Marriott Maui Preview in one hr-any questions?

[sdtugger]

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.

Are you saying that Marriott would not have the right under the deed and related documents to limit resale owners to one week in their season? Why would you say that? If your argument is correct, then Marriott should be able to limit resale owners to one week during their season. If your interpretation is correct, that one available week would fulfill the "deeded rights." Of course, I think your interpretation of the deed and related documents is dead wrong, but how is limiting resales to one week per season inconsistent with your interpretation of the deed language? And, if it is consistent, does it help you see why your interpretation doesn't make sense?

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.

Susan, Please reread what you just wrote here and consider whether an average judge or jury would follow your logic or whether they would see a giant corporation trying to take advantage of individual owners by trying to interpret contractual language in a new way that they haven't followed and that twists the language and intent beyond recognition. Your own language demonstrates the legal sleight of hand that a judge or jury would see through easily. You say all weeks within the season are still available to all owners. Yet, you then qualify that right by subjecting some owners to reservation eligibility limites and parameters. That's simply not what the deeds say, it's not what Marriott has done for years, and it's not what a reasonable person purchasing a Marriott timeshare would expect to receive when they purchased the availability of the entire season.

 

[m61376]

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.

Yup- Marriott has to ensure that "ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season;" they cannot restrict any subset of owners from making reservations in such a way that there would be certain weeks that were never available to certain owners of a particular system by virtue of the way they made changes int he reservation system. It is for this very reason that only 50% of the inventory is released to multiple week owners at 13 months; if this was not an issue, all inventory would be released to multiple week owners at the 13 month mark and single week owners would likely be banned from ever making reservations for certain weeks at certain resorts. But, thankfully, Marriott recognizes its obligation to make all weeks potentially available to all owners.

And, Susan, just for the record- I was referring to not necessarily your posts but it was a general comment that at least a few of the posts come across as, shall I say, less than graciously accepting of all owners, with the tone of resale buyers deserve what they get; even if not stated as such, there were posts that seemingly inferred that. My point is that resale and direct owners are all owners and deserve to be treated fairly. Many resale owners even paid the same as direct owners, only a few years later. It is not in anyone's best interests for Marriott to arbitrarily change the rules- it is not in resale owners' best interests, it is not in direct purchasers' best interests if only for the fact that it sets a dangerous precedent, and it is not in Marriotts' best interests to antagonize any of their owners/customers.

 

[Troopers]

Yup- Marriott has to ensure that "ALL weeks within the season are still available to all owners who fit the parameters of that season;" they cannot restrict any subset of owners from making reservations in such a way that there would be certain weeks that were never available to certain owners of a particular system by virtue of the way they made changes int he reservation system. It is for this very reason that only 50% of the inventory is released to multiple week owners at 13 months; if this was not an issue, all inventory would be released to multiple week owners at the 13 month mark and single week owners would likely be banned from ever making reservations for certain weeks at certain resorts. But, thankfully, Marriott recognizes its obligation to make all weeks potentially available to all owners.

If Marriott implemented a 6 month ressie period for resale weeks, can you explain how the above is still not true?

Thanks.

 

[dioxide45]

If Marriott wants resale owners to buy in to their internal exchange system, they better give those resale owners the same ability to reserve as developer purchases. Otherwise resale owners won't bother buying in. If Marriott is looking for people to buy in, they won't exlcude any part of their owner base.

In the survey people were asked how much they would be willing to pay for the system described, the amounts went from something like $3K down to a few hundred dollars. If they are looking to charge up to $3K to buy in to their internal exchange system I would expect to get the same treatment as everyone else or I wouldn't be buying.

Don't think for a second an internal points system is going to come for free. There will be a fee and it could be significant. Marriott is looking for profit growth.

Sure if they ever impliment such a system it could be completly different from what the survey pointed to, but I doubt they would waste their time on the research to not move in that direction.

 

[m61376]

If Marriott implemented a 6 month ressie period for resale weeks, can you explain how the above is still not true?

