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

[modoaruba]

There is one obvious avenue still open to the "concerned owners" group to get whatever information they're holding distributed to the entire MAOC ownership, and it's the one that was suggested to Mark which appears to be the reason he began this thread.

Challenge Marriott in a court proceeding.

It's as simple as that. IF whatever information you're holding is as damaging as you contend, if it's something that would convince every MAOC owner to rightfully demand concessions from Marriott as you allege, then get it out in the open in the most public way possible. Hire a competent attorney to organize and act on the owners' behalf, and force Marriott to respond.

From your mouth to "you know who" up there.It should be so easy.
And by the way I personally do not hold damaging information,just so you know.
I would like nothing more than to have this whole issue/s settled.
My main concern on the beach should be what I'll be drinking that day and not why my MFs went up.

 

[SueDonJ]

From your mouth to "you know who" up there.It should be so easy.
And by the way I personally do not hold damaging information,just so you know.
I would like nothing more than to have this whole issue/s settled.
My main concern on the beach should be what I'll be drinking that day and not why my MFs went up.

Of course I shouldn't have said "simple," although that's not quite the same as "easy" in this case. No lawsuit is ever easy but it might be simply the only avenue still open.

I'm a little confused, Modo. I thought you joined the "concerned owners" website and by doing so, have access to the damaging information that some members have claimed they have against Marriott; and, that you've found things in your searches that make you think the "concerned owners" group are correct in their allegations that Marriott has committed wrongdoing; and, finally, that if all MAOC owners had the same knowledge you do, they would have some understanding, if not total support, for the actions the group has taken. No?

I certainly understand about sitting on the beach and worrying about nothing significant - that's what we all want. Here's hoping that happens for you sooner rather than later.

 

[modoaruba]

Of course I shouldn't have said "simple," although that's not quite the same as "easy" in this case. No lawsuit is ever easy but it might be simply the only avenue still open.

I'm a little confused, Modo. I thought you joined the "concerned owners" website and by doing so, have access to the damaging information that some members have claimed they have against Marriott; and, that you've found things in your searches that make you think the "concerned owners" group are correct in their allegations that Marriott has committed wrongdoing; and, finally, that if all MAOC owners had the same knowledge you do, they would have some understanding, if not total support, for the actions the group has taken. No?

I certainly understand about sitting on the beach and worrying about nothing significant - that's what we all want. Here's hoping that happens for you sooner rather than later.

The information on the site is very similar to what they have posted here.
I am not knowledgable about any other secret info if that's what you mean.
Going onto the Aruba history site basically sets up a picture in my head of a rusty shell that was going to be destroyed.So there is some concern there.
The allegations as to the leaks and mold situation is of merit as far as I can see.
I joined because being an owner I want to hear the concerns.
I do find the concerns to hold merit.
I find that by Marriott placing obstacles, it tweaks my interest even more.
I want an open discussion to take place to put everything on the table.
And by signing up with the group i do not get solicited nor brainwashed and can opt out whenever I want.
There's some real good people on the group who really care about our resort.
Don't discount that.

 

[ecwinch]

Modo,

I do not think anyone has discounted that. Good people can make bad decisions and be mislead.

Just as no one has disputed the construction history of the OC. But I have never understood how you go from MVCI taking over a partially completed superstructure, to that is why the windows or the roof leaks. They are completely different components. The leaky windows certainly are not a by-product of that fact that the super-structure sat vacant for 5 years - the windows were not in place then. And as noted on their web-site, the roof was restored and repaired.

And as I read the MVCI letter where they explain the basis for their contribution to the roof, it seems that they are acknowledging that the roof is defective. And since the roof contractor is no longer in business, they are stepping in and fulfilling that parties obligation to fix the problem.

But since the beginning of this thread, the message has been "MVCI knowingly sold us a defective building. They should give us our money back. Who wants to join me in a class action suit?".

I have been in touch with the board and have gotten the details of what is taking place. A board member said to me if you find a lawyer who would like to take on a class action suit there would be many people who would be willing to be part of the suit.

The logic is just not well-reasoned. For me, this is when the train went off the track.

