Call to Starwood about new system

[Fredm]

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?

ArtsieAng,

With all due respect, you are conveniently mixing terms.
And this is the nub of the matter.
I.I. does not, and never has, assign trade clout to the season as specified on a deed, at defined by the resort, by the developer, or anyone but themselves.
In point of fact. a Platinum Season defined as weeks 1-52 is absolutely meaningless to everyone.

It is the demand for the deposited week that matters to I.I.
SDO's definition of a 52 week Platinum season is a ruse on its owners.

Do you really believe that if you deposited SDO week 32 it carries the the same weight with I.I. as week 7?

Now, you may argue that you would reserve week 7 because you know the difference. Well, that makes my point does it not?
The name of the season is meaningless. Truly meaningless.

This implementation is an honest and accurate attempt to represent what you own for exchange purposes. Exchange is what this is all about. Not what your deed says.

 

[RoshiGuy]

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 the purpose of deeding property if it can simply be disregarded?

My deed says floating 1-52 ... I have the right to reserve and use any week in the year. There is nothing that says II must give my prime Easter Week reservation at SDO must greater "trading power" because I was smart enought to learn about this through TUG.

Of course, if my "request first" trade does not come through, I'd expect to be able to use my Easter Week or maybe even rent that out. We need someone to test this through II to determine if requesting first cancels the original booking. I've used my 2010 SDO week so cannot try it out; hopefully someone else can try and post empirical evidence.

I see no deeding property issues with this, do you?

 

[rickandcindy23]

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?

I just bought any old week, in the season of 9-43 at SBP (own week weeks 14 and 19, week 41 is still in the process, all EOY). I bought 1-52 SDO EOY, deeded week 24, too, so not platinum season.

My weeks aren't in prime season, but your week(s) are (is), so your week has now been downgraded to the same level as mine. That's not fair to you, I agree.

I purposely bought just to trade and have no intention of attending any sales meetings to get Staroptions. I just wanted to trade--that's it, so I didn't care. The platinum season weeks at SDO were going for MUCH more than we paid. Now your value has gone down, with one decision. I would be angry.

I am concerned at the apparent lack of a Starwood preference period in II. I assume my Blue Ridge Village in North Carolina is going to work better for getting us an exchange at the Westins than my SBP and SDO. Sad.

 

[ArtsieAng]

ArtsieAng,

With all due respect, you are conveniently mixing terms.
And this is the nub of the matter.
I.I. does not, and never has, assign trade clout to the season as specified on a deed, at defined by the resort, by the developer, or anyone but themselves.
In point of fact. a Platinum Season defined as weeks 1-52 is absolutely meaningless to everyone.

It is the demand for the deposited week that matters to I.I.
SDO's definition of a 52 week Platinum season is a ruse on its owners.

Do you really believe that if you deposited SDO week 32 it carries the the same weight with I.I. as week 7?

Now, you may argue that you would reserve week 7 because you know the difference. Well, that makes my point does it not?
The name of the season is meaningless. Truly meaningless.


Other than Starwood is currently using the seasons as a marker for trading power in II.......Since the seasons are meaningless, then surely Starwood would have no problem designating my week back to Platinum, right?
This implementation is an honest and accurate attempt to represent what you own for exchange purposes. Exchange is what this is all about. Not what your deed says.

Also with due respect, I completely disagree with your attempt to legitimize what Starwood is currently doing as honest, and, or accurate.

Those weeks were sold as Platinum weeks, rightly, or wrongly. There is no question that the individual weeks are not all equal in trading power. Nobody is disputing that fact. The question is does Starwood have the right to take it upon themselves to prevent the owners of those weeks their right to obtain a week during the peak season, and do with that week, what they choose?

Their deed says that they do, correct? So, is Starwood not in fact ignoring their deeded rights?

BTW, you keep using SDO as your example when there are more blatant abuses from Starwood with SBP owners.

According to my deed, I have the right to reserve my deeded summer week, 24 months in advance, yet Starwood is refusing me that right

 

[jerseygirl]

Fred --

I usually agree with your posts but I have to disagree with you here. I'm quite certain that ArtiesAng understands how trading power works at II better than 99% of its members. While the semantics may be off, I agree with her position completely. Those of us who own non-SVN float weeks bought the right to reserve and use any week within our season. You might call it "closing a loophole," but it really boils down to Starwood changing the rules as spelled out in the CCRs.

