[2016] Aspen Highlands Ritz owners suing

[CalGalTraveler]

IMO "Fractionals" began as a large luxury single family home or townhouse in a resort location that was split by 4 - 8 owners. With significant owner control over the property, they acted more like a co-op home and tended to hold their value. At some Fractionals, I heard the owners can select the furnishings as well.

RC owner perception of value probably stemmed from this pattern, as these units were marketed as "Fractionals" instead of "Luxury Timeshares with 4 week intervals."

 

[Superchief]

If more of the inventory becomes available for DC points, there are fewer weeks to reserve by fractional owners. Their inventory for desired weeks may be impacted. I think many legacy MVC owners have seen the same thing happen for availability for reserving their desired weeks in their season. MVC 'controls' the inventory and it is impossible for anyone to really know whether they are following the rules. Their motivation is to maximize profits, which is why they gave sales package reservations priority over II MVC owner exchanges during the hurricane limited inventory situation.

 

[TravelTime]

My hope is MVC will develop more timeshares under its various brands and expand inventory. I would be especially interested in more Ritz timeshares.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

I'm not into lawsuits but if I had spent a bunch of money buying into one of the Ritz's, I think I would be upset with MCV Timeshare Owners being able to stay at my Resort. My gut tells me that one of the reasons I would have bought was exclusivity and that with MCV Owners getting access I would have lost this.

George

George has it bang on. The target market for those Ritz-Carltons were high end lawyers, doctors, and C-suite executives. People who could afford an Aspen condo, but didn't want the headaches of real estate ownership. Nor did they want to be around their underlings. They wanted the same exclusivity that owning a $1 million plus condo would get them. along with the convenience of ongoing permanent site management.

A place where they could discuss business deals, entertain high end clients, ect., without looking over their shoulders, or rubbing shoulders with the hoi pilloi .

Now the typical TUGger, this is snobbish and arrogant. (It is, but it is also a market segment.)

Which is why the lawsuit. Very well heeled people were sold with the promise of exclusivity, and had that taken away. They aren't happy about it, and they have the wherewithal to try to do something about it!

Whether or not they succeed is another question. . . .

 

[vikingsholm]

George has it bang on. The target market for those Ritz-Carltons were high end lawyers, doctors, and C-suite executives. People who could afford an Aspen condo, but didn't want the headaches of real estate ownership. Nor did they want to be around their underlings. They wanted the same exclusivity that owning a $1 million plus condo would get them. along with the convenience of ongoing permanent site management.

A place where they could discuss business deals, entertain high end clients, ect., without looking over their shoulders, or rubbing shoulders with the hoi pilloi .

Now the typical TUGger, this is snobbish and arrogant. (It is, but it is also a market segment.)

Which is why the lawsuit. Very well heeled people were sold with the promise of exclusivity, and had that taken away. They aren't happy about it, and they have the wherewithal to try to do something about it!

Whether or not they succeed is another question. . . .

Well Hi-Dee-Ho, aren't we special? I think I'll start reserving at Aspen more often just to annoy them with my presence. Frankly though, there are so many other great timeshares across the Western mountains that whether this one stays or goes won't make a whole lot of difference.

I could see this factor being more of an element at Aspen, but I haven't really gotten this feeling at Vail, probably because so many hoi-polloi are swarming the place with our swarthy selves, due I'd guess to Marriott owning a good number of the weeks still. The staff at both places has always treated us just like we're any other owners too. They don't seem to create an A team and a B team from different types of users.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Trust me, I'm not one of them. Just a cheap computer programmer. But at the same time, those people do exist. . . .

 

[vikingsholm]

Trust me, I'm not one of them. Just a cheap computer programmer. But at the same time, those people do exist. . . .

Sorry Ralph, I did not mean YOU!

Just reacting to your comment about the owners....because I suspect you are right in large part.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

No offence taken, Vikingholm. Lawsuits take money, gobs of it. That's why companies can get away with things "close to the knuckle". Average people can't afford to sue about it.

Rich people, on the other hand. . . .

