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

[SueDonJ]

Based on the info in the FAQs for this forum, there are 125 units. Multiply that by 51 (not 52, because one week is unsold and reserved for maintenance) and you come up with 6,375 weeks. That's about $15.69 per owner - so far. That might not seem like much, but it's going to go higher and for what?

It's that per owner which I think is so unfair. This is a minority ownership group forcing Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to incur costs related to protecting themselves and the other owners from unsubstantiated challenges. It's all fine and dandy for the members of the "concerned owners" group to think that the per owner cost here is affordable and thus, justified. But what about the MAOC owners who have been silent and indifferent to this point, or the MAOC owners who have clearly stated that they are aware of yet disagree with this minority ownership group's position/actions? Why was it unfair for Marriott to force the ownership group to pay for property repair and timely refurbishment as stipulated in the governing docs, but now it's not unfair for the "concerned owners" group to force the overall membership to absorb costs for their ineffective challenges to Marriott's actions?

I know that the governing docs stipulate that these costs be shared by all owners so there isn't a way for Marriott to bill only the owners who have joined the "concerned owners" group. But like I said before, I'd hire a private attorney to challenge that if I were an MAOC owner who disagreed with this group, especially because they have not acted in the overall ownership's best interests by following established, required legal procedure. It just seems so unfair to me that this group by itself does not have to assume the costs for its own actions.

 

[mnabnpos]

Suedonj,

You are absolutely right. This is just going to get more and more expensive if the lawsuits continue. The irony is that the concerned owners are really suing themselves since they are owners at the resort and the board was elected by them to represent them. So they'll be paying the concerned owners lawyers as well as the AOC's lawyers via their maintenance fees- how can they possibly win in this case? If I owned there I would be starting to get upset at the extra expense they are putting on all the other owners.

As to the accounting firms I agree with you there too- after what happened with Enron and Arthur Andersen in recent years I don't think they would "look the other way" and allow MVCI to do anything that wasn't legal. It's not in the interest of the accountant to take any risk in this. What benefit would it be to them? None. As you say there is a huge amount of distrust between the two sides and no sign of anyone meeting in the middle. I think getting out is the best option for those that don't like it. They bought a Marriott resort and if they don't like how it's run then they should vote with their feet and leave. I remember Ellen sold her week there after all this came about. She still likes MVCI but not so much the AOC.

tlwmkw

Good point - Now that I am understanding where the $100K is coming from - there is an individual AOC owner paying their own lawyers to sue the AOC Coop Association (meaning all of us owners) which technically they are paying their lawyers for also. Unbelievable...

Dave, I understand it comes to about $15.00 per person but every little $ saved really helps.

 

[SueDonJ]

I wouldn't say that I am unhappy with MVCI with regards to the AOC - I actually like and enjoy my timeshares. But I am becoming, if not already, unhappy, with the current AOC BOD - if these unnecessary fees continue to rise I really have to take a long hard look as to whether it is still financially feasible to own at the AOC.

I don't agree that this BOD is at fault for the special assessment, increased m/f or legal fees. We've discussed at length in this thread how this board is in the unfortunate position of having to make up for insufficient reserves set by previous boards which would have covered timely refurbishment as well as various repairs, and how the current m/f appear to now be more in line with current operating costs and realistic future needs. As for the legal costs that are mounting, ANY board would be doing a disservice to the ownership at large if they did NOT respond to challenges in a clearly and correctly legal manner. All that said, though, most of the contributors to this thread pretty much agree that these board members will suffer for their unfortunate situation by not being voted back in when their terms are up for renewal.

If there is any unhappiness with Marriott it is that I am disappointed with Marriott in respect to their greed and how they have overbuilt the end of Palm Beach. The beach is at the point of being so congested and over-crowded and will only get worse with the Ritz Carlton being built next door.

