Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

[modoaruba]

Marriott has no claim to the beach as private property other than their palapas and seats.The sand belongs to public Aruba for ALL to use within their laws.

 

[SueDonJ]

So let me see if I understand the implication. Are you saying it's okay for a person standing on the sand beside a seated MAOC guest, to solicit membership in the "concerned owners" group by passing that seated guest an info card? Hmmmm. Are you willing to ante up the costs associated with defending that action based on the fine lines you're drawing with respect to the property boundary, legal definition of solicitation and/or the bylaw? And does your attorney have knowledge of case law in which that defense was successful in a similar action?

Or, are you saying that NO seated MAOC guests have been approached? In which case I'll ask again: are you absolutely certain of that?

 

[marksue]

Oh for the love of Pete ...

Marksue, do you realize that each and every time you copy/paste something from Allan to this thread, you are proving the point that Marriott made when they said that "the owners have a way to correspond to each other and that is through TUG?"

Oh for the love of Pete.....

Very few owners know of this site so how can Marriott even think this is a way to correspond. Will they send mail to all owners notifying them of this site? That’s all we are trying to do is get information out to the owners.

Actually, I post it so you and Eric have all the information you need to bash the concerned owners.

No one is soliciting anything on the beach. All we are doing is handing out cards to owners. We are not soliciting their support or anything else, just telling them if they want information to go to this site. The TS operators and water sport operator are going around and asking people in the chairs under the palapas if they want to do any water sports or look at time share. In fact Marriott was out there soliciting people on the beach to look at their timeshare. Hmmmm how can they do that it is illegal to solicit. Oh right Marriott's interpretation of the rules. One rule for owners another for them.

 

[modoaruba]

While I was seated under my palapa I was solicited on every single day on every single week I was there by someone handing me a card or brochure regarding a TS sale or restaurant.
If that is legal under Aruban law than so is handing out a harmless card which only states the web site.
Are you saying that even a conversation regarding the concerned group is illegal on the beach?
Let me put it this way,I myself being an owner at the OC,when I am there it is my home for that time.No one will tell me what conversations I am to have with my neighbors in my home.If I want to talk about the site I will.If it means writing it down for those who ask I will.It is my neighbor's perogitive wether they want to hear more about my concerns or not.
It seems that the definition of solicitation has different meanings in Aruba which depends on the author.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sometimes the irrationality is astounding.

You know what? At this point if I was an MAOC owner who has issues with or questions about the continuing actions of this "concerned owners" group, I'd seriously consider hiring my own competent attorney. I'd ask him/her to research any- and everything that might protect me from the costs, in real money as well as damages to the contractual relationship between MVCI and the resort, that the actions (whether indirect or direct) of the members of this so-called "concerned owners" group are causing.

Because obviously, as evidenced by the complete disregard for the laws that do apply and the complete irrational discounting of any dissenting opinions shared by timeshare-savvy people, none of what's occurring now is (if it ever was) about ensuring that Marriott et al be held to abiding by the governing documents and/or laws that pertain to the MAOC resort. I have my own ideas of what's at play here, but regardless, if I was an MAOC owner I would do everything in my power to separate myself from the damages this group has inflicted on all MAOC owners. And I'd do anything possible to try to ensure that the monetary costs could be their sole responsibility.

 

[modoaruba]

I was waiting for the money threat.
First it was Marriott protecting us from the telemarketers-WHOOO-don't give them your info.
Now lets threaten with costs.
This could have been done without any cost if the group had every owners info.
Which now brings us full circle as to why they can't ;because of telemarketers.

 

[lovearuba]

So whats your opinion on soliciting

Sometimes the irrationality is astounding.

You know what? At this point if I was an MAOC owner who has issues with or questions about the continuing actions of this "concerned owners" group, I'd seriously consider hiring my own competent attorney. I'd ask him/her to research any- and everything that might protect me from the costs, in real money as well as damages to the contractual relationship between MVCI and the resort, that the actions (whether indirect or direct) of the members of this so-called "concerned owners" group are causing.

