Marriotts new policy

[Dean]

(note: this is not a legal opinion and should be relied upon as such.)
Rights to reserve your use week. The following is paraphrased from the Shadow Ridge Timeshare Declaration document.

"Timeshare Interest" is defined as the interest in the timeshare condominium referenced in the respective Timeshare Declaration for the resort--it is not a global statement of any interest managed by Marriott (it is defined as an interest in the home resort only). para. 1.85 and 1.87.

Reserving
para. 2.1-d-i: Owners who own more than one "Timeshare Interest" (see above) may reserve use weeks 13 mos. in advance of (down to 75 days before) the use week reserved, only if they reserve such weeks concurrently or consecutively.

para. 2.1-d-ii: Owners other than above may reserve use weeks 12 mos in advance of (down to 75 days before) the use week reserved.

remaining provision relates to reserving within 75 days.

Importantly, "Owner" is defined as any owner of a timeshare interest deed, or any successor purchaser para 1.61.

These provisions are obviously the most material part of a timeshare owner's rights with respect to the property. I can see no conceivable way the substantive rights granted by the Timeshare Declaration could be unilaterally altered by Marriott or its affiliated companies.

On an interesting aside, not to create a war among owners, it is my opinion that if Marriott gives preference to owners (ie 13 month res.) who do not own two weeks in a single resort (ie. governed by the same Timeshare Declaration, CC&Rs and condo plan), they are not following the TS Declaration to the detriment of single week owners.

Any new policy would apply only to new interests sold by the declarant under some new revised restriction. It could not apply to any existing deed and subsequent re-sale of that deed by an owner or even subsequent three times removed owner. There would be no need for grandfathering in such a case.

Hope that wasn’t too legal as it is not legal advice!

We've had this discussion before. There is no provision that limits the definition of owner as one owning only at a given resort. Plus there IS a provision giving Marriott unilateral authority to change reservation procedures.

 

[davidvel]

IMH(NL)O I disagree with both based upon the TS Declaration which cannot be altered through procedures, rules or discretion under CA law.

 

[Dave M]

Dean is correct. What you found is common language for the CC&Rs of most Marriott resorts. If you look carefully, you'll find in the Program Rules (or a comparable document; not the Declaration) a provision that Marriott can change the reservation procedures.

Further, you are correct that an owner of two or more weeks at that particular resort can make reservations 13 months in advance. What you won't find is a provision that prohibits Marriott from allowing those who own one week at your resort and a week at another resort from using the 13-month rule.

Dean and I and others have been through this many times over the years. We could be wrong, but....

Bottom line: Marriott allows it. Anyone can sue if they think Marriott is wrong. But be prepared for an expensive fight. You can be sure that Marriott had the best lawyers it could find look at this issue way back in the early to mid 1990s when it first started allowing the multiple-resort 13-month reservations.

 

[davidvel]

Dean is correct. What you found is common language for the CC&Rs of most Marriott resorts. If you look carefully, you'll find in the Program Rules (or a comparable document; not the Declaration) a provision that Marriott can change the reservation procedures.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you may have missed my point: under CA law, no Rule can supercede or contradict the declarations. In any conflict between a rule and the declarations, the declarations prevail.

Further, you are correct that an owner of two or more weeks at that particular resort can make reservations 13 months in advance. What you won't find is a provision that prohibits Marriott from allowing those who own one week at your resort and a week at another resort from using the 13-month rule.

The Declaration sets forth in detail how reservations can be made. Either you own two weeks at the particular resort, or you fall under the 12 month rule.

There is no provision that limits the definition of owner as one owning only at a given resort.

"Owner" is defined within each declaration specifically as an owner of a "timeshare interest" within the respective project. see, para. 1.85 and 1.87.

There is legally no relationship between each timeshare condominum project, and "Owner" as defined in each project's governing documents is expressly limited to that project. Within any timeshare project, whether it be Marriott or others, the rules apply as to any condominium project governed by CC&Rs.One Associaion cannot give rights to owners of other associations, unless expressly allowed by the CCRs (which are not granted in these). If the rules state that only those owners who have 2 or more weeks in that project can reserve 13 mos. out (which the above CC&Rs state), then the Association must follow those declarations in allowing reservations.

I agree with Dave that it would take a large effort to fight Marriott if one chose to do so, and they chose to fight back.

Obviously, timeshare ownership is complicated. I enjoy these discussions because they relate to all the promises and lay-opinion given by the salespepople, and put all their simple, strightforward explanations in a more complex context. The more info people have, the better, which I understand the primary purpose of TUGBBS to be.

 

[davis6]

One more suggestion for Davis6:
Please join TUG it will be the best $15 you spend for timesharing and you will support these boards. :whoopie:

LET ME ONE UP THAT I have already joined and did for 2 years. Thank you, I dont mind the nudge. I got frustrated on the page to change my status on the bbs..

 

[davis6]

I have seen the the specific dates in weeks on the timeshare contract and if you own july 4th it shows week 26 but if you own the platinum it has on there week ?-25 and then week 27-?.

