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

[ecwinch]

I find it very interesting that many people who are helping to make this thread 41 pages in length DO NOT OWN at the Ocean Club. Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!!

Why does our opinion matter less?

 

[m61376]

Because Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club is not the only resort in the MVCI collection, which means that some of the issues that these owners face are not obviously exclusive to the Aruba Ocean Club.

And how the situation is dealt with sets a precedent. Marriott has a lot at stake here too, which is why they are being very exacting in how they deal with the situation.

I also think how Marriott deals with not only content but disgruntled owners reflects on MVCI in general.

ilene13- Sometimes the best ideas come from an outside perspective. When you're heavily vested in something it can be hard to look at it from someone else's vantage point. I would think that OC owners would appreciate suggestions from others who are familiar with Marriott or timeshares in general and might offer their experience or a clearer evaluation of the situation. While I commend Mark's efforts, I think Marriott would have been more receptive if calmer heads had prevailed. But since I don't own at the OC feel free to dismiss my opinion.

 

[lovearuba]

lovearuba,

Many of us have been asking what you are trying to achieve with all of this- the board has now explained the cost increases in a way that seems to make a lot of sense, and in fact they have explained that the amounts may be less than anticipated because of the lower than expected costs. So now you do have the transparency that you are asking for. Goal achieved.


tlwmkw

We do not see it this way, there are a lot of things happening that are not shared here that continue to demonstrate that important information is being kept from the owners. The whole refusal of Marriott to recognize the owners request for a special meeting is disheartening. They should be interested in discussing these concerns with owners and if at the end of that process nothing changes then at least we felt we were heard. If not,then the efforts will continue.

For those of you who wonder why non-Marriott ocean club owners have so much to say about the cause, I for one appreciate the input. I had difficulty with it initially because some of the comments appeared just rude but they are actually very helpful. Lots of opinions have changed since this thread started, as more information is made available good things can happen.

 

[Dean]

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.

As I noted earlier in the thread, you should have access to the owners, it's just you'll likely need to pay the cost of the mailings as they do not have the right to divulge those owners info to you without their permission.

While you see it as stonewalling (and it may or may not be), the requirements they're giving you are reasonable. Either a direct contact from the member authorizing you or a you to have a notarized representation in hand. Otherwise they really don't know you represent who you say you do. Just having enough info to document those members is not enough. It's on you to prove those are legitimate owners and that they authorize you OR support your request. If the requirement is more than would be required for a proxy vote, you can likely whittle it down to that level which is a higher bar than you have reached so far. That assumes of course that there are not higher requirements for certain actions within the Bylaws and similar documents. They could all contact directly requesting the recall as you have and this would negate the need for such documentation. I'd suggest you also scrutinize the by laws and other documents as for the requirement for proxy voting so that when time comes to vote, you can have as many votes as possible that you control. In most instances for a sold out resort, 10% of the members as a block should be enough to control the decision on most if not all matters.

I find it very interesting that many people who are helping to make this thread 41 pages in length DO NOT OWN at the Ocean Club. Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!!

I can't speak for others but for me, two reasons. One is that it is a DISCUSSION board, the other and main one is that all Marriott owners, if not all timeshare owners, have some stake in this game. And that's true on both sides of the isle.

 

[tlwmkw]

ilene13,

All MVCI owners should have an interest in what is going on at the Ocean Club- as others have said this impacts on all MVCI properties and how MVCI handles them. I do think that Marksue and lovearuba have been given some excellent advice by the Tug members who have posted here and hopefully that has helped them to focus their goals. I think everyone on Tug is hoping that this situation resolves in a way that pleases both owners and management.

tlwmkw

 

[SueDonJ]

... The whole refusal of Marriott to recognize the owners request for a special meeting is disheartening. They should be interested in discussing these concerns with owners and if at the end of that process nothing changes then at least we felt we were heard. ...

