Marriott Maui Preview in one hr-any questions?

[dougp26364]

This isn't new talk. People have mentioned for a couple years how the sales people have mentioned a possible internal exchange system. This new experience means nothing new and nothing has changed. It means nothing more than when the salesperson who said it 6 months ago, 12 months ago, or evern 18 months ago.

From the survey that many of us took several months back it doesn't sound like any owner will be included in the new system. One would have to buy in to it, retail and resale purchasers. Marriott will create it to make money. They would sell the option to owners, not give it out for free. They won't want to exclude a segment of their owner base because that would reduce their profit potential on a new program.

I realize the rumor is not new. What is new is that the sales staff seems to be able to talk about it openly and they seem to be consistant with what they're saying. Before, they were all over the map IF they'd say anything at all.

For that past 2 or 3 years it's been little more that rumor and speculation on the part of Tuggers. Now, there seems to be more substance to the rumor.

 

[billymach4]

I really find it amusing that so many of you actually believe there will one day be an internal system. This rumor has been circulating for so many years and it is always about 1 to 2 years away from implementation.

The salespeople perpetuate it only to their own spin to convince you to buy direct.

Rubbish, Rubbish. I say it is all Rubbish!

To those of you that are developer buyers more power to you. I wish you all well in your timeshares. There has got to be a resale market, otherwise your developer purchase would be worthless.

Marriott may well one day implement some sort of internal trading system, however they must include and grandfather resale owners. Not grandfathering resales owners will devalue the developer purchased Units. Who would buy a resale if your unit was going to be considered sub par!

Salespeople will twist the facts! Always!

 

[tlwmkw]

Marriott probably wants the resale market for themselves

Marriott may not be trying to kill the resale market- they just want to control it. They probably see other folks making money off their resorts in resales and want a piece of the action. If you have been reading some other posts on this BB then you will have noted that they are taking names for wait lists for future purchases. This is a smart move on their part- they can sell inventory that they don't even hold and collect 40% off the top if they sell it. They don't have to pay MF's on those weeks and they don't have to tie up capital. The sales staff at Surfwatch are already into this in a fairly significant way since they don't have much inventory left on HHI. If they do the selling of the resale timeshares then they can bundle it with points or whatever. They have already been doing this in a small way but now it sounds like they intend to try to take away the ability to resell their product from anyone else.

From the slant of the questionaire that many of us received it appears that you will have to pay for the opportunity of participating in the internal trade system. Personally I don't think anyone really needs to worry about this. I doubt many people who already own will want to participate (I won't) and if people don't join in then it won't fly for a long time- I can only imagine that new purchasers would use it because they have to. If you are using II then Marriott won't have any control when you book and others who decline the internal trades will be there to trade with you.

 

[billymach4]

Marriott may not be trying to kill the resale market- they just want to control it. They probably see other folks making money off their resorts in resales and want a piece of the action. If you have been reading some other posts on this BB then you will have noted that they are taking names for wait lists for future purchases. This is a smart move on their part- they can sell inventory that they don't even hold and collect 40% off the top if they sell it. They don't have to pay MF's on those weeks and they don't have to tie up capital. The sales staff at Surfwatch are already into this in a fairly significant way since they don't have much inventory left on HHI. If they do the selling of the resale timeshares then they can bundle it with points or whatever. They have already been doing this in a small way but now it sounds like they intend to try to take away the ability to resell their product from anyone else.

From the slant of the questionaire that many of us received it appears that you will have to pay for the opportunity of participating in the internal trade system. Personally I don't think anyone really needs to worry about this. I doubt many people who already own will want to participate (I won't) and if people don't join in then it won't fly for a long time- I can only imagine that new purchasers would use it because they have to. If you are using II then Marriott won't have any control when you book and others who decline the internal trades will be there to trade with you.