All owners of a particular season have a specific right to book any available week within the season and do with it whatever they wish (use it, rent it, give it to a friend, deposit it to an exchange company, or let it sit empty). We deserve more trading power from II by reserving and depositing a prime week. It's not a loophole -- it's how the game is played and is 100% permissable per the CCRs.

As an owner of other point-based systems, I fully understand the concept of blended trading power. Those other systems (Hyatt comes to mind), however, were set up in such a way that the owenrs were informed of, and agreed to, the blended trading power issue upon purchase. Non-SVN members have never agreed to such a system and Starwood and II have no legal right to foist it upon us.

You've made a lot of lenghty posts lately and although you are always articulate, I'm still unclear on whether or not you understand the following changes:

-- They have redefined "request first" by cancelling your reservation upon making a request. I had the right to hold a certain week and use it if my trade never came through. I no longer have that right.

-- A week 11 at SDO, or week 27 at SBP, is the same whether the inventory comes from the original Starwood deeds (week 1-52 at SDO, weeks 9-43, 47 at SBP) or the new SVN deeds which more narrowly define platinum. The trading power for that week 11/week 27 should be the same regardless, but II has agreed to allow Starwood to designate one as "platinum" and one as "gold plus." Completely unacceptable.

-- They are no longer permitting us to deposit our FIXED weeks. This one is so far off base I have nothing further to say.

I couldn't care less about the reasons for these changes. They are in no way beneficial to me and violate the rights as stated in my CCRs.

I love you Fred, but I can't for the life of me understand your position on this one.

-- Jerseygirl

PS I do agree with you as it relates to the deeded week on a floating ownership. That has always been meaningless except as it related to the ability to reserve one's deeded week 2 years in advance, as opposed to one year in advance for all other weeks in the season. It has no bearing on the trading power issue with II.

 

[RoshiGuy]

I just bought any old week, in the season of 9-43 at SBP (own week weeks 14 and 19, week 41 is still in the process, all EOY). I bought 1-52 SDO EOY, deeded week 24, too, so not platinum season.

My weeks aren't in prime season, but your week(s) are (is), so your week has now been downgraded to the same level as mine. That's not fair to you, I agree.

I purposely bought just to trade and have no intention of attending any sales meetings to get Staroptions. I just wanted to trade--that's it, so I didn't care. The platinum season weeks at SDO were going for MUCH more than we paid. Now your value has gone down, with one decision. I would be angry.

I am concerned at the apparent lack of a Starwood preference period in II. I assume my Blue Ridge Village in North Carolina is going to work better for getting us an exchange at the Westins than my SBP and SDO. Sad.

As an owner of a floating 1-52 SDO unit, I share everyone's dismay regarding the decline in trading power. However, we cannot really get steamed up about this. Bottom line is that there was no deeded right to enhance trading power by booking a Prime week. Fixed week owners are different - they should have the trade power of their fixed week.

 

[ArtsieAng]

My deed says floating 1-52 ... I have the right to reserve and use any week in the year. There is nothing that says II must give my prime Easter Week reservation at SDO must greater "trading power" because I was smart enought to learn about this through TUG.

You are exactly correct.....There is nothing in your deed at all regarding II. No one is questioning that......What I am question is Starwood dictating trading power of those weeks.

Regarding SDO......If a person was sold a week that was marketed/deeded as Platinum, and told that the particular deeded week was irrelevant because they could reserve any week during the calendar year, and all weeks were equal, then how can Starwood now turn around and designate various seasons, and different values to those weeks? That's what I'm questioning?

Of course, if my "request first" trade does not come through, I'd expect to be able to use my Easter Week or maybe even rent that out. We need someone to test this through II to determine if requesting first cancels the original booking. I've used my 2010 SDO week so cannot try it out; hopefully someone else can try and post empirical evidence.

I see no deeding property issues with this, do you?

I do not believe that Starwood is going to allow you to use an Easter week to place a "Request First." Good luck tho, I hope that they do.

