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

[luvmypt]

Owning two weeks at MOA we always get two emails from Marriott Owner Services regarding our resort but yesterday I was surprised in getting two emails from them for Desert Springs Villas II.

 

[irish]

i got it too.

 

[Dean]

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

Within Marriott I'd call it all one. I'd be a lumper rather than a splitter when it came to this issue within Marriott in general and especially within MVCI.

 

[ecwinch]

Marriott has jsut given out the email adress of AOC owners to the Desert SPring resort.

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

Ignoring that no release of information was involved, and that Marriott Owner Services is not the Desert Spring Resort.

 

[SueDonJ]

From the little bit of info given here it sounds like MVCI Owner Services either sent MAOC owners an email notification intended for DSV owners, or sent MAOC owners a solicitation for the DSV resort. Neither of those would appear to be illegal - the first is simply an honest mistake (maybe the resort key-code was entered incorrectly by the MVCI employee?) that doesn't entail a release of your contact information to any third party; and the second appears to be allowable by the MVCI internet privacy rules (found on my-vacationclub.com) if you haven't notified them in writing that you don't want to receive solicitations.

Of course maybe what you MAOC owners were sent is something completely different. (Like I said, it's difficult to tell by the limited info here.) If that's the case, have any of you owners who received this notice incorrectly looked at the rules to determine if MVCI has acted illegally here?

 

[modoaruba]

Now you see,no harm done.
We got an email and the only inconvenience was to open and read.
So if the owners group sent emails regarding the concerns of fellow owners,
the only inconvenience is open and read.No harm done.
All it is is owners trying to communicate with their peers as to concerns that came up.No different than going to the AOC and talking to whomever in person, except by email they can tell everyone.Then it's up to the owners to decide wether something should be done or not.And that is that.The end.

Just came back from 2 weeks at the AOC.The people we spoke with brought up the issues themselves.Owners are angry and Marriott's response is making them even more so.
The Goliath tactic by MVCI and their latest tactical letter about the vote is infuriating lots of owners.They know if a majority of owners get wind of the concerns there will be trouble.

I still have a hard time comprehending the negativity surrounding the concerns of reaching all of the owners.

 

[ecwinch]

The one element I find missing from your analysis and that is the issue of precedent. If the AOC BoD allowed e-mails to be forwarded to owners from other owners, I doubt that the use of that procedure would be limited to just one or two e-mails.

For if the AOC granted e-mail access to your group, then it would be discriminatory to deny the next the request

And has been demonstrated here, it is likely that some parties would aggressively assert that right and owners could easily find their in-box filled with daily communications from this owner or that owner on some issue that the author feels is imperative.

In particularly given the biased nature of the reports that are made here (this issue being one of them - initially reported that owner information was being given away), I find it highly likely that owners would receive multiple e-mails on a regular basis.

 

[SueDonJ]

Now you see,no harm done.
We got an email and the only inconvenience was to open and read.
So if the owners group sent emails regarding the concerns of fellow owners,
the only inconvenience is open and read.No harm done.
All it is is owners trying to communicate with their peers as to concerns that came up.No different than going to the AOC and talking to whomever in person, except by email they can tell everyone.Then it's up to the owners to decide wether something should be done or not.And that is that.The end. ...

I still have a hard time comprehending the negativity surrounding the concerns of reaching all of the owners.

I think what you're having trouble comprehending is that there are legal stipulations which dictate who/what has access to the owners' contact information as well as for what purpose(s) that information can be utilized. If yesterday's (mistake? solicitation?) email violated any of those stipulations, you MAOC owners have just cause to challenge MVCI Owner Services over their actions. By the same token, Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD has just cause to challenge any request for owners' contact information, if releasing it will be in violation of any contract terms or privacy laws.

You've said so often that you believe this is all "nitpicking" and that Marriott appears willing to do any little thing that will put up a roadblock to this group's efforts. I don't comprehend that. Contract terms and laws are absolutes, either they are legally binding or they are not. There isn't a middle ground or any certain situation(s) for which they can be unilaterally bypassed by any entity. You (owners, MVCI, etc.) are ALL bound by the contract terms and existing laws. What boggles my mind is that you would be okay with Marriott et al circumventing those things in order to appease only the interests of this minority ownership group. If they did so and it was accepted, that would set a precedent for Marriott to do so again in the future for reasons which may harm you rather than help you.

