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

[Sunbum]

[Message deleted. See my post above.. Dave M, BBS Moderator]

 

[ecwinch]

Sounds to me like pointless ranting to me. There is no sense in refuting.
I would encourage Mark not to respond to any questions posed just for the reason of principle at this point.
This is not a thread of The Inquisition which a few think it is.
If you would like to continue and provide further advertisement for the group,keep it coming.As I stated before,the group appreciates the recruits you provide them.

And as I have stated, I am comfortable with helping you in that regard. Regardless, the more owners that reach there from here, the more that know there is a source for the rest of the story.

 

[griffer331]

I have just received my notice of an ammendment to the by laws of the Ocean Club to allow my personal information to be given out. Of course I voted not to allow it to be given out but the more interesting thing in the letter was it has cost the owners $90,000 to fight the lawsuit.

I'm afraid that"s going to be a drop in the bucket if this continues.

 

[SueDonJ]

$90K (and counting?) Ouch. How does a developer/management company go about being compensated for such costs that they've incurred in support of protecting owners' rights? Maybe somebody here who has been through a legal resolution at their resort(s) can offer some insight?

griffer331, were you provided with the actual wording of the proposed amendment? Is it a blanket release that will allow any owner(s) now and in the future to be able to obtain a list of owners' personal contact information? Or is it limited to the one request made by this "concerned owners" group?

 

[Dave M]

As posted, Marriott has been compensated for its costs and/or the costs to hire attorneys: "...it has cost the owners $90,000 to fight the lawsuit."

 

[SueDonJ]

But that's what I'm asking, Dave. I'm reading it as, Marriott has incurred that much in legal fees on behalf of the owners which will eventually have to be paid by the owners. So how does Marriott get paid? Does it come out of reserve funds already paid by owners (and earmarked for other things,) or are reserves increased in the coming years to cover the legal fees, or is there a chance of another Special Assessment? I realize Marriott will be compensated, but I don't know from where or how.

 

[Dave M]

For the most part my answer is not specific to Marriott or AOC....

The reserves are set aside for replacement of fixed assets that wear out. Thus, unusual legal costs are generally part of the operating expenses, which could result in an operating deficit in the current year. To the extent such expenses result in higher expenses than anticipated, owners of a resort can expect higher maintenance fees or (in rare cases) a special assessment in a future year.

Marriott gets paid a fee for its services to the resort, based on the wording of the contract between Marriott and the HOA. Any fees incurred by the HOA to hire attorneys would be paid directly by the HOA. It's also typical for management contracts to have a reimbursement clause for extraordinary expenditures. Further, sometimes a BOD will authorize the management company to make extra reimbursable expenditures on behalf of the HOA.

Bottom line? Contrary to what Mark posted earlier in this thread, the HOA and, thus, the owners would foot the bill for extraordinary expenses that either Marriott or the HOA incurs to fight a battle involving the HOA. On the other hand, $90,000 isn't a lot - per AOC owner. It's less than $15 per week of ownership.

 

[SueDonJ]

Thanks, Dave, that's exactly what I was asking.

 

[timeos2]

It isn't going to get cheaper

Bottom line? Contrary to what Mark posted earlier in this thread, the HOA and, thus, the owners would foot the bill for extraordinary expenses that either Marriott or the HOA incurs to fight a battle involving the HOA. On the other hand, $90,000 isn't a lot - per AOC owner. It's less than $15 per week of ownership.

Thats $15 not available for operations and that will be billed to the owners or cut from otehr budget items. Has anyone seen $15 of improvement thanks to that effort? And that was to date. It will only continue to go up - dramatically if it becomes a real battle - and it WILL be paid by the owners.

In what turned out to be a small case at one of our resorts in 2001 a 90 day lawsuit cost the owners $230,000 - and we won! Was it worth it? Yes. But it was to remove a management company not try to recover alleged past payments for problems with the resort. In fact part of the settlement was to drop any claims like that as they would have been too costly to litigate. And we had them to make. Sometimes it's better to get the biggest thing and move on at the lowest cost.

The owners can't even seem to get an answer as to what exactly is the issue in this case. I wouldn't want an open checkbook for an unknown battle if it were my resort. Take a look at Bluebeards Castle multi-year fight to see how badly THAT can end if you want a bad example (the owners fought management for years and ended up with almost exactly what had been offered in settlement at the start but after a huge legal bill was added on).

 

[Dean]

For the most part my answer is not specific to Marriott or AOC....

The reserves are set aside for replacement of fixed assets that wear out. Thus, unusual legal costs are generally part of the operating expenses, which could result in an operating deficit in the current year. To the extent such expenses result in higher expenses than anticipated, owners of a resort can expect higher maintenance fees or (in rare cases) a special assessment in a future year.

Marriott gets paid a fee for its services to the resort, based on the wording of the contract between Marriott and the HOA. Any fees incurred by the HOA to hire attorneys would be paid directly by the HOA. It's also typical for management contracts to have a reimbursement clause for extraordinary expenditures. Further, sometimes a BOD will authorize the management company to make extra reimbursable expenditures on behalf of the HOA.

