Trouble - Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe [Management Agreement in Jeopardy?]

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I always thought that research studies generally required consent from those participating, overseen by an ethics review board. But it sounds like we are unwitting participants. I guess I’m thinking of medical studies and perhaps the standards for other studies are less rigorous.

If the university sponsoring the research study receives any federal funding (which is basically all of them unless it’s some tiny non-accredited private school) then yes, informed consent of all research participants is required, you can find the regs at 45 CFR 46.116.

 

[Ken555]

I'm thrilled to see this thread finally picking up steam! It’s incredibly intriguing to dive into how Marriott has been fumbling its finances—raises some serious questions about accountability, doesn’t it? Plus, the board’s struggle to grasp the situation is quite alarming. It really shows their disconnect with their own governing rules and the management engagement contract. And let's not forget their hesitation to consider findings from crucial social research studies that could offer eye-opening insights! Oh, and can we talk about the importance of proper prep before surgery and the not-so-pleasant consequences of rererereregurgitating vomit? Overall, it’s exciting to witness such a vibrant conversation unfolding!

 

[bnoble]

There are some studies which do not require IRB approval (and hence would not require informed consent). Here's the relevant section from my home institution's guidance:

https://research-compliance.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource-download/om_pdf_final_04.13.2023_1.pdf#page=44

(I do this work from time to time in my day job.)

 

[jp10558]

As points ownership grows and weeks ownerships decline – and I’m not sure how rapidly that’s actually happening, but it does seem to be the long-trend – I think the “wine social” and similar events have less and less value. These events used to be about meeting your fellow resort owners, the people who, like you, own at the property where you are staying and probably visit every year or two or perhaps even more often. They were often billed as an owners event, though that probably wasn’t enforced. But most attendees had a vested interest in the property, its amenities and upkeep, and you may even run into people you’ve met before if you and they vacation around the same time each year.

If most guests are essentially “transient owners” who own points but have no attachment to a specific property, then a wine social is just a bunch of strangers with no real connection between them getting together to drink wine with their own little group. I like wine as much (or more!) than the next guy, but the wine served at these events is usually not of sufficient quality to motivate my attendance. I would attend to meet and chat with fellow weeks owners of the property, I probably wouldn’t attend or care about meeting points owners who just happened to be there. It’s a different dynamic.

What is the purpose of these events once a property is dominated by transient points owners? Maybe I’m the only one who feels there is a different sense of community (or lack thereof) in a points-dominated timeshare world.

Though what is interesting is how the ARDA reports imply that "sense of community" is a big change for getting "the next generation" / the future. I read it as going the other way, i.e. wanting to build more of a sense of community. Maybe the community needs to increase to "system owners"? Then, what about the exchangers and various cash versions etc...

That said, I also understand your POV - I don't drink, so I'm not going to one of the events. I don't use the pool either, so I'd prefer dropping the "resort amenities fee" and having an "access card" each person staying can buy or not. But here's the thing, is the overhead of a la carte management going to death spiral everything? I do know that I find it grating that the arcades are so expensive and yet Mini Golf and Ping Pong are free. I actually prefer Ping Pong being free, and probably wouldn't ever pay to do Mini Golf, so it's nice they're free, but then why is pool charged? Air Hockey?

I think you need to "get something" in addition to a room for it to be a "resort" FWIW.

 

[davidvel]

If the university sponsoring the research study receives any federal funding (which is basically all of them unless it’s some tiny non-accredited private school) then yes, informed consent of all research participants is required, you can find the regs at 45 CFR 46.116.

I don't think that applies to using public social media/BBS posts. See § 46.104(d)(2) (presuming that the subpart was applicable to begin with.) But of course, this is all meaningless as we know there is no such activity going on outside one's mind.

 

[Dean]

But of course, this is all meaningless as we know there is no such activity going on outside one's mind.

Especially since it was a thinly veiled insult anyway.

