Call to Starwood about new system

[l2trade]

Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?

Yes, I would absolutely have the same complaint. Under the scenario you describe, my "request first" using a specific week would not really be offered with integrity to II. That would be ethically wrong and I would NOT engage in such a trading practice with II without their prior consent and knowledge. For example, I would never rent a 'specific week' reservation to a 3rd party and allow them to be subject to the whims of Starwood canceling that reservation. That would be dishonest if I didn't disclose it. And, if I did disclose that Starwood could do this, then I never really would be renting or exchanging that specific week after all, now would I? To claim otherwise or fail to properly disclose would be FRAUD. Since II assigns trade value on a week by week by location by property basis according to greatest demand, the scenario above could never provide that value promised in offering a specific week reservation unless II was the decision maker able to keep or seek to reschedule the week reserved. Same goes for a 3rd party I might rent to. If Starwood could initiate a change to the reservation, that renter would be less inclined to rent it from me, thus making the transaction less valuable. If that 3rd party had the choice to modify my reservation or keep it as-is after renting it from me, that might possibly add transactional value.

Honesty and Integrity are the key here. I am not a cheater gaming the system. If that were the case, I would be quick to apologize and make amends. I am simply following rules that are well established by my real estate deeds, signed contracts and past precedents. These well established rules are the same for all owners in my ownership class. I believe they should continue to be so. I read all these documents again over the weekend. I have verbally requested legal justification from Starwood and await their response. I am not trying to hide anything about how I choose to exercise my ownership rights. In fact, I openly share all my trading strategies with anyone who will listen. We are not the ones trying to hide any facts about our true intents here. Just take the time to read the board and you can plainly see that. Let's remember that it is Starwood that rolled out these changes in secret.

I am a law abiding and honest real estate owner who does not want to opt-in to this 'new program and new rules'. I assert that if these rule changes are being done on behalf of Starwood, as II agents repeatedly claim to me, then my lawful property rights as a non-SVN and non-seasonal owner are being infringed upon. Yes, it may be true that these new rules benefit some classes of SVN owners. However, it is wrong to implement these changes in a manner that subsequently disenfranchises the rights of the class of non-SVN, 1-52 red, SDO real estate owners that I belong to. Likewise, it would be wrong for both companies to enter into an agreement which would accomplish the same thing against my class of owners.

Excuse me, BUT I MUST DIGRESS TO SAY, I'd rather be posting about my favorite resorts and travel tips. Up until a month ago, when I think Starwood, I remember the Westin Kierland's front desk manager who arranged a spontaneous mid-summer week Marshmallow roasting for my kids and a couple of other families who missed the regularly scheduled event night. I remember the pride in my dad's voice as he recounted all about the wonderful trip to Westin Ka'anapali I gave him. I remember how Marriott welcomed me on an exchange, fully knowing that I was a Sheraton Desert Oasis owner on an II exchange with no intent or need to buy Marriott. Marriott welcomed me anyways as an equal part of their family, giving my wife and I an incredible ocean view during summer break and surprising us with a champagne gift on our anniversary. Which gets me back on topic... Marriott's action here kept me from feeling like a 2nd-class II exchanger. I want my home resort, Sheraton Desert Oasis, to exceed expectations for all our guests, whether we arrive as owners, SVN members, renters, exchangers, etc... Starwood must be willing to allow all owners the right to relinquish some of their very best week reservations to II in order to get some of the very best out of network weeks and the best guest resort ratings in return. Already, I am looking to buy additional weeks from other timeshare companies and/or join RCI, to cover for the weeks you deny me from exchanging properly. I'm considering renting out my platinum holiday week reservations to the general public, which otherwise were destined for II request-first transactions.

STARWOOD, PLEASE READ ALL OUR COMPLAINTS ON THESE THREADS. We want to be loyal to your brand and remain happy customers. If you take the time to listen, you will see we are very active in the timeshare community and well informed consumers. We probably spend much more time and money on leisure travel than most people. If you treat us fairly, we will be one of your greatest assets. Forcing everyone into this new SVN program is not fair and we are unhappy about it. Please take the time to understand all our feedback and take corrective action. Please allow ALL NON-SVN owners to OPT-OUT of your new programs and seasons.

