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

[marksue]

Dean I understand your point. But the expenses that are occurring would not be occurring at this time and would occur in the future. Paying years out for these repairs would allow the reserve fund to build and not require special assessments to the owners.

Marriott had to know the building was defective. It was leaking from day 1 and they were responsible for the maintenance. In fact a group of sales people had brought suit against Marriott in Aruba due to the conditions of the building. If Marriott had properly sealed the building how much money would have been saved because owners would not have had to pay for the ongoing maintenance caused by the water damage caused by the lack of waterproofing and leaks in the roof.

Why should a roof have to be replaced in 10 years? There is no way Marriott did not know about this situation. They have engineering reports that show the water damage, they have repair bills, they had to place water buckets through the building every time it rained. I think Marriott is smart enough to know there was a problem, ye tthey continue to sell units and not address the issue.

This is what we the owners are upset about. The way Marriott has hidden the poor quality of the building and now using the Aruba climate as an excuse to finally fix it and force the owners to pay for something they should have fixed years ago.

 

[timeos2]

It is not a windfall but a question of fairness

Dean I understand your point. But the expenses that are occurring would not be occurring at this time and would occur in the future. Paying years out for these repairs would allow the reserve fund to build and not require special assessments to the owners.

Marriott had to know the building was defective. It was leaking from day 1 and they were responsible for the maintenance. In fact a group of sales people had brought suit against Marriott in Aruba due to the conditions of the building. If Marriott had properly sealed the building how much money would have been saved because owners would not have had to pay for the ongoing maintenance caused by the water damage caused by the lack of waterproofing and leaks in the roof.

Why should a roof have to be replaced in 10 years? There is no way Marriott did not know about this situation. They have engineering reports that show the water damage, they have repair bills, they had to place water buckets through the building every time it rained. I think Marriott is smart enough to know there was a problem, ye tthey continue to sell units and not address the issue.

This is what we the owners are upset about. The way Marriott has hidden the poor quality of the building and now using the Aruba climate as an excuse to finally fix it and force the owners to pay for something they should have fixed years ago.

It is very common that construction codes or procedures of a decade ago do not meet todays standards. If the work done at the time was of reasonable quality and it gave a decade of service then it would be very hard to prove that Marriott or whoever did it "knew" it would fail. All work eventually wears out and requires upgrade or replacement. It does seem quite reasonable that whatever service it did provide would be covered by those that got the benefit of that useful life - the owners. To expect Marriott or the builder or anyone else to cover it 100% is basically getting something for nothing and, as those who watch Judge Judy or The Peoples Court should be well aware of, courts don't make thing better than they should be but put people in the spot they would be IF the extraordinary problem hadn't occurred. In this case Marriott paying a big percentage of the work would seem to bring owners to exactly to where they would have been after a decade of the harsh environment their building exists in. It is over reaching to say a third party has to eat the whole cost and the owners pay nothing. They did benefit and have to pay for at least that value.

 

[AwayWeGo]

You Have An Excellent Case. Now, How Much Justice Can You Afford ?

Marriott paying a big percentage of the work would seem to bring owners to exactly to where they would have been after a decade of the harsh environment their building exists in. It is over reaching to say a third party has to eat the whole cost and the owners pay nothing.

A guy goes to a lawyer for consultation. He wants help in a dispute with his brother over dividing their father's estate.

The lawyer says, "I think I can help you work out a fair settlement."

The client says, "Shux, if I wanted a fair settlement I wouldn't need a lawyer."

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[Dean]

Dean I understand your point. But the expenses that are occurring would not be occurring at this time and would occur in the future. Paying years out for these repairs would allow the reserve fund to build and not require special assessments to the owners.

Marriott had to know the building was defective. It was leaking from day 1 and they were responsible for the maintenance. In fact a group of sales people had brought suit against Marriott in Aruba due to the conditions of the building. If Marriott had properly sealed the building how much money would have been saved because owners would not have had to pay for the ongoing maintenance caused by the water damage caused by the lack of waterproofing and leaks in the roof.

Why should a roof have to be replaced in 10 years? There is no way Marriott did not know about this situation. They have engineering reports that show the water damage, they have repair bills, they had to place water buckets through the building every time it rained. I think Marriott is smart enough to know there was a problem, ye tthey continue to sell units and not address the issue.

This is what we the owners are upset about. The way Marriott has hidden the poor quality of the building and now using the Aruba climate as an excuse to finally fix it and force the owners to pay for something they should have fixed years ago.

