'designated' so I used 'reserved'. And maybe 'taken out of the pool' isn't the right wording and I should say 'no longer available to reserve by week owners'. But whichever phrasing is used, MVW is making that week available for points owners to book before the owner of the week has the right to use it.


SueDonJ said:


> If that were the case, if MVW had free reign to scoop up all the good stuff before Weeks Owners could try to reserve it...


I'm not claiming that Marriott is 'cooking the books' and saving the best for the points holders. If all weeks were equal and all owners were sold the right to reserve a week at 12 months then I would have no problem with how Marriott allocates inventory between points and weeks owners.

But that's not what they sold. The Marriott sales reps were saying that you had to have multiple weeks at the same resort to book at 13 months (not that what a salesrep says matters). The Marriott website said only multiple week owners at the same resort could book at 13 months (which increasingly does matter...if only I had taken a screenshot). The Marriott Waiohai CC&R states that only multiple week owners at 'the resort' can book at 13 months (which somewhat amazingly doesn't seem to matter).

So please forgive me if I might have been deluded into believing that the only reservations that could ever be made at 13 months at Waiohai would be by...well...multiple week MAW owners.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 14, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Nor did I say that they were booking at 24 months. I was responding to this
> 
> My point being there is no right of the Trust/DC program to any "pro rata share" of the weeks. The CCRs don't permit "allocation" of reservations among groups of owners. The governing documents require that all owners are treated equally, in their ability to reserve their week. DC "owners" have NO right whatsoever to reserve anything. The Trust/DC program can only reserve weeks, and then make them available to DC "owners" as they see fit, according to the rules they have created for their "Club."
> 
> ...



I wish I could figure out how to explain more easily the way I think it works, because I just can't seem to understand why folks think reservations are being booked by MVW or "The Trust," or anyone on behalf of either.  DC Points users, whether Trust or Exchange Members, call in or use the online system to make their own reservations according to the terms of their specific ownership and the DC-specific Reservation Windows (which again, occur days after the Weeks windows for the same calendar intervals.)

The pre-designations or allocations or whatever we want to call them of DC-eligible intervals aren't specific weeks in the calendar year that are pre-reserved by MVW/The Trust prior to any Reservation Windows opening.  They're simply markers based on the floating usage of the Weeks which have been conveyed to the Trust, exchanged for DC Points, or that are made available through any of the other means that occur when Weeks Owners give up or lose eligibility of their usage.  So as each Inventory Release day occurs - not before - the system allows reservations on a first-come-first-served basis, according to the proportional allocations pre-determined by how many of those intervals are rightfully owned by Weeks Owners in good standing, how many are rightfully usable by DC Members, and how many MVW should be able to access.

Like Jim said the DC doesn't make the entire process any different than when Weeks were the only game in town; it only adds more factors to the basic process.  And sure, there's opportunity now just as there was then for MVW to play fast and loose with inventory but we're not seeing any apparent or blatant signs that it's happening, no complete shut-out of either Weeks or Points users to specific high-demand intervals.  The reports to TUG since the DC are still a mix of some folks getting what they want and others not, regardless of whether they're using Weeks or Points.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 14, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> My CC&Rs didn't have any wording for 'designated' so I used 'reserved'. And maybe 'taken out of the pool' isn't the right wording and I should say 'no longer available to reserve by week owners'. But whichever phrasing is used, MVW is making that week available for points owners to book before the owner of the week has the right to use it.
> I'm not claiming that Marriott is 'cooking the books' and saving the best for the points holders. If all weeks were equal and all owners were sold the right to reserve a week at 12 months then I would have no problem with how Marriott allocates inventory between points and weeks owners.
> 
> But that's not what they sold. The Marriott sales reps were saying that you had to have multiple weeks at the same resort to book at 13 months (not that what a salesrep says matters). The Marriott website said only multiple week owners at the same resort could book at 13 months (which increasingly does matter...if only I had taken a screenshot). The Marriott Waiohai CC&R states that only multiple week owners at 'the resort' can book at 13 months (which somewhat amazingly doesn't seem to matter).
> ...



No forgiveness necessary; we all have different ownerships supported by varied documents all of which make MVW's blanket policies difficult to understand.  

There are a couple TUGgers who have been owners almost since the very beginning of Marriott Vacation Club and they've mentioned that the 13-mos Reservation Window didn't exist back then at all.  They also question how it was that MVC could at the time implement a 13-months Reservation process that appeared to be in conflict with their ownership.  As you say, inventory allocation matters aren't anything new.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 14, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I wish I could figure out how to explain more easily the way I think it works, because I just can't seem to understand why folks think reservations are being booked by MVW or "The Trust,"...
> The pre-designations or allocations or whatever we want to call them of DC-eligible intervals aren't specific weeks in the calendar year....They're simply markers based on the floating usage of the Weeks which have been conveyed to the Trust...


Well...I'll try it again. Say that 52 weeks owned by single week owners are traded for DC points and made available to MVW. They then mark one room each week of the year as available for points users. Who then can reserve that room throughout the year at 13 months - even though the weeks that underlay those reservations are ineligible to be so reserved. A nifty piece of legerdemain that as davidvel pointed out was either not allowed or expressly prohibited by the CC&R of each resort.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 14, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> There are a couple TUGgers who have been owners almost since the very beginning of Marriott Vacation Club and they've mentioned that the 13-mos Reservation Window didn't exist back then at all.  They also question how it was that MVC could at the time implement a 13-months Reservation process that appeared to be in conflict with their ownership.


Somehow I don't find this encouraging on the 'Marriott should be trusted' front. And I'm guessing that rather then 'grandfathering in' their weeks to be bookable at 13-months Marriott instead chose to suggest they buy another week to retain their 'first in line' status.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 14, 2015)

ljmiii said:


> Well...I'll try it again. Say that 52 weeks owned by single week owners are traded for DC points and made available to MVW. They then mark one room each week of the year as available for points users. Who then can reserve that room throughout the year at 13 months - even though the weeks that underlay those reservations are ineligible to be so reserved. A nifty piece of legerdemain that as davidvel pointed out was either not allowed or expressly prohibited by the CC&R of each resort.



Actually, you may have inadvertantly hit on the reason why some intervals are not available for DC reservations at the 13-mos Points window but become available at the 12-mos Points window, which is a question we've been pondering since the DC inception.