 

[jerseygirl]

l2trade --

Very well stated. I think it's wonderful that you've asked nicely -- I'm much more inclined to ask the Attorney General to ask for me.

-- Jerseygirl

 

[LisaH]

I thought fredm knew something that we don't know and was proposing something differently to the newly implemented "request first" policy. If the request is filled, then I don't care what week *wood deposit into II. If in the event that the request is not filled, I should still retain the right to my reserved week, not any other week that's left over at that time.

With any other system traded with II, "request first" is only a condition, not a commitment. Why request first if, by simply submitting a request, you lose the week you reserve?

 

[l2trade]

l2trade --

Very well stated. I think it's wonderful that you've asked nicely -- I'm much more inclined to ask the Attorney General to ask for me.

-- Jerseygirl

Thank you! I have yet to personally escalate my complaint above the Starwood Resolution Services management level. I will not give up as long as mine and other owner's legal property rights are being infringed. I'm willing to stand 100% alongside gcmarine and all others who join him.

Despite my frustrations, I'm willing to give Starwood a chance to reverse course and correct this mistake. No corporation or employee is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. What separates a great company from a failed company is how they respond. Here is one legendary example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

We are just beginning to bring this matter to Starwood's attention. It is still the weekend. I'm just getting warmed up. If Starwood continues to deny our ownership rights, this matter will soon have my full attention. If Starwood gives us back our ownership rights, I will try to be one of the first on this board to compliment them for doing so.

 

[gmarine]

Thank you! I have yet to personally escalate my complaint above the Starwood Resolution Services management level. I will not give up as long as mine and other owner's legal property rights are being infringed. I'm willing to stand 100% alongside gcmarine and all others who join him.

Despite my frustrations, I'm willing to give Starwood a chance to reverse course and correct this mistake. No corporation or employee is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. What separates a great company from a failed company is how they respond. Here is one legendary example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

We are just beginning to bring this matter to Starwood's attention. It is still the weekend. I'm just getting warmed up. If Starwood continues to deny our ownership rights, this matter will soon have my full attention. If Starwood gives us back our ownership rights, I will try to be one of the first on this board to compliment them for doing so.

We spoke regarding this approach on the phone and I agree 100%. I too hope Starwood changes course on this.

 

[l2trade]

I thought fredm knew something that we don't know and was proposing something differently to the newly implemented "request first" policy. If the request is filled, then I don't care what week *wood deposit into II. If in the event that the request is not filled, I should still retain the right to my reserved week, not any other week that's left over at that time.

With any other system traded with II, "request first" is only a condition, not a commitment. Why request first if, by simply submitting a request, you lose the week you reserve?

Sorry, my previous response was so lengthy. In summary, you should care. It is not about whether every request is ultimately filled or not. It's about keeping your personal property rights. It is about taking control over the trade value of what you own and where you stand in line when you make that request.

I reject the likelihood of fredm's proposal. Calling something Christmas, does not make it so when II knows that it will really end up getting an off season travel week during 100+ degree heat in AZ. In fact, calling something like that Christmas without our informed consent would be FRAUD, whether or not we actually end up with what we ask for in the first place.

 

[Fredm]

Fred -- One of us is misunderstanding the new policy. It's my understanding that I must give up the reserved week when I make the request first. Yes, I can cancel the request first at any time, but so can any other II member -- that's always been permitted -- it's not a new benefit. And, if I do cancel the request first, I have to go back to Starwood and make a new reservation. Chances are good that my original prime week reservation will no longer be available.

Gmarine -- Can you clarify? Do I have it right?

If yes, Fred -- do you still think it's fair?

Oops --edited to add, I was typing at the same time as tchwa2.

Jerseygirl.