 

[igopogo]

Anyone have the time and zoom link for Thursday’s board meeting?

 

[TimGolobic]

For those keeping score at home, GRC dues increase 12.2% (Marriott recommended 15.4%). The Trust-nominated candidate won election to the board.

 

[Likes to Travel]

For those keeping score at home, GRC dues increase 12.2% (Marriott recommended 15.4%). The Trust-nominated candidate won election to the board.

It seemed that the Trust nominated candidate won by a bunch. It would be interesting to find out how many owners voted for him out of fear MVC would no longer represent GRC or that they felt like the board was cutting too much/not understanding inflation cost raises. Also, at the end of the first meeting it seemed like both sides made up a bit and decided to work together. Not sure what others got out of that exchange...

Also, it seemed like MVC was ok with the 12.2% increase as long as the owners understood and didn't complain to them if they felt like things weren't up to Marriott standards...

 

[travelhacker]

It seemed that the Trust nominated candidate won by a bunch. It would be interesting to find out how many owners voted for him out of fear MVC would no longer represent GRC or that they felt like the board was cutting too much/not understanding inflation cost raises. Also, at the end of the first meeting it seemed like both sides made up a bit and decided to work together. Not sure what others got out of that exchange...

Also, it seemed like MVC was ok with the 12.2% increase as long as the owners understood and didn't complain to them if they felt like things weren't up to Marriott standards...

I think the Trust probably had a lot to do with getting the MVC person elected.

I grew increasingly frustrated from some of the communication that I got from the board, and I gave all my votes to the MVC rep. My goal was to let the board know that I was tired of the Hijinx (like sending out an email that they wanted to explore a different management company).

 

[AlmostRetired]

Reached out to the person I rent points from that owns here. This will be my third yearly buy so I may be getting a slight discount. 72 cents for 2026 points. I paid 67 cents for 2025 points and 63 cents for 2024. I will assume owners get a great MF per point and one of the reasons why the Marriott brand might be important.

 

[Fun4U]

I have had my eye on purchasing a quarter share at the Grand Residence for years. Our family travels often and we have stayed at dozens of MVC properties, mostly using II exchanges so we are familiar with the system. The availability of quarter shares had been scarce for quite some time, but these recent troubles have lead many owners to list their property with 3rd party sellers. For those of you who are in the know, what would your advice be to me about buying now, given what seems to be a tentative resolution to the primary problem?

 

[TimGolobic]

I have had my eye on purchasing a quarter share at the Grand Residence for years. Our family travels often and we have stayed at dozens of MVC properties, mostly using II exchanges so we are familiar with the system. The availability of quarter shares had been scarce for quite some time, but these recent troubles have lead many owners to list their property with 3rd party sellers. For those of you who are in the know, what would your advice be to me about buying now, given what seems to be a tentative resolution to the primary problem?

If you are in it for just points and to rarely use Tahoe, the additional enrollment fee is approx $75k. Buy the smallest unit in the biggest room size you can afford. The enrollment fee is the same for a Studio as it is for a 3 BR. But a 1 BR 1 BA and 1 BR 2 BA get the same points, and the 1 BA has lower maintenance fees.

 

[rcdcowner557]

WOW, what a glaring example of the immense conflict of interest between the HOA/BOD and it's management company. The manager works for the HOA, not the other way around. Yes, I understand the complex agreement that relates to the place being called "Marriott" and the accompanying "benefits" (that are sold for a high price by the manger's related entity but can be removed at their discretion, with al the money spent down the tubes apparently.)

I also understand that the HOA/BOD needs to fund any expenses that they approved, but it seems this shortfall was not anticipated in 2022 when the 2023 budget was approved. It seems for 2024, there will be 750K more in expense than anticipated due to further increases in insurance/utilities throughout the year. (How did the BOD not know this when they passed the 2024 budget, if the problem cropped up in 2023, or did they truely ignore it and not cut somewhere else?) The BOD/HOA will have to find a way to reduce expenses in the budget which now appears to be a 1.25M hole (for 2023 shortfall +2024 anticipated shortfall), but as others note, insurance and utilities are the most basic of necessities.

