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

[SueDonJ]

There is a curious perception held by some that the management company, which is compensated for its services, bears no responsibility, while all accountability, according their comments, rests solely on the voluntary members of the BOD. I find this perspective perplexing, particularly when the BOD seems to have done a great job over the years and it seems the resort was kept at high standards even if the amounts requested by the management company were often reduced.

Which people in this thread have placed the blame for the apparent longtime adversarial relationship between this resort’s BOD and Manager Marriott solely and completely on the BOD? I’m just not seeing it.

Also, have you missed the fact that the “high standards” at the resort were kept up only by Manager Marriott exercising its rights to access the resort funds to pay the utility costs which the BOD didn’t approve in the budgets? One of the complaints lodged by the BOD is that Marriott had no right to do that unilaterally and it’s a reason for the current financial quagmire, while at the same time it’s the instance which Marriott has claimed proves that the BOD underfunded the resort/didn’t uphold the brand standard.

 

[timsi]

Which people in this thread have placed the blame for the apparent longtime adversarial relationship between this resort’s BOD and Manager Marriott solely and completely on the BOD? I’m just not seeing it.

Also, have you missed the fact that the “high standards” at the resort were kept up only by Manager Marriott exercising its rights to access the resort funds to pay the utility costs which the BOD didn’t approve in the budgets? One of the complaints lodged by the BOD is that Marriott had no right to do that unilaterally and it’s a reason for the current financial quagmire, while at the same time it’s the instance which Marriott has claimed proves that the BOD underfunded the resort/didn’t uphold the brand standard.

You and Leslie, if you want me to be specific—reread her comments. She places all the blame (and strangely, the liability) solely on the Board of Directors, while the management company seems to have none. She repeatedly uses the expression 'fiduciary duty,' but only in reference to the BOD. Your position is a bit more nuanced but not by a lot. Sorry, this is my opinion, if I am allowed to have one.

Regarding the standards of the resort, when I mentioned 'over the years,' I was pointing to the fact that, based on the BOD's letter, the manager's tactic of requesting more money than needed occurred multiple times in the past. It appears that the high standards were maintained even when the management company did not get what they wanted.

 

[VacationForever]

You and Leslie, if you want me to be specific—reread her comments. She places all the blame (and strangely, the liability) solely on the Board of Directors, while the management company seems to have none. She repeatedly uses the expression 'fiduciary duty,' but only in reference to the BOD. Your position is a bit more nuanced but not by a lot. Sorry, this is my opinion, if I am allowed to have one.

Regarding the standards of the resort, when I mentioned 'over the years,' I was pointing to the fact that, based on the BOD's letter, the manager's tactic of requesting more money than needed occurred multiple times in the past. It appears that the high standards were maintained even when the management company did not get what they wanted.

If you had read through what the overage was paid for, it was for necessity items. To lower the standard, it would mean turning off utilties at the resort. If I were an owner at Grand Residence, I would be suing the BOD if Marriott Manager terminates the agreement. A poster used the word "loony", which describes BOD action quite aptly. Worst still, the approved budget for 2024 is for 4% increase. That is beyond irresponsible.

 

[dougp26364]

No meeting minutes from October are yet published, but attached are the July meeting minutes (Finance Committee and full Board). From the Board minutes (Finco minutes contain the same info in a bit more detail):

2023 Financials
As of June 30, 2023, the Operating Fund had a deficit in the amount of($105,574)

Key drivers included:

• Deficit in Miscellaneous Revenue in the amount of ($19,471), due to sale of association owned inventory sold in December of 2022 and not in 2023. This revenue is not anticipated to be realized in 2023
• As of June, Water and Sewer reflect increased expenses in the amount of ($16,849), due to an increase in sewer rates
• A deficit in Rental Allocation in the amount of ($54,994), due to lower rental occupancy at the resort during the first two quarters of the year
• A variance in Gas expense in the amount of($58,150), due to rate increases that exceeded the budget expectations as risk was incorporated into the 2023 budget for the expense
• Overage in Insurance in the amount of ($30,256), due to policy premium increases exceeding the budget as risk was incorporated into the 2023 budget for this expense

As of June 30, 2023, the 2023 Operating Fund year-end forecast reflects a deficit of ($402,390) with overages expected in Utilities, Insurance, Rental Allocations and Misceilaneous; revenue as the year-to date trends are expected to continue in these categories. The cash flow for the

Operating Fund was reviewed and the projected cash shortfall in September of 2023 was addressed.