(To get an idea of what I'm talking about, consider the following. Say 30 interval owners at Aspen decided to sue about this issue. And they were sufficiently annoyed to put 1X their annual maintenance fee, a year, in the lawsuit kitty. That would get a pool of around $500,000 a year for the lawsuit. That would keep it rolling, even without an ambulance chaser's 40%. . . )

 

[Pathways]

No offence taken, Vikingholm. Lawsuits take money, gobs of it. That's why companies can get away with things "close to the knuckle". Average people can't afford to sue about it

And don't forget, given the probable ownership roster, the lawsuit costs may be a type of 'pro bono' work for a fellow law firm partner. And even if they don't win anything, how many new billable clients do you think they might snare from the resulting publicity?

 

[Sapper]

I'm still thinking this has more to do with the owners wanting to show Marriott that they will not stand to be treated the same way Marriott treats their timeshare owners. To that end, putting mud on Marriotts face via this lawsuit is the method they have chosen.

 

[CO skier]

I noticed the thread in the Hyatt forum that the same attorneys have filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of Hyatt Grand Aspen owners. In the article linked in the other thread, there is a reference to the Aspen Ritz-Carlton suit moving to Federal Court in Denver. So I went looking for it, and to my surprise found it to be interesting reading.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-01301/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-01301-2.pdf


Until reading the court documents, I thought all the talk about "exclusivity" was just the usual sales spiel. Some degree of exclusivity is written into the Aspen Ritz-Carlton documents:

"The Master Declaration sets forth various aspects of a planned community and includes a section entitled “No Timeshare,” which states:

Each Owner acknowledges that Declarant intends to create Fractional Ownership lnterests with respect to certain Units within Aspen Highlands Village. Other than the right of Declarant . . . and specific assigns . . . to create Fractional Ownership lnterests . . ., no Unit shall be used for the operation of a timesharing, fraction-sharing, or similar program whereby the right to exclusive use of the Unit rotates among participants in the program on a fixed or floating time schedule over a period of years."

There is another section in the Declaration titled "Limit on Timesharing".

I agree with all the posts that timeshares lose at least 75% of its value the moment the rescission period ends. I do not know how the plaintiffs will be able to put a price on the "exclusivity" that they allege losing. I just thought it interesting that the exclusivity is actually written into their Declaration of Ownership.

 

[Sapper]

I noticed the thread in the Hyatt forum that the same attorneys have filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of Hyatt Grand Aspen owners. In the article linked in the other thread, there is a reference to the Aspen Ritz-Carlton suit moving to Federal Court in Denver. So I went looking for it, and to my surprise found it to be interesting reading.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-01301/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-01301-2.pdf


Until reading the court documents, I thought all the talk about "exclusivity" was just the usual sales spiel. Some degree of exclusivity is written into the Aspen Ritz-Carlton documents:

"The Master Declaration sets forth various aspects of a planned community and includes a section entitled “No Timeshare,” which states:

Each Owner acknowledges that Declarant intends to create Fractional Ownership lnterests with respect to certain Units within Aspen Highlands Village. Other than the right of Declarant . . . and specific assigns . . . to create Fractional Ownership lnterests . . ., no Unit shall be used for the operation of a timesharing, fraction-sharing, or similar program whereby the right to exclusive use of the Unit rotates among participants in the program on a fixed or floating time schedule over a period of years."

There is another section in the Declaration titled "Limit on Timesharing".

I agree with all the posts that timeshares lose at least 75% of its value the moment the rescission period ends. I do not know how the plaintiffs will be able to put a price on the "exclusivity" that they allege losing. I just thought it interesting that the exclusivity is actually written into their Declaration of Ownership.

Might Marriott be able to argue that because the Aspen fractionals were already part of a time sharing scheme through the Hyatt Residence Club that they are just continuing an existing practice with HPP?

Further, isn’t fractional ownership the same as a timeshare, but in a different time block size?

 

[4Sunsets]

Fractionals were marketed and sold as more akin to vacation home ownership without the expense of full ownership. Several of the Ritz Carlton club resorts have tried to vote out of Marriott management (Aspen, Vail, Jupiter, some others). Only one that I know of has been successful, the one in Jupiter Florida.

