Monarch 2016-19 4-Year Special Assessment/Refurbishment, etc [Update]

[okie]

Thank you for your response. I really wish the Board would reach out to the owners as they did for the parking situation a few years ago. Although we are definitely not for the change to the wall, if most owners use the sofa for a bed and want the extra room, I can accept that. Your facebook member numbers are very interesting. I have reached out to owners we know. Like your FB numbers, we found far more are against changing the wall - even those that have 3 generations staying in their unit.

At the "Java with the GM" meeting we attended, we were told they would be putting the sofa on the bedroom wall. In one of our units, this will put us facing the lagoon and not the ocean which we can now see from the couch. We know someone who has a unit closest to the beach in Magnolia, and they were told "you bought garden view". They bought their fixed unit because it does have an ocean view. To put their sofa facing the pool/lagoon and also take away the aquarium window and not put in another window on the side so they continue to have a view of the ocean seems crazy to me. I would hope that since the windows/sliders are being replaced, they will continue to have the sofa face the ocean with those that have any kind of an ocean view. Since we have an ocean front unit, we are also upset about the change to the windows. This will decrease the amount of beach we can see from inside our unit. Once we heard of the changes, we were amazed how often we do look out the small side of the aquarium window. We hope the Board will at least give us a side window and not just a wall

Like you, we have always thought that the management team and the Board have done a great job communicating with the owners. We love our Monarch weeks. Right now, we are hearing of major changes to our units and it would be nice if these changes would at least be posted on the Monarch owner site. The Board may not be required to get approval from the owners, but with the money being spent, I would hope they would want owner input. They could easily e-mail most owners, as they have most of our e-mail addresses. If any tuggers do get a response from the Board or if you see Monarchowners has posted the proposed changes, please post on TUG. Thanks!

I could not agree more with you. I still don't believe the money the owners have paid for "REFURBISHMENT" allows the BOD to use it for major structural changes that are not completely necessary and that refurbishing a window with a wall is not refurbishment. I also have sent a letter to the board and have not heard back. I hope it will not take a law suit to get a response. I wish all the owners could be notified and a vote taken. In addition I don't understand why board can't separate the various merits of each building at the Monarch, and not throw the baby out with the bath water. I as a owner will fight the board, I hope I am not alone.

 

[okie]

I disagree with your interpretation of the Master Deed. Would like to know if you are a Contract Lawyer? The statement with regard to only damage from casualty does not consider the true intent of the master deed which was not to allow major modifications without 75% approval of owners. The master deed does not specifically state that the BOD has this power aside from casualty damage. I have consulted contract attorney who agrees with interpretation, the BOD DOES NOT have this authority without 75% owners approval. Of course this would probably have to be settled in court.

I would also point out that the BOD is doing this under the guise of REFURBISHMENT

 

[okie]

I sent an email earlier this evening asking the board to update the Owners website. If they do not do this I am going to suggest to anyone that voted to send an email. did they mention the Why.

Do you still believe this is "just a misunderstanding of the facts"?

 

[AlmostRetired]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/754689184660062/

Here is the link to the Monarch Facebook Group if you want to join. We have about 200 members but all of them are not Owners.

 

[SueDonJ]

I disagree with your interpretation of the Master Deed. Would like to know if you are a Contract Lawyer? The statement with regard to only damage from casualty does not consider the true intent of the master deed which was not to allow major modifications without 75% approval of owners. The master deed does not specifically state that the BOD has this power aside from casualty damage. I have consulted contract attorney who agrees with interpretation, the BOD DOES NOT have this authority without 75% owners approval. Of course this would probably have to be settled in court.

No comment other than, I don't think that the interpretation is actually l0410z's. If you look again at his post #95 above, that statement was made to him by "the liaison" who responded to his email.

 

[Monarch]

I disagree with your interpretation of the Master Deed. Would like to know if you are a Contract Lawyer? The statement with regard to only damage from casualty does not consider the true intent of the master deed which was not to allow major modifications without 75% approval of owners. The master deed does not specifically state that the BOD has this power aside from casualty damage. I have consulted contract attorney who agrees with interpretation, the BOD DOES NOT have this authority without 75% owners approval. Of course this would probably have to be settled in court.

