SVO Management likes Redweek better than us owners!

[nodge]

Lookie what SVO Management sent to the folks at Redweek . . . over two months ago!

According to Rosemary at SVO Management, Inc. (aka "the horse's mouth"), resale purchasers of Vistana's Beach Club and in the Courts, Falls, Spa, Palms, Springs, Fountains and Fountains II phases at Sheraton Vistana Resort will be allowed to join SVN so long as those resale purchases were made on or before December 31, 2007. On the other hand, Lakes and Cascades resale purchasers, who will also be paying manditory, massive special assessments, will be excluded from joining SVN even if purchased on or before December 31, 2007.

So much for the whole "since you are paying so much for refurbishments, we're letting you into SVN" theory as to why SVO is doing what it's doing. Anyone have any other theories that can make sense of this mayhem?

Also, how hard would it have been for Rosemary to post her letter on MyStarCental so everyone could have learned of SVO’s intentions at the same time? On the other hand, thanks Rosemary for breaking SVO's code of stoic silence and actually informing someone of SVO’s plans!

So . . . . Rosemary . . . . I notice that you told Redweek that your "goal is that all purchasers of any Starwood Vacation Ownership product from any source be fully informed of the features of their ownership so they can enjoy the benefits of ownership with the right expectation." We owners here on TUG also want owners and potential owners to be "fully informed." Given this common ground we share, would you be interested in representing SVO on our little bulletin board?

Do you like oranges? I like oranges. See . . . more common ground.

-nodge

 

[LisaRex]

From reading the comments, it looks like SVO has managed to piss off even more Owners. Do other timeshare companies have this amount of unhappiness or is Starwood unique in this way?

 

[pointsjunkie]

IMO the reason the cascades and lakes resale will not be allowed into the svn is because those 2 properties were built directly through starwood and all owners who bought through starwood were enrolled in the svn and it is not a mandatory resort thus resalers will not be asked in.

the other parts of SVR were the original vistana section so IMO that is why they are being asked in.

 

[Ken555]

I think SVN will have a hard time justifying using the 12/31/07 date for all phases as the cutoff date for inclusion in the SVN transfer opportunity. Of course, I'm biased.

 

[nodge]

I think SVN will have a hard time justifying using the 12/31/07 date for all phases as the cutoff date for inclusion in the SVN transfer opportunity.

I agree.

Requiring all of the phases at VR to pay excessive refurbishment fees, but only allowing the pre-Starwood phases to join SVN indicates that SVO is being forced to allow these phases into SVN instead of voluntarily allowing them to join.

Since all of these allowed phases were sold before SVO took over VR, the source of this external force on SVO can most likely be found in the transfer paperwork of these phases from “Vistana, Inc.” to “Starwood Vacation Ownership.” Whatever those terms are, they are probably missing from any paperwork associated with the Cascades and Lakes phases, which were entirely built and sold by SVO after taking over VR.

We have touched on this issue in other posts, but we didn’t have the Redweek data to confirm the distinction SVO appears to be making between pre and post SVO phases at VR.

It is extremely unlikely that the dates “December 31, 2007” or “March 31, 2008” appear anywhere in any of the transfer paperwork from Vistana, Inc. to SVO. Rather, the establishment of these cut-off dates was probably pulled out of thin air by the powers that be at SVO.

In an SVO world full of CYA clauses and mushy and vaguely worded promises and agreements, SVO has solidly put this cut-off date stick in the ground desperately hoping that it stays put and no one challenges its presence.

I suspect that if someone were to have access to the original paperwork and a little legal knowledge, that stick would prove no match for whatever legal force drove SVO to allow pre-Starwood VR phases into SVN. SVO probably had no right to put that stick in the ground, and the SVO crony-controlled boards of these pre-Starwood phases probably had no right to allow it to be placed there.

As complaints against SVO mount over the excessive special assessments issue, I hope the organizations responsible for overseeing SVO’s activities also spend some time getting to the bottom of this stick issue.

To help move the investigation along, someone who has been hurt by the stick could fill out and file this form with the Florida regulatory agency responsible for overseeing SVO. That complaint could seek a specific explanation as to why pre-Starwood resale purchasers phases were allowed into SVN, but post-Starwood are not. It should also ask SVO to explain how it came about selecting the December 31, 2007 cut-off date, and what authority SVO had to even establish a cut-off date in the first place since the paperwork forcing SVO to allow these phases into SVN is probably silent regarding this issue.

Don't even get me started about how SVO has undervalued the StarOptions assigned to these villas, which in and of itself is grounds for regulatory inquiry.

Anyone up for the task?

-nodge

 

[Ken555]

[...]is grounds for regulatory inquiry.

Anyone up for the task?

-nodge

Congress? :hysterical: