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

[marksue]

By calling a special meeting we make our proposals, which are then sent to the general owner population for a vote.

The board is required by the bylaws to present our recommendations to the general owner population. We would present our case in the ballots to the owners. We need 50% plus 1 to pass each adendum. THey also vote on each individual board member for recall. I would push that if Allan wants to remain on the board that we do not recall him. We would then have to vote on new board members.

 

[hydroman]

Even more new news

Having just returned from AOC last week, I can assure you that numerous people are upset about the fees, especially since Cory finally announced them at the Tuesday evening owners meeting. Many will join the special owners meeting effort. Only thing new to add is that Cory is telling people that negotiations are going on to re-integrate the pool/beach areas between Surf Club and Ocean Club, i.e. we use their "lazy river", they use our beach and palapas. Some of our owners are really upset about this latest development since, as we all know, their isn't enough pool or beach area for the overbuilt Surf Club. Curious what others have heard about this and their views? Wonder if this means a payment from Surf Club owners assn to us, especially since we have more space and they want to get it. Seems like Marriott will bend over backwards for Surf Club.

 

[hydroman]

Special election

How will we know when the magic 10% is reached and who is collecting the names? I did get an e mail from someone, to remain nameless, who said he was keeping track and over 500 unit weeks had been signed up, but that was a few weeks ago. Not sure others who never got that e mail know how to submit their names, since I guess we can't get an e mail list of all owners. For those of you going to AOC soon, try standing in the pre-7:30 AM beach towel hut line, looking for a palapa, and mention loudly the new costs and that owners are trying to get a special election. I was able to pass the thought on to many interested owners last week doing that.

 

[Dave M]

Four questions, Mark, again designed to improve your chances. Please give careful thought to the issues. If you can't come up with detailed legal language that supports everything you want to do and how you want to do it, you might be wasting your time and that would be unfortunate. I wish I had answers to the following questions for you, but I don't have a copy of the bylaws.

1) Can 10% of the owners really force the Board to disseminate your recommendations (e.g., for changes in the bylaws) to all of the owners? I haven't seen that in any bylaws language you have quoted. All I saw you post was that the Board has the power to propose changes to the bylaws (post #320). Further, you could speak on the issues at the Special Meeting, but that wouldn't reach the many who would have already voted by mail before the meeting starts.

2) Can you really change the bylaws with a vote of 50% +1 of those voting, as you seem to imply? I have copies of bylaws for four Marriott resorts, not including yours. All of those require more than 50% (or sometimes two-thirds) of all owners or ownership interests (not just those voting) to change the bylaws. Typical language (from Grand Chateau): "...these Bylaws may be amended by the vote or written assent of a majority of Owners...." And from Custom House, "...the [bylaw] amendment shall be adopted if it is approved by not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the total votes of all members...." If you have ever served on a timeshare HOA or other large HOA, you know that it's just about impossible to get as much as a 40% response to a vote request, let alone get 50% of the total ownership voting with you, especially when you consider that the Board would likely suggest to owners that your recommended changes would be disruptive and costly to the HOA.

3) What's your plan for lobbying the owners to vote for what you want? I don't see anything that gives you the right to include in the special meeting notice your own arguments for removing one or more directors. It also appears that you need more than 50% of all owners, not just those voting, to remove a director. See the specific language that requires a majority of "all of the voting interests", not just a majority of those voting. (I'll grant that there is some other contradictory language that could require a court to rule on.) That's just about impossible to get, because so many people will throw away the ballot rather than bother to read it and respond. And a fair number will be impressed with the HOA's plea for the status quo and might not have in front of them your reasons for wanting removal. Even if you are successful, because all owners get to vote on new directors, all candidates would be included in the initial notice to owners, likely with the HOA's recommendations.

4) As to one of your primary issues, nothing I have seen in what you have posted gives 10% of the owners any authority to force the Board to roll back the fees or refuse to complete the 43% roof agreement with Marriott or force a vote of the owners on the issues. How can you accomplish that, especially since the Board is now saying it's all resolved?

 

[timeos2]

Listen to the man. Good advice and its free!

Dave - What a great, factual reply. I second everything he states as it falls in line with every legal action I've dealt with involving timeshares and the way documents are written for them.

I hope Mark doesn't think non-owners at OC are ganging up on him as that isn't the case (at least I hope not). What I'm reading is replies trying to point out just how hard it really is to force a Board/resort/developer to do anything as one or a small group (out of thousands) of owners. That doesn't make it wrong to try nor does it mean that everything a Board/management does is 100% corect. It does mean you have to choose your battles, often compromise on your goals and use the least expensive and friendliest approach to gain support. While the ultimate threat of a lawsuit / class action is always implied it is best saved as the last resort rather than the first round volley.