 

[SueDonJ]

The information on the site is very similar to what they have posted here.
I am not knowledgable about any other secret info if that's what you mean.
Going onto the Aruba history site basically sets up a picture in my head of a rusty shell that was going to be destroyed.So there is some concern there.
The allegations as to the leaks and mold situation is of merit as far as I can see.
I joined because being an owner I want to hear the concerns.
I do find the concerns to hold merit.
I find that by Marriott placing obstacles, it tweaks my interest even more.
I want an open discussion to take place to put everything on the table.
And by signing up with the group i do not get solicited nor brainwashed and can opt out whenever I want.
There's some real good people on the group who really care about our resort.
Don't discount that.

I don't discount that at all, Modo, just as I expect you don't discount that there are really good people who happen to disagree with you about the specifics at your resort, but still care about the resort and/or MVCI in general.

I must admit, I'm a little surprised at you saying that in general the info on the site is similar to what's in this thread. It's certainly understandable that some owners might like the site more than this thread because it offers the info without the criticisms that are found here.

But you must admit that LoveAruba's various plugs here for the site are a bit misleading in that they suggest that something more definitive can be found there. That's my impression, anyway, based on things like the latest plug which implies that "the entire story" can only be found there.

 

[lovearuba]

criticisms

I don't discount that at all, Modo, just as I expect you don't discount that there are really good people who happen to disagree with you about the specifics at your resort, but still care about the resort and/or MVCI in general.

I must admit, I'm a little surprised at you saying that in general the info on the site is similar to what's in this thread. It's certainly understandable that some owners might like the site more than this thread because it offers the info without the criticisms that are found here.

But you must admit that LoveAruba's various plugs here for the site are a bit misleading in that they suggest that something more definitive can be found there. That's my impression, anyway, based on things like the latest plug which implies that "the entire story" can only be found there.

Sue there are no restrictions on our site preventing folks from disagreeing or criticizing any of the comments of others. Our site also provides updates and other information that owners are interested in that are not as readily available here. It is dedicated to owners so the information is specific to the ocean club, trip reports, restaurant tips, etc. Yes some of that stuff can be found in other websites but this site is dedicated to the ocean club. I know you find issue with the fact we ask owners to agree to the terms before giving them access and you are entitled to that belief but it is not a problem for the folks that have registered. To remove yourself from the site is simple. I'm not going to respond to your challenge on the entire story. The issue is for the owners to decide and if after reading what is there an owner disagrees they can stop participating. The numbers are not declining after people register, I dont track the ones that delete there accounts but the numbers are growing so I would venture to guess that they are satisfied with the purpose of the site.

 

[modoaruba]

Don't mistake what I have posted before that the group's site is no different than this site regarding information.
Lovearuba is correct in what they state.
I meant in prior post that nothing earth shattering has yet happened that was not posted here.
There is however a huge gathering of various types of information available that owners will be interested in if they only knew was available to them.

 

[DMSTWO]

Aruba Ocean Club (roof) - Real Effect on Resale purchase

There are a tremendous number of postings in this forum related to the roof problems and how people perceive they are being treated by Marriott.

All that aside, I read into the threads that this should be a onetime issue that once resolved should return the resort to expected Marriott TS standards.

Assuming that is the case, can anybody offer an insight into what the resultant impact of the roof issue/replacement assessments would be on a resale purchaser if they were to buy this spring/early summer?

Any outstanding or expected roof repair assessments? any pending or on-going routine assessments? what are 2010 MFs, etc.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

 

[marksue]

There is another assesment in 2010. That should hopefully be the last but with Marriott now tell the board the cost of the facade has increased I wouldnt be surprised if there is another one.

Personaly I would not buy a Marriott timeshare. The cost to rent one for a week is less than the cost of the annual MF.

