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

[SueDonJ]

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

I don't think any of us need to worry about whether or not our individual posts get any responses. It's enough that here we're all able to provide our own opinions and thoughts so that MAOC owners are able to find every bit of available information to better help them form their own opinions.

 

[mnabnpos]

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.

IF the final issue at hand is about the structure, roof, etc. and IF Allan, Mark or any of the concerned owners feel they have a case against MVCI, then go ahead and sue MVCI and leave the AOC BOD and the rest of the owners out of this. The board did not build the structure, Marriott did and Marriott sold it to us. It sounds as though whether someone has a list of owners names or not a lawsuit against MVCI is imminent. You don't need numbers to file a lawsuit in a court of law the last time I checked. If a concerned owner has the proof of what they claim then it will prevail in court. The concerned owner(s) should save their money paying for their lawyers for the list of owners lawsuit and put it toward suing MVCI - they are going to need every penny to pay for their lawyers to sue MVCI.

 

[modoaruba]

IF the final issue at hand is about the structure, roof, etc. and IF Allan, Mark or any of the concerned owners feel they have a case against MVCI, then go ahead and sue MVCI and leave the AOC BOD and the rest of the owners out of this. The board did not build the structure, Marriott did and Marriott sold it to us. It sounds as though whether someone has a list of owners names or not a lawsuit against MVCI is imminent. You don't need numbers to file a lawsuit in a court of law the last time I checked. If a concerned owner has the proof of what they claim then it will prevail in court. The concerned owner(s) should save their money paying for their lawyers for the list of owners lawsuit and put it toward suing MVCI - they are going to need every penny to pay for their lawyers to sue MVCI.

Understand that the way you are attacking the group because they do not represent your concerns or the way you would go about it,you are on the other hand making statements as if you represent the rest of us owners.

I see it inappropriate for any owner to take it upon themselves to say "leave the rest of us alone" until you hear from the rest of us.

 

[Dean]

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

Are you saying that there was no membership or email list provided to the group other than what was generated independently? If so, how would you know who was not an owner. I seem to recall statements that those who registered were being confirmed or denied based on their ownership at the resort and hints that the group had an actual list of owners.

 

[Dean]

Understand that the way you are attacking the group because they do not represent your concerns or the way you would go about it,you are on the other hand making statements as if you represent the rest of us owners.

I see it inappropriate for any owner to take it upon themselves to say "leave the rest of us alone" until you hear from the rest of us.

But that is EXACTLY what was said by several that speak for the "concerned owners" to the point that they would not let those register with the website that did not agree with their actions. It was made clear this wasn't a site for the general membership there but only those that took the one side.

 

[modoaruba]

But that is EXACTLY what was said by several that speak for the "concerned owners" to the point that they would not let those register with the website that did not agree with their actions. It was made clear this wasn't a site for the general membership there but only those that took the one side.

It's not the same in my opinion.
No one is stopping the "un" concerned owners from forming their own group and keeping the concerned owners out.
The problem with that is that they will not have access to the owner's list to solicit their points of view thanks to Marriott.
So to get a definitive count as to how many owners really are or are not concerned is held up by Marriott.
Any one coming up with a anticipated head count would be speculative.

 

[modoaruba]

Just to add.
If both groups were to ask Marriott for the list of owners to be able to air both opinions and if both groups together represent a majority of owners it would get us out of this quandry. Will the threat of solicitation be warned to both?
So what's the hold up?
Can't wait to get an answer.

 

[SueDonJ]

Just to add.
If both groups were to ask Marriott for the list of owners to be able to air both opinions and if both groups together represent a majority of owners it would get us out of this quandry. Will the threat of solicitation be warned to both?
So what's the hold up?
Can't wait to get an answer.

Marriott's not going to release the list to any individual owner or group of owners unless they're forced to do so by a court order or successful bylaw amendment. That's what you've been fighting, isn't it, that the bylaws don't allow the information to be released? The reason anybody wants the contact information is totally irrelevant, as is the supposition that releasing it will resolve this conflict.

 

[Dean]

Just to add.
If both groups were to ask Marriott for the list of owners to be able to air both opinions and if both groups together represent a majority of owners it would get us out of this quandry. Will the threat of solicitation be warned to both?
So what's the hold up?
Can't wait to get an answer.

