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

[SueDonJ]

Do those things visit your balconies?!?!

 

[modoaruba]

Was that picture taken at the AOC?
If so, there goes our MFs again.

 

[qlaval]

Was that picture taken at the AOC?
If so, there goes our MFs again.

Of course not, they are from the wild side of the island.

 

[modoaruba]

Of course not, they are from the wild side of the island.

That could be another debatable subject here as to which side IS the REAL wild side. I've seen some very suspicious occurances on our side.
Week 3 to mention one.

 

[lovearuba]

Low rise beach area

That could be another debatable subject here as to which side IS the REAL wild side. I've seen some very suspicious occurances on our side.
Week 3 to mention one.

I have to say we get an eyeful each time we walk over to the low rise area. Its amazing to see how folks dress to go to the beach. They must have a different mirror than the ones I use. I was with my spouse one day walking along chatting and my better half said, "Oh, tell me that is not what I think it is". I'll leave your imaginations to figure it out.

 

[Luckybee]

Riiiiight. You responded to this:



with this:



But you were writing about "THE BOARD." What then, exactly, is "THE BOARD?" Because it sure wasn't mentioned in anything I asked you about.

You wrote "Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here. I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is no smoking gun to discredit them, there is concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions. If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it."

Were you not referring to the board when you said BOD...if u meant something else then I obviously missed it....but I can assure you that I was referring to the board when I responded....if i had been referring to you I would have no qualms in saying so...I will say that I do think you're being a tad paranoid by your reaction because I cannot for the life of me figure out how you managed to find a personal insult in that post....anyway Im not going back and forth with you on whether I insulted you any longer...if you feel the overwhelming urge to think so ...well then go ahead...it isnt my problem.

 

[Luckybee]

That could be another debatable subject here as to which side IS the REAL wild side. I've seen some very suspicious occurances on our side.
Week 3 to mention one.

After hearing over and over again about week 3...that is one party I am truly glad we have never experienced

 

[Luckybee]

Do those things visit your balconies?!?!

Thankfully no...but here is a photo from a poster on one of the Aruba BB's showing what he found one morning on his new house door in Aruba when leaving with his child....gives a new meaning to the welcome sign...lol

http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l37/anthonyhagedoorn/?action=view&current=olympuspics288.jpg

 

[SueDonJ]

You wrote "Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here. I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is no smoking gun to discredit them, there is concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions. If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it."

Were you not referring to the board when you said BOD...if u meant something else then I obviously missed it....but I can assure you that I was referring to the board when I responded....if i had been referring to you I would have no qualms in saying so...I will say that I do think you're being a tad paranoid by your reaction because I cannot for the life of me figure out how you managed to find a personal insult in that post....anyway Im not going back and forth with you on whether I insulted you any longer...if you feel the overwhelming urge to think so ...well then go ahead...it isnt my problem.

I don't know where you get half the stuff you come up with. Where did I say anything about being "insulted" by what you were writing?! Confused, yes. Insulted? No.

And you still haven't answered my question, but you're entitled.

 

[SueDonJ]

Thankfully no...but here is a photo from a poster on one of the Aruba BB's showing what he found one morning on his new house door in Aruba when leaving with his child....gives a new meaning to the welcome sign...lol

http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l37/anthonyhagedoorn/?action=view&current=olympuspics288.jpg

Holy crap.

 

[modoaruba]

I have to say we get an eyeful each time we walk over to the low rise area. Its amazing to see how folks dress to go to the beach. They must have a different mirror than the ones I use. I was with my spouse one day walking along chatting and my better half said, "Oh, tell me that is not what I think it is". I'll leave your imaginations to figure it out.

Like I said before-
"whatever"

 

[Dean]

Most members will not be able to attend. What is the process for them voting on the motion under consideration at the special meeting?

I have responded to this before and will give it to you again. Once the meeting is called a proxy is sent to all owners explaing the intent of the meeting and the owners vote as in any election. You then need a quorum like in any other election. Those that can not attend can assign the proxy as they do in any other election.

Why not let the owners have a say?

The owners should be able to vote by mail OR assign a proxy. Didn't the owners vote including Marriott as an owner? If you saying that only private owners should have voted and not Marriott, then I would absolutely disagree.

 

[Luckybee]

Marriott should absolutely get a vote for any units they own. That isnt what happened in the most recent elections however. They voted on B shares, something they have never done before . Not only did they get a vote with the A shares(which are ownership shares) but also with the B shares. The "developer"(Marriott) allocated 1500 B shares to Marriott(thenselves). These shares are connected to the "common facilities not exclusively by A share members" Im not sure of the number of units Marriott purchased back in contemplation of the election but as an example: If they bought back 100 units. They would have 100 A share votes , but by voting the B shares(if that is held to be ac'd to the intent and spirit of the bylaws) they would have an additional 1500 votes.