If multiple like Weeks are conveyed to the DC Trust or otherwise rightfully made available through the DC Exchange Company, then wouldn't the Weeks 13-mos window attach in the same way that other aspects of floating usage attach?  Thus making them available to be booked by DC Members who are eligible at the DC 13-mos window?  But if only a single Week of a certain interval is conveyed or otherwise made available to DC Members, might they have to wait until the DC 12-mos window to access it regardless their eligibility for the 13-mos DC window?

Hmmmmmmm.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 14, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Like Jim said the DC doesn't make the entire process any different than when Weeks were the only game in town; it only adds more factors to the basic process.  And sure, there's opportunity now just as there was then for MVW to play fast and loose with inventory but we're not seeing any apparent or blatant signs that it's happening, no complete shut-out of either Weeks or Points users to specific high-demand intervals.  The reports to TUG since the DC are still a mix of some folks getting what they want and others not, regardless of whether they're using Weeks or Points.



And to take it one step further, virtually all modern timeshare systems use some form of projections/allocations to support their bulk-banking processes with RCI and II. They will frequently bulk bank weeks with RCI or II well before the booking window even opens for their owners. I don't see how the Marriott process that is being discussed is really any different. Instead of allocating a portion of the units to RCI/II and a portion to owners, they are allocating a portion to weeks owners, a portion to point owners, and a portion to other uses (like II).

For example, a couple of weeks ago, extensive 2016 inventory showed up in RCI from the three HGVC resorts on the Big Island as well as some in Waikiki. Dates ranged from Spring 2016 all the way to November or December 2016 as I recall. We had an ongoing search matched for the Big Island for late June 2016. So we got an RCI booking 15 months out at HGVC Kohala Suites. Owners at that resort can't even book their owned week until this coming June, but we are already booked (we got this with a holdover week we had in RCI from a previous ownership in a RCI resort).

Another example was a few years ago, we wanted a week that would give us a lot of RCI TPUs when we were talking to our former resort at Kaanapali Beach Club to deposit our 2BR week. KBC bulk banks ahead of the 12 month reservation period, so they select a pre-deposited week to assign to an owner wishing to deposit with RCI. Even though we owned a 2BR unit, they actually assigned us a pre-deposited week 51 or 52 1BR unit since, as a holiday week, it was worth 51 TPUs in RCI and there were no 2BR units in the RCI pre-deposits that were that high.

So my point is simply that allocating inventory to various categories is a common practice not just in Marriott, but also in most other timeshare programs.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 14, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Actually, you may have inadvertantly hit on the reason why some intervals are not available for DC reservations at the 13-mos Points window but become available at the 12-mos Points window, which is a question we've been pondering since the DC inception...


Interesting! And while 'I can't book it but no one else can either' is still annoying...it is inching ever closer to 'legal'.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 14, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> *I wish I could figure out how to explain more easily the way I think it works, because I just can't seem to understand why folks think reservations are being booked by MVW or "The Trust," or anyone on behalf of either.*  DC Points users, whether Trust or Exchange Members, call in or use the online system to make their own reservations according to the terms of their specific ownership and the DC-specific Reservation Windows (which again, occur days after the Weeks windows for the same calendar intervals.)


Me too. DC members cannot "reserve" anything that hasn't been reserved by the Trust. 

Under the CC&Rs the Trust is no different than you or me. It is an owner of weeks, which must be reserved like you and me under the same "Weeks windows" as you or me.  It must "reserve" the specific dates that it thinks/expects/calculates its members may want to reserve, subject to the intervals it owns at particular resorts & seasons just like you or I do. What is done after (how they are doled out to DC members) that is really irrelevant to legacy week owners.   

As you note, DC members cannot make their requests until "days after the Weeks windows for the same calendar intervals." If true, this means the Trust has to guess what will be requested by DC members and reserve those dates at the appropriate "Weeks windows" (assuming it owns weeks to make such reservations). 

Before the DC, there were (mostly) only individual humans calling in to get the prime weeks. Now, there is an enormous entity essentially controlled by the company that is in charge of managing all the reservations vying for the same prime weeks. The question presented here is simply whether the Trust and legacy owners are on the same footing to reserve the specific dates for their ownership


----------



## windje2000 (Apr 14, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Me too. DC members cannot "reserve" anything that hasn't been reserved by the Trust.
> 
> Under the CC&Rs the Trust is no different than you or me. It is an owner of weeks, which must be reserved like you and me under the same "Weeks windows" as you or me.  It must "reserve" the specific dates that it thinks/expects/calculates its members may want to reserve, subject to the intervals it owns at particular resorts & seasons just like you or I do. What is done after (how they are doled out to DC members) that is really irrelevant to legacy week owners.
> 
> ...



MVC may be taking the position that, at least as pertains to DC members, they have broad powers that supercede the CC&Rs.  They granted themselves broad powers in the DC documents pertaining to the Exchange Co.  I don't own points and haven't read /don't recall any similar language pertaining to points.  

I think we are starting to understand why/what they were willing to stop the fee nickel and diming in exchange for . . . control.  

I wonder if this is why the original plan documents included provisions regarding uncooperative HOA’s  (See section 12 - MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB DESTINATIONS EXCHANGE PROGRAM ENROLLMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS in the original docs.)

As George Orwell said, some pigs are more equal than others.  That large entity is motivated to demonstrate available occupancy to the sale prospects.

This thread has also made me wonder how the large Aruba Group obtains its occupancy year after year - have they legally pooled their ownership for reservations purposes with a few throwaway/to be rented weeks for the requisite lead time?


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 14, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Me too. DC members cannot "reserve" anything that hasn't been reserved by the Trust.



Not exactly. DC members can also reserve weeks that have been exchanged by weeks owners for DC points through the enrollment/election processes and anything else that gets the owned weeks inventory deposited into the DC Exchange Company.

It would appear that Marriott uses their actuarial data to project anticipated points elections by enrolled members and do the equivalence of a Points "bulk bank" with the DC Exchange Company -- just as they and other timeshare companies have long projected owners' decisions to deposit with II and RCI (as I mentioned above in post #95) to support II/RCI bulk banks prior to the opening of the booking windows.

I think that's essentially the point Sue and I have been trying to make - that this whole inventory allocation process has been happening in the weeks world for a long time. Any weeks bulk banked with II or RCI are no longer available to owners for home week reservations - just like weeks bulk banked with the DC Exchange Company.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 14, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> Not exactly. DC members can also reserve weeks that have been exchanged by weeks owners for DC points through the enrollment/election processes and anything else that gets the owned weeks inventory deposited into the DC Exchange Company.


