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

[luvmypt]

luvmypt,

This is completely off topic but what does your screen-name refer to? Is PT your wife/girlfriend? Or perhaps you love your parrot? I'm always curious how people come up with their screen-names. (Mine is just a combination of initials from my family). Hope I'm not being too nosey.

Thanks, tlwmkw

AwayWeGo is dead on. My wife had ordered a PT Cruiser when they first came out and it took her 11 months to get it. Luvmypt was suppose to be her hotmail name but she chose another so I kept the name. It's easy to remember.

 

[Quilter]

AwayWeGo is dead on. My wife had ordered a PT Cruiser when they first came out and it took her 11 months to get it. Luvmypt was suppose to be her hotmail name but she chose another so I kept the name. It's easy to remember.

I was sure it had something to do with a physical therapist.

 

[Chemee]

How many of you got those bills twice? Seems like that must cost money to send the bill more than once but maybe they want to make sure we pay it.

We got two bills also.

 

[luvmypt]

I guess MVCI is seeing double these days because not only did we get two bills but we also got two emails apoligizing for the screw up.

 

[MYPLANET]

Can we rectify this 'fleecing' of owners?

I own two weeks at Aruba Ocean Club and was furious at the increase in fees and the assessment. I was very happy to find this site through facebook, and would entertain any action to rectify this 'fleecing'.

 

[marksue]

Eamil sent to all on list regarding the meeting

Dear Aruba Ocean Concerned Owner:



I want to give you an update on our call for a special meeting. The current status is that the AOC Board and Marriott are trying to railroad this effort.



After requesting of the Board and Marriott what steps were necessary in November, and not getting a response, we moved forward with gathering support per our By Laws. Now after receiving our package requesting the meeting to recall members of the Board with a backup list of those in support Corey Guest, Marriott's General Manager has responded stating that according to an Aruba Law (which is not part of our By Laws) we must have a notarized statement from each owner or a letter from each owner authorizing me to speak for you.

I have spoken with both United States and Aruba attorney's, who acting pro bono, said that they believe since our By Laws do not address the Aruba Law, this is a procedural issue and not one that is nor should be governed by Aruba law. I am continuing to push for this meeting to occur.



Several owners have stated that we should consider setting up a Legal defense fund so that we will be ready to take further action if necessary.



I am not pushing to take legal action, but if the Board and Marriott continue to stonewall this effort, there may be no other choice. We all became Owners because of our belief in the Marriott name. We must continue to work to insure that they are responsive.



The Aruba Ocean Club has been called Marriott's flagship resort. We know how important it is to the Marriott name - now with the Ritz Carlton deal signed by Mr. Marriott last month in Aruba. Now is the time to work together and stay reasonable and strong.

I know this year has been a hardship for many of us, me included. I would like to see how many of you, Concerned Aruba Ocean Owners would respond, if there was a request to assist in setting up a legal fund. I have been in touch with legal council in Aruba who will work with me on a contingency basis for now.



Please do not take this as a request for money, as I am not asking for any. I am just trying to get a feeling, that if needed, would you consider making a donation for legal support.

Our goal is to get a meeting and then let the Owners decide what they would like to do.


If the owners want to recall the Board then the votes will speak. We must continue to be outspoken owners until we get our issues satisfactorily addressed. It is important to have clear actions and a transparent Board.



For those owners that have not opted out of the call for a special meeting, would you please send me an email confirming your support of me to call a special meeting submitting your name? This will help to circumvent some of the actions by Marriott and the board.



Thank you for your continued Support.

 

[marksue]

For those that are interested there has been a great deal of email back and forth between myself and the following people regarding the special meeting

Marriott:
arne.sorenson@ - President MI

Board members:
Allan Cohen,
Frank Knox
Melissa Pericolosi
Steve Richards

MVCI:
Corey Guest
Dirk Schavemaker
Stephen Weisz president MVCI
David Babich - Customer Care VP MVCI

Press:
publisher-nytimes.com;
THENEWSARUBA-SETARNET.AW;
NEWS-ARUBATODAY.COM;
info-ap.org (ASSOC Press);

Legal:

Names being kept confidential

If anyone is interested in any emails of the above please contact me through a Private Message.