That said, this is one that I fully agree with Marriott on. YES, I just said that

AND Aspen remains a fairly exclusive location. Not many can afford the points to visit, except some who don't mind mud weeks in summer--and not many owners even want to visit during mud season.

 

[Sapper]

I wonder if the original Aspen ownership docs specifically defined fractional and timeshare ownership? I think of Hyatt “timeshare” units we own as vacation homes with out the expense of full ownership. Also, they are deeded as a fraction ownership in one unit, I imagine similar to how the deeds are written for Aspen (different fractions of course). I suppose owners of all the deeded Hyatt properties could honestly state that have fractional ownership.

 

[CO skier]

I wonder if the original Aspen ownership docs specifically defined fractional and timeshare ownership?

Does the Declaration define timeshare ownership as "the right to exclusive use of the Unit rotates among participants in the program on a fixed or floating time schedule over a period of years"?

I am not an attorney. If I were a juror on this case, I would have to agree with the plaintiffs on this point. jmo

 

[TravelTime]

I think the issue is with the RC owners is they are upset the value on their fractionals (in which they get 3 weeks a year) has declined and they are blaming Marriott. However, fractionals are not a financial investment like a condo or house, that usually goes up in value. The entire market for fractionals has fallen across all luxury brands.

 

[4Sunsets]

I think the issue is with the RC owners is they are upset the value on their fractionals (in which they get 3 weeks a year) has declined and they are blaming Marriott. However, fractionals are not a financial investment like a condo or house, that usually goes up in value. The entire market for fractionals has fallen across all luxury brands.

Fractionals were overvalued, but pricing has corrected to market value.

 

[Sapper]

Does the Declaration define timeshare ownership as "the right to exclusive use of the Unit rotates among participants in the program on a fixed or floating time schedule over a period of years"?

I am not an attorney. If I were a juror on this case, I would have to agree with the plaintiffs on this point. jmo

That’s my point. If they defined what the terms fractional ownership and timeshare ownership mean in the document, then there may be a case. If they failed to make the definition, then I think the defense attorneys (Marriott) can fight this. If they did define the terms, then the Hyatt Aspen owners may have something.

 

[CO skier]

That’s my point. If they defined what the terms fractional ownership and timeshare ownership mean in the document, then there may be a case. If they failed to make the definition, then I think the defense attorneys (Marriott) can fight this. If they did define the terms, then the Hyatt Aspen owners may have something.

Again, just as a neutral layman timeshare owner, as I read the quoted sections of the Declaration in the court documents, the Declaration not only defines fractional and timeshare ownership, it defines who can exclusively create fractional ownerships -- the developer. An owner, even if that owner is a timeshare developer in a different system, cannot create fractional ownerships or create a timeshare from owned Aspen Highlands Ritz fractionals. jmo

The intent of the Aspen Highlands Ritz Declaration for exclusivity is clear. Is this exclusivity legal under Colorado law? That is how I see the direction of the court case.

I would like to see the case go to a full trial. I doubt that Marriott would just fold. If the Ritz owners are serious, I do not think they will settle for anything less than the exclusivity they paid big bucks for. As someone else mentioned, the Ritz owners have the financial resources to put up a fight.

 

[rthib]

As with other lawsuits, it should be noted that all but one of the claims were dismissed by the judge. And the latest judgement did not go well for them either, they are making a bunch of technical objections and the judge does not seem to care for them. So they appealed that then appealed that appeal. The latest "ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Their Request to Designate a New Expert to Analyze New Data [Docket No. 395] are OVERRULED."

 

[Dean]

Again, just as a neutral layman timeshare owner, as I read the quoted sections of the Declaration in the court documents, the Declaration not only defines fractional and timeshare ownership, it defines who can exclusively create fractional ownerships -- the developer. An owner, even if that owner is a timeshare developer in a different system, cannot create fractional ownerships or create a timeshare from owned Aspen Highlands Ritz fractionals. jmo

The intent of the Aspen Highlands Ritz Declaration for exclusivity is clear. Is this exclusivity legal under Colorado law? That is how I see the direction of the court case.