The only reason Marriott is offering to resell units it because there are no units from ROFR to build up inventory. Over at HGVC Hilton is buying back on the resale market and building up their own inventory. They have no development in the pipeline so this how HGVC maintains their inventory. Marriott on the other hand is in the development business and thus needs to build new units in order to profit. As we all know if Marriott did not need to resell their mortgages Marriott would be doing more in the way of ROFR as well.

 

[winger]

We got here at pre-dawn this morning luggage and all and selected our poolside chairs. Ppl started showing up with towels to reserve their seats at about 640AM, what a nutty concept.

Anyways, I will check with our sales person to get more clarificaton of the internal system and the 6-mo reservation window for resales.

 

[sdtugger]

What class action lawsuit?

I don't have any problem at all with Marriott offering a 12/13-month reservation window for the units which you and I bought direct, and a reduced 6/7-month window for your resale unit. That differential gives us both what we're "owed", rewards customer loyalty, and is not legally forbidden by the deeded rights. Works for me.

The concept of a Marriott internal trading system and/or restricting resale buyers reservation window have been discussed ad naseum for the last 2-3 years. A class action lawsuit was discussed at length in those threads. Suffice it to say that there is a very strong case against Marriott if they take away resale purchasers' right to reserve the same as any other owner. Someone contacted Marriott during the earlier discussions and a Marriott employee fairly high up in the MVCI chain sent out a statement that Marriott would not restrict the reservation rights of resale purchasers. If Marriott were to now restrict resale purchasers' reservation rights, this statement would strengthen a strong class action case even more.

And, as Doug stated above, restricting resale purchase rights hurts everyone because everyone is extremely likely to eventually need to resell their timeshare. However, using MOC as an example, all of the key weeks are reserved within days, hours, or minutes of their availability. Therefore, any restriction on resale reservations would effectively reduce the value of those weeks because they could only be used to reserve the least popular weeks. And, the deed does NOT allow Marriott to reduce the value of the weeks (by 50-75%).

I find it funny that some direct purchase folks who tout the benefits of direct purchase are quick to argue that resale purchasers should be punished. A direct purchase should make sense under the current system, not the current system "enhanced" by devaluing resale owners.

I am convinced that if Marriott ever does introduce an internal trading system that they will leave reservation practices alone. Frankly, I believe that they may have considered changing the sytem to hurt resale owners and that they saw on this board and elsewhere that they'd face a huge lawsuit and they "saw the light." I think Marriott is a well run company and I think they will continue to get this one right. They can change many things regarding trading weeks. But, they can't change the reservation system without a costly legal fight that I believe that would lose and lose big. That isn't smart business. If they want to enhance direct purchase weeks, the way to do it is to make it easier to exchange those weeks.

 

[billymach4]

The concept of a Marriott internal trading system and/or restricting resale buyers reservation window have been discussed ad naseum for the last 2-3 years. A class action lawsuit was discussed at length in those threads. Suffice it to say that there is a very strong case against Marriott if they take away resale purchasers' right to reserve the same as any other owner. Someone contacted Marriott during the earlier discussions and a Marriott employee fairly high up in the MVCI chain sent out a statement that Marriott would not restrict the reservation rights of resale purchasers. If Marriott were to now restrict resale purchasers' reservation rights, this statement would strengthen a strong class action case even more.

And, as Doug stated above, restricting resale purchase rights hurts everyone because everyone is extremely likely to eventually need to resell their timeshare. However, using MOC as an example, all of the key weeks are reserved within days, hours, or minutes of their availability. Therefore, any restriction on resale reservations would effectively reduce the value of those weeks because they could only be used to reserve the least popular weeks. And, the deed does NOT allow Marriott to reduce the value of the weeks (by 50-75%).

I find it funny that some direct purchase folks who tout the benefits of direct purchase are quick to argue that resale purchasers should be punished. A direct purchase should make sense under the current system, not the current system "enhanced" by devaluing resale owners.

