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

[ecwinch]

sorry, guys. I looked at the bylaws, its a book with really small font and too many pages to scan. If you want a specific section let me know and I'll see what it would take to scan it.

Is there a section regarding the members right to inspect the records?

Is there a section regarding dispute resolution or the members right to request a hearing before the BOD?

 

[lovearuba]

Is there a section regarding the members right to inspect the records?

yes
Audit: Article 51: The general meeting of members can resolve at their own discretion to have an independent expert audit conducted of the management of the association. The independent expert or experts shall have access to all books, registers and any other informatin desired.

25.2: The associations books and records shall be kept in accordance with the universally accepted commercial practices in Aruba. The associations financial reports shall be available for inspection by the members at a location and during times set forth in the bylaws.

Is there a section regarding dispute resolution or the members right to request a hearing before the BOD?

Not sure, but Article 22.1 references the Board of Appeals which seems to have power to confirm or withdraw a decision by the board. This board of appeals has three members on it. These do not all appear to be actual timeshare owners.

Theres also another article 23 which allows the General Meeting of the members to have an audit done of the management of the association.


Page 15 references dissolutio of the board which might be useful to you If you are interested in this section, I will scan it for you. I have to run for now, let me know if you want more. Thanks

This book has two sections: Articles of Cooperative Association and the Bylaws of the Cooperative Association

 

[Sunbum]

Assessment

When was or is the first assesment payment due?

Sorry for the post, i just found the info.

 

[vincenzi]

When was or is the first assesment payment due?

Sorry for the post, i just found the info.

It is due June 1, 2009.

 

[lovearuba]

letter

Hi
Did you guys get a recent letter because you signed up with Mark?. I got one and tried to respond but it was one of those email addresses that were not meant to be responded to. So they wanted to tell me stuff but they didnt want me to be able to respond to it.

 

[vincenzi]

Hi
Did you guys get a recent letter because you signed up with Mark?. I got one and tried to respond but it was one of those email addresses that were not meant to be responded to. So they wanted to tell me stuff but they didnt want me to be able to respond to it.

I received two e-mails. One was from the Board of Directors at Aruba Ocean Club. The other was from Dirk Schavemaker from MVCI.

 

[modoaruba]

Hi
Did you guys get a recent letter because you signed up with Mark?. I got one and tried to respond but it was one of those email addresses that were not meant to be responded to. So they wanted to tell me stuff but they didnt want me to be able to respond to it.

To respond you might be able to use: aocbod@vacationclub.com

 

[lovearuba]

Thanks

HI
I'll use the address and see whether or not that one comes back as undeliverable.

 

[marksue]

I got the emails as well and there will be a response sent out to both of them. The one from Dirk had Arne Sorenson, President of MI, CCed on it so you know Arne has been getting lots of email from owners. Keep it up.

I am just amazed that Dirk, who told owners at an owner meeting, that where questioning the building, that if they don’t like it then just sell. It looks like all he did was take his previous email to us and rewrite it. Nothing new in his email and I am not surprised about that. MVCI ahs refused to answer owner’s questions. Dirk and the GM’s have openly stated that their desire is to have a totally integrated resort in the future. Given the opportunity in his letter to say it isn’t so, there is no mention of not integrating the resorts

As for the email supposedly from the board, but obvious it was written by MVCI, shows how much of an impact this group has. They are now reverting to trying to threaten us. Once again they have not answered any of the questions we have been asking since this effort began. It is funny since the letter they sent out, we have gotten more owners signing up with us as more owners are getting fed up.

They are threatening that MF will go up due to legal action. In fact they are the ones who brought in legal to come up with a way to avoid calling a special meeting. The legal action which is under way by this group is not against the association but against MVCI, so unless MVCI tries to push the costs down, which they can not, there is no impact to owners. Owners on our list will get a copy of our response in the next day or so.

 

[marksue]

response to BOD email

My fellow owners,

By now you have all received the emails from both the BOD and MVCI. I was amazed that the list we supplied them that did not include your email address, was not good enough to call a special meeting, yet was good enough for them to try and scare all of you. How come they were able to go into our personal information and get our email addresses yet we were unable to get information to contact the owners thus providing both sides of the issues?

We keep hearing the same thing from the BOD, yet they have always refused to answer our questions. Let me try to address the inaccuracies they stated in their email as well as reiterate the questions they have yet to answer. There letter once again shows the lack of transparency coming from the board.