The Board of Directors will engage Association Counsel to review specific requirements to resolve the Operating Fund shortfall and understand if the Associations has the option to transfer funds from the Reserve account to the Operating account to meet the short-term Operating needs of the Association.

According to this, it appears the BOD/HOA knew they were going to come up short.

If that’s the case, and if Marriott had warned them their budget was going to be short, (a lot of if’s), then it’s understandable they’ve taken this stance.

 

[Superchief]

It appears to me that the MVC overspending goes beyond additional expenses for utility and insurance costs.

"In September of this year, we discovered in the minutia of the Association’s 2022 Tax Return prepared by the Management Company that indicated the Management Company had overspent the 2022 Budget by $238,000 without ever disclosing it to the Board and without ever obtaining the prior written consent of the Board, as required by law. The Management Company has ignored our request to reimburse these funds.

Consequently, the Board recently authorized the filing of a lawsuit against the Management Company in El Dorado County Superior Court (Case No. 23CV2018) seeking, among other relief, reimbursement of the $238,000 improperly taken by the Management Company. This lawsuit also seeks the Court’s intervention as to the 2023 Budget and even 2024 Budget that were approved by the Board. As you know from Mr. McCormack’s letter, the Management Company essentially has admitted that it has overspent (or is about to) the Board-approved 2023 Budget by approximately $550,000, which we believe violates the Association’s governing documents, the Management Agreement, and applicable law. What the Management Company characterizes as a “shortfall” would be more accurately described as unauthorized overspending by the Management Company in excess of the fully funded and Board-approved 2023 Budget."

MVC should have notified the board when there are significant expenses exceeding the budget and should explore options to reduce those expenses. I see similar things happening at our resorts and hope that someone should start challenging the drastically increasing expenses for owners. Although the BOD appears to be unrealistic with some of their demands, MVC also needs to be held accountable.

 

[travelhacker]

According to this, it appears the BOD/HOA knew they were going to come up short.

If that’s the case, and if Marriott had warned them their budget was going to be short, (a lot of if’s), then it’s understandable they’ve taken this stance.

Yes -- the more details we are finding the more ridiculous I think the BOD is being. We had a shortfall in 2022, a large shortfall in 2023, and we can't stop pretending to live in a magical land where the CPI in San Francisco is the end all, be all for how maintenance fees should be calculated in Lake Tahoe.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Regarding the standards of the resort, when I mentioned 'over the years,' I was pointing to the fact that, based on the BOD's letter, the manager's tactic of requesting more money than needed occurred multiple times in the past. It appears that the high standards were maintained even when the management company did not get what they wanted.

As I and others have mentioned, neither the GR Tahoe BOD nor Manager Marriott have provided any substantiation for the claims they're both alleging against each other, so it seems a folly to attribute any level of truth to either of them (unless, which is happening in this thread, the relevant docs and/or related laws can be referenced.) Plus when we consider that there's a long history of lawsuits being filed by this BOD against the resort Manager, I don't think there's anything in front of us that can prove anything about the possibility that the recent budget difficulties haven't been occurring for longer than either of their letters suggest.

An aside: it occurs to me that this resort's fractional ownerships have been highly touted by TUGgers as a good component of a bundle package including a direct-purchase of Abound Points and the enrollment of the fractional, with a heavy emphasis on the resulting Points-to-MF's metric being among the best in the Marriott portfolio. I wonder what happens to that advice considering that Marriott has written a letter to the ownership advising that the management agreement, and its attendant benefits/affiliations, are in jeopardy due to the BOD not being responsible with the budget.

 

[LeslieDet]

There is a curious perception held by some that the management company, which is compensated for its services, bears no responsibility, while all accountability, according their comments, rests solely on the voluntary members of the BOD. I find this perspective perplexing, particularly when the BOD seems to have done a great job over the years and it seems the resort was kept at high standards even if the amounts requested by the management company were often reduced.

It seems there are some who have a perception that no matter what happens, the management company is at fault. That is a dangerous view to hold, especially when looking at the facts that include significant increases in gas, sewer, and insurance, coupled with a sizable default percentage of existing owners failing to remit their 2023 MFs ( approx 29%) and a dramatic decline in anticipated rental revenue.