I wouldn't know about Marriott's accounting firms and any dishonesty going on with them but having been going to Aruba for over 30 years now and seeing how the island has changed/developed and the promises of the Aruban govt to limit the number of resorts/rooms on the island if anything the previous Aruban administration were in the pockets of Marriott. I believe my facts are correct on this but approx. 2-3 weeks before a new Aruban govt was to be sworn in the Aruban govt leaving office worked out a deal with Marriott to break ground on the RC. That same administration had worked with Marriott to approve building the Surf Club also..

That would bother me too. But what's Yogi's old saying? "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." Marriott and all the other resort companies are responding to the demand for the island experience, and the island government is taking advantage of the situation. Stinks all around if you like a laid-back island vacation, which I do and it appears you do, too.

 

[Dean]

It's that per owner which I think is so unfair. This is a minority ownership group forcing Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to incur costs related to protecting themselves and the other owners from unsubstantiated challenges. It's all fine and dandy for the members of the "concerned owners" group to think that the per owner cost here is affordable and thus, justified. But what about the MAOC owners who have been silent and indifferent to this point, or the MAOC owners who have clearly stated that they are aware of yet disagree with this minority ownership group's position/actions? Why was it unfair for Marriott to force the ownership group to pay for property repair and timely refurbishment as stipulated in the governing docs, but now it's not unfair for the "concerned owners" group to force the overall membership to absorb costs for their ineffective challenges to Marriott's actions?

I know that the governing docs stipulate that these costs be shared by all owners so there isn't a way for Marriott to bill only the owners who have joined the "concerned owners" group. But like I said before, I'd hire a private attorney to challenge that if I were an MAOC owner who disagreed with this group, especially because they have not acted in the overall ownership's best interests by following established, required legal procedure. It just seems so unfair to me that this group by itself does not have to assume the costs for its own actions.

I'm not sure you've seen the end of this side either. I think it's very possible that Marriott and the BOD will go after the costs from the plaintiffs and I'd say almost 50/50 that there will be criminal proceedings regarding some of the other issues as well.

 

[modoaruba]

Based on the info in the FAQs for this forum, there are 125 units. Multiply that by 51 (not 52, because one week is unsold and reserved for maintenance) and you come up with 6,375 weeks. That's about $15.69 per owner - so far. That might not seem like much, but it's going to go higher and for what?

Thanks for the info.
So my understanding is that if a suit was to be and won,it would mean $156.90 per million won less legal fees per unit.
So how many millions is sought after to make it worth while to continue?
A $100,000,000 will not even pay for one week MF per unit as I see it.

Am I looking at this wrong?

 

[rickxylon]

Still waiting for "Concerned Owners" response

The silence is somewhat deafining. May we please have the courtesy of a reply to our questions? It would help the rest of us who have concerns about your actions.

Thank you.

 

[mnabnpos]

If anyone would have a copy of the lawsuit would they kindly attach it or send a link to it? There are supposedly two lawsuits. I have also asked the AOC BOD to e-mail to me a copy of the lawsuit since I am an owner paying our lawyers to defend this lawsuit. I should be entitled to view it.

Also, if the owner who has filed this lawsuit reads this TUG forum can you please let us know what the purpose and ultimate goal of this lawsuit is? The AOC BOD memo states "We will not speculate on the intended use of your personal information by the Owner who is requesting it." Why is a list of the owners needed? Does it have to do with the roof replacement, the utilities, the increase in maintenance fees, the upgrades and renovations, starting a new business and need a mailing list to mail flyers out, etc...? What is it? Thank you....

 

[tlwmkw]

mnabnpos,

I'm not a member of the concerned owners group but my understanding, from reading this thread over the last year, is that they want the list of owners so that they can contact them and let them know who they are and what they are doing. Apparently because the building was left unfinished for some time prior to Marriott taking it over they feel that they have a case for a law suit. As to what their goals are no one really knows- they have been asked that numerous times by people on this thread and they have never really answered.

Out of curiosity, how did you find out about this situation and the information on TUG?

tlwmkw

 

[dioxide45]

mnabnpos,

I'm not a member of the concerned owners group but my understanding, from reading this thread over the last year, is that they want the list of owners so that they can contact them and let them know who they are and what they are doing. Apparently because the building was left unfinished for some time prior to Marriott taking it over they feel that they have a case for a law suit. As to what their goals are no one really knows- they have been asked that numerous times by people on this thread and they have never really answered.