Yes, one of us is misunderstanding.
This question is one I raised. Reason being that I could not find any practical way it could be administered and enforced if other than a normal request-first.

Yes, it is how it would usually be handled.That's my point. If canceled, the week remains for the owners use. The reservation is not canceled. It is canceled if the trade is successful, and substituted with another week. But, at that point what does the owner care? It's between Starwood and I.I.

For it to be otherwise is a violation of the owners rights. Starwood can choose to substitute the week if I.I. has agreed to that protocol in its affiliation agreement. But, Starwood cannot confiscate the week if the owner terminates the request.

 

[Fredm]

.

Starwood requires your home resort reservation to be canceled at the time you enter an ongoing request.

Maybe we have a terminology problem. An ongoing request is not a request first. It is a pending request as I understand it.

Why would I want to deposit platinum week to get Gold plus trading power?

I can't think of a reason why you would like it. Except everyone knows that a true Prime Season does not run 52 weeks a year, except in Hawaii. It certainly does not exist in the Arizona desert, where SDO owners seem to have the biggest problem with this.
That is why owners who wish to retro SDO do make the distinction of what is owned before hand. A 52 week Platinum is pegged as a Gold season when valued in StarOptions. It is, therefore not surprising that Starwood assigns a Gold Plus weighting to it for exchange purposes.

I completely understand your not liking it. I would not either. But, fairness has to be accounted for somewhere. Not every situation for every conceivable owner trade gimmick can be made happy. A gold plus value for what can also be a low summer desert week is generous.

I cant understand why any Starwood owner would put up with it or why you think its OK for Starwood to attempt to control owner deposits.

I am just guessing, but would be OK with you (meaning you would not object as a strict matter of principal) if your ownership was defined as platinum for exchange purposes?

 

[Fredm]

I personally think Starwood has gotten themselves into this whole situation with the SVN, non-SVN,voluntary, mandatory resorts. Didn't you once say Fred, they should just end the madness and open SVN up to whoever wants to join.

I agree with you there. Starwood has created a mess for itself.
I have said many things about Starwood's scheme.

Yes, I predicted that Starwood would eventually open SVN to all owners. I stated that they would do so for a couple of self serving reasons. Primarily money related. It will be hard for them to ignore the SVN member dues, and the enrollment fee they could impose on every resale buyer. Time will tell.

 

[LisaH]

deleted...

 

[gmarine]

I am just guessing, but would be OK with you (meaning you would not object as a strict matter of principal) if your ownership was defined as platinum for exchange purposes?

You cannot enter any ongoing/pending request and still keep your home resort reservation. As soon as you make a request, any request, your home resort reservation is canceled.


The floating 1-52 units at SDO which were sold prior to Starwood managing the resort were originally designated as platinum.
I'm not so worried about what it is called as long as trade power reflects the week deposited and I can do what I want with my reservation.

I'm a non-SVN member. I cant trade my unit for Staroptions. If Starwood would like to treat me as an SVN member then I expect the benefits that SVN members receive.

FYI, you also have fixed week owners being told they cannot deposit the FIXED week that they own. How does that sound?

 

[Captron]

Captron.

I admire your forceful presentation. It would be compelling if based in fact. However, there is a huge difference between your understanding of the system, and the system itself.
You proceed from the assumption that you have educated yourself on how to maximize the system. I would not be so certain in your righteous indignation. Just because you have digested the consensus opinion does not make the consensus correct.

To be clear, I also prefer that an owner have the ability to deposit a reserved week. I was among those who lifted the banner in support of non-SVN owners to not be bound by SVN member rules. Indeed, it was the very basis of my early advocacy of voluntary resort ownership. I agree that those who can game the system within the confines of the system should be able to do so.

But, this is not about my personal preference. It is all about the legitimacy of the matter. At the end of the day THAT is what will count. Not your preference, or mine (which happen to be the same).

I, too, know a little something about how the I.I. exchange system works. My insight was not gained here. Owner rights regarding exchange are based on the affiliation agreement between I.I. and the resort manager. The agreement must, of course, conform to the legal rights of owners. They may be implemented differently from system to system, but that's another issue.