There is no doubt that the Ocean Club owners have reason to be upset with actions taken by their BOD and/or Marriott/MVCI. It's apparent to those on the outside looking in that previous BOD's did not respond to, budget for, or take action to alleviate the problems with the building. That (as well as the unforeseen infrastructure/labor cost increases on the island) is why the current BOD has had to take the difficult action of burdening owners with an operating budget that resulted in this year's increased maintenance fees and special assessment fees.

That's only one example of things gone wrong for the owners. Alan's removal as president, the addition of personnel to the Ocean Club, the BOD's switch from individual email addresses to one single address - these and others are more issues that can be looked at differently by non-owners without negating the frustration that owners feel.

It may not appear to be so to the Aruba Ocean Club owners, but there is also no doubt that their concerns have been "heard" by Marriott. Marriott simply hasn't responded to those concerns in a manner which the owners would like. My opinion is that Marriott should never respond to any owners' concerns with a feel-good kumbaya vibe because they have a duty to every owner and stockholder to perform exactly as the contracts dictate. I don't want sit-down sessions with splinter owner groups to become the norm.

Lovearuba, as much as you might not think so, we critics here are not trying to sabotage or bolster support for the efforts of your group. We're trying to focus your efforts so that your issues can be the precedent for how Marriott responds to all owners' concerns.

One way you can focus now is to look at Corey's letter for what it is. It is a refusal of Marriott to recognize that Marksue has a legal capacity to submit a list of owner names and state that he is requesting a special meeting "on behalf of" those owners. It is NOT a "whole refusal of Marriott to recognize the owners request for a special meeting."

Taken a step further, it is an action by your BOD in accordance with the bylaws to protect your interest by not allowing another owner to represent you without their knowledge of your express consent. Isn't that what we all want, our BOD's to act in conformity with the bylaws and protect our ownership interests?

 

[lovearuba]

SueDonJ

Lovearuba, as much as you might not think so, we critics here are not trying to sabotage or bolster support for the efforts of your group. We're trying to focus your efforts so that your issues can be the precedent for how Marriott responds to all owners' concerns.

You are assuming you know what I think.

 

[SueDonJ]

You are assuming you know what I think.

Actually, no I'm not. Did you notice the word "might?"

...

There. Now that the snippy stuff is out of the way, can it be possible for us to at least make an effort to understand each other?

 

[lovearuba]

Redweek

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messa...orum-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=topic

Topic continues in other sites

 

[modoaruba]

negative advertisement

I went on redweek web site to view the blog about the OC.
There has been 2,228 hits on only 25 responses.
How many hits has this site had?
Being a business owner myself it astounds me that Marriott has not come up with a "nice guy solution" and end this negativism.
Just knowing that there a controversy about Marriott would have a potental buyer think twice.
How many potential sales were lost just due to these blogs? Myself,even at a 25% discount that is being offered for a week, I am unsure as to the future of the OC. Why would I want to own a greater part of a liability?
I wish Marriott would explain.

 

[ecwinch]

I went on redweek web site to view the blog about the OC.
There has been 2,228 hits on only 25 responses.
How many hits has this site had?
Being a business owner myself it astounds me that Marriott has not come up with a "nice guy solution" and end this negativism.
Just knowing that there a controversy about Marriott would have a potental buyer think twice.
How many potential sales were lost just due to these blogs? Myself,even at a 25% discount that is being offered for a week, I am unsure as to the future of the OC. Why would I want to own a greater part of a liability?
I wish Marriott would explain.

Why do you think that they have not come up with a "nice guy solution"? What do you think the offer to pay a portion of the roof costs and to lend the money to the HOA is? Both of those offers have tangible and significant costs associated with them.

As a business owner, can you honestly suggest that you would do much more?

If you had an angry customer, I am sure you would try to figure out how to fix the situation. MVCI has done that.

If the customer was being unreasonable, what extent would you go to? Would you give into his demands just because he was standing outside your store and telling customers that you are a cheat?

And the problem is further complicated by the fact that the duly elected representatives of the customer have accepted your "nice guy solution". But a small faction want more.