An honest question, here, Modo. What would be your reaction if Marriott et all DID violate contract terms or laws in order to appease any other group which did NOT have your ownership interests, or completely went against your ownership interests?

 

[SueDonJ]

... Just came back from 2 weeks at the AOC.The people we spoke with brought up the issues themselves.Owners are angry and Marriott's response is making them even more so.
The Goliath tactic by MVCI and their latest tactical letter about the vote is infuriating lots of owners.They know if a majority of owners get wind of the concerns there will be trouble. ...

I don't blame people for being angry and upset. From the very beginning of this thread the one thing that all of us have agreed upon is that the financial situation at your resort and the increased fees/special assessment bills for this year and last are costing owners much more than they'd been led to expect.

I haven't seen the recent letter from Marriott to MAOC owners but I can speculate based on different owners' responses in this thread that the legal fees alluded to in that letter are one cause of further anger, and that the blame for those fees is being placed by some owners on Marriott et al and by some other owners on this "concerned owners group."

With the many communications that have been issued by Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD throughout this year-long plus situation, do you honestly believe that there are still owners out there who are completely in the dark about "the concerns?" I'm assuming here that by "concerns" you're referring to the biased allegations made by Allan Cohen and Marksue surrounding the building itself as well as the BOD's history. Isn't it possible that at least some owners have researched those things on the internet, as you have, and have relied upon the unbiased information they collected to reach their own conclusions that the efforts of the "concerned owners group" are not efforts they wish to join? It seems a little disingenuous to continue to insinuate that all of those owners not in agreement with you are simply ignorant.

 

[modoaruba]

I don't blame people for being angry and upset. From the very beginning of this thread the one thing that all of us have agreed upon is that the financial situation at your resort and the increased fees/special assessment bills for this year and last are costing owners much more than they'd been led to expect.

I haven't seen the recent letter from Marriott to MAOC owners but I can speculate based on different owners' responses in this thread that the legal fees alluded to in that letter are one cause of further anger, and that the blame for those fees is being placed by some owners on Marriott et al and by some other owners on this "concerned owners group."

With the many communications that have been issued by Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD throughout this year-long plus situation, do you honestly believe that there are still owners out there who are completely in the dark about "the concerns?" I'm assuming here that by "concerns" you're referring to the biased allegations made by Allan Cohen and Marksue surrounding the building itself as well as the BOD's history. Isn't it possible that at least some owners have researched those things on the internet, as you have, and have relied upon the unbiased information they collected to reach their own conclusions that the efforts of the "concerned owners group" are not efforts they wish to join? It seems a little disingenuous to continue to insinuate that all of those owners not in agreement with you are simply ignorant.

First of all when you say biased allegations I don't believe that is so.
The allegations have quite a bit of factual back up IMO.
On the history of Aruba web site they discuss the rusty shell abandoned by the original hotel developer.They tell about wanting to blow it up until Marriott took over.
Allan Cohen was always open with the owners and very straight.Obviously got him in trouble.But he has the inside info as to what to look out for for the owner's concern.Whistle blowers have many enemies.But at least listen and one might learn something.Does not mean you have to agree.Just listen.
Every one is entitled to their own opinion which means that they can join or not.I still believe that a vast number of owners have no clue as to what is going on and have become confused due to the letter from MVCI.
I believe that if an owner lets say has 1 week,they might care about the fees but are not likely to proceed any further than paying it.
It's like anything else in the world,people are usually complacent.

Assuming that the emails do not get to the owners from the concerned group;
There are enough of them out there to spread the info directly to other owners when they are physically at the AOC.It just takes longer.
When I was there,there was an owner giving out info about the group.
There was info placed in the elevators for owners to see.Which conveniently dissappeared.
The momentum is growing to get the word out.What one does with it is a different story.

