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

[jlf58]

I would love to see someone sue Marksue for wasting the HOA's money. Now that's something owners can get behind LOL. To be serious, it's one thing wasting your own money but when you waste other people money, they tend to get angry. In this case, Marksue and his group won't win the battle or the war.

 

[SueDonJ]

I would love to see someone sue Marksue for wasting the HOA's money. Now that's something owners can get behind LOL. To be serious, it's one thing wasting your own money but when you waste other people money, they tend to get angry. In this case, Marksue and his group won't win the battle or the war.

Yep, I said it a long time ago - if I was an MAOC owner, I'd hire my own competent attorney to see if there is any way possible to challenge the costs forced on all owners for this minority ownership group's ineffective and uninformed challenges to the BOD. It just does not seem fair that the entire ownership base is being penalized with additional fees to cover the defense which had to be mounted by the BOD in response to these challenges, especially because a review of the governing documents by a competent attorney before the challenges should have prevented most of the group's actions before they were taken.

To be fair, though, I don't believe that marksue deserves to be the sole focus. Unless marksue's posts here are not to be taken at face value, it's apparent from them that Allan Cohen is the leader of these efforts and that Allan misused and abused his former position on the MAOC board to expand the "concerned owners" membership in support of his agenda. So if you're going to go after only one person, that's who I'd choose. But then again, I wouldn't stop at only one - I'd be looking to make every self-proclaimed "concerned owner" share the responsibility for these mounting legal fees.

 

[Dean]

I would love to see someone sue Marksue for wasting the HOA's money. Now that's something owners can get behind LOL. To be serious, it's one thing wasting your own money but when you waste other people money, they tend to get angry. In this case, Marksue and his group won't win the battle or the war.

I think Allan is the one who is on the hot seat here. I think he has risk from the other owners, the resort itslelf and Marriott. Only time will tell whether he's a martyr or a zealot though IMO, in the absence of proof of the former, the later will be the designation bacically guilty unless provent innocent.

 

[lovearuba]

Happy Memorial Day All

Take time out to enjoy the holiday, its a beautiful weekend here.

 

[LUVourMarriotts]

When you all travel to Aruba, is it tough to NOT spend your time looking at all the other guests and think, "i wonder if that man/woman posted to this thread"?

"One Happpy Island" may turn into "One Paranoid Island" for some.

 

[SueDonJ]

When you all travel to Aruba, is it tough to NOT spend your time looking at all the other guests and think, "i wonder if that man/woman posted to this thread"?

"One Happpy Island" may turn into "One Paranoid Island" for some.

I chat a lot with folks at the resorts about how much fun we owners are having and the places we've all exchanged to, but have asked only four or five specifically if they participate on TUG - haven't met a TUGger yet. But if we ever exchange to MAOC, you can bet I won't be wearing a nametag. I think we non-owners in this thread would be tied to a raft and floated down Surf Club's lazy river never to be seen again!

 

[jlf58]

Fair enough. 2 people should be in the lawsuit. keep in mind, I don't know them as people. This is about buisness and as far as I am concerned, if I was a Ocean Club owner, the damange they are doing to the resort both financially and publicity wise, should be lawsuit worthy. They don't speak for a majority of the owners.

I think Allan is the one who is on the hot seat here. I think he has risk from the other owners, the resort itslelf and Marriott. Only time will tell whether he's a martyr or a zealot though IMO, in the absence of proof of the former, the later will be the designation bacically guilty unless provent innocent.

 

[modoaruba]

It's not the concerned group that asked anyone for contributions to go for a law suit. It was the board that decided to spend the money on legal fees.
It was their way of dealing with the situation instead of having an open meeting with the group until now.Which was one of the results of the last meeting this month.
Anyone has a right in our system to sue anyone.This costs money,especially by the defense.As a result,the consumer pays a higher price for products originating from the parent company that was sued.
The expenses were not necessary and IMO was used by the board to create this smoke and mirrors to pin one side against the other which is what is happening at this point on this thread.It's an old political ploy.
To say that the suer should be sued would already have been done by Marriottt and /or the board if the issues brought up by the group were without merrit IMO.It's easier to squash a potential full blown public exposure by pursuing of the least harmful of issues which happens to be the obtaining of the list of owners by the group.Since the scare tactic to the owners was that they would get telemarketers calling didn't work too well and actually aided in growing the group,the money issue was used.
Even though the group is a minority,it has impressive numbers and bite.


