Marriott Maui Preview in one hr-any questions?

[SueDonJ]

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.

What I'm saying is that for each of my weeks I am not owed anything from Marriott other than what I purchased, which is a week at a certain resort within a certain season in a specific unit configuration. That's Marriott's legal obligation.

Everything else - the reservation system, the trading system, the MRP incidental value, the developer v. resale purchase differential, etc. - all of that is subject to Marriott's interpretation and implementation. None of us has any control over that stuff.

What I'm also saying, and will always say, is that I don't have a problem with Marriott rewarding its loyal customers so long as the rewards do not legally infringe on any owners' deeded rights. The value of MVCI, to me, is in the vacation experience and not the financial benefit.

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.

My point was simply that Marriott is free to reward its loyal customers within legal boundaries, and those that fall outside those boundaries have no legal recourse to contest the rewards.

 

[sandesurf]

Well, I would hope that Marriott would see ALL of their owners as "Loyal", as long as their maitenece fees are paid up.

Even though we bought one of our Marriotts "resale", we still put our money into "Marriott", and not some other timeshare system.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I don't understand how some people consider themselves to be more "loyal" to Marriott, just because they bought a developer week. ...

I'm using "loyal customer" for developer purchasers as it's defined in industry - those who contract directly with a company for goods and services. I have no doubt that resale purchasers are as loyal (i.e. devoted, maybe? I can't think of the word...) to the Marriott brand as developer purchasers. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bought Marriott at all.

In all these discussions it always comes around to "neither is better or smarter than the other, but you're making me feel that way, nyah nyah nyah." Honestly, I hate that. Resale purchasers have their own reasons for buying that way and they don't all agree with each other. The same is true for developer purchasers. Neither group is 100% correct or wrong, so I don't understand why it's always an us-against-them thing. In this particular discussion, as I've said already, I'm not looking at it as a "punish the resalers!" thing. I don't think they need to be punished. What I do think, is that if Marriott implements policies which favor their direct-purchasers, there might be no legal recourse against those policies.

 

[m61376]

What I'm saying is that for each of my weeks I am not owed anything from Marriott other than what I purchased, which is a week at a certain resort within a certain season in a specific unit configuration. That's Marriott's legal obligation.

Everything else - the reservation system, the trading system, the MRP incidental value, the developer v. resale purchase differential, etc. - all of that is subject to Marriott's interpretation and implementation. None of us has any control over that stuff.

What I'm also saying, and will always say, is that I don't have a problem with Marriott rewarding its loyal customers so long as the rewards do not legally infringe on any owners' deeded rights. The value of MVCI, to me, is in the vacation experience and not the financial benefit.


My point was simply that Marriott is free to reward its loyal customers within legal boundaries, and those that fall outside those boundaries have no legal recourse to contest the rewards.

The purchase of a week entitles you to reserve a week in the purchased season, but also the potential access to every week. IF Marriott was to penalize any group of owners by precluding them from having the potential to book any week or group of weeks there would be a huge outcry. The concept of diminished value would be very real. What you are suggesting is entirely different from the 12/13 month rule, because 50% of every available week's inventory was reserved for each set of reservations, so EVERY owner has an equal chance of reserving each week. Barring resale owners from making reservations at exactly the same time as every other owner would effectively be excluding them from reserving certain weeks of their available season, a right which was guaranteed in their ownership documents. No one is guaranteed a specific week (except, of course, for fixed week owners) but EVERY buyer is entitled to the opportunity to book every week in the season owned.

What you are advocating would be no different then Marriott releasing all its inventory at 13 months to multiple week owners. After all, why shouldn't they reward their most loyal customers, as you so strongly advocate?! I don't think you- or any other Marriott owner- would think that was right, now would you? While you seemingly have no problem penalizing those you consider "less worthy" because they bought resale, the same can be said for multiple week owners as being more loyal customers. Or people who paid more for their untis later on. As I said, be careful what you wish for...IF Marriott was stupid enough to implement regulations like this that impact resale owners, don't think it won't set a very dangerous precedent wherein single week owners,etc., will remain immune.

