lawsuit sterman v marriott - any more info?

[dioxide45]

I know I'm beating a long dead horse...but no they didn't HAVE to do this. What they HAD to do to stay competitive was replace II with a point based system. They could have only used booked weeks and then given them a demand based point value. Or they could have assigned a fixed point value for different rooms/resorts and then opened it up to point based reservations after a 'home week' window settled availability down.

But that would have meant continuing to sell weeks at actual resorts rather than points with no fixed value or rights. And not taking a cut of the points every time someone traded. And not expecting your existing owners to pay $1000 per week to use your point system instead of II. And not being able to force people to buy more and more points to have the same access to their desired resort.

And so over time I've bought more Disney and Hilton while regretting but using my Marriott weeks. At some point I'm sure I'll no longer be able to reserve 'my' week at MAW and I'll be forced to sell it for pennies (or at best dimes) on the dollar. But I do share my painfully bought wisdom with anyone who asks.

I think the problem with Marriott simply overlaying points on top of their weeks system was that during the financial crunch they were very asset heavy. They had to sell weeks that were otherwise un-sellable. They went from selling something that cost at a minimum of $20K to being able to sell something for under $10K. There were very successful at selling small packages to current weeks owners. With a pure overlay system they would have still had the same problem. Weeks were un-sellable for Marriott. Selling points was really the only option that they had that was viable.

 

[SueDonJ]

Perhaps it is too much sunshine today, but my poor brain is still struggling with this.
OK, I own 2+ weeks at resort A and I can book consecutive/concurrent weeks there at 13 months - yes, I do this all the time.
I own say 1 week at resort A and 1 week at another resort B, so I can book consecutive/concurrent weeks one each at resort A and resort B at 13 months - I have not tried this but if I understand correctly I could do so?
Surely though I can't just book 1 week at resort A at 13 months just because I happen to own at resort B as well as at resort A?
And there was me thinking I understood how all this works!

Yep, you've got it. When using the 13-mos Weeks Reservation Window the only requirement is that the Owner must book at least two Weeks concurrently and/or consecutively. The Weeks do not have to be at the same resort or have the same seasonal designation - as long as the intervals being reserved line up concurrently and/or consecutively in the calendar year and there is availability, then the 13-mos window can be used.

 

[twinmommy19]

I have a question - maybe I'm just badly missing something here, but the allegations don't seem all that difficult to either prove or debunk. Wouldn't a simple audit of a high volume travel week do the trick? If the Trust owns only 10% of a season, but there are high demand weeks reserved almost exclusively by points owners, then obviously there is a problem. I can't imagine that Marriott would be doing anything like this because its very traceable. Privacy rules can be waived in the event of legal conflict. I can almost guarantee Marriott will be asked to provide a complete list of the people who reserved the units for the week(s) in question. Marriott can also be asked to provide Marriott's copy of the deed / TS agreement with those people to verify the type of owners that they are.

 

[SueDonJ]

I have a question - maybe I'm just badly missing something here, but the allegations don't seem all that difficult to either prove or debunk. Wouldn't a simple audit of a high volume travel week do the trick? If the Trust owns only 10% of a season, but there are high demand weeks reserved almost exclusively by points owners, then obviously there is a problem. I can't imagine that Marriott would be doing anything like this because its very traceable. Privacy rules can be waived in the event of legal conflict. I can almost guarantee Marriott will be asked to provide a complete list of the people who reserved the units for the week(s) in question. Marriott can also be asked to provide Marriott's copy of the deed / TS agreement with those people to verify the type of owners that they are.

Sure, if MVW is compelled to release their inventory metrics it's probably an easy thing for them to do. But it's not good practice for any company to release anything that's not necessary because it could be used against them in future. They've been able to successfully thwart other similar matters by submitting the documents that show the Owners'/Members' rights and limitations which refute the claims made. I'd expect that will continue to be their tactic until it doesn't work for them or they're ordered otherwise.

 

[ljmiii]

Overlaying the Points system as an exchange feature on the existing Weeks product, as they've done, didn't require any such changes and preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners...

Well...that is the question. My CC&Rs state that the only reservations that can be made at 13 months are multiple week owners booking concurrent or consecutive weeks at 'the resort' - not 'any resort' or 'any Marriott Vacation Club property'. Also at the time, the page of Marriott's website that explained the benefits of owning more than one week said that to book 13 month in advance both weeks had to be at the same resort.

