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

[SueDonJ]

I'm sure Marriott/MVCI employ lawyers in staff positions for the research related to local, state, federal and international regulations involved with their hotel/timeshare development and management. And of course, there are lawyers who hold senior management positions to protect the stockholders. Those salaries are probably absorbed independent of any specific resorts. (Although it's possible that the staff work hours could be "billed" to specific resorts, if the accounting is set up with each resort as a "client.")

But in addition, there are probably as-needed contractual arrangements between Marriott/MVCI and lawyers who specialize in any number of fields, and those legal fees would probably be charged to the specific resort for which their services are needed. I would guess that one or more of those lawyers have been called upon throughout this MAOC situation for research as well as authority. In particular, I'm thinking here of that hiring of a "professional parliamentarian" for the annual meeting. The Sep09 FAQ at arubaoceanclub.com indicates that Marriott had received advance notice of questions that caused them to believe the meeting wouldn't be orderly without one. The fees for that service most likely included the two-hour meeting as well as the research the parliamentarian and his/her staff would have done prior to it.

That's how I would expect it all to work, anyway, with respect to routine and extraordinary legal issues. I don't think that every owner under the MVCI umbrella should be expected to absorb excess legal costs that are specific to certain resort(s).

 

[ecwinch]

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?

Marriott certainly has a legal department that can focus resources on protecting the privacy rights of the MVCI members. But I doubt that their legal dept has a member of the bar in Aruba, so they likely need local counsel - so there would likely be out of pocket costs also. I would also think that the AOC board would want separate counsel also.

For while the "privacy" issue is complicated, you need only look at the WorldMark case regarding their member register to see how this might play out. In that case, even though the court ruled to allow access to the register, individual members in California and in Florida sued the WorldMark Board to BLOCK release of the list. In Florida those owners won a permanent injunction blocking the release of the list.

So even if the court battle in Aruba results in a court order to release of the list, that might not be the final chapter in this case.

 

[timeos2]

Nothing is free

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?

Having a lawyer or firm on retainer doesn't mean the work they do is without charge. It means they are preset to represent the employer without needing to set up a contract. And they will bill the agreed hourly rate plus fees based on the exact minutes (and they track EVERY minute) they use to handle the account/resort. That bill will then be sent for payment to the Association. If it's an Association issue they pay any bills it generates.

 

[marksue]

Aoc Concerned Owners Alert

AOC CONCERNED OWNERS ALERT

Dear Owner - After returning from my Thanksgiving Holiday and receiving 100's of emails from Owners about the Aruba Ocean Clubs Board most recent letter calling for a special meeting to amend the By-Laws I must alert you to the following:

Do not be fooled by this scare tactic from the Board and MVCI/Marriott. The original request I made on behalf of the concerned Owners group was to be able to contact all AOC owners and share information about our concerns and the condition of our Building. The Board and MVCI/Marriott refused.

Why is the Board/MVCI/Marriott afraid of what we want to share with all Owners?
Why have they refused to answer our owner questions?

The announcement that they have spent over $90,000 of Owner funds is a outrage and every Owner should demand the removal of any Board member voting for this expenditure. As for the proxy requested amendment DRAFTED by the Board - do not be mislead - the threat that your information will be made public can only happen if the Board gives it out for that purpose. As an owner at Marriott's Grand Chateau in Las Vegas, I purposed to the AOC Board an amendment taken from the Grand Chateau's By Laws which as you can see noted below gives you protection. I also understand that other MVCI resorts have owner information available to owners.

The statement from the Board that they won in court in another attempt to mislead you. When the Board refused to share our information with all Owners we sought a summary judgement from an Aruba judge. After the Board/MVCI/Marriott again refused to share our information with all the Owners the judge decided not to rule on the matter and requested that it be filed with the full court which we have done. All we have requested of the Board/MVCI/Marriott was to provide our information to all Owners. With the advice and counsel of Marriott's MVCI division the Board has continued to mislead Owners about the facts.

Not one cent should have been spent since we have made it very clear that the only purpose for seeking the information is to contact all Owners regarding serious issues pertaining to the AOC. It will not be used by "telemarketers" or the "public" as suggested by the Board/MVCI/Marriott.

As owners get informed, our numbers continue to grown in support of the concerned owners. Once we have the ability to contact all Owners, I am confident that action will be taken to replace Board members who continue wasting Owner funds. Do you really want a MVCI/Marriott controlled Board to continue making decisions affecting you and your finances ?

Something is very wrong with this picture! I am making one more effort directly to Mr. Marriott and President Sorenson asking for Marriott International to investigate the actions of the MVCI division.

Please return your proxy and vote yes, Let them know that you are willing to have your contact information provided to other Owners for legitimate purposes and not for commercial use.