As far as the legal fees go.What a farce.The BOD should have never allowed it.It was a deliberate punishment placed upon owners saying that if they support the group,not only will the fees remain high,but will continue to climb.
Webster's defines this as extortion.IMHO.

 

[SueDonJ]

First of all when you say biased allegations I don't believe that is so.
The allegations have quite a bit of factual back up IMO.
On the history of Aruba web site they discuss the rusty shell abandoned by the original hotel developer.They tell about wanting to blow it up until Marriott took over.

As was discussed in this thread, rust itself is not an indicator of faulty structure. If your group has concrete evidence of a faulty structure that goes beyond a simple, "we saw rust" defense, that evidence should have been produced long before this situation deteriorated to the point where it is now.

And naturally, Aruban authorities don't want any vacant properties littering their landscape because tourism is the number-one industry. Implosions have been done on many abandoned buildings simply to remove the blight on the landscape. Probably the shell would have been demolished if Marriott hadn't taken over the project, but that's not admissible evidence that the structure was faulty.

Allan Cohen was always open with the owners and very straight.Obviously got him in trouble.But he has the inside info as to what to look out for for the owner's concern.Whistle blowers have many enemies.But at least listen and one might learn something.Does not mean you have to agree.Just listen.
Every one is entitled to their own opinion which means that they can join or not.

From what I've seen here from Allan, I don't believe that he is unbiased or above-board in his efforts. And I've said many times that I don't believe his former status as a member of the MAOC BOD granted him any rights to divulge any "inside info" that he learned as a member. In fact I think he's acting exactly as I wouldn't want my BOD members to act, circumventing the bylaws of the resort. Admittedly, though, those are my opinions. It just wouldn't surprise me if others, including MAOC owners, might share my opinions based on what we've learned in this thread.

I still believe that a vast number of owners have no clue as to what is going on and have become confused due to the letter from MVCI.
I believe that if an owner lets say has 1 week,they might care about the fees but are not likely to proceed any further than paying it.
It's like anything else in the world,people are usually complacent.

I haven't seen the letter. But I do have a general understanding of how Marriott acts as a developer and manager of MVCI properties, and I know that a lot of what I've seen from the "concerned owners group" in this thread has left me more confused than anything issued by Marriott et al. So it appears that the confusion or complacency that you're seeing may actually be confusion or disagreement with this group's efforts.

Assuming that the emails do not get to the owners from the concerned group;
There are enough of them out there to spread the info directly to other owners when they are physically at the AOC.It just takes longer.
When I was there,there was an owner giving out info about the group.
There was info placed in the elevators for owners to see.Which conveniently dissappeared.
The momentum is growing to get the word out.What one does with it is a different story.

No problem here. I'm not in favor of censorship, Modo, I just want all the laws and contract terms to be upheld. If your group can figure out how to get the word out correctly, all the more power to them.

As far as the legal fees go.What a farce.The BOD should have never allowed it.It was a deliberate punishment placed upon owners saying that if they support the group,not only will the fees remain high,but will continue to climb.
Webster's defines this as extortion.IMHO.

As Dean said so clearly here, the BOD has no choice but to defend (itself and Marriott as the resort's management company) against the legal challenge(s) it faces from the "concerned owners group." No choice. Any BOD member who would vote against a legal defense in the face of a legal challenge has no business being on the BOD.

 

[modoaruba]

So,I see it as black and you see it as white or vise versa.
Time will tell.
We just keep discussing the same issues effortlessly.
So,until the next bit of NEW news,have a great holiday.

 

[marksue]

More money for owners to pay

In the October FAQ's sent out by the board we were told that the Facade needed maintenance. We were told we the owners have 600k for this effort and Marriott was paying 1 million.

We are now being told that the work will cost 2.5 million and the owners have to pay 1 million. Does this mean we will have another assesment. Owners questions in regard to this issue have gone unanswered. If Marriott is putting in 1.5m to this effort you have to question how bad conditions were and continue to be with this building. Why has the board still refused to release the full mold report and full engineering report.