This is the last message sent:

TO AOC Board, MVCI, MI

This issue has gone on much longer than necessary. The owners have been stonewalled in their rights per the governing documents of the property they purchased. With the refusal of the Ocean Club Board, MVCI and MI to respond to my request for a special meeting, I have had no choice but to retain legal council in Aruba to go along with my legal council in the US. If the request of the owners are not completed by 5/11/09 you will be hearing from my legal representation.

I am sorry it had to come to this, but the lack of honesty and responses to my requests have caused this action to be taken. An email to all owners who signed up is going out in the next couple of days and everyone will be aware of the upcoming actions.

 

[ecwinch]

This is a sad development. I think it just raises the bar, but hopefully will not derail your efforts.

While I do not necessarily agree with your goals, I will respect your right to pursue them. If your efforts fail to recognized by your BOD, then it has chilling implications for all MVCI owners everywhere.

I would start with a simple solicitation of notarized statements. While they can argue that it is a requirement when the By-laws appear to be silent on the issue, I do not think they would ignore a sizable presentation of notarized statements. Your position could be - look I have got 100 notarized statements in just 1-2 weeks of you making that the requirement. If I have to get all the statements notarized I will do so, but I then intend to sue you for the cost of doing so, plus attorney fees. Only a fool would continue to defend that issue in the face of an overwhelming presentation of owner response. It is hard to argue you are representing the owners, when you ignore such a significant owner response on a technicality.

Have them make a decision that they will have to defend in a future setting (lawsuit, BOD election, et al), while incurring the least amount of cost on your end.

 

[marksue]

A group of us discussed this idea. IT is alarge undertaking to get a form out to everyoneand ask them to get it notorized. We do have a plan in place if that is the route we will take. There will be volunteers reaching out to all owners.

I have recieved well over 100 emails authorizing me to represent owners in calling a special meeting. Those emails will be forwarded to the people in my above post.

There is all some legal actions which will be put in place to force the calling of the special meeting. No one wnted to go this route but Marriott is the one who brought the legal aspects into this situation.

Will let you know how things progress at the appropriate times.

 

[ecwinch]

A group of us discussed this idea. IT is alarge undertaking to get a form out to everyoneand ask them to get it notorized. We do have a plan in place if that is the route we will take. There will be volunteers reaching out to all owners.

I have recieved well over 100 emails authorizing me to represent owners in calling a special meeting. Those emails will be forwarded to the people in my above post.

There is all some legal actions which will be put in place to force the calling of the special meeting. No one wnted to go this route but Marriott is the one who brought the legal aspects into this situation.

Will let you know how things progress at the appropriate times.

Yes it is. But only if you have to get all the signatures notarized.

Take the first step of getting 100 notarized statements. This is a marathon not a foot race. Legal recourse should be your last steps. Exhaust all non-legal steps before going there.

 

[lovearuba]

My support

Marksue,
You know you have my support. I dont have a lot of money but will donate what I can to support the efforts because its the right thing to do.

I will also send you a notarized document. If you put one together and email it, I will quickly get it notarized.

What a shame that Marriott continues to ignore this really important issue.

 

[ecwinch]

It is unclear that a notarized document is what they are looking for. It might only require a signature. If that is true, it lowers the bar some.

The standard the AOC BOD has held forth as an example is the standard they use for proxies. They do not require proxies be notarized by a notary public.

 

[SueDonJ]

"... Marriott's General Manager has responded stating that according to an Aruba Law (which is not part of our By Laws) we must have a notarized statement from each owner or a letter from each owner authorizing me to speak for you. ... For those owners that have not opted out of the call for a special meeting, would you please send me an email confirming your support of me to call a special meeting submitting your name?

For those that are interested there has been a great deal of email back and forth ...

It is unclear that a notarized document is what they are looking for. ...

