Marriott Maui Preview in one hr-any questions?

[SueDonJ]

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...

The "more-" or "less-desirable" qualifiers are not implemented by MVCI, therefore it has no burden for protecting a non-stipulated value.

 

[FlyerBobcat]

The "more-" or "less-desirable" qualifiers are not implemented by MVCI, therefore it has no burden for protecting a non-stipulated value.

Susan. Recall that I have not taken a stance in the "legal" exchange that has been going on involving the former legal secretary. I was just explaining how it was possible to be excluded from "prime" weeks within one's season.....

I'm outta' here.....

 

[thinze3]

Funny how this sales tactic against "external" owners keeps raising its ugly head. Last year I got this email directly from Marriott Executive Offices.

Mr. (thinze3)
Please reread my second paragraph.[/B] (referring to an older email)
I thought it said very clearly that external owners do have the right to reserve 12 months ahead.
....
It is true that "Marriott has no plans to change the reservations policy of external owners."


____(name)___________
Executive Offices
Phone: _______________
Fax: _______________
Email: __________@vacationclub.com[/I]

.[/QUOTE]

While we know that Marriott has been working on an internal trading system, that by the way, was put on the shelf last year, anything being said about limiting the trading ability of [B]current[/B] external owners is anything but hogwash.

 

[SueDonJ]

Funny how this sales tactic against "external" owners keeps raising its ugly head. Last year I got this email directly from Marriott Executive Offices.

...

While we know that Marriott has been working on an internal trading system, that by the way, was put on the shelf last year, anything being said about limiting the trading ability of current external owners is anything but hogwash.

But nobody is saying here that they expect every statement ever said by any person ever affiliated in any way by MVCI to be true. That would be foolish. As it would be to expect that statements made in the past by those same people to be as true today, tomorrow, next week, or at any point in the future. NOTHING is concrete until it's released in an official statement.

 

[SueDonJ]

Susan. Recall that I have not taken a stance in the "legal" exchange that has been going on involving the former legal secretary. I was just explaining how it was possible to be excluded from "prime" weeks within one's season.....

I'm outta' here.....

No worries (hopefully for both of us.) I didn't take your explanation as a stance. I did, though, take them as an opportunity to reiterate a point.

 

[FlyerBobcat]

No worries (hopefully for both of us.) I didn't take your explanation as a stance. I did, though, take them as an opportunity to reiterate a point.

Gotcha' .....

 

[SueDonJ]

Gotcha' .....

Does that mean that maybe the "...the "legal" exchange that has been going on involving the former legal secretary..." comments will end, then? I assumed (yeah, I know ) that Heidi asked for a reason, and so I answered with what little knowledge of the law that I have.

This thread proves, actually, that we're ALL smart enough to read and interpret various things, doesn't it? There's no need to snidely denigrate or elevate anybody's intelligence here.

 

[Latravel]

It's obvious you have a legal background...

 

[SueDonJ]

It's obvious you have a legal background...

But not nearly enough to make me think that what I'm interpreting is 100% correct, that's for sure. Shouting from the rooftops may very well be in my future.

 

[sdtugger]

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.

Susan, you would have made good attorney because you provided an answer without really answering my question. But, just to get away from your fixed week red herring, let's modify my example and question. Do you believe that Marriott has the legal right to change the reservation system at MOC to limit a platinum owner to effectively reserving one of two available weeks instead of providing access to the 51 available weeks that are stipulated in the deed and were previously made available for reservation?

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.

As has been pointed out, even with the multi-week owner reservation system (which is in fact in many of the contractual documents), every owner still has access to every week so this is an apples to oranges comparison.

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.

I'm a little surprised that you came to this conclusion. It isn't very different for Marriott to effectively change a platinum seasonal week that includes all 51 weeks (everything but New Years) to a seasonal week that only includes late spring and early fall weeks for example. This would be the functional equivalent of changing a platinum week into a silver or bronze week. Wouldn't that also be a definite breach of contract?

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?

Huh? All a plaintiff has to show is a basic case. It then becomes Marriott's burden to try to defend themselves. Regardless, Marriott can't (and doesn't) try to say that black is white in their contracts. It simply isn't true that all weeks are of equal value.

 

[m61376]

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?

