[ 2023 ] Trouble - Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe [Management Agreement in Jeopardy?]

[bnoble]

I took a quick look at the California statute, I do not see where in the text it explicitly states which contact information must be provided, so it is not 100% clear to me that the statute requires them to provide email.

Caveat: IANAL, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[rcdcowner557]

I took a quick look at the California statute, I do not see where in the text it explicitly states which contact information must be provided, so it is not 100% clear to me that the statute requires them to provide email.

Caveat: IANAL, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I believe it has been agreed by all that statutes may not require e-mail per se; I addressed what I would recommend doing a few posts up. If folks want to go off on this tangent, have at it, but I recommend focusing on the salient issue, which is that they are required to provide contact information for all association members to any association member who requests it for purposes of communicating with other association members on matters concerning the property. In our case, they did provide us email addresses when we pressed, whether required by statute or not. However, had they denied us those, we would have communicated the way people did in the old days, and indeed, we found phone to the be most effective.

 

[Hindsite]

The fact that Hindsite liked your post is a perfect example of how self-proclaimed TUG experts don't know some of the most basic facts that are essential to responsible ownership.

There is absolutely no need for that kind of slur.

The question posed by @bazzap is of interest to me specifically due to the data protection implications for my personal information being held and I would be concerned if it were possible for individuals to obtain my contact information without me providing permission. If it is allowable in specific jurisdictions, as you have identified, that is worth knowing and managing accordingly.

I'd be surprised if European law allowed it, have you checked that?

 

[rcdcowner557]

There is absolutely no need for that kind of slur.

The question posed by @bazzap is of interest to me specifically due to the data protection implications for my personal information being held and I would be concerned if it were possible for individuals to obtain my contact information without me providing permission. If it is allowable in specific jurisdictions, as you have identified, that is worth knowing and managing accordingly.

I'd be surprised if European law allowed it, have you checked that?

Sir (or Madame) - It was hardly a slur, and your trolling my posts yesterday in another thread, suggesting what would suit my purpose or not, calls into question your self-awareness. You cannot suggest that posters who are new to this site do not know what they are talking about and then get upset when those posters call you out on the fact that you are not aware of this most basic right. And no, I have not checked European law. However, while I am in charitable mood, I can suggest that you check whatever documents you signed when you purchased because one thing that MVW likes to put wherever they can is a provision that your relationship will be governed by Florida law where that is allowed. Florida law is quite beneficial to timeshare operators, and they will seek to have it applied wherever legally permissible, which is entirely appropriate for a corporation to do. Where it is legally permissible is issue specific and would require the advice of a qualified attorney.

 

[TimGolobic]

There is absolutely no need for that kind of slur.

The question posed by @bazzap is of interest to me specifically due to the data protection implications for my personal information being held and I would be concerned if it were possible for individuals to obtain my contact information without me providing permission. If it is allowable in specific jurisdictions, as you have identified, that is worth knowing and managing accordingly.

I'd be surprised if European law allowed it, have you checked that?

Arguments aside, most of your contact information is publicly available through county property tax records. For example, for a small fee, I can obtain a list of all GRC or Timber Lodge owners, which includes name, address and purchase date. Email and phone are not provided. You might be surprised that one can discern a lot from a little detail, including name of spouse assuming also on the title, and if your family Trust is setup. It also helps determine how many units MVW has in the land trust, and if a particular BOD candidate is an owner or not.

 

[bnoble]

Some people just like to pick fights. My life is too short for that, but my ignore list is not.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Some people just like to pick fights. My life is too short for that, but my ignore list is not.

Yes, I have noticed some longtime posters on this site like to pick fights. I am not talking about you. I know nothing about you and have never interacted with you before, but given your gratuitous comment above, I can make a pretty good guess that you fall into the camp you yourself describe of those who like to pick fights.

 

[bazzap]

It is a provision of the Davis Stirling Act in California. It is a standard provision in many state statutes that govern common interest developments. The fact that Hindsite liked your post is a perfect example of how self-proclaimed TUG experts don't know some of the most basic facts that are essential to responsible ownership. MVW is well aware of the statutory requirement and has a standard absurd warning they send out with the list to any association member who requests it. They might make an owner ask for it more than once, and they might ignore the request in the hope that the owner is not aware of their basic statutory rights. MVW is not immune to preying on those who don't know their rights; indeed, it is their business model.

Perhaps this just reflects the differences between Californian and some other US state statutes and where we own all of our MVC weeks, mostly in Europe and Asia?
It is definitely not a statutory right in these locations to allow sharing of owner email addresses, thank goodness.

 

[tomvc]

Any new updates on GRC? Bargain basement resale prices for quarter share. Is MVC actively exercising ROFR?

 

[igopogo]

Any new updates on GRC? Bargain basement resale prices for quarter share. Is MVC actively exercising ROFR?

