New rules on upgrading resales !!!

[ginsun88]

ROFR happened

Hi folks,

Sorry to the OP for taking away from the thread. Just wanted people to be aware that Starwood is exercising its option to buy back weeks as stated below (copied text from the e-mail I received). In an earlier thread, I mentioned that FredM also posted that Starwood exercised its option on WHM Gold?

I won't post the sales price since I'm still actively searching for a week at this resort. PM if you like...

Regards,
Grace


From: Martinez, Jennifer
To: *****
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: ****/**** A/C# *****, Unit ****, Week 50 Westin Mission Hills, Request For Waiver


****,


We will exercise our option to refuse this sale and buy back the ownership. Also, we will be in contact with the owner from here.

Thank you for your patience and enjoy your week.

Jennifer Martinez
Loan Servicing Specialist
Starwood Vacation Ownership Portfolio Services
" A Better Way to See the World"
Toll Free: (800) 743-7654
Direct: (407) 903-4700
Fax: (407) 903-4701

Or you can Visit us at www.Mystarcentral.com

 

[TomH]

Another point of view

I may be in the minority here but SVO customer service has been excellent during my 1st year of ownership. I did take advantage of cheap resales with a couple upgrades/retros to reach 4*. This loophole that we have been enjoying during the last few years was just that, a loophole. I just wish that SVO upgrades/requal rules were better disclosed to us and not only available to sales reps.

I am considering a cheap SMV winter resale to upgrade to Riverfont and although a rep assures me I can still do the upgrade at the current rules using the original purchase value and requalifying another resale, I am hesitant to do so as it will take a few months to close the resale and the rules may be unfavorable my then. Not to mention the maintenance fees >$2000.

Tom

 

[Troopers]

I may be in the minority here but SVO customer service has been excellent during my 1st year of ownership. I did take advantage of cheap resales with a couple upgrades/retros to reach 4*. This loophole that we have been enjoying during the last few years was just that, a loophole. I just wish that SVO upgrades/requal rules were better disclosed to us and not only available to sales reps.

I am considering a cheap SMV winter resale to upgrade to Riverfont and although a rep assures me I can still do the upgrade at the current rules using the original purchase value and requalifying another resale, I am hesitant to do so as it will take a few months to close the resale and the rules may be unfavorable my then. Not to mention the maintenance fees >$2000.

Tom

Thanks...very refreshing.

 

[tlpnet]

I am considering a cheap SMV winter resale to upgrade to Riverfont and although a rep assures me I can still do the upgrade at the current rules using the original purchase value and requalifying another resale, I am hesitant to do so as it will take a few months to close the resale and the rules may be unfavorable my then. Not to mention the maintenance fees >$2000.

Tom

Hi Tom,

If you have an exception form in hand that is signed by a VP IN ORLANDO that clearly spells out the details of the deal (when it will close, what value you'll be given for the resale, etc.), you should be OK. If you're serious about the transaction, ask your salesperson for it. I seriously doubt they'll get the VP signature, as it seems SVO is pretty serious about this new rule, but you can give it a shot.

-tim

 

[Joshadelic]

Is my way of thinking wrong ?

..........Yes.

 

[dakotafamily]

5* Status

I have heard it mentioned different times that SVO is only allowing 2000 to become 5* Elite status. Do you think there are owners getting close to this number and they are trying to slow down the numbers? Just an idea?

 

[James1975NY]

How do they know how much you paid??? Katherine

Document stamps on the deed.

 

[DavidnRobin]

As stated many times here on TUG...

Do not believe anything a SVO salesperson tells you unless you get it (or have it) in writing - there is a clause in the SVO sales contact (aptly named the 'negma clause' since he wrote about it here first - see requal thread) that clearly states that anything a salesperson has stated is not valid/enforcable unless it is specifically stated in the contact (yes... i am paraphrasing here - but you get the picture - hopefully). They are in the business of selling TSs - and honesty does not play a role in that job (unfortunately).

This goes to everything - from number of 5*/PFL - to changing rules midstream - etc. etc. etc.

 

[jarta]

DavidnRobin, ... A sale of a timeshare interest is a sale of an interest in land/real estate. The Statute of Frauds applies to sales of land/real estate.