Solicitation is inappropriate for either group and anyone else at the resort other than in an official capacity under official guidelines, to me that is an absolute. As for having a balanced debate at the expense of Marriott or the resort, I don't see that as appropriate either other than under the rules for the appropriate noticed meetings. Though we've asked to see the documents, no one has provided them, thus I must presume some issues based on my knowledge of another Aruban Timeshare, other Marriott's and US Timeshares (esp FL). Generally one can send out "appropriate" mailings at their (requester's) expense to all owners with most timeshares. There is also a method for getting amendments on the ballot by people other than the BOD, my understanding is that was done on the release of info and voted down rather handily.

It's not the same in my opinion.
No one is stopping the "un" concerned owners from forming their own group and keeping the concerned owners out.
The problem with that is that they will not have access to the owner's list to solicit their points of view thanks to Marriott.
So to get a definitive count as to how many owners really are or are not concerned is held up by Marriott.
Any one coming up with a anticipated head count would be speculative.

Personally, I see no difference other than you agree with one group and not the other.

 

[ecwinch]

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

Have you asked Allan the question directly? When I did he did not deny it.

My perspective is not derived from idle speculation. Nor need yours. Just ask the question. You only need to "believe" in his credibility.

 

[dioxide45]

There is one way to get all owners notified of the groups actions, file a lawsuit and get it class certified. Notification must then take place to all participants in the class. In this case it would be all owners.

 

[SueDonJ]

Are you saying that there was no membership or email list provided to the group other than what was generated independently? If so, how would you know who was not an owner. I seem to recall statements that those who registered were being confirmed or denied based on their ownership at the resort and hints that the group had an actual list of owners.

You're right, there is a list used by the folks at that website to confirm ownership of whoever tries to register there. When I asked about it somebody (Modo?) said that it was the list which would be available to anyone who asked in person at the resort, and that it only contains owners' names but not postal/email addresses. The question about who obtained it and when was never answered.

[edited to add} But the issues surrounding that list are separate from the questionable harvesting and use of email addresses. I believe it was "LovetoTravel" (?, think that's the screen name) who said that s/he received an email invitation from Marksue to his Facebook (? MySpace) page. If I'm remembering correctly, s/he is convinced that Marksue gained access to his/her email address through contact s/he'd had with Allan while he was a member of the MAOC BOD.

 

[SueDonJ]

There is one way to get all owners notified of the groups actions, file a lawsuit and get it class certified. Notification must then take place to all participants in the class. In this case it would be all owners.

That was the original suggestion - to collect roof repair and various other fees from Marriott - but the fear was that it would be too expensive. As well, Dave, John, Dean and a few other timeshare-savvy people offered their opinions about how difficult it would be to win a suit, by outlining what requirements would have to be met in order for the "concerned owners" group to be able to succeed, and the goal became reaching the entire ownership base in the hope that negative publicity or owner outcry would convince Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to kowtow to the "concerned owners" group's demands (which appeared to conflict with the bylaws of MAOC and the management agreement between MVCI and the MAOC BOD.)

Naturally following the threat of a lawsuit that began this public thread, Marriott et al did not agree to informal or relaxed requests for owner addresses or any other negotiations, and then the goals became removing the sitting BOD and trying to get the postal/email addresses of all owners. The thought process appeared to be strength in numbers, that an ownership majority would side and act with the "concerned owners" group if they only knew whatever damaging info that group is holding. But minus competent legal counsel, the few attempts made to oust board members or collect contact info were unsuccessful.

In between all that, more and more suppositions were gleaned from the limited info released to this thread by the principals which allowed Marriott et al to be proactive and head off every challenge. Throughout, every one of Marriott's actions has been taken with the utmost legal protections, obviously an effort to defend themselves if/when any of this ever actually goes before a judge.

I agree with you and have for a while, that there won't be a resolution unless and until that threatened class action suit is filed. But if I were an owner at MAOC and had access to this thread, I'd have the opinion that such a suit would be impossible for the owners to win. Too many educated opinions have been offered here by extremely savvy timeshare owners, to counter every argument offered by the "concerned owners" group. If these smart people are able to recognize the unreasonableness of the group's demands, then certainly Marriott's legal department will have no problem successfully defeating the challenges.

 

[modoaruba]

Sue,
By your last comment are you insinuating that the Group members are highly uneducated,unsavvy,and stupid?