I wish the owners the very best as ultimately the majority of them will decide where this all ends. Having a resort in turmoil is not a good outcome nor is one with massive delinquencies. My hope all of you get together and work out an acceptable answer that is unlikely to make either side completely happy but will be in the best interest of the resort and its owners going forward. Find a way to make it happen.

 

[pianodinosaur]

I have been watching this controversy with great interest eventhough I do not own at Marriott. I sympathize with marksue and other owners who have been hurt by Marriott in ARuba. I am not a lawyer but as I have said in previous posts it is best if this matter can be resolved out of court. I am writing this post to compliment the moderators on their sage advice.

 

[irish]

in regards to the sharing of the beach and palapas with the surf club. PLEASE, i don't mean any offense here to owners at the surf club but NO!! i am expected to pay over $1200.00 in m/f's plus 2 years of s/a and then may not even be able to get a palapa at my resort??? no way in h***. IF that happens, i will be putting my unit up on redweek at a price well below what's being listed now..

 

[iamnotshopgirl]

in regards to the sharing of the beach and palapas with the surf club. PLEASE, i don't mean any offense here to owners at the surf club but NO!! i am expected to pay over $1200.00 in m/f's plus 2 years of s/a and then may not even be able to get a palapa at my resort??? no way in h***. IF that happens, i will be putting my unit up on redweek at a price well below what's being listed now..

An no offense to OC owners. The same can be said about OC taking over the lazy river. An yes, Irish we Surf Club owners are paying $1200 in MF's with $143 more to the reserve fund. Just more Marriott boondoggle. Broken promises to owners of SC that there would be ample room for both resorts. But since it is not in writing it means nothing. So now we have negotiation.

bob

 

[m61376]

An no offense to OC owners. The same can be said about OC taking over the lazy river. An yes, Irish we Surf Club owners are paying $1200 in MF's with $143 more to the reserve fund. Just more Marriott boondoggle. Broken promises to owners of SC that there would be ample room for both resorts. But since it is not in writing it means nothing. So now we have negotiation.

bob

Thanks Bob for presenting the flip side to the argument. This is an old debate which has been rehashed many times and I don't see any way to make everyone happy. I think the only fair solution is let each owner use what they own. I, for one, really resented the OC owners being allowed to use the SC's pool facilities without being willing to share their beach facilities. As a SC owner, I felt that was too one-sided an arrangement, and was very glad when they ended that. I know it was originally in place as a "give back" for the SC using the OC lobby before their own was completed.

Unless owners at both resorts can agree to share both beach and pool facilities, I think just sharing of pool facilities is an untenable arrangement. While not all OC owners agree, I think the majority prefer the SC's pool (substantiated by more OC owners using the SC pool than vice versa when the pool facilities were shared). Conversely, while the beach at the OC and the SC is contiguous, there are more palapas per keyed room at the OC so the beach is considered "better." I think owners at each resort have to be willing to share their facilities, or there shouldn't be any sharing at all. While I would think it would be nice if all Marriott owners could enjoy both properties, I can certainly understand that OC owners might prefer the quieter atmosphere and the facilities as they bought into, and I respect that.

It would probably never be done this way, but I would like to see owners polled before a final determination was made.

 

[marksue]

Being an owner in both resorts, I do think everything should be kept seperate. I do like the suggestion if you want to use the other resorts property there should be a minimal charge which each resort can use to maintain the property and offset MF increases. The only thing you may run into is when they sold the units, they did say you could use both resorts.

I am not sure how this would work in holiday seasons, since the Surf Club can not handle the volume of their own owners. The expanding out of the pool area will help, but I am not sure it will be enough.

 

[marksue]

Dave,

I don't have any governing documents except for the OCean Club and if you can get a hold of one it may be useful for you, because it sounds as if the ones you have seen are different then

To answer your questions.

1) The 10% will enable the calling of a special meeting. After that it says a majority of the voting members are required to recall a member. To me a majority is 50% + 1. There is no other definition of majority.

Notice for the meeting must be given 14 days in advance so that is enough time to get everyone's vote. How the votes are accumulated is not discuss so a plan will have to be put together to get the votes.

2) Bylaw changes have the same terminology of needing a majority.


3) We are in the process of getting a list of all owners so we will be sending out notice of what we are trying to achieve.

4) we will need to get a new board in place to take over the negotiations with Marriott as the exiting board is not negotiating. The new board may have to re-initiate their law suit against Marriott. The board has already opened up the door to issues by now publicly stating the building was not defective when their law suit email called the building defective.

I may not have all the answers right now, but as time goes on and working with a new board we can develop a plan. The current approach has been worked out since this effort started. It certainly was not this far along when we first started this effort.

There are already lawyers involved, some who are owners and outside council that will help with these issues as well.