My view of an owner rights regarding exchange deposits has remained unchanged since day one.
I wrote an I.I. primer for Starwood owners a couple of years ago, published here on TUG. I stated then that a non-SVN owner was entitled to a deposit representing their home resort in the season owned.
Having not abdicated their rights to another allocation system, non-SVN owners are entitled to have what they purchased represent an exchange request.
An SVN member had no such rights. The deposit could be from any resort in any season.

Again, this is not about personal preference, but legitimacy.
Your assumption about what knowledge you have gained does not matter either.
If those who care about the issue want to do battle with Starwood, I strongly suggest that you be armed with the facts to support what you claim. To the best of my meager knowledge, a deposit which represents the home resort in the floating season owned, is legitimate. Indeed, it is how many deposits are made elsewhere.

You state: "why should I/we be penalized as the minority because we have taken the time and effort to EDUCATE ourselves and use the system to our advantage WITHIN THE RULES that they have established? They are STARWOOD's rules written by them! Some of us learned them well and shared what we know with others to get best possible advantage WITHIN THE RULES as stated. Why are they changing the rules, seemingly, to stop this activity?"

Really? What rules are those, and where are they written?
See, this is precisely what I mean. You show me where these rules are written, and you have my profound apology on a silver platter.
The only written rules I know of are those pertaining to SVN members.

Respectfully, you may well believe what you are saying because the misinformation has been repeated enough to become the consensus opinion. Consensus opinion does not make it accurate. That's not education, its perpetuating a myth.

Fred,

First of all , I am glad that our preferences happen to be the same.

Furthermore, I never claimed to be an expert in this area. I claimed I have learned how to use the system "well". I have been doing so for in excess of 15 years and was involved with several of these properties well before Starwood. However, my definition of well and yours may differ. Perhaps you are more of a perfectionist than I am.

You seem to proceed with the assumption that my only source of information is from consensus opinion on this site. I did not represent what my information or knowledge was in my post so I am wondering how you claim to know that it, in it's entirety, is inaccurate? In fact, the source of my information comes from many places, including here, other sites, personal experience and conversation with RCI, II and Starwood representatives including Starwood management and their in house council.

In any scientific exploration consensus opinion must be tested repeatedly to establish whether it is valid or not. That it is consensus opinion does not make it invalid. Many of the things stated here, you describe as consensus opinion have stood up to that test.

You are entirely accurate, "written", may not have been the most precise word to use, because some, not all of these things are written where I (and possibly any Starwood owner) have access to them. Even in a court of law real estate deeds, signed contracts and past precedents hold some weight. I would have difficulty believing that you are intimately familiar with all of these things for all Starwood resorts. I am guilty of making some assumptions here. This is all my opinion. As I have pointed out, you have made several assumptions, including ones about my knowledge base and source of that information without any knowledge of either one. Your conclusions based on these assumptions are thus meaningless. To use your own terminology they would be illegitimate.

Your lashing out with what I perceive as a personal attack based on assumptions is beneath the behavior I have come to expect from a member on what I believe to be a quality site that provides a valuable resource. I appreciate your primer and the time and effort it took to create it. I look forward to reviewing the revised edition. For this I thank you. I appreciate all who come here and constructively contribute, certainly some more than others.

 

[DeniseM]

Captron - Fred is a TUG member, not a moderator. If someone is a moderator, it states it under their user name. To be quite honest with you, I see Fred disagreeing with some of your points, but not lashing out.

 

[Captron]

Thank you for the correction. edited.

 

[ArtsieAng]

Rules, what rules?.......There may not be rules, but there are rights.

The way that I'm looking at this is that Starwood is unilaterally taking away the rights of owners without any proceedings, or due process. What gives them the right to do so?