Out of curiosity, how did you find out about this situation and the information on TUG?

tlwmkw

I thought their goal was for Marriott to pay 100% of the roof replacement cost and also to pay the HOA for use of space used for sales and marketing. Unfortunately the use of sales space is written in to all of the governing documents of most if not all of the Marriott resorts.

 

[lovearuba]

contact information

If anyone would have a copy of the lawsuit would they kindly attach it or send a link to it? There are supposedly two lawsuits. I have also asked the AOC BOD to e-mail to me a copy of the lawsuit since I am an owner paying our lawyers to defend this lawsuit. I should be entitled to view it.

Also, if the owner who has filed this lawsuit reads this TUG forum can you please let us know what the purpose and ultimate goal of this lawsuit is? The AOC BOD memo states "We will not speculate on the intended use of your personal information by the Owner who is requesting it." Why is a list of the owners needed? Does it have to do with the roof replacement, the utilities, the increase in maintenance fees, the upgrades and renovations, starting a new business and need a mailing list to mail flyers out, etc...? What is it? Thank you....

Hi
If you are looking for information go to www.aocconcernedowners.com and contact Allan Cohen. His info is on the right side of the page, you do not need to register to contact him. He would be happy to give you more information.

 

[tlwmkw]

dioxide45,

Yes, you are right, it did begin with that and the special assessments but I think the reason they filed the current suit to get access to owners contact information was to be able to let other owners know of their existence. They also initially talked of filing a class action law-suit against Marriott/MVCI/the AOC but I don't know if they are still pursuing this or not. Someone has stated that there is another suit but I haven't seen anything about it here (and one of the owners was asking what that was about). Honestly though, it has never been very clear what they were trying to achieve (payment for defective building, transparency of the boards actions, dismissal of the current board, etc) and despite many people asking them it has never really been spelled out in a coherent way.

tlwmkw

 

[lovearuba]

information

dioxide45,

Yes, you are right, it did begin with that and the special assessments but I think the reason they filed the current suit to get access to owners contact information was to be able to let other owners know of their existence. They also initially talked of filing a class action law-suit against Marriott/MVCI/the AOC but I don't know if they are still pursuing this or not. Someone has stated that there is another suit but I haven't seen anything about it here (and one of the owners was asking what that was about). Honestly though, it has never been very clear what they were trying to achieve (payment for defective building, transparency of the boards actions, dismissal of the current board, etc) and despite many people asking them it has never really been spelled out in a coherent way.

tlwmkw

If owners want information they can contact Allan. You are right there were many different options discussed and some of them took on a life of their own. Many through speculation with this thread. This has become like an urban legend which is why many of the people involved no longer bother posting here. They have their own site and direct contact with Allan.

 

[mnabnpos]

mnabnpos,

I'm not a member of the concerned owners group but my understanding, from reading this thread over the last year, is that they want the list of owners so that they can contact them and let them know who they are and what they are doing. Apparently because the building was left unfinished for some time prior to Marriott taking it over they feel that they have a case for a law suit. As to what their goals are no one really knows- they have been asked that numerous times by people on this thread and they have never really answered.

Out of curiosity, how did you find out about this situation and the information on TUG?

tlwmkw

tlwmkw,

My neighbor who has 4 weeks of timeshare at the Surf Club told me about TUG a few months ago after I was complaining to him about the utilities and assessment fees and we were comparing them to his fees. He told me to start reading TUG. Then I found this thread.

Going to Aruba for the past 30+ years and frequenting the Holiday Inn for years before the Marriott Resort, the OC and SC, Playa Linda, Hyatt, Divi Phoenix(originally Ramada) were even thought of being built on Palm Beach, I do remember these buildings abandoned by an Italian company who went bankrupt (Not sure but I think the hotels were to be called Beta). I used to walk the beach past these buildings many times in the early 1990's and they looked in poor shape (I am not a structural expert though) when Marriott first purchased the building which is now the resort and casino (I believe this was 1993-94). A few years later they began work on the other building (now the OC) which did look like it deteriorated more since this structure was left abandoned longer (maybe until 1996-97).