 

[Dave M]

Mark -

If you really believe you can accomplish your objectives without being able to cite the specific provisions that allow you to do what you want to do, I believe you are doomed to failure. You were unable to address the bylaw language that supports your cause for any of the four issues I raised, nor to overcome the bylaw language that I cited in #3.

I feel sorry for your cause. You desperately need someone who has legal training to analyze in a methodical manner the bylaw provisions and how they apply to what you want to do.

As you can read, I'm not alone in my observations. To simply say or imply that I'm wrong won't get you anywhere with the intense battle of legal minds that you are headed for.

You have a passionate cause. But passion alone, when you misread the CC&Rs, will leave you on the outside looking in.

 

[marksue]

Dave the information I gave you in my response was from the governing documents. So i know the steps i have to take. If you check section 6.3 and 14.2. But if you don’t have a copy of the governing rules then it won’t do you any good. I am not about to type the entire thing out.

I know what I am doing and what needs to get be accomplished. I am not alone in this endeavour and there is a legal person who is part of the team to get changes in place.

 

[Eric]

The other thing I think Mark is mssing is he is looking from the outside in and assuming things like the roof was damaged already. Can he be sure the HOA does not have facts to back up this claim ? I don't think so. What I am saying is he doesn't have all the fact and when he does, he might find that the HOA has lots more info that they are not sharing with him at this point. I think its a noble cause but am pretty sure he is way over his head.

Mark -

If you really believe you can accomplish your objectives without being able to cite the specific provisions that allow you to do what you want to do, I believe you are doomed to failure. You were unable to address the bylaw language that supports your cause for any of the four issues I raised, nor to overcome the bylaw language that I cited in #3.

I feel sorry for your cause. You desperately need someone who has legal training to analyze in a methodical manner the bylaw provisions and how they apply to what you want to do.

As you can read, I'm not alone in my observations. To simply say or imply that I'm wrong won't get you anywhere with the intense battle of legal minds that you are headed for.

You have a passionate cause. But passion alone, when you misread the CC&Rs, will leave you on the outside looking in.

 

[lovearuba]

ERIC

Marksue has a lot more information then he can provide on this website. He would be foolish to reveal his hand. This will all come out, it just needs to be done the right way. Marksue's intent through this website is to solicit the names of people that own Aruba Ocean club so they can be involved in this cause. The intent is not to continually defend his position with non-ocean club owners, although since this is a public website it is expected that a difference of opinion by Marriott's close supporters like you will continue to be voiced.

 

[Eric]

So you didn't read my post ?
I am giving my opinion. I hope whatever is best, happens. I am not for or against either side, I am just expressing my opinion. I realize by not being 100% for his cause, you have a need to state otherwise.

Marksue has a lot more information then he can provide on this website. He would be foolish to reveal his hand. This will all come out, it just needs to be done the right way. Marksue's intent through this website is to solicit the names of people that own Aruba Ocean club so they can be involved in this cause. The intent is not to continually defend his position with non-ocean club owners, although since this is a public website it is expected that a difference of opinion by Marriott's close supporters like you will continue to be voiced.

 

[hydroman]

to Eric and others

Part of the continuing problem here is that AOC owners are facing a lack of transparency. I'd be very curious if any other Marriott timeshares pay as much as we will for our one or two bedroom units in either or both--maintenance fees plus assessment. 30-40% maintenance fees plus the assessment. I doubt it. If the owners had the type of information you are talking about, maybe the issues could be reduced, but we don't. The current Board, as has been said before herein, won't even return e mails. They put out pages of alleged information as if they were facts, but refuse to provide the sources and copies of such information. None of the owners would want to sue or even recall the Board if transparency and cooperation existed. We have no faith in those elected, primarily by proxy. We are just as concerned that the current increases are but a beginning. Based on their current practices, how can we know what the future holds for us? Two, three, or more years out. The current "official" information won't even commit to the size of the assessment for 2010, although the prior Board did commit to such. If they made some effort to reconcile these concerns and reach compromise, maybe we could move forward, and agree with them to some extent. Marriott should be ashamed of themselves for allowing owners to be treated this way. It seems to contradict everything we were told when we bought these units as to Marriott's way of doing business. There must be certain items that really need fixing immediately and there are certainly others that could be postponed for a few years, to spread out the costs and reduce the immediate fees. Maybe they could agree to a separate and independent committee of owners, some of which have been very vocal here, to go over all the data and make PUBLIC recommendations for moving forward that coud result in a workable compromise. They've proposed nothing except keeping quiet and moving forward, potentially to sign contracts for the work and put us in a position where breaking the contracts would be more expensive than letting them go forward. Now is the time for building trust, not tearing us apart.