Yes, apparently they ROFRd a 1br for $5K. That was mentioned at the last board meeting. I don’t know why it went for $5K, even at the current sale prices that’s low. Must have been super distressed.

 

[craigd]

Yes, when I was asking whether the manager is an extension of the board, I was referring to an agency relationship.

The most recent minutes show that the HOA owes the management company $124.928. Other meetings show requests by the management company to wire funds from specifically from the operating fund to the management company, and specifically to cover expenses. I’m trying to square this with the idea that the management company is simply writing checks from the HOA account.

Bills are supposed to be paid out of HOA accounts and owners are supposed to be able to see the actual ledger of checks written in California per the Davis-Stirling Act.

However, at the RCCSF, MVW pays all the bills and then seeks reimbursement each month without detail from the HOA, so the ledger from the HOA bank account just shows one giant wire transfer each month to MVW without any detail.

I know some of the RCCSF owners are actively pushing back on this right now as a violation of both the California CID statute and the HOA's actual bylaws. That property is sadly mired in litigation for the foreseeable future.

With respect to GRCLT, I have heard that MVW gained control over the HOA Board with this last election (another true owner independent Board President forced out), and now they are getting rid of the Finance Committee.

Accordingly, any chance of the original owners getting control of their property back and going with an independent operator or going with another branded operator absent litigation is gone.

However, there are some sophisticated original owners at GRCLT whom MVW would be wise not to poke further, but that is just the opinion of this outside observer.

 

[davidvel]

Bills are supposed to be paid out of HOA accounts and owners are supposed to be able to see the actual ledger of checks written in California per the Davis-Stirling Act.

However, at the RCCSF, MVW pays all the bills and then seeks reimbursement each month without detail from the HOA, so the ledger from the HOA bank account just shows one giant wire transfer each month to MVW without any detail.

I know some of the RCCSF owners are actively pushing back on this right now as a violation of both the California CID statute and the HOA's actual bylaws. That property is sadly mired in litigation for the foreseeable future.

With respect to GRCLT, I have heard that MVW gained control over the HOA Board with this last election (another true owner independent Board President forced out), and now they are getting rid of the Finance Committee.

Accordingly, any chance of the original owners getting control of their property back and going with an independent operator or going with another branded operator absent litigation is gone.

However, there are some sophisticated original owners at GRCLT whom MVW would be wise not to poke further, but that is just the opinion of this outside observer.

This nails the issue across all MVC timeshares. MVC/MVW whoever, ignores the underlying legal structure (esp. in California), of the HOA, board, conflict of interest, fiduciary duties. Instead they think the resorts are just theirs to do what ever they want, make any rules, control the boards in conflict with their management contract, etc.

If a few well backed owners got together and challenged the real HOAs, and likely prevailed, MVC will pull out of their branding as retaliation. This will significantly affect these owners benefits and is the leverage MVC has to continue their mob tactics.

 

[Retired2025 aka AlmostRetired]

With respect to GRCLT, I have heard that MVW gained control over the HOA Board with this last election (another true owner independent Board President forced out), and now they are getting rid of the Finance Committee.

I rent 20,000 points yearly from a 1/4 share GRCLT owner. I have no clue how many points the owner has but it has to be sizable. Getting their hands on this resort with all the points it can add to the trust to sell must be a pot of gold over the rainbow.

MVW has a blueprint on how to accomplish this. It is just a matter of time because most owners pay not attention to voting every year. I posted this on a chat I had with a board member of the Monarch.

- At the most recent Board meeting, we were informed that the Trust MVW owns 43.8% of the resort as of close out of 2025.
MVW does not presently have a member on the board, but there are other resorts where they do. MVW also retains significant voting power since the Trust votes a single time with all 43.8% of their ownership which accounts for over XXXX units/votes. Their voting power helped us achieve the threshold needed to approve overcoming the 2042 issue last year and would weigh heavily in any further changes needed to our Governance documents.

- We are here for the owners. The trust ownership piece will be very interesting in the coming years. I own at Doral where they own 62% and they have left the board as is for now. They did flex their muscles at Cypress Harbour and got rid of a board president. At cypress they own 40% but that was enough to outvote owners.

 

[craigd]

This nails the issue across all MVC timeshares. MVC/MVW whoever, ignores the underlying legal structure (esp. in California), of the HOA, board, conflict of interest, fiduciary duties. Instead they think the resorts are just theirs to do what ever they want, make any rules, control the boards in conflict with their management contract, etc.

If a few well backed owners got together and challenged the real HOAs, and likely prevailed, MVC will pull out of their branding as retaliation. This will significantly affect these owners benefits and is the leverage MVC has to continue their mob tactics.