The website (though not the CC&R) was later changed to allow 13 month reservations for concurrent/consecutive weeks at any resort. But on a practical level it still meant that someone booking their reservation 13 months out had to own more than one week in the proper season (and want to use/trade/rent those weeks).

Now, ANY week converted to points is taken out of inventory BEFORE the 13 owner reservation window opens. It is difficult to see how Marriott can claim that this is consistent with the resort's CC&R or preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners...

 

[ljmiii]

Weeks owners do not have a right to access inventory that has been voluntarily relinquished by weeks owners to the points pool.

In a way I think you've nailed my complaint. I have no issue with points owners whatsoever. However, there is nothing in the CC&R (or past practice) to suggest that a weeks owner has the right to voluntarily relinquish their week BEFORE they have the right to reserve it.

It gets a little weird with weeks that Marriott owns - they obviously are a multiple week owner and I can only get so upset that Marriott thinks it's OK to 'reserve' the weeks it owns before anyone else gets to. But taking a single week owners' week out of inventory at the 13 month mark (never mind before) seems to be a straightforward violation of the CC&R.

 

[JIMinNC]

In a way I think you've nailed my complaint. I have no issue with points owners whatsoever. However, there is nothing in the CC&R (or past practice) to suggest that a weeks owner has the right to voluntarily relinquish their week BEFORE they have the right to reserve it.

It gets a little weird with weeks that Marriott owns - they obviously are a multiple week owner and I can only get so upset that Marriott thinks it's OK to 'reserve' the weeks it owns before anyone else gets to. But taking a single week owners' week out of inventory at the 13 month mark (never mind before) seems to be a straightforward violation of the CC&R.

I think Susan explains it perfectly with her examples in post #64. To preserve Points owners' right of access to their prorata share of a desired week (based on the percentage of weeks that have been conveyed or elected as points, etc) Marriott must allocate the availability between the two pools. Otherwise, all the weeks owners could call up or log in on their release day, book everything, and leave nothing left over for points owners.

This whole process actually seems very similar to what they have always done for weeks booking, in that they allocate a percentage of the weeks to the 13 month release, but hold the remainder until the 12 month release so that the multi-week owners don't book everything and leave nothing left over for single week owners to book at 12 months. To me the new allocation seems to be just a more sophisticated version of the allocations they have always done.

 

[davidvel]

I think Susan explains it perfectly with her examples in post #64. To preserve Points owners' right of access to their prorata share of a desired week (based on the percentage of weeks that have been conveyed or elected as points, etc) Marriott must allocate the availability between the two pools. Otherwise, all the weeks owners could call up or log in on their release day, book everything, and leave nothing left over for points owners.

I don't see anything wrong with this scenario. The only "owner" of weeks in the trust is the trust. The trust only has a right to use the week in accordance with the particular governing docs recorded as to that deeded interest.

Otherwise, I could add my week to a trust, then make new rules that allow me to book at 24 months (that conflict with the recorded documents) and claim that I now have a right to do so.

 

[davidvel]

Well...that is the question. My CC&Rs state that the only reservations that can be made at 13 months are multiple week owners booking concurrent or consecutive weeks at 'the resort' - not 'any resort' or 'any Marriott Vacation Club property'. Also at the time, the page of Marriott's website that explained the benefits of owning more than one week said that to book 13 month in advance both weeks had to be at the same resort.

The website (though not the CC&R) was later changed to allow 13 month reservations for concurrent/consecutive weeks at any resort. But on a practical level it still meant that someone booking their reservation 13 months out had to own more than one week in the proper season (and want to use/trade/rent those weeks).

Now, ANY week converted to points is taken out of inventory BEFORE the 13 owner reservation window opens. It is difficult to see how Marriott can claim that this is consistent with the resort's CC&R or preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners...

I feel like I've been sent back to 2010. My post in regard to the 50% rule.

This "policy" is not in the reservation rules for Shadow Ridge, and thus violates multiple week owner's rights to reserve at 13 months at Shadow Ridge. At the same time, allowing people who own only 1 week at Shadow Ridge and a week at another resort (ie. don't own 2 weks at MRD that they want to reserve consecutive or concurrent) to reserve at 13 months also violates the rights of single week owners at Shadow Ridge.