1) The only reason we are at this point is that the BOD and Marriott have refused to recognize the rights of the owners to call a special meeting. Instead they went to legal to find a way from having the meeting. They then com back to us and say we did not supply the correct information, even though when asked they did not tell us what was needed and what we submitted was exactly what the bylaws said had to be done.
2) First of all the threat that any legal action if necessary, (which is not our desire) will cost you money is a false statement unless Marriott tries to pass the cost down to owners which I am not sure they can. Our action is against MVCI and not against the association. Remember the BOD went to legal before we did to prevent the special meeting.
3) We have never stated that there was going to be integration of the Surf or Ocean club. We want to make sure it does not happen. Marriott sales people in Aruba are telling people that if you buy in the Surf Club you can use the Ocean Club Facilities. Dirk and the GM’s have openly stated that their desire is to have a totally integrated resort in the future, We want to make sure this does not happen.
4) They say Allan’s relationship with Marriott had become adversarial. If that is true you have to question why that is. Wasn’t he looking out for the owner’s best interests and keeping us informed of what was happening with our investments. If that is being adversarial then I want more Allan’s.
5) Frank has improved the relationship with Marriott to the detriment of the owners. Since he took over our MF have gone up 35% and we have been hit with 2 assessments. So Marriott is now happy, but the owners are not. What is wrong with this picture? That is why Marriott voted for the first time and protected Frank. What aren’t we being told? You figure it out.
6) Why should owners worry about negative publicity, I think it is Marriott that should worry about how they have treated the owners and how they have prevented owners from having a voice in their property.
7) As for the budget, they still have not answered,
a. why they used a higher inflation number from 6 months prior to the change in our budget versus a lower rate 4 months later
b. How much have we paid due for repairs over the past 10 years due to the defective building
c. Why is Marriott not paying a fair rate for Sales space in the Ocean Club
d. Why hire 3 people and increase our costs in a time of economic hardships for many?
8) Why has all information been taken off the website? Why does everything now have to go through a Marriott employee?
9) Why was Allan prevented from introducing motions that would give the owners more say in how their money is spent or even delay some of the refurbishment to save the owners from spending as much as they have had to this year.
10) Why did Frank say a couple of months ago all the engineer reports show everything is ok, yet then say I don’t have all the reports as they are not available. Once again not being honest with the owners. I have seen the Marriott engineering report where it states rust and water accumulation are do to the exposure to the elements.

We will continue to put our time and effort as needed into this effort. Marriott will not scare us to back down from holding them accountable. We have asked Marriott International to get involved and we still hope they will. I want to thank all of you for your support and as we move through the process I will supply you with updates. Allan and I are always available to speak with you and let you know what is happening.

 

[ecwinch]

Can you share the e-mails from MVCI with the non-owners also?

And no, I am not going to try and counter all the inaccuracies in your post. I figure anyone interested in a balanced recap probably knows the facts by now. Unlike you, I grow tired of repeating the same things over and over again.

Thanks.

 

[marksue]

Response to DIrks Email

Dirk,

I am in receipt of your email. I think that Marriott still has you responding to owners after the lack of respect you have shown to owners during the owners meeting last October is a big mistake. After you told an owner that was complaining that maybe they should just sell is one of the reasons for all of what is taking place today. I believe what you showed was MVCI’s lack of respect of owners

To date neither you, MVCI, MI or Ocean Club BOD have yet to answer the questions that have been asked over and over. All we get from you and the BOD is the same line.

Answer these questions for the owners:

1) Why have you never made public the engineering assessment Marriott had performed. If you would like I will post it here for you, since I got a copy of it. You have not made it public, because it talks about the water and rust issue due to the exposure to the elements and Marriott would then be held fully responsible.

2) Why after I personally spoke with Stephen Weisz and David Babich, and others had the same conversation with them, and they said to me if you do not like your board vote them out, Marriott then takes away the rights of the owners and casts votes, which they never have, and reelects a person the owners did not want? What is in it for Marriott having Frank in as President?

3) Tell us why Marriott has not paid there fair share for sales space utilized in the Ocean club? Why has Marriott not reimbursed us for the damage caused by the leaks due to a defective roof and waterproofing? The damage by the storm was due to poor waterproofing of the building why isn't Marriott reimbursing us for those costs? We have heard about eating your management fee, but you do that for many properties during renovations.