Bottom line? Contrary to what Mark posted earlier in this thread, the HOA and, thus, the owners would foot the bill for extraordinary expenses that either Marriott or the HOA incurs to fight a battle involving the HOA. On the other hand, $90,000 isn't a lot - per AOC owner. It's less than $15 per week of ownership.

Dave do you think this amount will be included in the base for calculating their management fee as well? If so, that automatically kicks it up quite a bit.

I would guess the number will hit 7 figures before it's done. One way or another the owners there are going to pay both the SA and the extra fees.

 

[Dave M]

I don't know, Dean. I have seen some of the older management contracts, as they used to be included in the CC&Rs given to new owners at some Marriotts. I don't know how the AOC management contract would apply in this situation and don't want to make a guess.

 

[Dean]

I don't know, Dean. I have seen some of the older management contracts, as they used to be included in the CC&Rs given to new owners at some Marriotts. I don't know how the AOC management contract would apply in this situation and don't want to make a guess.

Thanks. The ones I've seen were a % based on budget $$$ thus I'd guess it likely would increase Marriott's take at some point either as the money is paid or more likely, as the dues are increased to refill the reserve fund.

 

[ecwinch]

Is this by-law amendment something that "concerned owners group" initiated or something that the AOC Board initiated?

The WorldMark Board was faced with similar ligation to release the members list and submitted a similar amendment, but focused on the modifying the by-laws to require the use of a third-party mailing house in lieu of release of the member register. Similar in nature to what Florida law requires. It was positioned as a measure to protect the privacy of owners and passed with a 93% approval by the owners.

 

[marksue]

THe letter is not accurate regarding the status of the suit. FIrst of all the courts did not rule in favor of the board. What the courts ruled was that the case did not meet the requirements for fast tracking, but instead needed to go through the standard process. The board owes a response to the court on the complaint some where towards the end of Dec.

I know this as I have met with the Aruba attorney who is representing us while I was aruba.

This could have been avoided if the board agreed to send out a mailing on behalf of the concerned owners. THis was proposed as part of a court request to come up with a compromise.

This is another attempt by the board to scare owners. They know perfectly well that the list doesnt have to be given to anyone requesting it. Same way they tried the first time to scare people saying hte list would be used by telemarketers.

Once again the board is not being truthful to the owners.

 

[modoaruba]

In keeping with the Thanksgiving spirit, I volunteer to have Marriott save my $15/week by not having to protect me from the evil concerned owner's group.
I can take care of myself.
Off to grandma's! Yum!

 

[ecwinch]

THe letter is not accurate regarding the status of the suit. FIrst of all the courts did not rule in favor of the board. What the courts ruled was that the case did not meet the requirements for fast tracking, but instead needed to go through the standard process. The board owes a response to the court on the complaint some where towards the end of Dec.

I know this as I have met with the Aruba attorney who is representing us while I was aruba.

This could have been avoided if the board agreed to send out a mailing on behalf of the concerned owners. THis was proposed as part of a court request to come up with a compromise.

This is another attempt by the board to scare owners. They know perfectly well that the list doesnt have to be given to anyone requesting it. Same way they tried the first time to scare people saying hte list would be used by telemarketers.

Once again the board is not being truthful to the owners.

Mark,

In terms of the request that a mailing be made on the behalf of concerned owners, did the concerned owners offer to pay for that mailing? Or is this is a service that you feel that the Board should make available to any group that wants to communicate with other owners?

And I do not understand the highlighted portion of your comment. If the board has the right to reject a request for the list as you seem to say, then why is their rejection of your request a problem?

That is the part that is missing from your logic. You are assuming that everyone who could gain access to the list will behave in the same fashion as the concerned owners group would. You also are seemingly ignoring that every owner has the right to protect their personal information.

And if the mailing would contain the same inaccuracies as you have stated here, then I think the Board's position is reasonable. They have no obligation to disseminate biased and inaccurate information created by your group.

All of this ignores the issue that your actions are increasing the costs of operating the resort. Something that your group claims to want to protect Marriott from doing.

This outcome was predicted in this thread a long time ago. I now see a couple of cabana's being built by that lawyer's pool now.

 

[marksue]

yes we did offer to pay the postage.

And regarding the list it can be limited to Ocean CLub owners not anyone requesting it.

 

[ecwinch]

Got it - when you say "anyone" you meant anyone in the world, not any member. That was not clear initially. Is the board saying that without this amendment, they could be compelled to provide the list to "anyone" that requests it?

And to be equitable the offer would need to cover more than postage - which in itself I would assume to be fairly expensive for postage from Aruba. It would have to cover the cost to label and process the mailing. I am sure you offered to cover those costs also. As I am sure you were going to allow the Board to approve the content of the mailing to ensure it related to the governance of the club and was accurate.

So, if they give you the list, and then lets assume that five more people request the list also. If subsequently it became known that the list had fallen into the hands of a MVCI reseller, what action could the board take then?