Marriott smartly did not do this in the past because it would have infringed on owner's legal rights and I am confident they won't infringe on them in the future. As a resale- or direct developer- purchaser I am entitled to the opportunity to book every week in my season and not to just a choice of the ones others have found less desirable. Regardless of whether you feel resale buyers are second class citizens and should be treated as such, we purchased under an agreement entitling us to the same benefits with the exception of the Marriott Rewards program. Being part of MVCI has fostered brand loyalty in other ways as well, besides paying our MF's. Marriott is too smart to antagonize thousands of owners, most of whom have bought directly from them in the past and/or potentially will in the future.

If Marriott didn't consider us good customers, why would they constantly offer us previews and try to sell us additional units? Resale buyers are not lepers to the Marriott system; Marriott considers all owners valuable assets and I, for one, expect them to continue.

 

[SueDonJ]

The purchase of a week entitles you to reserve a week in the purchased season, but also the potential access to every week. IF Marriott was to penalize any group of owners by precluding them from having the potential to book any week or group of weeks there would be a huge outcry. The concept of diminished value would be very real. What you are suggesting is entirely different from the 12/13 month rule, because 50% of every available week's inventory was reserved for each set of reservations, so EVERY owner has an equal chance of reserving each week. Barring resale owners from making reservations at exactly the same time as every other owner would effectively be excluding them from reserving certain weeks of their available season, a right which was guaranteed in their ownership documents. No one is guaranteed a specific week (except, of course, for fixed week owners) but EVERY buyer is entitled to the opportunity to book every week in the season owned.

Ugh, I'm repeating and repeating here but I simply don't see that the By-Laws offer legal equal access to each week within a season for all owners. We're all guaranteed a week, and so long as there are a corresponding number of developer-purchased weeks to those owners and resale-purchased weeks to those owners, Marriott's legal obligation is fulfilled.

The concept of diminished value is already very real in the 13/12-month reservation process, and there has been no legal recourse against that. I believe that is because MVCI would prevail in any suit contesting the "any week" contract language versus the "any certain week" owner-perceived language.

What you are advocating would be no different then Marriott releasing all its inventory at 13 months to multiple week owners. After all, why shouldn't they reward their most loyal customers, as you so strongly advocate?! I don't think you- or any other Marriott owner- would think that was right, now would you? While you seemingly have no problem penalizing those you consider "less worthy" because they bought resale, the same can be said for multiple week owners as being more loyal customers. Or people who paid more for their untis later on. As I said, be careful what you wish for...IF Marriott was stupid enough to implement regulations like this that impact resale owners, don't think it won't set a very dangerous precedent wherein single week owners,etc., will remain immune.

I advocate rewards for loyal customers, sure, in MVCI as well as every other consumer-driven industry. It's simply good business practice.

But as I've also said, I don't mean "loyal customer" as a disparaging term. Specifically, "less worthy" is YOUR wording, not mine. I haven't said anything about "most" or "more" or "less" loyal at all. It's not a relative term; it's simply an industry-defined term to mean those who contract directly with a provider. This is getting frustrating, because I'm in the position of being forced to defend a position that I've not taken! I do not think that direct purchasers are entitled to anything more, legally, than what is provided in the By-Laws to resale buyers. But should MVCI choose to offer rewards which do not infringe on any other owners' rights, I'm not going to complain.

Marriott smartly did not do this in the past because it would have infringed on owner's legal rights and I am confident they won't infringe on them in the future. As a resale- or direct developer- purchaser I am entitled to the opportunity to book every week in my season and not to just a choice of the ones others have found less desirable. Regardless of whether you feel resale buyers are second class citizens and should be treated as such, we purchased under an agreement entitling us to the same benefits with the exception of the Marriott Rewards program. Being part of MVCI has fostered brand loyalty in other ways as well, besides paying our MF's. Marriott is too smart to antagonize thousands of owners, most of whom have bought directly from them in the past and/or potentially will in the future.

"Second-class citizens?" Again, not my words or my intent. The rest is rehash.

If Marriott didn't consider us good customers, why would they constantly offer us previews and try to sell us additional units? Resale buyers are not lepers to the Marriott system; Marriott considers all owners valuable assets and I, for one, expect them to continue.