Thanks.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the season consists of May-Sept. weeks. There are about 8 weeks in the season which most owners want and actively try to reserve. Now, every owner who bought into that resort during that season bought the right to potentially reserve those weeks. But, if some owners had access to all the weeks months beforehand, then likely those 8 prime end of June-mid August weeks would be long gone and the owners who are only allowed to reserve later on would be forced to accept only the leftovers. Effectively, their season would be May-mid June and late August through September, not the season they purchased in, since they would never have the opportunity to reserve a large portion of those weeks.

Again, it is for this very logic that Marriott reserves 50% of VERY week's booking for owners to book at the 12 month mark. Multiple week owners never have access to all of any specific week's full inventory. It is not half the weeks are available in total, but half of every individual week. That fulfills their obligation and ensures that every owner has potential access to every week in their owed season.

 

[Troopers]

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the season consists of May-Sept. weeks. There are about 8 weeks in the season which most owners want and actively try to reserve. Now, every owner who bought into that resort during that season bought the right to potentially reserve those weeks. But, if some owners had access to all the weeks months beforehand, then likely those 8 prime end of June-mid August weeks would be long gone and the owners who are only allowed to reserve later on would be forced to accept only the leftovers. Effectively, their season would be May-mid June and late August through September, not the season they purchased in, since they would never have the opportunity to reserve a large portion of those weeks.

Again, it is for this very logic that Marriott reserves 50% of VERY week's booking for owners to book at the 12 month mark. Multiple week owners never have access to all of any specific week's full inventory. It is not half the weeks are available in total, but half of every individual week. That fulfills their obligation and ensures that every owner has potential access to every week in their owed season.

Thanks for the explanation....I know you posted your thoughts here already so I'll try not to have you rehash it again.

Resale weeks will not get squeezed out of the prime weeks as much as you think. Assume 75% of all weeks in the season are developer weeks. At 12 months out, only 75% of weeks (25% resale weeks do not apply) have the ability to reserve those prime weeks. Than assume 25% of those weeks decide to use their week in another way by exchanging to MRP, or II or exchanging with the internal exchange system. So, about 40% of those prime weeks will be available. I'm not so sure that all the prime weeks will be reserved prior to 6 months out.

Also, I can appreciate your thinking that it's in Marriott's best interest to keep all owners content but their actions doesn't always support that position...there's countless examples here.

I wouldn't be surprised if Marriott intends to create more "value" or an "advantage" in direct purchased weeks. It's apparent the ability to exchange to MRP isn't enough.

 

[dougp26364]

I have to ask one question.

Why are you guys debating something that A) Hasn't happened. B) We only have a SALESMANS word on the subject and C) We have NO IDEA what Marriott might or might not do?

IMHO, you're all fighting over thin air. Nothing has happened and nothing has changed. When we see something definate and in writting, they we can flesh out the pro's and con's of any new system. Until then your debating nothing but rumor or personal theory. This is hardly worth the effort of emotion if you ask me.

 

[m61376]

Thanks for the explanation....I know you posted your thoughts here already so I'll try not to have you rehash it again.

Resale weeks will not get squeezed out of the prime weeks as much as you think. Assume 75% of all weeks in the season are developer weeks. At 12 months out, only 75% of weeks (25% resale weeks do not apply) have the ability to reserve those prime weeks. Than assume 25% of those weeks decide to use their week in another way by exchanging to MRP, or II or exchanging with the internal exchange system. So, about 40% of those prime weeks will be available. I'm not so sure that all the prime weeks will be reserved prior to 6 months out.

Also, I can appreciate your thinking that it's in Marriott's best interest to keep all owners content but their actions doesn't always support that position...there's countless examples here.

I wouldn't be surprised if Marriott intends to create more "value" or an "advantage" in direct purchased weeks. It's apparent the ability to exchange to MRP isn't enough.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your logic. I can't fathom how you assume that 40% of all the weeks (including the prime weeks) will likely be available. Owners who choose to deposit into II or rent (I am not including an internal trading system because we don't have any info., only conjecture, on how that might work) will try their hardest to reserve those prime weeks, just as they do now. So, just as those prime weeks now get nabbed sometimes within minutes of their release, even if only 60-7-% of owners are vying for them, they will be gone. Ask the owners of NCV Plat., for example, if they agree with your logic that at least 40% of those summer weeks will still be left. I would be shocked if a single person felt that at 6 months that any summer week, let alone every summer week, would still be available (and to fulfill Marriott's obligation to their owners, every week in the purchased season has to be potentially available).

I do agree that in the past Marriott has made decisions that may have annoyed a percentage of their owners, but overall they are in business to do business- and that means keeping owners happy. I don't think they will do anything to downright antagonize perhaps a quarter of their owners (I don't know the true percentage, but since something like 8% of weeks are resale and since many, if not most, resale owners also own one or more developer weeks, I am assuming it is somewhere in that vicinity). Most resale owners have bought from them in the past and are great candidates for future sales. Even most wholly resale owners are great candidates for future direct purchases as they again begin to develop new resorts.

I do agree with you (see- we can agree ) that Marriott will likely do something to retain the resale market for their own profiteering and to create more value in developer purchases. MRP, as the program now stands, is not enough for many people (not to rehash the many threads on this, but point devaluation and escalating purchase prices and annual MF's have diminished the return even for the most ardent supporters of trading for points). They also have enough developments in which people have owner for 10+ years, with more and more owner turnover as past of a natural ownership cycle and, since we live in the information age, people are becoming increasingly aware of outside sources for purchase. So, changing the rules going forward may be in their best interest (even though I think it will be bad for all owners and I am not sure how big an impact decimating the resale market will have on initial purchases). They can change the rules going forward and still benefit their direct sales without antagonizing current owners, simply by grandfathering all current owners, resale or developer.

Including all current owners in any future program will prevent animosity, since every current owner will be retaining all the rights they currently have, and will cost Marriott nothing. In fact, they will gain a lot: they will generate goodwill by demonstrating they are a company that stands behinds its promises (whether written or implied) and, as others have pointed out, will generate income by increasing their participant pool in any newly developed program. They will not risk perhaps a quarter of their owners losing confidence in them and vowing never to purchase another unit from them. Going forward, they want all current owners to be an audience to potentially purchase in Cancun, etc., as new resorts come on the horizon.

The only people who I can see objecting to that are perhaps a small minority (at least I hope it would be a very small minority) who have a sense of entitlement and feel they would like to have more benefits than the program they purchased into, at the expense of others (in this case, resale owners). I think- at least I hope- that the vast majority of owners would feel it was fair for everyone to retain the privileges of the system they bought into and, while we would all like more perks, wouldn't want to selfishly get them at someone else's expense.

And Doug- you're right...this is just an exercise in futility. Perhaps an excuse to waste time and procrastinate a bit

 

[SueDonJ]

Okay, it's a new day.

I've tried to think of a way to say more clearly why I believe that Marriott would not be in violation of it's contractual obligations if the rumored reservation process change is implemented. This has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea or not, or whether I'd be in favor of it specifically; it's simply a look at the legality of it. Here goes:

- You buy a seasonal week. The deed and other contract documents specify the season within which that week falls and the unit configuration.

- MVCI is constrained by the laws pertaining to timeshare sales, in that no more than the specific number of season/unit configuration weeks which are available can be sold. Thus, there will always be a week for every owner. MVCI makes no claim that any owner will be able to reserve his/her personal choice of week or any specific week.

- Nothing in the legal documents specifies any one week within that season as having more value than any other, regardless of the legal holidays as stipulated by the annual calendar or an owner's preference. Therefore, each week within the season must be legally considered of equal value.

- MVCI (not deeded rights) determines the process by which you are able to reserve your unit within the season. MVCI reserves the right to change that process, as has been demonstrated by its past history of doing just that, uncontested.

- That reserved right allows MVCI to give any class of ownership a priority advantage in the reservation booking process, as it did when it gave multi-week owners a one-month "front of the line" advantage over single-week owners.