When you think about it, Okie’s lawyer has a point. What was the intent of the original developers? In case of severe damage, as from a catastrophic hurricane, they wanted a provision written into the master deed that required the building to be rebuilt to the original plan. This could only be changed with 75% approval vote of owners. They never expected the BOD to change the building. It is not written that the BOD can change the design. Therefore it is implied that they expect the building to remain in the original architectural design. So concerned about this, they listed the exact sq.ft. of each room to the ten of an inch in the Master Deed (Article II, Section 2. Beaufort County ROD, book 347, page 351).

 

[SueDonJ]

Wasn't Monarch originally developed by another company and Marriott bought it as their first foray into timeshares? While the developers' Master Deed is certainly important, there are other components of the Public Offering Statements for other Marriott timeshares that are at least equally important. Is there, for example, a Management Agreement component of Monarch's POS, and if so, does it contain relevant protections for Marriott that may supersede what's in the original Master Deed? And are there any other components?

I don't know the answers here but based on similar discussions related to Marriott actions at other properties, I do know that challenging Marriott is never as simple as a single provision in a single document would make it appear. I am ALWAYS in favor of obtaining a qualified attorney's opinion in matters like this, but any attorney will need to see all of the relevant documents in order to come away with an informed/actionable opinion.

 

[sparty]

I am one that enjoys the Monarch. I have no desire to change anyones mind because it doesn't matter to me. I have no issue with anyone disliking the Monarch for whatever reasons (decor, layout, age. etc) they want. There is no question the Monarch has the smallest unit footprint of all the Marriott oceanfront resorts. The one issue I have is unit size as if all the other Oceanfront resorts offer huge mansions in comparison. Let's quantify each Marriott Oceanfront 2 bedroom resort square footage. I know we are now in a world of alternate facts but facts are still facts.

I did this a number of years ago when my friend purchased at the Surfwatch for 40% more than the second unit I purchased at the Monarch and he tried to convince me his 2 BR was 40% bigger. Some of that was fun arguing between friends but we did get the numbers. Just as an FYI, I verified this again just before this post with each of the front desks and the numbers still match... smallest to largest.

Monarch - 1200sf
Surfwatch - 1275sf (6.3% bigger)
Baroney - 1300sf (8.3 % bigger)
Grand Ocean -1380sf (15% bigger).

Unless there is a conspiracy by each of the front desks, can we take the numbers at face value. Also, since they are all Marriott's can we for discussion purposes say it was calculated in a consistent way.

Small correction, for Barony assuming the "Baroney" you are referring to is Barony. Marriott often says approximately 1300 sq ft but they don't give an exact sq footage. Some of the units are actually 1350 sq ft and officially they refer to them as typical units for particular buildings with an average of 1350 sq ft and all being pretty much the same, meaning there is some variance and why Marriott says approximate. Better to be safe than sued. I am pretty sure GO is the same way but I never cared to look since I don't own there.

 

[AlmostRetired]

Small correction, for Barony assuming the "Baroney" you are referring to is Barony. Marriott often says approximately 1300 sq ft but they don't give an exact sq footage. Some of the units are actually 1350 sq ft and officially they refer to them as typical units for particular buildings with an average of 1350 sq ft and all being pretty much the same, meaning there is some variance and why Marriott says approximate. Better to be safe than sued. I am pretty sure GO is the same way but I never cared to look since I don't own there.

Thanks for the correction on the typo for Barony to clarify so there was no confusion.

I called up each resort and they told me what they told me so please let me know who "officially" is you are referring to. If it is Marriott sales, they can quote 2200 sf and not be held accountable. My posting was to give facts not perception. It was for compairson purposes but I will concede the 4 percent increase in sf to the Barony to 1350 if you concede you can get a smaller unit at times. Heck, I will increase all but the Monarch by 4 percent. It still doesn't changes facts by much or support perception of some.

The Monarch has a unit that is 2400 sf. So the range of unit size at the Monarch is 1800 sf. The largest range of any Marriott property on HHI. No I am not a sales person in training.

 

[bogey21]

The Monarch has a unit that is 2400 sf.

You are probably referring to the Crown Suite of which there is only one. At one time I owned a Crown Suite Week. It was by far the best TS Unit I ever stayed in. But with luxury comes cost. The MF is double that of other Monarch Units. Nonetheless, owning a Crown Suite Week was my ultimate TS experience.

George

 

[AlmostRetired]

I was referring to it and while I never stayed in it, my unit is right underneath and I have toured it. It is really nice but I would spent 2x MF.