Marriott constantly offers previews and tries to sell to everyone under the sun who checks in to any Marriott property (hotels included,) as well as guests of those folks. They also target demographics with mailings, advertise in industry-related publications and media outlets, and set up booths at trade shows. Selling is their business! They're not rewarding you or me when they offer us more; they're looking to make another sale.

The one thing that I will agree with, is that MVCI considers all of its owners who abide by the rules as "valuable assets." But that term has nothing to do with "loyal customers", as defined.

(Finally, none of this is meant to be antagonistic. Honestly. The discussion is, for me, a review of the legalities that limit any owners' recourse against MVCI practices. That's all. No insult is intended or implied, but for whatever reason some of you appear to be seeing one. I honestly don't know how to defend my position any differently, in a way that you don't see such a thing.)

 

[m61376]

Let me express it a little differently. The purchase agreement with Marriott gives owners rights to all specified weeks in a season, with at least the potential to access those weeks. If, for example, a season includes weeks 1-17 except for pre-designated Platinum Plus holiday weeks, all Platinum owners are entitled to have access to each of those weeks. Curtailing the ability of ANY owner to reserve by making all of certain weeks unavailable before they have the ability to try to reserve would result in such owners seeking legal recourse, because they would no longer be enjoying the product they purchased; if instead of 15 potential weeks they only had 4 or 5 less desirable weeks to choose from and could only make plans 6 months out, for example, Marriott would severely be diminishing the value of their ownership.

The 12/13 month rule is totally different, because every owner still has the potential to book every week in the purchased season. IF Marriott had elected to allow multiple week owners access to all reservations rather than only half, then I am certain 12 months owners would have sought legal redress.

Marriott can, of course, change the program for future purchasers, because that would not violate either the letter or the spirit of their contractual agreement. The product would inherently have lesser use value and the market would likely reflect that, and it would be up to a buyer as to whether or not to buy under such terms. But ALL current owners own the right to book a week in their season AND the right to have potential access to every week in the season they have purchased.

Just as many people are concerned with what is happening at the Ocean Club, I am surprised all owners aren't concerned about this. Don't fool yourselves- this can be a dangerous precedent which can trickle its way down to all owners. If they are allowed to do something like that to resale owners, what's to prevent them from allowing multiple week owners to book 100% of the inventory at 12 months? It is the same contractual obligation which makes Marriott make sure that single week owners have access to every week in their season that obligates them to allow resale week owners to have access to every week in their season.


At least we both agree that all owners are valuable assets. My point about being loyal customers was actually made by someone else; you don't have to be a developer purchaser of all (or any) of your weeks to be a loyal customer. There is more to brand loyalty than simply a timeshare purchase- there are hotel stays, eating at their restaurants, use of their VISA, etc.- all of which generate money. Being a loyal customer of one place, whether a hotel chain or store, does not preclude me from shopping elsewhere on occasion; this is no different.

And I realize that they offer timeshare presentations basically to anyone who can walk. My point wasn't that it proved that Marriott was rewarding me with that, but that they still consider me an important part of their customer base and potentially a future purchaser. If they felt resale buyers were lost causes, and not worth wasting their time on, they wouldn't. I think Marriott is smarter than that. They hope all buyers (including resale) are happy with their product and will buy more of their product. Hey, I bet many resale buyers who have traded into the Royals in Cancun, for example, will be lining up to buy there pre-construction. Financing future developments depends on current owners wanting to buy more and recommending their friends, etc. They need repeat customers. I still maintain that Marriott is smart enough not to antagonize a small but significant portion of their customer base. Keep in mind that while less tha 10% of units were purchased resale, resale owners account for a higher percentage, because many resale owners are also direct purchasers and have the potential to be direct purchasers in the future.

 

[tlwmkw]

The bottom line is.....

No one really knows what is going to happen. So why not just wait and see for now? Clearly Marriott is trying to create some differential between those who purchase directly from them (either original purchase or resale) versus those that purchase resale not through Marriott. How that will impact any of us is a big unknown for now so best thing for now is to enjoy our weeks and see what happens. Unless you signed a contract directly with Marriott then they do not have to honor anything except what is on the deed- that is just basic real estate law.