Except that historically initial pre-construction offering have been very good price-wise and, in many cases, people who bought at the outset later sold for their initial purchase price or perhaps even higher. So an initial offering, coupled with a good points incentive, would be, in my opinion, attractive to many- even resale owners- who also want to buy at the newest and latest.

 

[m61376]

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?

It is not that developer week owners could reserve more weeks than they own under your example. It is that they could reserve 100% of certain weeks, still leaving one week for each owner left, but only giving them the choice of the less desirable weeks in their season. And, not to rehash, since every owner bought a right to potentially reserve every week in the season, owners restricted to later reservation times would no longer be enjoying the rights that they purchased.

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?

By virtue of the fact that Marriott itself charges different rental rates for different weeks in the same season, the "unequal value" of weeks within a given season can be assumed.

And- Terry- Thanks for the post. This is VERY different than the isolated ramblings of a perhaps too eager salesperson. Marriott executives are reluctant to put anything that isn't factual in writing. Since Terry bought his resale units based on official confirmation of the reservation system, it would be easy for him to prove damages resulting from any such changes as being suggested in this thread. And Marriott upper echelon executives are too smart for that.

 

[tlwmkw]

If, and when, any of this comes to pass it will all hinge on whose lawyers make better arguments as to what constitutes a floating week. However when you purchased you made an assumption that any, and all, weeks in your given period are acceptable. Your documents nowhere state that you have a right to any particular week just "a week" in the given period. If there was a higher value placed on certain weeks then that would be outlined in the original documents and it is not. Also the popular weeks may change from year to year (spring break may fall early or late).

 

[SueDonJ]

Susan, you would have made good attorney because you provided an answer without really answering my question. But, just to get away from your fixed week red herring, let's modify my example and question. Do you believe that Marriott has the legal right to change the reservation system at MOC to limit a platinum owner to effectively reserving one of two available weeks instead of providing access to the 51 available weeks that are stipulated in the deed and were previously made available for reservation?



As has been pointed out, even with the multi-week owner reservation system (which is in fact in many of the contractual documents), every owner still has access to every week so this is an apples to oranges comparison.



I'm a little surprised that you came to this conclusion. It isn't very different for Marriott to effectively change a platinum seasonal week that includes all 51 weeks (everything but New Years) to a seasonal week that only includes late spring and early fall weeks for example. This would be the functional equivalent of changing a platinum week into a silver or bronze week. Wouldn't that also be a definite breach of contract?




Huh? All a plaintiff has to show is a basic case. It then becomes Marriott's burden to try to defend themselves. Regardless, Marriott can't (and doesn't) try to say that black is white in their contracts. It simply isn't true that all weeks are of equal value.

We are each repeating ourselves now, aren't we? This surely is that exercise in futility that you mentioned, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Here are the two things related to this discussion of which I am more sure than not: (How's that for doublespeak?)

- Within the context of usage policies, unless the contractual terms specify that any week is more valuable than another, every week is of equal value.

- If every owner has available to him/her a week as purchased, subject to eligibility requirements, the contractual burden of MVCI to provide a week is met.

I am less sure of this:

- If the eligibility requirements do not result in any one owner being forced to take any one specific week (as opposed to what remains available), the requirements are valid.

I am certain of this:

- In any court proceeding, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant's wrongdoing. The defendant prevails if the plaintiff fails.

In a class action civil suit as has been mentioned here, the owners would have to provide evidence which proves that MVCI has in some way breached the terms of the contractual documents. MVCI need only defend against any such evidence; it would not be required to offer proof that any and all of its policies and practices are correct.

 

[SueDonJ]

... And- Terry- Thanks for the post. This is VERY different than the isolated ramblings of a perhaps too eager salesperson. Marriott executives are reluctant to put anything that isn't factual in writing. Since Terry bought his resale units based on official confirmation of the reservation system, it would be easy for him to prove damages resulting from any such changes as being suggested in this thread. And Marriott upper echelon executives are too smart for that.

Terry's post proves only that at a certain point in time, an MVCI executive was confident with declaring that, "It is true that "Marriott has no plans to change the reservations policy of external owners." Isn't it true that the same executive could at some point declare, "Marriott's plans have changed."

I think so, because I do not think any Marriott employee's email correspondence represents an official notice of program-wide policies, or even, if it did, that a subsequent statement would not supercede the first.

 

[ngmaui]

A different way to look at it

I just spoke to iconnections - I hope we can meet up later !