So what's to stop them from doing anything they want? All of our talk about governing documents, CCRs and legal rights is meaningless to Marriott.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Now, ANY week converted to points is taken out of inventory BEFORE the 13 owner reservation window opens. It is difficult to see how Marriott can claim that this is consistent with the resort's CC&R or preserves all of the existing rights for Weeks Owners...

... But taking a single week owners' week out of inventory at the 13 month mark (never mind before) seems to be a straightforward violation of the CC&R.

I don't understand this. It doesn't appear to me that any inventory is being taken out of the pool by MVW or anyone else prior to any Reservation Windows opening, at the 13-mos mark or any other time. If that were the case, if MVW had free reign to scoop up all the good stuff before Weeks Owners could try to reserve it, we would be seeing many more instances of the highest-demand intervals not being available for Weeks Owners at either the 13-mos or 12-mos windows or at any other time. And that's just not the case - since the DC inception there have been plenty of reports posted to TUG of successful Weeks reservations. There have also been plenty of reports from Members not being able to successfully book high-demand Points intervals.

As I and others have said, it appears that what's happening is that intervals are pre-designated as to whether they can be used by Weeks Owners or Points Members or MVW, but they're not pre-reserved by anybody. The pre-designations are based on whether a Week is owned by an Owner in good standing and hasn't been relinquished for other usage, conveyed to the DC Trust, relinquished for II or MRP exchanges, given to MVW's rental program, not usable by the Owner because of unpaid fees, etc, thus proportionately - and correctly according to the ownership rights of both Weeks Owners and Points Members - designating some Weeks to Owners and others to Points Members. Then at the opening of each Reservation Window it's first-come-first-served for everyone, the same way floating Weeks have always worked.

About whether MVW can use the 13-mos Reservation Window to book consecutive/concurrent multi-Weeks, as noted earlier by me there is at least one mention in the SurfWatch governing docs that says MVW is not allowed that usage option for the Weeks it owns. I don't know if it says something different elsewhere in the docs or how MVW has ever booked multi-Weeks, pre- or post-DC. Another post somewhere in this thread mentioned whether or not MVW has a bot or uses some other automatic system to book exactly at the moment any Reservation Windows open - again, the docs with which I'm aware expressly forbid any automatic system usage by anyone, MVW included.

I guess I just don't understand the automatic and immediate allegations against MVW when things don't go the way Owners (Weeks or Points) want them to go. Sure it's possible that MVW may be doing something counter to the governing documents at any time; even I'm not naive enough to say that they can be nothing but perfect. But why do so many people who aren't able to get a desired high-demand reservation make that immediate leap to MVW being guilty of gross mismanagement? Why isn't there more of an effort to try to figure out how a floating timeshare system works, how the two MVW products exist separately and together at the same time, why MVW is legally-bound to consider the rights of ALL owners including themselves, why the answer to whatever you're asking may possibly be something other than The Big Bad Marriott Machine Conspiring Against You?

 

[SueDonJ]

I don't see anything wrong with this scenario. The only "owner" of weeks in the trust is the trust. The trust only has a right to use the week in accordance with the particular governing docs recorded as to that deeded interest.

Otherwise, I could add my week to a trust, then make new rules that allow me to book at 24 months (that conflict with the recorded documents) and claim that I now have a right to do so.

I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly but MVW didn't make new rules that say the Trust can book anything at 24-months or any other mark that conflicts with the 12- and 13-mos Reservation Windows for Weeks. DC Points Members have similar 12- and 13-mos windows to Weeks Owners, although notably most Points windows open days after the Weeks windows.

 

[davidvel]

I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly but MVW didn't make new rules that say the Trust can book anything at 24-months or any other mark that conflicts with the 12- and 13-mos Reservation Windows for Weeks. DC Points Members have similar 12- and 13-mos windows to Weeks Owners, although notably most Points windows open days after the Weeks windows.

Nor did I say that they were booking at 24 months. I was responding to this

I think Susan explains it perfectly with her examples in post #64. To preserve Points owners' right of access to their prorata share of a desired week (based on the percentage of weeks that have been conveyed or elected as points, etc) Marriott must allocate the availability between the two pools. Otherwise, all the weeks owners could call up or log in on their release day, book everything, and leave nothing left over for points owners.

My point being there is no right of the Trust/DC program to any "pro rata share" of the weeks. The CCRs don't permit "allocation" of reservations among groups of owners. The governing documents require that all owners are treated equally, in their ability to reserve their week. DC "owners" have NO right whatsoever to reserve anything. The Trust/DC program can only reserve weeks, and then make them available to DC "owners" as they see fit, according to the rules they have created for their "Club."