But,as a result of all this,a meeting is finally coming between the two that if ocurred in the begining would have spared the owners the extra expenses and negative publicity.
I am just viewing both sides in this analysis as I see it.

 

[Dean]

It's not the concerned group that asked anyone for contributions to go for a law suit. It was the board that decided to spend the money on legal fees.
It was their way of dealing with the situation instead of having an open meeting with the group until now.Which was one of the results of the last meeting this month.
Anyone has a right in our system to sue anyone.This costs money,especially by the defense.As a result,the consumer pays a higher price for products originating from the parent company that was sued.
The expenses were not necessary and IMO was used by the board to create this smoke and mirrors to pin one side against the other which is what is happening at this point on this thread.It's an old political ploy.
To say that the suer should be sued would already have been done by Marriottt and /or the board if the issues brought up by the group were without merrit IMO.It's easier to squash a potential full blown public exposure by pursuing of the least harmful of issues which happens to be the obtaining of the list of owners by the group.Since the scare tactic to the owners was that they would get telemarketers calling didn't work too well and actually aided in growing the group,the money issue was used.
Even though the group is a minority,it has impressive numbers and bite.


But,as a result of all this,a meeting is finally coming between the two that if ocurred in the begining would have spared the owners the extra expenses and negative publicity.
I am just viewing both sides in this analysis as I see it.

It was the group that put the BOD in the position of feeling they needed to take those steps. It was predictable that this would happen just like it's predictable that things will end up around where we started, with Marriott paying roughly half of the costs and the group claiming victory over minor gains at best.

 

[modoaruba]

IMO,the BOD and Marriott did not know the extent and commitment of the pursuit by the group and under estimated it's survival and growth.Now comes some political back pedaling and if done properly both sides will feel some win and some loss.
Hopefully the end result will be some return to a status quo

 

[SueDonJ]

IMO,the BOD and Marriott did not know the extent and commitment of the pursuit by the group and under estimated it's survival and growth.Now comes some political back pedaling and if done properly both sides will feel some win and some loss.
Hopefully the end result will be some return to a status quo

A review of Allan's postings here and the official documents on the MAOC page at my-vacationclub.com leaves the impression that the only concession Marriott has made to the group is the possibility of a future meeting/discussion. Not one other of Allan's or the group's demands have been met. I guess that could be considered a win of some sort because they've not agreed to a meeting prior to this, but what exactly can be expected from that meeting?

The best I can see is that Marriott may agree to another Special Meeting to put forth an amended provision regarding access to the owners' contact information, similar to the one that Allan proposed earlier which limits that access to owners for specific purposes. Marriott certainly can't overrule the bylaws (that don't allow owners' email and residence addresses to be released,) and they can't overrule the voting results of the last Special Meeting (whereby their broad-scope provision amendment was defeated,) but they probably can put forth for a vote another amendment. With that, though, the "concerned owners" must still abide by the majority ownership vote results and the possibility remains that any amendment may not pass. (I know that as an MVCI owner, I would not vote in favor of any amendment which loosened the privacy restrictions of my contact information.)

Other than that possibility, what gains are there to be had by a meeting between Marriott et al and the "concerned owners" group? This is the question that's been asked repeatedly throughout all the months that this thread has existed, and there's never been an answer. MAOC owners have received more detailed communications about their resort than any other MVCI resort, so the "transparency" issue seems to be resolved. As well, MAOC owners have received more financial relief than is required from Marriott towards their resort's maintenance costs.

What concessions do you "concerned owners" want from Marriott, and what makes you think that you have a right to them?

 

[modoaruba]

What bothers me the most about the meetings is the way the voting is conducted.
A true majority vote of owners would have selected the other two candidates.
Here we see that the proxies were not qualified and that Marriotts 1500 votes did.
I am not saying here which way I personally would have voted,but shows me that as an owner my vote does not matter.THIS bothers me.
Even if I did want the winners to win,I did not want it done in the matter that it was done.
It's quite insulting to say the least.
Hope and Change-REALLY!?

