[2013] Unit Placement Discussion [orig "Homeless In Paradise ..."]

[SueDonJ]

As if unit placement wasn't difficult enough for those working at the front desk. I wouldn't want that job. Ever.

As a permanent position, neither would I. But on the rare days when it feels like it's really true that Nice Guys Finish Last, I'd love a chance to put some self-entitled, pompous blowhards in their place by telling them too bad, it's simply someone else's fair turn to be placed in the unit with the better view.

I'd say it nicely, of course.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Wholly agree. In CA at least, these priorities are a violation of law which requires all members to be treated equally by the HOA (subject to deeded views, etc.), IMHLO.

This situation is not applicable to the law you are referring to. Booking with DC enrolled points has nothing to do with being a deeded owner. It is an internal exchange system which does not come with legal protection governing deeded rights for an individual.

It's a raw deal. It is mind boggling that Marriott wouldn't push to do something to protect and enhance the only product they are selling. Marriott even holds HOA voting power at many resorts due to the low turnouts.

Mind boggling.....

 

[davidvel]

This situation is not applicable to the law you are referring to. Booking with DC enrolled points has nothing to do with being a deeded owner. It is an internal exchange system which does not come with legal protection governing deeded rights for an individual.

It's a raw deal. It is mind boggling that Marriott wouldn't push to do something to protect and enhance the only product they are selling. Marriott even holds HOA voting power at many resorts due to the low turnouts.

Mind boggling.....

I don't agree. Reservations made by the owner of the week (a member of the HOA) whether you, me, the trust or whomever, should be given equal priority in the room they get (subject to deeded view rights). Just because someone chooses to use the reservation, trade, rent, or put their week into a trust and participate in some internal trading system, should not change this.

I know lots of people who have higher levels of "priority" don't agree, but CA law is pretty clear on this.

CA law is clear that all deeded rights to members of the HOA must be applied equally and without preference to some members above others. In other words, CA law states there should be no "preference system" at all as between member's reservations.

 

[dioxide45]

I don't agree. Reservations made by the owner of the week (a member of the HOA) whether you, me, the trust or whomever, should be given equal priority in the room they get (subject to deeded view rights). Just because someone chooses to use the reservation, trade, rent, or put their week into a trust and participate in some internal trading system, should not change this.

I know lots of people who have higher levels of "priority" don't agree, but CA law is pretty clear on this.

CA law is clear that all deeded rights to members of the HOA must be applied equally and without preference to some members above others. In other words, CA law states there should be no "preference system" at all as between member's reservations.

So an exchange through II would be treated the same?

 

[davidvel]

So an exchange through II would be treated the same?

Some may argue that an owner contractually gives up certain rights by depositing. I don't see this as a requirement in the T&C, but haven't analyzed this as much.

Marriott, as developer, created their timeshare docs almost exactly the same as a typical so-cal planned developments, even using the same lawyers to create the CC&Rs as the developers did. Since then, they have been trying to make their "programs" fit the legal requirements that those docs impose.

Simply stated the CA Marriott TS developments are simply condos, not really different than any condo (except the usage limitations), with an HOA, etc. The HOA (and Marriott, as agent, who is the manager) cannot legally discriminate as amongst owners. It is a hard concept for many people to understand as they think that Marriott is in charge of their ownership, which his technically, not true (in CA).

 

[Saintsfanfl]

I don't agree. Reservations made by the owner of the week (a member of the HOA) whether you, me, the trust or whomever, should be given equal priority in the room they get (subject to deeded view rights). Just because someone chooses to use the reservation, trade, rent, or put their week into a trust and participate in some internal trading system, should not change this.

I know lots of people who have higher levels of "priority" don't agree, but CA law is pretty clear on this.

CA law is clear that all deeded rights to members of the HOA must be applied equally and without preference to some members above others. In other words, CA law states there should be no "preference system" at all as between member's reservations.