 

[K2Quick]

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!

Wish that one would have been around when I was looking.

 

[gmarine]

As an owner of a floating 1-52 SDO unit, I share everyone's dismay regarding the decline in trading power. However, we cannot really get steamed up about this. Bottom line is that there was no deeded right to enhance trading power by booking a Prime week. Fixed week owners are different - they should have the trade power of their fixed week.

There is no deeded right to trade power. You are correct. However you have a deeded right to make a reservation at your home resort and then do as you wish with that reservation. Starwood is telling you that you cant give that week to II.

You cannot do a request first and retain your reservation. As soon as you put in a request, your home resort reservation is canceled. But dont get steamed up about this.
Read through this thread and check out the details and you will understand the issue is much more than trade power.

Even fixed week trading power can and will change. But whether fixed or floating, an owner still has the right to use the unit any way they see fit.

 

[K2Quick]

There is no deeded right to trade power. You are correct. However you have a deeded right to make a reservation at your home resort and then do as you wish with that reservation. Starwood is telling you that you cant give that week to II.

Below is an excerpt from the Rules and Regulations for SDO. It clearly indicates that I can request a reservation (not some newly defined code) for use or EXCHANGE PURPOSES.

2. RESERVATIONS. An Owner who has the right to utilize an Interval Week may reserve a Unit for seven (7) nights in accordance with the following:
A. A reservation for an Interval Week may not be made more than one year (three hundred sixty five days) or less than thirty days before the first day of intended use. If an Owner owns more than one (1) Interval Week, the Owner can request consecutive use (one Unit for two weeks in a row) or concurrent use (two Units for one week) for up to 20% of the total Units available in Sheraton Desert Oasis at that time and subject to the below:
a) An Owner of a Two Bedroom Interval may:
(i) Request a reservation for a Two Bedroom Unit for use or exchange purposes; or
(ii) Request a reservation for a One Bedroom Deluxe and the other half of a Two Bedroom Unit (the “Lockoff Suite”) for two different Use Weeks. The reservations for these Units may be made on the same or different Reservation Dates. These reservations may be made for consecutive weeks; however, the Owner will have to move from one Unit Type to the other. The Owner may choose to have either or both Assigned Units participate in the exchange program.
b) An Owner of a Deluxe One Bedroom Interval or a Standard One Bedroom Interval may only request a reservation for the Unit Type they own. A Lockoff Suite will not be used to fill a reservation request of a Standard One Bedroom Interval Owner (unless that Owner agrees thereto), and a Standard One Bedroom Unit will not be used to fill a reservation request of a Two Bedroom Interval Owner for a Lockoff Suite, unless the Managing Agent otherwise determines in its sole discretion.

 

[l2trade]

As an owner of a floating 1-52 SDO unit, I share everyone's dismay regarding the decline in trading power. However, we cannot really get steamed up about this. Bottom line is that there was no deeded right to enhance trading power by booking a Prime week. Fixed week owners are different - they should have the trade power of their fixed week.

Yes, we have every right to get 'steamed up' about this:

1. What gives Starwood the right to take back a legitimate reservation? It is mine. I have the right to stay, rent or exchange that specific reservation. I always have had that right. I never opted-in to SVN. I own my real estate deeded week.

2. Floating weeks 1-52 provide first come equal access to the full range of weeks from 1-52, not the Gold Plus season (22-27 & 36-49) that is being assigned.

3. Two of my floating 1-52 weeks are platinum weeks on the actual deed.

4. Planning in advance is not a loophole. This is what all SDO 1-52 owners agreed to when they bought from Vistana. If we allow Starwood to get away with changing these rules to make things 'average' or 'fair', what is next? Will Starwood decide what weeks we can rent or not? Plus, how do these changes benefit the SVN network at the expense of non-SVN owners?

5. Sure we can argue about endless ways to design a newer or better or fairer timeshare trading system, but that isn't what our complaints are about. We own what we own, what we agreed to and what we signed up for. This is about legitimate property rights, contracts and the rule of law.