Correct, I was referring to the Trust for simplicity but the same is true for weeks in the Exchange Company. Once enrolled weeks are deposited, the specific "use period" must be reserved before it can be doled out to DC members.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 14, 2015)

davidvel said:


> Correct, I was referring to the Trust for simplicity but the same is true for weeks in the Exchange Company. Once enrolled weeks are deposited, the specific "use period" must be reserved before it can be doled out to DC members.



In the Exchange Procedures document for the Destination Club Program and Exchange Company, there is this paragraph. It is bolded in the document for emphasis:



> *Exchange Company shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservations and use of the Accommodations and is authorized to demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Members through the Program in its sole discretion.*



There is similar language in the MVCD Trust Reservation Procedures:



> *Trust Manager and Program Manager shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservation and use of the Accommodations of the Trust Plan and are authorized to reasonably demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Trust Owners through the Trust Plan or an Exchange Program.*




To me as a layman, this would seem to give them the right to forecast anticipated deposits into the Exchange Company as well as Trust reservations for purposes of allocating inventory for reservations in each reservation window.


----------



## tschwa2 (Apr 14, 2015)

And let's hope it doesn't come to that.  That is the way Starwood works it with the exchange companies.  If you are going to deposit you get a blended value for your season and Starwood deposits what it thinks will be most beneficial to the Network.  Most of the folks with more money, benefit from the increased prime time availability within the network and don't care about the lack of premium deposits in II, so no lawsuits that I am aware of.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 14, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> In the Exchange Procedures document for the Destination Club Program and Exchange Company, there is this paragraph. It is bolded in the document for emphasis:
> 
> 
> > Exchange Company shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservations and use of the Accommodations and is authorized to demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Members through the Program in its sole discretion.
> ...


No. Marriott's self-imposed restrictions/rights in its DC program cannot alter the deeded rights to reserve which are set forth in the underlying weeks/resorts. 

Sure, they can decide to reserve any dates that it wishes based upon what it expects people in its "club" to likely want (see my reference to this in above post), but in reserving the weeks it is simply an owner of those weeks and thus is subject to the same underlying deeded rights. 

I understand that to many people, lay or not, this is a difficult concept to get their hands around given Marriott's marketing of the DC. I have been beating this drum here since 2010, but the legalities have not changed: The Club has no more rights to reserve Use Periods than is allowed in the governing documents for the underlying Use Week (that you or me are subject to).


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 14, 2015)

davidvel said:


> No. Marriott's self-imposed restrictions/rights in its DC program cannot alter the deeded rights to reserve which are set forth in the underlying weeks/resorts.
> 
> Sure, they can decide to reserve any dates that it wishes based upon what it expects people in its "club" to likely want (see my reference to this in above post), but in reserving the weeks it is simply an owner of those weeks and thus is subject to the same underlying deeded rights.
> 
> I understand that to many people, lay or not, this is a difficult concept to get their hands around given Marriott's marketing of the DC. I have been beating this drum here since 2010, but the legalities have not changed: The Club has no more rights to reserve Use Periods than is allowed in the governing documents for the underlying Use Week (that you or me are subject to).



I still do not see how what we're all debating here is substantially different from what has been happening for years in traditional weeks exchange transactions - when resort companies do bulk banks with II/RCI, they are essentialy taking inventory away from deeded weeks owners - sometimes well in advance of when deeded owners can even reserve a week themselves - based on anticipated booking patterns (my HGVC example above). These are all deeded owners with deeded reservation rights in their season.

While I agree the Trust itself can't actually book weeks it doesn't actually own, the MVCD Exchange Company doesn't seem to be significantly different, as an exchange entity, from II or RCI. So why can't Marriott forecast anticipated deposits into the Exchange company and make the necessary allocation in the same way that deposits are forecasted and allocated/bulk banked into II and RCI all over the timeshare industry? The program documents delegate the role of reservations manager to Marriott for all of the Affiliate Programs (what they call the individual resort owners associations), so why would this projection/demand balancing not be part of those affiliation agreements?


----------



## davidvel (Apr 14, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I still do not see how what we're all debating here is substantially different from what has been happening for years in traditional weeks exchange transactions - when resort companies do bulk banks with II/RCI, they are essentialy taking inventory away from deeded weeks owners - sometimes well in advance of when deeded owners can even reserve a week themselves - based on anticipated booking patterns (my HGVC example above). These are all deeded owners with deeded reservation rights in their season.
> 
> While I agree the Trust itself can't actually book weeks it doesn't actually own, the MVCD Exchange Company doesn't seem to be significantly different, as an exchange entity, from II or RCI. So why can't Marriott forecast anticipated deposits into the Exchange company and make the necessary allocation in the same way that deposits are forecasted and allocated/bulk banked into II and RCI all over the timeshare industry? The program documents delegate the role of reservations manager to Marriott for all of the Affiliate Programs (what they call the individual resort owners associations), so why would this projection/demand balancing not be part of those affiliation agreements?


I don't have any opinion about any other companies, but this is patently a legal violation. If Marriott is "taking inventory away from deeded weeks owners - sometimes well in advance of when deeded owners can even reserve a week themselves ," I will pay you thousands of dollars to provide me evidence proving this.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 14, 2015)

davidvel said:


> I don't have any opinion about any other companies, but this is patently a legal violation. If Marriott is "taking inventory away from deeded weeks owners - sometimes well in advance of when deeded owners can even reserve a week themselves ," I will pay you thousands of dollars to provide me evidence proving this.



Has Marriott never bulk banked with II the way HGVC and other systems seem to bulk bank in advance with RCI? I'm new to the Marriott system, so have no experience with that.

But I DO have specific data to support how HGVC and DRI work from RCI.com and my own booking experience. HGVC and DRI weeks owners are all deeded week owners with rights to reserve a week in their season/category 12 months out just like Marriott weeks owners. But HGVC deposits regularly show up in RCI well before weeks owners can reserve their home weeks. If HGVC weeks at sold out resorts are available to reserve months before owners are allowed to do so, there must be a legal way to predesignate inventory for bulk deposit with RCI. Given that, if HGVC can do it with RCI, why couldn't Marriott do it with their own internal Exchange Company?