In this work is the the replacing of window frames. We just went through a replacement of all windows, why were they not replaced when the windows were replaced.



Question: What is the status of the planned façade maintenance project at the resort?
Answer: MVCI recently funded efforts to develop a project scope, obtain preliminary bids from six contractors,
and prepare a presentation of various options for the Board to review and consider. Subsequently, the Board
reviewed a list of regular maintenance items as well as a list of additional items which, if completed in the short
term, may allow the Association to realize cost savings or other advantages. While the Board completed its review, MVCI continued to work with the most competitive contractors to focus the scope of their work and
obtain the most favorable pricing possible based on the Board's direction. The Association has nearly $600,000 in reserve funding approved for this project. In addition to the façade maintenance, which will be funded by the
Association, MVCI will voluntarily make a one-time contribution of approximately $1M to fund optional façade improvements that were recommended by a certified architect based on the specific impact of the Aruban climate on the building during the last 10 years.

 

[SueDonJ]

So,I see it as black and you see it as white or vise versa.
Time will tell.
We just keep discussing the same issues effortlessly.
So,until the next bit of NEW news,have a great holiday.

Thanks, Modo, and happy holidays to you and yours too.

Until the NEW news, though, I directed this question to you and would like an answer to this question from anyone who wants to answer it. MAOC owner or not, "concerned owners group" supporter or not, it doesn't matter.

What would be your reaction if Marriott et all DID violate contract terms or laws in order to appease any other group which did NOT have your ownership interests, or completely went against your ownership interests?

 

[modoaruba]

Thanks, Modo, and happy holidays to you and yours too.

Until the NEW news, though, I directed this question to you and would like an answer to this question from anyone who wants to answer it. MAOC owner or not, "concerned owners group" supporter or not, it doesn't matter.

If you want to know the answer, I always say follow the money.
Who is benefiting financially from it and who is paying.
There lies your answer.
In this instance,the owners group is not seeking a profit.So be it.

 

[ecwinch]

In the October FAQ's sent out by the board we were told that the Facade needed maintenance. We were told we the owners have 600k for this effort and Marriott was paying 1 million.

We are now being told that the work will cost 2.5 million and the owners have to pay 1 million. Does this mean we will have another assesment. Owners questions in regard to this issue have gone unanswered. If Marriott is putting in 1.5m to this effort you have to question how bad conditions were and continue to be with this building. Why has the board still refused to release the full mold report and full engineering report.

In this work is the the replacing of window frames. We just went through a replacement of all windows, why were they not replaced when the windows were replaced.



Question: What is the status of the planned façade maintenance project at the resort?
Answer: MVCI recently funded efforts to develop a project scope, obtain preliminary bids from six contractors,
and prepare a presentation of various options for the Board to review and consider. Subsequently, the Board
reviewed a list of regular maintenance items as well as a list of additional items which, if completed in the short
term, may allow the Association to realize cost savings or other advantages. While the Board completed its review, MVCI continued to work with the most competitive contractors to focus the scope of their work and
obtain the most favorable pricing possible based on the Board's direction. The Association has nearly $600,000 in reserve funding approved for this project. In addition to the façade maintenance, which will be funded by the
Association, MVCI will voluntarily make a one-time contribution of approximately $1M to fund optional façade improvements that were recommended by a certified architect based on the specific impact of the Aruban climate on the building during the last 10 years.

Mark,

Hindsight is always 20/20. Decisions have to be made based on the best information available at the time the decision needs to be made. Events beyond the control of the BoD can change the facts, but is not indicative of conspiracy, incompetence, or malfeasance as you infer. For a similar set of Monday Morning Quarterback reviews can be conducted on the decisions that Allan Cohen made when he was BoD President to reach a similar conclusion.

And your reports have proven to be so extremely biased, that it is now difficult to separate fact from fiction. So I take your assertion that the BoD is ignoring questions from the owners to mean that they are only ignoring questions from your group, for the obvious reason that no answer will prove to be adequate. And doing so just provides more fodder for you to distort and recast in order to cast them in the worst possible light.