I still believe that Marriott wants a bigger piece of the re-sale pie and that a lot of this relates to that. If they use ROFR then they have to hold the week themselves and pay MF's. With the system of creating a "waiting list" for those wishing to sell their weeks Marriott does not have to tie up capital or pay MF's but can still collect their 40%. I think we'll see more of this going on (but only at sold out resorts of course). This is pure conjecture too so we'll all have to just wait and see.

 

[Latravel]

"Unless you signed a contract directly with Marriott then they do not have to honor anything except what is on the deed- that is just basic real estate law."

But we all should have known that, right? It has never been a secret with every sales person telling us that if you don't buy directly from Marriott, you are not included in the program. They do not hide this fact.

Some tuggers here have minimized that to only losing out on points but it could be so much more. We don't know what changes will happen in the near future or in a few years, or both. All we know is that if you didn't purchase from Marriott, you could be subjected to changes you may not like. But that is a risk resale purchasers hopefully understood and were willing to take. Just don't get mad if the changes are not in your favor (though they very possibly could be).

 

[SueDonJ]

Let me express it a little differently. ...

Nothing I can say in response to your latest, m, would be different than what I've already said.

Doesn't it all come down to whatever interpretation of the legal documents (Deed, By-Laws, Time Sharing Declaration, etc.) would be determined as binding by the Court during an action against MVCI? Everything I've read gives Marriott the protection it needs to go ahead with a reservation process differential between developer- and resale purchasers, because nothing I've read gives each owner access to "every" week within a season (only "a" week.)

My Owner Reference Guide says, under the "How To Use Your Vacation Ownership" section: "Your first option as a Marriott Owner is to occupy your villa within the season that you own."

Under the "Reserving a Full Villa for a Week at Your Home Resort" section, it says: "For optimal reservation ability, contact Owner Services as soon as you are eligible. Based on space availability, reservations are made and confirmed on a first-come, first-served basis."

There's nothing in either of those about all owners having equal access to every week or a specific week within a season, and there's nothing to prohibit Marriott's ability to determine different reservation eligibility dates (which, again, has been done in the past.)

Of course I could be wrong, and I'm more than willing to admit it in the face of proof determined by legal precendent. Of course MVCI could choose to not put any of its owners at a disadvantage, but its past history shows us that it can and will do exactly that. Of course the rumored change may never come to fruition, in which case we'll move along to the next topic and discuss that to death. In the meantime, there is no harm or intended insult in disagreeing.

 

[SueDonJ]

No one really knows what is going to happen. So why not just wait and see for now? ...

Eh, I like to think out loud. Judging by the frequency and length of threads here related to these issues, a whole lot of other folks do, too.

 

[sdtugger]

Nothing I can say in response to your latest, m, would be different than what I've already said.

Doesn't it all come down to whatever interpretation of the legal documents (Deed, By-Laws, Time Sharing Declaration, etc.) would be determined as binding by the Court during an action against MVCI? Everything I've read gives Marriott the protection it needs to go ahead with a reservation process differential between developer- and resale purchasers, because nothing I've read gives each owner access to "every" week within a season (only "a" week.)

My Owner Reference Guide says, under the "How To Use Your Vacation Ownership" section: "Your first option as a Marriott Owner is to occupy your villa within the season that you own."

Under the "Reserving a Full Villa for a Week at Your Home Resort" section, it says: "For optimal reservation ability, contact Owner Services as soon as you are eligible. Based on space availability, reservations are made and confirmed on a first-come, first-served basis."

There's nothing in either of those about all owners having equal access to every week or a specific week within a season, and there's nothing to prohibit Marriott's ability to determine different reservation eligibility dates (which, again, has been done in the past.)

Of course I could be wrong, and I'm more than willing to admit it in the face of proof determined by legal precendent. Of course MVCI could choose to not put any of its owners at a disadvantage, but its past history shows us that it can and will do exactly that. Of course the rumored change may never come to fruition, in which case we'll move along to the next topic and discuss that to death. In the meantime, there is no harm or intended insult in disagreeing.

Your deed is more important than the owner's reference guide. What do you see in your deed that you think allows Marriott to limit access to weeks during a certain season outlined in the deed? the deed gives every owner a right to reserve every week in the season they own. It really is not a close call legally that if they try to take away access to some of the weeks in a season that they will have violated the rights granted by the deed.