 

[Monarch]

Wasn't Monarch originally developed by another company and Marriott bought it as their first foray into timeshares? While the developers' Master Deed is certainly important, there are other components of the Public Offering Statements for other Marriott timeshares that are at least equally important. Is there, for example, a Management Agreement component of Monarch's POS, and if so, does it contain relevant protections for Marriott that may supersede what's in the original Master Deed? And are there any other components?

I don't know the answers here but based on similar discussions related to Marriott actions at other properties, I do know that challenging Marriott is never as simple as a single provision in a single document would make it appear. I am ALWAYS in favor of obtaining a qualified attorney's opinion in matters like this, but any attorney will need to see all of the relevant documents in order to come away with an informed/actionable opinion.

Yes, when we purchased it was being built by American Resorts. At approx ¾ into the project Marriott became interested in timeshares, purchased the project, and completed the last of 4 buildings. The developer became the new VP for timeshares and developed others in HHI and Orlando. After completion of sales Marriott stayed on as the management company.

I do not know of any other agreements and if any occurred at transfer, all owners should have received copies of new documents. Management has always noted that the BOD makes all the final decisions. However, there is pressure due to corporate requirements. For example, we had to give up ½ of the lobby and install an exercise room to keep up with company standards. Spicebush and Swallowtail did not have a large number of owners so could not afford the update required. In turn Marriott did not renew their management contract and they are now managed by a local group on HHI.

We have been told that the new $4-6000 self closing door is required by corporate. Such a waste as other much less expensive closers can be installed as in most commercial buildings. It is also a red herring as children will get locked out in the hallway with no key. This money could be well spent on the hurricane windows. Alternatively, for budget purposes, do the windows this year and the doors next year. Properly installed windows will not leak, so blocking them in is a stupid idea. Oceanfront and view units paid more and now will lose approx 20-25% of view. Hopefully Sea Pines ARB will turn it down as owners have not approved it.

Monarch owners are different than other time shares. They have a fixed time deeded unit. As the project ended, management came up with a new concept of floating time and designated about 15 units in the last building for that purpose. Deeded owners are like homeowners. We can use it, lend it, trade it, rent it, or leave it vacant if you cannot come at that time. Like home owners we do not want someone saying you have to change the wall because the design company has a plan. Designers are profit based and are destroying what we purchased for the sake of a new furniture floor plan. Monarch remains the only property which does not have the first right of refusal attached to the sale.

 

[bazzap]

Yes, when we purchased it was being built by American Resorts. At approx ¾ into the project Marriott became interested in timeshares, purchased the project, and completed the last of 4 buildings. The developer became the new VP for timeshares and developed others in HHI and Orlando. After completion of sales Marriott stayed on as the management company.

I do not know of any other agreements and if any occurred at transfer, all owners should have received copies of new documents. Management has always noted that the BOD makes all the final decisions. However, there is pressure due to corporate requirements. For example, we had to give up ½ of the lobby and install an exercise room to keep up with company standards. Spicebush and Swallowtail did not have a large number of owners so could not afford the update required. In turn Marriott did not renew their management contract and they are now managed by a local group on HHI.

We have been told that the new $4-6000 self closing door is required by corporate. Such a waste as other much less expensive closers can be installed as in most commercial buildings. It is also a red herring as children will get locked out in the hallway with no key. This money could be well spent on the hurricane windows. Alternatively, for budget purposes, do the windows this year and the doors next year. Properly installed windows will not leak, so blocking them in is a stupid idea. Oceanfront and view units paid more and now will lose approx 20-25% of view. Hopefully Sea Pines ARB will turn it down as owners have not approved it.

Monarch owners are different than other time shares. They have a fixed time deeded unit. As the project ended, management came up with a new concept of floating time and designated about 15 units in the last building for that purpose. Deeded owners are like homeowners. We can use it, lend it, trade it, rent it, or leave it vacant if you cannot come at that time. Like home owners we do not want someone saying you have to change the wall because the design company has a plan. Designers are profit based and are destroying what we purchased for the sake of a new furniture floor plan. Monarch remains the only property which does not have the first right of refusal attached to the sale.

I understood from this that there are quite a few MVC resorts which do not have ROFR attached to the sale?
http://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/marriotts-right-of-first-refusal-rofr.13111/

 

[Monarch]

I understood from this that there are quite a few MVC resorts which do not have ROFR attached to the sale?
http://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/marriotts-right-of-first-refusal-rofr.13111/

Nice research! I stand corrected.
Thanks

 

[thickey]

[Threads merged.]