Can you explain how MVC pulling branding would affect owner benefits? The Abound members would still have access to the property via MVC Trust ownership. Nothing in the Trust governing documents requires that properties in which the Trust owns any interest be either branded or operated by Marriott.

 

[craigd]

I rent 20,000 points yearly from a 1/4 share GRCLT owner. I have no clue how many points the owner has but it has to be sizable. Getting their hands on this resort with all the points it can add to the trust to sell must be a pot of gold over the rainbow.

MVW has a blueprint on how to accomplish this. It is just a matter of time because most owners pay not attention to voting every year. I posted this on a chat I had with a board member of the Monarch.

- At the most recent Board meeting, we were informed that the Trust MVW owns 43.8% of the resort as of close out of 2025.
MVW does not presently have a member on the board, but there are other resorts where they do. MVW also retains significant voting power since the Trust votes a single time with all 43.8% of their ownership which accounts for over XXXX units/votes. Their voting power helped us achieve the threshold needed to approve overcoming the 2042 issue last year and would weigh heavily in any further changes needed to our Governance documents.

- We are here for the owners. The trust ownership piece will be very interesting in the coming years. I own at Doral where they own 62% and they have left the board as is for now. They did flex their muscles at Cypress Harbour and got rid of a board president. At cypress they own 40% but that was enough to outvote owners.

I agree regarding the pot of gold, particularly because this is a highly desirable property where MF are lower than MF on points when the inventory is translated into points.

Getting all of GRC interests into the MVV Trust would raise the quality of Trust inventory without raising MF.

On top of that, the Trust would have complete control over MF increases at GRC (as they do at many properties and as they do with points) to tinker with per their business interests rather than having the MF being tied to the actual operating costs as they are supposed to be per the Florida timeshare statute.

The Lennon class action spotted the potential for this, but the entire action was effectively deemed a shotgun action and dismissed. You can't sue based on moral hazard; you have to identify actual instances of the line's being crossed.

 

[dioxide45]

Can you explain how MVC pulling branding would affect owner benefits? The Abound members would still have access to the property via MVC Trust ownership. Nothing in the Trust governing documents requires that properties in which the Trust owns any interest be either branded or operated by Marriott.

Owners at the resort would lose their affiliation with Abound. Any enrolled weeks or quarter shares would no longer be eligible for points. Any stays there would not be eligible for Bonvoy benefits.

 

[craigd]

Owners at the resort would lose their affiliation with Abound. Any enrolled weeks or quarter shares would no longer be eligible for points. Any stays there would not be eligible for Bonvoy benefits.

I wonder what percentage of GRC owners there enroll their weeks? Those to whom I have spoken don't, but they may be in the minority. It seems to me that those who bought GRC originally were effectively looking for the equivalent of a second home in a specific location, but the profile of current "owners" may be quite different and will continue to evolve to more MVC-friendly.

 

[craigd]

Owners at the resort would lose their affiliation with Abound. Any enrolled weeks or quarter shares would no longer be eligible for points. Any stays there would not be eligible for Bonvoy benefits.

Also, is there anything that prevents the MVC Trust from continuing to allow third parties to exchange weeks for points? I would be curious to see the paperwork that accompanies a non-Abound owner's decision to exchange their resort-specific days for Abound points. Again, nothing in the Trust governing docs or the Abound program docs requires that properties accessed via points be branded or operated by Marriott. To the contrary, the documents expressly contemplate access to third-party operated and other-branded properties. I can imagine a scenario where it is in MVW's interest to enable independent owners at GRC to continue trading their days/inventory for points.

 

[WBP]

I wonder what percentage of GRC owners there enroll their weeks? Those to whom I have spoken don't, but they may be in the minority. It seems to me that those who bought GRC originally were effectively looking for the equivalent of a second home in a specific location, but the profile of current "owners" may be quite different and will continue to evolve to more MVC-friendly.

TUG members, I suspect, represent a microcosm of Marriott owners—one that is statistically insignificant and, in my opinion, not worthy of substantial consideration or attention.

I agree with you that the original GRC and RCC owners/members viewed their membership/ownership as an alternative to second-home ownership. That is precisely how the product was marketed and sold. Unfortunately, over time, the concept evolved into little more than a Marriott timeshare product, often to the detriment of RCC members and owners at properties such as The Ritz-Carlton Club, Aspen Highlands; The Ritz-Carlton Club, Bachelor Gulch; and The Ritz-Carlton Club Golf Club & Spa, Jupiter.

In my view, Marriott Vacations Worldwide dismantled the original vision and DNA of both The Ritz-Carlton Club and the Grand Residence Club. Much of this decline can be traced to former Marriott Vacation Club leadership that lacked meaningful experience in the luxury sector and, as a result, transformed what were once distinctive luxury ownership products into conventional timeshare offerings.