 

[Dean]

What bothers me the most about the meetings is the way the voting is conducted.
A true majority vote of owners would have selected the other two candidates.
Here we see that the proxies were not qualified and that Marriotts 1500 votes did.
I am not saying here which way I personally would have voted,but shows me that as an owner my vote does not matter.THIS bothers me.
Even if I did want the winners to win,I did not want it done in the matter that it was done.
It's quite insulting to say the least.
Hope and Change-REALLY!?

As was discussed earlier in this thread, Marriott owns those units and has the right to vote them, esp when they have a vested interest in the outcome. To expect otherwise is unrealistic and unreasonable, IMO. The proxies were not counted because they did not meet the requirements if I recall correctly.

 

[SueDonJ]

What bothers me the most about the meetings is the way the voting is conducted.
A true majority vote of owners would have selected the other two candidates.
Here we see that the proxies were not qualified and that Marriotts 1500 votes did.
I am not saying here which way I personally would have voted,but shows me that as an owner my vote does not matter.THIS bothers me.
Even if I did want the winners to win,I did not want it done in the matter that it was done.
It's quite insulting to say the least.
Hope and Change-REALLY!?

This was all discussed following a previous vote issue and it was never determined that Marriott et al acted incorrectly or illegally by voting their owner and management shares. It appears that the "concerned owners" group's problem with that previous vote is that the group didn't understand the process as it's stipulated in the governing documents. It's hard to believe, though, that the same questions are coming up with this most recent vote. The voting process should at least be understood by this point, even if you don't think that it's fair. It's legal, and that's all that matters here.

It's also hard to believe that Allan Cohen would go to the latest Annual Meeting "representing 1360 votes" and not take that responsibility seriously enough to make sure that he knew exactly what power was conferred upon him by the proxies he was holding. That's a serious dereliction of duty even if he was acting as a proxy on a volunteer basis. The fault for those proxies not counting doesn't fall on Marriott/MVCI unless the governing docs specifically prohibit them from using different wording in different proxy forms. It doesn't appear that's the case, which means that the fault lies with the proxy holder, Allan Cohen, and by extension the owners who did not secure their votes with an informed and prepared representative. And once more, a quick consultation with a competent attorney before the proxies were secured would have prevented this misunderstanding.

What's mind-boggling to me most, though, is that the "concerned owners" continue to trust Allan unconditionally despite his missteps with the future of their investments in a Marriott resort, while every move made by any Marriott rep is looked upon as suspect despite the fact that none of their moves have been contrary to the resort's governing docs.

 

[modoaruba]

I understand full well what is being said here and without defending either side it has made me aware of a my naivite.
Don't insult me by calling me an "owner" for the only thing I own is a liability of paying my fees.Meetings are all predetermined as far as agenda and results.
Voting for anything or anyone is a joke.Like I stated before,it did not matter who I had voted for.The winners were predetermined.
All this being legal or not does not give me consolation.

Owning 4 weeks at this time of our uncertain economy is a large financial burden which is made even more burdening by the politics of the banana republic which we call the BOD.

I asked before for a taping of the meeting so we can all see the truth and mannerisms.That was shot down due to some BS reason.(reminds me of what we as Americans should have been allowed to watch on CSPAN).

So,anyone want to buy a week with full voting priviledges from me?

 

[jlf58]

No thanks, your group has hurt the value way to much for that

I understand full well what is being said here and without defending either side it has made me aware of a my naivite.
Don't insult me by calling me an "owner" for the only thing I own is a liability of paying my fees.Meetings are all predetermined as far as agenda and results.
Voting for anything or anyone is a joke.Like I stated before,it did not matter who I had voted for.The winners were predetermined.
All this being legal or not does not give me consolation.

Owning 4 weeks at this time of our uncertain economy is a large financial burden which is made even more burdening by the politics of the banana republic which we call the BOD.

I asked before for a taping of the meeting so we can all see the truth and mannerisms.That was shot down due to some BS reason.(reminds me of what we as Americans should have been allowed to watch on CSPAN).

So,anyone want to buy a week with full voting priviledges from me?

 

[modoaruba]

Just to inform you,I am not posting as any member of any group.So my group has not devalued anything.I am just an "owner" making observations and calling it as I see it.
Personally,I would not buy any TS at this time from any organization.