 

[SueDonJ]

Marriott should absolutely get a vote for any units they own. That isnt what happened in the most recent elections however. They voted on B shares, something they have never done before . Not only did they get a vote with the A shares(which are ownership shares) but also with the B shares. The "developer"(Marriott) allocated 1500 B shares to Marriott(thenselves). These shares are connected to the "common facilities not exclusively by A share members" Im not sure of the number of units Marriott purchased back in contemplation of the election but as an example: If they bought back 100 units. They would have 100 A share votes , but by voting the B shares(if that is held to be ac'd to the intent and spirit of the bylaws) they would have an additional 1500 votes.

But, just because they may not have ever voted those shares before doesn't mean automatically that they do not reserve the right to vote them at any time they choose! Is there something written into the contracts somewhere that expressly prohibits them from doing so? Or, what specifically are you reading in the by-laws that tells you the "intent and spirit" of their ownership of those 1,500 B shares was violated, and/or that the "violation" is not contractually enforceable?

 

[lovearuba]

What are they afraid of

Marriott should absolutely get a vote for any units they own. That isnt what happened in the most recent elections however. They voted on B shares, something they have never done before . Not only did they get a vote with the A shares(which are ownership shares) but also with the B shares. The "developer"(Marriott) allocated 1500 B shares to Marriott(thenselves). These shares are connected to the "common facilities not exclusively by A share members" Im not sure of the number of units Marriott purchased back in contemplation of the election but as an example: If they bought back 100 units. They would have 100 A share votes , but by voting the B shares(if that is held to be ac'd to the intent and spirit of the bylaws) they would have an additional 1500 votes.

They set a precedent which to me says that they are afraid of what would happen if they didnt. Just one more barrier that we will have to move out of our way to get transparency. It is just a delay in getting what we need.

 

[timeos2]

Time to put up or shut up. Complaints have all been aired a few times

But, just because they may not have ever voted those shares before doesn't mean automatically that they do not reserve the right to vote them at any time they choose! Is there something written into the contracts somewhere that expressly prohibits them from doing so? Or, what specifically are you reading in the by-laws that tells you the "intent and spirit" of their ownership of those 1,500 B shares was violated, and/or that the "violation" is not contractually enforceable?

You have to admire the tenacity that finds "problems" with everything the other side does but cannot see the true problems with their own botched attempts. If it isn't legal for Marriott to vote those shares then challenge it! If it is legal then there is no problem. If the so called list of 1000 wasn't properly documented then it isn't a legal request for a meeting. Do it right and you'll have your meeting.

It is really SO simple when the emotions are stripped away and only the laws/rules are correctly applied. Of course the result may not be what one group or another desires so it's much easier to complain, throw around theories about collusion or worse and go back a decade or more to try to get reimbursed. While none of that does anything but fan the fire it has made for great drama here.

This thread has run it's course unless the splinter group actually does something according to the rules - unlikely as that will actually cost real money both for that group (meaningful legal advice is seldom free) and the owners who will have to defend against it.

 

[Luckybee]

They set a precedent which to me says that they are afraid of what would happen if they didnt. Just one more barrier that we will have to move out of our way to get transparency. It is just a delay in getting what we need.

I tried to just give you a smiley for that answer...it wouldnt let me being too short of a message...so let me just say...

 

[lovearuba]

You have to admire the tenacity that finds "problems" with everything the other side does but cannot see the true problems with their own botched attempts. If it isn't legal for Marriott to vote those shares then challenge it! If it is legal then there is no problem. If the so called list of 1000 wasn't properly documented then it isn't a legal request for a meeting. Do it right and you'll have your meeting.

It is really SO simple when the emotions are stripped away and only the laws/rules are correctly applied. Of course the result may not be what one group or another desires so it's much easier to complain, throw around theories about collusion or worse and go back a decade or more to try to get reimbursed. While none of that does anything but fan the fire it has made for great drama here.

This thread has run it's course unless the splinter group actually does something according to the rules - unlikely as that will actually cost real money both for that group (meaningful legal advice is seldom free) and the owners who will have to defend against it.

I would say that I agree with some of your input but recognize that some things have taken place that could not be anticipated. If no one gives you the rules its hard to play by them. If something happens that has never happened before its hard to anticipate it. Call us a splinter group or anything else you may want to call us but I am pleased that you are recognizing that we continue to pursue this. This thread has not run its course and wouldn't you really like to know how this story ends.

 

[Luckybee]

This thread has run it's course unless the splinter group actually does something according to the rules - unlikely as that will actually cost real money both for that group (meaningful legal advice is seldom free) and the owners who will have to defend against it.

"You have to admire the tenacity " of continuing to refer to the owners as "a splinter group" or "the minority" etc. when that simply isnt the case. They certainly were not the "minority" of owners who voted at the last meeting...rather they were the majority. The vote count of owners(including Marriott ownership) would have led to the ouster of Frank Knox. Only because of B shares(which have nothing whatsoever to do with ownership interest) was the board allowed to stay in place...only later will we know whether it is the "minority", a "splinter group", or the majority....and as to the "unlikely"...I guess only time will tell

 

[modoaruba]

Just an observation that I am getting from all of this.
I may be wrong. But just to shed a new light.