In doing so Marriott cannot put itself on a better footing than you or me. And given that they control the entire secret reservation system (which the HOA boards appear to have no understanding of), and they wrote CCRs that allow them to run such a "club" but forbids others owners from doing so, there is special scrutiny required.

This of course begs the question, "How does the Trust/DC program reserve its x thousands of weeks?" No one knows the answer.

Do they hire x thousand people to call in and reserve, like you or me? (Of course not.)
Do they hire x thousand people to log in and reserve, like you or me? (Of course not.)
Do they use a computer to reserve their weeks directly (of course).
How do they program the computer? (we don't know)
Is the HOA at your resort knowledgeable and able to do its due diligence to ensure weeks are being reserved according to YOUR CCRs, when controlled by Marriott insiders? ( :ignore: )

Some people say the solution Marriott has for the above is to use some formula (pro-rata?) to reserve the best weeks. No one really knows. But if they do, this is not allowed by the governing documents, certainly not in this state (CA). Even if it seems "fair", or "reasonable", that is not the standard.

So this makes people wonder whether they are doing it right. And those people don't believe that the Trust/DC program could work if they were doing it right.

 

[sparty]

Do they use a computer to reserve their weeks directly (of course).
How do they program the computer? (we don't know)
Is the HOA at your resort knowledgeable and able to do its due diligence to ensure weeks are being reserved according to YOUR CCRs, when controlled by Marriott insiders? ( :ignore: )

This was brought up in February. I was trying to find specific references to CCRs that spelled out how this process worked. Answer was that a former VAC person, John Goodman knew something about it and said the process was based off actuarial tables based on previous years usages. Assuming that's true, it may seem fair at a high level but still could be manipulated in favor of the management company. The problem is the process is not in the CCR's. Someone does need to force out a detailed description of how the reservation and mgmt hold back process works. In most of the HOA stuff I'm involved in - there always has to be openness and transparency - I don't see how Marriott can hide the details of the process, someone should challenge the lack of transparency here.

 

[ljmiii]

I don't understand this. It doesn't appear to me that any inventory is being taken out of the pool by MVW or anyone else prior to any Reservation Windows opening, at the 13-mos mark or any other time....As I and others have said, it appears that what's happening is that intervals are pre-designated as to whether they can be used by Weeks Owners or Points Members or MVW, but they're not pre-reserved by anybody.

My CC&Rs didn't have any wording for 'designated' so I used 'reserved'. And maybe 'taken out of the pool' isn't the right wording and I should say 'no longer available to reserve by week owners'. But whichever phrasing is used, MVW is making that week available for points owners to book before the owner of the week has the right to use it.

If that were the case, if MVW had free reign to scoop up all the good stuff before Weeks Owners could try to reserve it...

I'm not claiming that Marriott is 'cooking the books' and saving the best for the points holders. If all weeks were equal and all owners were sold the right to reserve a week at 12 months then I would have no problem with how Marriott allocates inventory between points and weeks owners.

But that's not what they sold. The Marriott sales reps were saying that you had to have multiple weeks at the same resort to book at 13 months (not that what a salesrep says matters). The Marriott website said only multiple week owners at the same resort could book at 13 months (which increasingly does matter...if only I had taken a screenshot). The Marriott Waiohai CC&R states that only multiple week owners at 'the resort' can book at 13 months (which somewhat amazingly doesn't seem to matter).

So please forgive me if I might have been deluded into believing that the only reservations that could ever be made at 13 months at Waiohai would be by...well...multiple week MAW owners.

 

[SueDonJ]

Nor did I say that they were booking at 24 months. I was responding to this

My point being there is no right of the Trust/DC program to any "pro rata share" of the weeks. The CCRs don't permit "allocation" of reservations among groups of owners. The governing documents require that all owners are treated equally, in their ability to reserve their week. DC "owners" have NO right whatsoever to reserve anything. The Trust/DC program can only reserve weeks, and then make them available to DC "owners" as they see fit, according to the rules they have created for their "Club."

In doing so Marriott cannot put itself on a better footing than you or me. And given that they control the entire secret reservation system (which the HOA boards appear to have no understanding of), and they wrote CCRs that allow them to run such a "club" but forbids others owners from doing so, there is special scrutiny required.