Marksue, instead of incurring the expense or taking valuable time by asking the concerned owners to provide you with statements which you'll forward, why don't you simply send one email out to your entire list and ask the owners to write directly to the GM? A simple statement, "I agree with the call for a special meeting, and authorize "Marksue" to speak for me in regards to same," would appear to suffice.

I agree that notarization may not be necessary, but it wouldn't hurt to have it done anyway. Each owner could assume the responsibility and expense more easily than setting up a legal defense fund, surely. Especially as any call for a legal defense fund will be looked at by MVCI just the same as every other call to legal action here - MVCI has no choice but to defend against all such calls.

A couple things: If I was an MOC owner I wouldn't authorize any other owner to speak or act for me in this unless I knew exactly, word for word, what was written by the GM. (I would hope no owner would ever authorize such a thing!) Your email should include at least the quoted text from the GM, at most a PDF attachment of the actual statement. Also, you should provide the one complete name and address of the recipient (GM) so that the letters don't go here, there and everywhere.

 

[marksue]

Eric as I told you in the email I sent you the one document you did not see is the letter sent to me by fedex from Corey which says each owner needed to notarize a letter calling for a special meeting. I appreciate your input and wish what you were saying was accurate. If all the board wanted was for me to send a notarized letter they have yet to say that. Unfortunatly there is a real effort by Marriott to not allow the owners to exercise there rights per the governing documents.

I heard that at the stockholders meeting the issue taking place at the Ocean Club was brought up to Mr Marriott and others. Will be interesting to see if MI steps up at this point. All along MI has pushed this back down to MVCI, who in my opinion has fueled the fire against this effort. I do believe MI needs to take some action here.

 

[ecwinch]

Eric as I told you in the email I sent you the one document you did not see is the letter sent to me by fedex from Corey which says each owner needed to notarize a letter calling for a special meeting. I appreciate your input and wish what you were saying was accurate. If all the board wanted was for me to send a notarized letter they have yet to say that. Unfortunatly there is a real effort by Marriott to not allow the owners to exercise there rights per the governing documents.

I heard that at the stockholders meeting the issue taking place at the Ocean Club was brought up to Mr Marriott and others. Will be interesting to see if MI steps up at this point. All along MI has pushed this back down to MVCI, who in my opinion has fueled the fire against this effort. I do believe MI needs to take some action here.

Mark,

Does that letter specifically state that they want a letter notarized by a notary public from each owner? The provisions they are highlighting in their correspondence to support their position is the standard they use for recognizing proxies. They do not require that proxies be notarized by a notary public. I am referring to Corey Guest's response to you dated Apr.23, 2009. He specifically uses the term "actual signatures" and specifically refers to proxies as his example.

In essence if they use this argument to reject your request, then they may have invalidated every election where quorum or the outcome was determined by the proxies were voted. And it calls into question if the current BOD is properly seated. I am not stating this as fact, but it does open that door.

And it would be detrimental to them use this as the standard they will follow in the future. If you do not have access to a free notary public, it will cost each member around $5-10 to provide the BOD with their proxy. I can only imagine what that would do to their ability to obtain proxies and to meet quorum requirements. I really do not think their legal counsel has thought this through.

I stand corrected if you have already requested clarification and they have responded to that request.

I am only trying to suggest strategies that you can use to have them recognize your legitimate use of process. I can shut up if you like.

 

[marksue]

Eric,

Here is the letter I recieved. As you can see they are looking for notarized documents from all. If you think it means something different, please let me know.

I have even asked for the docuemnt they would require and of course never sent it.

LC. Smith Blvd. 99

Palm Beach, Aruba
Harriott. Tel.: (297) 586-9000
Fax: (297) 520-6668


VACATION CLUB

E-mail: aruba.reservations@marriotthotels.com ARUBA OCEAN CLUB Website: www.vacationclub.com
www.marriott.com

Aruba, April 15,2009

Via FedEx

Mr. Mark Silverstein



re: Calling of special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors pursuant to Article 6.3 Bylaws

Dear Mr. Silverstein,

Reference is made to your letter and attachment dated April 7, 2009 regarding the above mentioned subject which was delivered via FedEx to my office last Thursday evening, April 9,
2009. The President and Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Cooperatieve Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba have instructed me to inform you as follows:

In your letter you purport to act on behalf of and to represent 10% of Voting Members, whose names and pertinent weeks appear on the list you have attached to your letter.