I think there's every possibility Marriott didn't know. But as I said, the onus is on those questioning it to either prove that Marriott knew or convince a Judge that they did in the absence of such proof. IMO, the question of why the roof has to be replaced is irrelevant at this point, the real question is who's going to pay for it. The first place to look would be the contractor that did the work originally. In the absence of any help there, the owners are the one's responsible. The owners are going to get an additional 10 years or more extra down the road before the work will need to be done again, it's reasonable they pay for that added benefit. Also, any extra costs due to current codes that would not have been in place at the original instillation are also reasonable for the owners to be responsible for.

Based on the two posts above it appears that some owners want to take the stance that the fact that the roof needs to be replaced early is proof enough of wrongdoing because they "had to know" and that the owners shouldn't have to pay for the use they did get out of the fixtures. I could not disagree more on both counts.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEENTHIS BOARD AND THE PREVIOUS BOARD IS ALLAN COHEN. WHY IS THE BOARD TRYING TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY BY BLAMING IT ON THE PREVIOUS BOARD

Maybe, but that difference was the chairman, just just a single member. Plus I don't read the resort statement as laying blame on the BOD but in explaining why the costs are so much higher than expected. The truth is it was underfunded by the BOD, the question then becomes why. I suspect it's a multi factor issue that includes all of the components mentioned in the resort statement plus the idea that it's having to occur earlier than they expected.

The client says, "Shux, if I wanted a fair settlement I wouldn't need a lawyer."

It's been said that any good humor has at least an element of truth to it, maybe even too much in this situation.

 

[modoaruba]

Happy holidays to all.

As this saga continues it's opening the eyes of the unknowing as to what possibilities awaits owners of TSs.
It's wonderful that Marriott is contributing to the refurbishment.But it does not take away the pain away from the owners who have to come up with an unprecedented amount of fees.Especially in these times.
I know that upkeep is necessary for just about everything we own,but a vacation spot where one goes for a short period of time should be without future financial guess work.
I fear that if a catastrophic act occurs,who would be financially reponsible to bring things back to normal?What if the TS cannot be restored?Do we loose our invetment?
I am beginning to ask questions that I never would have thought of before.

 

[Dean]

I fear that if a catastrophic act occurs,who would be financially reponsible to bring things back to normal?What if the TS cannot be restored?Do we loose our invetment?
I am beginning to ask questions that I never would have thought of before.

If something catastrophic happens there are several components. First you see what insurance will pay, then you decide if it's worth rebuilding the lost components. If the decision is not to rebuild, expenses are paid and the remainder (along with any reserves) is split among the owners. At that point the owners affected are SOL. For example, if one building were destroyed and not rebuilt but others were OK or fixable, only those who technically owned in the part not rebuilt would cease to be owners. With points systems you might or might not be able to use your points while things were being rebuilt. With DVC you can use your points at other resorts unless there has been a formal decision to not rebuild then you no longer own those points.

IMO it's always best to assume pretty much the worst with timeshares and hope for the best.

 

[lovearuba]

similar?

this whole situation seems like a problem I am having with a new canon camera. It takes blurry pictures. It is under warranty, purchased in June and has been sent back to Canon twice. Both times they claimed to have made repairs and sent it back. The darn camera cannot take a picture that is not blurry. Canon insists its working according to specs. I continue to challenge a camera that does not take clear pictures. Is it because the camera in general is a piece of crap and Canon does not want to admit to its defects or is it because they think blurry pictures (leaky windows) is okay. Knowing that the camera is defective or finding out afterwards that the building was defective should not be put on the owner. The company selling the product should be responsible for insuring it meets specifications (in Marriotts case, up to Marriott standards).

We bought the camera because of Canons reputation and we bought the ocean club because of Marriotts name. Neither one are living up to their expectations and I should not have to accept a defective product.

 

[Dean]

this whole situation seems like a problem I am having with a new canon camera. It takes blurry pictures. It is under warranty, purchased in June and has been sent back to Canon twice. Both times they claimed to have made repairs and sent it back. The darn camera cannot take a picture that is not blurry. Canon insists its working according to specs. I continue to challenge a camera that does not take clear pictures. Is it because the camera in general is a piece of crap and Canon does not want to admit to its defects or is it because they think blurry pictures (leaky windows) is okay. Knowing that the camera is defective or finding out afterwards that the building was defective should not be put on the owner. The company selling the product should be responsible for insuring it meets specifications (in Marriotts case, up to Marriott standards).

We bought the camera because of Canons reputation and we bought the ocean club because of Marriotts name. Neither one are living up to their expectations and I should not have to accept a defective product.