Sorry, but your point does not make any sense to me. They ARE NOT a deeded member of the HOA. An exchanger is not named on the deed. It amounts to nothing more than membership in a vacation club. Members of various vacation clubs ARE NOT granted deeded ownership rights under the law. They are not in any way like a condo owner. They have no voting rights. They have a right to use and nothing more.

Keep in mind that I do not believe this was even a DC trust reservation. It was an enrolled week exchange. This means the exchanger doesn't even have a deed in the trust, so any point you are making about a deed is moot, because there isn't one.

Even if the reservation was based on a trust deed, I still disagree. It is still not a deeded right under the HOA. It is just a vacation club points system, which is a completely different animal.

All that said I think it is a horrible mistake by Marriott and it should be changed. I just don't think there is any breaking of the law, just bad business.

The only way you get legal protection here is if you own deeded allotted time at this specific resort, and you occupy that specific ownership right. Any manner of exchange or shared right to use does not carry legal ownership rights.

If you want an example of blatant illegal processes take a look at Westgate. It is mind boggling what they are trying to get away with.

 

[FractionalTraveler]

Last night we checked into Timber Lodge for a 5-night stay using legacy points to make the reservation. We were assigned the absolute worst unit they have in the entire resort - without question.

Low floor, handicap unit, facing the public transit bus parking area, long hike to the pool. DW is pretty steamed.

In speaking with the General Manager, we were enlightened about several things.

When making unit assignments, DC Points reservations are considered the same as outside trades.
There is no priority given for owning multiple weeks.
There is no priority for being Premier or Premier Plus.
There is no priority for being MRP Platinum.
And this is the kicker ... a non-Marriott trade for 7 days will get a better unit assignment than a DC Points reservation for 5 days.

In addition, Timber Lodge seems to throw all designated room assignments out the window on check-in day if you arrive after the 4pm check-in time. The GM actually said it was our fault because we didn't arrive until 7pm!

All that "flexibility" for DC points reservations starts to look a lot less appealing when you learn how it works behind the scenes. DC points reservations for less than 7 days seem to be "bottom of the barrel" for unit assignments.

We are attending a sales presentation later in the week (in exchange for 15K MRPs). I intend to bring this up with the salesman highlighting a big dis-incentive to buy DC points (not that it will make any difference to them).

After multiple visits to the front desk and some unpleasant conversations with the GM, they are moving us to a better room this morning. Not a great way to start our summer vacation.

Thanks for your detailed post.

This is why I started this thread in the first place. Your experience is all too common to me and I don't believe it to just be a coincidence. Also, I would add that it has happened to us on stays of 8-14 days as well.

I have used pure Trust points, Legacy enrolled points, and rented points along the way. All with similar results.

Still homeless in the trust.

FT

 

[davidvel]

Sorry, but your point does not make any sense to me. They ARE NOT a deeded member of the HOA. An exchanger is not named on the deed. It amounts to nothing more than membership in a vacation club. Members of various vacation clubs ARE NOT granted deeded ownership rights under the law. They are not in any way like a condo owner. They have no voting rights. They have a right to use and nothing more.

Keep in mind that I do not believe this was even a DC trust reservation. It was an enrolled week exchange. This means the exchanger doesn't even have a deed in the trust, so any point you are making about a deed is moot, because there isn't one.

Even if the reservation was based on a trust deed, I still disagree. It is still not a deeded right under the HOA. It is just a vacation club points system, which is a completely different animal.

All that said I think it is a horrible mistake by Marriott and it should be changed. I just don't think there is any breaking of the law, just bad business.

The only way you get legal protection here is if you own deeded allotted time at this specific resort, and you occupy that specific ownership right. Any manner of exchange or shared right to use does not carry legal ownership rights.

If you want an example of blatant illegal processes take a look at Westgate. It is mind boggling what they are trying to get away with.

This is exactly the misunderstanding people have about Marriott timeshares (in CA). All units are owned and have a deed, with a right to use a unit 1 week a year. Feel free to read the CC&Rs to get a better picture of the relationships involved. The fact that one choses to let another use their deeded rights/reservation should not change those rights. I don't expect many to agree without undertanding the underlying laws and language in the docs, nor do I expect people (esp. owners using their week) not to want to be ranked in some hierarchy. I'm just trying to give another perspective, and explain the underlying legal mechanism.