I woke up one day to find the Platinum week that I purchased was no longer Platinum. Instead, it was arbitrarily given the bogus status of Gold Plus. I was also made aware that I no longer had the right to reserve my week, and deposit it into II. If I wanted to use II, I now had to give up my Platinum week, and allow Starwood to deposit a generic week for my exchange. In addition, I could no longer use my deeded week to place a request first in II.

I am a non-SVN owner that owns a summer week at SBP. According to my deed, I have the right to reserve my deeded week 24 months in advance. It is called the "Fixed Week Preference Period."

If I were to reserve my deeded week, and deposit that week into II, I strongly believe that II would give my holiday, summer week, stronger trading power, or "Platinum" status, opposed to "Gold Plus."

Every non-SVN owner should be very concerned that Starwood feels they have the right to ignore the deeded rights of owners. I do not believe that Starwood has any such right.

Starwood has remodeled the seasons for StarOptions, and that's their right. But they do not have the right to disregard non-SVN owners rights in the process, and force us all into abiding by the StarOptions chart, and rules.

We should not be setting a president allowing Starwood to disregard the legitimate rights of owners. If we allow them to do so, where does it stop? If this current change in the system does not hurt you personally, perhaps the next one will. We should all be reserving our deeded rights.

 

[Fredm]

Fred,

First of all , I am glad that our preferences happen to be the same.

Furthermore, I never claimed to be an expert in this area. I claimed I have learned how to use the system "well". I have been doing so for in excess of 15 years and was involved with several of these properties well before Starwood. However, my definition of well and yours may differ. Perhaps you are more of a perfectionist than I am.

You seem to proceed with the assumption that my only source of information is from consensus opinion on this site. I did not represent what my information or knowledge was in my post so I am wondering how you claim to know that it, in it's entirety, is inaccurate? In fact, the source of my information comes from many places, including here, other sites, personal experience and conversation with RCI, II and Starwood representatives including Starwood management and their in house council.

In any scientific exploration consensus opinion must be tested repeatedly to establish whether it is valid or not. That it is consensus opinion does not make it invalid. Many of the things stated here, you describe as consensus opinion have stood up to that test.

You are entirely accurate, "written", may not have been the most precise word to use, because some, not all of these things are written where I (and possibly any Starwood owner) have access to them. Even in a court of law real estate deeds, signed contracts and past precedents hold some weight. I would have difficulty believing that you are intimately familiar with all of these things for all Starwood resorts. I am guilty of making some assumptions here. This is all my opinion. As I have pointed out, you have made several assumptions, including ones about my knowledge base and source of that information without any knowledge of either one. Your conclusions based on these assumptions are thus meaningless. To use your own terminology they would be illegitimate.

Your lashing out with what I perceive as a personal attack based on assumptions is beneath the behavior I have come to expect from a member on what I believe to be a quality site that provides a valuable resource. I appreciate your primer and the time and effort it took to create it. I look forward to reviewing the revised edition. For this I thank you. I appreciate all who come here and constructively contribute, certainly some more than others.

Captron,

I apologize for having offended you. It was not my intention to do so.

I did want to dispute the rather pointed basis for the position you are taking.
Starwood is not acting contrary to their own written rules.
There are no written rules except those they reserve for their own benefit. Oftentimes at the direct expense of owners.
The implementation is determined by the affiliation agreement with I.I.

My only point regarding Starwood's latest exchange implementation is that it is legitimate. Not as I would like to see it, but valid and consistent with what is owned.

There is much to complain about within the Starwood system.
If owner "rights" are the measure, then someone please explain away why a non-SVN owner must subordinate the ability to make a reservation at their home resort to SVN exchangers within 8 months of occupancy. Yet, that's the system.
Not many here are screaming that they own the resort, and have a deeded right which should supersede the requests of a non-owner.
Talk about stepping on an owners rights! THAT is a travesty in my book.
Meanwhile, some are up in arms over the deposit of a specific week in a floating ownership. The week on the deed is purely academic (except for fixed week owners). The deeded week itself provides no priority, preference, or any other distinction except that it correspond to the season purchased. Implementation regarding use is "floating".
So, although I wish it were otherwise, the deposit of a week which corresponds to the season owned is legitimate. Not ideal for some, but not a trampling of an owners rights.