In the 16 years we have owned one type of timeshare or another, I have always understood bulk banking with RCI/II to be based on anticipated demand, where if for a given week, the program manager's experience was that, as an example, only 20% of the available units would be expected to be reserved by owners, they would designate some portion of the remaining 80% to deposit to an exchange company. They obviously wouldn't cut it so close as to deposit the full 80%, giving them some room for error since the 20% is just a projection. I may be incorrect in my understanding about how those programs functioned, but based on what Susan and others have posted on here, it sounded like the best information we have on how Marriott works today is very similar to that allocation model, just adapted for the DC Points system.


----------



## answeeney (Apr 14, 2015)

Speaking as someone who likes the DC system and finds it beneficial (so far – but cynical me asks me for how long) I find this thread incredibly interesting – but also quite challenging. What I am getting from it (and I may be getting things completely wrong) is that:

1. An enrolled weeks-owner that exchanges a week for DC points does not load a week into the exchange company but merely gives up to the exchange company their rights to book a week.
2. Any trust inventory also gives the trust company booking rights for those owned weeks (although some trust inventory may be fixed weeks or even whole units)  which once booked may be kept in the trust or deposited into the exchange company.
3. Marriott uses those rights to book a number of weeks in anticipation of demand from points-owners.
4. Legally, the trust/exchange company cannot book any weeks on more advantageous terms than other weeks-owners – they are bound by the same rules, such as the 13 and 12 month booking windows.
5. Only after being booked by the trust/exchange company can weeks be made available to points-owners.

Some key questions are:

1. Does Marriott follow these rules to the letter?

_We don’t know because the system is opaque._

2. Does Marriott use their ownership muscle i.e. squillions of owned weeks, to book weeks early to the advantage of points owners and disadvantage of weeks owners - at one extreme to, say, book Christmas and new year 2017/18 now by using the 13 month booking window and a long string of consecutive ownership weeks, or at another, to simply be “on the phone” (via a computerised process) on the dot at 9.00 EST when inventory is released?

_We suspect not but cannot be sure that there isn’t a little tweak in this direction because the system is opaque._

3. Does Marriott take out an “actuarially fair” proportion of the weeks-pool in advance of the booking windows opening?

_Early bulk deposits into II make us a bit suspicious but really we don’t know (they may be wholly unsold units) because the system is opaque but anyway we think that would be illegal._

4. Has Marriott already busted the rules by extending the 13 month booking window beyond the class of owners to whom the rules originally gave it and that extension is now acting to the benefit of points-owners and to the detriment of owners of multiple weeks at a single resort?

_We don’t know because the system is opaque._

For what it’s worth, I suspect that Marriott strives for fairness in whatever process they have adopted but my concern now, after reading this thread is whether they are acting legally. Also, although, on balance, I would like the DC system to continue, as the owner of some ineligible resale weeks I want to be sure that I am not going to regret this sentiment at some point in the future.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 14, 2015)

answeeney said:


> Speaking as someone who likes the DC system and finds it beneficial (so far – but cynical me asks me for how long) I find this thread incredibly interesting – but also quite challenging. What I am getting from it (and I may be getting things completely wrong) is that:
> 
> 1. An enrolled weeks-owner that exchanges a week for DC points does not load a week into the exchange company but merely gives up to the exchange company their rights to book a week.
> 2. Any trust inventory also gives the trust company booking rights for those owned weeks (although some trust inventory may be fixed weeks or even whole units)  which once booked may be kept in the trust or deposited into the exchange company.
> ...


In my professional legal opinion, you nailed it. [Not to be construed as legal _advice_.  ]


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm not home but will be taking a look at my Weeks docs when I get there to see what I can find (realizing, of course, that they're different in some ways from the docs for other resorts in Marriott's system.)  This thread is as fascinating to me as any other related to the legalities, geeky as that may be.  

I understand that Marriott/The Trust/the Trustee/etc can't have the power to usurp every other Weeks Owner's rights; they can't pre-book any intervals prior to when the Reservation Windows open as stipulated in the governing docs.  But aren't they _on equal footing_ to the other Weeks Owners for the Weeks that have been conveyed to the Trust?  So, they should have access to reserve the floating usage of the conveyed Weeks _on the same basis as_ the other like Weeks Owners?

A question: is a Trustee - in this case The Trustee for the DC Trust - legally allowed to delegate in some way certain rights and privileges to the Members of a Trust?  If so, and if the DC Trustee is delegating real-time reservation rights to DC Members, wouldn't it follow that MVW doesn't have to pre-reserve anything prior to the DC Windows opening because a reservation system set up to consider the allocation metrics would in itself prevent both Weeks Owners and Trust Members from accessing in real time a disproportionate amount of inventory?

Am I reading you correctly, David, that when the Reservation Windows open for Weeks MVW is reserving the Trust's allocated inventory based completely on projections, which specific reservations they then make available to DC Members when the DC Reservation Windows open a few days later?  I just don't see that extra step being necessary, plus it allows for far more breakage and unused inventory than if DC Members are allowed to book what they want up to the proportionate allocations in real-time.  It also creates another "bucket" from which DC Members can pull intervals, one that I think is unnecessary if DC Members are delegated by the Trustee the access to book real-time reservations.

Like Jim I keep going back to when Weeks were the only game in town and there wasn't this pervasive suspicion that MVW was mismanaging inventory, despite them having to pre-designate (for Owners, Marriott Rentals, MRP and II exchanges, etc) Weeks inventory prior to any Reservation Windows opening.  It's always been a first-come-first-served system that didn't allow access prior to any Reservation Windows opening and didn't appear to allow over-booking by either MVW or the Owners; why isn't it feasible that DC-related inventory structures are simply more metrics added to the established real-time system?

If MVW's Weeks product were all fixed week/unit intervals then it would be so easy to incorporate DC allocations into the existing real-time system.  But consideration has to be given somewhere to the fact that for every Week conveyed to the Trust and for every enrolled Week exchanged by the Owner for DC Points, the usage rights and limitations of those Weeks convey as well.  So if MVW is pre-reserving intervals to which they then give DC Members access, it seems to me that the DC Members' rights are being usurped as far as their access to all floating usage rights of the Weeks in their Trust and Exchange Company.

Hmmmmm.  Lots to think about.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 15, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm not home but will be taking a look at my Weeks docs when I get there to see what I can find (realizing, of course, that they're different in some ways from the docs for other resorts in Marriott's system.)  This thread is as fascinating to me as any other related to the legalities, geeky as that may be.
> 
> I understand that Marriott/The Trust/the Trustee/etc can't have the power to usurp every other Weeks Owner's rights; they can't pre-book any intervals prior to when the Reservation Windows open as stipulated in the governing docs.  But aren't they _on equal footing_ to the other Weeks Owners for the Weeks that have been conveyed to the Trust?  So, they should have access to reserve the floating usage of the conveyed Weeks _on the same basis as_ the other like Weeks Owners?