The Statute of Frauds says that a contract for the sale of land/real estate must be in writing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds

Starwood is merely stating the law. Every contract for the sale of land/real estate should (and, as far as I know, does) include such a clause. The purpose of the Statute on Frauds is to prevent swearing contests about what was orally said right before a contract is entered into for a sale of land/real estate. What's in writing in the contract is what counts.

But, you are right. Don't listen to what the Starwood salesman says. Read the written documents. If you have questions, hold off until an attorney can review the documents. ... eom

 

[SDKath]

I have heard it mentioned different times that SVO is only allowing 2000 to become 5* Elite status. Do you think there are owners getting close to this number and they are trying to slow down the numbers? Just an idea?

I don't think the 2000 is a hard and fast rule but I believe they increased the SO required from 559,000 to 649,000 to reduce the number of new elite members coming in. Now they are trying to reduce the number who come in and stay in via TS purchases....

So the short answer is YES. Katherine

 

[Cathyb]

Kath: It becomes a bad scene when the company changes its rules AFTER you buy and it affects your personal life (like kids trying to sell Westin Mission Hills after you die). Why do you continually defend Starwood, just curious???

 

[DeniseM]

Kath: It becomes a bad scene when the company changes its rules AFTER you buy and it affects your personal life (like kids trying to sell Westin Mission Hills after you die). Why do you continually defend Starwood, just curious???

In which post is she defending them? Kath has posted her displeasure with Starwood a multitude of times. She was caught in the change-over when they upped the Staroption requirement for 5 Star Elite, and recently her Acct. has been locked, because of some kind of SW error.

Back to your point about WMH - it's not just WMH and it's not just you - all of us who purchased from the developer now own resorts worth thousands of dollars less. We paid about $45K for WKORV and I don't know if we could sell it for $20K today. The fact that it's a mandatory resort doesn't make me feel one bit better about losing $25K. So, I know you are unhappy about the resale value of your WMH week, but we are all in the same boat - mandatory owners are taking huge losses too, often even bigger losses than voluntary owners, because we paid more in the first place.

 

[TheUnitrep]

Back to your point about WMH - it's not just WMH and it's not just you - all of us who purchased from the developer now own resorts worth thousands of dollars less.

While this is indeed true, I think the point Cathyb is making is that Starwood did not classify WMH as voluntary until well after she had purchased. Starwood makes no effort to advise its clients of the mandatory/voluntary distinction.

At the last owner's sale presentation (aka owner's update) I went to at WMH, when I inquired about mandatory/voluntary, I got the "deer in the headlights" look from them.

Timeshares, with very few exceptions, never maintain their value. Enjoy them for the vacations you have in them, not for the money you hope to get when it comes time to sell.

 

[grgs]

While this is indeed true, I think the point Cathyb is making is that Starwood did not classify WMH as voluntary until well after she had purchased. Starwood makes no effort to advise its clients of the mandatory/voluntary distinction.

WMH was always voluntary. They didn't change it's status. It's just we (Tuggers) didn't become aware of this distinction until after many of the units were already sold. Admittedly, this doesn't make much difference to the owner of WMH who bought from the developer, but I think it's important to note that Starwood did not somehow change WMH from mandatory to voluntary.

Glorian

 

[taffy19]

That's ok. You can put any amount of money you want to on the documents when you buy a week resale. I sold a week recently and the guy at the closing company put $10 on the paperwork. Obviously, I didn't sell it for that.

If the State finds this out, you are in trouble. This is the way it is in real estate but it may be different with timeshares because they are not really real estate. The State of California wants their greedy hands on all your money and not part of it.

 

[SDKath]

I only defend Starwood when I feel that they have lived up to my expectations or exceeded it. I criticize them freely when I feel that they are pulling stuff that is downright unfair.

My post above yours Cathy is an overt criticism of the way they are slamming the door in the face of people who WANT to spend money with them and WANT to be loyal customers. Is it illegal? No. Is it dumb? Yes.

I don't have an agenda (except to help fellow TUGgers the way they helped me last year). If Starwood is good to me, I report it. If they are out of line, I post that too (did you see my ranting and raving in the fall when they changed the 5* SOs on everyone without word AND their website didn't reflect the change until 2 weeks later -- I was furious and let everyone here know it. :ignore: )

Katherine

 

[Dave H]

If the State finds this out, you are in trouble. This is the way it is in real estate but it may be different with timeshares because they are not really real estate. The State of California wants their greedy hands on all your money and not part of it.

