Marriott ROFR claiming ownership before sale closes

[TimGolobic]

Hopefully someone can help me with the legality of this and fighting it.

I have an associate who sold her quarter-share at Grand Residence Club in Lake Tahoe. Marriott claimed it on ROFR.

Original deal was contracted to close Dec 24. But seller hasn't signed or returned documents to Marriott, and deal won't close until end of January. The kicker is that Marriott is trying to claim ownership of the week Dec 25 and evict a paid renter, even though Marriott is not yet the owner of record.

Marriott wants to enforce the contractual usage date, but ignore the contractual closing and funding date. This can't be legal?

Thanks

Tim

 

[ronparise]

Hopefully someone can help me with the legality of this and fighting it.

I have an associate who sold her quarter-share at Grand Residence Club in Lake Tahoe. Marriott claimed it on ROFR.

Original deal was contracted to close Dec 24. But seller hasn't signed or returned documents to Marriott, and deal won't close until end of January. The kicker is that Marriott is trying to claim ownership of the week Dec 25 and evict a paid renter, even though Marriott is not yet the owner of record.

Marriott wants to enforce the contractual usage date, but ignore the contractual closing and funding date. This can't be legal?

Thanks

Tim

What does the contract say regarding 2015 use?

Its not Marriott thats doing anything wrong. The delay (from what you say here) is the sellers fault

Again, from what you say here, its the seller trying to pull a fast one on Marriott, not the other way around. At the very least the rental income is Marriotts.

 

[davidvel]

Hopefully someone can help me with the legality of this and fighting it.

I have an associate who sold her quarter-share at Grand Residence Club in Lake Tahoe. Marriott claimed it on ROFR.

Original deal was contracted to close Dec 24. But seller hasn't signed or returned documents to Marriott, and deal won't close until end of January. The kicker is that Marriott is trying to claim ownership of the week Dec 25 and evict a paid renter, even though Marriott is not yet the owner of record.

Marriott wants to enforce the contractual usage date, but ignore the contractual closing and funding date. This can't be legal?

Thanks

Tim

You are correct in my opinion, this can't be legal unless something that is already signed says they have a right to the usage. She should contact a CA attorney with experience in real property transactions and litigation.

Is there a letter or something in writing that expresses Marriott's position?

 

[BocaBoy]

You are correct in my opinion, this can't be legal unless something that is already signed says they have a right to the usage. She should contact a CA attorney with experience in real property transactions and litigation.

Is there a letter or something in writing that expresses Marriott's position?

Marriott's sales documents always (at least in my experience) specify the first usage year. If 2015 is the first usage year specified, I think Marriott is within its legal rights. The seller is obligated to abide by the terms of the original contract as well as Marriott.

 

[Ty1on]

Marriott's sales documents always (at least in my experience) specify the first usage year. If 2015 is the first usage year specified, I think Marriott is within its legal rights. The seller is obligated to abide by the terms of the original contract as well as Marriott.

They should not be able to claim present use based on the terms of a future contract.

 

[TimGolobic]

Thanks for all of the quick replies. In no way is the seller "pulling a fast one", in fact it seems to be the other way around.

The seller had a deal contracted to close Dec 24. Marriott's ROFR is unable to close by that time. But Marriott wants benefit of ownership in the meantime.

Seller should be able to keep control of all ownership until deal closes and is fully executed. Even if first available week in selling documents is Dec 25, Marriott is not official owner on that date. Like with any transaction, Marriott could pull out before closure, but still received benefit of the usage they claimed in the meantime.

 

[TimGolobic]

Marriott's sales documents always (at least in my experience) specify the first usage year. If 2015 is the first usage year specified, I think Marriott is within its legal rights. The seller is obligated to abide by the terms of the original contract as well as Marriott.

All agreed, except that Marriott is choosing to enforce the term of when the usage begins, but not agreeing to the closing date. Either the contract as a whole is agreed or void. They can't pick and choose.

 

[davidvel]

All agreed, except that Marriott is choosing to enforce the term of when the usage begins, but not agreeing to the closing date. Either the contract as a whole is agreed or void. They can't pick and choose.

Correct. The usage (of 12/25) I presume was based on a closing of 12/24.

However, what was the plan for the renter under the agreement?

 

[TimGolobic]

Correct. The usage (of 12/25) I presume was based on a closing of 12/24.