Yes, it should be on the same basis (putting aside if they get 13 mo advantage, as this seems to differ in various CC&Rs.) But see below as to how "equal" can be achieved. 


SueDonJ said:


> A question: is a Trustee - in this case The Trustee for the DC Trust - legally allowed to delegate in some way certain rights and privileges to the Members of a Trust?  If so, and if the DC Trustee is delegating real-time reservation rights to DC Members, wouldn't it follow that MVW doesn't have to pre-reserve anything prior to the DC Windows opening because a reservation system set up to consider the allocation metrics would in itself prevent both Weeks Owners and Trust Members from accessing in real time a disproportionate amount of inventory?


A lot of scenarios here. I don't see any particular issue relating to the trustee, and delegation of any rights it has.  While it could in theory give a DC member the power to reserve a Use Period for any Timeshare Unit it controls (ie. reserve a full week like  you or me), *clearly it does not do this*; nor could it in a practical sense. Somehow the DC has to reserve weeks, then dole them out (single day, full week, etc) to DC members.  

If they didn't pre-reserve, the best weeks would be reserved by weeks owners, and thus unavailable once the DC window opens.  It is my opinion that any system/metric/algoritim is inconsistent with the reservation procedures in the governing docs.  Clearly it is not "equal footing" as you and I can't use our own system/metric/algorithm to reserve weeks in proportion that we think is "fair."

Fundamentally, the problem I see is that "the old way" was a bunch of individuals calling/logging in trying to get the weeks.  Now Marriott gets to change that and impose a "system" to ensure its new "club" (which other weeks owners are prohibited from setting up) gets the weeks it thinks it deserves.

Just because there is no practical way to maintain the status quo (individuals competing equally by calling in) and run their "club" as they hope to, does not allow it to be changed, or make it right. 



SueDonJ said:


> Am I reading you correctly, David, that when the Reservation Windows open for Weeks MVW is reserving the Trust's allocated inventory based completely on projections, which specific reservations they then make available to DC Members when the DC Reservation Windows open a few days later?


The problem is I, nor anyone else, really knows what they do. What I _think_ they do is use some system/metric/algorithm as this has been relayed from Marriott insiders to many people.  


SueDonJ said:


> I just don't see that extra step being necessary, plus it allows for far more breakage and unused inventory than if DC Members are allowed to book what they want up to the proportionate allocations in real-time.  It also creates another "bucket" from which DC Members can pull intervals, one that I think is unnecessary if DC Members are delegated by the Trustee the access to book real-time reservations.
> 
> Like Jim I keep going back to when Weeks were the only game in town and there wasn't this pervasive suspicion that MVW was mismanaging inventory, despite them having to pre-designate (for Owners, Marriott Rentals, MRP and II exchanges, etc) Weeks inventory prior to any Reservation Windows opening.  It's always been a first-come-first-served system that didn't allow access prior to any Reservation Windows opening and didn't appear to allow over-booking by either MVW or the Owners; why isn't it feasible that DC-related inventory structures are simply more metrics added to the established real-time system?
> 
> ...


I'm not exactly sure what you mean here about DC members "rights." They only rights they have are what's stipulated in the DC Club docs (assuming those rights exist to convey). They cannot be given more "rights" by the Trust than the Trust has itself. Any any contract between the DC and its members cannot usurp the governing documents. 

I have no opinion (nor particularly care) as to what the DC does with the weeks after they properly reserve them on an equal footing with weeks owners in according with the governing docs. 

Merely because they may have done it in the past (or others do is) does not factor into my analysis.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Apr 15, 2015)

Please note - the CC&Rs may not be valid at a particular point in time. If the writer of the CC&Rs places a unilateral right to change the terms and conditions clause, then the written CC&Rs are simple words on a piece of paper, with no legal enforcement capability.


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 16, 2015)

davidvel said:


> If they didn't pre-reserve, the best weeks would be reserved by weeks owners, and thus unavailable once the DC window opens...Just because there is no practical way to maintain the status quo (individuals competing equally by calling in) and run their "club" as they hope to, does not allow it to be changed, or make it right.


I've heard this argument for a while now - that Marriott couldn't maintain the old reservation system and still have good weeks available to DC members. But it isn't true.

To begin with there were all the 'slush' weeks that Marriott owned or kept in reserve for II that could/would have been available for DC reservations.  But more importantly Marriott could have only accepted actual reserved weeks to be traded for DC points - and then paid/charged a DC value high enough for those weeks for supply to equal demand.

Disney has some of the same issues but at your home resort it isn't any harder to reserve during Christmas week than during low season - because rooms cost about twice as many points.  I'm sure that over time Marriott would have to modify the prices of days/seasons/rooms to better match supply with demand - as Disney has done.

But as near as I can tell the only reason it wouldn't work is that Marriott didn't want to pay existing weeks owners the true DP value of those weeks. And perhaps didn't want to 'surprise' potential DP customers with the cost.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 16, 2015)

I’ve done some additional thinking and research on this and think it can be boiled down to two main questions. To illustrate, I’ll use a mythical MVC resort with 100 2BR units (all same view category) and a 10 week-long Platinum season, which results in 1000 bookable Platinum 2BR intervals.

	Let’s assume that 800 of those intervals are owned by weeks owners and 200 are owned by the DC Trust.
	Let’s further assume that 100 of the 800 Weeks owners elect to relinquish their week and convert to DC points, Rewards Points, etc.
	This results in 700 Platinum intervals eligible for booking by the 700 remaining Weeks owners, and 300 intervals eligible for use by the DC Program Members.

Under this simple scenario everyone is whole. The Weeks owners each have the right to one interval on a first-come first-served basis. There will be one for everyone. The DC Points members will have the right to use the other 300 intervals, also on a first-come first-served basis.

It gets more complicated when we drill down below the season level to the individual week. Let’s assume that Week 5 of this mythical Platinum season is a popular holiday week with heavy demand, but only 100 available units/intervals. That brings us to the questions that I think we are debating in this thread:

1.	Does Marriott have the legal authority to enforce the same 70%/30% season-wide allocation of inventory down to the individual week level in the interest of fair allocation of high demand weeks? 
2.	Does Marriott have the legal authority to forecast anticipated week conversions to Points, etc. and allocate inventory on the basis of those forecasts rather than actual points conversions?