Your representation of 10% of the Voting Members you purport to represent is considered invalid and without any legal effect, unless either one of the two following conditions is satisfied within 48 hours from the date this letter is delivered to you via FedEx:

1. delivery by you of duly notarized written evidence of your authorization by each individual Voting Member you purport to represent and in the aggregate representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes (i.e. power of attorney), or
2. receipt of confirmation by each such individual Voting Member, representing in the aggregate not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes, of your authorization to represent them as purported in your aforementioned letter.

I have been instructed to reserve all rights and remedies.

Sincerely

Corey Guest
General Manager
Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club

 

[ecwinch]

Mark,

Thanks for sharing. Again is my 2 cents, but my response would be:

Corey,

Thank you for your response dated April 15, 2009. Let me start by stating that I think you have misunderstood the the Request for a Special Meeting dated April 7, 2009.

In no form, am I maintaining that I am representing 10% of Voting Members, as you have indicated. I am simply delivering the Request for a Special meeting in accordance with Section XXX of the By-Laws as endorsed by the members indicated on the request. I certainly expect the AOC to take appropriate steps to authenicate the request against the membership list.

To toward that end, I think it is important to note that I requested information on the proper process and procedures in my correspondence of Dec XX, 2008. No response was provided. To now reject this petition of the owners to exercise their rights at outlined in the By-laws is a significant breach of the trust granted to AOC.

Also in regard to your position that notarized evidence is required to move the petition forward, I feel that is important to note that this standard has not been applied to any other elections, grant of proxies, or petitions that have taken place at AOC since it's inception. If the standard is that a duly notarized written signature is required, can you provide me with evidence that this standard has been adhered to in governence of the AOC prior to the receipt of my request. And by "duly notarized written evidence" I am taking that to mean a document notarized by a notary public. If a lesser standard, such as a written signature is all that is required, please advise. Also, please refer to your correspondence of Apr. 25 in that regard.

I am hoping that this communication will clarify any misunderstanding on the nature of petition, and will allow it to move forward. If this is not the case, please provide a complete and though response outlining the defects in the petition. It would be an egregious abuse of power for a second petition to found defective on the basis of a new requirement.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.


... it is rough I know. Some of the logic transitions would have been better...

 

[SueDonJ]

Mark,

Thanks for sharing. Again is my 2 cents, but my response would be:

Corey,

Thank you for your response dated April 15, 2009. Let me start by stating that I think you have misunderstood the the Request for a Special Meeting dated April 7, 2009.

In no form, am I maintaining that I am representing 10% of Voting Members, as you have indicated. I am simply delivering the Request for a Special meeting in accordance with Section XXX of the By-Laws as endorsed by the members indicated on the request. I certainly expect the AOC to take appropriate steps to authenicate the request against the membership list.

To toward that end, I think it is important to note that I requested information on the proper process and procedures in my correspondence of Dec XX, 2008. No response was provided. To now reject this petition of the owners to exercise their rights at outlined in the By-laws is a significant breach of the trust granted to AOC.

Also in regard to your position that notarized evidence is required to move the petition forward, I feel that is important to note that this standard has not been applied to any other elections, grant of proxies, or petitions that have taken place at AOC since it's inception. If the standard is that a duly notarized written signature is required, can you provide me with evidence that this standard has been adhered to in governence of the AOC prior to the receipt of my request. And by "duly notarized written evidence" I am taking that to mean a document notarized by a notary public. If a lesser standard, such as a written signature is all that is required, please advise. Also, please refer to your correspondence of Apr. 25 in that regard.

I am hoping that this communication will clarify any misunderstanding on the nature of petition, and will allow it to move forward. If this is not the case, please provide a complete and though response outlining the defects in the petition. It would be an egregious abuse of power for a second petition to found defective on the basis of a new requirement.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.