It is naive to believe that simply because the BOD may have done a "great job" over the years of keeping increases to a minimum, that the BOD has zero obligation to face the reality of 2023, including significantly higher operating costs for the basics required to keep the resort open: utilities and insurance. Facts matter. When the BOD was put on notice 6 months ago of the anticipated deficit, and the BOD is on notice of the MF receivable (ie delinquent owner payments), the BOD cannot simply bury their collective heads in the proverbial sand and say well this always use to work for us. That is simply not how facilities are operated.

The BOD is patently ignoring the facts. That is a breach of their fiduciary duties. Indeed, placing blame on the manager for the utility bills and insurance being more than anticipated is ridiculous. The BOD must be held accountable for its misdeeds in this stalemate. The only losers will be the owners who will suffer because the BOD is dealing in bad faith.

 

[travelhacker]

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.

Just re-reading through old posts.

I will say that the BOD in Aspen has done their best to stick it to Hyatt as much as possible. A few examples:

1) They instituted a 3 day minimum stay -- this has left A LOT of points stranded.
2) For exchanges (where the owner isn't using Hyatt portfolio points), they charge $40 a night in resort fees, and $40 per night in parking. GRC likely could institute something similar -- (and charge those fees to those where points were used that weren't trust points).
3) There was a special assessment to Portfolio owners that specifically called out an increase in expenses in the units at the former Hyatt in Aspen (among others).

As has been mentioned many times before, maintaining a healthy relationship is a win/win for all parties, and I feel that the termination of the management contract would hurt not just owners, but also cause some pain for Marriott as well.

 

[LeslieDet]

You and Leslie, if you want me to be specific—reread her comments. She places all the blame (and strangely, the liability) solely on the Board of Directors, while the management company seems to have none. She repeatedly uses the expression 'fiduciary duty,' but only in reference to the BOD.

I do understand that you are not a lawyer and are not familiar with how contracts work, I can see that based upon your comments. You are not understanding the context of my comments. I have addressed specific issues regarding the increased operating costs and insurance premiums, combined with the BOD's irrational acts to demand that the increase be limited to the SF CPI and to blame the management for paying the bills that exceeded the budget.

When I mention the fiduciary duty, that is an important obligation each member of the BOD owes to their fellow owners. They are charged with acting in the best interests of the association. When they do not, they breach their fiduciary duty. You must have glossed over the comment I made much earlier in discussing the management contract. California law requires that a party to a contract act in good faith. Failure to act in good faith can be actionable as a tort, not just breach of contract. I have never said that the management company does not have a fiduciary duty. Of course it does. And frankly, just from the mid-year meeting notes, it appears that the management company has been quite transparent and communicative with the BOD to advise them of critical issues impacting the association. From that letter response that the president of the BOD sent out, he's completely ignored the facts and then demands the management company pay the bills that exceeded the budget on its own, and not using association money.

You were aghast on the earlier topic of wage and hour litigation costs being allocated among properties in California. I answered that question for you, pointing you to the fact that the PAGA exists, and if management allocated the costs, it was done because the litigation was representative in nature. You also commented that the simple act of the management paying the bills of the property for the basics -- utilities and insurance -- was somehow wrong when those bills exceeded budget. That is not how it works in the real world.

So, why I continue to reference the fiduciary duties of the BOD, it is because the acts that they have taken as reported in this feed are not in good faith and IMHO are frankly irrational. They are going to harm their fellow owners by their malfeasance.

 

[bizaro86]

I answered that question for you, pointing you to the fact that the PAGA exists, and if management allocated the costs, it was done because the litigation was representative in nature.

Interesting that we automatically assume that because the management allocated the costs that the litigation must have been representative, even having none of the facts in the case.

You yourself have commented that MVC has great lawyers - presumably they wouldn't have backed off charging GRC this amount if it was truly a GRC expense. Otherwise they'd be violating their fiduciary duty to the other property/properties they made pay that bill.

If it was representative and they let GRC off the hook and billed the other HOAs that seems like a clear breach of their fiduciary duty to those HOAs.

If it wasn't representative then charging GRC was a mistake. Since they reversed course when called on it by the GRC board doesn't it seem more likely that they made an error initially than they decided to willfully violate their fiduciary duty to the other HOA(s)?