In your example the camera would have worked correctly for 2-3 years.

 

[cruisin]

Dean I understand your point. But the expenses that are occurring would not be occurring at this time and would occur in the future. Paying years out for these repairs would allow the reserve fund to build and not require special assessments to the owners.

Marriott had to know the building was defective. It was leaking from day 1 and they were responsible for the maintenance. In fact a group of sales people had brought suit against Marriott in Aruba due to the conditions of the building. If Marriott had properly sealed the building how much money would have been saved because owners would not have had to pay for the ongoing maintenance caused by the water damage caused by the lack of waterproofing and leaks in the roof.

Why should a roof have to be replaced in 10 years? There is no way Marriott did not know about this situation. They have engineering reports that show the water damage, they have repair bills, they had to place water buckets through the building every time it rained. I think Marriott is smart enough to know there was a problem, ye tthey continue to sell units and not address the issue.

This is what we the owners are upset about. The way Marriott has hidden the poor quality of the building and now using the Aruba climate as an excuse to finally fix it and force the owners to pay for something they should have fixed years ago.

How old was the roof when it was failing? If it was good for 10 years, then maybe that's not too bad, if it was bad and causing damage after the 1st year, then waiting 10 years to fix it, does not really mean that owners got 10 years out of it? Am I missing something? I do not own in Aruba, but am sad to see this at a Marriott resort.

 

[lovearuba]

I am not following you

In your example the camera would have worked correctly for 2-3 years.

Are you thinking the building didnt leak from the beginning?

 

[Dean]

Are you thinking the building didnt leak from the beginning?

I don't know if it did or not nor does it really matter in the example, but regardless there has been some 10 years use where one normally assumes a life of around 30 years for such a roof. As noted, it is reasonable for the owners there to pay for the use they got even if it was defective.

 

[ecwinch]

Is not a considerable irony that the person what is leading the criticism of the current board is the same individual that was the Board President when all this massive damage from a leaking building was occurring?

When these incidents of "buckets in the lobby" were occurring?

Just for the record. How long was Allan Cohen on the Board and/or Board President - 6 years?

And how long ago was the Ocean Club built - 10 years ago?

 

[ecwinch]

this whole situation seems like a problem I am having with a new canon camera. It takes blurry pictures. It is under warranty, purchased in June and has been sent back to Canon twice. Both times they claimed to have made repairs and sent it back. The darn camera cannot take a picture that is not blurry. Canon insists its working according to specs. I continue to challenge a camera that does not take clear pictures. Is it because the camera in general is a piece of crap and Canon does not want to admit to its defects or is it because they think blurry pictures (leaky windows) is okay. Knowing that the camera is defective or finding out afterwards that the building was defective should not be put on the owner. The company selling the product should be responsible for insuring it meets specifications (in Marriotts case, up to Marriott standards).

We bought the camera because of Canons reputation and we bought the ocean club because of Marriotts name. Neither one are living up to their expectations and I should not have to accept a defective product.

This is an apples to oranges comparisons. Most product warranties are replace or repair warranties.

This is a roof - which like tires and other goods with a limited life-span based on usage has a pro-rated replacement warranty. Which is essentially is what MVCI is doing in this case.

And has this alleged defective building every materially affected your personal usage or enjoyment of the resort? Is that not the difference between your blurry camera and the AOC? That your Canon camera unusable, and with MVCI you want them to make you whole, even though you have enjoyed the benefits of your purchase for a number of years.

 

[marksue]

How old was the roof when it was failing? If it was good for 10 years, then maybe that's not too bad, if it was bad and causing damage after the 1st year, then waiting 10 years to fix it, does not really mean that owners got 10 years out of it? Am I missing something? I do not own in Aruba, but am sad to see this at a Marriott resort.

The roof has been defective since day 1. The building has leaked from the windows, the doors and the roof since day 1. The owners have had to pay for all the water damage since day 1. WHere is Marriott's responsibility? WHy wait 10 years to saythe roof needs to be replaced when there ahs been an issue since day 1? Why is Marriot now saying we need to waterproof the building and have the owners pay when the issue due to lack of waterproofing has been there since day 1?

The owners have paid all the repair costs for all the damage caused by leaks, lack of waterproofing, and the bad roof since day 1. All of this should have been repaired within the first year but never was, now the owners have to foot the majority of the bill.