The property manager (agent) is now trying to turn the owners against the HOA (its master), and likely is opposed to areas the BOD is looking to cut to fund the shortfall. Interesting indeed, and expect this to happen across the various Marriott vacation clubs as time goes on.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we . . . "

This is exactly what is going on at our property. I am on the BOD and we are pushing back on our assessments because we learned that MVC is charging us more than allowed by property's governing documents. They have concealed quite a bit from us, but we got a new board member who started asking questions, the answers to which were shocking. The real victims are the Trust owners whose points dues pay the bulk of the overcharge and have no insight. MVC keeps trying to get us to look the other way because the Trust owners are subsidizing all the whole owners and the legacy owners. Now that we know, we cannot look the other way because that would be breach of fiduciary duty.

 

[VacationForever]

This is exactly what is going on at our property. I am on the BOD and we are pushing back on our assessments because we learned that MVC is charging us more than allowed by property's governing documents. They have concealed quite a bit from us, but we got a new board member who started asking questions, the answers to which were shocking. The real victims are the Trust owners whose points dues pay the bulk of the overcharge and have no insight. MVC keeps trying to get us to look the other way because the Trust owners are subsidizing all the whole owners and the legacy owners. Now that we know, we cannot look the other way because that would be breach of fiduciary duty.

Where is your proof of overcharges? Also, Trust maintenance fees are simply a roll up of underlying deeds, so how can Trust owners be paying a bulk of the overcharges?

 

[rcdcowner557]

I question the propriety of this memo and the actions of MVC's representative in apparently sending this to owners in open contempt for a BOD elected by the owners of this property. Is MVC so arrogant as to think this is an appropriate action. There must be a better way........

And it's even worse, MVC may be acknowledging these BOD's are expected to be puppet boards beholden only to MVC.

We recently discovered that MVC Management Company has been misleading our board (I am on it) for years. New board member uncovered serious overcharges that are out of line with our governing documents, and when we started pushing back they sent our members a similar communication. We are in a standoff over 2025 budget, and they are holding us hostage. We want them gone, but they continue to operate the property on their own dime while they try to get our members to weigh in and agree to the overages. When we educate any member who contacts us, they agree that it is time for the Marriott name to come off our property. Trust owners will still have access to it as always; it will just have a new name.

 

[rcdcowner557]

MVW has a similar situation with what was the Hyatt in Aspen. They have a number of units in the Hyatt Portfolio Program trust but the property is no longer managed by Hyatt Vacation Club or MVW. MVW still has the right to use those units since they own them and they can make reservations in them. There was some type of agreement made to still allow for nightly reservations vs the more traditional type of weekly reservation.

What is the name of the property today? I would like to know the management company because we are looking to terminate our management agreement with MVW.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Where is your proof of overcharges? Also, Trust maintenance fees are simply a roll up of underlying deeds, so how can Trust owners be paying a bulk of the overcharges?

Basic Expenses at our property are supposed to be PCI; MVW threw that out the window without telling us and has been assessing the fractional owners a far greater percentage of the Basic Expenses than PCI. It was impossible to discern from the budgets we passed every year. They neglected to tell us that we were paying for everything and that they weren't billing the whole owner HOA for the shared amenities. There are very few individual fractional owners at our property. The Trust owns the vast majority of the fractional intersts; hence the Trust is carrying the brand standards for the entire building. The Trust BOD should have caught it; unfortunately for Trust owners, the Trust BOD is controlled by MVW employees. I wonder how many other properties have similar situation, where managing agent MVW has allocated costs of operating the building to Trust owners in a manner inconsistent with the governing documents.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Basic Expenses at our property are supposed to be PCI; MVW threw that out the window without telling us and has been assessing the fractional owners a far greater percentage of the Basic Expenses than PCI. It was impossible to discern from the budgets we passed every year. They neglected to tell us that we were paying for everything and that they weren't billing the whole owner HOA for the shared amenities. There are very few individual fractional owners at our property. The Trust owns the vast majority of the fractional intersts; hence the Trust is carrying the brand standards for the entire building. The Trust BOD should have caught it; unfortunately for Trust owners, the Trust BOD is controlled by MVW employees. I wonder how many other properties have similar situation, where managing agent MVW has allocated costs of operating the building to Trust owners in a manner inconsistent with the governing documents.