Thanks

 

[ecwinch]

If you want to know the answer, I always say follow the money.
Who is benefiting financially from it and who is paying.
There lies your answer.
In this instance,the owners group is not seeking a profit.So be it.

Which certainly goes a long way toward explaining why a law firm in Aruba is mounting such a vigorous advocacy of this case on a contingency basis. So while the owners group is not seeking a profit, that certainly does not hold true for all the parties that are supporting the effort.

So I would only encourage you to apply that same test to those efforts.

 

[modoaruba]

Thanks, Modo, and happy holidays to you and yours too.

Until the NEW news, though, I directed this question to you and would like an answer to this question from anyone who wants to answer it. MAOC owner or not, "concerned owners group" supporter or not, it doesn't matter.

Which certainly goes a long way toward explaining why a law firm in Aruba is mounting such a vigorous advocacy of this case on a contingency basis. So while the owners group is not seeking a profit, that certainly does not hold true for all the parties that are supporting the effort.

So I would only encourage you to apply that same test to those efforts.

If I understand you correctly,who will profit with a financial gain from the group?The only positive financial gain would be,is if marriott contributed more, there will be less cost per owner equally.This is not a get rich quick scheme but a cost reduction cry to be equally shared by all.

 

[timeos2]

Asking for too much may lead to paying far more. Take whats in hand and doesn't cost

In the October FAQ's sent out by the board we were told that the Facade needed maintenance. We were told we the owners have 600k for this effort and Marriott was paying 1 million.

We are now being told that the work will cost 2.5 million and the owners have to pay 1 million. Does this mean we will have another assesment. Owners questions in regard to this issue have gone unanswered. If Marriott is putting in 1.5m to this effort you have to question how bad conditions were and continue to be with this building. Why has the board still refused to release the full mold report and full engineering report.

In this work is the the replacing of window frames. We just went through a replacement of all windows, why were they not replaced when the windows were replaced.



Question: What is the status of the planned façade maintenance project at the resort?
Answer: MVCI recently funded efforts to develop a project scope, obtain preliminary bids from six contractors,
and prepare a presentation of various options for the Board to review and consider. Subsequently, the Board
reviewed a list of regular maintenance items as well as a list of additional items which, if completed in the short
term, may allow the Association to realize cost savings or other advantages. While the Board completed its review, MVCI continued to work with the most competitive contractors to focus the scope of their work and
obtain the most favorable pricing possible based on the Board's direction. The Association has nearly $600,000 in reserve funding approved for this project. In addition to the façade maintenance, which will be funded by the
Association, MVCI will voluntarily make a one-time contribution of approximately $1M to fund optional façade improvements that were recommended by a certified architect based on the specific impact of the Aruban climate on the building during the last 10 years.

Projects such as this occur at every resort and aren't always within the originally estimated quote. No surprise. Obviously the Association was aware as they budgeted reserves for it as they should. I would see it a s bonus that Marriott is offering to cover a big chunk - they do not have to do that but apparently feel it is fair to. No building lasts forever, no repair lasts forever, being exposed or not during construction may have potentially created an issue but if it did the Marriott offer would seem to leave the owners in a position that they would have been in anyway (or whats known as "made whole") as they will only be paying for what would have been considered normal aging/wear & tear rather than the full bill that could be including extras potentially caused by that early on exposure to the elements. Of they pay to correct that part what they owe is covered. After that the normal work costs rightfully falls to owners as they would have faced it at this time no matter what in the normal upkeep of the resort building(s).

They are getting 6 bids(!) That is far beyond what most would do and should help assure a good price and a good reputation for the contractor chosen. All in all a good job by the management in identifying the problem, getting real estimates and multiple bids, getting Marriott to cover a questionable part of a major repair and correctly setting up for the owners to pay the share they are responsible for.