I am convinced that if Marriott ever does introduce an internal trading system that they will leave reservation practices alone. Frankly, I believe that they may have considered changing the sytem to hurt resale owners and that they saw on this board and elsewhere that they'd face a huge lawsuit and they "saw the light." I think Marriott is a well run company and I think they will continue to get this one right. They can change many things regarding trading weeks. But, they can't change the reservation system without a costly legal fight that I believe that would lose and lose big. That isn't smart business. If they want to enhance direct purchase weeks, the way to do it is to make it easier to exchange those weeks.

Agreed Sdtugger!

 

[SueDonJ]

This topic does goes around and around and around, doesn't it? Some very good points have been made on both sides of the discussion pertaining to these two points from winger's recent conversation with a Marriott rep:

"5) Marriott is moving ahead with internal trading system, 8-16 months out.

6) existing resale owners will NOT be grandfathered in, they will have a booking window of 6 mos from date of checkin."

I'm of the opinion that MVCI can reward its direct purchasers in both of these ways because there is nothing specific contained in the deeded rights of any owners which would legally prohibit such actions. If the changes are implemented, I just don't see a legal basis for a class action suit anywhere here.

Now whether or not Marriott Co. or MVCI would roll out the changes and chance a possible public relations nightmare as fallout is another thing. In the past they've weathered, successfully, negative reaction to changes in practices such as the MRP devaluations and 12/13-month reservation process. Who's to say it couldn't happen again? I'd bet that Marriott changes and negative reactions definitely will happen at some point, if not with these two particular issues than with something else. That's what history teaches us.

It seems to me that MVCI doesn't concern itself with how an owner is able to sell his/her unit at some point in the future, other than the establishment of ROFR and that's to protect its own brand. We're all watching now and seeing that in his bad economy, even that has been all but suspended. The only internal resale option they offer, to buy back in certain circumstances, is poor at best and totally subject to the market demand. No, their concern is with selling new properties and maintaining existing ones to a certain standard so as to discourage owners from selling. MVCI doesn't want either an internal or external glut of units on the market.

In any event, over the last few years we've read and discussed on this board many statements about possible program changes that were made by Marriott reps, but not one of them has been an official written statement issued by Marriott the parent company or MVCI in particular. There's been a whole lot of fodder for digestion, but nothing at all to make a meal.

I also want to say that although I am in favor of Marriott rewarding its direct-purchasers in the specific ways discussed here and any other possible ways, I do not see that as "punishment" for resale buyers. It's simply the old "you get what you pay for" in action.

 

[sdtugger]

This topic does goes around and around and around, doesn't it? Some very good points have been made on both sides of the discussion pertaining to these two points from winger's recent conversation with a Marriott rep:

"5) Marriott is moving ahead with internal trading system, 8-16 months out.

6) existing resale owners will NOT be grandfathered in, they will have a booking window of 6 mos from date of checkin."

I'm of the opinion that MVCI can reward its direct purchasers in both of these ways because there is nothing specific contained in the deeded rights of any owners which would legally prohibit such actions. If the changes are implemented, I just don't see a legal basis for a class action suit anywhere here.

Now whether or not Marriott Co. or MVCI would roll out the changes and chance a possible public relations nightmare as fallout is another thing. In the past they've weathered, successfully, negative reaction to changes in practices such as the MRP devaluations and 12/13-month reservation process. Who's to say it couldn't happen again? I'd bet that Marriott changes and negative reactions definitely will happen at some point, if not with these two particular issues than with something else. That's what history teaches us.

It seems to me that MVCI doesn't concern itself with how an owner is able to sell his/her unit at some point in the future, other than the establishment of ROFR and that's to protect its own brand. We're all watching now and seeing that in his bad economy, even that has been all but suspended. The only internal resale option they offer, to buy back in certain circumstances, is poor at best and totally subject to the market demand. No, their concern is with selling new properties and maintaining existing ones to a certain standard so as to discourage owners from selling. MVCI doesn't want either an internal or external glut of units on the market.