 

[Dave M]

Yes, all of the Hawaii Marriotts have operating fees that are higher than Ocean Club's. Why? Because Hawaii, like Aruba, is a high-cost location. Ocean Club's reserve fee is high, but the special assessment, which will disappear after two years, is eclipsed by some others, notably Kauai Beach Club's multi-year special assessment that included a 2BR charge of $833.99 for a single year (2007)! So in 2007, for example, KBC's 2BR total fee was $2,226.10! For 2008 it was $1,832.57 and for 2009 it will be $1,731.49. The new (yes, "the new") Maui 2BR will have a total fee of $1,817.92 for 2009, and that's with no special assessment.

You can see all of the fees through 2008 for all Marriott resorts in the historical database of fees accessible from the FAQS for this Marriott forum or from the Marriott section of TUG Advice (link at the top of this page).

 

[irish]

marksue,

first let me say how grateful most/some of the owners at the oOC are for all you are trying to do to get the bottom of this debacle.

now as to the suggestion of a minimal fee being imposed as to use of the facilities at OC AND SURF, i seem to remember when the fees for palapa use at the OC where first incorporated the profits from this were going to be used to OFFSET THE M/F'S. well, we all see how that worked out!!

JMO, i feel these 2 properties facilities should be kept separate. i purchased at the OC strictly for the beach area, and when i purchased(preconstruction),
the surf club was never ever mentioned. when we were contacted by email for preconstruction sales at the surf, i contacted an agent at the MARRIOTT sales department and made some inquires and this agent referred to it as the MARRIOTT DEBACLE. he/she told me i would NEVER be happy with the beach area at the surf and if i was interested in acquiring a 2 bedroom unit i should just stay with the OC.

now let me add, i think the surf club is a lovely resort. i watched it being built and it turned out beautiful. owners are happy there and that's great.
however, keep the properties separate!!!. JMO

 

[lovearuba]

Irish

You should make sure Corey Guest hears your concerns. I'm not saying he will have much influence but he does seem to be the only one that will respond to the owners.

Why would anyone want to integrate the two resorts?

 

[marksue]

Irish

That is true the fees were supposed to offest MF. I own in both buildings and agree they should be kept seperate. I am just not sure how you can 100% do that when all you need to do to get towels is give a room number. With the right color towel you can use the other resort.

I know when I went through the sales process for the SC, I was told the 2 resorts would be sharing facilitites. But as we know all they wanted to do was sell and it didnt matter what they told youa s you and I both got different information.

 

[marksue]

Eric

If you look back at one of the previous posts, the board itself called the roof defective. It was part of thier basis for a lawsuit against Marriott. Now that Marriott agreed to pay a portion of the roof it is no longer defective and all of a sudden the board doesnt say anything. They have the proof and the owners know there is a problem. If you ever had stayed at the resort you would notice the leaks and floods whenever it rained. It has been common knowledge for a long time the building had problems.

 

[mike361]

Unfair Increases To Owners

Whoever heard of anything increasing from $1100/year to $1700/year for a 2 bedroom, 1 gold week unit? Rather than trying to recall the Ocean Club board for their unreasoned attempt to force many people into selling their units at a huge loss to Marriott, a restraining order preventing the increase from being implemented makes more sense. The increase is to be billed next month. There isn't sufficient time develop a petition and get the required number of signatures before we will be obligated to pay an amount many cant afford. On top of this maintenance fee increase, there is a special assessment of $600 for 2 years beginning in June. Both of these increases benefits Marriott to the extreme disadvantage of the owners.

 

[Eric]

Another well thought out plan. On what basis will you get that restraining order ? That you as an owner, who voted in the present HOA, doesn't like what they have done ? That sounds reasonable !!
Do you know the person who suggested Marriott give all Ocean Club owners 100% of there purchase money back ? I think her idea has a better shot of happening.

Whoever heard of anything increasing from $1100/year to $1700/year for a 2 bedroom, 1 gold week unit? Rather than trying to recall the Ocean Club board for their unreasoned attempt to force many people into selling their units at a huge loss to Marriott, a restraining order preventing the increase from being implemented makes more sense. The increase is to be billed next month. There isn't sufficient time develop a petition and get the required number of signatures before we will be obligated to pay an amount many cant afford. On top of this maintenance fee increase, there is a special assessment of $600 for 2 years beginning in June. Both of these increases benefits Marriott to the extreme disadvantage of the owners.

 

[marksue]

Another well thought out plan. On what basis will you get that restraining order ? That you as an owner, who voted in the present HOA, doesn't like what they have done ? That sounds reasonable !!
Do you know the person who suggested Marriott give all Ocean Club owners 100% of there purchase money back ? I think her idea has a better shot of happening.

Another valuable post. Eric, you have yet to provide value. At least those who don't agree with this effort ask intelligent questions. WHy do you even post here. You are not an owner or anyone who is asking quality questions.