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

[dioxide45]

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.

A big expense for timeshares is housekeeping and front desk. I doubt whole owners have any of these amenities. They don't get a weekly clean, do they? How are housekeeping fees paid for owners at this resort? I know at GRC they pay a housekeeping fee separately from the maintenance fees. You seem to be rather cagey (perhaps understandably) and not providing a lot of actual details. Just accusations.

 

[rcdcowner557]

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?

The key is to look at the governing documents. MVW is allocating costs based on estimated usage, which is problematic for a number of reasons, first and foremost that that method of allocating costs is not allowed by our governing documents. We never would have bought into a condominium building where how much we used a doorman, etc. was the basis of how much we paid. It would be great if that were the metric, because we don't use any of the amenities (wine night, porter, valet, concierge). However, the whole owners use them every day for everything from parking their car to delivering their door dash to bringing up their groceries. What is even more absurd is the "estimated usage" was from a time where the entire mix of whole owner units was different from fractionally owned units.

 

[rcdcowner557]

A big expense for timeshares is housekeeping and front desk. I doubt whole owners have any of these amenities. They don't get a weekly clean, do they? How are housekeeping fees paid for owners at this resort? I know at GRC they pay a housekeeping fee separately from the maintenance fees. You seem to be rather cagey (perhaps understandably) and not providing a lot of actual details. Just accusations.

housekeeping expenses are not at issue. What is at issue are all the staff in the common areas who serve fractional and whole owners on the same terms. You have the same amenities whether you are a fractional owner or a whole owner, with the exception of housekeeping; we have taken no issue with that charge. It is the charge for the concierges, porters, doormen and valet that are at issue. The whole owners avail themselves of this excellent staff day-in and day-out. There are 76 wholly-owned residences and only 25 fractionally-owned residences; all are to be treated the same under the governing documents; yet MVW has allocated the vast majority of the expenses for the staff to the fractional owners.

 

[dioxide45]

housekeeping expenses are not at issue. What is at issue are all the staff in the common areas who serve fractional and whole owners on the same terms. You have the same amenities whether you are a fractional owner or a whole owner, with the exception of housekeeping; we have taken no issue with that charge. It is the charge for the concierges, porters, doormen and valet that are at issue. The whole owners avail themselves of this excellent staff day-in and day-out. There are 76 wholly-owned residences and only 25 fractionally-owned residences; all are to be treated the same under the governing documents; yet MVW has allocated the vast majority of the expenses for the staff to the fractional owners.

Perhaps the BOD/HOA needs to hire their own independent council to review the documents and make the case.

 

[rcdcowner557]

The key is to look at the governing documents. MVW is allocating costs based on estimated usage, which is problematic for a number of reasons, first and foremost that that method of allocating costs is not allowed by our governing documents. We never would have bought into a condominium building where how much we used a doorman, etc. was the basis of how much we paid. It would be great if that were the metric, because we don't use any of the amenities (wine night, porter, valet, concierge). However, the whole owners use them every day for everything from parking their car to delivering their door dash to bringing up their groceries. What is even more absurd is the "estimated usage" was from a time where the entire mix of whole owner units was different from fractionally owned units.

MVW is now pushing us to amend the governing documents to legalize what they have been doing. It will be interesting to see how this develops because the Trust owns the vast majority of the fractional interests, so if the MVC Trust BOD (controlled by MVW employees) votes to amend the governing documents to legalize what they have been doing, keep your eyes posted for the lawsuit that will ensue. I am putting this out here because our property cannot be the only one where this is occurring. I would recommend anybody who is in a MVW-managed property where the Trust owns a large portion to examine the cost allocations in the property wide budget to make sure they comply.