Because obviously, as evidenced by the complete disregard for the laws that do apply and the complete irrational discounting of any dissenting opinions shared by timeshare-savvy people, none of what's occurring now is (if it ever was) about ensuring that Marriott et al be held to abiding by the governing documents and/or laws that pertain to the MAOC resort. I have my own ideas of what's at play here, but regardless, if I was an MAOC owner I would do everything in my power to separate myself from the damages this group has inflicted on all MAOC owners. And I'd do anything possible to try to ensure that the monetary costs could be their sole responsibility.

Are you saying people do not have a right to give out cards with the web address on a public beach in Aruba? You are one of the posters that supported the idea of the group to get the contact information to allow then to communicate with other owners weren't you? I don't understand how you can defend the action of Marriott related to solicitation. Is it that you just cannot agree to any actions taken by the owners?

I cant imagine what you think about the numerous unsolicited phone calls we received from the candidates in the MA election. Thank goodness someone was willing to challenge the status quo.

 

[cruisin]

Is solicitation on public beaches in Aruba against the law?

 

[Dean]

Sue,do I understand that you are a Marriott shareholder?
If so, NOW I understand YOUR motive.
Whew,for a second I really thought you believe in what you state.

To question Sue's ethics due to owning stock is a personal attack, the attack the messenger ploy rather than deal with the issues, IMO. We are all stake holders in Marriott to one degree or another and likely most of us have far more risk in timeshares than does any of us in Marriott stock. Anyone who owns next door at the SC or another timeshare in Aruba likely has a larger conflict of interest than does Sue, even if they own at the OC also.

marksue, your interpretation of the events and intent seem pretty far out there from what I can see. I would not hold the same opinions as you on the various aspects of actions by MVCI and the BOD. Actually I'd likely have done much as they have done. Were I in their shoes I'd do everything I could to squash any opposition like a bug in every legal way I could and including ways to increase the oppositions costs as much as possible. I'm curious as to why their actions surprise you as you've put them in a clear situation of you against them with the rest of the owners caught in the middle and footing the bill. ultimately your group will likely pay twice including the direct costs of the legal challenges plus the shared costs of the defense. As I noted previously, I think the only real chance going forward is to get this quickly into the courts and make a full out attempt to prove ALL of the allegations beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't think reasonable doubt will be enough and frankly, I think you're going to have to prove not only affect but intent to be successful enough to justify the effort.

I must say it is entertaining though.

 

[ecwinch]

Before Allan tries to shift this to an issue of freedom speech, understand the limitations of that right. Our right to free speech is simply that - the right express our opinion. It is does not create obligation of governing bodies to ensure that every opinion is widely disseminated. That is the obligation of the minority group to solicit sufficient support.

Contrast this situation to what would occur if you failed to disagree with the decisions of your city government. You would have the exact same rights you have here in expressing your opinion. But your right to freedom of speech does not create an obligation of the local government to include a flyer outlining your opinion to every eligible voter. Nor do you have the right go down to city hall and request a list of home address, e-mail, and phone number of every registered voter. You bear the burden of obtaining that information.

This situation is no different. The bottom line is the concerned owners group is being out-maneuvered. Work smarter, not harder.

 

[modoaruba]

To question Sue's ethics due to owning stock is a personal attack, the attack the messenger ploy rather than deal with the issues, IMO. We are all stake holders in Marriott to one degree or another and likely most of us have far more risk in timeshares than does any of us in Marriott stock. Anyone who owns next door at the SC or another timeshare in Aruba likely has a larger conflict of interest than does Sue, even if they own at the OC also.

marksue, your interpretation of the events and intent seem pretty far out there from what I can see. I would not hold the same opinions as you on the various aspects of actions by MVCI and the BOD. Actually I'd likely have done much as they have done. Were I in their shoes I'd do everything I could to squash any opposition like a bug in every legal way I could and including ways to increase the oppositions costs as much as possible. I'm curious as to why their actions surprise you as you've put them in a clear situation of you against them with the rest of the owners caught in the middle and footing the bill. ultimately your group will likely pay twice including the direct costs of the legal challenges plus the shared costs of the defense. As I noted previously, I think the only real chance going forward is to get this quickly into the courts and make a full out attempt to prove ALL of the allegations beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't think reasonable doubt will be enough and frankly, I think you're going to have to prove not only affect but intent to be successful enough to justify the effort.

I must say it is entertaining though.