This of course begs the question, "How does the Trust/DC program reserve its x thousands of weeks?" No one knows the answer.

Do they hire x thousand people to call in and reserve, like you or me? (Of course not.)
Do they hire x thousand people to log in and reserve, like you or me? (Of course not.)
Do they use a computer to reserve their weeks directly (of course).
How do they program the computer? (we don't know)
Is the HOA at your resort knowledgeable and able to do its due diligence to ensure weeks are being reserved according to YOUR CCRs, when controlled by Marriott insiders? ( :ignore: )

Some people say the solution Marriott has for the above is to use some formula (pro-rata?) to reserve the best weeks. No one really knows. But if they do, this is not allowed by the governing documents, certainly not in this state (CA). Even if it seems "fair", or "reasonable", that is not the standard.

So this makes people wonder whether they are doing it right. And those people don't believe that the Trust/DC program could work if they were doing it right.

I wish I could figure out how to explain more easily the way I think it works, because I just can't seem to understand why folks think reservations are being booked by MVW or "The Trust," or anyone on behalf of either. DC Points users, whether Trust or Exchange Members, call in or use the online system to make their own reservations according to the terms of their specific ownership and the DC-specific Reservation Windows (which again, occur days after the Weeks windows for the same calendar intervals.)

The pre-designations or allocations or whatever we want to call them of DC-eligible intervals aren't specific weeks in the calendar year that are pre-reserved by MVW/The Trust prior to any Reservation Windows opening. They're simply markers based on the floating usage of the Weeks which have been conveyed to the Trust, exchanged for DC Points, or that are made available through any of the other means that occur when Weeks Owners give up or lose eligibility of their usage. So as each Inventory Release day occurs - not before - the system allows reservations on a first-come-first-served basis, according to the proportional allocations pre-determined by how many of those intervals are rightfully owned by Weeks Owners in good standing, how many are rightfully usable by DC Members, and how many MVW should be able to access.

Like Jim said the DC doesn't make the entire process any different than when Weeks were the only game in town; it only adds more factors to the basic process. And sure, there's opportunity now just as there was then for MVW to play fast and loose with inventory but we're not seeing any apparent or blatant signs that it's happening, no complete shut-out of either Weeks or Points users to specific high-demand intervals. The reports to TUG since the DC are still a mix of some folks getting what they want and others not, regardless of whether they're using Weeks or Points.

 

[SueDonJ]

My CC&Rs didn't have any wording for 'designated' so I used 'reserved'. And maybe 'taken out of the pool' isn't the right wording and I should say 'no longer available to reserve by week owners'. But whichever phrasing is used, MVW is making that week available for points owners to book before the owner of the week has the right to use it.
I'm not claiming that Marriott is 'cooking the books' and saving the best for the points holders. If all weeks were equal and all owners were sold the right to reserve a week at 12 months then I would have no problem with how Marriott allocates inventory between points and weeks owners.

But that's not what they sold. The Marriott sales reps were saying that you had to have multiple weeks at the same resort to book at 13 months (not that what a salesrep says matters). The Marriott website said only multiple week owners at the same resort could book at 13 months (which increasingly does matter...if only I had taken a screenshot). The Marriott Waiohai CC&R states that only multiple week owners at 'the resort' can book at 13 months (which somewhat amazingly doesn't seem to matter).

So please forgive me if I might have been deluded into believing that the only reservations that could ever be made at 13 months at Waiohai would be by...well...multiple week MAW owners.

No forgiveness necessary; we all have different ownerships supported by varied documents all of which make MVW's blanket policies difficult to understand.

There are a couple TUGgers who have been owners almost since the very beginning of Marriott Vacation Club and they've mentioned that the 13-mos Reservation Window didn't exist back then at all. They also question how it was that MVC could at the time implement a 13-months Reservation process that appeared to be in conflict with their ownership. As you say, inventory allocation matters aren't anything new.

 

[ljmiii]

I wish I could figure out how to explain more easily the way I think it works, because I just can't seem to understand why folks think reservations are being booked by MVW or "The Trust,"...
The pre-designations or allocations or whatever we want to call them of DC-eligible intervals aren't specific weeks in the calendar year....They're simply markers based on the floating usage of the Weeks which have been conveyed to the Trust...