 

[dioxide45]

MVW is now pushing us to amend the governing documents to legalize what they have been doing. It will be interesting to see how this develops because the Trust owns the vast majority of the fractional interests, so if the MVC Trust BOD (controlled by MVW employees) votes to amend the governing documents to legalize what they have been doing, keep your eyes posted for the lawsuit that will ensue. I am putting this out here because our property cannot be the only one where this is occurring. I would recommend anybody who is in a MVW-managed property where the Trust owns a large portion to examine the cost allocations in the property wide budget to make sure they comply.

I don't think there are very many properties in the MVC system that have whole ownership and fractional at the same resort. Perhaps only some of the RCC and maybe Kauai Lagoons.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Perhaps the BOD/HOA needs to hire their own independent council to review the documents and make the case.

We did. Two outside legal opinions came back saying the current allocations are not allowed by the governing documents. Again, stay tuned for the legal action that sadly may have to ensue, and, in the interim, check the governing documents and allocations at your own properties.

 

[rcdcowner557]

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?

If the fractional interest you just picked up happens to be at Vail, look at the amendments to the governing documents made in 2023 and ask your BOD to explain.

 

[Eric B]

It isn't; it's St Thomas and there aren't any whole ownerships there so I don't think we'll have the same problems.

 

[pedro47]

The key is to look at the governing documents. MVW is allocating costs based on estimated usage, which is problematic for a number of reasons, first and foremost that that method of allocating costs is not allowed by our governing documents. We never would have bought into a condominium building where how much we used a doorman, etc. was the basis of how much we paid. It would be great if that were the metric, because we don't use any of the amenities (wine night, porter, valet, concierge). However, the whole owners use them every day for everything from parking their car to delivering their door dash to bringing up their groceries. What is even more absurd is the "estimated usage" was from a time where the entire mix of whole owner units was different from fractionally owned units.

What page or pages are you referring to in the governing documents?

 

[rcdcowner557]

What page or pages are you referring to in the governing documents?

Every set of governing documents is different, but all have a section that addresses the purpose of assessments and how they are calculated. Accordingly, I cannot answer the question with respect to your property's governing documents. I would just look at all the sections that address assessments and consult a qualified attorney if you have questions about them.

 

[rcdcowner557]

I believe the "firing" comment was regarding the Board member MVW is trying to get elected. They could "fire" that person "fire" and replace with a more loyal servant. As they do with their permanent Board seat. That changes from time to time at their discretion.

Similarly, this is normally a volunteer Board. Presumably, the Marriott candidate is not doing this for free. There is zero transparency regarding compensation. Likewise, this candidate claims to have served on boards at over 30 properties. Essentially making a career out of being "their guy". Loyalty is in the bag. At how many other properties was it openly disclosed of the relationship between the candidate and MVW? Willing to bet zero. It certainly wasn't in the bio for the GRC Board. His blurb made no mention of serving on behalf of the Trust and was as vague as possible regarding career history.

This describes one of the guys they put on our board. Freakishly vague about gainful employment. I actually felt both the Trust reps on our board might have been selected by MVW for their lack of analytical or issue spotting ability. I was frankly shocked and just left wondering how and why MVW picked these guys to be on the MVC TOA Board. Not distinguished by any metric - Average Joe 1 and 2 overseeing the MVC TOA budget of what, $700 million? How convenient for MVW.

 

[cubigbird]

MVW is now pushing us to amend the governing documents to legalize what they have been doing. It will be interesting to see how this develops because the Trust owns the vast majority of the fractional interests, so if the MVC Trust BOD (controlled by MVW employees) votes to amend the governing documents to legalize what they have been doing, keep your eyes posted for the lawsuit that will ensue. I am putting this out here because our property cannot be the only one where this is occurring. I would recommend anybody who is in a MVW-managed property where the Trust owns a large portion to examine the cost allocations in the property wide budget to make sure they comply.

Perhaps a reason why sales is so hell bent on getting owners to trade in their deeds to “upgrade” to points.

 

[rcdcowner557]

E&O coverage doesn’t cover for intentional misconduct. E&O doesn’t cover punitive damages either. E&O doesn’t typically provide for the breach of fiduciary claims you’re talking about when you believe the person will basically do whatever MVW wants to the detriment of the HOA. That isn’t how the business world works. And “Marriott” cannot fire any BOD member. That’s not how a BOD works.