I recently learned though a MVCI Facebook page that the Board of Directors at the Monarch are considering changing the curved wall between the living room and master bedroom. This change will supposedly add a few inches to the living room. They are apparently proposing other changes as well (corner window to smaller size), etc.
I have not heard anything about this other than through this Facebook page, but it is supposedly the real deal. There is nothing on the MVC website, the Monarch Owners website, no email or letter from the B.O.D., etc.
From the poll taken on the Facebook page, roughly 90% of responders (mostly owners) are against the proposed changes, as there is little or no benefit for the money. Most of us LIKE the curved wall. Many (including me) have written the B.O.D. and have had NO response, or even an acknowledgement of an email/letter.
Owners have bragged on the Board in the past, regarding their professionalism and transparency. Huh?
What can we owners do to have a true voice in what is going on there? It appears that our "representatives" are not representin'!
Thoughts?

 

[AlmostRetired]

I recently learned though a MVCI Facebook page that the Board of Directors at the Monarch are considering changing the curved wall between the living room and master bedroom. This change will supposedly add a few inches to the living room. They are apparently proposing other changes as well (corner window to smaller size), etc.
I have not heard anything about this other than through this Facebook page, but it is supposedly the real deal. There is nothing on the MVC website, the Monarch Owners website, no email or letter from the B.O.D., etc.
From the poll taken on the Facebook page, roughly 90% of responders (mostly owners) are against the proposed changes, as there is little or no benefit for the money. Most of us LIKE the curved wall. Many (including me) have written the B.O.D. and have had NO response, or even an acknowledgement of an email/letter.
Owners have bragged on the Board in the past, regarding their professionalism and transparency. Huh?
What can we owners do to have a true voice in what is going on there? It appears that our "representatives" are not representin'!
Thoughts?

I started the facebook page and I learned from a tug post of the changes and reported that along with information on where the information I read on Tug. So to close the loop (and it was posted on facebook), I did finally hear back from the liaison to the HOA today. I will also post this on the thread on the Monarch

I believe 100% in what I was sent because it is consistent with and in character of how the HOA has operated in the past. The HOA is doing their due diligence and as owners that is all we can ask.

"It is a misconception that the Board decided on these particular two design elements (serpentine wall and aquarium window). At the spring board meeting, the Board had been given a presentation by the commissioned design firm with an overall refurbishment recommendation. The Board asked key questions and gave relatively minor direction and opinions, but there were no firm decisions or approvals of any particular components. Instead, the MVCI project manager was supposed to continue working on pricing out the entire scope of the renovation, with those two design elements being just two of the HUNDREDS of components. Nothing has been decided for sure, and nothing CAN be decided until there is an overall detailed comprehensive final proposal with price tag, pros/cons, timeline, etc., for the Board to vote up or down.

Because nothing has been approved yet, and there isn’t enough data yet in hand, it simply isn’t possible to put specific plans on the MonarchOwners website.

I do promise that I’ll be back in touch once I have anything definite to report"

[Edited/bolded for importance <-- SueDonJ]

 

[SueDonJ]

You might try giving the liaison links to this thread, the FaceBook page and whatever other social media sites where this is being discussed. No idea if they're interested in owner input but they should at least know it exists and where to find it.

 

[AlmostRetired]

You might try giving the liaison links to this thread, the FaceBook page and whatever other social media sites where this is being discussed. No idea if they're interested in owner input but they should at least know it exists and where to find it.

Through the liaison and with the HOA approval, the link to the FB page on the Monarch Owners website.

From the Monarch Owners website

Want to enter discussion about our resort? A Monarch Facebook Group has been established for owners (past, present, and future) as well as renters and exchangers to share ideas, ask questions, and exchange information about Monarch. Please note that this Facebook group is independent from the Monarch Owners Association and was not created by or endorsed by the Monarch Board of Directors or our Management associates, nor does the Board or the management team monitor the content. Go to https://www.facebook.com/groups/754689184660062/ to learn more.

 

[okie]

I started the facebook page and I learned from a tug post of the changes and reported that along with information on where the information I read on Tug. So to close the loop (and it was posted on facebook), I did finally hear back from the liaison to the HOA today. I will also post this on the thread on the Monarch

I believe 100% in what I was sent because it is consistent with and in character of how the HOA has operated in the past. The HOA is doing their due diligence and as owners that is all we can ask.