I assume you feel Marriott should, as has been stated in other cases, pay it all. That simply isn't going to happen as they don't own 100% of the resort. They have, it seems, been fair (in some cases it appears more than fair) in accepting a level of responsibility for some items that may have been improperly handled way back at original construction though payment of excessive repairs now required. Asking to be covered 100% for all repairs isn't reasonable after all these years - Marriott asking owners to pick up the "regular" level of ongoing capital repairs and upgrades most certainly is. Getting more than that from Marriott becomes an undeserved enrichment that no court will back up. There are costs to owning, maintaining and operating a timeshare resort. Having a brand name on your buildings means you must live up to those minimum standards and, as any name brand owner will tell you, after the first few years while the Developer subsidies dry up, the cost to have that name can be substantial if compared to resorts perhaps just as nice but not managed by a name brand group.

Thinking your fees will be lowered is a pipe dream if you wish to stay under the Marriott branding umbrella. Ask any of the many Marriott resorts where there weren't exposed shells during construction which way their fees have gone, if there are/have been/are planned special assessments and you'll quickly fond that except for the money Marriott is paying to cover those unusual issues (roof, rust) the story is basically the same for every resort. You are getting special attention from Marriott as they apparently attempt to cover things that didn't work out well but you still owe for things that are going to occur as a natural, never ending process at every resort ever built. Kill that desire to "make things right" by demanding far more than you are entitled to and you may end up paying it all. That will NOT be a savings.

 

[ecwinch]

If I understand you correctly,who will profit with a financial gain from the group?The only positive financial gain would be,is if marriott contributed more, there will be less cost per owner equally.This is not a get rich quick scheme but a cost reduction cry to be equally shared by all.

Modo,

The law firm in Aruba will most likely profit regardless of the outcome. Unless you believe that their motivation in this issue is altruistic and they are working pro bono.

 

[SueDonJ]

If you want to know the answer, I always say follow the money.
Who is benefiting financially from it and who is paying.
There lies your answer.
In this instance,the owners group is not seeking a profit.So be it.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand how what you've written here could in any way be an answer to the question I asked:

What would be your reaction if Marriott et all DID violate contract terms or laws in order to appease any other group which did NOT have your ownership interests, or completely went against your ownership interests?

 

[Dean]

Now you see,no harm done.
We got an email and the only inconvenience was to open and read.
So if the owners group sent emails regarding the concerns of fellow owners,
the only inconvenience is open and read.No harm done.
All it is is owners trying to communicate with their peers as to concerns that came up.No different than going to the AOC and talking to whomever in person, except by email they can tell everyone.Then it's up to the owners to decide wether something should be done or not.And that is that.The end.

Just came back from 2 weeks at the AOC.The people we spoke with brought up the issues themselves.Owners are angry and Marriott's response is making them even more so.
The Goliath tactic by MVCI and their latest tactical letter about the vote is infuriating lots of owners.They know if a majority of owners get wind of the concerns there will be trouble.

I still have a hard time comprehending the negativity surrounding the concerns of reaching all of the owners.

I don't think anyone has a problem with contacting the owners per se, the issue is that it appears a list was obtained without the systems permission, is being used and cannot assure it's privacy and appropriate use. In effect it appears the list was stolen and if so, that is unethical and likely illegal. On top of that the list is being used to contact those owners and/or to judge whether people are indeed owners.

As I've said before, there is very little documented factual info that has come to light. That doesn't make the allegations wrong, only unsubstantiated at present. For the most part it comes down to the representations of one person and those representations are almost certainly a violation of their oath as a member of the BOD. Only time will tell if that person is being a martyr is just has an axe to grind. And I'm not really questioning Allan Cohen per se but merely pointing out this comes down mostly to one person's word plus the dollar amounts involved.

I can't help but wonder what would happen if Marriott formally threatened to walk away. Given they've made such threat's before and made good on them or else the BOD caved in to their demands, it'd be an interesting exercise. I guess we could ask owners at Spicebush, Swallowtail or those that owned at the Vail resort their opinion on that issue. I'd think that the members there have far more to lose if the resort ceased to be a Marriott than the SA. Plus, as I've said before, it is my belief that even if the allegations are correct AND can be proven, it's unlikely the members will be any better off in the long run. I understand Marriott was quite heavy handed with Beachplace Towers recently.