In any event, over the last few years we've read and discussed on this board many statements about possible program changes that were made by Marriott reps, but not one of them has been an official written statement issued by Marriott the parent company or MVCI in particular. There's been a whole lot of fodder for digestion, but nothing at all to make a meal.

I also want to say that although I am in favor of Marriott rewarding its direct-purchasers in the specific ways discussed here and any other possible ways, I do not see that as "punishment" for resale buyers. It's simply the old "you get what you pay for" in action.

Susan, We'll have to agree to disagree. The fact is that you did NOT pay for the system that you describe. You paid for the current system where the only difference between resale and direct purchase is the ability to exchange for MRP points. I think most people can see the problem with changing the system after purchases were made. And, given the horrible devaluation caused by any change in the reservation system, there would be a huge incentive for all owners to sue Marriott because all owners will eventually want to sell. The right to reserve any platinum week is included in every week sold at MOC. If a new reservation system effectively took that right away, that would indeed be a violation of the deed and related documents.

I don't have time to dig up the old statement from MVCI that they would not change the reservation system, but it was documented by several of the trusted posters on this board and it was from someone high enough up to make the statement reliable.

In short, Marriott has tons of flexibility to play with an internal or new exchange system. You'll get no argument from me on that front. But, I don't think they have any flexibility to effectively remove valuable reservation rights from weeks that were sold to include those rights without a costly lawsuit that they would be very likely to lose. Marriott is not that dumb, even if some wish they were in order to make their own purchase appear more valuable in the short run. In the long run, everyone would lose.

 

[m61376]

I also want to say that although I am in favor of Marriott rewarding its direct-purchasers in the specific ways discussed here and any other possible ways, I do not see that as "punishment" for resale buyers. It's simply the old "you get what you pay for" in action.

Understandably, you and I sit on opposite sides of the fence, so to speak, although we have at times agreed on things . But I don't see how if Marriott changed the rules after the fact it would be a "you get what you pay for" in action. Resale (and direct) purchasers bought under a certain known set of conditions. Changing the rules going forward, while I still maintain would be bad for business because by decimating the resale market you are hurting direct buyers who may buy with the anticipation of selling 10 years or so down the road when their needs change, could be categorized in your "you get what you pay for" category. BUT- changing the rules after the fact would be taking away what was bought. It would be no different than Marriott telling original pre-construction purchasers that since later purchasers paid $10,000 or more additional they are entitled to earlier reservations, better room assignments, etc.

It doesn't matter how much was paid. At the time the product was purchased, a certain set of advertised and implied entitlements went along with the purchase and any restrictions would be bad for everyone, and I don't just mean resale buyers. To reiterate what I think is a critical argument- anything that creates animosity towards the brand is bad for the brand. Many resale buyers are also developer purchasers and certainly are potential developer purchasers of future resorts. As pointed out by others, restricting rights already enjoyed will lead to a lot of brand animosity and bad publicity.

Furthermore, also as pointed out, resale buyers are not the only ones who will be negatively affected. Need to move, no longer can travel the distance, change in lifestyle, health, etc.- you can never maintain you'll never want to sell. Be careful what you wish for- killing the resale market will kill your investment. And- good luck getting Marriott to sell for you; hope you have the patience and can afford the MF's while you wait, and wait, and wait. So your salesperson's canned response about reselling will be worth squat.

Last but not least- along with the be careful what you wish for vein- as any kind of owner, whether direct or resale, I'd worry about a company that for whatever reason starts to remove rights/privileges/use of a product from any of its customers. Just because you bought direct doesn't make you immune. I know you'll think it sounds far-fetched, but an analogous argument can be made that people at the same resort who paid more should similarly be compensated and enjoy more privileges. You indicate people should get what they paid for. I know for a fact that at many resorts resale prices were about the same as initial offerings. So, does that mean those people who paid about the same should enjoy the same privileges or suffer the same restrictions. Should Marriott now reward those later purchasers who may have paid close to at least a third more? That would certainly be a way to justify ever increasing prices (and just so there is no misunderstanding, I am saying this a bit tongue in cheek, and in no way am suggesting this).