... it is rough I know. Some of the logic transitions would have been better...

Even though I don't agree with this grassroots movement here, I do think that the rights held by all MVCI owners are worth preserving which is why I'm watching this thread so closely. Eric, I don't think I agree with your suggestion for another letter. Marriott is obviously looking at this from a legal standpoint, as they should, and it would be best to respond in kind.

First, this is how marksue opened the letter wherein he requested the special meeting: "The following request is on behalf of many Concerned Voting Members of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association."

Considering that marksue's position is unclear from that letter, Corey responded exactly the way I'd expect:

"Your representation of 10% of the Voting Members you purport to represent is considered invalid and without any legal effect, unless either one of the two following conditions is satisfied within 48 hours from the date this letter is delivered to you via FedEx:

1. delivery by you of duly notarized written evidence of your authorization by each individual Voting Member you purport to represent and in the aggregate representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes (i.e. power of attorney), or
2. receipt of confirmation by each such individual Voting Member, representing in the aggregate not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes, of your authorization to represent them as purported in your aforementioned letter."

Think about it, would any of us want MVCI (or any other entity!) to accept our names on a list submitted by someone else, as a basis for a legal action? What Corey asks for is to protect both MVCI and the owners! He wants clarification and proof. Either marksue is holding Power of Attorney for the owners whose names were on the list he submitted, or he has compiled the list through communication with the owners while assuming no legal authority for the names on it. Marriott wants either the legal notarized documentation of the Power of Attorney, or they want the owners to sign individual statements verifying their agreement with marksue.

It doesn't surprise me at all, this turn of events. If I was a part of this and seriously believed that the cause was worthwhile and that a positive resolution could be reached by way of this special meeting to oust three members of the BOD, I'd be working toward getting legal representation so that the necessary actions could be taken properly. Marriott and/or MVCI is too smart to dicker around with nonsense.

 

[ecwinch]

THe request for the special meeting to recall the current board has been delivered and received.

The following was sent to Corey at the Ocean Club:

Aruba Ocean Club Concerned Owners


April 7, 2009

Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club
c/o Corey Guest – General Manager
Board of Directors
101 L.G. Smith Blvd
Palm Beach, Aruba

Dear Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors:

The following request is on behalf of many Concerned Voting Members of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association. We the owners representing over 10% of the use periods owned, hereby request a duly convened special meeting of Members, pursuant to Article VI section 6.3 Removal of the Directors: The purpose of the meeting is to recall the following members of the Board of Directors.

President: Frank Knox
Vice President: Steve Richards
Treasurer: Melissa Pericolosi

Article VI section 6.3 states that:

The calling of a special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors may be called by Voting Members representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes. Notice of such meeting shall be given fourteen (14) days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting...

With notice of the Special Meeting a ballot and proxy must be prepared to have Members vote on the removal of the Officers of the Association. As stated a Director can be removed "with or without cause".

Please forward all documents prepared for the calling of the Special Meeting and we will prepare a statement to all Members for the requested action, to be included in the mailing per the By Laws.

The separate attached list represents over 10% of the voting members whose local address is The Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club, 101 L.G. Smith Blvd, Palm Beach, Aruba, and contains owners name and number of use periods owned.


Thank you:

This is the original request right?

Here is what they are saying in their rejection:

"Your representation of 10% of the Voting Members you purport to represent"

Unless "Concerned Voting Members" is some legal entity that MarkSue formed to assign proxies to, I do not see anything in this document where MarkSue suggested that he represents, had the proxy, or had the POA to vote those owners interests in an election. He is simply providing the elected BOD with a list of members that are calling for a special meeting as per the by-laws. The topic of the meeting will be the potential removal of the BOD. It will be discussed and voted upon.

He needs to give them a list of 10% of the members that are requesting the meeting, and ask they verify the membership and call the meeting. Send them a second copy of the list with a reworded cover letter.