All that said, even the HOA issue aside, I still believe that no one should get priority as all reservations are derived from the same source, an owner's deed. Not a popular opinion, I understand.

 

[windje2000]

I don't agree. Reservations made by the owner of the week (a member of the HOA) whether you, me, the trust or whomever, should be given equal priority in the room they get (subject to deeded view rights). Just because someone chooses to use the reservation, trade, rent, or put their week into a trust and participate in some internal trading system, should not change this.

I know lots of people who have higher levels of "priority" don't agree, but CA law is pretty clear on this.

CA law is clear that all deeded rights to members of the HOA must be applied equally and without preference to some members above others. In other words, CA law states there should be no "preference system" at all as between member's reservations.

If I as an owner choose to trade my 'occupancy rights' with an exchange company and in consideration of facilitating that trade I agree to the terms and conditions imposed by the exchange company as to 'priority', that's an enforceable contract that I voluntarily entered into.

If I obtain occupancy in a resort where I am not an owner through an exchange, I am not a member of that resort's HOA and have whatever priority they choose to assign me.

That's probably why there is a distinction between an owner exchanging in and a non owner exchanging in as seen in many of the exchange priorities I have seen posted and discussed.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

This is exactly the misunderstanding people have about Marriott timeshares (in CA). All units are owned and have a deed, with a right to use a unit 1 week a year. Feel free to read the CC&Rs to get a better picture of the relationships involved. The fact that one choses to let another use their deeded rights/reservation should not change those rights. I don't expect many to agree without undertanding the underlying laws and language in the docs, nor do I expect people (esp. owners using their week) not to want to be ranked in some hierarchy. I'm just trying to give another perspective, and explain the underlying legal mechanism.

All that said, even the HOA issue aside, I still believe that no one should get priority as all reservations are derived from the same source, an owner's deed. Not a popular opinion, I understand.

So what would my recourse be? I booked on marriott.com and I want to be treated just like an owner because the unit I am occupying is owned by somebody somewhere (although I have no idea who).

Timber Lodge is in CA by the way. I am wondering if the Marriott legal department has heard of this law.

Show me the law that says a hotel style booking or exchange by someone that is not an owner of the HOA must be treated like an owner. Point me in the right direction and I will eat crow.

 

[davidvel]

So what would my recourse be? I booked on marriott.com and I want to be treated just like an owner because the unit I am occupying is owned by somebody somewhere (although I have no idea who).

Timber Lodge is in CA by the way. I am wondering if the Marriott legal department has heard of this law.

Show me the law that says a hotel style booking or exchange by someone that is not an owner of the HOA must be treated like an owner. Point me in the right direction and I will eat crow.

You are correct that it is the owner that holds the rights. Without knowing what the source of your week is, who the owner is, and what rights they may have agreed to waive, the question cannot be answered.

But, if the owner of the week (Marriott, or whomever) did not waive their right to be treated equal to all other owners, they are entitled to assign the accompanying usage to whomever they want without penalty of being treated as a second-class citizen. That's the law in CA, in a nutshell.

Also, certain developer/HOA controlled weeks (your reservation?) do have different deeded usage rights, and my comments are not directed at these.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

You are correct that it is the owner that holds the rights. Without knowing what the source of your week is, who the owner is, and what rights they may have agreed to waive, the question cannot be answered.

But, if the owner of the week (Marriott, or whomever) did not waive their right to be treated equal to all other owners, they are entitled to assign the accompanying usage to whomever they want without penalty of being treated as a second-class citizen. That's the law in CA, in a nutshell.

Also, certain developer/HOA controlled weeks (your reservation?) do have different deeded usage rights, and my comments are not directed at these.

Not to beat a dead horse but the reservation in question was management controlled, and therefore as you put it "they are entitled to assign the accompanying usage to whomever they want". That is what they did. They either owned or were the legal administrator of the reservation. In assigning usage to "whomever they" wanted they also assigned the unit that they wanted. They did what they wanted which was in their legal right but in doing so they really ticked a paying customer off.

