The definition of "Commercial" verbally defined.

[frank808]

I would be willing to join in class action.

Sounds like a lot of holes in MVC restricting rentals. There is an exclusion for MVC in regards to commercial renting. Would not be some sort of discrimination? Also when I "joined" and enrolled my weeks, the T&C are different than now IIRC. Not a lawyers and just thinking out loud. But if a real lawyer wants to take this case of MVC overstepping their boundaries, I am in.

 

[Chucez]

I have a better idea, don’t buy anything from Marriott Vacations Worldwide. In my opinion they are unscrupulous.

Greed has changed the paradigm

 

[Chucez]

Happy to hear from any lawyer who wants to take this up as well as any threatened owner (GRC or otherwise). My crystal ball says this battle is not over and will become much bigger until MVW is willing to clean up their side of the street.

Although i have never read the entire sales document manifesto( now on a usb drive), i would believe they have verbiage in which they can amend the meaning of “usage” thus protecting the product

 

[Hindsite]

My understanding about the difference between renting "weeks" vs points is this:

When you buy a deeded timeshare week, you are a direct, legal, owner of deeded property. Generally speaking this appears to give you more rights than a timeshare company can legally restrict. As such there is very minimal control/limits over when owners rent their ownership.

However, no one is an Abound owner. Everyone in Abound, or in ANY points based trust contracts, or in ANY internal exchange program such as VSN, everyone is a member and not an owner. As such the membership can restrict anything.

The understanding is more simple than that. The terms and conditions are different for weeks vs points. Even the terms and conditions for weeks at different resorts are different.

There are personal use clauses in all the contracts as far as I know, so MVC have the ability to apply those or just make up new rules under the contract, which they are also allowed to do.

The issue is whether any specific pattern of behaviour is, or appears to be, restricting the ability of MVW to deliver on its stock market commitments. There is a perception around Abound users that inventory is minimised and they see plenty of availability on rental sites like Redweek. The response from MVW is to limit very high volume renters, e.g those renting out more than they use for Abound and then appear to be addressing the perceived inventory issue.

If they have an issue at a specific resort for weeks inventory, then they will address that, but there hasn't been any indication of an issue or an interest from MVW to address it.

None of the above means people shouldn't push back against changes, as MVW will most certainly be testing the water to see what they can get through.

 

[dioxide45]

So are you actually only just using points or are you doing bonus time or something? I thought if you own timeshare you own a deed to the real estate and you're allowed to buy, sell, rent or exchange. I thought that's how the law worked with real estate? And it's not as if Marriott can say rentals aren't allowed like as if you lived in an HOA where you're not allowed to rent, That's all Marriott is is renting? I take a look at your ownership paperwork and dig into it.... Doesn't sound legal to me.

The Abound exchange program is not real estate. You are trading real estate in the program, but you agree to a different set of rules when you opt to join and participate in the exchange.

 

[dioxide45]

I would be willing to join in class action.

I would think, unless you received a letter from Marriott Vacations, there is no case.

 

[Dean]

Using abound points is simply just an exchange. They have a lot of control, far more than with deeded weeks. There is language giving them control of the commercial renting definition and stating that commercial renting is prohibited. I'm pretty sure there is also wording in the POS of most if not all resorts with similar limitations. Even if one owns actual real estate there may be limitations on renting due to HOA's and government ordinances. A lot of places prohibit short term rentals. Even DVC, whose POS for most resorts actually states that renting is allowed, has cracked down on renting in volume. I've long warned about buying to rent for several reasons, this is only one of them.

 

[echino]

Even if one owns actual real estate there may be limitations on renting due to HOA's and government ordinances. A lot of places prohibit short term rentals.

Marriott is also an owner, and they are involved in rentals for commercial purposes. If rentals are prohibited, they should be prohibited for all owners.

 

[dioxide45]

Marriott is also an owner, and they are involved in rentals for commercial purposes. If rentals are prohibited, they should be prohibited for all owners.

