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

[SueDonJ]

Except they have to deal with Aruban law, which as I understand it will force them to release the info unless objected to by the member.

Of course it's possible that Aruban Law might come into play here with the request for ownership contact information, but I'm skeptical. The last time "an Aruba law" was mentioned as a reason for Marriott to respond in a certain manner to this group's request, it turned out that Aruban law had nothing to do with it - it was simply a matter of the petition not including either the necessary owners' signatures or proof that Marksue was legally authorized to act for this group of owners (as he asserted.)

Based on the info I had from another resort several years ago, I'm not sure that's the case. My understanding is all they had to do was provide access, not the list itself.

Hmmmm, interesting... You're referring to one of the Aruban timeshares that you mentioned before in this thread - the ones that had assessment issues? And there wasn't a special Aruban law in that case about releasing ownership information that superceded the contracts' obligations? I would guess that most MVCI properties utilize similar contract language insofar as local laws allow ...

According to page 19 of the Master Declaration for Shadow Ridge (which is the only electronic source we have so far for any MVCI resort) under "Inspection of Books and Records, (1) The Master Association shall have the power and duty to open, at any reasonable time during business hours, the books and records of the Master Association for inspection by any Member or Declarant's Mortgagee upon the written demand by such Member of Declarant's Mortgagee; provided, however, that the the Master Association shall be obligated to open its books and records for inspection by a Member only if the Member requests such inspection for a purpose reasonably related to the member's interests as a Member. The inspection may be made in person or by an agent or attorney and shall include the right to copy and make extracts.

"(2) The Board shall have the power and duty to establish reasonable rules with respect to (A) notice to be given to the custodian of records by the person desiring to make the inspection; (B) hours and days of the week when such an inspection may be made; and (C) payment of the cost of reproducing copies of documents requested by a Member of Morgagee."

I don't see how that translates to "MVCI must furnish at its expense the complete contact information for every owner to any attorney who requests such for any reason."

 

[SueDonJ]

This is elementary stuff.

Why aren't our Board members on line, participating in this discussion? If they are sure their position is just, why do they not explain it fully, and respond at least once to each critic?

You're right, it's elementary stuff. Way back on October 1, 2008, in the first post here and in subsequent posts, a lawsuit was threatened. Many folks have theorized that because of that threat, it makes perfect sense for Marriott/MVCI/the BOD to not participate in informal discussions regarding any of the issues. Here's one post by DaveM as an example.

If we succeed in ousting these Board members, we should elect only those candidates who agree in advance to take the time necessary to maintain reasonable 2 way communications with members, even those who may disagree with them.

How could such an agreement be binding, and what contract provisions would allow it in the first place? Consider that BOD members are bound by specific obligations and stipulations contained in the contracts.

 

[SueDonJ]

Some owners just got an email from the AOC board regarding the letter they got from our lawyer requiring the release of names and addresses of all 8750 owners. As soon as I can I will attach the letter or at least copy it as an attachment.

They are trying to trying to get everyone to check a box that says they do not want their contact info released, because Aruba law will require them to.

They are trying to scare the owners that the info would get into the hands of telemarketers (isn’t that what Marriott uses our contact info for). The letter from the lawyer stated the reason for the names and telemarketing was not listed.

If any owner did not get the letter drop me a note and I will forward it. I am working on this weekend to get a version on here.

aperky, The board doesn’t want you to hear the facts of what is going on with the Ocean Club. Allan Cohen, myself and the group of concerned owners have requested from Marriott the list of all owners so they can be contacted regarding the calling of a special meeting. We want to give the owners the opportunity to have a say. Instead they send out a mailing trying to scare the owners that the names will be used for telemarketing. That is not why it the truth, but this is just typical of how the board has been operating. They are trying to keep the owners in the dark.

Let them give out your name and the only information you will get is from the Aruba Attorney who is working with us, to get a list of owners to call a special meeting. Drop me a note if you would like more info.

AOC lover that is what we have been trying to do. Hold the board and Marriott responsible but yet they keep giving us more reasons to wonder what they are afraid of by their actions.

Mark, it's confusing from this whether or not you've retained an attorney to deal with this issue or if you simply had an attorney write the request and now you're doing the follow-up. If you did retain one, what is his/her reaction to the response from the BOD?

 

[Dean]

Hmmmm, interesting... You're referring to one of the Aruban timeshares that you mentioned before in this thread - the ones that had assessment issues? And there wasn't a special Aruban law in that case about releasing ownership information that superceded the contracts' obligations? I would guess that most MVCI properties utilize similar contract language insofar as local laws allow ...

According to page 19 of the Master Declaration for Shadow Ridge (which is the only electronic source we have so far for any MVCI resort) under "Inspection of Books and Records, (1) The Master Association shall have the power and duty to open, at any reasonable time during business hours, the books and records of the Master Association for inspection by any Member or Declarant's Mortgagee upon the written demand by such Member of Declarant's Mortgagee; provided, however, that the the Master Association shall be obligated to open its books and records for inspection by a Member only if the Member requests such inspection for a purpose reasonably related to the member's interests as a Member. The inspection may be made in person or by an agent or attorney and shall include the right to copy and make extracts.

"(2) The Board shall have the power and duty to establish reasonable rules with respect to (A) notice to be given to the custodian of records by the person desiring to make the inspection; (B) hours and days of the week when such an inspection may be made; and (C) payment of the cost of reproducing copies of documents requested by a Member of Morgagee."

I don't see how that translates to "MVCI must furnish at its expense the complete contact information for every owner to any attorney who requests such for any reason."

I know the resort in question I mentioned did release the contact info to a person then tried to retrieve it citing they should not have released it. Most states have rules that all legal paperwork must be open by appt but I am not certain how that works with private sensitive data such as names, addresses and emails. I can't speak to the legalities specifically for Aruba other than the limited info I've provided.

 

[marksue]

As i mentioned in a previous post we do have an attorney who has made the request of the board. The attorney represents the concerned owners.

 

[d19lane]

To the "Concerned Owners"

I am certainly glad I no longer own at the Ocean Club, but being an owner at the Surf Club, this does concern me.

I hope the concerned owners truly have the “smoking gun” they claim to have but, I seriously doubt that they do. If they did, an attorney wouldn’t be needed. Just presenting the damning “evidence” to Marriott probably would cause them to fold. I’m concerned that the only thing that is going come from this is, at least, the owners paying legal fees for Marriott, the Ocean Club BOD and the concerned owners attorneys.

At worst, you may convince Marriott that they do not want to continue their relationship with the resort. I believe that would lower the value at the Surf and Ocean Clubs.

This is not a threat, so don’t take it as one but, have you considered that if you cause Marriott to leave you may be sued yourself by other owners? Please, proceed carefully.

Regards, David

 

[Dean]

I am certainly glad I no longer own at the Ocean Club, but being an owner at the Surf Club, this does concern me.

I hope the concerned owners truly have the “smoking gun” they claim to have but, I seriously doubt that they do. If they did, an attorney wouldn’t be needed. Just presenting the damning “evidence” to Marriott probably would cause them to fold. I’m concerned that the only thing that is going come from this is, at least, the owners paying legal fees for Marriott, the Ocean Club BOD and the concerned owners attorneys.

At worst, you may convince Marriott that they do not want to continue their relationship with the resort. I believe that would lower the value at the Surf and Ocean Clubs.

This is not a threat, so don’t take it as one but, have you considered that if you cause Marriott to leave you may be sued yourself by other owners? Please, proceed carefully.

Regards, David

I think all Marriott owners should have some level of concern going forward and that's true regardless of what stance one takes on this issue. Of course the specific concerns are different if you're pro, against or neutral on this question. As for smoking gun, I too doubt there is. The truth is that even if everything is as some think, proving it is another matter. Marriott did agree to paying roughly half if I understand correctly and given this is an issue with a life span of roughly 20 years for these considerations, one has to consider the past life as credit. I know to some it's that they fell betrayed but there is no way going forward that I can see to change that. Those that see it as a trust issue should likely move on, and frankly, should probably not be involved in timesharing going forward.

 

[SueDonJ]

As i mentioned in a previous post we do have an attorney who has made the request of the board. The attorney represents the concerned owners.

Okay, but again, what is your attorney's reaction to the BOD's response to the request? Didn't s/he expect that Marriott would advise owners that if their contact information is released, Marriott can not be responsible for what happens with it from that point forward?

 

[modoaruba]

Okay, but again, what is your attorney's reaction to the BOD's response to the request? Didn't s/he expect that Marriott would advise owners that if their contact information is released, Marriott can not be responsible for what happens with it from that point forward?