Assigning a standard demand/quality/exchange value which corresponds to what is owned is an accepted method within many timeshare systems. All point based systems do it.
There is no real difference in a floating use system. The deed itself only represents a slice of the whole.

You are correct in stating that there are generally accepted conventions for how this could be handled, if Starwood wished to.
But, they don't wish to.
They are stuck in a box they painted for themselves when they created their goofy mandatory/voluntary resort designations.

Finally, there are options for an owner who cannot live with the current scheme. Perhaps the option of last resort. Vote with your feet. This implementation is not enforceable outside of I.I.
It may not be a better option, but if I felt the way you do I would take my business elsewhere.
Personally, I would resent having to make that choice.

 

[l2trade]

Starwood is not acting contrary to their own written rules.
There are no written rules except those they reserve for their own benefit. Oftentimes at the direct expense of owners.
The implementation is determined by the affiliation agreement with I.I.

You state what may turn out to be Starwood's argument. We will see. I have yet to see an official position statement from both companies. Just because Starwood and II modify their affiliation agreement does not mean that the new agreement is legally enforceable. They have SVN and non-SVN classes of owners to consider. Also, they have many additional sub classes of owners who are affected differently based on a multitude of grandfathered seasonal and non-seasonal contracts. I would argue that these two companies cannot modify the affiliation agreement to benefit one class of owners at the negative expense of another. As a non-SVN owner, my contracts between Sheraton Desert Oasis (now Starwood, but formerly Vistana) are separate from my agreements with Interval International.

We have real estate deeds, written contracts and past precedence to base our claims on. There are also real estate laws in each affected state, anti-trust laws, contract laws, etc. There is also the court of 'public opinion'. I am hopeful that Starwood will recognize how this change infringes on the rights of non-SVN, 1-52 red, Arizona Sheraton Desert Oasis owners and change course. I hope they will also do the same for other non-SVN properties where owner rights are being trampled by these changes. If not, each of these affected groups will need to determine what next steps to take both separately and collectively.

 

[Fredm]

You cannot enter any ongoing/pending request and still keep your home resort reservation. As soon as you make a request, any request, your home resort reservation is canceled.


The floating 1-52 units at SDO which were sold prior to Starwood managing the resort were originally designated as platinum.
I'm not so worried about what it is called as long as trade power reflects the week deposited and I can do what I want with my reservation.

I'm a non-SVN member. I cant trade my unit for Staroptions. If Starwood would like to treat me as an SVN member then I expect the benefits that SVN members receive.

FYI, you also have fixed week owners being told they cannot deposit the FIXED week that they own. How does that sound?

gmarine,

Now we really are confusing the issue.
Let me try to be precise. Specifically about the implications of request first. We appear to understand it differently. Please forgive the pedantic approach. I am not attempting to lecture. Just trying to insure clarity of what is being said. OK?

First, let us use the standard I.I. terms to describe what we are saying to avoid misinterpreting each other.

Exchange request methods are either Request First, or, Deposit First.

Deposit First implies a pending / ongoing search using an actual deposit into the system. Once deposited, its utility to the owner ends, except as the vehicle for the exchange. The reservation dates no longer hold any relevance to the owner. The use has been surrendered. The new Starwood implementation would deposit a week representing a standardized value from the home resort in the season owned.

Request First as a methodology only has significance because of what it implies for the owner. Specifically, the reservation date represents the owners use-week for occupancy should the desired trade not materialize on the owners terms or timetable. There is no deposit being made, unless and until the request is filled. The rest is up to I.I.

As I understand it, we interpret what Starwood does next, differently. Please correct me if I do not represent your statements accurately.

You have stated that in the event that the owners Request First trade is not successful for any reason (either the owner retracts it or I.I. cannot fill it), the owner loses the utility of the reserved week. They must go back to Starwood with a new reservation request.