- [It appears to me, and I could certainly be wrong, that] there is nothing in any of the legal documents which stipulates that MVCI is restricted, within that reserved right, by any legal constraint which places a burden of responsibility on MVCI to not implement a policy that results in any one week within the season not being available to any one member. (In other words, MVCI doesn't have to make sure that the "first-come, first-served" policy leaves a legal holiday or any other specific week open for any owner at the end of the line.)

That's it, I guess. Except I'll say that IF this is implemented (and yes, that's a big "IF" figuratively and literally) and a class action suit is filed in objection, the smallest details contained in the legal documents pertaining to MVCI's and the owners' actual legal rights are what will be the determining factors for the judge and jury to review. The court's decision will be based on a strict interpretation of the contract language. That's what contract law is, specifically. In order for the plaintiffs (the owners) to be successful in their effort, they'd have to prove that MVCI breached the contract terms. I'm just not seeing that this rumored change would be proven to do that.

 

[SueDonJ]

Originally Posted by SueDonJ
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:

Originally Posted by SueDonJ
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.

WHICH specific contractual right, exactly, would be infringed by the change being discussed here? Spell it out for me, please, because I'm not seeing it. Remember, it's up to you to prove that the contract is breached, not up to MVCI to prove that it hasn't, so you need to offer the evidence. If you can, I'll shout from the rooftops exactly how wrong I am.

Aside from that, I think you're conveniently glossing over the "...is not legally forbidden by the deed rights" phrase in my first post up there, to make the accusation that you've made. I resent the accusation, actually, because you have no basis for it. I've said repeatedly that I'm NOT okay with Marriott breaching its contract against any owner, because I am fully aware that any such action they take in the future may negatively impact me.

 

[Troopers]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your logic. I can't fathom how you assume that 40% of all the weeks (including the prime weeks) will likely be available. Owners who choose to deposit into II or rent (I am not including an internal trading system because we don't have any info., only conjecture, on how that might work) will try their hardest to reserve those prime weeks, just as they do now. So, just as those prime weeks now get nabbed sometimes within minutes of their release, even if only 60-7-% of owners are vying for them, they will be gone. Ask the owners of NCV Plat., for example, if they agree with your logic that at least 40% of those summer weeks will still be left. I would be shocked if a single person felt that at 6 months that any summer week, let alone every summer week, would still be available (and to fulfill Marriott's obligation to their owners, every week in the purchased season has to be potentially available).

I must be missing something here.

How can developer week owners reserve more weeks than they own? Using my numbers above, 75% of all weeks are developer purchased. So how can they reserve all weeks? Isn't a min of 25% available at 6 months?

 

[Latravel]

SueDon - Are you an attorney?

 

[sdtugger]

Okay, it's a new day.

I've tried to think of a way to say more clearly why I believe that Marriott would not be in violation of it's contractual obligations if the rumored reservation process change is implemented. This has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea or not, or whether I'd be in favor of it specifically; it's simply a look at the legality of it. Here goes:

- You buy a seasonal week. The deed and other contract documents specify the season within which that week falls and the unit configuration.

- MVCI is constrained by the laws pertaining to timeshare sales, in that no more than the specific number of season/unit configuration weeks which are available can be sold. Thus, there will always be a week for every owner. MVCI makes no claim that any owner will be able to reserve his/her personal choice of week or any specific week.

- Nothing in the legal documents specifies any one week within that season as having more value than any other, regardless of the legal holidays as stipulated by the annual calendar or an owner's preference. Therefore, each week within the season must be legally considered of equal value.

- MVCI (not deeded rights) determines the process by which you are able to reserve your unit within the season. MVCI reserves the right to change that process, as has been demonstrated by its past history of doing just that, uncontested.

- That reserved right allows MVCI to give any class of ownership a priority advantage in the reservation booking process, as it did when it gave multi-week owners a one-month "front of the line" advantage over single-week owners.