I think there are only 720 guranteed week 26 owners, they are guaranteed that week are they not,. I know from my own personal experience I paid more $$ to get that week 26 guranteed. I own 2 platinum plus and one platinum.

So you all are saying under the 13month rule that a non platinum plus multi week owner can essentially kick one of those guaranteed owners out of their week 26. That is what these posts are implying. I do not see how that is possible.

Example: If I own 5 weeks, Gold at that, I reserve week 50 to week 2
13 months in advanced on a Thursday I can stay over Christmas and new years in NCV with out owning them. Sing me up!!! I really dont think this 13month rule is being interpetid correctly. It may have happened by chance but if push came to shove I would think a platinum plus owner would win out.

I could be completely wrong and if that is the case my tail is between my legs and mouth shut.
For a while until I think of something else.

Luv you guys
Brent

 

[Dave M]

Brent -

No one is suggesting that a Platinum Plus July 4th owner would lose the right to occupy that week.

There are so many scenarios that have been discussed here that it's a bit difficult to keep them straight. Perhaps the key is the consistent comment that one can only reserve a week that's within that owner's season. Thus, someone that owns a July 4th Platinum Plus week can call and reserve that week (choosing among a Friday, Saturday or Sunday check-in at most resorts), but anyone who doesn't own such a week would not be able to reserve that July 4th week.

The confusion may have started because davis6 wants to reserve both his July4th fixed week and the following week, which is a floating week. Thus, the following posts were intended to discuss various scenarios that impact doing that.

 

[Dean]

Not to beat a dead horse, but you may have missed my point: under CA law, no Rule can supercede or contradict the declarations. In any conflict between a rule and the declarations, the declarations prevail.


The Declaration sets forth in detail how reservations can be made. Either you own two weeks at the particular resort, or you fall under the 12 month rule.


"Owner" is defined within each declaration specifically as an owner of a "timeshare interest" within the respective project. see, para. 1.85 and 1.87.

There is legally no relationship between each timeshare condominum project, and "Owner" as defined in each project's governing documents is expressly limited to that project. Within any timeshare project, whether it be Marriott or others, the rules apply as to any condominium project governed by CC&Rs.One Associaion cannot give rights to owners of other associations, unless expressly allowed by the CCRs (which are not granted in these). If the rules state that only those owners who have 2 or more weeks in that project can reserve 13 mos. out (which the above CC&Rs state), then the Association must follow those declarations in allowing reservations.

I agree with Dave that it would take a large effort to fight Marriott if one chose to do so, and they chose to fight back.

Obviously, timeshare ownership is complicated. I enjoy these discussions because they relate to all the promises and lay-opinion given by the salespepople, and put all their simple, strightforward explanations in a more complex context. The more info people have, the better, which I understand the primary purpose of TUGBBS to be.

Under one of the exhibits to your POS you will find the terminology that states terms like "without the consent of the owners" when it comes to revising the reservation procedures. For Surfwatch it's exhibit F 6(e). In this case, they are utilizing the ones in place when many of the resorts began selling.

Under reservation procedures, item #3, it describes the current procedures including the 13 month rule. I believe the mistake you are making, that a few others have made in the past, is interpreting the phrase "who own more than one Time Sharing interest" as pertaining simply to the given resort. The term owner in that sentence does pertain to someone who owns at the resort in question but the wording is not specific enough to interpret it as simply weeks owned at that given resort. Given that Marriott obviously interprets it the same way as I do, I'd suggest you take them to court to get them to change their mind or complain to them in an attempt to do so.

 

[luv2vacation]

Dave is right Brent. Take my post (#245 in this thread). I say that YOU own 2 weeks - maybe your 2 weeks are the platinum plus and a platinum at NCV -that would get you the 2 weeks quoted in my example. Now say that the first two weeks in my example that I own are at Ocean Pointe - 2 gold weeks that will give me late June & July 4th weeks - and my third week is at NCV - for the July 10th week.

That is just one example of a combination that could work to give ME the advantage over YOU for that July 10th week at NCV.

 

[davis6]

It seems as though Dave M has heard of some change coming down the pipes or at least some policies on resale. As I own both direct and resale I am a bit concerned. It will effect everyone regardless of how you bought your TS. Dave can you give us that link to your thread.

 

[Dave M]

There are several current threads on this forum where people are speculating what the changes might be that would or would not impact resale purchasers. Since the Marriott people who have the best knowledge of what (if anything) will really happen are not currently talking (at least to me), I have nothing to add to those highly speculative threads.

 

[icydog]

I am hoping my platinum NCV will pass ROFR. Then I will have four Platinum summer weeks, 2 MMC, 1 MSE and 1 NCV. In your example, I could reserve June 27, a Sat, at the MMC on May 25, a Thursday, since MMC has a Thursday check in date. Then I could reserve all the rest of my weeks for check in on July 3 on that same day-- including NCV. Is that correct?