4) Why is MVCI writing mail and having it sent as if it came from the BOD? It is quite obvious MVCI is controlling all communication from the BOD.

5) Marriott is the so called experts as it pertains to T/S. Why have you not provided the BOD with the correct requirements for a reserve fund? Seems you want them low to sell more units and once the buildings are sold out owners get hit with assessments.

6) Why when selling Ocean Club units no one was told Marriott never built the building and it stood exposed to the elements. Why are your sales people still telling people if you buy in the Surf Club you can use the Ocean Club facilities?



You say the information supplied to owners by myself and others is inaccurate. They are not inaccurate they are the facts.
1) Did Marriott sell a building that sat exposed to the elements for over 5 years? Yes
2) Have your sales people been telling potential buyers at the Surf Club they can use the Ocean club facilities? ( there are owners who attended sales meeting and were told this) Yes
3) Why have you not paid a fair share for space utilized in the Ocean Club? Still waiting for a valid response
4) Why have you yet to tell us how much of our maintenance fees went to pay for all the damage caused by the leaks from the roof and windows? Because you never told people the history of the building, you let them believe it was built by Marriott.
5) Why in the mailings you sent out in 2006 you state the roof has a 25 year life time expectancy, yet after 10 years of ownership it needs to be replaced? What are you hiding? Maybe you can not sell as many units with the truth. With the Marriott name selling with the truth should not be an issue.
6) Why will you not release to the owners all engineering reports? Once again it will show Marriott was selling a defective building.
7) Why for the first time in AOC history did Marriott vote their shares to elect Frank Knox when the owners voted to have him not reelected? Is it because he will do what you want?


Why not give the owners true answers to the questions being asked versus telling us what you want us to hear. We see right through it.

Many times I have said to get MI, MVCI and owners together and try to resolve these issues. Yet Marriott has refused to listen to the owners. Allan Cohen even addressed Mr. Marriott with the same suggestion at the shareholders meeting. What is Marriott afraid of?

I and the others will continue this fight for how ever long it takes. In my eyes and others Marriott has lost the respect it used to have. A snowball starts with 1 flake and grows from there. The more flakes the bigger the snowball. This effort started with 1 person and has now grown to over a thousand and it will continue to grow as more and more people have signed up since the board meeting. It is time for Marriott to open its eyes to what is occurring and work with the owners and develop a solution that all can live with. Arne, how difficult can that be.

 

[ecwinch]

Just a constructive point.

I think you have some valid points that need addressing. However when you bury those points with rhetoric, innuendo, and bias, it detracts from those points.

You are taking the kitchen sink approach, and in an issue like this, it is better to shoot them with a rifle rather than a shotgun.

When you do the latter they tend to discount the entire message. JMO.

And just because you keep pointing to it as the smoking gun - if all the engineering report says is that there was rust and water accumulation due to exposure, that is not the same as the building is defective. Rust is a natural process, not an indication of defect. Just hope you have more than that.

Good luck. I admire your passion and energy. Just wish you played the game fairly...

 

[Dave M]

2) First of all the threat that any legal action if necessary, (which is not our desire) will cost you money is a false statement unless Marriott tries to pass the cost down to owners which I am not sure they can. Our action is against MVCI and not against the association. Remember the BOD went to legal before we did to prevent the special meeting.

I have been mostly quiet for a long time now, because I had hoped that your retaining legal counsel would get your effort going in the right direction, but I have to speak out again.

I can assure you that if you are getting legal advice that includes the possibility of legal action against Marriott and not against the BOD/HOA, you should seek advice from a different attorney. And if you need to ask why, you need much more help than you are getting.

Bottom line? If a jury or judge hears the case and believes Marriott when they tell the jury/judge that the BOD made the decisions, Marriott will be off the hook. And Marriott will be able to point to provisions in its management contract (see below) that prove that the BOD was responsible for certain actions that you are claiming were Marriott’s responsibility. Then if you later try to sue the BOD/HOA, they will cast doubt by saying Marriott controlled the process and you'll lose again.