- [It appears to me, and I could certainly be wrong, that] there is nothing in any of the legal documents which stipulates that MVCI is restricted, within that reserved right, by any legal constraint which places a burden of responsibility on MVCI to not implement a policy that results in any one week within the season not being available to any one member. (In other words, MVCI doesn't have to make sure that the "first-come, first-served" policy leaves a legal holiday or any other specific week open for any owner at the end of the line.)

That's it, I guess. Except I'll say that IF this is implemented (and yes, that's a big "IF" figuratively and literally) and a class action suit is filed in objection, the smallest details contained in the legal documents pertaining to MVCI's and the owners' actual legal rights are what will be the determining factors for the judge and jury to review. The court's decision will be based on a strict interpretation of the contract language. That's what contract law is, specifically. In order for the plaintiffs (the owners) to be successful in their effort, they'd have to prove that MVCI breached the contract terms. I'm just not seeing that this rumored change would be proven to do that.

Do you believe that Marriott has the legal right under the deeded language to change the reservation process in such a way that an owner would only have access to one week in their season of ownership? If I follow your logic that is the ultimate extension of the logic. If you don't believe that, then on what basis do you believe that Marriott has the right to impose some limits on reservation rights, but not the extreme limit of narrowing the right to one available week per season?

I don't believe a Marriott reservation change would have to be nearly this drastic to justify a winning class action law suit. But, I believe this extreme example proves my point. Let's use a specific example:

If someone paid $35,000 for the opportunity to reserve any week in Maui other than New Years (the current platinum season) and they in fact reserved July 4th, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Presidents Day, etc. for several years and then Marriott came along and said we are changing the reservation process now and you will effectively only be able to reserve the 2nd week in October each year from now on, don't you believe that a judge or jury would look hard at the contract language and look for a way to say that Marriott had overstepped? I do. And, I don't think they'd have to look very hard to find language in the deed that says that every platinum owner has a right to have ACCESS to every week in the platinum season. Now, in the real world, Marriott's changes wouldn't limit the choices to one week. But, the principle is the same. It would be very easy to demonstrate that all weeks do not have equal value based on rental rates on Marriott's site as well as redweek, Tug, etc. Damages would be clear and punitive damages would likely follow.

If you believe that Marriott truly has the contractual right to limit certain owners to one available week to reserve in their season, then we will just have to agree to disagree and I'll move on to something else.

 

[Troopers]

I do agree that in the past Marriott has made decisions that may have annoyed a percentage of their owners, but overall they are in business to do business- and that means keeping owners happy. I don't think they will do anything to downright antagonize perhaps a quarter of their owners (I don't know the true percentage, but since something like 8% of weeks are resale and since many, if not most, resale owners also own one or more developer weeks, I am assuming it is somewhere in that vicinity). Most resale owners have bought from them in the past and are great candidates for future sales. Even most wholly resale owners are great candidates for future direct purchases as they again begin to develop new resorts.

I don’t think so. My guess is that if there was a poll taken (hint hint moderator), my bet is that most resale owners would not purchase directly (again or for the first time) from Marriott. Where’s the value in purchasing direct? Isn’t the foremost advice here is to rescind and buy resale? Would you buy at the newest resort and know that in perhaps 1 to 2 years you can buy resale at more than 50% off?

 

[FlyerBobcat]

I must be missing something here.
How can developer week owners reserve more weeks than they own?

They can't reserve more than they own, but they can reserve all the "good" weeks.

Using my numbers above, 75% of all weeks are developer purchased. So how can they reserve all weeks? Isn't a min of 25% available at 6 months?

I must be missing something related to the "min of 25% available at 6 months". Can you explain that? TIA

 

[Troopers]

They can't reserve more than they own, but they can reserve all the "good" weeks.



I must be missing something related to the "min of 25% available at 6 months". Can you explain that? TIA

This is contrary to m61376 statement of "I would be shocked if a single person felt that at 6 months that any summer week, let alone every summer week, would still be available".

The suggestion was made that resale purchases were not going to have a booking window of 6 months from check-in. Developer purchased weeks would retain the 12 months window. My example assumed that 75% were developer purchased weeks and 25% were resale weeks. So, only 75% of all weeks would be able to book at 12 months which would leave 25% of the weeks available at the 6 month mark.