Marriott should not be allowed to change the rules of use after the fact for any owner and every owner should support that.

 

[Troopers]

My bet is that if Marriott introduces an internal trading system, it will only be available to weeks purchased directly from them. Also, this will not be such a big deal for resale weeks because I doubt the internal trading system will offer much more than other available options to exchange (trade) the (resale) week.

 

[davidvel]

This thread again sets forth the continual confusion about any internal Marriott TRADING system vs. the reservation process. Let's not continue to confuse the two.

Marriott CANNOT change your rights to reserve YOUR week. These are deeded rights.

Marriott CAN set up any priority it wants in any TRADING system. TRADING system= Interval International, RedWeek, Ownertrades, etc. ie., trading your week you have already reserved.

Marriott CANNOT restrict which program you decide to trade your unit with.

For those who missed the old thread on this issue, here is more: http://tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=576497&postcount=13

Let's not continue to confuse these two distinct issues.

 

[m61376]

In short, Marriott has tons of flexibility to play with an internal or new exchange system. You'll get no argument from me on that front. But, I don't think they have any flexibility to effectively remove valuable reservation rights from weeks that were sold to include those rights without a costly lawsuit that they would be very likely to lose. Marriott is not that dumb, even if some wish they were in order to make their own purchase appear more valuable in the short run. In the long run, everyone would lose.

Well said. But, not just because I want it that way, but for the reasons stated above, even if Marriott has the legal flexibility to play with an internal exchange system, discriminating against any current owner would, in my opinion, be bad for business. The only reason would be to be punitive and that just doesn't generate good will. It would just turn off current owners from ever buying another Marriott. And, as others have stated, there are many resale (I wouldn't be surprised if it was most even) owners who also have bought one or more developer weeks and any happy Marriott owner is a potential future purchaser of a new development.

Grandfathering all current resale owners would cost Marriott nothing. It would keep all current owners happy and maintain their entire customer base. It would make all current owners, regardless of how they bought, assured that Marriott will take care of their owners in the future no matter how prices rise or conditions change. It would only generate more revenue in any internal trading system. Simply put, it would be good for business.

Changing the rules going forward for any future resale buyer would be fair to all current owners in so far as Marriott wouldn't be changing the rules of use after the fact and would be fair to any future buyers because in that case they would be knowing and getting what they were buying. However, I still feel that every owner and future purchaser would be hurt by this, because it will severely impact the resale value and desirability of every unit. And it may come back to haunt Marriott, since salespeople will have a harder time convincing prospective buyers that there purchase will retain value over time, should they need or want to sell it in the future. Because of that, I don't think its good for owners and I don't think its good for Marriott either.

 

[SueDonJ]

See, I knew it would be difficult to flesh out my thoughts here but I'm really confused about the certainty that some of you have, that a class action suit could be brought if the reservation process is changed.

Perhaps that may be true for fixed weeks, but seasonal ownership? I'm just not getting it.

The only deeded right with respect to a week's use is that an owner is entitled to a week within a certain season in a specific unit configuration, for example a Gold 2BR oceanview. MVCI (and every other timeshare entity) is legally prohibited from selling any more weeks than fit those specifics, therefore, there will always be availability for an owner to use his/her week. That is the extent of MVCI's legal obligations to seasonal owners, as far as usage.

If MVCI goes to a 12/13-month direct-purchase and 6/7-month external resale-purchase reservation system, it will not prevent a resale owner from reserving a week as specified by his/her deeded rights, because the number of those specific weeks is fixed to the number sold. What it will do is force him/her to wait out a six month period in which direct-purchasers who also own that specific unit configuration will be able to make reservations ahead of him/her. Thus, the legal requirement that a week as specified must be available, is not breached.