I think it would be hard to run a business doing anything other than what MVCI has done here. But I have not seen the super secret proof that Marksue has.

 

[SueDonJ]

I went on redweek web site to view the blog about the OC.
There has been 2,228 hits on only 25 responses.
How many hits has this site had?
Being a business owner myself it astounds me that Marriott has not come up with a "nice guy solution" and end this negativism.
Just knowing that there a controversy about Marriott would have a potental buyer think twice.
How many potential sales were lost just due to these blogs? Myself,even at a 25% discount that is being offered for a week, I am unsure as to the future of the OC. Why would I want to own a greater part of a liability?
I wish Marriott would explain.

Explain what?!?! I don't understand this criticism. Marriott HAS explained. There have been more in-depth communications from the BOD and Marriott officials regarding this one resort's history than any other resort in the system! This thread almost certainly proves that there is not anything Marriott could say to this group that would satisfy them unless, of course, Marriott issues a statement that reverses the recent fee increases.

Why would/should Marriott respond even further to this splinter vocal group of specific owners when to do so would alienate a larger group of owners? In this thread several other Aruba Ocean Club owners who are not supportive of this one group have admitted to support of the BOD's actions, as have many of the non-Ocean Club owners.

Marriott has a responsibility to each owner to act exactly as the contracts dictate, nothing more and nothing less. No splinter group is owed more.

 

[lovearuba]

Explain what?!?! I don't understand this criticism. Marriott HAS explained.
Why would/should Marriott respond even further to this splinter vocal group of specific owners when to do so would alienate a larger group of owners? In this thread several other Aruba Ocean Club owners who are not supportive of this one group have admitted to support of the BOD's actions, as have many of the non-Ocean Club owners.

Marriott has a responsibility to each owner to act exactly as the contracts dictate, nothing more and nothing less. No splinter group is owed more.

I dont think 1000 owners are a small splinter group,not all of them post here but they have signed up with Marksue to be included. Thats a lot of uhappy folks. We would love to have the maintenance fees reduced since there is no longer ANY value in owning the ocean club. We know its not likely but our bigger concern is transparency.

Would you be willing to pay $2300 a year for your timeshare? Really think about that, what would you do? Would you try to do something about it. If your fees went from 1100 last year to 2300 this year, would you take any action or would you say, "this is exactly what the contract dictates".

I would love to see other owners that you suggest might feel alienated by our actions continue to post their views. I know you and I will never see this issue the same way, I believe putting yourself in the situation is difficult to do but it is why we get upset about the whole issue. I do appreciate and trust that both you and Eric will continue to offer your opinions for two reasons: it keeps the issue alive and you do have some great input.

 

[ecwinch]

I dont think 1000 owners are a small splinter group,not all of them post here but they have signed up with Marksue to be included. Thats a lot of uhappy folks. We would love to have the maintenance fees reduced since there is no longer ANY value in owning the ocean club. We know its not likely but our bigger concern is transparency.

Would you be willing to pay $2300 a year for your timeshare? Really think about that, what would you do? Would you try to do something about it. If your fees went from 1100 last year to 2300 this year, would you take any action or would you say, "this is exactly what the contract dictates".

If I owned at a resort that had incurred significant storm damage during a hurricane during the same time it was pending a special assessment, resulting in a large jump in m/f, I would be very frustrated. I would vent a lot.

But I do happen to own at such a resort. One in South Padre, TX that was hit by Hurricane Wilma. When I got the bill, I was not a happy camper. But I recognized that it was not the BOD's fault that the storm hit, and my frustration did not change the fact that the resort needed the funds to meet the insurance deductible and complete the planned improvements to the resort. So I understand your pain. It is your response to the problem I do not understand fully. I understand it from your desire to blame someone for the problem and to lash out, but I do not understand your targets. So no I would not take "any" action in the hope to reduce my assessment.

And no one has explained how a change in the BOD will fix the problem of the $2300 assessment. The only response is along the lines of "we will figure it out when we get in power".