The governing documents at our property allow any organization to replace the individual representing them on the board at their pleasure. Accordingly, any employee of MVW who sits on our board (Ritz in San Francisco) can disappear at a moment's notice and be replaced by another MVW employee of their choosing, and that has in fact happened multiple times over the 17 years that I have been an owner. Same thing with the MVC Trust's representatives on our board - one of them openly admitted that their paid arrangement with MVC Trust, which is the alter ego of MVW, can be terminated at the pleasure of MVW. The other refused to even admit that he was being paid by the MVC Trust (i.e., MVW), and also refused to disclose his employment status or the other boards on which he serves, despite the fact that our governing documents require such disclosures as a condition of serving on our board.

 

[rcdcowner557]

As I know you would expect, MVC will definitely not provide names and email addresses for all owners to the HOA / BOD.
However, at some resorts the BOD does successfully communicate directly with a good percentage of owners through a resort owner blog or dedicated resort owner facebook group.

They are required to provide contact information for all association members to any association member who asks for the purpose of contacting other owners about matters relating to the property. If they ever deny that to you, just escalate it and you will get the list in short order.

 

[rcdcowner557]

If they withdraw the memo says the points program would end for those owners. They wouldn't have any points to rent.

They cannot end the points program for any owner who has also independently bought into the MVC Trust. The MVC Trust would still have access to its units on the same terms as all individual owners were the property to go with a different operator/manager.

 

[bazzap]

They are required to provide contact information for all association members to any association member who asks for the purpose of contacting other owners about matters relating to the property. If they ever deny that to you, just escalate it and you will get the list in short order.

Are you suggesting that individual owners contact information would be shared with the BOD and even other owners?
Where do you see this documented as a requirement?
I am as sure as I can be that this is not the case at any of the MVC resorts where we own and certainly not where I have been a BOD member.
It would be a violation of personal privacy rights to share such information without approval of the individual owner.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Are you suggesting that individual owners contact information would be shared with the BOD and even other owners?
Where do you see this documented as a requirement?
I am as sure as I can be that this is not the case at any of the MVC resorts where we own and certainly not where I have been a BOD member.
It would be a violation of personal privacy rights to share such information without approval of the individual owner.

It is a provision of the Davis Stirling Act in California. It is a standard provision in many state statutes that govern common interest developments. The fact that Hindsite liked your post is a perfect example of how self-proclaimed TUG experts don't know some of the most basic facts that are essential to responsible ownership. MVW is well aware of the statutory requirement and has a standard absurd warning they send out with the list to any association member who requests it. They might make an owner ask for it more than once, and they might ignore the request in the hope that the owner is not aware of their basic statutory rights. MVW is not immune to preying on those who don't know their rights; indeed, it is their business model.

 

[rcdcowner557]

It is a provision of the Davis Stirling Act in California. It is a standard provision in many state statutes that govern common interest developments. The fact that Hindsite liked your post is a perfect example of how self-proclaimed TUG experts don't know some of the most basic facts that are essential to responsible ownership. MVW is well aware of the statutory requirement and has a standard absurd warning they send out with the list to any association member who requests it. They might make an owner ask for it more than once, and they might ignore the request in the hope that the owner is not aware of their basic statutory rights. MVW is not immune to preying on those who don't know their rights; indeed, it is their business model.

One of my favorite aspects of MVW business model is that not only do they not recommend that boards of the properties they manage get a formal training session from outside counsel loyal exclusively to the board rather than MVW on governance issues, MVW will selectively step in and provide legal guidance to boards on properties they manage when such guidance suits their purposes. Then, when they are called out on how legal guidance they have provided to the board is incorrect, they claim with defiance that their job is not to legally advise the board.