I am trying to arrange my schedule to be in attendance at the January special meeting,-but to be safe - Jay Ritterskamp, a concerned owner will definitely be at the meeting and is willing to represent you. You can assign Jay as your proxy.

You should also let the Board/MVCI/Marriott knows what you feel about their wasting Owner funds.

If you have any questions, please call me or email me at c20854@aol.com.

Sign up on www.aocconcernedowners.com for the latest information.

Regards, Allan

Allan S. Cohen, past AOC President


By -Law from Marriott's new resort Grand Chateau in Las Vegas:

"9.1 Membership Roster: The membership roster, including mailing address and telephone numbers, books of accounts, the Association financial statement, the budget, the study of reserves and approved minutes of meetings of the Association, of the Board and of committees of the Board and all other records of the Project maintained by the Association, shall be available for inspection and copying by any Owner or their duly appointed representative at any reasonable time for a purpose reasonably related to their interest as an Owner, at the Office where the records are maintained. Upon receipt of an authenticated written request from an Owner along with the fee prescribed by the Board to defray the costs of reproduction, the Manager or other custodian of records of the Association shall prepare and transmit to the Owner a copy of any and all records requested.

9.2 Inspection: The Association may, as a condition to permitting an Owner to inspect the membership roster or to its furnishing information therefrom, require that the Owner agrees in writing not to use, or allow the use, of information from the membership roster for commercial or other purposes not reasonably related to the regular business of the Association and the Owner's interest in the Association. Such written agreement shall be as determined by the Board, but may require the Owner to disclose his or her purpose for obtaining the roster, and may impose severe fines and penalties for any Owner's misuse or misapplication of the register for commercial use. The Owner's inspection privileges do not apply to the personnel records of the employees of the Association and the records of the Association relating to another Owner."

Regards, Allan

 

[Dave M]

I agree with Allan that owners should not be fooled. However, my reasons are different from his.

Although owners should certainly make a careful decision before responding to the request from Marriott, they should also be aware that Allan's statements are biased and, in some cases misleading, as has been previously outlined in detail in this thread. Allan has an "agenda", just as the BOD does.

I don't care which way you vote, but if you are an owner, be sure to vote!

 

[lovearuba]

I agree with Allan that owners should not be fooled. However, my reasons are different from his.

Although owners should certainly make a careful decision before responding to the request from Marriott, they should also be aware that Allan's statements are biased and, in some cases misleading, as has been previously outlined in detail in this thread. Allan has an "agenda", just as the BOD does.

I don't care which way you vote, but if you are an owner, be sure to vote!

I think its interesteing that you would comment about Allan being bias without also stating that Marriott's letter is misleading. I guess I expected more fairness from a moderator.

 

[Dean]

The announcement that they have spent over $90,000 of Owner funds is a outrage and every Owner should demand the removal of any Board member voting for this expenditure.

Given that they are in a position of defending a legal action, I don't see they have any choice other than to give in to any demands. I wouldn't have any way to verify the numbers but the cost seems reasonable because any hours spent even by the in house legal department will be charged hours in all likelihood in addition to the costs for an Aruban attorney or group of. From what I've heard of Aruban Law and what I saw with the La Cabana issue, the amendment proposed would not be legal in Aruba.

 

[lovearuba]

Given that they are in a position of defending a legal action, I don't see they have any choice other than to give in to any demands. I wouldn't have any way to verify the numbers but the cost seems reasonable because any hours spent even by the in house legal department will be charged hours in all likelihood in addition to the costs for an Aruban attorney or group of. From what I've heard of Aruban Law and what I saw with the La Cabana issue, the amendment proposed would not be legal in Aruba.

Dean, briefly what happened with LaCabana? If you have time you can send me a pm if you dont want to take this thread off topic.

 

[SueDonJ]

I think its interesteing that you would comment about Allan being bias without also stating that Marriott's letter is misleading. I guess I expected more fairness from a moderator.

How can anyone (Dave included) who hasn't seen the letter from Marriott be expected to say that it is misleading? That's what I would think is unfair, for people to make or be asked to make a judgment about a letter that they haven't read.

 

[SueDonJ]

(Allan Cohen wrote) ... Do you really want a MVCI/Marriott controlled Board to continue making decisions affecting you and your finances ? ...

Are there any MVCI resorts which do not have at least one Marriott seat on the Board of Directors? For those Boards that do have Marriott seat(s), are there any provisions (other than an ownership vote for specific items) whereby the other seated members can be forced to vote against the Marriott seat(s)?

 

[cruisin]

The Grand chateau bylaws seem very reasonable and a good model to shoot for, good luck.

 

[ecwinch]

The Grand chateau bylaws seem very reasonable and a good model to shoot for, good luck.