The reservation process has been changed in the past by Marriott. If I'm not mistaken, the 12/13-month thing is a fairly recent change within the last ten years or so. What recourse did single-week owners at the time have? Weren't they forced to abide by the new reservation process even though it put them at a disadvantage? I simply don't see a precedent for a class action suit by owners to prohibit any such future changes.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I don't have time to dig up the old statement from MVCI that they would not change the reservation system, but it was documented by several of the trusted posters on this board and it was from someone high enough up to make the statement reliable. ...

Separate from the issue itself -

I believe I've seen a few posts from DaveM in discussions here in which he relates what he's heard from his trusted source, and some of those have served to discount rumors. The fact that he has a trusted source doesn't surprise me in the least, and I believe that what Dave posts is exactly what he's heard from his source. Dave is as knowledgeable about the Marriott product as anyone can be, and I'm in total agreement with every positive opinion of Dave as there is on this site.

BUT...

Dave will be (and has been, in these types of discussions) the first to say that unless a written official statement is made by Marriott Co. or MVCI, no rumor can be assumed as fact or dismissed as fiction by virtue of any rep's unofficial statement. Which makes sense, doesn't it, because what a Marriott higher-up hears today may be different tomorrow.

 

[Latravel]

Have you guys forgotten that Marriott can and will change the rules after a purchase? Examples:
1. Receiving points for financing your purchase with Marriott was stopped.
2. Number of points required for vacation packages
3. 12/13 month reservation window

Why do you think they "can't" change the system to suit their business needs when they have already in the past? Marriott can change the internal TRADING system however they see fit if they feel they can enhance their sales. It's written in the purchase contract which we all signed.

When I was sitting in a sales presentation, I asked about the resale market. They told me they don't consider resale units part of the system. There is a big "R" next to the unit number. This is one of the many reasons why I never purchased resale. I didn't want to take a chance that there would be any future restrictions on my unit.

Regarding restrictions on resale units hurting resale value. I don't consider my units an investment and I don't expect a resale value. They are for my enjoyment and if I make any money if I sell, that is a nice perk. Did Marriott ever make you a promise that you would make a profit or even make your money back? I remember the purchase agreement clearly states that timeshares are not considered investments, only for enjoyment.

 

[Latravel]

Wow SueDon -
The reservation system that you describe where resale purchasers would only be able to reserve their home unit 6 months out, after direct purchasers, sounds almost cruel! I don't think that would be fair. Everyone (direct and resale) should have access to the unit they bought at the same time. Though, I agree with your theory that there is probably no basis for a class action suit, it still sounds wrong.

On the other hand, any program perks such as internal trading, is another story.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Marriott CANNOT change your rights to reserve YOUR week. These are deeded rights. ...

But Marriott can change the process by which you are able to reserve your week. So, you have the right to reserve your week, but Marriott reserves the right to determine how the reservation can be made.

That specific process is not a deeded right, and there have previously been uncontested changes made to the process. Multi-week owners were granted an advantage (if booking consecutive or concurrent weeks) over single-week owners, who had no legal recourse to stop Marriott's change in the process. I don't know why anyone would expect that it can't happen again.

(I sure do hope I've explained this well enough now that folks don't think I'm saying that developer-purchasers should be able to book anything other than the specific unit/season configuration they puchased. I don't mean that at all!)

 

[SueDonJ]

Wow SueDon -
The reservation system that you describe where resale purchasers would only be able to reserve their home unit 6 months out, after direct purchasers, sounds almost cruel! I don't think that would be fair. Everyone (direct and resale) should have access to the unit they bought at the same time. Though, I agree with your theory that there is probably no basis for a class action suit, it still sounds wrong.

On the other hand, any program perks such as internal trading, is another story.

It doesn't sound fair, does it? But that's how I'm reading what winger related, that resale purchasers would have an open window for reservations at six months, 7/6 months after the window opens for developer purchasers. And isn't there already a precedent for Marriott allowing a reservation differential, with the multi- and single-week owners?