"It is a misconception that the Board decided on these particular two design elements (serpentine wall and aquarium window). At the spring board meeting, the Board had been given a presentation by the commissioned design firm with an overall refurbishment recommendation. The Board asked key questions and gave relatively minor direction and opinions, but there were no firm decisions or approvals of any particular components. Instead, the MVCI project manager was supposed to continue working on pricing out the entire scope of the renovation, with those two design elements being just two of the HUNDREDS of components. Nothing has been decided for sure, and nothing CAN be decided until there is an overall detailed comprehensive final proposal with price tag, pros/cons, timeline, etc., for the Board to vote up or down.

Because nothing has been approved yet, and there isn’t enough data yet in hand, it simply isn’t possible to put specific plans on the MonarchOwners website.

I do promise that I’ll be back in touch once I have anything definite to report"

[Edited/bolded for importance <-- SueDonJ]

I would like to believe this but I spent 4 weeks in may this year at the Monarch and this totally contradicts what we were told by monarch upper management at owners meetings. Some of the owners even saw blue prints and were told that we would be able to view a prototype unit early next year. So now who do we believe? I wish I could trust your liaison but I am afraid there may be something rotten in Denmark.

 

[okie]

Yes, when we purchased it was being built by American Resorts. At approx ¾ into the project Marriott became interested in timeshares, purchased the project, and completed the last of 4 buildings. The developer became the new VP for timeshares and developed others in HHI and Orlando. After completion of sales Marriott stayed on as the management company.

I do not know of any other agreements and if any occurred at transfer, all owners should have received copies of new documents. Management has always noted that the BOD makes all the final decisions. However, there is pressure due to corporate requirements. For example, we had to give up ½ of the lobby and install an exercise room to keep up with company standards. Spicebush and Swallowtail did not have a large number of owners so could not afford the update required. In turn Marriott did not renew their management contract and they are now managed by a local group on HHI.

We have been told that the new $4-6000 self closing door is required by corporate. Such a waste as other much less expensive closers can be installed as in most commercial buildings. It is also a red herring as children will get locked out in the hallway with no key. This money could be well spent on the hurricane windows. Alternatively, for budget purposes, do the windows this year and the doors next year. Properly installed windows will not leak, so blocking them in is a stupid idea. Oceanfront and view units paid more and now will lose approx 20-25% of view. Hopefully Sea Pines ARB will turn it down as owners have not approved it.

Monarch owners are different than other time shares. They have a fixed time deeded unit. As the project ended, management came up with a new concept of floating time and designated about 15 units in the last building for that purpose. Deeded owners are like homeowners. We can use it, lend it, trade it, rent it, or leave it vacant if you cannot come at that time. Like home owners we do not want someone saying you have to change the wall because the design company has a plan. Designers are profit based and are destroying what we purchased for the sake of a new furniture floor plan. Monarch remains the only property which does not have the first right of refusal attached to the sale.

Well said, I could not agree more.

 

[AlmostRetired]

I would like to believe this but I spent 4 weeks in may this year at the Monarch and this totally contradicts what we were told by monarch upper management at owners meetings. Some of the owners even saw blue prints and were told that we would be able to view a prototype unit early next year. So now who do we believe? I wish I could trust your liaison but I am afraid there may be something rotten in Denmark.

A Design firm made a number of recommendations/proposals. It is not uncommon to provide blue prints in support of this. The blue prints might even have a few versions to cover multiple scenarios given there are "hundreds of components". Seeing blue prints are meaningless unless they are approved and signed. Were they approved by the HOA? Prototypes are meaning full but what of the hundred plus components being looked at are in the prototype. I do not mean to be a jerk but often people do not ask follow on questions when given information. The HOA are owners also. The HOA has never done anything in my 25 years of ownership that suggests they are self serving or deceptive. In fact, I have often made suggestions about towing second cars of owners who park their car where first car parking is with only one warning. The HOA would not do it because they didn't want to antagonize owners. Doesn't seem like a board willing to jump into something.

My owners liaison is hired by the HOA works for the HOA and if I had to guess, an owner also. My liaison is also your liaison and it is documented very clearly on the Monarch Owners website who it is, the role and how to get in touch. Who provided you the conflicting information at these meetings (titles if you have them and names if you don't). While I rented my units this year, my wife and I are going to be in Charleston this weekend and staying in HHI Sunday and Monday. Would love to chat with him/her on this topic.