 

[marksue]

Sands of Kahana Concerned owners prevail in court

SOK Vacaton Club
December 2009
Monday December 7, 2009 was a great day for all of us. SOK, whole unit owner, Bill Vinson's lawsuit to get the roster of SOK owners so it would be available to all owners, timeshare and whole unit alike, went to a hearing. The judge not only agreed with our attorney he even awarded attorneys fees. This is huge for us. We are no longer going to be in a stranglehold by CRI/CRM and their tightly controlled Board of Directors.
We do not know yet exactly how we will proceed at this very moment. We will be conferring with the whole owners and our attorney. He did say that it could take a few weeks to bring everything about. As soon as we have the list, we will be sending out a letter to everyone outlining what our opportunities are.
In August and September a new real estate LLC and a new management LLC was applied for and granted in Hawaii: Somerset LLC, real estate managers are listed as Marcus Baricuattro (the president of CRI) and Carl Hardin (VP of CRI and former owner of Heritage Properties, the management company that failed to properly manage our timeshare, caused us an assessment to redecorate all the timeshare units and was fired by the Board—he, however, went to work for CRI). The new management company is Somerset Management LLC and the managers listed are Richard Rodriguez (current manager of CRM) and Hideko Sato (Carl Hardin's wife).
We finally have discovered the information to stand up and say “enough is enough”. We hope the state will stand behind us now that this judgment has come down through the courts.
We will continue to keep you informed.

 

[Dean]

SOK Vacaton Club
December 2009
Monday December 7, 2009 was a great day for all of us. SOK, whole unit owner, Bill Vinson's lawsuit to get the roster of SOK owners so it would be available to all owners, timeshare and whole unit alike, went to a hearing. The judge not only agreed with our attorney he even awarded attorneys fees. This is huge for us. We are no longer going to be in a stranglehold by CRI/CRM and their tightly controlled Board of Directors.
We do not know yet exactly how we will proceed at this very moment. We will be conferring with the whole owners and our attorney. He did say that it could take a few weeks to bring everything about. As soon as we have the list, we will be sending out a letter to everyone outlining what our opportunities are.
In August and September a new real estate LLC and a new management LLC was applied for and granted in Hawaii: Somerset LLC, real estate managers are listed as Marcus Baricuattro (the president of CRI) and Carl Hardin (VP of CRI and former owner of Heritage Properties, the management company that failed to properly manage our timeshare, caused us an assessment to redecorate all the timeshare units and was fired by the Board—he, however, went to work for CRI). The new management company is Somerset Management LLC and the managers listed are Richard Rodriguez (current manager of CRM) and Hideko Sato (Carl Hardin's wife).
We finally have discovered the information to stand up and say “enough is enough”. We hope the state will stand behind us now that this judgment has come down through the courts.
We will continue to keep you informed.

Did you read the articles in the last episode of Timesharing Today related to the same matter?

 

[lovearuba]

loyalty

Did you read the articles in the last episode of Timesharing Today related to the same matter?

and who would have thought when we bought the timeshares that we would understand these actions...

 

[ecwinch]

So what exactly are the goals of the Concerned Owners Group now?

 

[Dean]

and who would have thought when we bought the timeshares that we would understand these actions...

I can't speak for you but I considered these and many other related risks prior to buying my first timeshare (DVC) in 1994. I actually had conversation with them prior to buying (resale) and shortly after about control of the BOD. This is esp an issue for DVC as they retain complete control even after the resort is sold out. You actually sign over your voting rights to them for all but issues that negatively affect the membership as a whole, of course they have a say in what those issues are.

To me, any timeshare is essentially a vote of confidence in that system. So I expect the worst and hope for the best. Still, I wouldn't want any of them to go under or worse.

 

[marksue]

Mr Marriott in Aruba

Mr Marriott is scheduled to be in Aruba next week to discuss the Ritz Carlton with officials. If there are any owners who will be there at that time you may want to see if you can get his attention to discuss what is occuring at the Ocean Club and why he or his office has not responded to owners who have written directly to him.

I am trying to find out the exact day and time he will be there. If you are there, if you see an effort to get everything in tip top shape youwill know he will be there that day or the next.

It would be great if owners could get some time with him and let him hear the concerns.

 

[marksue]

Legal proof the AOC Board and MVCI has lied to the owners

Dear Aruba Ocean Club Owners - I want to inform you that our numbers continue to grow as owners witness the actions of the AOC Board and Marriott's (MVCI) actions. The latest tactics at the Special Meeting and the threatening of the Aruba Today Newspaper from distributing on Marriott property unless our Aruba ad was removed is shocking. What is Mr. Marriott and MVCI official's afraid that we might find out by communicating with each other ?