For the record, I think six months is a long time, too, and I also think that there are a few too many logistical problems with implementing such a change. For instance, what if you own one developer and one resale week? Do you have to forfeit your multi-week advantage and book each week according to single-week ownership rules, i.e. the developer week can be booked at 12 months and the resale at 6 months? Seems like a nightmare. Maybe, though, they've figured out the logistics and the time will be shortened to one month, or two, or four? Or a totally different process is being considered? Who knows.

BUT I am still in favor of MVCI using its creative power to differentiate in some way between developer and resale purchasers in order to reward its loyal customers (to the extent that rewards do not usurp any owners' deeded rights.) I'll always be in favor of such things. However, I've also said before that I don't expect any changes. The program works for me as is.

You know, I've never seen any picketing or rallying cry for a class action suit outside of a Macy's when there is a sale with an additional x% off if you use a Macy's credit card. Macy's rewards its loyal customers with such things, and is immune from prosecution for it because all shoppers have the opportunity to apply for the card. Well, all MVCI owners have the opportunity to buy developer-direct.

 

[sdtugger]

But Marriott can change the process by which you are able to reserve your week. So, you have the right to reserve your week, but Marriott reserves the right to determine how the reservation can be made.

That specific process is not a deeded right, and there have previously been uncontested changes made to the process. Multi-week owners were granted an advantage (if booking consecutive or concurrent weeks) over single-week owners, who had no legal recourse to stop Marriott's change in the process. I don't know why anyone would expect that it can't happen again.

(I sure do hope I've explained this well enough now that folks don't think I'm saying that developer-purchasers should be able to book anything other than the specific unit/season configuration they puchased. I don't mean that at all!)

The point that your argument misses is that all weeks are not created equal. It would be very easy to demonstrate in court that a July 4 week in Hilton Head or Hawaii is much more valuable than a different week in the same season (like mid-October in Hawaii). If Marriott were to change the reservation system to deny access to the most valuable weeks to certain owners that previously had full access to those weeks, it would be easy for a judge or jury to conclude that a valuable right had been removed and compensation should be paid. Even if the letter of the contract were met (and I don't believe it would be met because Marriott didn't promise access to only the worst weeks, they promised access to all the weeks in a certain season), a judge or jury would still be able to award damages on several legal grounds. It happens all the time.

As to the previous uncontested changes, I'm no expert, but I suspect that the change wasn't "bad" enough to cause people to sue to stop it. For example, there is still 50% of the inventory available at 12 months, etc. But, if Marriott tried to take away my right to reserve a key week in Maui, I'd be leading the charge and I suspect there would be an army following me. In many ways, my timeshare would be virtually worthless to me and I'm not going to just sit by and do nothing over a loss like that.

 

[sdtugger]

Separate from the issue itself -

I believe I've seen a few posts from DaveM in discussions here in which he relates what he's heard from his trusted source, and some of those have served to discount rumors. The fact that he has a trusted source doesn't surprise me in the least, and I believe that what Dave posts is exactly what he's heard from his source. Dave is as knowledgeable about the Marriott product as anyone can be, and I'm in total agreement with every positive opinion of Dave as there is on this site.

BUT...

Dave will be (and has been, in these types of discussions) the first to say that unless a written official statement is made by Marriott Co. or MVCI, no rumor can be assumed as fact or dismissed as fiction by virtue of any rep's unofficial statement. Which makes sense, doesn't it, because what a Marriott higher-up hears today may be different tomorrow.

I'm not talking about rumors by DaveM or anyone else. Within the last 2 years (last year I believe), during the debate on this issue someone high up in MVCI sent a series of e-mails to a Tugger that were posted here to clarify and reassure that no changes were planned to the reservation system for resales.

 

[sdtugger]

BUT I am still in favor of MVCI using its creative power to differentiate in some way between developer and resale purchasers in order to reward its loyal customers (to the extent that rewards do not usurp any owners' deeded rights.) I'll always be in favor of such things. However, I've also said before that I don't expect any changes. The program works for me as is.