I looked in the Public Offering Statement for Barony Beach Club dated June 2014 and found the following language in Exhibit G to the Master Deed:



> (d) In the event either the Agent or the Association determines that the current reservation system in unmanageable or is, for any reason, unfair to some or all of the Owners, the Agent or the Association may, without the consent of the owners and in its reasonable business judgment, revise the reservation system from time to time and cause the system to contain one or more of the following features:
> 
> (i) A system which assures that each Owner will have an equal opportunity to make a reservation for the more popular holiday periods,
> …
> (iv) Such other conditions restrictions and limitations as the Agent or the Association shall deem necessary under the circumstances to assure a manageable and fair system.



So, it seems to me that this language in the Master Deed would give Marriott the right to allocate available intervals to be fair to both Weeks Owners and DC Points Members. I can think of two ways they could do this (again using the example above):

Option 1: Simply set a parameter in the system that prevents Weeks owners from reserving more than 70% of the intervals or DC Points Members from reserving more than their 30% share. I think this was what Sue suggested is happening in several of her posts above.

Option 2: Since Weeks reservations windows open on Wednesday and Points windows open the following Friday (I’m just focusing on the 12 month window here for simplicity), I guess Marriott could program the system to, at exactly 9:00:00 on Wednesday, actually reserve the 30% share for Points Members. That inventory then becomes available for Points members to book on Friday.

As far as the second question on forecasting, that seems to be answered in the “Barony Beach Club Amended and Restated Procedures for Reserving Usage” dated June 1, 2010 and which is part of Exhibit G to the Master Deed. I assume a similar amendment was filed for all other MVC resorts at the inception of the Destination Club.



> (h) The Management Company may forecast anticipated reservation and use of Units and is authorized to reasonably reserve, deposit, or rent the Units for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Units or other benefits made available through the Time Sharing Plan.



That language was added to the June 2010 version of the Reservation Procedures and was not included in the original version dated March 8, 1999, so it seems to have been added to accommodate the needs of the Destination Club and is consistent with the language in the Trust and DC Exchange Company procedures I quoted above in post #101.

I would assume those are at least some of the provisions that Marriott is relying on for the legal authority to do whatever they do, but - as answeeney noted above - the fact that their processes are so opaque only heightens the thoughts and suspicions of some people that they are playing loose with their allocations.

I guess lawyers could argue that these provisions of the Marriott deeds and agreements somehow violate some state or federal law and therefore harm the interests of Weeks owners - and that may be what davidvel is trying to say in his posts. I don't know. I guess that's why we have so many lawyers in the US - were it not for the ambiguities in contracts, agreements, and laws, we wouldn't need nearly as many people in that profession.


----------



## WFP (Apr 16, 2015)

I really like this thread as I am only a novice at this game, and it is a game in many ways as we compete for available inventory.  JIMinNC that is a very good post above.  Regarding the Opaqueness, It would be interesting to see a real-time inventory as some websites provide.  That would at least provide an idea of how much is currently in each bucket...they could even go further and provide how many of those have been consumed.  But the further you go down this rabbit hole the harder it gets because you would have to do it on a day by day basis.

/WFP


----------



## ljmiii (Apr 16, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I guess lawyers could argue that these provisions of the Marriott deeds and agreements somehow violate some state or federal law and therefore harm the interests of Weeks owners - and that may be what davidvel is trying to say in his posts. I don't know. I guess that's why we have so many lawyers in the US - were it not for the ambiguities in contracts, agreements, and laws, we wouldn't need nearly as many people in that profession.


Indeed. Marriott is relying on the enforceability of the clauses it put in the contracts that state (basically) "notwithstanding any of the language above, we have the right to amend this agreement so that we can do whatever we want."  I know similar clauses do fail in employment law, I have no idea what would happen on this border between commercial and real estate law. But I AM sure it would vary state by state.

Similarly, on the TUG boards I have read that Marriott has language dealing with uncooperative HOAs (though I have not read it myself). But I don't know if that language would matter if a majority of the ownership of a resort decided to remove Marriott as property manager.  Such a dispute sits on a more basic layer of property rights - and again I AM sure that varies wildly state by state.


----------



## windje2000 (Apr 16, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I’ve done some additional thinking and research on this and think it can be boiled down to two main questions. To illustrate, I’ll use a mythical MVC resort with 100 2BR units (all same view category) and a 10 week-long Platinum season, which results in 1000 bookable Platinum 2BR intervals.
> 
> 	Let’s assume that 800 of those intervals are owned by weeks owners and 200 are owned by the DC Trust.
> 	Let’s further assume that 100 of the 800 Weeks owners elect to relinquish their week and convert to DC points, Rewards Points, etc.
> ...



That analysis lays out this issue with the best clarity yet.  Exactly _what_ are they doing?  They won't say and that is the real issue.

Absent some transparency by MVC, someone (who believes their property rights were affected by the reservation policy) will assume the worst.  That is the inevitable consequence when MVC wears multiple hats and assumes multiple roles with the potential for conflicts of its interests with those of legacy weeks owners, and is exactly the kind of situation requiring transparency.  

Whether or not that worst case assumption is justified remains to be seen.  Where there is smoke there is usually fire.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 16, 2015)

windje2000 said:


> That analysis lays out this issue with the best clarity yet.  Exactly _what_ are they doing?  They won't say and that is the real issue.
> 
> Absent some transparency by MVC, someone (who believes their property rights were affected by the reservation policy) will assume the worst.  That is the inevitable consequence when MVC wears multiple hats and assumes multiple roles with the potential for conflicts of its interests with those of legacy weeks owners, and is exactly the kind of situation requiring transparency.
> 
> Whether or not that worst case assumption is justified remains to be seen.  Where there is smoke there is usually fire.



I agree that lack of transparency can cause people to assume the worst, and I also agree that where there are potential conflicts of interest transparency becomes even more important.

But I do not agree with the implication of the last sentence - "Where there is smoke there is usually fire." Just because a person or company has the opportunity to do something sneaky, doesn't mean they are actually doing it. Sometimes companies feel secrecy is needed to protect certain intellectual property or business strategies from competitors. It doesn't mean they are engaged in any shenanigans. It's sort of like the suspicious husband or wife who is convinced his or her spouse is having an affair just because they had the _opportunity_ to have one.