Here are a few notes about our tour this morning:

1) no pressure at all - rep was Brian T., very professional and friendly

2) 25th year anniversary 25% off only good for today (overall offer ends this coming Wed for general members) - and was for Napali Towers every year OF and GV's only. discount not available for EOY units. Cost after discount is approx 46k and 35k (OF/GV). MF were steep IMO approx $1800/yr.

3) Superpool is closing on Monday for renovation, as scheduled - as well as exterior painting of the original hotel conversion bldg is underway.

4) three Hawaiian projects coming up are Waikiki (behind Marriott hotel), Kauai (next to the Ritz, overlooking Kauai Beach Club) and the Big Island.

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.

7) We were able to book a 2-bedroom Maui unit (check in tomorrow) with our mainland unit (MMC) only because of the current renovation and pool shutdown.

8) seemed very slow in the sales area. We got our 10k MRP's - did not opt for the two 25-min massages or $75.

I think everyone might be reading into #6 incorrectly. I am SURE that Marriott would not change the booking window for reserving our weeks from the current policy of the 12 or 13th month rules. What they MAY do is if resale owners trade their unit (for trading point credits?), then them may have a trading reservation window restricted vs developer purchased units that are traded (for trading point credits?). This would be similar to what Disney does with their points system for home and away resorts. Course, at this point everything is speculation but this is how I am reading what the OP wrote.

Nate

 

[Clemson Fan]

No way are resales going to a 6 month reservation window. The class action lawsuit that was already very strong is almost iron clad with the recent Marriott statement that they would NOT try to limit resale reservations in a new system. I'm not buying it. But, if they do try it, a class action lawsuit is certainly in Marriott's future. Talk about a dumb move.

As far as internal exchanges go, Marriott can probably do whatever they want to separate out resale owners. However, making a reservation at your home resort where you're an owner, I don't see any way Marriott can legally differentiate out resale owners. Think of it, resale owners pay the same MF's that direct owners do and what is that MF for - it's for Marriott to manage and service the property as a whole which includes making reservations. Unless they want to charge resale owners a decreased MF for decreased service, I just don't see how they could legally pull that off. That's why I think this qualifies as the new biggest lie currently being spread by salespeople.

 

[m61376]

Susan- that's true, but I would think that any executive would be very careful in putting anything which might later be misconstrued in writing if that wasn't, in fact, the case. And contrary to the rumors bandied about, I do believe the upper echelons have at least the outline and major logistics of whatever plan they intend to enact already in place. And yes, if the plans did subsequently change any latter statement would supersede the first,as you pointed out, and could not be represented as being fallacious as long as at the time it was written it was the intended policy. I just really don't think any written official policy would have been offered if, in fact, there wasn't already a predetermined policy.

Although you maintain that every week is assumed to be of equal value unless specifically stated otherwise, as pointed out by someone else earlier, by virtue of the fact that Marriott itself assigns different values by charging different rates to the public interested in renting different weeks, it would be easy to make a compelling legal argument that the weeks do, in fact, vary in value.

I guess the bottom line remains whether Marriott has a contractual obligation to continue to allow each owner to have the potential to book each week in their owned season or if they can, at will, decide to change the reservation system in any fashion that they deem fit, including assigning even a single week in the purchased season to any given owner. Although you are certain that "if every owner has available to him/her a week as purchased, subject to eligibility requirements, the contractual burden of MVCI to provide a week is met," if, in fact, Marriott has the obligation to allow each owner the potential to book each week, then simply ensuring that every owner has available a week does not fulfill their contractual obligation.

Furthermore, even if the contract is read such that there is some ambiguity, Marriott has always sold their units with the promise of owners being able to potentially book any week in their season. The way they carefully designed the 13/12 month reservation rule I think underscores that Marriott recognizes this obligation. The reservation would be much simpler for them and less costly to administrate if they simply said that multiple week owners could book at 13 months and single week owners at 12 months, without reserving half the inventory of EACH week until every owner had the potential to book. I think it was crafted this way for a reason.

And I certainly hope this is the case, because if it is not, then not only would resale weeks be potentially affected, but an awful precedent would be set that, in my opinion, should give anyone pause about ever buying a Marirott timeshare. I would hate to think that I could happily purchase a unit and that somewhere down the road, at Marriott's discretion, they could suddenly decide to allow multiple week owners to have first crack at all the weeks. If, as you suggest, Marriott doesn't have to ensure that every owner has the potential to book each week in their owned season, then it puts all owners (not just resale owners) in jeopardy. To me, that's a scary concept.