 

[okie]

A Design firm made a number of recommendations/proposals. It is not uncommon to provide blue prints in support of this. The blue prints might even have a few versions to cover multiple scenarios given there are "hundreds of components". Seeing blue prints are meaningless unless they are approved and signed. Were they approved by the HOA? Prototypes are meaning full but what of the hundred plus components being looked at are in the prototype. I do not mean to be a jerk but often people do not ask follow on questions when given information. The HOA are owners also. The HOA has never done anything in my 25 years of ownership that suggests they are self serving or deceptive. In fact, I have often made suggestions about towing second cars of owners who park their car where first car parking is with only one warning. The HOA would not do it because they didn't want to antagonize owners. Doesn't seem like a board willing to jump into something.

My owners liaison is hired by the HOA works for the HOA and if I had to guess, an owner also. My liaison is also your liaison and it is documented very clearly on the Monarch Owners website who it is, the role and how to get in touch. Who provided you the conflicting information at these meetings (titles if you have them and names if you don't). While I rented my units this year, my wife and I are going to be in Charleston this weekend and staying in HHI Sunday and Monday. Would love to chat with him/her on this topic.

Just learned that a unit is already in the construction process and is having the serpentine wall removed please check this out let us know what you find out when you are at HH. I hope your faith in the HOA is accurate but you might want to keep an open mind and your eyes open, something dose not add up. Could this design team and Marriott have some power over the HOA?

 

[okie]

Just learned that a unit is already in the construction process and is having the serpentine wall removed please check this out let us know what you find out when you are at HH. I hope your faith in the HOA is accurate but you might want to keep an open mind and your eyes open, something dose not add up. Could this design team and Marriott have some power over the HOA?

Also I want to stress that at the owners meeting this may at Monarch we were told by management this was a DONE deal, not in the planning stage.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Monarch owners are different than other time shares. They have a fixed time deeded unit. As the project ended, management came up with a new concept of floating time and designated about 15 units in the last building for that purpose. Deeded owners are like homeowners. We can use it, lend it, trade it, rent it, or leave it vacant if you cannot come at that time. Like home owners we do not want someone saying you have to change the wall because the design company has a plan. Designers are profit based and are destroying what we purchased for the sake of a new furniture floor plan. Monarch remains the only property which does not have the first right of refusal attached to the sale.

Most Marriott timeshare ownership is deeded in the sense you understand it regardless of whether the purchased interval is fixed or float (exceptions being the non-US properties and one-offs like Custom House where Marriott has long-term lease agreements with the property-holders.) The only difference between Monarch (and any other MVW) deeded fixed Week owners and deeded float Week owners is that fixed owners are guaranteed the same interval every year which is auto-reserved for them, while float owners are guaranteed an interval that conforms to their ownership type but they must secure a reservation via MVW. Once reserved, though, the interval is theirs to do whatever they want with it including the same things fixed owners can do, i.e. "use it, lend it, trade it, rent it, or leave it vacant."

I don't know how long you've been reading TUG but there's no doubt in my mind that many floating Weeks Owners share the same thought process that apparently Monarch fixed Weeks owners have, insofar as many consider themselves "homeowners" of a type and are as fiercely protective of their rights to have a say in how their property is managed/refurbed. But the fact remains that at any and all timeshares with a Marriott Vacation Club sign hanging on the door, Marriott has rights by virtue of a contractual Management Agreement. Barony Beach's is 15 pages; SurfWatch's is 23 pages. They (among the rest of the governing documents) are part of the reason why I think a challenge by Weeks owners, over property changes recommended by MVW for board approval, is doomed to failure from the start if it's not a collective action headed by a qualified attorney who has all of the ownership documents at his disposal. And even then, I'd lay odds on Marriott coming out the winner but possibly making minor concessions to appease the owners. At worst, the MVC name could come off the property the same way it did at Swallowtail and Spicebush.

I'm not an owner at Monarch, obviously. Anybody who is can probably obtain a copy of the Monarch Public Offering Statement the same way I got mine for Barony, by calling Owner Services and asking for it. (SurfWatch's was given to us at purchase which is how I knew that one probably existed for Barony.) I was told that a per-page printing fee may be charged which could add up because Barony's is a 325-page paperback book (SurfWatch's is 375) but they never sent me a bill. Other than making that suggestion, to ensure that owners and any attorneys you may consult are fully aware of all relevant documents from both before and after Marriott began managing Monarch, it's pointless for me to comment on the specific design changes that your resort may be facing. I wish you good luck, though, and hope that in the end no matter how this is all resolved, you continue to enjoy your Monarch ownership.

 

[okie]

Just heard back form the Board. THE SERPENTINE WALL IS STAYING!!. Decision with aquarium window still pending