I am forwarding you the formal response from the Concerned Owners Aruba Attorney David Kock which clearly provides proof that the Board and MVCI mislead owners and spent owner funds in excess of $100,000, all in an attempt to prevent owner to owner communications. We presented these comments at the Special Meeting, but were put down by MVCI's hired Parliamentarian and the Boards thru their two attorneys.

The Board and MVCI had stated to owners that they had been ordered by the Court to hold a special meeting to amend the By Laws. As you can see from the letter this was not true. The court did not require MVCI or the Board to hold a special meeting to amend the owner register. The proposed motion to open up member contact information to the general public was all MVCI and the Board's attempt to misrepresent our request as well as the Court's intention and order, this was used to scare owner's into voting it down and in that they were successful.

We had asked the Board and MVCI to prove that their statements are true - they cannot. They should be held responsible and repay the owners back for all the funds spent, then they may think twice before they waste any more funds. These tactics only make us more optimistic that the court will respond in our favor in May when the hearing is scheduled.

Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you


Allan S. Cohen

===============================================================





Mr Allan Cohen





datum: 8 februari 2010

betreft: memorandum



Dear sir,



As discussed previously I hereby send you an explanation of the verdict of September 9, 2009 due to uncertainties that have been manifested to you by other concerned owners.



Firstly I must indicate that we never contested the text of the articles of incorporation of the Cooperative Association. We did not claim that these articles should be amended in order to add the mailing and email addresses of all the members to the registry mentioned in the articles of incorporation. This registry as indicated in article 27 of the articles of incorporation is available to inspection to anyone, also non members.



We are of the opinion that the members do not have an interest in third parties accessing their mailing and email addresses. However the same does not apply when a member wants to be able to contact his/her co-members. Currently such a member can only communicate through the Board or Marriott, whereby he will have no guarantee that such communiques will always be passed on and/or not be screened. Furthermore such means of communication is not desirable when the content or purpose thereof pertains to issues related to Marriott and/or the Board.



It is not in the spirit of a cooperative association to limit in any way the communication between the members. This is the intention of the lawsuit, not to amend the articles of incorporation. Nothing in the law prohibits the association to make available only to its members the mailing and email addresses of all members.



The ruling of September 9, 2009 did not contain an order to the association to present to the members the option to amend the articles of incorporation. The judge indicated:





‘Plaintiff requests –easily said- the (email)addresses of his co-members so that he can inform them en eventually discuss with them about a possible claim of the AOC against Marriott. AOC indicates that this request must first be made on the yearly general members meeting. AOC is willing to put this theme on the agenda.



The court is of the opinion that the point of departure should be that conflicts within an association must first be resolved by means of the possibilities indicated by the articles of incorporation. In this case plaintiff is proceeding against the denial of the board of the association to grant him the actual addresses of the co-members. The general meeting of members can, as the highest entity within the association, pronounce itself hereupon. There are no fact or circumstances presented that would imply that de general meeting of members, of which the court assumes that on the basis of the articles of incorporation and the last held meeting will be held in March 2010, cannot be awaited.’





It must be clear that the court did not order the board to hold a meeting suggesting the amendment of the articles of incorporation. The court said that the request of the plaintiff –which is for HIM to get the information of his co-members- should firstly be presented to the general meeting of members. The board decided to present an amendment of the articles of incorporation which would make the mailing and email addresses available to anyone which would ask to look into the register. Not only did the board present something other than recommended –not ordered- by the court but the option chosen by the board scared many members as their private (mailing and email) information could be accessed.



In our opinion nothing in Aruba law opposes granting a member the mailing and email addresses of his co-members. AOC/Marriott makes such only possible by the amendment of the register mentioned in the articles of incorporation. However such is not a conditio sine qua non.



Hoogachtend,









mr David G. Kock

 

[timeos2]

Nothing groundbreaking

I am forwarding you the formal response from the Concerned Owners Aruba Attorney David Kock which clearly provides proof that the Board and MVCI mislead owners and spent owner funds in excess of $100,000, all in an attempt to prevent owner to owner communications. We presented these comments at the Special Meeting, but were put down by MVCI's hired Parliamentarian and the Boards thru their two attorneys.