When I asked my Aruban friends back then why Marriott took the far end structure to build the resort and casino leaving the empty structure in the middle between the future Marriott Resort and Holiday Inn, they told me it was the better of the two structures. When I pre-purchased the OC TS, I asked the sales rep the same question and she told me that Marriott always had intended to build on both properties. I had no idea who was telling the truth - I just saw how nice of a job they did with the Marriott Resort & Casino and how serene the beach was over there. It was like you were on your own private resort island - the Holiday Inn 1/4 - 1/2 mile away on the south side and the Fisherman's Huts 1,000's of yards away on the north side. The plans for the OC looked terrific with less units than the Resort. That is why I bought pre-purchase when the structure was still a shell.

Anyway, it sounds like a difficult feat to prove. Someone would probably have to prove that both buildings were structurally deficient. Good luck!! BUT --- Why get other owners concurrence by asking for our personal info - if this one person(s) (I am assuming concerned owner(s)) have a case then just bring it to court themselves against Marriott and prove it. Leave the AOC owners that are indifferent or don't really care out of it. That is what I don't understand about this bickering back and forth here. I am only concerned about my fees going up now and in the future. This lawsuit is not helping keep my annual fees down.

 

[SueDonJ]

This post from Marksue last December, a letter from Allan Cohen, explains somewhat one of the matters now in the court system. It doesn't say, though, in whose name the lawsuit was filed or if any members of the "concerned owners" group have given POA to that person to act on their behalf, but Allan does refer to "we" in the letter:

... When the Board refused to share our information with all Owners we sought a summary judgement from an Aruba judge. After the Board/MVCI/Marriott again refused to share our information with all the Owners the judge decided not to rule on the matter and requested that it be filed with the full court which we have done. ...

Referring back to what Dean has posted, I wonder if the one person in whose name the suit was filed has considered that s/he may be responsible for all of the legal costs, if/when Marriott wins and goes after the costs.

 

[SueDonJ]

... BUT --- Why get other owners concurrence by asking for our personal info - if this one person(s) (I am assuming concerned owner(s)) have a case then just bring it to court themselves against Marriott and prove it. Leave the AOC owners that are indifferent or don't really care out of it. That is what I don't understand about this bickering back and forth here. I am only concerned about my fees going up now and in the future. This lawsuit is not helping keep my annual fees down.

Another of the stated goals of the "concerned owners" group is to remove members of this board sooner than they'll be up for re-election, by adhering to the bylaw requirements to put a vote to all owners before that time. It's their contention that not enough of an ownership majority is privy to the info the group is holding which will supposedly convince all the other owners to enact and participate in a special meeting vote, and if the group has access to the owners' contact info then they'll be able to notify the owners directly of their version of the info, thereby gaining the majority vote to oust the board. Or something like that.

I can give you a hint for finding in this thread the limited info that has been furnished by Allan Cohen, a former member of the MAOC BOD. Just click on marksue's name in his last post and choose "Find More Posts ..." from the dropdown menu, then scan those for any that include Allan's name at the bottom. Allan rarely posts here, instead marksue reprints his letters.

 

[ecwinch]

If owners want information they can contact Allan. You are right there were many different options discussed and some of them took on a life of their own. Many through speculation with this thread. This has become like an urban legend which is why many of the people involved no longer bother posting here. They have their own site and direct contact with Allan.

Are not urban legends easily debunked by those with first hand knowledge of the events?

Are the debunking of those urban myths on the private site?

ie.

That Allan, while a member of the AOC Board, provided e-mail addresses of owners to Mark to start the concerned owners group? The e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his capacity on the AOC Board.

or

That Allan encouraged Mark to pursue a lawsuit against MVCI. An action that Allan had pursued while on the Board, and that was reviewed, discussed, and not pursued by the AOC Board.