What's all this hoopla about releasing contact information?
I seriously doubt that Allan will send us credit card applications,magazine subscriptions,nor any other such junk mail nonsense once he gets this info.
And Marriott can not be responsible for what?
They directly and/or indirectly send out more junk mail because THEY have the sacred list. I guess they are afraid of competition?
What catastrophe will come about by releasing said list?
Please clue me in.

 

[SueDonJ]

What's all this hoopla about releasing contact information?
I seriously doubt that Allan will send us credit card applications,magazine subscriptions,nor any other such junk mail nonsense once he gets this info.
And Marriott can not be responsible for what?
They directly and/or indirectly send out more junk mail because THEY have the sacred list. I guess they are afraid of competition?
What catastrophe will come about by releasing said list?
Please clue me in.

I wonder if you'd be so cavalier about your contact information being released by any other company with which you do business? In this situation it benefits you for MVCI to release your fellow owners' information, so sure, you say they should just go right ahead and do it. But there are privacy laws in place that may prevent them from doing so without disclosure, and those same privacy laws can and do protect you in other business dealings.

And what about the owners who do not believe that it would benefit them (a couple have already posted here) - do you think that the protections afforded to them by the privacy laws should be simply ignored in order to further your agenda?

As an MVCI owner I don't want my contact information released to any other owner without notifying me first. If given the option to not have my info released, I'd choose that option every time.

I know that in this situation you folks think that the AOC owners who have not signed on to your cause have not done so because they're ignorant of "the facts" as Marksue interprets them, and you think that if they are only educated to "the facts" then they will join in heartily. I think that's wishful thinking. I think that they are ALL well aware of the cost increases at the resort, and that the majority of them have accepted the explanations given by Marriott/MVCI/the BOD in the myriad communications that have been distributed. Or, at least (as you've said many times here,) they just don't care enough to become all hot and bothered over the situation. In any event, if I was one of them and received a mailing from Marksue's attorney which contained a communication style similar to what's been posted here, without any notice at all from the BOD telling me to expect such a thing, I would be furious that my contact information was released to someone in order to further a personal crusade.

All that said, I go right back to questioning why it's necessary to take this step. You have enough owner names to satisfy the 10% requirement for a petition to the BOD for a special meeting to recall members of the BOD. Why not just submit the petition in its proper form?

 

[modoaruba]

At this stage in my life I am sick and tired of political correctness.
The cost of stepping on egg shells is rediculous.
Something invented by lawyers whom already made off with the loot due to some crazy lawsuits. Now laws are written to prevent more of the same.
The dictionary as we know it is in jeopardy. Can't even call anything by it's rightful name.
My life is not that interesting nor that important that by putting my name on a list will make much of a difference in changing anything.
Personally,privacy rights have gotten way out of hand. But that's another topic of discussion.
Back to our topic.
What harm would come if a letter was sent out to all the owners?
They could ignore it,they could not agree with it.or they could act on it.
Their choice.And there it ends.
But you have all those rightous politically correct people who would probably get a lawyer and sue do to emotional distress or some other BS reason.
Sorry for being so opinionated.

 

[SueDonJ]

At this stage in my life I am sick and tired of political correctness.
The cost of stepping on egg shells is rediculous.
Something invented by lawyers whom already made off with the loot due to some crazy lawsuits. Now laws are written to prevent more of the same.
The dictionary as we know it is in jeopardy. Can't even call anything by it's rightful name.
My life is not that interesting nor that important that by putting my name on a list will make much of a difference in changing anything.
Personally,privacy rights have gotten way out of hand. But that's another topic of discussion.
Back to our topic.
What harm would come if a letter was sent out to all the owners?
They could ignore it,they could not agree with it.or they could act on it.
Their choice.And there it ends.
But you have all those rightous politically correct people who would probably get a lawyer and sue do to emotional distress or some other BS reason.
Sorry for being so opinionated.

Don't be sorry - everybody's entitled to have opinions. I agree with you about how crazy the world is with prior lawsuits making it difficult for any business to take the smallest baby steps without worrying about somebody crying "I'll sue!"

Isn't that how this whole thing started, anyway?