 

[modoaruba]

I appreciate everyone's input.
We hooked up with a realtor while in Aruba.
She showed us a condo in a really nice neighborhood in Palm Beach area.
There is a seller who has a 2 BR 2BA LV k and 2 pools across the street.It is 4 yrs old.
The drive to the beach is all of 5 minutes.
Completely furnished with nice stuff. He is willing to take $160,000.MFs are $143/mo.Taxes are negligable.Expenses are electric,water,phone/cable/internet.The condo rents out for about $900/wk and is maintained by the association.

We own 4 weeks at the AOC.Today buying through Marriott would cost us in the high $70,000.Correct me if I'm wrong.
Add on MFs and fees and we end up with a $5,000 bill/yr.Maybe more.
If we try to sell,I wonder if we'll get half of the cost.We can't even rent to cover our fees anymore.

Do the math. We could spend the $5,000/4 weeks at the Aoc or spend the same for 52 weeks at the condo.The caveat being,we could rent and actually make money.

So no matter what this thread is debating,I'm just PO'd that we bought a timeshare.
IMO,it was not wise for US to have purchased a TS.It has negative returns and is priced along with the fees to a point that is disturbing.

 

[ecwinch]

I appreciate everyone's input.
We hooked up with a realtor while in Aruba.
She showed us a condo in a really nice neighborhood in Palm Beach area.
There is a seller who has a 2 BR 2BA LV k and 2 pools across the street.It is 4 yrs old.
The drive to the beach is all of 5 minutes.
Completely furnished with nice stuff. He is willing to take $160,000.MFs are $143/mo.Taxes are negligable.Expenses are electric,water,phone/cable/internet.The condo rents out for about $900/wk and is maintained by the association.

We own 4 weeks at the AOC.Today buying through Marriott would cost us in the high $70,000.Correct me if I'm wrong.
Add on MFs and fees and we end up with a $5,000 bill/yr.Maybe more.
If we try to sell,I wonder if we'll get half of the cost.We can't even rent to cover our fees anymore.

Do the math. We could spend the $5,000/4 weeks at the Aoc or spend the same for 52 weeks at the condo.The caveat being,we could rent and actually make money.

So no matter what this thread is debating,I'm just PO'd that we bought a timeshare.
IMO,it was not wise for US to have purchased a TS.It has negative returns and is priced along with the fees to a point that is disturbing.

It only costs a buck or two to catch the bus. So are you similarly disappointed that you bought a car that immediately depreciated in value, and that you have all those expenses for (gas, insurance, maintenance, etc)?

Rental vs timeshare ownership vs vacation home ownership are all different decisions with relative pluses and minuses. And your analysis omits certain factors that close the gap - ie. cost of insurance, wear/tear of the furnishings, rental expenses, cleaning expenses, opportunity cost of the purchase, hassle of renting, that the expenses are fixed and the income variable, etc. And then you still belong to an HOA which has the opportunity to assess you if the roof is damaged in a tropical storm. And I would question what the HOA maintains. For a $142 a month seems a little low for m/f - better check the date of their last reserve study.

And given all the timeshares in Aruba on the beach, I would question the rental potential of a condo 5 minutes from the beach.

If you assume away all of the above then you should probably buy a couple. As they say, the grass is always greener.

 

[tlwmkw]

Modo,

If you buy that condo and the roof needs to be replaced in 10 years, and the air conditioner goes wrong in 10 years, and the stove needs to be replaced in 10 years, then who will pay for the replacements? Will you demand that the seller, or the original builder/developer, cover some part of the costs? That is what you are asking Marriott to do. I don't think that would be reasonable for a condo so how is it for a timeshare?

The fact that the building was once a "rusting steel hulk" that was saved by Marriott doesn't mean that it is by definition a bad building. This type of situation comes up all the time and does not mean the building will be faulty. There may be problems at the AOC but how can anyone prove that they all date back to that "rusting steel hulk"? If it was such a slam dunk then it would all have been settled long ago- there doesn't seem to be any real proof that Marriott knowingly covered up a faulty building.

This fight is all about money and who should pay it. All the other talk about transparency, etc is a smoke screen.

imo, tlwmkw