 

[lovearuba]

urban legends

Are not urban legends easily debunked by those with first hand knowledge of the events?

Are the debunking of those urban myths on the private site?

ie.

That Allan, while a member of the AOC Board, provided e-mail addresses of owners to Mark to start the concerned owners group? The e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his capacity on the AOC Board.

or

That Allan encouraged Mark to pursue a lawsuit against MVCI. An action that Allan had pursued while on the Board, and that was reviewed, discussed, and not pursued by the AOC Board.

Eric
I appreciate that you believe both statements, not all of us do. I know Allan did not provide me email, I saw Marks post and called him as many others did. Many of the others that joined the website were solicited through this thread as well as through hard work by vacationers in Aruba. I initially received many emails from requesting them here. Once the website was launched those emails were used to encourage people to register. The only legal action that I am aware of is the action to request access from Marriott to contact information for the owners so they too can be contacted and determine for themselves if they want involvement. The goal is to remove the current board to gain transparency on the board. www.aocconcernedowners.com

 

[SueDonJ]

... The goal is to remove the current board to gain transparency on the board.

It's been asked so many times - if the bylaws don't allow the level of "transparency" that you're after, how will you be able to get it? If you can manage to remove this board (either by calling a Special Meeting and having a successful vote, or by waiting until their terms are up for renewal and not voting them back in,) how will you be able to guarantee that the seats will be filled by new members who can give you what you want? That question hasn't been answered here at all here, and I doubt Allan would be able to answer it if he's contacted directly. The fact is simply that Marriott does hold some control over which names make it onto the ballot for new board positions - it's not required that all names put up for nomination be put onto the ballot, and it is stipulated in the bylaws that certain seats are held by Marriott.

But besides the problems you'd have with the nomination/voting process, any board members (your "puppets" or Marriott's) are required to abide by the bylaws and the board's decisions - if the bylaws stipulate that something discussed/learned in a BOD Meeting cannot be released to the overall ownership, then "transparency" (as it appears your group is defining it) cannot be obtained. Not without further challenges by way of Special Meetings and votes, anyway, which will mean additional legal costs and drawing out this long process even longer.

IMO, it's all well and good to have a stated goal but it doesn't appear that there are any plans in place to actually achieve that goal, or any consideration given to the cost which will have to be assumed by the overall ownership if each of the many required steps is successful.

 

[SueDonJ]

... That Allan encouraged Mark to pursue a lawsuit against MVCI. An action that Allan had pursued while on the Board, and that was reviewed, discussed, and not pursued by the AOC Board.

... I appreciate that you believe both statements, not all of us do.

With respect to Eric's statement about Allan encouraging Mark to pursue a lawsuit, how can anybody not believe that?!?! Mark stated it himself! It was in the first couple of his posts in this thread, here and here are Mark's own words:

"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."

"I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action."

... That Allan, while a member of the AOC Board, provided e-mail addresses of owners to Mark to start the concerned owners group? The e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his capacity on the AOC Board. ...

... I know Allan did not provide me email, I saw Marks post and called him as many others did.

Even if your email wasn't harvested illegally by Mark through Allan, at least one MAOC owner has posted to this thread that he is convinced his was and several others have stated that it's a possibility with theirs. It's awfully convenient for the "concerned owners" group to gloss over that and negate the experiences of the MAOC owners who have not joined your group. That tactic doesn't exactly reflect well on your cause.

 

[lovearuba]

my experience

With respect to Eric's statement about Allan encouraging Mark to pursue a lawsuit, how can anybody not believe that?!?! Mark stated it himself! It was in the first couple of his posts in this thread, here and here are Mark's own words:

"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."

"I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action."






Even if your email wasn't harvested illegally by Mark through Allan, at least one MAOC owner has posted to this thread that he is convinced his was and several others have stated that it's a possibility with theirs. It's awfully convenient for the "concerned owners" group to gloss over that and negate the experiences of the MAOC owners who have not joined your group. That tactic doesn't exactly reflect well on your cause.

My experience is my experience as I stated before.