But, even your owner's reference guide quote cuts against your argument. By telling owners to reserve early and that weeks are handed out on a first come first served basis, and that optimal reservations happen when you are first in line, they are admitting that it is a valuable right to be first in line. If they take away that right, they will take away a right that was granted by the deed and emphasized in the owner's reference guide.

Just giving access to one week during the season purchased does not fulfill the rights granted by the deed.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Some tuggers here have minimized that to only losing out on points but it could be so much more. We don't know what changes will happen in the near future or in a few years, or both. All we know is that if you didn't purchase from Marriott, you could be subjected to changes you may not like. But that is a risk resale purchasers hopefully understood and were willing to take. Just don't get mad if the changes are not in your favor (though they very possibly could be).

I'll take that one step further and say that every owner, direct- and resale-purchasers, could be subject to changes that we might not like! It's only our very specific deeded rights that are legally protected; Marriott Co. and MVCI reserve the rights to any other aspect of the program, including the rights to make policy changes within those aspects.

I agree with you, though, that the price differential between resale and direct purchases is worth it, to protect against any future possible devaluation of the program that Marriott might inflict on resale buyers. It's simply a hedge bet.

 

[SueDonJ]

Your deed is more important than the owner's reference guide. What do you see in your deed that you think allows Marriott to limit access to weeks during a certain season outlined in the deed? the deed gives every owner a right to reserve every week in the season they own. It really is not a close call legally that if they try to take away access to some of the weeks in a season that they will have violated the rights granted by the deed.

Ah, but the onus in any court proceeding is on the plaintiff to prove an injury or breach of contract. What do you see in your documents that validates your position?

But, even your owner's reference guide quote cuts against your argument. By telling owners to reserve early and that weeks are handed out on a first come first served basis, and that optimal reservations happen when you are first in line, they are admitting that it is a valuable right to be first in line. If they take away that right, they will take away a right that was granted by the deed and emphasized in the owner's reference guide.

They're admitting that first in line is a valuable position, not right. Again, where in your documents...?

Just giving access to one week during the season purchased does not fulfill the rights granted by the deed.

I simply disagree.

 

[rsackett]

The only thing I feel is certain in any new Marriott internal exchange policy is that it will be structured in a way that MAKES MARRIOTT THE MOST MONEY!

Marriott is a business. They have no interest in rewarding customers or punishing customers unless it makes them more money. The rewards program is not there because they like us. It is there to make them more money! After studying the market place they have determined that by giving out X dollars in rewards they can get XX dollars in return. If they can make more money by including 3rd party buyers in the internal system they will. If they can make more money by excluding them they will.

I would not be happy if my resale Manor Club property value dropped like a rock. But assuming that it does not go below zero the most I can loose is $8000. I would be even more upset if I paid $21000 for it and Marriott decided to make changes to the system to bring the resale value to zero.

Ray

 

[SueDonJ]

The only thing I feel is certain in any new Marriott internal exchange policy is that it will be structured in a way that MAKES MARRIOTT THE MOST MONEY!

Marriott is a business. They have no interest in rewarding customers or punishing customers unless it makes them more money. The rewards program is not there because they like us. It is there to make them more money! After studying the market place they have determined that by giving out X dollars in rewards they can get XX dollars in return. If they can make more money by including 3rd party buyers in the internal system they will. If they can make more money by excluding them they will.

I agree completely. In fact, I'm not sure that there is any benefit to owners for an internal exchange system. If the parameters set forth in the recent owners' questionnaire are any indication, it's possible that the exchange fees may exceed those now implemented by Interval Intl. Also, I think the bonus week AC's issued by II are a very nice benefit that we may lose if Marriott assumes its own trade system, considering that the Marriott properties trade at a "premium" among all of the II offerings. Even if Marriott applied a sliding "premium" rank to its properties in order to offer a similar bonus week benefit, there would be less availability by virtue of the numbers.

I would not be happy if my resale Manor Club property value dropped like a rock. But assuming that it does not go below zero the most I can loose is $8000. I would be even more upset if I paid $21000 for it and Marriott decided to make changes to the system to bring the resale value to zero.