These weeks were sold without any seasonal constraints placed upon them. It is what it is. Starwood is not giving us choices about joining into their seasonal SVN system or not. No, they are forcing all non-SVN owners into these new rules. The II exchange process and the details of how it works for owners played a HUGE part in the original sales presentations. Many original owners were local AZ residents. They directly marketed to us for the ownership rights, trading value, freedoms and choices the system allowed up until now. What does Starwood have to say about this? What does II have to say? What would the AZ Dept of Real Estate or Attorney General have to say about Starwood colluding with II to devalue the originally sold units? What would consumer advocates have to say? What would a judge have to say?

Yes, I am giving Starwood some time to respond to our complaints and change course. I won't wait too long. Right now, past precedents are on our side, so these unilateral actions by Starwood will not go unchallenged.

 

[Fredm]

Fred --

QUOTE]You've made a lot of lenghty posts lately and although you are always articulate, I'm still unclear on whether or not you understand the following changes:

-- They have redefined "request first" by cancelling your reservation upon making a request. I had the right to hold a certain week and use it if my trade never came through. I no longer have that right.

-- A week 11 at SDO, or week 27 at SBP, is the same whether the inventory comes from the original Starwood deeds (week 1-52 at SDO, weeks 9-43, 47 at SBP) or the new SVN deeds which more narrowly define platinum. The trading power for that week 11/week 27 should be the same regardless, but II has agreed to allow Starwood to designate one as "platinum" and one as "gold plus." Completely unacceptable.

-- They are no longer permitting us to deposit our FIXED weeks. This one is so far off base I have nothing further to say.

I couldn't care less about the reasons for these changes. They are in no way beneficial to me and violate the rights as stated in my CCRs.

Jerseygirl.

As always, your posts are well stated.

My posts on this thread began with the general proposition that a deposit made from ones home resort in the season owned is a legitimate method. Not one that I prefer, nor endorse.
I personally believe that an owner should be able to do what they wish with a reserved week.
Starwood's interference with that occurs because they believe they can. My comments attempt to differentiate between what I believe they can enforce, and what they cannot.
My purpose is intended to be constructive, not contrary.

As for Starwood, well, none of this would be topic for discussion if they would stop trying to tweak it all for their maximum advantage.
To partially quote fellow TUGGER Alan Cole " .. this reminds me of the oft-reported situation with WestGate -- nice timeshare resorts, not-so-nice timeshare company. "

Moving from the general, to the specifics you have mentioned:

Request First. I have commented at length about this. If it is implemented as you have stated, then their position is not defensible. It will have to change. They have no basis to enforce it. It defies everything about its purpose. Indeed, it is contradictory on its face. It cannot stand. Period.

Fixed weeks: I have also qualified every comment I have made stating that a home resort season deposit is excepting fixed weeks.
This for exactly the same reason. Fixed weeks have a specific value not enjoyed by a floating season.

The biggie, however, is what is , and is not, protected in the resort governing documents.
Obviously, I am not able to know them all individually, chapter and verse. But, to the best of my knowledge they do not supersede a current affiliation agreement between the exchange company and the resort manager. Indeed, all I do know of make reference to the agreement as may be amended from time to time, or some such language.
Nor does such an agreement prevent the use of the week with another exchange not covered by such an agreement. So, the owner is not limited to using the affiliated exchange.
Now this may understandably suck eggs for many. But, if so, and I think it is, then its the wrong bone to pick.

I am all for a fight on some issues. But, not on this last issue.
That Starwood has gone there is another nail in their coffin as far as I am concerned. But, its their coffin. Nice timeshares, not so nice timeshare company.

 

[ArtsieAng]

I just bought any old week, in the season of 9-43 at SBP (own week weeks 14 and 19, week 41 is still in the process, all EOY). I bought 1-52 SDO EOY, deeded week 24, too, so not platinum season.

My weeks aren't in prime season, but your week(s) are (is), so your week has now been downgraded to the same level as mine. That's not fair to you, I agree.

I purposely bought just to trade and have no intention of attending any sales meetings to get Staroptions. I just wanted to trade--that's it, so I didn't care. The platinum season weeks at SDO were going for MUCH more than we paid. Now your value has gone down, with one decision. I would be angry.

I am concerned at the apparent lack of a Starwood preference period in II. I assume my Blue Ridge Village in North Carolina is going to work better for getting us an exchange at the Westins than my SBP and SDO. Sad.