The problem becomes that once more than one party has been given the list, your ability to pinpoint the source of a violation is significantly diminished. The argument can be made that it would be almost impossible to do so. It would require a board to:

1) Identify with legal certainty that the list is being used for a purpose not authorized

2) Initiate legal proceedings against the violator

3) A favorable outcome of those proceedings, securing a judgement against the party.

4) Collecting that judgement

Consider those actions in a situation where someone obtains the list and then sells it to a timeshare reseller or mailing list provider. In which the violation may be one or two parties removed from party that is actually making use of the list (i.e. I sell the list to ABC Mailing House, who in turns provides it to Timeshare Scammers, Inc.).

While the amendment may seem reasonable on the surface. Once a breach has occurred, a financial judgement may not be sufficient to address the harm caused. The adage "you cannot un-ring a bell" comes to mind.

 

[ecwinch]

I think its interesteing that you would comment about Allan being bias without also stating that Marriott's letter is misleading. I guess I expected more fairness from a moderator.

He is only stating the obvious.

I also think that by doing so, he only preempted numerous other posts of a similar nature which could have only increased the tension of this thread.

Additionally, as Sue notes, Dave could only have commented about MVCI's letter if he had actually seen it. Also since Allan has already commented in great detail on their letter, I do not see what would be the point of doing so.

 

[Dean]

Dean, briefly what happened with LaCabana? If you have time you can send me a pm if you dont want to take this thread off topic.

I'll try not to get too off topic but give a brief synopsis of what I recall though I'm sure there are others who know far more than I. La Cabana was developed by a prominent developer, one with a lot of pull. Then they developed a second resort across the street. Over the years there were some issues and a few special assessments including items listed for the SA the second time that were listed round one. There came to be a similar group to what we're seeing here and they asked for the membership list and were given it though as it turns out, they should not have been. It was reported being against Aruban Law to do so though I can't say anything more than that. Apparently the BOD and management asked for the list back and there was some back and forth. I don't believe the list was ever given back but some concessions and promises were made as to how it would be used. Since the developer and hand picked management company has been kicked out and the resorts are now totally separate. You should have seen the upset people who realized that the 2 resorts were technically separate but they had bought looking at them as one and assuming legally that was the case. There was quite a back and forth for those that owned one and wanted to use amenities at the other and for those that owned both that were now separate systems.

Ultimately the members paid quite a price and lost quite a bit of money due to legal maneuverings and broken promises including many in writing. My guess, and it's simply a guess based on various pieces of info, is that the set of issues cost the members at La Cabana BRC somewhere in the $2-3 Million range. That includes some apparent embezzlement, mismanagement, unpaid rent from the developer, legal issues and back taxes that should have either not been due or paid by other parties.

Over a 10 year period the Maint fees doubled with 3 SA totally about $1500 per studio and 1 BR and double that for a 2 BR lockoff. When I converted my fixed weeks to bluegreen points my maint fees were 2/3 of what they fixed week fees would have been. Fortunately I managed to miss all of the SA by sheer luck as I bought and sold units over the years. Here's some info from a message I wrote in 2005 to someone asking about problems there.

Evaporated or non existent reserves leading to what amounted to an ongoing special assessment in terms of a major fee increase that was hinted to be rolled back in the future, but was not. The fee increase was to cover things that should have been in the budget all along.

There was the suggestion of possible pocketed money around the same time by some that left.

There was another special assessment to cover, in part, the things the fee increase was supposed to cover.

The casino fiasco could be several pages unto itself. But it suffices to say that it has been a nightmare with many to blame.

We've seen the BOD approach BG with the idea of taking over management only to see a lawsuit by the management company to block that attempt.

The Board is charging the management company for the Casino Rental and are being sued to stop that if I recall correctly.

We've seen an attempt to change accounting firms only to see a lawsuit by the management company over that.

The government went back on their agreement and charged taxes they shouldn't which should have been paid by the developer but wasn't.

 

[cruisin]

Deja vu? Hope this doesn't happen to the owners in this case.

 

[ecwinch]

Deja vu? Hope this doesn't happen to the owners in this case.

A sentiment I think most of us non-owners share.

 

[lovearuba]

sad

I'll try not to get too off topic but give a brief synopsis of what I recall though I'm sure there are others who know far more than I. La Cabana was developed by a prominent developer, one with a lot of pull. Then they developed a second resort across the street. Over the years there were some issues and a few special assessments including items listed for the SA the second time that were listed round one. There came to be a similar group to what we're seeing here and they asked for the membership list and were given it though as it turns out, they should not have been. It was reported being against Aruban Law to do so though I can't say anything more than that. Apparently the BOD and management asked for the list back and there was some back and forth. I don't believe the list was ever given back but some concessions and promises were made as to how it would be used. Since the developer and hand picked management company has been kicked out and the resorts are now totally separate. You should have seen the upset people who realized that the 2 resorts were technically separate but they had bought looking at them as one and assuming legally that was the case. There was quite a back and forth for those that owned one and wanted to use amenities at the other and for those that owned both that were now separate systems.