 

[LeslieDet]

Interesting that we automatically assume that because the management allocated the costs that the litigation must have been representative, even having none of the facts in the case.

You yourself have commented that MVC has great lawyers - presumably they wouldn't have backed off charging GRC this amount if it was truly a GRC expense. Otherwise they'd be violating their fiduciary duty to the other property/properties they made pay that bill.

If it was representative and they let GRC off the hook and billed the other HOAs that seems like a clear breach of their fiduciary duty to those HOAs.

If it wasn't representative then charging GRC was a mistake. Since they reversed course when called on it by the GRC board doesn't it seem more likely that they made an error initially than they decided to willfully violate their fiduciary duty to the other HOA(s)?

Perhaps you might want to go back and read what I actually commented. All I can do is shake my head at the conspiracy theorists like you. While I am not privy to that litigation, one thing I will guarantee without being part of MVW is that there is documentation to back up however the litigation costs were allocated. This is a publicly traded company with audited financials, all prepared according to GAAP.

 

[BigDawgTUG]

Having finished my popcorn, and grateful for the feedback received so far, and having now read the Board response for a third time, I'd want to know more detail about the following issues raised in the Board response.

First, the Board claims that the Management Company has overspent without Board authorization in 2022 and 2023, and that the Management Company intends to do so in 2024 based on the proposed budget that it submitted to the Board. What the Board fails to address in its letter, however, is which expense line items were subject to the overspending. If necessary expenses to "keep the doors open," or where a competitive bidding situation would not have resulted in a meaningful variance on those expenses, such as, for example, utility and insurance expenses, then I think the Board has little to defend itself against. However, if these expenses were arbitrary or capricious on the part of the Management Company, such as unauthorized salary increases, capital improvements, refurbishments or expenses the benefit of which inured solely to the benefit of the Management Company, then the Board may be correct in its accusation that the Management Company has not acted in good faith in connection with this overspending.

Second, the Board claims that the Management Company was recently forced to admit that it improperly conveyed title to at least six (and perhaps more than ten) fractional interests to Marriott affiliates instead of to the Association upon nonjudicial foreclosure for unpaid delinquent assessments, that the Association suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual damages as a result, and that the Management Company and its affiliates have been unjustly enriched by these improper conveyances in excess of three million dollars. If these allegations are true, in addition to the wrongful conduct on the part of the Management Company that needs to be addressed, could the income that would have resulted from the sale of these interests have made up for some, if not all, of the shortages. Unlike other timeshare interests, the GRC fractional interests do have meaningful market values.

Ultimately, reasonable people, each operating based on the same set of fact, should be able to resolve this dispute. I am saddened to see that this dispute has reached an impasse and saddened to see both sides have felt the need to result to litigation thereby diverting funds that could have otherwise been used to settle the impasse. I share the belief that a professional mediator might be useful to browbeat each party into taking a more reasoned approach to resolving the dispute short of litigation.

 

[igopogo]

a sizable default percentage of existing owners failing to remit their 2023 MFs ( approx 29%) and a dramatic decline in anticipated rental revenue.

I don’t think this number is a default. Our fees are due quarterly, unlike most resorts, though many pay annually in advance. At the time of this budget I believe two of the quarters are due, thus 50% not yet due, so the fact that 29% is still outstanding is not in itself a concern.

 

[davidvel]

As most threads here and on any other board, everyone is throwing out opinions without all the pertinent facts, and jumping to conclusions. We don't know the detailed history of who told who what and when about overages etc, which is highly dispositive here. The management contract makes it clear that the manager can spend for necessary items as defined therein, to "keep the lights on, and insurance in place." But if the manager knew there were higher costs than anticipated and didn't immediately notify the board to allow for adjustments, then that is on them.

My guess is both sides bear some responsibility for the current issue, as is usually the case in these types of disputes. We simply don't have the necessary information yet to make a reasoned determination of where and how much the fault lies. Ultimately, the parties and/or court will determine the outcome.

 

[dougp26364]

It appears to me that the MVC overspending goes beyond additional expenses for utility and insurance costs.

"In September of this year, we discovered in the minutia of the Association’s 2022 Tax Return prepared by the Management Company that indicated the Management Company had overspent the 2022 Budget by $238,000 without ever disclosing it to the Board and without ever obtaining the prior written consent of the Board, as required by law. The Management Company has ignored our request to reimburse these funds.