 

[FlyerBobcat]

So, only 75% of all weeks would be able to book at 12 months which would leave 25% of the weeks available at the 6 month mark.

But isn't the point that those available 25% will be the less desirable weeks of that given season -- since all weeks in a given season do not have the same demand????


Depending on the length of the season you own -- you are more or less likely to see this problem. Long seasons certainly will exaggerate this issue...

 

[luv2vacation]

My example assumed that 75% were developer purchased weeks and 25% were resale weeks. So, only 75% of all weeks would be able to book at 12 months which would leave 25% of the weeks available at the 6 month mark.

This is not how the booking and availability process works. You are assuming that the 75% of people (developer purchasers) book an assortment of ALL available weeks in a season, i.e., if the season runs from Jan-April, all of these 75% of people book an even amount of weeks from each month (i.e. break that 4-month span up into 16 weeks, 1/16 of the 75% book the first week of Jan., 1/16 of the 75% book the second week of Jan., etc.....all the way through 1/16 book the 4th week of April.)

That's not how it works. Those 12-month booking people can book ALL of the Feb. & March weeks, first two weeks of April, and last two weeks of January (prime winter & spring break weeks). That would leave only the first two weeks of Jan. and the last two weeks of April available for the other 6-month booking people. That would still be 25% of the weeks but no GOOD weeks in there and definitely none that I (and many other people) could vacation in - I go to school full-time.

This is a very probable scenario. For instance, this year I got caught up in school and studying for mid-terms and by the time I remembered to book my Ocean Pointe platinum week, ALL of the February and March weeks were already gone, and that is at ELEVEN months out! NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS LEFT!! Now, I'm not complaining about that, because that was my personal error - but that's just an example of how the system can work.

 

[FlyerBobcat]

This is not how the booking and availability process works............................

Well stated.... Darn, I wish I could have said that....

 

[Troopers]

This is not how the booking and availability process works. You are assuming that the 75% of people (developer purchasers) book an assortment of ALL available weeks in a season, i.e., if the season runs from Jan-April, all of these 75% of people book an even amount of weeks from each month (i.e. break that 4-month span up into 16 weeks, 1/16 of the 75% book the first week of Jan., 1/16 of the 75% book the second week of Jan., etc.....all the way through 1/16 book the 4th week of April.)

That's not how it works. Those 12-month booking people can book ALL of the Feb. & March weeks, first two weeks of April, and last two weeks of January (prime winter & spring break weeks). That would leave only the first two weeks of Jan. and the last two weeks of April available for the other 6-month booking people. That would still be 25% of the weeks but no GOOD weeks in there and definitely none that I (and many other people) could vacation in - I go to school full-time.

I'm not assuming that at all. I apologize if that's how it sounds but I don't think I said that in any way. The fact remains 25% of the weeks, are still available to you. And yes, they may not be the weeks you want but still weeks within your season.

I’m not an expert so I’ll let the others discuss the legalities of it. It’s still a week within the season, although it may be less desirable. That’s what the week entitles one to, a week within your season.

Yes, the 12 month booking people can and might book all the good weeks. But, I think more than you think will not. If Starwood's internal exchange is any indication, I think there will be more than 25% of weeks available at 6 months out (my above example stated 40%). It’s a minimum of 25% IF every developer week owner chooses to reserve their week. But, I think 25% of the developer week owners will choose to use their week differently, say exchange to MRP or utilize the internal exchange program (the 6 month ressie window for resale owners is based on the notion of an internal exchange program). That’s how I arrived at 40% availability at the 6 month mark.

 

[SueDonJ]

SueDon - Are you an attorney?

No. I was a legal secretary in a small law firm for seven years, if that counts, but I don't have any legal education background. It's mostly reading comprehension that leads me to my opinions.

And as I said, I could be wrong.