I would like to see the case go to a full trial. I doubt that Marriott would just fold. If the Ritz owners are serious, I do not think they will settle for anything less than the exclusivity they paid big bucks for. As someone else mentioned, the Ritz owners have the financial resources to put up a fight.

And the reality is that it's not the possibility of the "timeshare" riffraff having access that has affected values, rather it's the market forces and the way they do or don't translate very well in this situation since this is very much a specialty option. More likely they simply overpaid as is almost always the case for a retail timeshare purchase. A fractional that's a larger segment than 3 weeks, say 1/4 of the year, is likely to work out better depending on seasonality. Rather than going this route they might be better off playing the timeshare system to get to other high end options including other Ritz.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Again, just as a neutral layman timeshare owner, as I read the quoted sections of the Declaration in the court documents, the Declaration not only defines fractional and timeshare ownership, it defines who can exclusively create fractional ownerships -- the developer. An owner, even if that owner is a timeshare developer in a different system, cannot create fractional ownerships or create a timeshare from owned Aspen Highlands Ritz fractionals. jmo

The intent of the Aspen Highlands Ritz Declaration for exclusivity is clear. Is this exclusivity legal under Colorado law? That is how I see the direction of the court case.

I would like to see the case go to a full trial. I doubt that Marriott would just fold. If the Ritz owners are serious, I do not think they will settle for anything less than the exclusivity they paid big bucks for. As someone else mentioned, the Ritz owners have the financial resources to put up a fight.

Unless Marriott can prove some form of discrimination (or other reason, against the public good), the contract is what the contract is. Like all timeshare owners , they are held by the governing documents rules. (I'm taking other poster's opinion, I have not read the docs myself.) In buying Ritz Carlton, they are restricted by the existing docs, same as Ritz Carlton was. Nor can they claim ignorance, they had adequate legal staff, and clearly made the decision to buy with full knowledge of what they were buying.

Sounds like Marriott will lose this one. . .

 

[Pathways]

Sounds like Marriott will lose this one. . .

Two parts to all lawsuits like this. Win/lose on the complaint, and damages.

Let's say the Ritz owners win on the facts of the case. What really are their damages? Just kick Marriott out and not allow timeshare rentals, leaving empty units and no fees to collect? I sure don't see an easy path to prove a devaluation on the fractional resales as they were already in the tank and still dropping before Marriott changed the usage.

 

[TheTimeTraveler]

Fractionals were marketed and sold as more akin to vacation home ownership without the expense of full ownership. Several of the Ritz Carlton club resorts have tried to vote out of Marriott management (Aspen, Vail, Jupiter, some others). Only one that I know of has been successful, the one in Jupiter Florida.

That said, this is one that I fully agree with Marriott on. YES, I just said that

AND Aspen remains a fairly exclusive location. Not many can afford the points to visit, except some who don't mind mud weeks in summer--and not many owners even want to visit during mud season.

I do recall reading at one time that there was one in Jupiter, Florida. Does anyone know the exact address as to where it was?

I plan to visit West Palm Beach in the near future and would enjoy driving past it to see what it looked like




.

 

[Dean]

Unless Marriott can prove some form of discrimination (or other reason, against the public good), the contract is what the contract is. Like all timeshare owners , they are held by the governing documents rules. (I'm taking other poster's opinion, I have not read the docs myself.) In buying Ritz Carlton, they are restricted by the existing docs, same as Ritz Carlton was. Nor can they claim ignorance, they had adequate legal staff, and clearly made the decision to buy with full knowledge of what they were buying.

Sounds like Marriott will lose this one. . .

Likewise the buyers knew or should have known what they were getting into including that there could and would be changes over time. Other than having to slum with a different clientele there really isn't any loss that is timeshare related that I can see. They'd have to prove it was the timeshare connection that caused the depreciation I'd think and I don't think any reasonable person thinks that is the case.