 

[modoaruba]

Got it - when you say "anyone" you meant anyone in the world, not any member. That was not clear initially. Is the board saying that without this amendment, they could be compelled to provide the list to "anyone" that requests it?

And to be equitable the offer would need to cover more than postage - which in itself I would assume to be fairly expensive for postage from Aruba. It would have to cover the cost to label and process the mailing. I am sure you offered to cover those costs also. As I am sure you were going to allow the Board to approve the content of the mailing to ensure it related to the governance of the club and was accurate.

So, if they give you the list, and then lets assume that five more people request the list also. If subsequently it became known that the list had fallen into the hands of a MVCI reseller, what action could the board take then?

To keep the record straight,I have been solicited by a reseller for a few years now.Obviously they did not get my contact info from the Group since it obviously had not existed then and does not have the contact info yet.
Where pray tell did that info come from?
The call aggrivated me so much that I had to hang up on the nice salesman.
Imagine that,I was forced to hang up.Ruined my evening.

As for the postage,is that really an issue?How about sending the notices from right here,the good ole USA. The cost of the postage and handling would be a far cry less than the $15/week Marriott spent to punish the owners in order to divert attention away from the issues raised by the Group and pin owner against owner.IMHO.

Hope all had a great Thanksgiving.

 

[ecwinch]

To keep the record straight,I have been solicited by a reseller for a few years now.Obviously they did not get my contact info from the Group since it obviously had not existed then and does not have the contact info yet.
Where pray tell did that info come from?
The call aggrivated me so much that I had to hang up on the nice salesman.
Imagine that,I was forced to hang up.Ruined my evening.

As for the postage,is that really an issue?How about sending the notices from right here,the good ole USA. The cost of the postage and handling would be a far cry less than the $15/week Marriott spent to punish the owners in order to divert attention away from the issues raised by the Group and pin owner against owner.IMHO.

Hope all had a great Thanksgiving.

Any number of sources:

Have you ever attended a timeshare sales presentation?
Have you ever contacted a reseller?
Is your timeshare deed in Aruba public information?
Could it just have been a cold call?
Have you ever provided your personal information to any resort that you exchanged into?

While not likely - given the track record - is it possible that a former BoD member provided it to them? For I think that is AS likely as the inference that you are making.

In regards to the postage. I thought the resort was in Aruba. Should not the notice be mailed from the resort?

 

[modoaruba]

Any number of sources:

Have you ever attended a timeshare sales presentation?
Have you ever contacted a reseller?
Is your timeshare deed in Aruba public information?
Could it just have been a cold call?

While not likely - given the track record - is it possible that a former BoD member provided it to them? So I think that is AS likely as the inference that you are making.

In regards to the postage. I thought the resort was in Aruba. Should not the notice be mailed from the resort?

Since we can never prove where contact info came from let's not speculate.

Regarding postage,my bill for the resort is sent by MVCI mailed from Florida not Aruba as is most, if not all, the mailings come from.
Since most owners are US citizens,it makes more sense to mail from here.

 

[Dave M]

Again, in my role as moderator....

Although it's occasionally helpful to find out specifics, badgering others needlessly on picky points is as much a violation of the BBS "Be Courteous" rules as are the other actions I referred to in my previous warning.

Because of the contentious but useful nature of this thread, I am choosing to put a tight rein on posts rather than close it. Those who choose to be discourteous can expect a suspension from posting without further warning.

Dave M
BBS Moderator

 

[ecwinch]

Since we can never prove where contact info came from let's not speculate.

Regarding postage,my bill for the resort is sent by MVCI mailed from Florida not Aruba as is most, if not all, the mailings come from.
Since most owners are US citizens,it makes more sense to mail from here.

Modoaruba,

I guess it would be depend on what was proposed to the AOC Board as a compromise and what their response was. Mark only mentioned that a compromise has been offered. We do not have enough information to know if the compromise was reasonable. Which is inherently a subjective decision.

Thanks

 

[vacationmama]

I will resent paying for the $90,000 and the subsequent costs of anyone suing the resort. I feel it is a right not to have my personal information deseminated so I can be asked to join in a lawsuit that is bound to ruin the value of this resort and raise the costs everyone here has already been screaming about. But that is just one voice among "88 percent".

 

[modoaruba]

I will resent paying for the $90,000 and the subsequent costs of anyone suing the resort. I feel it is a right not to have my personal information deseminated so I can be asked to join in a lawsuit that is bound to ruin the value of this resort and raise the costs everyone here has already been screaming about. But that is just one voice among "88 percent".

Talking to owners on the beach,everyone is concerned about our MFs and special assessments.They already know that the rentability and SALEABILITY is damaged due to the high MFs
.Your concern that the value will be ruined has already been done.
When a perspective buyer is savy enough to ask about the MFs,they run away.You can see for yourself that many of the rentals listed on various websites are below our fees.
Most owners I speak to have had no clue as to what is going on until MVCI sent them the letter to vote about the disclosure which obviously came with a veiled threat.
I was always under the belief that a company like Marriott has lawyers on retainer which would mean that there was no cost to them to put up a roadblock.
Anybody know if that's true?