MVW is most certainly correct that their job is not to legally advise the board; however, they conveniently neglect that it is part of their contract to not actively mislead the board (or the ownership at large) on not only legal matters, but also financial and other matters.

So many on here who claim that nobody has ever caught MVW appear to be completely unaware of the many cases that MVW has quietly settled with nondisclosure agreements (including prior cases at GRC). While I am not privy to the details of any settlements, I am a retired large scale commercial litigator and former general counsel to a publicly traded company. It is SOP for corporations to settle with NDAs when they have been "caught." Those NDAs will often be accompanied by non-disparagement clauses as well.

 

[rcdcowner557]

The first time I went through this thread, I recall my head exploding at much of the nonsense. Last night I started to go through it again with the intention of helping out and clearing up some of the wild misinformation I saw in there. However, I think I only made it to the third page or so before I realized that it would be a many, many hour (maybe even many day) project, and that is not a good use of my time, so I will just say this: I get that many think that TUG is the bible on all things timeshare, but I do not recommend anybody's relying exclusively on any discussion on here (or any other Internet forum) for any legal advice or to form any opinion of the facts of any situation on which they don't have first hand knowledge.

 

[dioxide45]

It is a provision of the Davis Stirling Act in California. It is a standard provision in many state statutes that govern common interest developments. The fact that Hindsite liked your post is a perfect example of how self-proclaimed TUG experts don't know some of the most basic facts that are essential to responsible ownership. MVW is well aware of the statutory requirement and has a standard absurd warning they send out with the list to any association member who requests it. They might make an owner ask for it more than once, and they might ignore the request in the hope that the owner is not aware of their basic statutory rights. MVW is not immune to preying on those who don't know their rights; indeed, it is their business model.

But there is a difference between obtaining a list (or roster) of owners and getting what you really want, their email addresses. In Florida, the HOA must provide the owner roster within 10 days to any owner who requests it. However, at a minimum you would only get their names, mailing address and telephone number.

 

[rcdcowner557]

But there is a difference between obtaining a list (or roster) of owners and getting what you really want, their email addresses. In Florida, the HOA must provide the owner roster within 10 days to any owner who requests it. However, at a minimum you would only get their names, mailing address and telephone number.

We got email addresses when we pressed. Just document it if it happens to you and use ordinary mail and the phone if you have to. Their withholding email addresses in this day and age would not be a good look for them if you were to end up in litigation against them. They have an army of lawyers that will try everything under the sun to intimidate owners. Some of the stuff they send out is hilarious, and calling them on it has just become sport.

 

[dioxide45]

We got their email addresses when we pressed. It is a bad look if they don't give you those along with the other information. Just document it if it happens to you. That would be a useful fact that would not look good for them if you were to end up in litigation against them. They have an army of lawyers that will try everything under the sun to intimidate owners. Some of the stuff they send out is hilarious, and calling them on it has just become sport.

I am just saying, it may not be something legally required of them to provide. It depends on the state. Have you looked at every state statute?

 

[rcdcowner557]

I am just saying, it may not be something legally required of them to provide. It depends on the state. Have you looked at every state statute?

Agree. I thought my agreement there was implicit in my reply to your post, but I recognize that I often do not lay out the entirety of my thinking. Please do not hesitate if any of my posts raises any questions. I have a tendency to go from point A to point D without explaining points B and C. And no, I most certainly have not looked at the statutes in every state. It is just standard in all the states where I own or have owned real estate.

 

[dioxide45]

Agree. I thought my agreement there was implicit in my reply to your post, but I recognize that I often do not lay out the entirety of my thinking. Please do not hesitate if any of my posts raises any questions. I have a tendency to go from point A to point D without explaining points B and C.

Looking further into Florida. They need only provide fax or email if the owner has provided that information to be used for official communication. So if an owner still opts to receive official communication (HOA notices and such) via email but perhaps they have provided the property manager with an email for informal communication like newsletters, then the email address need not be provided upon request. That information would technically be the property of the resort management company.