If one examines the activity on the TUG Marriott forum, it becomes apparent that the conversation is dominated by a relatively small number of participants who occupy a disproportionate share of the discussion. In my opinion, these individuals generally do not bring fractional-ownership or timeshare-industry expertise to the table. Rather, they contribute perspectives shaped primarily by their experiences as end users, along with insights drawn from their respective professional and personal backgrounds, whether in finance, law, HOA governance, or other disciplines.

 

[craigd]

As a follower of VAC stock, I value tremendously the perspective of the end-users, and those who chime in the most appear to be among the most sophisticated end-users, so I pay lots of attention and give serious consideration to their input! (As I do yours!)

 

[Hindsite]

Also, is there anything that prevents the MVC Trust from continuing to allow third parties to exchange weeks for points?

If my understanding of this question is whether a resort that was no longer run by part of the MVW brand grouping would be able to use Abound, my believe is no.
Any ability to exchange weeks for Club points is a discretionary benefit of ownership and can be withdrawn for any number of reasons, including the termination of the Affiliation agreement between the resort/HoA and the Exchange company. The Exchange company also has the ability to limit the inventory that Exchange Members can see in Abound, which sales like to leverage to tell people they are missing out on 85% of the available inventory and so they need to buy Trust points to magically unlock everything that they can't see now. In practical terms this does not happen as it would be business madness for MVC to deter weeks owners from electing for club point as a log of good inventory goes in that way.

 

[dioxide45]

Also, is there anything that prevents the MVC Trust from continuing to allow third parties to exchange weeks for points? I would be curious to see the paperwork that accompanies a non-Abound owner's decision to exchange their resort-specific days for Abound points. Again, nothing in the Trust governing docs or the Abound program docs requires that properties accessed via points be branded or operated by Marriott. To the contrary, the documents expressly contemplate access to third-party operated and other-branded properties. I can imagine a scenario where it is in MVW's interest to enable independent owners at GRC to continue trading their days/inventory for points.

I suspecgt their isn't, but what is a thread of pulling the Marriott brand association if they don't actually do something about it that would hurt the owners there? Any property that Marriott has previously dropped lost the associated brand name. What benefit would it serve Marriott Vacations to allow an unaffiliated, unmanaged resort to continue to participate in the points exchange scheme?

 

[tomvc]

Also, is there anything that prevents the MVC Trust from continuing to allow third parties to exchange weeks for points? I would be curious to see the paperwork that accompanies a non-Abound owner's decision to exchange their resort-specific days for Abound points. Again, nothing in the Trust governing docs or the Abound program docs requires that properties accessed via points be branded or operated by Marriott. To the contrary, the documents expressly contemplate access to third-party operated and other-branded properties. I can imagine a scenario where it is in MVW's interest to enable independent owners at GRC to continue trading their days/inventory for points.

You might want to read up on Grand Aspen leaving Hyatt Residence Club. GRC owners, if no longer affiliated with MVW, would most likely be in a similar situation. If the Trust owns some deeds, the Exchange Company may have availability for points reservations, but GRC deeded owners would no longer have the option to elect.

Hyatt Grand Aspen owners file suit against Marriott/Interal/etc

interesting reading... https://www.aspentimes.com/news/local/suit-hyatt-grand-aspen-timeshares-dropped-in-value/

tugbbs.com

 

[craigd]

I am on a steep learning curve, but I don't see how it follows that owners of an unbranded property that is available to MVC members are excluded from exchange as a matter of course. Does the outcome of Aspen suit (not evident from the linked article) answer that question? If so, maybe give us the epilogue as it may well be relevant to the evolution of GRC.

 

[sponger76]

I am on a steep learning curve, but I don't see how it follows that owners of an unbranded property that is available to MVC members are excluded from exchange as a matter of course. Does the outcome of Aspen suit (not evident from the linked article) answer that question? If so, maybe give us the epilogue as it may well be relevant to the evolution of GRC.

If a resort's owners decide to terminate their relationship with MVC, costing MVC lots of $ through lost management fees, why would MVC reward them by allowing them to still participate in Abound? It is the very threat of losing Abound/MVC access and benefits that MVC uses to keep some resorts from leaving their brand. From what I've seen, it was a big reason why Grand Residence in Tahoe didn't terminate the relationship in the last couple of years when the board and MVC were having a very public fight. Owners didn't want to lose Abound and related Marriott benefits. If MVC were to allow resorts that terminate to still have the benefit of Abound access, MVC would lose a lot of leverage to keep resorts from defecting, so I am extremely doubtful they would ever do so.

As for the Aspen property dropping Hyatt management, yes, individual owners at that resort lost access to using the Hyatt timeshare system. Others who still own in the Hyatt ecosystem do still have access to inventory Hyatt still owns at that Aspen resort by using their points, but only to that Hyatt-owned inventory.