 

[SueDonJ]

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating what I've stated before and have believed throughout this entire thread - the "concerned owners" group would have been better served if they'd hired a competent attorney to research all of the relevant issues, allowed him/her to determine what could be reasonably expected from Marriott et al, and to act completely on their behalf.

That means finding out exactly what would have been required to submit that request for a Special Meeting to oust the board members instead of Mark's debacle of that "on behalf of" petition; what would have been required to gain access to the owners' contact information by submitting a more limited re-worded provision for a Special Meeting vote before Marriott was able to; what would be required to attain any other goal desired by the "concerned owners" group. It would mean an attorney putting his/her name to all communications between the group and Marriott et al. And probably most importantly, any competent attorney the group hired would have had half his/her work done already in this thread - it would be a simple matter for him/her to research the info offered by the smart folks in this thread in order to determine if it is correct, instead of what did happen with it. Namely, it was automatically and unreasonably discounted by the principals of the "concerned owners" group simply because it was contrary to their thought processes. Each and every time an educated opinion was offered, it wasn't considered by the group to be fact until one of their measures was counteracted by Marriott as predicted.

 

[ecwinch]

Sue,
By your last comment are you insinuating that the Group members are highly uneducated,unsavvy,and stupid?

This seems an attempt to just be inflammatory. I do not think any of the regular contributors to this thread have ever generalized the entire group in such a demeaning fashion.

I can only speak for myself. I personally may feel the leadership of the group is misguided in terms of their true purpose and ill-informed on the process they need to adhere to. Lacking expertise in Aruban corporate law and in particular - minority shareholder rights does not make someone uneducated in general or stupid. Just ill-informed on the key area that the leadership needs to be well-versed in to effective lead the group.

 

[tlwmkw]

Modo,

You are wrong to say that Suedonj is implying any of that. She is simply laying out the facts. You call many of the posters on this site Marriott supporters but that is just not true- I think most are simply trying to give advice and show what Marriott's viewpoint would be and what they can and cannot legally do. I see it both ways- it is certainly unpleasant to have to pay large special assessments but if your board has persuaded Marriott to pay 40% of the cost of the new roof that sounds like a pretty major victory to me. I also think Marriott is being as transparent as they can be as far as explaining where the money is going. If the case against Marriott was so strong and so easily proven then I think this situation would have been resolved by now. The fact that really nothing has been achieved shows that the case is not so black and white. Sues point is that if you had gotten good legal advice early on then you might have realized this and been happy with what your board has already achieved.

tlwmkw

 

[rickxylon]

Based on everything that has been said on this thread, many of us MAOC owners are failing to understand why continuing to press these issues in the courts is doing any good. It seems like all it is doing is adding to the costs of every owner at a time when we are all looking to reduce our expenses. Marriott seems to be doing what any corporation would be required to do.

Obtaining the complete owner list with contact information also seems to now be a dead issue with the overwhelming vote of owners. Pursuing this further through legal means continues to add unnecessary expenses to all owners.

Are we missing some information, or has pursuing Marriott to the ends of the earth developed into a cause that is consuming the passions of the concerned owners leaders?

 

[SueDonJ]

Thanks Eric and tlw, that's exactly what I meant.

Another thing ... if I were an MAOC owner, I would be extremely concerned about the longterm relationship between the resort and MVCI as the management company. A few of the things that the "concerned owners" group says it ultimately wants are clearly in contrast to the management style of MVCI:

- the governing docs of every MVCI resort stipulate that at least one seat on the BOD be held by a Marriott employee and that Marriott be entitled to certain voting shares, this group wants those rights to be revoked.

- unrestricted BOD access is simply not available at most every resort, the use of a generic BODatXYZMVCIresortdotcom email address which funnels owner letters through the GM has been implemented system-wide

- all MVCI BOD meetings are held according to established standards adopted throughout the business world (i.e. Roberts Rules etc.). Marriott et al will not suspend those practices at only one resort, especially this one where a minority ownership group is making the demands for informal BOD access, completely open meetings and taped recordings of every board action.

- the updated, high-quality lighting fixtures, furniture, tv's, etc. used in the MAOC refurbishment have all been questioned in this thread, but every MVCI resort's governing docs stipulate that Marriott as the management company is able to determine and implement a "brand standard" across all of its properties.

and on and on ...