I also agree with you that there's no harm in all of the owners reading all of the opinions about what's been happening at your resort. (Don't you ever wonder how many have seen this thread and not commented?) But just as Marriott/MVCI/the BOD has to follow laws and contractual obligations, so do the owners. There's a right way to get the word out beyond online communication, but as we're learning it takes quite a bit more effort to figure out that way.

 

[modoaruba]

Just noticed that this is my 100th post.
A centurian! Wow!
That's all I have to say.
So now on with the show.

 

[lovearuba]

Don't be sorry - everybody's entitled to have opinions. I agree with you about how crazy the world is with prior lawsuits making it difficult for any business to take the smallest baby steps without worrying about somebody crying "I'll sue!"

Isn't that how this whole thing started, anyway?

I also agree with you that there's no harm in all of the owners reading all of the opinions about what's been happening at your resort. (Don't you ever wonder how many have seen this thread and not commented?) But just as Marriott/MVCI/the BOD has to follow laws and contractual obligations, so do the owners. There's a right way to get the word out beyond online communication, but as we're learning it takes quite a bit more effort to figure out that way.

I dont usually agree with you but I do agree that there is a lot of effort needed to be able to get the information out to the owners. There are other efforts that are being worked on that will help that cause. I read the letter asking for my permission to release my information and the underlying tone was threatening, it gave you the impression that Allan was going to send your private information out. It is really sad since my credit card information was given out by Marriott but when my name and address is requested on behalf of some of us owners who are entitled to it, huge barriers are thrown up to misrepresent the purpose of the request. This is just one more delay but it will not stop the effort.

 

[ecwinch]

I am certainly glad I no longer own at the Ocean Club, but being an owner at the Surf Club, this does concern me.

I hope the concerned owners truly have the “smoking gun” they claim to have but, I seriously doubt that they do. If they did, an attorney wouldn’t be needed. Just presenting the damning “evidence” to Marriott probably would cause them to fold. I’m concerned that the only thing that is going come from this is, at least, the owners paying legal fees for Marriott, the Ocean Club BOD and the concerned owners attorneys.

At worst, you may convince Marriott that they do not want to continue their relationship with the resort. I believe that would lower the value at the Surf and Ocean Clubs.

This is not a threat, so don’t take it as one but, have you considered that if you cause Marriott to leave you may be sued yourself by other owners? Please, proceed carefully.

Regards, David

David,

These points were raised early in this discussion. To summarize the responses that were given then:

1) The strategic location of the AOC between the Surf Club and the hotel complex would make it problematic for MVCI to drop AOC

2) Even the "concerned" owners have no desire to leave Marriott

And while I am not a lawyer, I doubt that owners could be successfully sued based on the causative effect of exercising their legal rights.

 

[SueDonJ]

Just noticed that this is my 100th post.
A centurian! Wow!
That's all I have to say.
So now on with the show.

AHA! As one player in the "Upping my Post Count" game to another, congratulations! Here's to many more milestones.

 

[Zac495]

David,

These points were raised early in this discussion. To summarize the responses that were given then:

1) The strategic location of the AOC between the Surf Club and the hotel complex would make it problematic for MVCI to drop AOC

2) Even the "concerned" owners have no desire to leave Marriott

And while I am not a lawyer, I doubt that owners could be successfully sued based on the causative effect of exercising their legal rights.

Actually, I don't get this whole thing - but I did have the desire to leave Marriott - and sold.

I don't see how fees of almost 1700 make any sense when you can rent for just a little more than that. Sure, rent will go up. But the fees will continue to rise over the years (hopefully in a reasonable manner). I guess if you went to Aruba every year it would make sense (my buyer wants to go every year) - but for me, it was crazy to keep my unit.

 

[d19lane]

David,

These points were raised early in this discussion. To summarize the responses that were given then:

1) The strategic location of the AOC between the Surf Club and the hotel complex would make it problematic for MVCI to drop AOC

2) Even the "concerned" owners have no desire to leave Marriott

And while I am not a lawyer, I doubt that owners could be successfully sued based on the causative effect of exercising their legal rights.

Eric,

1) If the property isn’t beneficial (profitable), or is causing other legal or publicity issues Marriott would/could end the management contract. Marriott is a business and there for no other reason but, to make money. Just because it is located between two other Marriott properties means nothing.

2) Not having the desire for something to happen doesn’t mean that the actions won't cause it to happen.

I'm not an attorney either but, I see news reports regularly of people being sued for many different things. I would imagine that if someone does something to cause a financial hardship on someone else then the person suffering the hardship has the "legal right" to try and recover the loss through the court system.