I have stated that in the same circumstance, the owner keeps the reservation represented in the original request.
I have also stated that if the request is successful, Starwood would give I.I. a standardized week as the actual deposit.

We have both stated that if the owner terminates the Request First, and wishes to place a Deposit First exchange request using the same use-year, Starwood would revert to depositing its standardized value, which represents the home resort in the season owned.
This is exactly what it would have done if the original request was Deposit First.

If I have described our statements correctly thus far, one question remains. It also requires a convoluted answer, void of defensible logic, if your interpretation is correct:

If the owner loses the reservation if the Request First is not successfully consummated, why allow the specific reservation to represent it in the first place?
I can completely understand I.I. viewing the request as a standardized value, and Starwood substituting same when it succeeds, but there is otherwise no basis for the request if the owner does not keep the reservation if the request fails.

When the issue is posed in this way, both Starwood and I.I. are at a loss to respond with a defensible answer.

So, as Yogi Berra said, "its deja vu all over again".
That is not a "system" comprised of rational rules which are self implementing. To otherwise administer it would still require management by exception. THAT is what was happening with Starwood's reluctance to deposit other than a bulk bank week for a non-SVN owner. If anything motivates these latest changes, it is to eliminate the many problems associated with exception driven inventory management.

The issue of representing a fixed week deposit is another matter. I will be happy to discuss it separately. Suffice to say, rights should be different for fixed week ownership, depending on the definition of "fixed" within the system.

 

[Fredm]

You state what may turn out to be Starwood's argument. We will see. I have yet to see an official position statement from both companies. Just because Starwood and II modify their affiliation agreement does not mean that the new agreement is legally enforceable. They have SVN and non-SVN classes of owners to consider. Also, they have many additional sub classes of owners who are affected differently based on a multitude of grandfathered seasonal and non-seasonal contracts. I would argue that these two companies cannot modify the affiliation agreement to benefit one class of owners at the negative expense of another. As a non-SVN owner, my contracts between Sheraton Desert Oasis (now Starwood, but formerly Vistana) are separate from my agreements with Interval International.

We have real estate deeds, written contracts and past precedence to base our claims on. There are also real estate laws in each affected state, anti-trust laws, contract laws, etc. There is also the court of 'public opinion'. I am hopeful that Starwood will recognize how this change infringes on the rights of non-SVN, 1-52 red, Arizona Sheraton Desert Oasis owners and change course. I hope they will also do the same for other non-SVN properties where owner rights are being trampled by these changes. If not, each of these affected groups will need to determine what next steps to take both separately and collectively.

Right you are! We shall see.

Regarding your deed to a floating use, you are legally entitled to occupy in the season owned, and do all other things that are granted in the bundle of rights attached to the real estate, as subordinated to the governing documents of the resort.

Have at it.

 

[ArtsieAng]

Fredm

Meanwhile, some are up in arms over the deposit of a specific week in a floating ownership. The week on the deed is purely academic (except for fixed week owners). The deeded week itself provides no priority, preference, or any other distinction except that it correspond to the season purchased. Implementation regarding use is "floating".

So, if a person has purchased a floating week within the Platinum season, according to their deed, does Starwood have the right to arbitrarily change their season from Platinum to a season of their choosing?

Maybe next year Starwood will decide to start distinguishing seasons even further, and start designating certain weeks Platinum Plus Bonus, and others Gold minus......What's to stop them?

 

[Twinkstarr]

There is much to complain about within the Starwood system.
If owner "rights" are the measure, then someone please explain away why a non-SVN owner must subordinate the ability to make a reservation at their home resort to SVN exchangers within 8 months of occupancy. Yet, that's the system.
Not many here are screaming that they own the resort, and have a deeded right which should supersede the requests of a non-owner.


They are stuck in a box they painted for themselves when they created their goofy mandatory/voluntary resort designations.

.

Exactly, Fred. I think this whole new II system is a way to keep our prime weeks in the system for SVN. And that's what makes me .