Further, I assume you have read the management contract between Marriott and the HOA. If not, you and legal counsel should try to get a copy. As just one example, Marriott's typical management agreement (I'm looking at two Marriott/HOA management agreements right now) includes a provision that makes it clear that it's the BOD's responsibility to determine the appropriate level for reserves. The contracts provide that Marriott provides assistance to the BOD with respect to reserves, but operates in that capacity only “at the direction of the Board”. That language is in stark contrast to your assertion that Marriott is responsible for whatever level the reserves are at. There are a number of other sections that deal with who pays when professionals (e.g., law firms) are hired for anything related to the resort (want to make a guess?) and a variety of other matters that make it clear to me that you don't have a ghost of a chance in court if you pursue it that far.

And your statement that the HOA won't have to incur legal fees? In addition to what's in the management contract, if you sue only Marriott, the BOD will have to hire legal counsel to protect its interests, since Marriott may well deflect the blame. Also, the BOD's counsel will likely want to sit in on most depositions and will undoubtedly spend mega-amounts of time preparing for trial, since you would certainly expect to require various BOD members to be deposed and testify at trial. Yes, mega-expense that will be passed on to owners, no matter how you look at it.

 

[AwayWeGo]

You Have An Excellent Case. Now, How Much Justice Can You Afford ?

And your statement that the HOA won't have to incur legal fees? In addition to what's in the management contract, if you sue only Marriott, the BOD will have to hire legal counsel to protect its interests, since Marriott may well deflect the blame. Also, the BOD's counsel will likely want to sit in on most depositions and will undoubtedly spend mega-amounts of time preparing for trial, since you would certainly expect to require various BOD members to be deposed and testify at trial. Yes, mega-expense that will be passed on to owners, no matter how you look at it.

No matter whether the plaintiffs lose or the defendants lose, the lawyers still win.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[ecwinch]

Bottom line? If a jury or judge hears the case and believes Marriott when they tell the jury/judge that the BOD made the decisions, Marriott will be off the hook. And Marriott will be able to point to provisions in its management contract (see below) that prove that the BOD was responsible for certain actions that you are claiming were Marriott’s responsibility. Then if you later try to sue the BOD/HOA, they will cast doubt by saying Marriott controlled the process and you'll lose again.

To dovetail into what Dave just said, here is the problem with the action going back to the BOD.

Now this point is rooted in US law, and I am going to assume that Aruba has something similar. But it could be incorrect.

There is the legal theory called "reasonable business judgment". Basically it derived from the fact that courts do not like to second guess the judgment of a duly formed Board of Directors. So as long as the actions of the BOD can be judged to be reasonable, and not violation of the governing documents and/or common law or to be arbitrary, then those actions are not subject to legal review.

So the decision of a BOD to not pursue a potential legal action against MVCI, would likely be viewed in light of being a reasonable business decision. They weighed the pros and cons of the situation, and decided not to pursue it. Now one member of the BOD may have disagreed, but that does not negate the decision of the BOD. Nor does it allow you to sue them on the basis of having made that decision.

Just because you disagree with the decision of the BOD, that is not a basis for a lawsuit.

They will simply offer the defense that they acted based on their reasonable business judgement and ask for dismissal. The burden will be on you to prove their actions were illegal or arbitrary. So have some proof that is supported by a violation of the Declaration or by-laws.

But you are of course in Aruba, so who knows.

 

[modoaruba]

Devil's advocate

Let's see now, a hot cup of coffee spilled will fetch millions in a US court against a large corporation. Only in America. Any other country's court would say that if you were given a warm cup you would'nt accept it.

Now take our situation of taking on Marriott in an international court, even with a logical complaint. The politcal leverage they have is extraordinary.
I feel that American logic has no equal standings abroad. The international courts many times run on what is called protection of what is good for their own economy. I don't know if Aruba is one.

If we have the numbers to try to recall the BOD, do we have the numbers to litigate?

If it came to the option of litigation at an expense, do we need a majority vote since all owners would have to pay?

If it did come down to litigation at an expense, what price per unit owner would be a cut off where it would deem to be a loss not worth pursuing?

 

[lovearuba]

Lessons learned

If I have learned anything with my purchase, I've learned that I will never purchase another timeshare or think fondly on the Marriott brand. If that doesnt mean anything to Marriott then they really have forgotten what customer service and product branding is all about.

I agree with most of the comments on the problem with litigation. I also have seen some cases where litigation may have ended up benefiting the lawyers but business practices had to be altered which should be the real goal. If you dont stand up for what you believe in because its hard then you accept mediocracy. From my perspective, what I was sold is not what I got. You can tell me never to trust a sales person because they are not always honest but Marriott allowed them to sell me this property and they represented Marriott.