 

[FlyerBobcat]

We might be confused, since in #81 you stated:

Resale weeks will not get squeezed out of the prime weeks as much as you think. Assume 75% of all weeks in the season are developer weeks. At 12 months out, only 75% of weeks (25% resale weeks do not apply) have the ability to reserve those prime weeks. Than assume 25% of those weeks decide to use their week in another way by exchanging to MRP, or II or exchanging with the internal exchange system. So, about 40% of those prime weeks will be available. I'm not so sure that all the prime weeks will be reserved prior to 6 months out.

So it just might be the interpretation of the term "prime weeks"

I'm not assuming that at all. I apologize if that's how it sounds but I don't think I said that in any way. The fact remains 25% of the weeks, are still available to you. And yes, they may not be the weeks you want but still weeks within your season.............

 

[Troopers]

We might be confused, since in #81 you stated:



So it just might be the interpretation of the term "prime weeks"

Yup. We're square.

 

[FlyerBobcat]

Yup. We're square.

Thanks for the clarification!!!!

 

[SueDonJ]

Do you believe that Marriott has the legal right under the deeded language to change the reservation process in such a way that an owner would only have access to one week in their season of ownership? If I follow your logic that is the ultimate extension of the logic. If you don't believe that, then on what basis do you believe that Marriott has the right to impose some limits on reservation rights, but not the extreme limit of narrowing the right to one available week per season?

Technically, someone who owns one week DOES have "access" to only one week, someone who owns two weeks has "access: to two, etc. That "access" allows an owner to book as many weeks as s/he owns within the season according to the reservation eligibility system implemented by MVCI. MVCI does limit an owner to as many weeks as are owned.

But the system in place now does not provide an "equal access" reservation to every week by every owner, which is I think what you believe is a deeded right. The one-month advantage given to multi-week owners in fact makes the system unequal, which means that equal access is not a deeded right. Does the 50% inventory control factor mean that there is a deeded limited right held by either MVCI or an owner? I don't know, but I haven't been able to find one.

If you think about it, and get reaaaallllly technical about it, once the first reservation in a season has been made every owner following has "unequal access."

I don't believe a Marriott reservation change would have to be nearly this drastic to justify a winning class action law suit. But, I believe this extreme example proves my point. Let's use a specific example:

If someone paid $35,000 for the opportunity to reserve any week in Maui other than New Years (the current platinum season) and they in fact reserved July 4th, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Presidents Day, etc. for several years and then Marriott came along and said we are changing the reservation process now and you will effectively only be able to reserve the 2nd week in October each year from now on, don't you believe that a judge or jury would look hard at the contract language and look for a way to say that Marriott had overstepped? I do. And, I don't think they'd have to look very hard to find language in the deed that says that every platinum owner has a right to have ACCESS to every week in the platinum season. Now, in the real world, Marriott's changes wouldn't limit the choices to one week. But, the principle is the same.

In this particular example, there is a definite breach of contract because MVCI would effectively be changing your week from a "seasonal" week to a "fixed" week. There is specific language in the legal ownership documents which details week usage; the contractual "seasonal" week language is different from the "fixed" week language.

It would be very easy to demonstrate that all weeks do not have equal value based on rental rates on Marriott's site as well as redweek, Tug, etc. Damages would be clear and punitive damages would likely follow.

In any court proceeding it would have to be proven, first, that the contractual language does not stipulate an "equal value" for all weeks within the season, because such a stipulation would have to be honored by the court. Only the absence of such a stipulation would allow that an arbitrarily defined "unequal value" could be assumed. You don't think that MVCI has protected itself with a defined "equal value" clause?

If you believe that Marriott truly has the contractual right to limit certain owners to one available week to reserve in their season, then we will just have to agree to disagree and I'll move on to something else.

But technically, every owner IS limited to "an" available week, which is the deeded right. The fact that the eligibility requirements of any reservation system may offer less choices to any owner, especially of "prime," "key," or "holiday" weeks, is a direct result of the inventory being reserved by the "first-come, first-served" factor. Granted, they system is implemented by MVCI, but MVCI has no control over the order by which weeks are individually prioritized or reserved. That's the result of owner action.