 

[SueDonJ]

My experience is my experience as I stated before.

Of course. But you didn't say before that you didn't have the same experience as others; you said that you didn't believe it happened.

 

[SueDonJ]

I just searched under the "Owners" tab of MAOC's page on my-vacationclub.com but none of the letters to owners that reference the lawsuit(s) are available there. What has been put there recently, though, is the minutes of the January Special Meeting. Interesting.

- Marriott did not exercise its right to vote during that meeting; neither quorum requirements nor the majority result were influenced by anything other than owner votes.

- More than 39% of owners participated in this vote, compared to an average of only 25% for every voting action over the last five years.

- The final tally was "1,394 votes in favor and 7,352 votes against the home postal mailing address and electronic mailing address to be included in the Association Shareholder Register."

Does anyone in the "concerned owners" group realize how strongly these numbers will support Marriott in the Court action currently progressing? The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Court upholding the owners' vote; no judge is going to easily dismiss either of the facts of unprecedented owner participation or that the majority vote was so lopsided.

 

[rickxylon]

I just searched under the "Owners" tab of MAOC's page on my-vacationclub.com but none of the letters to owners that reference the lawsuit(s) are available there. What has been put there recently, though, is the minutes of the January Special Meeting. Interesting.

- Marriott did not exercise its right to vote during that meeting; neither quorum requirements nor the majority result were influenced by anything other than owner votes.

- More than 39% of owners participated in this vote, compared to an average of only 25% for every voting action over the last five years.

- The final tally was "1,394 votes in favor and 7,352 votes against the home postal mailing address and electronic mailing address to be included in the Association Shareholder Register."

Does anyone in the "concerned owners" group realize how strongly these numbers will support Marriott in the Court action currently progressing? The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Court upholding the owners' vote; no judge is going to easily dismiss either of the facts of unprecedented owner participation or that the majority vote was so lopsided.

Thanks, Sue

Looks like overwhelming reasons for the suit to be dropped. I think that action might show that the "concerned owners" group is truly concerned about ALL of us instead of just themselves.

 

[modoaruba]

There was an issue presented by the concerned owners regarding obtaining the list of owners for the purpose of notifying all as to the concerns.
If this was accomplished, by now they would have an idea as to how many owners would pursue the group's agenda.
The problem is that Marriott is obstructing that from happening therefore the legalities.
Anyone on this thread has some idea of the happenings but the majority of owners possibly do not know because either they do not know of this thread or because they cannot be contacted by the group.
At this point no one can say where the majority would be if all the cards were laid out by both sides.
All else is speculative.

The letter sent by Marriott to owners was to place fear that if the owners approved of letters to be sent then the owners could be a target of unwanted solicitations.

However,the concerned group could not have equal leverage in the campaign because they could not get the list of owners to tell them of the concerns.


Only one party was campaigning.

It's just a viscious circle.

 

[lovearuba]

There was an issue presented by the concerned owners regarding obtaining the list of owners for the purpose of notifying all as to the concerns.
If this was accomplished, by now they would have an idea as to how many owners would pursue the group's agenda.
The problem is that Marriott is obstructing that from happening therefore the legalities.
Anyone on this thread has some idea of the happenings but the majority of owners possibly do not know because either they do not know of this thread or because they cannot be contacted by the group.
At this point no one can say where the majority would be if all the cards were laid out by both sides.
All else is speculative.

The letter sent by Marriott to owners was to place fear that if the owners approved of letters to be sent then the owners could be a target of unwanted solicitations.

However,the concerned group could not have equal leverage in the campaign because they could not get the list of owners to tell them of the concerns.


Only one party was campaigning.

It's just a viscious circle.

Hi Modo,

I certainly agree with that.
Just for the record, if anyone is asking me to respond to your inquiries here and I havent its intentional, I've already decided you have made up your mind and I'm not here to be grilled to see if you can trip me up or try and interpret my words to fit your purpose. My current purpose is to provide owners who have not heard of the concerned owners website with information to access it. www.aocconcernedowners.com