Maybe these lawsuits can force more transparency from Marriott. That is what happened with the class action lawsuit against RCI a few years ago over their "trading power" algorithms that led to the creation of the more transparent TPU system for RCI Weeks.


----------



## answeeney (Apr 17, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I’ve done some additional thinking and research on this and think it can be boiled down to two main questions. To illustrate, I’ll use a mythical MVC resort with 100 2BR units (all same view category) and a 10 week-long Platinum season, which results in 1000 bookable Platinum 2BR intervals.
> 
> 	Let’s assume that 800 of those intervals are owned by weeks owners and 200 are owned by the DC Trust.
> 	Let’s further assume that 100 of the 800 Weeks owners elect to relinquish their week and convert to DC points, Rewards Points, etc.
> ...



As others have said this is an excellent analysis. A further thought, extrapolating on your example, is  - what if there is a sub-set of especially motivated weeks-owners who target that week 5? They like it so much that they have bought a second week at the property and get on the phone at 9am each year in order to maximize their chances of securing that coveted week. It would be reasonable to assume that this group is less likely to exchange their weeks for DC points compared with the other weeks-owners who value greater flexibility in their plans. Prior to DC all 100 weeks were presumably up for grabs. Now apparently that might only be 70. As DC develops that 70 might get a lot lower. Do these owners have any cause to grumble?


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 17, 2015)

answeeney said:


> As others have said this is an excellent analysis. A further thought, extrapolating on your example, is  - what if there is a sub-set of especially motivated weeks-owners who target that week 5? They like it so much that they have bought a second week at the property and get on the phone at 9am each year in order to maximize their chances of securing that coveted week. It would be reasonable to assume that this group is less likely to exchange their weeks for DC points compared with the other weeks-owners who value greater flexibility in their plans. Prior to DC all 100 weeks were presumably up for grabs. Now apparently that might only be 70. As DC develops that 70 might get a lot lower. Do these owners have any cause to grumble?



Since as you suggest, multi-week owners may have less incentive to convert to DC points, in the situation you describe, that would seem to me to have the potential to actually increase the total number of weeks available to weeks owners and reduce availability for DC members. If lots of people buy second weeks to take advantage of 13 month booking, that would have the potential to reduce availability for single week owners at 12 months and reduce the number of weeks converted to points, making DC reservations harder to come by as well.

To some degree the situation you propose seems to already exist in some high demand resorts during peak weeks - not because of the DC - but because of overly long Platinum seasons. In those cases you have many more owners from a long Platinum season chasing the few highest demand weeks within that season and the further impact of multi-week owners booking at 13 months. I've read frequent complaints on TUG from weeks owners at Newport Coast complaining about that resort's long Platinum season and I've also read about Maui Ocean Club where many multi week owners string together weeks making certain February reservations very difficult to get.


----------



## answeeney (Apr 17, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> Since as you suggest, multi-week owners may have less incentive to convert to DC points, in the situation you describe, that would seem to me to have the potential to actually increase the total number of weeks available to weeks owners and reduce availability for DC members. If lots of people buy second weeks to take advantage of 13 month booking, that would have the potential to reduce availability for single week owners at 12 months and reduce the number of weeks converted to points, making DC reservations harder to come by as well.
> 
> To some degree the situation you propose seems to already exist in some high demand resorts during peak weeks - not because of the DC - but because of overly long Platinum seasons. In those cases you have many more owners from a long Platinum season chasing the few highest demand weeks within that season and the further impact of multi-week owners booking at 13 months. I've read frequent complaints on TUG from weeks owners at Newport Coast complaining about that resort's long Platinum season and I've also read about Maui Ocean Club where many multi week owners string together weeks making certain February reservations very difficult to get.



Multiple weeks ownership isn’t really central to what I was trying to get at.

To try and bring my point out let me use a simplified version of your example – one where all 1000 units are owned by individuals i.e. no trust inventory.
There are 1000 units, 10 weeks in the season, 100 units each week. Week 5 is the prime week. In the pre DC world let’s say owners of 200 of the units target that week as a first choice. Owners of a further 600 units target various other weeks and the remaining 200 owners would settle for any week because they are flexible or they plan to deposit in II. Those targeting week 5 would therefore have at worst a 50/50 chance of getting it and they can improve the odds by owning two or more weeks or getting on the phone quickly.

Move on now to the post DC world. Say 200 owners convert to DC points. Which of the owners are more likely to convert? Those targeting week 5 or those owners who don’t really mind what they get? I would suggest it would be heavily weighted towards the latter. If Marriott uses a straightforward proportionate approach to unit allocation between weeks and points the ‘don’t cares’ walk away with 20% of week 5 inventory where before they would have got none. Those buying into that resort and season specifically to target week 5 might feel they have had their ability to book their desired week compromised.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 17, 2015)

answeeney said:


> Multiple weeks ownership isn’t really central to what I was trying to get at.
> 
> To try and bring my point out let me use a simplified version of your example – one where all 1000 units are owned by individuals i.e. no trust inventory.
> There are 1000 units, 10 weeks in the season, 100 units each week. Week 5 is the prime week. In the pre DC world let’s say owners of 200 of the units target that week as a first choice. Owners of a further 600 units target various other weeks and the remaining 200 owners would settle for any week because they are flexible or they plan to deposit in II. Those targeting week 5 would therefore have at worst a 50/50 chance of getting it and they can improve the odds by owning two or more weeks or getting on the phone quickly.
> ...



I understand what you mean now. Thanks.

Gotta think about that some because at first blush, it seems to me that those 200 "don't care" owners who convert to points would most likely no longer be competing for bookings at the home resort at all. I would think if an enrolled owner converts to points, its because they want to go somewhere else or in a different season, etc. So instead of characterizing those 200 owners as "Don't cares", wouldn't it be more accurate to call them "Don't want to go at alls?" So they go somewhere else in the MVC network, opening up DC point reservations for other Points members, and some of those folks, in fact, may have week 5 as a priority. I think you are correct that the week 5 inventory is still reduced for those 200 "week 5 first choice" owners, but its not like the "don't care" folks are being forced to book the high demand week. Other DC Members are coming in from outside to capture those weeks, but the impact of that may not be much different than if some of the "week 5 first choice" owners book the week and then give the week to II or rent it. I recall similar debates on TUG where weeks owners have complained about inventory being reduced because other weeks owners reserve holiday weeks just to trade or rent.