They should verify the names and intervals match their membership list. If it does not then - reject the request on the basis of that and the fact that other defects existed. But list those defects. Do not ignore the valid request of a sizable number of your owners. There concerns need to be addressed.

The burden they are placing on the owners is excessive. This path will only be expensive for both parties.

Can someone share a copy of the By-Laws with me.

Thanks

 

[SueDonJ]

This is the original request right?

Here is what they are saying in their rejection:

"Your representation of 10% of the Voting Members you purport to represent"

Unless "Concerned Voting Members" is some legal entity that MarkSue formed to assign proxies to, I do not see anything in this document where MarkSue suggested that he represents, had the proxy, or had the POA to vote those owners interests in an election. He is simply providing the elected BOD with a list of members that are calling for a special meeting as per the by-laws. The topic of the meeting will be the potential removal of the BOD. It will be discussed and voted upon.

He needs to give them a list of 10% of the members that are requesting the meeting, and ask they verify the membership and call the meeting. Send them a second copy of the list with a reworded cover letter.

They should verify the names and intervals match their membership list. If it does not then - reject the request on the basis of that and the fact that other defects existed. But list those defects. Do not ignore the valid request of a sizable number of your owners. There concerns need to be addressed.

The burden they are placing on the owners is excessive. This path will only be expensive for both parties.

Can someone share a copy of the By-Laws with me.

Thanks

It would help, wouldn't it, if the entire procedure is spelled out in the By-Laws? I'd like to see them, too. But it doesn't surprise me that Marriott/MVCI is sticking to the letter of the law here. No, Marksue's letter isn't the actual call to oust the BOD members, but it is still a legal action involving all of the owners whose names are on his list.

Without knowledge of a Power of Attorney held by Marksue or signatures from the owners, how could Marriott/MVCI know that the owners on that list have complete knowledge of and agree with exactly what Marksue is requesting and/or the ramifications of the action to oust BOD members? Marriott/MVCI is asking for verification, and the burden for that rests on the owners, doesn't it? The company isn't going to expend any resources on matching Marksue's list to their ownership records (or do anything else) until they know that they and each owner are protected.

Look at it this way. It's been assumed here that Marriott is reading this thread, hasn't it? It's been insinuated here that Marksue has access to the ownership list by way of a board member, which means that he could theoretically submit any owners' names. There's been at least one post saying that an owner expects Marksue's actions to result in lower maintenence fees (despite the fact that Marksue didn't promise such a thing.) What would happen if the call for a special meeting went forward without the verification that's being asked for by Marriott? The outcome of that meeting can only be the three members ousted, right? No change in fees, at all, can be expected here. But if that one member doesn't understand that until after the special meeting is held, who do you think s/he will contact ranting and raving? I'm guessing it won't be Marksue, and Marriott/MVCI will have a whole lot of explaining to do. They'd be foolish to proceed with the action without first protecting their interests with verification of some sort from the owners on that list.

It appears to me that Corey asked for the notarized Power of Attorney, if one exists, or individual signed statements from each of those owners who agree with Marksue's call for a special meeting. I don't think it places an undue burden on the owners to provide a written statement. As I said before, I would hope that no owner would give unilateral authority to any other without clearly specifying the limits of that authority. That boggles my mind much more than Corey's response to Marksue.

 

[marksue]

First of all i do not have access to the owners list. What I do have are owners that joined the group of concerned owners and agreed to calling a special meeting of the board for the purpose of calling a special meeting. THe names of all owners who agreed to the meeting was supplied with the letter I sent to BOD.

We have emails or signed documents from all owners who signed up. Also prior to sending to Marriott an email was sent to every owner offering them the opportunity to opt out of the call for a special meeting.

Everything required has been followed per the governing documents. The list of owners have been submitted per the bylaws.