And you know that another owner has already reported that not all of the 1000 owners who have requested the special meeting were necessarily fully informed by the people who solicited their owner information. So lets not throw around the 1000 figure until the veracity of the number is established.

 

[Dean]

I dont think 1000 owners are a small splinter group,not all of them post here but they have signed up with Marksue to be included. Thats a lot of uhappy folks. We would love to have the maintenance fees reduced since there is no longer ANY value in owning the ocean club. We know its not likely but our bigger concern is transparency.

Would you be willing to pay $2300 a year for your timeshare? Really think about that, what would you do? Would you try to do something about it. If your fees went from 1100 last year to 2300 this year, would you take any action or would you say, "this is exactly what the contract dictates".

I would love to see other owners that you suggest might feel alienated by our actions continue to post their views. I know you and I will never see this issue the same way, I believe putting yourself in the situation is difficult to do but it is why we get upset about the whole issue. I do appreciate and trust that both you and Eric will continue to offer your opinions for two reasons: it keeps the issue alive and you do have some great input.

Haven't we already established that not all of those owners on the list are totally behind the effort. Also is it $2300 a year or $2300 for one year, big difference in my book. Main fees in the range of $1400-1500 a year are not inappropriate for Aruba from what I've seen.

 

[modoaruba]

As far as storm damage, isn't there insurance?
I really do not nor did I understand that we as owners are liable for heavy loss expenses.
I admit I was naive when I bought that we would be responsible for such expenses. I thought that Marriott would take care of such things as a roof since its there name on the building.
Has anyone read all the fine print in the contract and or used a lawyer at the close?
Again, excuse me for being naive, but if I knew then what I know now I would not have bought ANY time share.
As I blogged before, to me, owning a time share,especially at the OC,I would have come out ahead financially by renting.

 

[lovearuba]

need more info

Haven't we already established that not all of those owners on the list are totally behind the effort. Also is it $2300 a year or $2300 for one year, big difference in my book. Main fees in the range of $1400-1500 a year are not inappropriate for Aruba from what I've seen.

Show me the page where this was established, I want to put it into context. Is it one person, two or the mass? As for the 2300 its at least two years, who knows what we will be paying by 2011.

 

[ecwinch]

As far as storm damage, isn't there insurance?
I really do not nor did I understand that we as owners are liable for heavy loss expenses.
I admit I was naive when I bought that we would be responsible for such expenses. I thought that Marriott would take care of such things as a roof since its there name on the building.
Has anyone read all the fine print in the contract and or used a lawyer at the close?
Again, excuse me for being naive, but if I knew then what I know now I would not have bought ANY time share.
As I blogged before, to me, owning a time share,especially at the OC,I would have come out ahead financially by renting.

Yes there is. But due to all the major hurricane events in the past 10-15 years, the cost to obtain 100% coverage or coverage with a reasonable deductible - particularly in coastal areas - is prohibitive. Just look at any HOA budgets you have. Since 2000, it is not uncommon to see property insurance costs more than double - and that is with high deductible or co-insurance requirements. Losses from hurricanes have forced so many insurers out of Florida that the state had to form an insurance company to provide last resort insurance.

And it would be nice to be able to make every major decision knowing what the future holds. However if the hurricane had not hit, if the Surf Club had not been built, and economy was not in the shape it is, I think your rent vs own analysis would be much different.

 

[ecwinch]

Show me the page where this was established, I want to put it into context. Is it one person, two or the mass? As for the 2300 its at least two years, who knows what we will be paying by 2011.

Correct, there was only one report. Go back to Retired To Travels post. Are you really suggesting that it is an isolating case? If so, it might be good to post that fact, i.e.

"Retired to Travel,

We have looked into this and there was one volunteer who was overzealous in obtaining owner information on the beach at the AOC. Luckily he signed up only one owner. "

I mean we are talking about someone who was passionate enough to canvas owners while on vacation. I think it is a pretty serious indictment - has your group looked into it? If so - please post the findings.