Well...I'll try it again. Say that 52 weeks owned by single week owners are traded for DC points and made available to MVW. They then mark one room each week of the year as available for points users. Who then can reserve that room throughout the year at 13 months - even though the weeks that underlay those reservations are ineligible to be so reserved. A nifty piece of legerdemain that as davidvel pointed out was either not allowed or expressly prohibited by the CC&R of each resort.

 

[ljmiii]

There are a couple TUGgers who have been owners almost since the very beginning of Marriott Vacation Club and they've mentioned that the 13-mos Reservation Window didn't exist back then at all. They also question how it was that MVC could at the time implement a 13-months Reservation process that appeared to be in conflict with their ownership.

Somehow I don't find this encouraging on the 'Marriott should be trusted' front. And I'm guessing that rather then 'grandfathering in' their weeks to be bookable at 13-months Marriott instead chose to suggest they buy another week to retain their 'first in line' status.

 

[SueDonJ]

Well...I'll try it again. Say that 52 weeks owned by single week owners are traded for DC points and made available to MVW. They then mark one room each week of the year as available for points users. Who then can reserve that room throughout the year at 13 months - even though the weeks that underlay those reservations are ineligible to be so reserved. A nifty piece of legerdemain that as davidvel pointed out was either not allowed or expressly prohibited by the CC&R of each resort.

Actually, you may have inadvertantly hit on the reason why some intervals are not available for DC reservations at the 13-mos Points window but become available at the 12-mos Points window, which is a question we've been pondering since the DC inception.

If multiple like Weeks are conveyed to the DC Trust or otherwise rightfully made available through the DC Exchange Company, then wouldn't the Weeks 13-mos window attach in the same way that other aspects of floating usage attach? Thus making them available to be booked by DC Members who are eligible at the DC 13-mos window? But if only a single Week of a certain interval is conveyed or otherwise made available to DC Members, might they have to wait until the DC 12-mos window to access it regardless their eligibility for the 13-mos DC window?

Hmmmmmmm.

 

[JIMinNC]

Like Jim said the DC doesn't make the entire process any different than when Weeks were the only game in town; it only adds more factors to the basic process. And sure, there's opportunity now just as there was then for MVW to play fast and loose with inventory but we're not seeing any apparent or blatant signs that it's happening, no complete shut-out of either Weeks or Points users to specific high-demand intervals. The reports to TUG since the DC are still a mix of some folks getting what they want and others not, regardless of whether they're using Weeks or Points.

And to take it one step further, virtually all modern timeshare systems use some form of projections/allocations to support their bulk-banking processes with RCI and II. They will frequently bulk bank weeks with RCI or II well before the booking window even opens for their owners. I don't see how the Marriott process that is being discussed is really any different. Instead of allocating a portion of the units to RCI/II and a portion to owners, they are allocating a portion to weeks owners, a portion to point owners, and a portion to other uses (like II).

For example, a couple of weeks ago, extensive 2016 inventory showed up in RCI from the three HGVC resorts on the Big Island as well as some in Waikiki. Dates ranged from Spring 2016 all the way to November or December 2016 as I recall. We had an ongoing search matched for the Big Island for late June 2016. So we got an RCI booking 15 months out at HGVC Kohala Suites. Owners at that resort can't even book their owned week until this coming June, but we are already booked (we got this with a holdover week we had in RCI from a previous ownership in a RCI resort).

Another example was a few years ago, we wanted a week that would give us a lot of RCI TPUs when we were talking to our former resort at Kaanapali Beach Club to deposit our 2BR week. KBC bulk banks ahead of the 12 month reservation period, so they select a pre-deposited week to assign to an owner wishing to deposit with RCI. Even though we owned a 2BR unit, they actually assigned us a pre-deposited week 51 or 52 1BR unit since, as a holiday week, it was worth 51 TPUs in RCI and there were no 2BR units in the RCI pre-deposits that were that high.

So my point is simply that allocating inventory to various categories is a common practice not just in Marriott, but also in most other timeshare programs.

 

[ljmiii]

Actually, you may have inadvertantly hit on the reason why some intervals are not available for DC reservations at the 13-mos Points window but become available at the 12-mos Points window, which is a question we've been pondering since the DC inception...

Interesting! And while 'I can't book it but no one else can either' is still annoying...it is inching ever closer to 'legal'.