 

[Dean]

My experience thus far is that Owners at a given resort come ahead of all others and that trust or DC points are treated the same and come it at about the same priority as a Marriott exchanger. Multiple week is only a tie breaker and gives priority within a given level alone. We were at MGO this summer using 3 weeks we own and 3 weeks using DC points and they made a distinction between the 2 even for a single trip of a multiple week owner putting owned weeks on 4th & 5th floors and DC points weeks on the first. The one thing that MGO does that not all do, is that they tend to alternate priorities by year (High this year, lower next). One thing MGO doesn't do, that some do, is to give owners there a priority when staying using other than their owned time there. In general I find Marriott does a good to very good job with unit assignments but then I go overboard to make reasonable and simple requests.

 

[davidvel]

Not to beat a dead horse but the reservation in question was management controlled, and therefore as you put it "they are entitled to assign the accompanying usage to whomever they want". That is what they did. They either owned or were the legal administrator of the reservation. In assigning usage to "whomever they" wanted they also assigned the unit that they wanted. They did what they wanted which was in their legal right but in doing so they really ticked a paying customer off.

I understand what you are saying, but you slightly change what I referred to. My only point is that the underlying "rights" of an owner to occupancy should be freely assignable. While "they", in your example above, assigned the usage, the controversy is over what particular unit is assigned for that usage. I don't agree that "they" as the owner, can "assign[] the unit that they wanted."

The assignment of particular units, or "priority", should be done by the HOA (or its agent, Marriott as manager), in a manner that treats all owners (and any who are assigned the owner's rights), in an equal fashion.

Is there anything anyone can do if they don't? Not easy, unless owners want to get together and try to fight it. Despite personally having the ability to do so, I've never felt sufficiently pushed down in priority to justify such a fight.

I am confident, based upon conversations with Marriott management, that they are aware of the conflicts between all of the various governing docs (and state laws) and their "timeshare system" (a legal fiction). I also believe that this is the motivation for the DC system: to systematically encourage owners to contractually give up rights (see voting etc.), or establish through trust ownership a system that is based upon contract and not title/governing docs.

In other words, a reversal of the long lived Marriott mantra of "deeded ownership," (and all the pesky obligations this imposes on Marriott.)

 

[SueDonJ]

... I also believe that this is the motivation for the DC system: to systematically encourage owners to contractually give up rights (see voting etc.) ...

About this ... the voting restriction (1e) that was in the Enrollment t&c's at the DC introduction doesn't exist anymore. TUGger Cmore alerted the rest of us to its removal in Feb '11. Also, during the one voting cycle in which it may have played a part, none of us saw anything in our proxies that made us think Marriott was trying to impose it.

As far as I know that was the only DC item that might have, "encouraged owners to contractually give up rights." Is there something else?

 

[curbysplace]

That doesn't stop the NCV resort personnel from being among the most unfair when it comes to unit placement. The chances of an NCV single-week owner being placed into one of the best-view units during the highest-demand periods are practically nil because so many multi-week owners book those weeks and are always given priority. That resort's policy was one of the first I ever learned about through TUG and it hasn't changed in all these years.

So are you saying that a multi-week owner of NCV who is already occupying their unit, say in week 3 of their 6 week stay, should be moved out of their unit and into another unit just so a 1-week owner can move in for the week asserting an owner priority claim?

My understanding is that there are proportionally many platinum multi-week owners of NCV that stay for "long term". That does indeed tie up their unit for multiple weeks. As the resort room assigner when the multi week owner checks in what would you do?

One reason we all use and love TUG is to learn and gain experience in how to best use our Marriott TS ownership within the system. There is every chance that these platinum multi-week NCV owners also use TUG or learn some other way to best use their ownership and the Marriott system to their advantage. And this just may conflict with another owner's best-laid plans.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

So are you saying that a multi-week owner of NCV who is already occupying their unit, say in week 3 of their 6 week stay, should be moved out of their unit and into another unit just so a 1-week owner can move in for the week asserting an owner priority claim?