Ray

The value in my week is in its usage (as opposed to a dollar resale figure), but I'm right there with you in that I'd be upset if any program change resulted in that value being zero. So far I haven't seen any such change.

 

[sdtugger]

Ah, but the onus in any court proceeding is on the plaintiff to prove an injury or breach of contract. What do you see in your documents that validates your position?



They're admitting that first in line is a valuable position, not right. Again, where in your documents...?



I simply disagree.

As I said above, the deed provides the right to reserve any week within the season that was purchased. You believe that right is fulfilled by Marriott only making one week available during the entire season that is owned. "I simply disagree." No court or jury would conclude that a CHANGE to the reservation process that took all but one week away from an owner who previously had full access to all weeks during a season was not a breach of the agreement providing access to all weeks.

 

[dougp26364]

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.

EXACTLY!

I don't see Marriott restricting reservation rights. If that were to happen, then I agree that the likelyhood of a class action lawsuit would be strong. I really believe this is the sales staff taking liberty with what they've been told. IOW, taking a truthful statement and bending it for their purposes to the point that it's not actually true anymore.

Case in point, take DRI. With DRI, if you buy direct, you are given membership to their internal exchange program. If you buy a deeded week resale, you get the deed to your week, the right to reserve that week and the right to exchange that week through I.I. You do NOT get access to their internal exchange program unless you buy additional DRI inventory or, if you can force the issue, pay a $2,995 joiner fee to have access.

This is what I see Marriott doing but, the salesmen are going to bend the words so that it sound like (or they say directly) that resale buyers can't reserve (rather than trade).

Marriott is not going to restrict anyones right to reserve their owned unit. They may restrict access to any internal exchange program them come out with.

 

[m61376]

The two posts above are pretty much right on point.

I know I've said it before, but at the risk of being repetitive- I find it very interesting that the couple of people who have posted who would be just as happy, to say the least, if Marriott restricted resale owner's rights to book fail to see any connection between that and the potential for Marriott to restrict any of their booking rights in the future. IF you contend that the owner's documents don't give any owner the right to have access to every week in their season, then Marriott could just as easily next year say that all owners of 3 weeks can book at 13 months, owners of 2 weeks at 12 months and single week owners whatever is left at 11 months, without reserving half of the inventory for each week for each booking segment. Resale buyer or developer purchaser- I'd want to make darn sure that Marriott continues to honor its commitment to all owners.

And as far as Heidi's contention that resale owners knew upfront that they "weren't part of the program" because all the salespeople have told them so- as a matter of fact, several salespeople that I spoke with said that resale owners didn't get the full benefit of the "program" because they couldn't trade the unit in for points for those fabulous vacation packages and that, in their opinion of course, that was such an important part of the MVCI program. They were upfront that all other rights and usage was the same. So- yes- I knew upfront, as you suggest, that I wouldn't be part of the program- the trading for points program, that is. And, it was my choice not to pay the extra $$'s for the right to trade for points because I prefer to book my non-timeshare travel the way I've always done. I bought with the understanding and expectation that I'd always have complete use of what I bought, just as Marriott sold it to me with the expectation that I'd always pay my MF's for the right to use my purchase as outlined, with potential access to any of the weeks in my purchased season.

 

[SueDonJ]

As I said above, the deed provides the right to reserve any week within the season that was purchased. You believe that right is fulfilled by Marriott only making one week available during the entire season that is owned. "I simply disagree." No court or jury would conclude that a CHANGE to the reservation process that took all but one week away from an owner who previously had full access to all weeks during a season was not a breach of the agreement providing access to all weeks.

Where did I say anything about "Marriott making only one week available?" You're the one who keeps saying the word "one", which you've specified as a July 4th week at your resort; I have repeated ad nauseum the word "a," which I've specified to denote any week. If this rumored reservation process change is contested, any court or jury could conclude that Marriott is honoring its contractual obligations by making sure "a week" is available to any owner of that particular season/resort/unit configuration, because there is nothing in any of the documents that gives any owner more than that deeded right.