I'll take my tin foil hat off now. :rofl:

 

[Bill4728]

Request First as a methodology only has significance because of what it implies for the owner. Specifically, the reservation date represents the owners use-week for occupancy should the desired trade not materialize on the owners terms or timetable. There is no deposit being made, unless and until the request is filled. The rest is up to I.I.

As I understand it, we interpret what Starwood does next, differently. Please correct me if I do not represent your statements accurately.

You have stated that in the event that the owners Request First trade is not successful for any reason (either the owner retracts it or I.I. cannot fill it), the owner loses the utility of the reserved week. They must go back to Starwood with a new reservation request.

I have stated that in the same circumstance, the owner keeps the reservation represented in the original request.
I have also stated that if the request is successful, Starwood would give I.I. a standardized week as the actual deposit.

We have both stated that if the owner terminates the Request First, and wishes to place a Deposit First exchange request using the same use-year, Starwood would revert to depositing its standardized value, which represents the home resort in the season owned.
This is exactly what it would have done if the original request was Deposit First.

The problem with this is that every other TS system which trades with II does this in a different way.
-II has a generic week listed as unit owned. Then the owner puts in the details of a reservation when they want to do searches with that week.
-This is all done without an input from the resort & in no way means that they have to give up their pending home reservation. In fact, they can do this without even having a reservation by using fake data.

With the new SVN system none of this is possible.

This new SVN system is just like the RCI system. You must deposit a week before you can search with it.

Isn't this the biggest difference between the big two TS exchange companies?? And IMHO II biggest advantage?

 

[RoshiGuy]

If the owner loses the reservation if the Request First is not successfully consummated, why allow the specific reservation to represent it in the first place?
I can completely understand I.I. viewing the request as a standardized value, and Starwood substituting same when it succeeds, but there is otherwise no basis for the request if the owner does not keep the reservation if the request fails.

When the issue is posed in this way, both Starwood and I.I. are at a loss to respond with a defensible answer.

Good point - the whole idea of "request first" falls flat on its head if you cannot keep the week reserved, should the trade not come through.

The depleted trading power of a floating 1-52 week (and I own one of these at SDO) is what it is. While I don't like it, I agree with your POV that there is nothing illegitimate about Starwood fixing an obvious loophole in the system which allowed us to buy a cheap deeded week; book prime-time and use that for a great exchange through II.

Sligthly off-topic, I just saw a TUG ad for a SDO 1-52 week (2 bedroom) being offered at $600 and this includes closing costs!

 

[Fredm]

The problem with this is that every other TS system which trades with II does this in a different way.
-II has a generic week listed as unit owned. Then the owner puts in the details of a reservation when they want to do searches with that week.
-This is all done without an input from the resort & in no way means that they have to give up their pending home reservation. In fact, they can do this without even having a reservation by using fake data.

With the new SVN system none of this is possible.

This new SVN system is just like the RCI system. You must deposit a week before you can search with it.

Isn't this the biggest difference between the big two TS exchange companies?? And IMHO II biggest advantage?

Bill,

As I understand it Starwood and I.I. have agreed as to a standardized exchange value for the resort and season being deposited. A specific week will be deposited., if an exchange is requested. Likewise, an owner will be able to search using the exchange value assigned to their resort/season, without surrendering the reservation. They do surrender the reservation to execute the trade.

 

[ArtsieAng]

RoshiGuy

I agree with your POV that there is nothing illegitimate about Starwood fixing an obvious loophole in the system which allowed us to buy a cheap deeded week;

When I read this comment, for some reason, the Seinfeld episode where Jerry is in the car dealership, and they have his reservation, but not the car he reserved, came to mind. He asked the girl at the desk what the point is in taking reservations, if they're not going to honor them? He tries to explain to the girl behind the desk that holding the reservation is the most important part of taking the reservation. :rofl:


I know that it really isn't the same scenario, but I guess this came to mind because to me the significance of having a deed is to insure that you will always be entitled to what you purchased. What is the purpose of deeding property if it can simply be disregarded?