 

[modoaruba]

If I have learned anything with my purchase, I've learned that I will never purchase another timeshare or think fondly on the Marriott brand. If that doesnt mean anything to Marriott then they really have forgotten what customer service and product branding is all about.

I agree with most of the comments on the problem with litigation. I also have seen some cases where litigation may have ended up benefiting the lawyers but business practices had to be altered which should be the real goal. If you dont stand up for what you believe in because its hard then you accept mediocracy. From my perspective, what I was sold is not what I got. You can tell me never to trust a sales person because they are not always honest but Marriott allowed them to sell me this property and they represented Marriott.

caveat emptor,quia ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit.

Let the purchaser beware,for he ought not be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party.

 

[ecwinch]

Let's see now, a hot cup of coffee spilled will fetch millions in a US court against a large corporation. Only in America. Any other country's court would say that if you were given a warm cup you would'nt accept it.

Now take our situation of taking on Marriott in an international court, even with a logical complaint. The politcal leverage they have is extraordinary.
I feel that American logic has no equal standings abroad. The international courts many times run on what is called protection of what is good for their own economy. I don't know if Aruba is one.

If we have the numbers to try to recall the BOD, do we have the numbers to litigate?

If it came to the option of litigation at an expense, do we need a majority vote since all owners would have to pay?

If it did come down to litigation at an expense, what price per unit owner would be a cut off where it would deem to be a loss not worth pursuing?

The logic you are outlining - particularly the last part - could very well be the exact same logic the "puppet" BOD used.

Of course not everyone would agree with that decision, but it does negate the fact that it is their right to make that decision.

 

[modoaruba]

The logic you are outlining - particularly the last part - could very well be the exact same logic the "puppet" BOD used.

Of course not everyone would agree with that decision, but it does negate the fact that it is their right to make that decision.

So are you saying that this might be the BOD logic.Then why are they not disclosing this reasoning, or any other reasonings with the owners they represent?
There always will be oppositions to any decision made regardless of issues.
But by being frank and open to the owners it would speak volumes in maintaining trust.
(too idealistic?)

 

[Luckybee]

Strangely, and although they indicate they sent the email to all on the list "purporting" to support Mark et al I didnt receive it. I may not be the only one. I just had someone else send me a copy. Aside from all the additional issues this raises(and imho I think it adds to owners concerns) does it not bother anyone that they are receiveng a letter directed to them "purporting " to be from 3 individuals to whom they have no way of responding. Isnt that sort of like spam. In other words, instead of responding to them you must instead write to Corey? Unless of course you have the board members emails which are not available anywhere? Am i getting this right? Perhaps that why I didnt get it....good spam filter on my computer.

 

[timeos2]

not the way it goes

Dave has it nailed. Either they have legal advice from someone who has never actually had to handle this type of situation. It all sounds like an uninformed approach of how "things should be" rather than how the courts /legal process works. It just keeps sounding worse.

 

[lovearuba]

so much correspondence

Strangely, and although they indicate they sent the email to all on the list "purporting" to support Mark et al I didnt receive it. I may not be the only one. I just had someone else send me a copy. Aside from all the additional issues this raises(and imho I think it adds to owners concerns) does it not bother anyone that they are receiveng a letter directed to them "purporting " to be from 3 individuals to whom they have no way of responding. Isnt that sort of like spam. In other words, instead of responding to them you must instead write to Corey? Unless of course you have the board members emails which are not available anywhere? Am i getting this right? Perhaps that why I didnt get it....good spam filter on my computer.

Luckybee, are you sure they have you as an owner. I am getting lots of recent correspondence. A letter by snail mail today and an email today and numerous other emails within the last few days. Just seems really uncoordinated and suggests to me that they need help keeping their members list up to date.

 

[ecwinch]

So are you saying that this might be the BOD logic.Then why are they not disclosing this reasoning, or any other reasonings with the owners they represent?
There always will be oppositions to any decision made regardless of issues.
But by being frank and open to the owners it would speak volumes in maintaining trust.
(too idealistic?)

As if their attempts to be more transparent have helped them so far? No, it has the exact opposite affect, they are just accused of being a puppet for MVCI.

I think most Marriott owners would welcome the amount of effort they have spent on communicating with owners. But no matter what they do, it is not enough.

And you have me at a disadvantage, since the last communication from the board has not been shared.