Obviously we will find out here shortly if the 1000 owners really know what they signed up for.

 

[SueDonJ]

I dont think 1000 owners are a small splinter group,not all of them post here but they have signed up with Marksue to be included. Thats a lot of uhappy folks. We would love to have the maintenance fees reduced since there is no longer ANY value in owning the ocean club. We know its not likely but our bigger concern is transparency.

Well, others have already mentioned that there is the very real possibility that some of those 1,000 owners may not have been aware of exactly what actions would result from their names being collected ... But even if all 1,000 have agreed to petition the BOD for a special meeting to oust three members of the BOD, your group is a minority group of owners. By definition that makes it a splinter group.

Again with the call for transparency, despite the fact that you have received unprecedented cooperation and communication from Marriott/MVCI/your BOD. I simply don't understand the call - especially as you want what you are not willing to give. After all, what is all this cloak and dagger stuff about supersecret official documents and not tipping your hands to Marriott about what your group is holding? Isn't that a lack of transparency on your part?

Would you be willing to pay $2300 a year for your timeshare? Really think about that, what would you do? Would you try to do something about it. If your fees went from 1100 last year to 2300 this year, would you take any action or would you say, "this is exactly what the contract dictates".

(Others have separated your $2,300 total into ongoing maintenance fees and single-use special assessment fees - I agree with that.)

I would be frustrated, yes. I would expect communication from Marriott and my BOD to explain the gigantic hike, yes (which you've gotten.) I would not attempt to perform legal actions without benefit of legal representation, and I would not involve myself in a splinter group that is making all the wrong moves for all the right reasons.

The contracts DO dictate that if I want to use my timeshares, I must pay the fees. I like my timeshares, and think I researched them enough to know that the fees are reasonable for the location/property/owner satisfaction, so yes, I would be willing to pay what's owed. I don't expect my fees, though, to increase percentage-wise as yours have, because a review of my resorts' Operating Budgets tells me that they are as on top of the current and future costs as can reasonably be expected.

Your maintenance fees have increased, according to your BOD's Operating Budget and subsequent communications, due to a lack of reserve collections (a fault of your former BOD) and unexpected exorbitant increases in the island's infrastructure and labor costs.

Your special assessment fees are due to, again, a lack of reserve collections for ten-year property enhancements and re-furnishings, as well as the unfortunate fact that the company who did your original roof is no longer in business which means that there is no warranty coverage for the repairs not covered by insurance.

Marriott/MVCI/your current BOD are not at fault for these issues. Your former BOD does deserve a good portion of the blame.

I would love to see other owners that you suggest might feel alienated by our actions continue to post their views. I know you and I will never see this issue the same way, I believe putting yourself in the situation is difficult to do but it is why we get upset about the whole issue. I do appreciate and trust that both you and Eric will continue to offer your opinions for two reasons: it keeps the issue alive and you do have some great input.

We have tried to put ourselves into your position, which is why we are offering opposing views that would make sense to us if we were in that position. And I don't think you'll have any problem with this issue dying a premature death. Some of us like to talk way too much.

 

[lovearuba]

Well, others have already mentioned that there is the very real possibility that some of those 1,000 owners may not have been aware of exactly what actions would result from their names being collected ... But even if all 1,000 have agreed to petition the BOD for a special meeting to oust three members of the BOD, your group is a minority group of owners. By definition that makes it a splinter group.


We have tried to put ourselves into your position, which is why we are offering opposing views that would make sense to us if we were in that position. And I don't think you'll have any problem with this issue dying a premature death. Some of us like to talk way too much.

I agree to disagree with your perspective but again I really do value your input.

 

[modoaruba]

Why do you think that they have not come up with a "nice guy solution"? What do you think the offer to pay a portion of the roof costs and to lend the money to the HOA is? Both of those offers have tangible and significant costs associated with them.

As a business owner, can you honestly suggest that you would do much more?

If you had an angry customer, I am sure you would try to figure out how to fix the situation. MVCI has done that.