 

[timeos2]

It's been said before. There are limits and time frames for thigs to happen

The roof has been defective since day 1. The building has leaked from the windows, the doors and the roof since day 1. The owners have had to pay for all the water damage since day 1. WHere is Marriott's responsibility? WHy wait 10 years to saythe roof needs to be replaced when there ahs been an issue since day 1? Why is Marriot now saying we need to waterproof the building and have the owners pay when the issue due to lack of waterproofing has been there since day 1?

The owners have paid all the repair costs for all the damage caused by leaks, lack of waterproofing, and the bad roof since day 1. All of this should ahve been repaired within the first year but never was, now the owners have to foot the majority of the bill.

The owners, via the Board, had the chance to refuse accepting the building back when the original turn over occurred. Usually the time frame is 1 year after the Developer turns control to the Board. If they accepted it at that point - probably 5 years or so back now - the clock ran on the 1 year warranty, any work they requested and accepted resolved the issue as far as any court/warranty is concerned and going forward like a car or a house any additional work is theirs to handle (pay for). It is not a never ending blank check simply because someone says "it happened on day 1". We can read here that the Board has accepted work done and changes made thus ending any ongoing liability of the Developer. That Board represented you and if you have a complaint it would be with them not Marriott.

If Marriott has on its own decided to go back in time and pay for costs they could easily challenge and win I'd take my winnings and move on. Going after them for more seems beyond greedy at this point.

 

[modoaruba]

Regardless of what and whom is right,let's do some number crunching.

1BR Gold is now about $18,500
MF is now $1089.40
Let's not count special assessment and keep MFs constant.And no financing.

Year 1= $18,500+$1,089.40=$19,589.40
Year 2= " =$10,339.40
Year 3= " =$ 7,256.06
Year 4= " =$ 5,714.40
Year 5= " =$ 4,789.40
Year 6= " =$ 4,172.73
Year 7= " =$ 3,732.25
Year 8= " =$ 3,401.90
Year 9= " =$ 3,144.95
Year 10= " =$ 2,939.40

So effectively,going every year to the same resort(AOC) will average $3,000/Year after 10 years.At least.
Rental of same could have gotten 15 to 20 years.At least.
For those who have to finance and fees going up,add a few more years.

Even though Marriott pays a share,where is the money coming from?
Let me guess.

 

[Dean]

The roof has been defective since day 1. The building has leaked from the windows, the doors and the roof since day 1. The owners have had to pay for all the water damage since day 1. WHere is Marriott's responsibility? WHy wait 10 years to saythe roof needs to be replaced when there ahs been an issue since day 1? Why is Marriot now saying we need to waterproof the building and have the owners pay when the issue due to lack of waterproofing has been there since day 1?

The owners have paid all the repair costs for all the damage caused by leaks, lack of waterproofing, and the bad roof since day 1. All of this should have been repaired within the first year but never was, now the owners have to foot the majority of the bill.

It will be necessary to prove those accusation, simply saying it must be so isn't enough. It will likely take the smoking gun to prove this issue.

 

[marksue]

There are plenty of eyewitness's. Anyone who has stayed at the Ocean Club and seen all the pails in the lobby, hallways, sales offices can validate there were leaks.

Ask those people who had to vacate thier rooms due to water entering thier room from the windows or sliding doors. How many rooms were out of commission due to Omar becuse water entered the rooms through the windows and sliding doors. Ask anyone about the leaks in the lobby whenever it rained because water entered through the doors.

Most anyone who owns at the Ocean Club is aware of all the issues around leakage of the building.

 

[timeos2]

We're still getting unbelievable "proof" of so problems. Not close to enforcable.

There are plenty of eyewitness's. Anyone who has stayed at the Ocean Club and seen all the pails in the lobby, hallways, sales offices can validate there were leaks.

Ask those people who had to vacate thier rooms due to water entering thier room from the windows or sliding doors. How many rooms were out of commission due to Omar becuse water entered the rooms through the windows and sliding doors. Ask anyone about the leaks in the lobby whenever it rained because water entered through the doors.

Most anyone who owns at the Ocean Club is aware of all the issues around leakage of the building.