That would be how it works if us owners wrote the rules, but we didn't. The developer wrote the rules and gave themselves a lot of leeway in how they do business. We might not like the rules, but does that mean we should ignore them?

 

[Dean]

Marriott is also an owner, and they are involved in rentals for commercial purposes. If rentals are prohibited, they should be prohibited for all owners.

I'd have to dig into the paperwork but I suspect they've carved themselves out to allow that. I know for sure DVC has.

 

[Hindsite]

I'd have to dig into the paperwork but I suspect they've carved themselves out to allow that. I know for sure DVC has.

Indeed they did, there may be more ...

 

[Steve11701]

Just sat in a presentation this week on June 22, 2026 where I was sold the idea of converting from Sheraton Vacation Club StarOptions to MVC Club points largely because I would no longer be subject to Sheraton’s total prohibition against renting under my old contract. When I asked for more details about that policy and any limits / restrictions that might come with it, I was told there was an MVC owner who had accumulated 1Million Club points and had turned that into a large rental business with staff to operate it as a business within Marriott which prompted Marriott to shut it down. I was also told if I only rented 3-4 times per year there wouldn’t be a problem. Further they told me they allow owners to sell unused points back to Marriott at a rate of approx. $2400/1000 points with a 500 point minimum but as the number of points you want to sell increases, the rate you receive decreases to approx. $3200 /1500 points. I guess that’s to encourage usage over selling points to Marriott. Wanted to share these specifics with other members since this was a key reason I bought into the Club point move expecting it to give me a rental option I didn’t have before. I signed in Florida and am still combing through the new agreement within the 10-day recission window. I told them I had rescinded a previous contract when it didn’t match the salesperson’s pitch and would do so again if that was the case with this one. The devil is always in the details!

 

[TimGolobic]

I was also told if I only rented 3-4 times per year there wouldn’t be a problem.

And therein lies the rub. Separate definitions for "allowable" renting despite all activity still can be deemed "commercial activity".

 

[richardbartlett]

I would think this Marriott crackdown would only apply to points being rented. If you have a week at a resort, you have a real estate property right to use the property as you deem fit. It's like buying a rental house and renting it out, you own the house you have property rights to its use.
If Marriott gets cute with Weeks Owners, they will find themselves in a lot of lawsuits over denial of property rights.
Richard B

 

[Fasttr]

I would think this Marriott crackdown would only apply to points being rented. If you have a week at a resort, you have a real estate property right to use the property as you deem fit. It's like buying a rental house and renting it out, you own the house you have property rights to its use.
If Marriott gets cute with Weeks Owners, they will find themselves in a lot of lawsuits over denial of property rights.
Richard B

But in a floating week system, you likely are not renting out the week you actually own a fractional share in.

 

[Cmaio22]

When we book, we are all signing a contract that says the unit is not rented for commercial usage. Everyone has been notified across social media that MVC is cracking down on owners who are renting high volumes of units causing inventory to be unavailable for many people.

 

[Retired2025 aka AlmostRetired]

I do not want to minimize the OP's issues but I think this is more specific to what the OP is doing. I believe he said he changed the name on 10 to 15 weeks. We do not know how many are rentals and how many are name changes without renting, but if most were non renting name changes and it could be validated, MVC would not consider it commercial.. If you say an average prime weeks in HHI, Aruba, Crystal Shores or Hawaii is 4500 points ( I believe low but will use this to do the math) and one is changing the names on 10 to 15 weeks then one has at least 45000 to 67,500 points.

I do not know this for a fact, but you can likely count on your fingers and toes the number the number of trust owners that have this number of points. I believe you have a significant number of legacy weeks owners (including 1/4 share owners ) and a combination of legacy trust point owners that can have that many or more points, especially 1/4 share owners.