Dean,does this mean beer is off?Hope not.
I brought to light motive again.For posters to be so passionate on either side there is motive.Sue is a shareholder.That is not an attack.You state yourself that you have a stake in Marriott.That is your motive.Not an attack by me.

As far as Eric states that the group has to be smarter think of this,
Today alone this thread had hundreds of hits and still going.How many curious readers are more inclined to visit the group's site just out of curiousity?They will tell their TS friends who will tell others and so on.
With all the various weeks owned by the group and others,the coverage of telling the story is pretty much covered while at the resort.
This is a great advertisement tool not only for owners but also potential buyers of any TS.
As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.

 

[SueDonJ]

Are you saying people do not have a right to give out cards with the web address on a public beach in Aruba? You are one of the posters that supported the idea of the group to get the contact information to allow then to communicate with other owners weren't you? I don't understand how you can defend the action of Marriott related to solicitation. Is it that you just cannot agree to any actions taken by the owners?

Where did I say that what happens on the public beach in Aruba is something that Marriott should be concerned about? Oh, that's right, I didn't say any such thing. What I did say is that the MAOC governing docs and bylaws prohibit solicitation anywhere on property, and that your group would be well-served to understand exactly what that means as far as the actions that members of the "concerned owners" group are doing. And, that Marriott put your group on notice that they have an issue with those actions when they sent out the Dec 2009 newsletter.

I also said that the standard legal definition of civil "solicitation" includes "any request or appeal for" and offers an arbitrary "thing of value" as a qualifier to meet the definition, and that there is also a specific MAOC bylaw which prohibits solicitation for "any purpose whatsoever."

We've been all through this but let's review:
Considering that:
1) the cards your group hands out suggest that MAOC owners should review your website for information; and
2) it is impossible to review any info on that website without "joining" the website; and
3) by "joining," MAOC owners are agreeing to a statement of support for the group's efforts; and
4) increasing enrollment in the "concerned owners" group is a thing of value.

Put all those together, and there is Marriott's case for solicitation if the cards are distributed anyplace on property.

And, review time again: The beaches in Aruba are public. However, the MAOC palapas and seating areas on the beach may be considered to be MAOC private property depending on how the governing docs define "on property."

Now I asked Modo if he was absolutely certain that no seated MAOC guest had been approached by an owner giving out cards - he didn't answer that. I also asked him if he was comfortable enough to incur further legal costs defending that a person standing on the sand beside the private-property MAOC seats can pass cards to MAOC guests in those seats, and by doing so will not meet the "private property" requirement of the bylaw; or, if your lawyer has knowledge of case law where that has been successfully argued. Again, no answer.

Make no mistake, I'm not demanding that he give me an answer. But it's my opinion that there is enough doubt raised by the questions to get a competent legal opinion about it, and that it's simply something more for the "concerned owners" to think about when they're deciding for themselves if the escalating costs of their efforts is worth the risk assumed by passing those cards out to MAOC guests in the seating and palapas areas on the beach.

I cant imagine what you think about the numerous unsolicited phone calls we received from the candidates in the MA election. Thank goodness someone was willing to challenge the status quo.

Eh, I didn't have to think anything about those calls. We opted in to donotcall.gov several years ago and didn't get any political calls about yesterday's election.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Today alone this thread had hundreds of hits and still going.How many curious readers are more inclined to visit the group's site just out of curiousity?They will tell their TS friends who will tell others and so on.
With all the various weeks owned by the group and others,the coverage of telling the story is pretty much covered while at the resort.
This is a great advertisement tool not only for owners but also potential buyers of any TS.
As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.

You should consult with Mark before you offer any more opinions about how TUG is helping your cause and enabling owners to learn about your group's efforts. Earlier today he tried to disprove Marriott's statement that TUG is one way that owners can correspond to each other.

 

[modoaruba]

Sorry I did not answer your questions.
First,I have never witnessed anyone anywhere with a card let alone pass one.
And yes I wouldn't mind sharing in the "liability" of passing said card.
I find it very difficult to believe that such enforcement is possibe nor legal.
What is a security guard going to do?Arrest the card holder?Imagine all the owners who happen to be group members hold up a card if that should happen.That would surely bring in the press.
Like I said before,my home,I can say and pass on any info to any of my neighbors as long as they are willing to hear and accept it.
What is the difference if info was passed on by conversation as opposed to the cards?
IMO this is an impossibility to enforce.