Ultimately the members paid quite a price and lost quite a bit of money due to legal maneuverings and broken promises including many in writing. My guess, and it's simply a guess based on various pieces of info, is that the set of issues cost the members at La Cabana BRC somewhere in the $2-3 Million range. That includes some apparent embezzlement, mismanagement, unpaid rent from the developer, legal issues and back taxes that should have either not been due or paid by other parties.

Over a 10 year period the Maint fees doubled with 3 SA totally about $1500 per studio and 1 BR and double that for a 2 BR lockoff. When I converted my fixed weeks to bluegreen points my maint fees were 2/3 of what they fixed week fees would have been. Fortunately I managed to miss all of the SA by sheer luck as I bought and sold units over the years. Here's some info from a message I wrote in 2005 to someone asking about problems there.

That truly is sad, makes you wonder if anyone is honest these days. I have stayed at LaCabana many years ago but bought Marriott because I liked the brand name. I hope things are better for the LaCabana owners but rentals are really cheap so I imagine their timeshares are not worth keeping, similar to the my situation with Aruba. Its much cheaper to rent than to pay for the maintenance fees. That's the bottom line and I see no silver lining in getting the fees back to reasonable levels. Thanks for the update.

 

[Dean]

That truly is sad, makes you wonder if anyone is honest these days. I have stayed at LaCabana many years ago but bought Marriott because I liked the brand name. I hope things are better for the LaCabana owners but rentals are really cheap so I imagine their timeshares are not worth keeping, similar to the my situation with Aruba. Its much cheaper to rent than to pay for the maintenance fees. That's the bottom line and I see no silver lining in getting the fees back to reasonable levels. Thanks for the update.

Again, just my thoughts and I'm sure there are those with far better specific info than I. I can tell you the units I bought were cheap to very cheap but I made a few dollars on the ones I sold and converted the last ones I owned to BG for a whale of a deal. While LCB is nice enough it is not on par with Marriott even after the upgrades are complete.

 

[marksue]

Marriott gives out email address of AOC owners

Marriott has jsut given out the email adress of AOC owners to the Desert SPring resort. FOr a company that is fighting AOC owners to not release our email or mailing address, why did they provide our email to DS. Once again Marriott is operating with 2 sets of rules. One for them, allowing them to do what they want by giving out our email address to non relevant resorts and then prevent owners from sharing information regarding thier resort with other owners by hiding the contact info.

Way to go Marriott. Good way to build trust.

 

[lovearuba]

lawyers fees

Do you think Desert Springs had to get a lawyer to request the addresses? Why wouldnt the Ocean Club put some controls around who they release private member information to. They seem to use this as their rationale for not releasing data to an owner who wants to communicate with other owners. This shows the incompetency of the folks that manage these owner lists. :ignore:

 

[Kelly&Sean]

That email came from Marriott Owner Services. Obviously, the person at Marriott that sends those emails picked the wrong group to send it to. I do not see how any of my personal information was released to anyone in this case. Marriott already has my email, the owners of the other Marriott Timershare did not send this email so how would they have gotten our information? Personally, I think that it was a honest mistake and no one was hurt by it.

 

[Dean]

Marriott has jsut given out the email adress of AOC owners to the Desert SPring resort. FOr a company that is fighting AOC owners to not release our email or mailing address, why did they provide our email to DS. Once again Marriott is operating with 2 sets of rules. One for them, allowing them to do what they want by giving out our email address to non relevant resorts and then prevent owners from sharing information regarding thier resort with other owners by hiding the contact info.

Way to go Marriott. Good way to build trust.

I'm not sure about the specifics but sharing information within a company is totally different than being discussed in this thread and in most cases would be reasonable. It is certainly not an endorsement for the appropriateness of releasing to a group of owners.

 

[lovearuba]

I'm not sure about the specifics but sharing information within a company is totally different than being discussed in this thread and in most cases would be reasonable. It is certainly not an endorsement for the appropriateness of releasing to a group of owners.

But releasing them to other timeshares for an unrelated reason does not make sense, it was obviously an error

 

[Zac495]

Hi All,
It's been awhile since I chimed in - long ago sold my Aruba property - but still thinking of all of you.

 

[lovearuba]

nice to hear from you Ellen

Hope you are still enjoying your vacations. Are you going back to Aruba in 2010. I plan to be there in the summer.