If the customer was being unreasonable, what extent would you go to? Would you give into his demands just because he was standing outside your store and telling customers that you are a cheat?

And the problem is further complicated by the fact that the duly elected representatives of the customer have accepted your "nice guy solution". But a small faction want more.

I think it would be hard to run a business doing anything other than what MVCI has done here. But I have not seen the super secret proof that Marksue has.

_________________________________________________________________
If I sold a defective product I would not have my customer pay any part of the fix. I'd pay the whole amount.
You can not use your analogy if Marksue is correct.

 

[timeos2]

One more time. Warranty & responsibility is not forever

_________________________________________________________________
If I sold a defective product I would not have my customer pay any part of the fix. I'd pay the whole amount.
You can not use your analogy if Marksue is correct.

They didn't sell the roof - they sold the project. The warranty from the developer ends when the Association takes over control - the BOD then has the onus of maintenance & support. They also inherit any warranty FROM THE BUILDERS - not the Developer. If the builder went out of business - very common in the world of construction companies - then the warranty goes with them unless specifically backed by a third party (as the Windows apparently were). We have been down that road at resorts (and homes) that have nothing to do with Marriott. The fact that Marriott stood up and took ANY responsibility (nearly 50% for the roof has been reported here) is more than they HAD to do and is a big statement that they wish to "stand behind" what they sold. But the owners / Association got 10+ years service out of the roof(s) so to say Marriott now owes 100% - that there was NO value derived for all that time by the owners / Association - is a ridiculous argument. It would not get far in any court. Add in the needed repairs / upgrades any decade old resort will need in the normal course of use that wasn't (apparently) properly funded by sitting Boards for all those years and suddenly there is a BIG bill due from owners. No surprise. No grand scheme to disavow responsibility or run people out of office (everyone seems to be in agreement that there are term limits in place at that resort).

It seems from this view and this thread that the complaints HAVE been addressed and basically the answers aren't what some want to hear. No surprise there either - "we need more funds from you and you as owners owe it" usually isn't well received. Doesn't change the need, doesn't mean there is any backroom deals - it may simply be the truth that a resort costs money - BIG money - to own and operate. Marriott doesn't OWN it, they only manage it for the owners. They shouldn't be expected to pay to upgrade and maintain it as that is the owners responsibility. Once Marriott sold it & turned it over to the Association (and they accepted & ran it for many years) any offers of support by Marriott is a bonus not a right. At least one group of owners doesn't seem to grasp that and, if they are successful but wrong about what is "owed", may end up costing all owners even more. I hope the majority of owners are involved on deciding where this all goes in the long run. So far it seems to be in the wrong direction if lower costs and better operations are the goal. Is that this Board, the old Board(s), the owners who elect those Boards or Marriott's fault? MAybe a little of each? Will booting the current Board make things right? Better be sure before owners take that expensive step or more. The current costs may be dwarfed if the wrong actions are taken.

Still a very interesting thread even if one ignores the sideshow of "renting is cheaper" which doesn't really play in this drama. Blog on!

 

[SueDonJ]

If I sold a defective product I would not have my customer pay any part of the fix. I'd pay the whole amount.
You can not use your analogy if Marksue is correct.

And that's the ultimate unknown in this entire thread, isn't it?

I would guess that if Marksue was holding anything that could prove his contention that Marriott/MVCI owes anything more to these owners than what has already been offered, then the legal minds that he has supposedly consulted with would have suggested to him that he put his cards on the table and force Marriott/MVCI to either disprove his evidence or pay up.

All this cloak and dagger, not tipping our hands, threatening, insinuating and intimating only serves to give the appearance that there is no substance behind Marksue's words. Why anyone would think that Marriott/MVCI would respond positively to any of it, is beyond me.

 

[SueDonJ]

They didn't sell the roof - they sold the project. ... Blog on!

Excellent post, I agree with every bit of it. (And I got a chuckle out of the "Blog on!" - reminds me of peace signs and bell-bottom pants. )