 

[modoaruba]

You should consult with Mark before you offer any more opinions about how TUG is helping your cause and enabling owners to learn about your group's efforts. Earlier today he tried to disprove Marriott's statement that TUG is one way that owners can correspond to each other.

TUG is only one means of communication and so far only reaches a minority.
There are other such boards scattered about which also reaches a minority.
Obviously the best way to at least reach every owner is through the BOD or MVCI.That will not happen.Yet.

 

[ecwinch]

As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.

Glad to help.

 

[SueDonJ]

... And yes I wouldn't mind sharing in the "liability" of passing said card.
I find it very difficult to believe that such enforcement is possibe nor legal. ...
IMO this is an impossibility to enforce.

Are you sure you've thought enough about all this to so casually accept that the risk is worth the reward for the owners who are passing the cards on what may be private resort property, against a specific bylaw?

I'm willing to bet that every MVCI resort has a similar penalty for owners who do not adhere to the bylaws. Here's the quote from SurfWatch's governing docs:

... The failure by an occupant to abide by, and comply with, these Plan Rules or the other project governing documents may result in the imposition of fines or other penalties and/or the suspension of such occupant's rights and privileges as an occupant, including a suspension of such Owner's or occupant's use and exchange privileges. ...

That's definitely not a risk I'd take, not without definitive support from a competent legal advisor. Nope, I wouldn't even be willing to assume the risk of advising other owners that they should pass out the cards (which, coincidentally, is a risk that the owners of your website are assuming by putting the suggestion right there on the homepage.)

 

[lovearuba]

get informed

Periodically I post the web address to allow owners that are interested to read the entire story.

www.aocconcernedowners.com

 

[m61376]

Let me preface my comments by admitting I, too, have a vested interest in this discussion, since we own at the SC next door and since we own a Marriott timeshare in general. I think all Marriott owners have an interest in this, because the ripple effect is sure to impact how MVCI interacts with all the owners. For example, BOD contact info. seems to have been removed from the other resorts as well, likely a direct effect of this action.

Besides "transparency," what are you really hoping (and, moreover, what are your realistic expectations) to accomplish? Are you expecting Marriott to fully finance the replacement of a roof that you enjoyed half its useful lifespan? Whether or not the roof was good in the first place, it is unrealistic to expect Marriott to fund more than the almost half that they already have (roughly equivalent to the decrease in lifespan). I understand there was damage to the buildings presumably because of the roof and window issues. How much of the renovation cost was attributable to that- that can be factually sustained and withstand legal scrutiny? Unless you can PROVE that prior construction issues caused "X" amount of damages, no matter how right you may be, you will unlikely prevail.

And, if you could prove your case (which would be a huge legal hurdle), what type of monetary damages are there other than the roof? How do they compare to the mounting legal bills, which ultimately the owners will be shouldering, since they are legal expenses associated with the resort. Whether they are the acting BOD's legal team, or the Marriott's legal team, you will be footing the bill. Flying in those lawyers cost someone a lot of money; I think we all know who that will be.

At some point you have to take a deep breath and decide if what you can realistically achieve even in the best case scenario is worth the mounting expenses. On the flip side, if you considered a less antagonistic approach- one akin to: we feel there have been problems due to past construction issues that we understand you've helped us correct that have incurred tremendous costs and, while we appreciate Marriott's contributions, as concerned owners we feel that we should be kept informed of issues with the building and costs incurred, etc.- basically, asking for the "transparency" that you so desperately want, but not with a litigious threat, you might be able to make better inroads. Before you started sown the lawsuit path I would venture to guess you might have had a bit more cooperation; at this point I would venture to guess it will be a long time before the lawyers let anyone let their guard down to share information.

The bottom line at this point is do you really think it is worth it, and has the concerned owners group talked about how they are going to explain to the owners at large- the owners of those 11,000+ owner weeks- the budget entries for legal and other administrative expenses? Sometimes even being on the side of right isn't enough. I am not questioning your motives; I am just, as others have, injecting a dose of reality here. if you are unlikely to gain more than you stand to lose, maybe it's time for a different approach and try to mend fences.