 

[rcdcowner557]

This is exactly what is going on at our property. I am on the BOD and we are pushing back on our assessments because we learned that MVC is charging us more than allowed by property's governing documents. They have concealed quite a bit from us, but we got a new board member who started asking questions, the answers to which were shocking. The real victims are the Trust owners whose points dues pay the bulk of the overcharge and have no insight. MVC keeps trying to get us to look the other way because the Trust owners are subsidizing all the whole owners and the legacy owners. Now that we know, we cannot look the other way because that would be breach of fiduciary duty.

Actually, the Trust owners are not subsidizing the legacy owners per se; the assessments are the same per interest whether owned by the Trust or the few remaining individuals. However, both the legacy fractional owners and the Trust owners are grossly carrying the brand standards for the whole owners. The whole owners have all the same amenities at the property, but don't pay for them.

 

[VacationForever]

What is PCI?

 

[rcdcowner557]

Why did the owners only discover the financial strain after the resort had already depleted its funds?

I suspect that the financial strain was discussed ad nauseum at board meetings that owners simply did not attend. We have been discussing this extensively at our board meetings, but owners don't attend, and it was only after MVW sent out a letter to our owners trying to save their management contract that we were contacted by an owner about the situation. Once the owner got up to speed, the owner concurred that they need to go.

 

[rcdcowner557]

What is PCI?

Percentage Common Interest. Common Interest Developments typically assess common charges according the the percentage common interest that any unit owns in the development. There is typically a schedule that is part of the Offering Plan that specifies the PCI for each unit. This is set in stone in the offering to prevent the BOD from assessing common charges disproportionately to any given unit. Otherwise, everyone could just gang up on a unit owner they didn't like and assign all the common charges to that unit owner. That would decimate the value of that unit, while increasing the value of all the others. Wouldn't it be lovely to have your neighbor pay for your doorman and valet parking?

 

[pedro47]

can you post the actual information you are stating in your alleged posts.

Please post factual information and statements.

 

[Eric B]

This is exactly what is going on at our property. I am on the BOD and we are pushing back on our assessments because we learned that MVC is charging us more than allowed by property's governing documents. They have concealed quite a bit from us, but we got a new board member who started asking questions, the answers to which were shocking. The real victims are the Trust owners whose points dues pay the bulk of the overcharge and have no insight. MVC keeps trying to get us to look the other way because the Trust owners are subsidizing all the whole owners and the legacy owners. Now that we know, we cannot look the other way because that would be breach of fiduciary duty.

Actually, the Trust owners are not subsidizing the legacy owners per se; the assessments are the same per interest whether owned by the Trust or the few remaining individuals. However, both the legacy fractional owners and the Trust owners are grossly carrying the brand standards for the whole owners. The whole owners have all the same amenities at the property, but don't pay for them.

Interesting posting. Based on the username @rcdcowner557 and the discussion of subsidizing whole owners and legacy owners, I would guess the property is one of the Ritz-Carlton Destination Clubs that is co-located with whole ownership residences. It's not really clear what the problem is as the discussion of who is subsidizing what seems fluid. It's also not clear what amenities are causing the differences and whether there are possible reasons for the cost allocations. I'm a bit interested because I just picked up a fractional at a sister resort; can you provide any details on what the charges and amenities are?