The dollar amount on the deed does not ALWAY reflect the purchase price and state statutes determine how the deed is to read. In Florida and many other states, the deed reads

FOR $10 AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION Other valueable consideration if the balance of the funds.

Now I can tell you in Florida, if they find out that you short changed the state, and believe it or not, the state examiners do look at all $10 deeds where the taxes paid reflect $10 in tax stamps, the penalty can be very severe for not paying.

If there is a valid reason for the $10 like a divorce situation, they will let it go, but, if it is a case that they felt you shorted the state, they can see what normal prices are and go after the unpaid tax.

I would imagine that is true in many states, especially since they are not hirting for money. It is not worth the hassles of having to defend your position with attorneys paid by the state.

 

[Cathyb]

Denise: You are right, no one likes losing money. I guess because they changed the rules and invented the Mandatory vs. Voluntary a good year AFTER we signed the contract that makes the hair on my neck stand up. It drove down the WMH resale market price and desireability to own it way down on WMH before the current market went down.

There are other issues with Starwood upper management too in my little black book like Sending annual meeting notices just a week or so before the meeting in hopes no one shows up but predating the notice to read a month ahead. This has happened four years in a row -- so it is not my maillman to blame. All my other mail arrives in a timely manner. Time to go put ice on my Starwood headache

 

[tlpnet]

Well, it looks like the decision has been made, and it's worse than we had guessed.

The NEW rule is that retros are no longer allowed with resale upgrades. It no longer matters how much the original owner spent on the developer purchase, or how much you paid resale, you cannot use an upgrade transaction to retro another unit. You can still retro a unit with a new developer purchase as long as you spend the $20K/$40K requirement.

I forgot to ask if an upgrade with a resale week (without a retro) is still allowed, but I'm guessing no. I'll try to find out and post later.

-tim

 

[SDKath]

OK, since Starwood is actively reading these boards and closing all the doors that I and many others before me opened to help others, I have an easy solution/work around to this but I am NOT posting it on the board for them to see and deny in the future.

So if you want to hear it, feel free to PM me any time.

Katherine

 

[BBTMom]

What if.....

SDKath,

What if a Starwood employee pretends to be a TUG member and send you a PM to ask about your new workaround, they would still find out the secret!

It seems the doors are really closing......

 

[SDKath]

Hmmm, good point. The thing is, I KNOW YOU ALL!! :rofl:

 

[Ken555]

OK, since Starwood is actively reading these boards and closing all the doors that I and many others before me opened to help others, I have an easy solution/work around to this but I am NOT posting it on the board for them to see and deny in the future.

So if you want to hear it, feel free to PM me any time.

Katherine

FWIW, this is why I proposed a while ago to make this a non-public board. Yes, Starwood could register as a member an individuals, but at least we'd have some level of knowledge who had access.

 

[tlpnet]

I got clarification on the new rule, and, as I suspected am told that upgrades from resale purchases are no longer allowed period.

I can understand why Starwood would prevent retros with upgrade transactions, but this one has left me scratching my head. I don't understand why Starwood wouldn't allow this - it results in a new developer sale. This is the primary way that WSJ Bay Vista was conducting sales when I was there. It was all about getting existing owners to "upgrade" to BV.

The only motivating factor that I can see is that Starwood no longer wants to give resale owners the benefit of the amount the original owner paid, but why not give them a percentage, or as some speculated, the amount of the resale transaction as credit toward an upgrade.

Go figure...
-tim

 

[vacationtime1]

I got clarification on the new rule, and, as I suspected am told that upgrades from resale purchases are no longer allowed period.

I can understand why Starwood would prevent retros with upgrade transactions, but this one has left me scratching my head. I don't understand why Starwood wouldn't allow this - it results in a new developer sale. This is the primary way that WSJ Bay Vista was conducting sales when I was there. It was all about getting existing owners to "upgrade" to BV.

The only motivating factor that I can see is that Starwood no longer wants to give resale owners the benefit of the amount the original owner paid, but why not give them a percentage, or as some speculated, the amount of the resale transaction as credit toward an upgrade.

Go figure...
-tim

This makes no sense to me either. Starwood shouldn't care whether I spend $25,000 on a developer purchase without a trade-in or I spend $40,000 on a developer purchase with a $15,000 trade-in. In either case, they get $25,000 of new money.

But lots of Starwood policies don't make sense to me.

As I have posted before, if Starwood didn't have such fabulous properties, I would go elsewhere.