Just to be clear this is in no way "proof" of anything stated, but merely represents one attorney's view. It can, and apparently has, been challenged by other views. Nothing in the posting or the letter is necessarily correct or incorrect, but rather subject to interpretation and possible additional legal wrangling. And certainly no demand (or even mere request) for money to be paid or returned or whatever is binding on anyone involved. This is merely another volley in the game and makes no dramatic new inroads toward settling or continuing this process. As usual it does make interesting reading to help understand one sides view.

 

[Dean]

Dear Aruba Ocean Club Owners - I want to inform you that our numbers continue to grow as owners witness the actions of the AOC Board and Marriott's (MVCI) actions. The latest tactics at the Special Meeting and the threatening of the Aruba Today Newspaper from distributing on Marriott property unless our Aruba ad was removed is shocking. What is Mr. Marriott and MVCI official's afraid that we might find out by communicating with each other ?

I am forwarding you the formal response from the Concerned Owners Aruba Attorney David Kock which clearly provides proof that the Board and MVCI mislead owners and spent owner funds in excess of $100,000, all in an attempt to prevent owner to owner communications. We presented these comments at the Special Meeting, but were put down by MVCI's hired Parliamentarian and the Boards thru their two attorneys.

The Board and MVCI had stated to owners that they had been ordered by the Court to hold a special meeting to amend the By Laws. As you can see from the letter this was not true. The court did not require MVCI or the Board to hold a special meeting to amend the owner register. The proposed motion to open up member contact information to the general public was all MVCI and the Board's attempt to misrepresent our request as well as the Court's intention and order, this was used to scare owner's into voting it down and in that they were successful.

We had asked the Board and MVCI to prove that their statements are true - they cannot. They should be held responsible and repay the owners back for all the funds spent, then they may think twice before they waste any more funds. These tactics only make us more optimistic that the court will respond in our favor in May when the hearing is scheduled.

Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you


Allan S. Cohen

===============================================================





Mr Allan Cohen





datum: 8 februari 2010

betreft: memorandum



Dear sir,



As discussed previously I hereby send you an explanation of the verdict of September 9, 2009 due to uncertainties that have been manifested to you by other concerned owners.



Firstly I must indicate that we never contested the text of the articles of incorporation of the Cooperative Association. We did not claim that these articles should be amended in order to add the mailing and email addresses of all the members to the registry mentioned in the articles of incorporation. This registry as indicated in article 27 of the articles of incorporation is available to inspection to anyone, also non members.



We are of the opinion that the members do not have an interest in third parties accessing their mailing and email addresses. However the same does not apply when a member wants to be able to contact his/her co-members. Currently such a member can only communicate through the Board or Marriott, whereby he will have no guarantee that such communiques will always be passed on and/or not be screened. Furthermore such means of communication is not desirable when the content or purpose thereof pertains to issues related to Marriott and/or the Board.



It is not in the spirit of a cooperative association to limit in any way the communication between the members. This is the intention of the lawsuit, not to amend the articles of incorporation. Nothing in the law prohibits the association to make available only to its members the mailing and email addresses of all members.



The ruling of September 9, 2009 did not contain an order to the association to present to the members the option to amend the articles of incorporation. The judge indicated:





‘Plaintiff requests –easily said- the (email)addresses of his co-members so that he can inform them en eventually discuss with them about a possible claim of the AOC against Marriott. AOC indicates that this request must first be made on the yearly general members meeting. AOC is willing to put this theme on the agenda.



The court is of the opinion that the point of departure should be that conflicts within an association must first be resolved by means of the possibilities indicated by the articles of incorporation. In this case plaintiff is proceeding against the denial of the board of the association to grant him the actual addresses of the co-members. The general meeting of members can, as the highest entity within the association, pronounce itself hereupon. There are no fact or circumstances presented that would imply that de general meeting of members, of which the court assumes that on the basis of the articles of incorporation and the last held meeting will be held in March 2010, cannot be awaited.’