My understanding is that there are proportionally many platinum multi-week owners of NCV that stay for "long term". That does indeed tie up their unit for multiple weeks. As the resort room assigner when the multi week owner checks in what would you do?

One reason we all use and love TUG is to learn and gain experience in how to best use our Marriott TS ownership within the system. There is every chance that these platinum multi-week NCV owners also use TUG or learn some other way to best use their ownership and the Marriott system to their advantage. And this just may conflict with another owner's best-laid plans.

x2

Ocean Pointe does the exact same thing. To call it unfair is ludicrous. Making a 4 consecutive week owner move or have lesser priority over a single week owner would be the unfair method. A 4 week owner holds 4 times the ownership of a single week owner. They get 4 times the votes. They clearly should be given priority.

 

[SueDonJ]

So are you saying that a multi-week owner of NCV who is already occupying their unit, say in week 3 of their 6 week stay, should be moved out of their unit and into another unit just so a 1-week owner can move in for the week asserting an owner priority claim?

My understanding is that there are proportionally many platinum multi-week owners of NCV that stay for "long term". That does indeed tie up their unit for multiple weeks. As the resort room assigner when the multi week owner checks in what would you do?

One reason we all use and love TUG is to learn and gain experience in how to best use our Marriott TS ownership within the system. There is every chance that these platinum multi-week NCV owners also use TUG or learn some other way to best use their ownership and the Marriott system to their advantage. And this just may conflict with another owner's best-laid plans.

x2

Ocean Pointe does the exact same thing. To call it unfair is ludicrous. Making a 4 consecutive week owner move or have lesser priority over a single week owner would be the unfair method. A 4 week owner holds 4 times the ownership of a single week owner. They get 4 times the votes. They clearly should be given priority.

Yes, I do think it's extremely unfair that a single-week NCV owner rarely gets a turn to stay in what's considered the units with the "best" views because multi-week owners always get the priority for those units.

Where is it stated that multi-week owners, "clearly should be given" such a priority? Nowhere in the governing docs. It's a policy that the resort personnel adhere to based on a vague directive from Marriott, but from what I understand the directive also includes a rotational component that NCV personnel choose to not implement the way some other resorts do.

The governing docs make it clear that owners are entitled to one week in season in the particular type of unit purchased, for each Week purchased. No more and no less. They certainly don't bestow any type of "priority owner" status on any certain owners, and they don't guarantee that the "best" units are reserved for any certain owners.

So yes, I think that multi-week owners staying consecutive weeks at their home resorts can be inconvenienced by having to move partway through their stays, if that's what it takes to give single-week owners a fair chance to take their turns in the "best" units on property.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Where is it stated that multi-week owners, "clearly should be given" such a priority?

Because majority rules and logic "should" prevail.

Why do multi-week reservations get to book at 13 months? With your reasoning the 13 month reservations shouldn't exist or it should exist for everyone because it isn't fair. It's the exact same thing.

I agree to disagree

 

[SueDonJ]

Because majority rules and logic "should" prevail.

Why do multi-week reservations get to book at 13 months? With your reasoning the 13 month reservations shouldn't exist or it should exist for everyone because it isn't fair. It's the exact same thing.

I agree to disagree

What's bolded works for me.

About the 13-mos Reservation Window for consecutive/concurrent multi-Weeks, though? It's contractually bestowed. As long as it is, it doesn't matter if you, me or anybody else thinks it's fair. IF any priority placement advantages were contractually bestowed, what's fair or not wouldn't matter then, either.

 

[Dean]

Yes, I do think it's extremely unfair that a single-week NCV owner rarely gets a turn to stay in what's considered the units with the "best" views because multi-week owners always get the priority for those units.

Where is it stated that multi-week owners, "clearly should be given" such a priority? Nowhere in the governing docs. It's a policy that the resort personnel adhere to based on a vague directive from Marriott, but from what I understand the directive also includes a rotational component that NCV personnel choose to not implement the way some other resorts do.