Like it or not, you need Marriott more than they need you and they have much deeper pockets. They have lawyers on retainer and have every expectation of being able to ultimately pass the costs onto the owners, so ultimately you'll be footing both sides of the bill, since you support the BOD. Sometimes what sounds like a defeatist attitude makes sense.

 

[tlwmkw]

m61376 is right. The concerned owners may end up with a Pyrrhic victory (though at this point I don't think they will even get that) and have lost more than they gained. Even if you have the moral high ground you may not win this situation.

No one has answered the question as to how they think Marriott controls the current board. Why do you keep saying the board is just a puppet board? There is no way Marriott can predict how a group of individuals will act or vote when they join the board- there are so many examples of this in life that it makes this argument really ridiculous. Your group keeps dodging this question.

The current lack of transparency clearly stems from the threat of legal action. They have circled the wagons and are prepared to fight.

 

[LisaRex]

Eh, I didn't have to think anything about those calls. We opted in to donotcall.gov several years ago and didn't get any political calls about yesterday's election.

Consider yourself lucky. Donotcall.gov lists do not apply to politicians or charities.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm

"29. Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?

Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of “telemarketing.” Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry."

 

[modoaruba]

Are you sure you've thought enough about all this to so casually accept that the risk is worth the reward for the owners who are passing the cards on what may be private resort property, against a specific bylaw?

I'm willing to bet that every MVCI resort has a similar penalty for owners who do not adhere to the bylaws. Here's the quote from SurfWatch's governing docs:


That's definitely not a risk I'd take, not without definitive support from a competent legal advisor. Nope, I wouldn't even be willing to assume the risk of advising other owners that they should pass out the cards (which, coincidentally, is a risk that the owners of your website are assuming by putting the suggestion right there on the homepage.)

I was always a risk taker especially if I am told that my constitutional right of free speech is threatened especially in my own home.
I have never read the bylaws nor do I care to read them.
I live my life according to my own moral compass.That's what is right for me.

 

[SueDonJ]

Consider yourself lucky. Donotcall.gov lists do not apply to politicians or charities.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm

"29. Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?

Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of “telemarketing.” Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry."

We did wonder because everywhere around us we heard about eight zillion politicians and celebrities who were hounding people to death with those robo-calls. And, we do get calls for charitable donations quite often. (Oh, and there is one chimney cleaning company that calls every Friday at 3:15 or so, who can't seem to understand what Do Not Call means.)

Our number is listed, we're registered voters ... what other criteria was used? Maybe it's like you say and we were simply lucky.

 

[SueDonJ]

I was always a risk taker especially if I am told that my constitutional right of free speech is threatened especially in my own home.
I have never read the bylaws nor do I care to read them.
I live my life according to my own moral compass.That's what is right for me.

All due respect, Modo ...

Your timeshare isn't your own home. It's a shared ownership with stated rules and regulations that every owner, the developer and the management company agreed to uphold by virtue of their shared contracts.

You sure do have the right to consciously remain ignorant of what those rules and regulations are. But don't you see that it's to your complete disadvantage to do so when you are demanding certain things from the developer and management company? Really, how can you possibly expect the "concerned owners" to be successful in any effort you undertake if this is the prevailing wisdom?!?! I'm honestly shocked.

Generally I wouldn't consider that a "moral compass" has any bearing on timeshare ownership, and I wouldn't introduce it into a timeshare discussion, because there are no moral guidelines included in the contracts. But you opened that door so let me ask you, do you feel any moral responsibility to your fellow owners who are suffering the effects (both monetary and in the owner/developer/management relationships) of your voluntary inclusion in a group which is taking legal actions against parties to your shared contracts? You don't feel any responsibility at all to them to educate yourself about what your rights and responsibilities really are, even though your actions can potentially cause them damages?

 

[modoaruba]

Give me a break.Your tone is absurd.
I am not doing anything but trying to get a message to the owners of what is taking place without siding with anyone.
I feel that the prevention and obstacles having been put forth by MVCI and the BOD in having information filter to all of the owners from their constituants,speaks volumes that there is something to hide.
It is up to all the owners to decide on what to do with the info.
My main concern is that the messengers keep getting shot at.
Rules or no rules,that is wrong.
Look where closed door meetings got your senator elected.The people have spoken.
And yes it's my home for that week.