David

 

[SueDonJ]

I dont usually agree with you but I do agree that there is a lot of effort needed to be able to get the information out to the owners. There are other efforts that are being worked on that will help that cause. I read the letter asking for my permission to release my information and the underlying tone was threatening, it gave you the impression that Allan was going to send your private information out. It is really sad since my credit card information was given out by Marriott but when my name and address is requested on behalf of some of us owners who are entitled to it, huge barriers are thrown up to misrepresent the purpose of the request. This is just one more delay but it will not stop the effort.

Hmmm ... If the letter asking for the owners' contact information was signed and submitted by an attorney, why would the response to it name Allan as the person who would be given an opportunity to misuse the information?

Why/when did Marriott give out your credit card information?

 

[SueDonJ]

Actually, I don't get this whole thing - but I did have the desire to leave Marriott - and sold.

I don't see how fees of almost 1700 make any sense when you can rent for just a little more than that. Sure, rent will go up. But the fees will continue to rise over the years (hopefully in a reasonable manner). I guess if you went to Aruba every year it would make sense (my buyer wants to go every year) - but for me, it was crazy to keep my unit.

I think what is meant by "even the 'concerned' owners have no desire to leave Marriott" is that this group wants AOC to remain an MVCI resort - they don't want their resort to lose the Marriott brand name. Although some individual owners have certainly made the same decision you've made, that ownership at AOC no longer makes sense for them.

I'm with you, though, in that I don't get the whole thing. If this group will only be satisfied with an AOC that runs counter-productive to the MVCI model (which is what they're asking for with things like a more responsive BOD, lease fees for certain common and developer areas, etc.,) then they will never be happy with an AOC that remains under the MVCI umbrella. MVCI is not going to change its model to suit only this minority ownership group at this one resort.

 

[SueDonJ]

... 2) Not having the desire for something to happen doesn’t mean that the actions won't cause it to happen. ...

Exactly. Several folks throughout this thread have warned against unintended consequences but the warnings don't seem to have made any impact in the crusade.

 

[modoaruba]

Exactly. Several folks throughout this thread have warned against unintended consequences but the warnings don't seem to have made any impact in the crusade.

But the warnings are speculative at best on both ends.
Until there is a direct quote from Marriott it's moot.

 

[SueDonJ]

But the warnings are speculative at best on both ends.
Until there is a direct quote from Marriott it's moot.

But what if the only direct quote ever issued is in the form of press release such as, "Today Marriott Vacation Club International announced plans to sever its developer relationship with the Aruba Ocean Club resort ...?"

The warnings may be moot, but they're certainly worth at least considering.

 

[ecwinch]

Eric,

1) If the property isn’t beneficial (profitable), or is causing other legal or publicity issues Marriott would/could end the management contract. Marriott is a business and there for no other reason but, to make money. Just because it is located between two other Marriott properties means nothing.

2) Not having the desire for something to happen doesn’t mean that the actions won't cause it to happen.

I'm not an attorney either but, I see news reports regularly of people being sued for many different things. I would imagine that if someone does something to cause a financial hardship on someone else then the person suffering the hardship has the "legal right" to try and recover the loss through the court system.

David

David,

I agree with you, as I did when I made similar comments early in this thread. I was just trying to provide a recap of the previous discussion as no one else seemed to be answering your post.

And you can be sued for anything in the US. Successfully sued is another thing entirely.

Just because my actions caused you financial hardship is, not solely onto itself, grounds for suit.

Otherwise I would be able to sue any person who exercised their legal rights to the extent that it caused financial hardship to me. So if someone slips and falls at the resort pool, and then sues and causes my m/f to go up, can I sue them then?

 

[ecwinch]

Actually, I don't get this whole thing - but I did have the desire to leave Marriott - and sold.

I don't see how fees of almost 1700 make any sense when you can rent for just a little more than that. Sure, rent will go up. But the fees will continue to rise over the years (hopefully in a reasonable manner). I guess if you went to Aruba every year it would make sense (my buyer wants to go every year) - but for me, it was crazy to keep my unit.

I was referring to the statements made by the proponent of this crusade, that he had no desire to see MVCI no longer manage AOC.

Most of the other concerned owners are just extras in a multi-act play. Mark and Allan have all the lines in the script.