It must be clear that the court did not order the board to hold a meeting suggesting the amendment of the articles of incorporation. The court said that the request of the plaintiff –which is for HIM to get the information of his co-members- should firstly be presented to the general meeting of members. The board decided to present an amendment of the articles of incorporation which would make the mailing and email addresses available to anyone which would ask to look into the register. Not only did the board present something other than recommended –not ordered- by the court but the option chosen by the board scared many members as their private (mailing and email) information could be accessed.



In our opinion nothing in Aruba law opposes granting a member the mailing and email addresses of his co-members. AOC/Marriott makes such only possible by the amendment of the register mentioned in the articles of incorporation. However such is not a conditio sine qua non.



Hoogachtend,









mr David G. Kock

I agree there is no proof. I would think the court statements and directions themselves would be the best information to interpret this situation, the actual words of the court would be what interests me, not the words of a lawyer who has a vested interest in only providing one side of the story. There are many actions the courts could have taken that would have triggered the need for such action. Put another way, there are other ways to "force" the actions stated other than saying you must do so. I would think that MVCI and the BOD will take the actions necessary and available to them to protect the positions they have already taken, as they should. As I stated previously, once the info is out, it is out and impossible to control. Affirming to the BOD that one will only use the info in a certain way is definitely not enough protection that the owners info will not be release. Indications on this thread already indicate that the info was likely taken and used inappropriately, possibly illegally, to contact owners and to use as verification of ownership.

 

[Clemson Fan]

Just out of curiosity, has this thread set the record for the longest ever thread on TUG?

 

[ecwinch]

Plaintiff requests –easily said- the (email)addresses of his co-members so that he can inform them en eventually discuss with them about a possible claim of the AOC against Marriott. AOC indicates that this request must first be made on the yearly general members meeting. AOC is willing to put this theme on the agenda.

I thought this was no longer about pursuing a lawsuit? Somebody should let the judge know that.

And dovetailing into the other comments, this is your lawyers perspective. Of course it is going to present the most favorable view of the facts. Likewise, the BoD would probably say "we wanted to put this issue to the members as soon as possible to avoid further dissension or litigation on the matter".

And why would that be a bad thing? The bottom line is that you are attempting to distance yourself from the indisputable fact that your actions are resulting in the expenditure of funds that are better spent on the resort.

For if the measure had passed, I doubt you would have questioned the merit of the special meeting.

 

[modoaruba]

Mr Marriott is scheduled to be in Aruba next week to discuss the Ritz Carlton with officials. If there are any owners who will be there at that time you may want to see if you can get his attention to discuss what is occuring at the Ocean Club and why he or his office has not responded to owners who have written directly to him.

I am trying to find out the exact day and time he will be there. If you are there, if you see an effort to get everything in tip top shape youwill know he will be there that day or the next.

It would be great if owners could get some time with him and let him hear the concerns.

Mark,I'm surprised that the usuall suspects do not mention that it is against some bylaws to approach Mr. Marriott or some such other nonesense.
Happy Valentines Day.

 

[marksue]

Maybe one of them is Mr Marriott . oops should I have said that . jk.....

 

[SueDonJ]

I thought we determined about fifty-thirteen pages back that Mr. Marriott IS here in this thread playing the Up Your Post Count game?

I wouldn't think it would be against the bylaws to approach him if he's on property, but I wouldn't expect it to be any more useful than some of the other things that have been done to try to get your point across. Do you honestly believe that he isn't aware of every criticism that's been made by the "concerned owners" group, as well as every reaction/response from any Marriott employee? You make him sound like a doddering old man who doesn't know who is running the store! It's much more likely that he's signed off on the legal department's "hands off, only correct legal procedures will elicit a response" directive.

 

[modoaruba]

I agree that approaching Mr. Marriott would solve absolutely nothing even if the media was there.Would be fun to see how he would react to the news team.
Hey, you think that he is put up in the penthouse of the hotel?Great views.

By the way,how much is fifty-thirteen?

 

[SueDonJ]

I think he's probably put up in whichever room of the hotel he chooses, and he probably makes it very worthwhile for whoever is in that room to move.

Fifty-thirteen is "a whole bunch." It comes in handy when you're too lazy to go back and count.