 

[tlwmkw]

Marksue,

It appears that you need to send copies of the letters authorizing you to represent the owners at the meeting. If they need to be notarized then you should check with your bank or local hospital- they always have notaries on staff who will usually notarize a document with no charge (or very minimal charge). If you wish to pursue this then you will have to jump through whatever legal hoops are required. I have to say that it does make sense that Marriott requires solid proof that you do represent who you say you represent- otherwise you could just submit a list of owners and claim to be representing them. Marriott is actually protecting the actual owners by doing this. They could get sued by owners who feel that Marriott is bowing to outside interests and not following the letter of the law- I can see why they are requiring this all be done correctly.

Again- have you thought what you are going to do beyond installing a new board? I know you want more transparency but that does appear to be happening since this all began. They are telling you why the costs have increased and explained everything in a reasonable way and it doesn't seem that anyone has suggested ways to decrease the costs.

By doing all this you may increase expenses because of the all the extra work that the Ocean Club will have to do to accomodate the special meeting etc (they won't do it for free and the expense will be passed to the owners).

 

[SueDonJ]

First of all i do not have access to the owners list.

I'm not saying that you do. But it's been insinuated here that you do, and it's been assumed here that Marriott/MVCI has been reading this thread. How would they know what you do and don't have?

What I do have are owners that joined the group of concerned owners and agreed to calling a special meeting of the board for the purpose of calling a special meeting. THe names of all owners who agreed to the meeting was supplied with the letter I sent to BOD.

What proof did you offer with your letter that the owners whose names are on that list have actually called for the special meeting?

We have emails or signed documents from all owners who signed up. Also prior to sending to Marriott an email was sent to every owner offering them the opportunity to opt out of the call for a special meeting.

How would Marriott/MVCI know this?

Everything required has been followed per the governing documents. The list of owners have been submitted per the bylaws.

Do the bylaws stipulate that a list of owners names is sufficient for submission? Most petitions require an actual signature to be considered legitimate.

All I'm saying is that Marriott's/MVCI's first line of defense here can not be unexpected. Before they expend any resources at all, they want verification from the owners that they are aware their names have been submitted to be counted among the 10% requirement, and that each agrees with the call for a special meeting. That's not an unreasonable request.

 

[SueDonJ]

Marksue,

It appears that you need to send copies of the letters authorizing you to represent the owners at the meeting. If they need to be notarized then you should check with your bank or local hospital- they always have notaries on staff who will usually notarize a document with no charge (or very minimal charge). If you wish to pursue this then you will have to jump through whatever legal hoops are required. I have to say that it does make sense that Marriott requires solid proof that you do represent who you say you represent- otherwise you could just submit a list of owners and claim to be representing them. Marriott is actually protecting the actual owners by doing this. They could get sued by owners who feel that Marriott is bowing to outside interests and not following the letter of the law- I can see why they are requiring this all be done correctly.

I agree with all of this EXCEPT the part that's bolded. The owners whose names are on Marksue's list have not given him authorization to represent the owners at the special meeting. What they have done is join him in the call for a special meeting. In his letter, though, he says that he is writing "on behalf of" those owners, and it makes sense that Marriott/MVCI's first line of defense is to verify Marksue's capacity in their behalf.

Again- have you thought what you are going to do beyond installing a new board? I know you want more transparency but that does appear to be happening since this all began. They are telling you why the costs have increased and explained everything in a reasonable way and it doesn't seem that anyone has suggested ways to decrease the costs.

By doing all this you may increase expenses because of the all the extra work that the Ocean Club will have to do to accomodate the special meeting etc (they won't do it for free and the expense will be passed to the owners).

I'd like to see the answers here, too, but others have asked the same questions with no reply.

 

[Retired to Travel]

All I'm saying is that Marriott's/MVCI's first line of defense here can not be unexpected. Before they expend any resources at all, they want verification from the owners that they are aware their names have been submitted to be counted among the 10% requirement, and that each agrees with the call for a special meeting. That's not an unreasonable request.

You have said it perfectly. We agree. Based on our experience with the beach solicitors who collected names, I suspect that the 10% will shrink to 1-2% when these individuals are specifically asked "Do you want to oust the BOD?" or "Do you want a special meeting?" or "Do you want MarkSue to represent you?" No mention of these steps was made by the owner who asked for our name, address, and ownership info.