I know 3 owners who I have done business with that are 1/4 share owners at the Residence in Tahoe. Two of the three will only rent out points, but will rent out a week to someone who maxed out point rentals if the person finds the availability. The reason is simple, renting weeks take up too much time and not worth the incremental profits. I paid 75 cents a point for 2027 points and while I have no clue the MF and property tax is, I assume the markup is at least 40% with no risk in rental and allowed to by MVC without it being commercial. There is no limit to how many people you can rent 20,000 points.

The majority of points owners (legacy or combo legacy/trust) come no where close to the points needed to be considered what might be the defined line in the sand. If the OP moved from renting his legacy points from weeks, he would have no issues in my opinion.

Again, I am not trying to minimize the OP's challenge but I do believe the issue is very specific and there is a work around of renting more points and less weeks,

If MVC believes they can do what they want, they are wrong. If they draw a line in the sand that commercial is 10 to 15 name changes, they have to treat everyone crossing that line the same. If they move lower, that lower number becomes the new line in the sand and everyone crossing it must be treated the same.

 

[BrownThunder]

So why buy a lot of points? It is designed to stay small unless you don't need to rent to cover your dues. Why do the sales people tell people with a lot of points to buy more to rent them out to pay dues when they know it will be counted as commercial? You could look at it in multiple ways. I promise you that there are way more smaller owners than really big owners. I would bet the smaller owners rent out way more reservations combined than the larger owners combined. If renting is a problem why not go after all the renters? Because I bought more shouldn't mean i can't rent more... but if Marriott had defined "commercial " there would be a lot less people in this position...

I'm pretty shocked they told you to rent out your points if you bought direct. We were specifically told not to do that by the sales guy multiple times and then by the lawyer that came in afterwards when we bought in 2 years ago.

Quite frankly, that's exactly why we wanted to buy since it meant inventory would be better for owners.

 

[Hindsite]

Just sat in a presentation this week on June 22, 2026 where I was sold the idea of converting from Sheraton Vacation Club StarOptions to MVC Club points largely because I would no longer be subject to Sheraton’s total prohibition against renting under my old contract.

If your Sheraton ownership is enrolled in Abound you don't need to pay to elect for club points, you can choose to do that each year. Sheraton doesn't have a total ban, its VSN reservations that aren't allowed to be rented out, not home resort reservations.

I was also told if I only rented 3-4 times per year there wouldn’t be a problem.

There is no threshold, it depends on what "problem" they see in the system so they can adjust to respond to different scenarios as needed. e.g Non rentals at all for Thailand can be done due to local regulations for short term rental.

Further they told me they allow owners to sell unused points back to Marriott at a rate of approx. $2400/1000 points with a 500 point minimum but as the number of points you want to sell increases, the rate you receive decreases to approx. $3200 /1500 points.

This does not exist, you have been lied to completely. The closest thing is that MVC may exercise ROFR on sales (disposal totally) of club points that occur at below $3/club point. They will take back club points for a $400 processing fee if you haven't found yourself a buyer on the open market.

Wanted to share these specifics with other members since this was a key reason I bought into the Club point move expecting it to give me a rental option I didn’t have before. I signed in Florida and am still combing through the new agreement within the 10-day recission window. I told them I had rescinded a previous contract when it didn’t match the salesperson’s pitch and would do so again if that was the case with this one. The devil is always in the details!

The economics of renting Trust club points, or reservations made using Trust club points, are not great. If you didn't pay less than $8/club point for something with maint fees less than $0.60/club point then you are poorly positioned in the market compared to other owners who have an underlying cost advantage as they are operating at or well below those levels. There are much better ways to get a return on capital than buying MVC Trust club points direct and they running a rental business.

 

[Hindsite]

If MVC believes they can do what they want, they are wrong. If they draw a line in the sand that commercial is 10 to 15 name changes, they have to treat everyone crossing that line the same. If they move lower, that lower number becomes the new line in the sand and everyone crossing it must be treated the same.