There is a real danger here that if any of these demands made by the "concerned owners" group are met by virtue of legal action, Marriott will dissolve the management contract and the Aruba Ocean Club will no longer have the "Marriott" name on its door. It's happened at other resorts, there's no reason to be arrogant enough to think that it can't happen here.

And if it does? I would expect the "concerned owners" group to exert their influence such that they would be the ruling board of whatever the resort is at that point. Considering the "style" of their actions that's been on display in this thread, that thought is sobering.

 

[rickxylon]

SueDonJ

Thanks for sharing your most recent thoughts. I never thought about these potential ramifications. I think it is not "sobering" but scary! I, and I am sure many other owners, would NOT want Marriott's name removed from the Ocean Club name.

 

[marksue]

Obtaining the complete owner list with contact information also seems to now be a dead issue with the overwhelming vote of owners. Pursuing this further through legal means continues to add unnecessary expenses to all owners.

QUOTE]

This case will not end until the list is received. The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts. This is the first step of a multiple step process. As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.

We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts. The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage. Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.

Have a great day.

 

[Dean]

This case will not end until the list is received. The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts. This is the first step of a multiple step process. As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.

We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts. The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage. Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.

Have a great day.

Actually getting the list doesn't do anything and is at best an interim step and at worst a paper victory. Trying and failing, which I predict will be the outcome, is simply throwing money away from both sides. If you're not going to go after Marriott for the entire costs of the project, why bother. Even getting a completely new BOD accomplishes nothing, IMO. Thus I see the current posturing as having no real endpoint that is positive for anyone. If one wants to get serious file a class action lawsuit against Marriott alleging fraud, etc regarding improper sale of a known defective product. If you do that, all the rest will fall in place if successful.

 

[ecwinch]

Your missing the master strategy:

1) Get owners list
2) Get Allan back on the board
3) Get "transparent board" in place
4) Find proof that the current BoD violated their fiduciary responsibility
5) Overturn the agreement the current BoD likely signed in order for MVCI to pay for part of the roof replacement
6) Have the "new" board pursue lawsuit against MVCI (funded by owners)

The problem with just going to step #6 is the cost of a class action lawsuit (if Aruba even allows class action lawsuits). They tend to be lengthy legal actions with uncertain outcomes. And you need to negate any existing agreement the BoD made. You can only do that by proving that they could not make an independent decision because of the undue influence of MVCI.

 

[modoaruba]

Obtaining the complete owner list with contact information also seems to now be a dead issue with the overwhelming vote of owners. Pursuing this further through legal means continues to add unnecessary expenses to all owners.

QUOTE]

This case will not end until the list is received. The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts. This is the first step of a multiple step process. As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.

We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts. The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage. Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.

Have a great day.

Mark,

Isn't it amazing that all the critics have first hand knowledge from Marriott as to what they are thinking and planning.That the statements they make are indeed factually based.
I guess Sue was right.That only highly educated,savvy,and smart people have access to this information.
XXXcuse ME!:annoyed:

 

[SueDonJ]

This case will not end until the list is received. The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts. This is the first step of a multiple step process. As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.

We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts. The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage. Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.

Have a great day.

Mark,

Isn't it amazing that all the critics have first hand knowledge from Marriott as to what they are thinking and planning.That the statements they make are indeed factually based.
I guess Sue was right.That only highly educated,savvy,and smart people have access to this information.
XXXcuse ME!:annoyed:

This is what I'm talking about when I say that the "concerned owners" group is doing much more harm than good because of their unwillingness to see reason when it's right in front of their faces. Why is it so much more important to you to be right, than to learn why you might actually be wrong? I just don't get it. You're not helping yourselves or any of the MAOC owners by petulantly insisting you are right all the while that Marriott is proving you wrong.

And as long as you're fixating on the "educated, savvy, and smart" words, I'll say it flat-out. Whoever is guiding you is not educated enough, timeshare-savvy enough, or smart enough to lead you to success if you're defining success as winning against Marriott in Court. Whether you consider that an insult or not, it's not meant as one. It's obvious that the person(s) who are offering you legal advice are not anywhere near as competent as Marriott's legal department, which has and will continue to run circles around you while you're stumbling at the gate.