You know, I've never seen any picketing or rallying cry for a class action suit outside of a Macy's when there is a sale with an additional x% off if you use a Macy's credit card. Macy's rewards its loyal customers with such things, and is immune from prosecution for it because all shoppers have the opportunity to apply for the card. Well, all MVCI owners have the opportunity to buy developer-direct.

So what you are saying is that you want Marriott to give you something that you didn't purchase and take that away from others? The only thing you purchased was the right to exchange for points. Seems short sighted to me because there could easily come a time in the near future when you needed to sell for some reason and under your system there would be no market.

Your Macy's example is apples versus oranges. If Macy's tried to tell you that if you resold a piece of clothing and the purchaser could only use it on odd numbered days or something ridiculous like that, you can bet that there would be some sort of rallying cry to stop it. That's closer (albeit admittedly not really the same) to the situation we are discussing.

 

[SueDonJ]

The point that your argument misses is that all weeks are not created equal. It would be very easy to demonstrate in court that a July 4 week in Hilton Head or Hawaii is much more valuable than a different week in the same season (like mid-October in Hawaii). If Marriott were to change the reservation system to deny access to the most valuable weeks to certain owners that previously had full access to those weeks, it would be easy for a judge or jury to conclude that a valuable right had been removed and compensation should be paid. Even if the letter of the contract were met (and I don't believe it would be met because Marriott didn't promise access to only the worst weeks, they promised access to all the weeks in a certain season), a judge or jury would still be able to award damages on several legal grounds. It happens all the time.

Within a certain season, ALL weeks are considered equal and an owner is entitled to A week within the season. That's how it's stipulated in the property Master Deed and By-Laws, and those are what will be offered as evidence by Marriott's lawyers in the class action proceeding. A judge or jury would have no basis on which to consider any one week more valuable than the others.

If there is a legal precedent that you can cite to back up your "damages on several legal grounds," then I'll reconsider. But if not, I just don't see a basis for any such thing.

As to the previous uncontested changes, I'm no expert, but I suspect that the change wasn't "bad" enough to cause people to sue to stop it. For example, there is still 50% of the inventory available at 12 months, etc. But, if Marriott tried to take away my right to reserve a key week in Maui, I'd be leading the charge and I suspect there would be an army following me. In many ways, my timeshare would be virtually worthless to me and I'm not going to just sit by and do nothing over a loss like that.

Marriott's obligation is for a week, not a KEY week. But the By-Laws do allow for you to contest anything you choose with no regard for its relative "bad"-ness. I just wouldn't be surprised if your charge went nowhere.

And again, I'm not saying that this particular change being discussed would be a positive change, or possible. I'm just confused by the idea that it could be reversed by a class action suit.

 

[SueDonJ]

I'm not talking about rumors by DaveM or anyone else. Within the last 2 years (last year I believe), during the debate on this issue someone high up in MVCI sent a series of e-mails to a Tugger that were posted here to clarify and reassure that no changes were planned to the reservation system for resales.

Oh. That's my fault, then, I always think of DaveM as the resident Marriott expert and he does have a highly-placed source within MVCI.

I don't remember anything posted here in any of these discussions that was quite as concrete as you remember, and I read most everything on the Marriott Board. Is it possible for you to find them and post the link here?

 

[sandesurf]

As to the previous uncontested changes, I'm no expert, but I suspect that the change wasn't "bad" enough to cause people to sue to stop it. For example, there is still 50% of the inventory available at 12 months, etc. But, if Marriott tried to take away my right to reserve a key week in Maui, I'd be leading the charge and I suspect there would be an army following me. In many ways, my timeshare would be virtually worthless to me and I'm not going to just sit by and do nothing over a loss like that.

I'll be right next to you in that charge, sd!

We have bought both ways, developer and resale. We'd possibly buy again, developer, if the circumstances were right. I don't understand how some people consider themselves to be more "loyal" to Marriott, just because they bought a developer week. Us, resale buyers, are paying the same maitenence fees, and spending just as much money while we're on our vacations as anyone else.