From what I have seen, the preference period on Starwood is still in place. There have been a number of flexchange weeks showing up with no preference, but that always been the case.

Have you seen weeks outside of flexchange showing up that were not under preference?

 

[ArtsieAng]

Jerseygirl

I'm quite certain that ArtiesAng understands how trading power works at II better than 99% of its members.

I'm not sure that is true, but thanks for the vote of confidence!

In the past, Starwood's seasons were of no interest to II. It was the actual week deposited that determined your trading power. However, I believe that has now changed. I have been told by both II, and Starwood that it is now all about "seasonality." The season that your week has been designated correlates with it's trading power.

 

[RoshiGuy]

You cannot do a request first and retain your reservation. As soon as you put in a request, your home resort reservation is canceled. But dont get steamed up about this.
Read through this thread and check out the details and you will understand the issue is much more than trade power.

Is this based on what Starwood reps have said or is this based on actual experience? Canceling a request first home resort reservation negates the whole purpose of having a request first option.

From my POV - as a SDO 1-52 owner - it is about trade power since I can:
1. Stay at SDO any week I can reserve
2. Reserve any week available and rent that out or gift it

So this leaves only the issue of what I can get in exchange for my week. And even that is being restricted with II; not other exchange companies. It appears to me (again from my POV) that the issue is trade power through II, to be specific.

 

[ArtsieAng]

Fredm

Request First. I have commented at length about this. If it is implemented as you have stated, then their position is not defensible. It will have to change. They have no basis to enforce it. It defies everything about its purpose. Indeed, it is contradictory on its face. It cannot stand. Period.

Finally something we agree on. .....My understanding of the new Request First is exactly what jerseygirl has stated.

 

[gmarine]

Is this based on what Starwood reps have said or is this based on actual experience? Canceling a request first home resort reservation negates the whole purpose of having a request first option.

From my POV - as a SDO 1-52 owner - it is about trade power since I can:
1. Stay at SDO any week I can reserve
2. Reserve any week available and rent that out or gift it

So this leaves only the issue of what I can get in exchange for my week. And even that is being restricted with II; not other exchange companies. It appears to me (again from my POV) that the issue is trade power through II, to be specific.

It is based on both. I have spoken at length about this with a Starwood Director and Starwood specialists. You cannot place a request, any request, without canceling your home resort reservation. I then called Starwood to place a request and was told I cant keep my home resort reservation if I place a request. Yes, it defeats the whole purpose of request first.

Your apparently ok with Starwood controlling what you can do with your week. I'm not.

 

[ArtsieAng]

Is this based on what Starwood reps have said or is this based on actual experience? Canceling a request first home resort reservation negates the whole purpose of having a request first option.From my POV - as a SDO 1-52 owner - it is about trade power since I can:
1. Stay at SDO any week I can reserve
2. Reserve any week available and rent that out or gift it

So this leaves only the issue of what I can get in exchange for my week. And even that is being restricted with II; not other exchange companies. It appears to me (again from my POV) that the issue is trade power through II, to be specific.

That is how the Starwood management has represented the new Request First.

 

[RoshiGuy]

It is based on both. I have spoken at length about this with a Starwood Director and Starwood specialists. You cannot place a request, any request, without canceling your home resort reservation. I then called Starwood to place a request and was told I cant keep my home resort reservation if I place a request. Yes, it defeats the whole purpose of request first.

Your apparently ok with Starwood controlling what you can do with your week. I'm not.

OK - now I'm steamed up that my request first home reservation will be canceled. This defies any logical explanation by Starwood.
My next usage year at SDO is 2011 so I need to make a reservation in March - hopefully by then they'll realize that this new policy makes no sense.

OTOH, I cannot get steamed up about losing some trading power through II. It was a gift for the short time I had it. Based on what others have reported here, my SDO unit should still be a decent trader.

 

[jerseygirl]

In the past, Starwood's seasons were of no interest to II. It was the actual week deposited that determined your trading power. However, I believe that has now changed. I have been told by both II, and Starwood that it is now all about "seasonality." The season that your week has been designated correlates with it's trading power.