They can do what's allowable under the contracts and associated terms and conditions That includes no actual or assumed threshold and the ability for them to operate differently from individual members and for variations to occur as driven by regional restrictions if needed. There may also be separate contracts with commercial organisations where renting is allowed, similar to authorised resellers. There is no requirement for everyone to be treated the same.

 

[chapjim]

I would think, unless you received a letter from Marriott Vacations, there is no case.

Even if there were (and I agree there is not), it is the lawyers who benefit from class actions. They get money, the named plaintiffs get vouchers.

 

[Retired2025 aka AlmostRetired]

They can do what's allowable under the contracts and associated terms and conditions That includes no actual or assumed threshold and the ability for them to operate differently from individual members and for variations to occur as driven by regional restrictions if needed. There may also be separate contracts with commercial organisations where renting is allowed, similar to authorised resellers. There is no requirement for everyone to be treated the same.

I am not a lawyer but if taken to court, I would hope that some standard needs to be applied once a line in the sand is drawn. What is to stop them targeting someone who bought used or someone who owns at the Residence in Tahoe because management is in a dispute with MVC. It would seem unfair that I can do what I want, to who I want, when I want because it is written and undefined.

 

[Hindsite]

I am not a lawyer but if taken to court, I would hope that some standard needs to be applied once a line in the sand is drawn. What is to stop them targeting someone who bought used or someone who owns at the Residence in Tahoe because management is in a dispute with MVC. It would seem unfair that I can do what I want, to who I want, when I want because it is written and undefined.

There would need to be a "reasonable" interpretation of what commercial use constitutes and that will vary by jurisdiction, if it got to court. Even then, electing for club points at all, same as depositing in II, is a discretionary part of ownership and not guaranteed in the contract, so there isn't much room for a case. In this case it appears that the member is renting out more than they are personally using over a prolonged period and they bought specifically to elect club points and rent out so that could easily be spun as a commercial intent right from the outset.

We have already seen in Thailand the complete ban on renting due to local regulations, so MVC have to be able to respond to that type of thing, as well as system generated distortions that they wish to address.

Abound is an exchange and we see in the other exchanges in the wider group that renting out of reservations that are through the exchange is not allowed at all. VSN, II and RCI are all in that category, and it would be no problem at all for MVC to ban renting out of elected club points reservations. That would lead to the usual problem where the behaviour of a few causes a problem for everyone.

Hopefully people will be able to adapt to the tightening of requirements.

 

[divenski]

Wanted to share these specifics with other members since this was a key reason I bought into the Club point move expecting it to give me a rental option I didn’t have before. I signed in Florida and am still combing through the new agreement within the 10-day recission window. I told them I had rescinded a previous contract when it didn’t match the salesperson’s pitch and would do so again if that was the case with this one. The devil is always in the details!

>>The economics of renting Trust club points, or reservations made using Trust club points, are not great. If you didn't pay less than $8/club point for something with maint fees less than $0.60/club point then you are poorly positioned in the market compared to other owners who have an underlying cost advantage as they are operating at or well below those levels. There are much better ways to get a return on capital than buying MVC Trust club points direct and then running a rental business.

I agree with Hindsite's comment. And to Steve11701, it would be interesting to see your ROI calculations. As someone else posted, if you consider the significant depreciation of retail points, the opportunity/interest costs, and the ever increasing maintenance fees, it seems hard to avoid losing money, never mind making a profit.

 

[jellen613#]

I'm pretty shocked they told you to rent out your points if you bought direct. We were specifically told not to do that by the sales guy multiple times and then by the lawyer that came in afterwards when we bought in 2 years ago.

Quite frankly, that's exactly why we wanted to buy since it meant inventory would be better for owners.

I have been to at least 5-6 presentations since 2019, every single sales person has tried to entice me to buy more by saying I can rent points to cover MFs. Also telling me that many other owners they have sold to rent points.