That doesn't mean that the Board didn't legally accept the building (as they apparently did) nor does a few leaks (or even a bunch, a lot or whatever you care to call it) mean the roof is 100% unacceptable. You are making sweeping assumptions that have virtually no chance of surviving any type of challenge in court if it came to that. You would have to have serious (read costly) engineering reports that stated it was faulty, NOT just 10 (or 20 or 100) people saying "I saw a bucket on 5/5/02 in the hallway". It's ludicrous to think such anecdotal "evidence" would make a case. Add in factprs like a hurricane and there are other outs for the developer/contractor(s). In fact it's that type of statement that clearly paints the so called owners advocates as uninformed to how such a lawsuit would work and unprepared to actually launch any type of recovery demand. It would truly be laughable how quickly such a claim would be dismissed as unfounded. And a total waste of money for both sides. Owners had better hope that the Board continues to act to responsibly resolve this and not screw up what Marriott seems to be offering. That is in all likelihood far beyond anything any court would ever order them to do. It would be awfully expensive to find out if that is a true or false assumption.

 

[Dean]

There are plenty of eyewitness's. Anyone who has stayed at the Ocean Club and seen all the pails in the lobby, hallways, sales offices can validate there were leaks.

Ask those people who had to vacate thier rooms due to water entering thier room from the windows or sliding doors. How many rooms were out of commission due to Omar becuse water entered the rooms through the windows and sliding doors. Ask anyone about the leaks in the lobby whenever it rained because water entered through the doors.

Most anyone who owns at the Ocean Club is aware of all the issues around leakage of the building.

I think you'll need to get legal testimony of such starting from the first few months of occupancy to come close to a legal proof. It should be interesting.

 

[ecwinch]

There are plenty of eyewitness's. Anyone who has stayed at the Ocean Club and seen all the pails in the lobby, hallways, sales offices can validate there were leaks.

Ask those people who had to vacate thier rooms due to water entering thier room from the windows or sliding doors. How many rooms were out of commission due to Omar becuse water entered the rooms through the windows and sliding doors. Ask anyone about the leaks in the lobby whenever it rained because water entered through the doors.

Most anyone who owns at the Ocean Club is aware of all the issues around leakage of the building.

Was the Ocean Club the only resort on the island of Aruba to suffer any damage during Omar?

 

[marksue]

It was the only Marriott property to suffer damage. The Marriott Hotel, and the Surf Club had no damage at all. The only news and posts on damage by people in aruba is on the Marriott Ocean club.

 

[ecwinch]

Are you sure there was no damage to either property?

And while I would agree that it appears the AOC suffered more damage then the other properties, how do you factor into your POV that the Surf Club is newer construction, and the hotel had just undergone a major renovation?

Construction standards for protecting against windstorm damage have increased significantly in the past 10 years; mainly driven by changes in the insurance industry brought about by the massive cycle of storm events in the past 10 years. Insurers have added more exclusions from wind-driven water damage, significantly raised premiums, and greatly increased deductibles due to their losses in coastal areas from increased storm events in Florida and the Gulf Coast. Where before it was less expensive to insure against that potential damage, the changes in the insurance industry have changed the equation. That has driven builders to build better and to provide better protection against wind-driven storm damage.

But that is a recent trend. Construction from 10-12 years would not have the same level of protection as a building of 4-6 years old. Or one that was recently refurbished or built. Are you suggesting that MVCI should have hit owners up for a special assessment to harden the building against wind-driven water to provide a similar level of protection like they did for the hotel complex?

And how do you account for the fact that in a storm, different building types - even ones right next door to each other - suffer different levels of damage. There are a variety of factors that influence that outcome. To simply label it as a defective building is not well-reasoned. For by that standard, a large number of buildings would be defective construction when subjected to the effects of a hurricane.

 

[marksue]

The building has had issues since day 1. You have never been there to see what happened everytime it rained. I was as all other owners. So you can say what you want to defend Marriott, the building has been defective and Marriott sold it knowing it was defective.

I guess with your logic, since it was a 10 year old building it wasn't built to handle rain since the building codes were different.

 

[Dave M]

I really don't care who wins in this fight. I don't have a vested interest. However, I do have enough legal training and experience to share what I believe to be a realistic and disinterested (not uninterested) view.

I accept, Mark, that the roof leaked from day 1. It's also clear that Marriott and the BOD were at odds over who should pay for repairs or replacement of the roof. And perhaps, yes, although it has not been proven, Marriott "knew" on day 1 that the roof leaked. However, ultimately the BOD, with the authority granted by the bylaws to act on behalf of all owners, agreed to settle with Marriott on the previously discussed 40-60 basis. That's one primary reason why I believe you have virtually no chance to win in court.

Further, because your BOD accepted the settlement, the BOD must continue to pay for legal expenses - which means the owners pay for those expenses - to protect itself against the likely claims against the BOD when Marriott points the finger in court that it already has an agreement on the roof to which the BOD has agreed.

That's why I believe the only thing you are accomplishing with this fight is more expense for the owners.