 

[davidvel]

I wish I could figure out how to explain more easily the way I think it works, because I just can't seem to understand why folks think reservations are being booked by MVW or "The Trust," or anyone on behalf of either. DC Points users, whether Trust or Exchange Members, call in or use the online system to make their own reservations according to the terms of their specific ownership and the DC-specific Reservation Windows (which again, occur days after the Weeks windows for the same calendar intervals.)

Me too. DC members cannot "reserve" anything that hasn't been reserved by the Trust.

Under the CC&Rs the Trust is no different than you or me. It is an owner of weeks, which must be reserved like you and me under the same "Weeks windows" as you or me. It must "reserve" the specific dates that it thinks/expects/calculates its members may want to reserve, subject to the intervals it owns at particular resorts & seasons just like you or I do. What is done after (how they are doled out to DC members) that is really irrelevant to legacy week owners.

As you note, DC members cannot make their requests until "days after the Weeks windows for the same calendar intervals." If true, this means the Trust has to guess what will be requested by DC members and reserve those dates at the appropriate "Weeks windows" (assuming it owns weeks to make such reservations).

Before the DC, there were (mostly) only individual humans calling in to get the prime weeks. Now, there is an enormous entity essentially controlled by the company that is in charge of managing all the reservations vying for the same prime weeks. The question presented here is simply whether the Trust and legacy owners are on the same footing to reserve the specific dates for their ownership

 

[windje2000]

Me too. DC members cannot "reserve" anything that hasn't been reserved by the Trust.

Under the CC&Rs the Trust is no different than you or me. It is an owner of weeks, which must be reserved like you and me under the same "Weeks windows" as you or me. It must "reserve" the specific dates that it thinks/expects/calculates its members may want to reserve, subject to the intervals it owns at particular resorts & seasons just like you or I do. What is done after (how they are doled out to DC members) that is really irrelevant to legacy week owners.

As you note, DC members cannot make their requests until "days after the Weeks windows for the same calendar intervals." If true, this means the Trust has to guess what will be requested by DC members and reserve those dates at the appropriate "Weeks windows" (assuming it owns weeks to make such reservations).

Before the DC, there were (mostly) only individual humans calling in to get the prime weeks. Now, there is an enormous entity essentially controlled by the company that is in charge of managing all the reservations vying for the same prime weeks. The question presented here is simply whether the Trust and legacy owners are on the same footing to reserve the specific dates for their ownership

MVC may be taking the position that, at least as pertains to DC members, they have broad powers that supercede the CC&Rs. They granted themselves broad powers in the DC documents pertaining to the Exchange Co. I don't own points and haven't read /don't recall any similar language pertaining to points.

I think we are starting to understand why/what they were willing to stop the fee nickel and diming in exchange for . . . control.

I wonder if this is why the original plan documents included provisions regarding uncooperative HOA’s (See section 12 - MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB DESTINATIONS EXCHANGE PROGRAM ENROLLMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS in the original docs.)

As George Orwell said, some pigs are more equal than others. That large entity is motivated to demonstrate available occupancy to the sale prospects.

This thread has also made me wonder how the large Aruba Group obtains its occupancy year after year - have they legally pooled their ownership for reservations purposes with a few throwaway/to be rented weeks for the requisite lead time?

 

[JIMinNC]

Me too. DC members cannot "reserve" anything that hasn't been reserved by the Trust.

Not exactly. DC members can also reserve weeks that have been exchanged by weeks owners for DC points through the enrollment/election processes and anything else that gets the owned weeks inventory deposited into the DC Exchange Company.

It would appear that Marriott uses their actuarial data to project anticipated points elections by enrolled members and do the equivalence of a Points "bulk bank" with the DC Exchange Company -- just as they and other timeshare companies have long projected owners' decisions to deposit with II and RCI (as I mentioned above in post #95) to support II/RCI bulk banks prior to the opening of the booking windows.

I think that's essentially the point Sue and I have been trying to make - that this whole inventory allocation process has been happening in the weeks world for a long time. Any weeks bulk banked with II or RCI are no longer available to owners for home week reservations - just like weeks bulk banked with the DC Exchange Company.

 

[davidvel]

Not exactly. DC members can also reserve weeks that have been exchanged by weeks owners for DC points through the enrollment/election processes and anything else that gets the owned weeks inventory deposited into the DC Exchange Company.

Correct, I was referring to the Trust for simplicity but the same is true for weeks in the Exchange Company. Once enrolled weeks are deposited, the specific "use period" must be reserved before it can be doled out to DC members.