 

[GaryDouglas]

I think everyone might be reading into #6 incorrectly. I am SURE that Marriott would not change the booking window for reserving our weeks from the current policy of the 12 or 13th month rules. What they MAY do is if resale owners trade their unit (for trading point credits?), then them may have a trading reservation window restricted vs developer purchased units that are traded (for trading point credits?). This would be similar to what Disney does with their points system for home and away resorts. Course, at this point everything is speculation but this is how I am reading what the OP wrote.

Nate

Winger could verify this before they leave...

 

[KathyPet]

Marriott obviously has millions of dollars of legal talent at their disposal and I am sure that any changes they would make have been thoroughly vetted by all this expensive legal talent and that Marriott would not implement any changes unless they were very, very sure that they could overcome any legal challenges that might be raised. So you can hollar about a class action suit all you want I am sure they are prepared for such a suit and are confident of winning it.

 

[SueDonJ]

I think everyone might be reading into #6 incorrectly. I am SURE that Marriott would not change the booking window for reserving our weeks from the current policy of the 12 or 13th month rules. What they MAY do is if resale owners trade their unit (for trading point credits?), then them may have a trading reservation window restricted vs developer purchased units that are traded (for trading point credits?). This would be similar to what Disney does with their points system for home and away resorts. Course, at this point everything is speculation but this is how I am reading what the OP wrote.

Nate

DOH!

Geeeeeeeze, all that tiiiiiiiiime spent thinnnnnnnnkingggggg.....

Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk Bonk <---- my head hitting the desk

That was brilliant, Nate, absolutely brilliant! (Except, of course, that I'm not sure that Marriott will or won't do anything any time.)

 

[Troopers]

Except that historically initial pre-construction offering have been very good price-wise and, in many cases, people who bought at the outset later sold for their initial purchase price or perhaps even higher. So an initial offering, coupled with a good points incentive, would be, in my opinion, attractive to many- even resale owners- who also want to buy at the newest and latest.

Poll time. Moderators pls help.

Bet's anyone? I'll take the under.

 

[SueDonJ]

Susan- that's true, but I would think that any executive would be very careful in putting anything which might later be misconstrued in writing if that wasn't, in fact, the case. And contrary to the rumors bandied about, I do believe the upper echelons have at least the outline and major logistics of whatever plan they intend to enact already in place. And yes, if the plans did subsequently change any latter statement would supersede the first,as you pointed out, and could not be represented as being fallacious as long as at the time it was written it was the intended policy. I just really don't think any written official policy would have been offered if, in fact, there wasn't already a predetermined policy. ..

Sometimes I get email that has a disclaimer on the bottom: "you can't publicly post this," "this is not a formal directive," "the contents contained herein do not represent the XYZ Corp.," "chew this thirty-seventeen times and then burn it," etc. We all have. I would guess that any email generated from an @marriott.com (or similar) address would contain such a disclaimer, considering that most every company under the sun uses one. I don't take anything as official policy unless and until the point when formal official documents have been filed wherever they need to be filed. In this "what if" situation, that point would be when the amendments stipulating MVCI's changes become part of the corresponding master contractual documents. Until then, anything is possible no matter who says what when.

Now about the rest of your post and this entire discussion, m, we've been around and around and around and over and through and upside-down at this point. I'm tired! Let's you and I agree to disagree with no concession that one of us is more or less correct than the other. Deal?

 

[KathyPet]

But consider the great work out all those brain cells got!

 

[Troopers]

It is not that developer week owners could reserve more weeks than they own under your example. It is that they could reserve 100% of certain weeks, still leaving one week for each owner left, but only giving them the choice of the less desirable weeks in their season.

Agreed.

However, I believe you have reached your conclusion about how owners will use their week assuming the only change is resale weeks are given a 6 month window. Except that with this 6 month window comes an internal exchange system. Spend more time on the Starwood boards (it's definitely not a perfect system)...owners of resort A are able to book prime weeks in resort B at the 8 month period even though owner of owners of resort B have an 12 to 8 month ressie window. That's impossible under your logic for a non owners of resort B.