However, what was the plan for the renter under the agreement?

The new owner was keeping the rental as is, until Marriott stepped in with ROFR.

 

[TheTimeTraveler]

Hopefully someone can help me with the legality of this and fighting it.

I have an associate who sold her quarter-share at Grand Residence Club in Lake Tahoe. Marriott claimed it on ROFR.

Original deal was contracted to close Dec 24. But seller hasn't signed or returned documents to Marriott, and deal won't close until end of January. The kicker is that Marriott is trying to claim ownership of the week Dec 25 and evict a paid renter, even though Marriott is not yet the owner of record.

Marriott wants to enforce the contractual usage date, but ignore the contractual closing and funding date. This can't be legal?

Thanks

Tim

At what price did Marriott decide to exercise their Right of First Refusal?




.

 

[dioxide45]

Can't the seller just refuse to sell the unit, to Marriott and to the buyer? This seems to be the way for the renter to keep the unit?

Am I understanding correctly that the renter and the buyer are the same person? So the buyer was really just wanting 2015 year usage along with the purchase of the unit?

 

[frank808]

At what price did Marriott decide to exercise their Right of First Refusal?




.

I am interested in the answer also. I know there is ROFR but the broker I workded with said he has not seen it exercised in years. What size unit was it for if OP doesn't mind answering?

 

[TimGolobic]

I am interested in the answer also. I know there is ROFR but the broker I workded with said he has not seen it exercised in years. What size unit was it for if OP doesn't mind answering?

They have been ROFR heavily at the Grand Residence in the last 6 weeks. And it's pretty obvious. A 1 BR 1 BA has been selling for low $20,000's, and is equivalent to approx 20,000 Destinations Points. So Marriott is basically buying at $1 per point, putting it in the land trust and selling for $12+ per point.

 

[TimGolobic]

Can't the seller just refuse to sell the unit, to Marriott and to the buyer? This seems to be the way for the renter to keep the unit?

Am I understanding correctly that the renter and the buyer are the same person? So the buyer was really just wanting 2015 year usage along with the purchase of the unit?

Buyer and renter were separate parties. This property is 13-week ownership, a bit more involved than typical timeshare.

 

[frank808]

They have been ROFR heavily at the Grand Residence in the last 6 weeks. And it's pretty obvious. A 1 BR 1 BA has been selling for low $20,000's, and is equivalent to approx 20,000 Destinations Points. So Marriott is basically buying at $1 per point, putting it in the land trust and selling for $12+ per point.

Wow.....I closed on one for less than that in September. There was another 1br/1ba that closed for less than what i paid about a month a later and it also passed rofr.

Now I wonder what marriott would want to bring both my quarters into the dc club?

 

[BocaBoy]

They should not be able to claim present use based on the terms of a future contract.

It is not a future contract. All contracts deal with future obligations to occur after the closing.

 

[BocaBoy]

Hopefully someone can help me with the legality of this and fighting it.

I have an associate who sold her quarter-share at Grand Residence Club in Lake Tahoe. Marriott claimed it on ROFR.

Original deal was contracted to close Dec 24. But seller hasn't signed or returned documents to Marriott, and deal won't close until end of January. The kicker is that Marriott is trying to claim ownership of the week Dec 25 and evict a paid renter, even though Marriott is not yet the owner of record.

Marriott wants to enforce the contractual usage date, but ignore the contractual closing and funding date. This can't be legal?

When did the seller submit the ROFR waiver request to Marriott? If it was in plenty of time to get the waiver within the established time frame for that resort and still arrange a December 24 closing, that could give the seller a good argument. But if there was not sufficient time, then the seller could be perceived as "pulling a fast one." In the latter case, Marriott would be exercising ROFR which allowed them Christmas week, but seller's timing would prevent the closing until later. I don't think the seller would win that one. Also, when did the seller receive the documents from Marriott that they have not yet returned, which I presume are the documents needed to complete the closing on the ROFR sale?

I don't have all the facts and I could be wrong, but it seems that the seller is now trying to get the rent for the last week of the year, which presumably the new buyer would have received had the deal closed on December 24. If that is not the case, why wasn't 2016 specified as the first usage year?

 

[larryallen]

This doesn't make sense. If you were in contract they can exercise ROFR. If you were not in a signed contract then I don't see how they could exercise.