 

[Steve]

I am hoping my platinum NCV will pass ROFR. Then I will have four Platinum summer weeks, 2 MMC, 1 MSE and 1 NCV. In your example, I could reserve June 27, a Sat, at the MMC on May 25, a Thursday, since MMC has a Thursday check in date. Then I could reserve all the rest of my weeks for check in on July 3 on that same day-- including NCV. Is that correct?

MMC doesn't have Thursday check ins, and I believe that 4th of July week is not included in the Platinum season at NCV (it is platinum plus). Otherwise, I think you have a great plan.

Others will surely respond with more information.

Steve

 

[icydog]

MMC doesn't have Thursday check ins, and I believe that 4th of July week is not included in the Platinum season at NCV (it is platinum plus). Otherwise, I think you have a great plan.

Others will surely respond with more information.

Steve

That'll show you how often I use my weeks at MSE or MMC. Like never!!

I guess I didn't understand the posts by Dave M and Dean concerning making reservations at NCV for 4th of July.

The caveat is you can reserve the 4th of July ONLY 13 months out ONLY if you own plat plus at NCV. Have I got this right??? Thanks

 

[lweverett]

Everyone is looking at this from the resale side. Take a look at it from the developer sale side. I'm sure that there are many platinum owners who bought from the developer and yet cannot reserve the week they prefer because they are all gone in the first 30 seconds of the first possible reservation day. This must be particually true of Newport Coast as the platinum season goes thru November and December, and those resorts that are platinum all year round. To be able to limit the prime weeks to only original purchasers could become a persuasive sales tool for developer sales. Corporate desisions are not always based on sound logic. The question can be asked if the price differential for platinum plus weeks is real additional profit or is it negated by the lowered value of the other platinum weeks who now can not even try to request these prime weeks. The corporate mindset may be that any limiting of the crowd trying to reserve the super prime weeks may well decrease the resistance to the developer price, and the salesmen have not been properly instructed on how to put the positive spin on it.

 

[timeos2]

Not a resale/retail issue - greedy time frame ($$$$)

Everyone is looking at this from the resale side. Take a look at it from the developer sale side. I'm sure that there are many platinum owners who bought from the developer and yet cannot reserve the week they prefer because they are all gone in the first 30 seconds of the first possible reservation day. This must be particually true of Newport Coast as the platinum season goes thru November and December, and those resorts that are platinum all year round. To be able to limit the prime weeks to only original purchasers could become a persuasive sales tool for developer sales. Corporate desisions are not always based on sound logic. The question can be asked if the price differential for platinum plus weeks is real additional profit or is it negated by the lowered value of the other platinum weeks who now can not even try to request these prime weeks. The corporate mindset may be that any limiting of the crowd trying to reserve the super prime weeks may well decrease the resistance to the developer price, and the salesmen have not been properly instructed on how to put the positive spin on it.

If they sell too many Platinum periods over too wide a range of dates so as to create the problem that is a shortsighted (and greedy) sales model not a reason to punish the buyers silly enough to believe they would easily get what they want by buying in - retail OR resale. Put the blame where it belongs.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Let The Timeshare Companies Go Start Up Their Own B. B. S.

Take a look at it from the developer sale side.

I never look at these things from the perspective of the timeshare companies or the timeshare sellers.

Shux, let those folks go start their own Internet BBS -- exchanging tips & information, etc., about the latest gimmicks for shearing us sheep.

What I like about TUG is what it says up top on each screen view -- The 1st User's Group Devoted To Timeshare Owners.

Is this a great country or what ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[lweverett]

John, you can worry about laying blame, I was only offering a possible reasoning behind doing this. I'm much more worried about what happens than why it happens, if it is to affect me.

 

[Dean]

If they sell too many Platinum periods over too wide a range of dates so as to create the problem that is a shortsighted (and greedy) sales model not a reason to punish the buyers silly enough to believe they would easily get what they want by buying in - retail OR resale. Put the blame where it belongs.

Anyone that buys a timeshare week should understand what they're buying and in the case of Marriott reservations, there is a ton of info out there so one should be able to easily know that getting one specific week during the highest demand timeframe is not very likely. There is also a lot of info about the 13 month priority, again anyone should know this is going to work against them for high demand weeks. Can we say HI with 50 week Platinum. This is exactly how most points systems work, they sell essentially every point like it'll be used at HH 4th of July or HI Xmas. And sometimes the developer doesn't truly know what the true demand will be for a given time, in the case of Marriott they would likely have made such weeks Platinum plus had they known the demand would be that great so they could have sold them for more.

 

[taffy19]

Isn't this what they are doing now at the newest resorts? They may have learned from their serious mistakes at some of the resorts where the platinum season was just too long. The people, who are paying the extra premium for a fixed holiday week, will at least get that week. It comes with a heavy price tag and it will put a dent in the floating system because this highly demanded week won't be available unless this week is deposited in II or in the new Marriott internal exchange system.

Only time will tell and I can hardly wait when they will unveil the new plan. Why is it taking so long?