Take a company like Marriott.
Build a hotel and sell it as timeshares.
They are guaranteed close to a 100% occupancy at all times wether the owners are physically there or not.
Let the owners pay most of the expenses while they retain a significant portion for themselves with enough leverage that they will never lose control.
It now sounds to me that the term "owners" is no different than using the term "associate" at Walmart.
How much does the associate own?

 

[SueDonJ]

I would say that I agree with some of your input but recognize that some things have taken place that could not be anticipated. If no one gives you the rules its hard to play by them. If something happens that has never happened before its hard to anticipate it. Call us a splinter group or anything else you may want to call us but I am pleased that you are recognizing that we continue to pursue this.

I do admire that you're continuing to pursue it - as I've said, I would hate to be in your position of not loving my resort and feeling like I never could again. BUT, I still don't understand why, if it means that much to you that you'll continue against what seem to be insurmountable odds, you haven't done the one thing that would ensure all of your actions are correct. That's mind-boggling to me!

You've needed a qualified legal representative since Day One. S/he is the one who would go and GET the rules, because certainly your adversary is not going to give them to you. S/he would be the only one working for you who is educated enough to review the ownership documents, review the management contracts, review the state/country laws, review everything under the sun!, determine a course of action, draft and file your submissions, respond to your adversary's actions, recognize and plan for what could be your adversary's next moves, and (most importantly) protect YOUR interests at all cost.

This thread has not run its course and wouldn't you really like to know how this story ends.

Yep, I would, and I'm staying 'til the end. It's fascinating.

 

[SueDonJ]

"You have to admire the tenacity " of continuing to refer to the owners as "a splinter group" or "the minority" etc. when that simply isnt the case. They certainly were not the "minority" of owners who voted at the last meeting...rather they were the majority. The vote count of owners(including Marriott ownership) would have led to the ouster of Frank Knox. Only because of B shares(which have nothing whatsoever to do with ownership interest) was the board allowed to stay in place...only later will we know whether it is the "minority", a "splinter group", or the majority....and as to the "unlikely"...I guess only time will tell

The owners who voted that day did not represent a majority of the entire ownership of Aruba Ocean Club. The fact that the minority number of owners who did vote chose to not reelect Frank Knox means NOTHING, insofar as obtaining a majority rule, because the management company's votes gave Frank Knox the majority he needed to be reelected.

A majority of the ownership of Aruba Ocean Club has remained silent (with their mouths and their votes) throughout this situation. That makes the folks who have not remained silent, the folks who have voiced their disagreement, a minority ownership group. By definition, that is a "splinter group."

 

[SueDonJ]

They set a precedent which to me says that they are afraid of what would happen if they didnt. Just one more barrier that we will have to move out of our way to get transparency. It is just a delay in getting what we need.

I don't think I'd say that they were "afraid" of what would happen. Rather, I'd say that they KNEW exactly what would happen and planned accordingly as best they could so that their interests would be as protected as possible.

I think they wanted Frank Knox to be reelected because he was the sitting President of the BOD that took actions to update/maintain their resort to the quality standard they want, and they didn't want any of those actions jeopardized. They left nothing to chance, which is exactly what should have been expected of them.

 

[Luckybee]

I think they wanted Frank Knox to be reelected because he was the sitting President of the BOD that took actions to update/maintain their resort to the quality standard they want, and they didn't want any of those actions jeopardized. They left nothing to chance, which is exactly what should have been expected of them.

The owners have been accused of bias, wild accusations etc. by some of the non owners on this website. IMHO when I read what you suggest is the motivation for the actions, seems far more to be far more wild supposition than anything suggested by any owner. Honestly if you believe that Marriott's motives were this pure....let me ask you one question....do you also believe in the easter bunny ?

 

[SueDonJ]

The owners have been accused of bias, wild accusations etc. by some of the non owners on this website. IMHO when I read what you suggest is the motivation for the actions, seems far more to be far more wild supposition than anything suggested by any owner. Honestly if you believe that Marriott's motives were this pure....let me ask you one question....do you also believe in the easter bunny ?

This is too "silly" for me to answer.

[Edit:] It's stupid to waste time trying to figure out if any of the motives for any of the actions taken by any of the folks involved here (meaning Marriott et al AND the owners) are "pure." Purity has no place in the dispute over timeshare contractual obligations and limitations. What you want to be concerned with, what you should be searching for validation of, is what makes sense under the circumstances and according to the laws. All the crap that's been written here about a lack of transparency and Marriott not being good guys and the majority owners not knowing what is going on and the supposed lawyers working on a contingency basis and Allan not being the mastermind and Mark not being Allan's proxy MAKES NO DAMN SENSE.

At least I can say that what I write isn't totally preposterous.

And yes, at my home if you don't acknowledge the spirit of the Easter Bunny, you don't get a basket.