I believe this is accurate and represents the "blending trading power" approach. I know Hyatt does it this way -- I simply search with or deposit a specific number of points, and those points are worth X to II. I've been told that Hyatt periodically "balances the books" with II ... which I believe is evident based on the occasional bulk bankings that appear in II's inventory. I believe Disney deposits worked this way as well when they were affiliated with II.

I have no problem with this approach for my Hyatt ownership as it was designed this way and made very clear from the start. Starwood, on the other hand, purchased an existing system and has since attempted to bastardize it to its every advantage. They had the right to develop the SVN and it's been very profitable for them, but they don't have the right to disregard deeded rights for non-members. Starwood is once again trying to "have their cake and eat it too" by forcing points-related SVN policies on non-points based, non-SVN members. They can't have it both ways. We can say that they should "stop the madness" and allow everyone into the network, but anecdotal evidence on TUG suggests that there are many who would not opt in. It's my belief that those who do not agree to the terms and provisions of SVN membership cannot be forced to comply with this new policy so they're going to be stuck with running two systems whether they like it or not.

Fred's comments above suggest that these policies may be governed by the exchange company affiliation agreement. I don't believe that to be the case for non-SVN members. Yes, II could refuse to accept membership from non-SVN members, but I don't believe the affiliation agreement can change the terms of the CCRs, which give us specific rights to specific weeks. As long as II is willing to accept non-SVN owners as members, they must also be willing to play by the original rules.

Does anyone still have the link to the Broadway Plantation CCRs? I'd like to find the relevant language and contact both Susan Worth and the GC for II. Has anyone attempted to obtain a written legal justification from either party?

 

[LisaH]

They can't have it both ways. We can say that they should "stop the madness" and allow everyone into the network, but anecdotal evidence on TUG suggests that there are many who would not opt in.

You are so right. I, for one, did not buy SDO so I may get into SVN. Won't consider even it's allowed to...

 

[rickandcindy23]

From what I have seen, the preference period on Starwood is still in place. There have been a number of flexchange weeks showing up with no preference, but that always been the case.

Have you seen weeks outside of flexchange showing up that were not under preference?

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106239

There was no preference period for this one........just a few days ago. I am very concerned about it.

My Blue Ridge Village has a higher quality rating with II than SBP. I am wondering if I can get a Westin resort with an ongoing search.

 

[LisaH]

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106239

There was no preference period for this one........just a few days ago. I am very concerned about it.

My Blue Ridge Village has a higher quality rating with II than SBP. I am wondering if I can get a Westin resort with an ongoing search.

That's still within 60 days flexchange period, which is always the case from what I understand...

 

[rickandcindy23]

That's right, flexchange is 60 days and not 45. But I noticed that Marriott still had priority even at 14 days out, when Bill posted that a Newport Coast for this month was only available with a Marriott.

It seems to me that Marriott has a better "deal" than Starwood. Could be orchestrated entirely by Starwood to stop the great exchanges with resale weeks.

 

[m61376]

That's right, flexchange is 60 days and not 45. But I noticed that Marriott still had priority even at 14 days out, when Bill posted that a Newport Coast for this month was only available with a Marriott.

It seems to me that Marriott has a better "deal" than Starwood. Could be orchestrated entirely by Starwood to stop the great exchanges with resale weeks.

Marriott always has an internal preference in II, ranging from 24 days to as few as 3 days later in Flexchange.

As a Marriott owner, I find this thread very interesting- and upsetting. There has been a similar discussion as to what Marriott can (and cannot) legally do wrt developing a potential points based internal trading system and it appears, to me at least, that Starwood has taken a giant step outside the legal boundaries of owner's deeded rights.

While I understand that Starwood has the right to change its contractual arrangements with II, it does not have the right to change the purchased rights of its owners. Thus, while the previously enjoyed ability to retain one's reservation with a request first may unfortunately be within Starwood and II's purview to alter, the ability to retain one's usage rights, which includes the ability to exchange the week reserved, seems to violate the terms of the purchase agreement with Starwood (owner's deeded rights).

It makes one wonder if Starwood considered whether a legal challenge would hold up, or if they just assumed either owners wouldn't really notice or be disgruntled enough to pursue it.