The governing docs make it clear that owners are entitled to one week in season in the particular type of unit purchased, for each Week purchased. No more and no less. They certainly don't bestow any type of "priority owner" status on any certain owners, and they don't guarantee that the "best" units are reserved for any certain owners.

So yes, I think that multi-week owners staying consecutive weeks at their home resorts can be inconvenienced by having to move partway through their stays, if that's what it takes to give single-week owners a fair chance to take their turns in the "best" units on property.

There's no truly fair way to do unit assignments, someone will always be left out. Fitting all the variables together with multiple weeks, different start dates and the points options has to be a daunting task. Personally I'm OK as long as there's a plan and they generally stick to it. That currently appears to be the case at the places I have any info about even if the multi week owners are favored over single weeks. I doubt there's many places/times when the density of multi week owners is enough to rob single week owners of a reasonable chance of a good villa assignment, esp at a place like NCV where there are no official view types. That would mean that at least 30-40% of the villas a given week are taken by multi week owners on a regular basis. IF the number of views are so limited that a much smaller % will take them up, the odds of success are not enough to matter anyway.

Remember the original reason for the 13 month window (which is not in all resort documents) was a sales incentive and given that reservation issues are at the whim of Marriott (legally and contractually), I don't think a specific option is truly contractual. Thus to favor that group for both reservations and unit assignments is consistent and I would think reasonable. I can tell you with 100% certainty that my second GO unit was purchased mainly for the 13 month reservation option as were my trading units. Others would have the opportunity to reserve at 13 months out and have a higher unit assignment priority if they so chose.

 

[curbysplace]

So yes, I think that multi-week owners staying consecutive weeks at their home resorts can be inconvenienced by having to move partway through their stays, if that's what it takes to give single-week owners a fair chance to take their turns in the "best" units on property.

Using this logic why not have single-week owners move out and switch their unit each day or every second day to allow other single-week owners that good view for a day or two. They can be incovenienced by having to move partway through their stay too. After all what makes any certain single-week owner better than any other or better than a multi-week owner?

Now back to reality and real life. Consider that the multi-week owners are both 86 years old. They specifically purchased those six weeks in season to get out of the heat in their Palm Springs desert home not unlike Midwesterners or Northeasterners who go to the sunbelt in winter. They made their reservation thirteen months out. What you are suggesting is that they be required to move out, say to the second floor of a building without an elevator for one week in the middle of their stay in order to accommodate a single-week owner. Oh and did I say between the two of them they've had three hips replaced? Then of course we will move them back to the original villa or perhaps to a different villa the next week. Does this make sense when all of a sudden you know its real people?

 

[dioxide45]

Using this logic why not have single-week owners move out and switch their unit each day or every second day to allow other single-week owners that good view for a day or two. They can be incovenienced by having to move partway through their stay too. After all what makes any certain single-week owner better than any other or better than a multi-week owner?

Now back to reality and real life. Consider that the multi-week owners are both 86 years old. They specifically purchased those six weeks in season to get out of the heat in their Palm Springs desert home not unlike Midwesterners or Northeasterners who go to the sunbelt in winter. They made their reservation thirteen months out. What you are suggesting is that they be required to move out, say to the second floor of a building without an elevator for one week in the middle of their stay in order to accommodate a single-week owner. Oh and did I say between the two of them they've had three hips replaced? Then of course we will move them back to the original villa or perhaps to a different villa the next week. Does this make sense when all of a sudden you know its real people?

The view discrepancies at Desert Springs are far different than those at Newport Coast Villas.

 

[curbysplace]

The view discrepancies at Desert Springs are far different than those at Newport Coast Villas.

My real-life illustration refers to full-time Palm Springs area residents who own six weeks at Newport Coast Villas.

 

[suzannesimon]

Being a multiweek owner, I have no issue with us getting prime locations obviously. I think the real problem comes with everyday check-ins and short stays. There should be a location price to pay for the convenience of checking in on Wednesday for 2 nights or for just a weekend.