 

[jlf58]

I totally disagree

.So my group has not devalued anything.QUOTE]

 

[cruisin]

I understand full well what is being said here and without defending either side it has made me aware of a my naivite.
Don't insult me by calling me an "owner" for the only thing I own is a liability of paying my fees.Meetings are all predetermined as far as agenda and results.
Voting for anything or anyone is a joke.Like I stated before,it did not matter who I had voted for.The winners were predetermined.
All this being legal or not does not give me consolation.

Owning 4 weeks at this time of our uncertain economy is a large financial burden which is made even more burdening by the politics of the banana republic which we call the BOD.

I asked before for a taping of the meeting so we can all see the truth and mannerisms.That was shot down due to some BS reason.(reminds me of what we as Americans should have been allowed to watch on CSPAN).

So,anyone want to buy a week with full voting priviledges from me?

I would sell as fast as you can, the situation will never get better. If you believe the building was horrible when you bought it, You should not trust the people you bought your units from to take care of you in the future.

 

[lovearuba]

where's eric

the usual crowd has weighed in but I havent heard from Eric, hope he is okay.

 

[ecwinch]

I am fine, thanks for the thoughts.

I was typing a response when the letter from Allan first hit. But I realized that a "I told you so" post would really be counter-productive based on where things are heading.

For it seems like your group is moving towards some closure that hopefully will put this ugly chapter of the AOC history in the past. I think that is a positive, and wish your group the best outcome in that regard.

 

[lovearuba]

thanks Eric

I am pleased to see you are okay.

 

[Dean]

Just to inform you,I am not posting as any member of any group.So my group has not devalued anything.I am just an "owner" making observations and calling it as I see it.
Personally,I would not buy any TS at this time from any organization.

IMO, anyone who has aligned themselves with the group along the way is stuck with the stigma and legacy thus associated (good or bad). I think others will have to judge whether you can separate yourself on a given issue appropriately, I don't think an individual can step in and out themselves. I think one can distinguish whether they're speaking for the group but they can not establish immunity from being judged on the actions of the group on their own accord. Just signing up on the website is likely not enough to bear this burden but being involved in a petition, giving a proxy, participating on threads such as this as a member or contacting Marriott directly about this matter in support would trigger a certain amount of responsibility for the actions of the group from that point forward even if they later separated themselves from the group.

 

[timeos2]

There is never an answer thats good enough

Other than that possibility, what gains are there to be had by a meeting between Marriott et al and the "concerned owners" group? This is the question that's been asked repeatedly throughout all the months that this thread has existed, and there's never been an answer. MAOC owners have received more detailed communications about their resort than any other MVCI resort, so the "transparency" issue seems to be resolved. As well, MAOC owners have received more financial relief than is required from Marriott towards their resort's maintenance costs.

What concessions do you "concerned owners" want from Marriott, and what makes you think that you have a right to them?

There would appear to be the rub. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that whatever comes out of any such meeting would in anyway satisfy the "concerned owners" or make them stop the myriad of charges/demands. Unless something can officially end that the potential for more threats and costs never go away. It is true that anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything but you hope people/organizations you have relationships with or help pay for use that powerful tool extremely selectively. It is potentially extremely costly and often results in unexpected consequences. From the start this group of "concerned owners" has seemingly lack a plan, focus and proper legal advice. The results so far have been far more costly than any value.

 

[Dean]

There would appear to be the rub. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that whatever comes out of any such meeting would in anyway satisfy the "concerned owners" or make them stop the myriad of charges/demands. Unless something can officially end that the potential for more threats and costs never go away. It is true that anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything but you hope people/organizations you have relationships with or help pay for use that powerful tool extremely selectively. It is potentially extremely costly and often results in unexpected consequences. From the start this group of "concerned owners" has seemingly lack a plan, focus and proper legal advice. The results so far have been far more costly than any value.

I'd say there are one of two predictable outcomes, will they be patronized or stonewalled? Unfortunately after Allan's interactions at the annual meeting (likely among other interactions) he's more likely a hindrance to the goals of the group than anything else. He indeed may be in the right, I really don't know, but I do know you don't want to play rough with the 600 pound gorilla unless you brought your big boy clothes. As I said previously in this thread, I really think the only way to get done what they wanted to get done was to lay it all out and if things didn't proceed in a way they were happy with, go for the law suit essentially from the start. That way once the inevitable negotiations start, you at least have a bargaining chip. Now the only pressure they can bring is a threat of a law suit and it's clear they're not prepared for that but even if they were, they've already lost any position of power they might have had.