Whether or not the system stays as is or changes in this specific way, ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season, subject to whatever reservation eligibility limits are in place at the time. It doesn't appear to me that Marriott is burdened by a responsibility for making sure that those owners at the front of the line leave behind a certain inventory.

 

[littlestar]

All Marriott owners are responsible for maintenance fees. I sure hope all owners are treated fairly because frankly, I don't want my fees to go absolutely nuts because of owners or heirs walking away from a devalued product.

Life has too many changes - aging, divorce, health, death, to ever think that your situation won't change and you or your family won't end up needing to sell a developer bought week.

Every week was initially a developer purchase. After all, someone that buys resale is agreeing to those never ending maintenance fees . . .

 

[Palguy]

If there is nothing stopping Marriott from restricting resale owners to 6 months and they do, how long will it be before they restrict them to 1 month or one week and completely control the resale market? There has to be a point at which this becomes unreasonable and past practice dictates 12/13 months out for all owners. The last change was to reward all multiple week owners (regardless of how they purchased they were all considered loyal owners) by adding one month to the window but never to punish or take away from what had already been established or single out any one group for punishment. They added value by rewarding multiple week owners not reducing value by limiting single week owners to 6 months as opposed to 12.

 

[Troopers]

Where did I say anything about "Marriott making only one week available?" You're the one who keeps saying the word "one", which you've specified as a July 4th week at your resort; I have repeated ad nauseum the word "a," which I've specified to denote any week. If this rumored reservation process change is contested, any court or jury could conclude that Marriott is honoring its contractual obligations by making sure "a week" is available to any owner of that particular season/resort/unit configuration, because there is nothing in any of the documents that gives any owner more than that deeded right.

Whether or not the system stays as is or changes in this specific way, ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season, subject to whatever reservation eligibility limits are in place at the time. It doesn't appear to me that Marriott is burdened by a responsibility for making sure that those owners at the front of the line leave behind a certain inventory.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I know I've said it before, but at the risk of being repetitive- I find it very interesting that the couple of people who have posted who would be just as happy, to say the least, if Marriott restricted resale owner's rights to book fail to see any connection between that and the potential for Marriott to restrict any of their booking rights in the future. ...

Well, IF I have made any such statement, you probably could go back and find it and quote it here, right? Why don't you do that?

At the same time, why don't you show me where I said anything about being "happy" with this rumored change? Sure, I've said that I'm in favor of MVCI rewarding its direct purchasers in any way which doesn't infringe on the rights of any owners, but that doesn't automatically translate to "happiness" with this particular rumored change. In fact I believe I said that it would be a logistical nightmare.

IF you contend that the owner's documents don't give any owner the right to have access to every week in their season, then Marriott could just as easily next year say that all owners of 3 weeks can book at 13 months, owners of 2 weeks at 12 months and single week owners whatever is left at 11 months, without reserving half of the inventory for each week for each booking segment. Resale buyer or developer purchaser- I'd want to make darn sure that Marriott continues to honor its commitment to all owners.

Well, lookie here, you don't have to go searching after all because this refutes both your first statement above and this paragraph. It's post #62 from the thread, in case you're wondering.

And with that, I'm done unless a completely new idea or thought is presented here. You're probably reading a bit of an attitude in this post and you're not incorrect. But it is my first post in which the attitude is intended. I have no problem entertaining a discussion with folks who hold opinions and ideas that are different from mine, but I do have a huge problem constantly defending against statements which I have not made. You can play that game just as well without me.

 

[Latravel]

SueDon-
I love your posts and the confidence in your opinions!!!!!! Bravo!

You make some very good points and i've learned a lot from your responses. I hope you continue! By now, you should have received a lot of hassle from multiple posters and the fact you haven't (well, relatively so) means you have been able to state your point very effectively. I'm impressed, and i'm a tough cookie too.

p.s. I believe M was mentioning me, not you, in her post. She likes to do that a lot.

 

[luv2vacation]

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.

Post #19

This may not be 'happiness', but it definitely states that contrary to what you state here:

Sure, I've said that I'm in favor of MVCI rewarding its direct purchasers in any way which doesn't infringe on the rights of any owners, but that doesn't automatically translate to "happiness" with this particular rumored change.

you are just fine with a program that DOES infringe on the rights of resale owners.