It all gets really complicated to think about and I suspect whatever allocation/algorithm Marriott uses could actually be more complex and or multi-variable based than just a simple 70/30 split like our simplistic examples.


----------



## kds4 (Apr 17, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> I agree that lack of transparency can cause people to assume the worst, and I also agree that where there are potential conflicts of interest transparency becomes even more important.
> 
> But I do not agree with the implication of the last sentence - "Where there is smoke there is usually fire." Just because a person or company has the opportunity to do something sneaky, doesn't mean they are actually doing it. Sometimes companies feel secrecy is needed to protect certain intellectual property or business strategies from competitors. It doesn't mean they are engaged in any shenanigans. It's sort of like the suspicious husband or wife who is convinced his or her spouse is having an affair just because they had the _opportunity_ to have one.
> 
> Maybe these lawsuits can force more transparency from Marriott. That is what happened with the class action lawsuit against RCI a few years ago over their "trading power" algorithms that led to the creation of the more transparent TPU system for RCI Weeks.



"And what are you wearing, Jake ... from State Farm ...?" :rofl:


----------



## windje2000 (Apr 18, 2015)

JIMinNC said:


> snip
> 
> But I do not agree with the implication of the last sentence - "Where there is smoke there is usually fire." Just because a person or company has the opportunity to do something sneaky, doesn't mean they are actually doing it. Sometimes companies feel secrecy is needed to protect certain intellectual property or business strategies from competitors. It doesn't mean they are engaged in any shenanigans. It's sort of like the suspicious husband or wife who is convinced his or her spouse is having an affair just because they had the _opportunity_ to have one.
> 
> snip



I can think of no good reason to keep the reservation policy secret from the owners.

They're OUR resorts - we (collectively the legacy AND points owners) own them.


----------



## KauaiMark (Apr 25, 2015)

*Pesonal DC usage experience of a legacy owner...*

We are a weeks (one week to be exact) owner at Marriott's Kaua'i Beach Club (KBC) since 1996.

Like everyone else I was leery about how the DC points system would impact our usage. We did elect to enroll our week and I have to say it's been a plus for us so far. 

We've exchanged used our legacy points for a week at Newport Coast,CA as test run and the deal went smoothly 1-for-1 with a few points left over. 

One of my wife's "bucket list" trips was to bring the family (kids & grand-kids) to Kaua'i for vacation. Something not easily accomplished with a single 1br/2ba week at KBC.

One of the selling points, for us with DC points is the ability to bank a week and/or borrow a week for longer stays or, in our case, use three accommodations for the same week.

We just completed Claudette's bucket list trip last week by banking our 2014 week, using our legacy 2015 week and released our 2016 week for points for three separate 1ba/2ba units at KBC for all 6 of us adults and 4 grandkids (who really get a kick out of using the "hidden bed" in the wall).

...Mark


----------



## SueDonJ (May 18, 2015)

Back to the lawsuit ...

law360.com:  5/11/15 - Marriott Tells 11th Circ. No Arbitration In Timeshare Row

Any of you lawyers want to tell the rest of us what's happening with this, and anything else you can find?  Thanks!


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 18, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Back to the lawsuit ...
> 
> law360.com:  5/11/15 - Marriott Tells 11th Circ. No Arbitration In Timeshare Row
> 
> Any of you lawyers want to tell the rest of us what's happening with this, and anything else you can find?  Thanks!



Sterman et. al. managed to get the Federal district court to get the case sent to "class action" artibtration. Marriott is not happy. They would be dealing with professional aribtrators, which would be unlikely to be swayed by emotion and rhetoric, unlike a typical jury.

That does not mean that Sterman would win, but that way too much confidential information may have to provided to defend the suit by Marriott.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 1, 2015)

from Law360:  Marriott, Timeshare Owner Settle Rewards System Appeal


> Law360, Miami (July 7, 2015, 8:25 PM ET) -- Marriott Ownership Resorts Inc. settled a class action Tuesday with a timeshare owner who alleged the resort companies used a rewards system that was unfair to customers who had purchased timeshares, according to court documents filed in the Eleventh Circuit.
> 
> In the filing, Marriott and timeshare owner William Sterman asked the Eleventh Circuit, where the case was on appeal, to dismiss the case, saying they had settled the dispute. The parties did not specify the amount involved in the settlement.
> 
> Sterman, a timeshare owner in a...



Not sure how we missed this back in July but are there any TUGgers who can access the entire article, or can find any other related articles?  Is there anything interesting we should know?


----------



## m61376 (Oct 3, 2015)

Googling it turned up nothing specific, just that both parties agreed to withdraw the suit for some undisclosed settlement. Very curious...


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 3, 2015)

Not at all. Many, if not most, civil cases are settled out of court with a sealed settlement. Marriott would want a sealed settlement, to prevent any discovery in the case from being used in another suit.

This would imply that Marriott didn't feel the risk was worth paying out whatever it took to shut up Sterman...Especially after they fought the case as far as they did...(They may have lost the arbitration case, and offered to settle on other (fat?) terms rather than pay out the class action settlement...)

But we'll never know...


----------



## davidvel (Oct 3, 2015)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Not at all. Many, if not most, civil cases are settled out of court with a sealed settlement. Marriott would want a sealed settlement, to prevent any discovery in the case from being used in another suit.
> 
> This would imply that Marriott didn't feel the risk was worth paying out whatever it took to shut up Sterman...Especially after they fought the case as far as they did...(They may have lost the arbitration case, and offered to settle on other (fat?) terms rather than pay out the class action settlement...)
> 
> But we'll never know...


The case was in arbitration, not in court. Marriott actually tried to move it to court and lost. (That was what the appeal was about.) 

As a class action, had it been in court, the settlement would have been public as the judge has to approve it.


----------



## n777lt (Oct 4, 2015)

A couple of posts up there is a mention that the arbitration was "class action" arbitration ... but it appears that the settlement was an individual settlement. 

This is significant - if a class action is in court, once a court certifies the class, the class has to be given notice of the (class-wide) settlement and an opportunity to comment to the court on the fairness of the settlement.

So the secrecy of arbitration that is usually  seen as a benefit to corporations in this case benefited the plaintiff, who managed to get a settlement of his own claim without having to benefit the rest of the class...of course, the other side of the coin is that the individual settlement doesn't diminish others' right against Marriott, and IF the statute of limitations hasn't run, other people can file their own claims.


----------