Consequently, the Board recently authorized the filing of a lawsuit against the Management Company in El Dorado County Superior Court (Case No. 23CV2018) seeking, among other relief, reimbursement of the $238,000 improperly taken by the Management Company. This lawsuit also seeks the Court’s intervention as to the 2023 Budget and even 2024 Budget that were approved by the Board. As you know from Mr. McCormack’s letter, the Management Company essentially has admitted that it has overspent (or is about to) the Board-approved 2023 Budget by approximately $550,000, which we believe violates the Association’s governing documents, the Management Agreement, and applicable law. What the Management Company characterizes as a “shortfall” would be more accurately described as unauthorized overspending by the Management Company in excess of the fully funded and Board-approved 2023 Budget."

MVC should have notified the board when there are significant expenses exceeding the budget and should explore options to reduce those expenses. I see similar things happening at our resorts and hope that someone should start challenging the drastically increasing expenses for owners. Although the BOD appears to be unrealistic with some of their demands, MVC also needs to be held accountable.

I guess it depends greatly on where the overspending occurred. If the BOD budget was to lite to pay the utilities to keep the lights on, should the management company just refuse to pay the utility bills until the BOD provides the funds? Remember, the BOD appears to acknowledge under budgeting for necessary items important to keep the resort operating.

 

[bizaro86]

Perhaps you might want to go back and read what I actually commented. All I can do is shake my head at the conspiracy theorists like you. While I am not privy to that litigation, one thing I will guarantee without being part of MVW is that there is documentation to back up however the litigation costs were allocated. This is a publicly traded company with audited financials, all prepared according to GAAP.

Your position (based solely on your impression of their reputation) is that MVW allocated the costs of that lawsuit correctly.

If that's the case, why did they later choose to reimburse GRC?

The Management Company ultimately agreed to reimburse the Association

Seems like either they were initially wrong to charge this HOA or later they were wrong to refund this HOA.

 

[LeslieDet]

Your position (based solely on your impression of their reputation) is that MVW allocated the costs of that lawsuit correctly.

If that's the case, why did they later choose to reimburse GRC?



Seems like either they were initially wrong to charge this HOA or later they were wrong to refund this HOA.

There are no facts to support what you are saying. Neither you nor I are privy to any settlement agreement reached regarding the allocation. You are basing your view on hearsay. Unless and until the facts are available, it is merely speculation on your part that there was a reimbursement.

As I said initially, and as I will continue to say, I was not privy to the wage and hour litigation. I am aware of how that type of litigation works in California. If the company allocated the litigation expenses among the various California locations as was claimed, then it supports my assumption that it was indeed representative litigation which by law will impact any and all employees similarly situated. I do not understand why you have such a difficult time grasping that an allocation would be done as a matter of business based upon the data maintained by the business. There would be facts and data to back up any such allocation. My assumption is reasonable. Were there adjustments to the allocations? I don't know. Neither do you.

It is reasonable to assume that with a publicly traded company whose financials are prepared per GAAP, and with audited financials prepared for all associations as well as corporate, that any such litigation based allocation would be known by the auditors and reviewed in normal business operations. Moreover, you are also ignoring the fact that counsel would have been involved. All lawyers who work for the company as outside litigation counsel would have been contacted by the auditors and provided information to the auditors regarding matters of consequence. There would not be some wild conspiracy among and between the company, auditors and the lawyers to intentionally shift the financial burden to random associations. Believe it or not, lawyers typically value their license, and aren't going to jeopardize their ability to practice law. So, guess you can say that my position is not based solely on my impression of the company's reputation. It is based upon 35 years of law practice and an understanding of how the business world operates.

 

[ocdb8r]

As most threads here and on any other board, everyone is throwing out opinions without all the pertinent facts, and jumping to conclusions. We don't know the detailed history of who told who what and when about overages etc, which is highly dispositive here. The management contract makes it clear that the manager can spend for necessary items as defined therein, to "keep the lights on, and insurance in place." But if the manager knew there were higher costs than anticipated and didn't immediately notify the board to allow for adjustments, then that is on them.

My guess is both sides bear some responsibility for the current issue, as is usually the case in these types of disputes. We simply don't have the necessary information yet to make a reasoned determination of where and how much the fault lies. Ultimately, the parties and/or court will determine the outcome.

Except that at least as regards 2023, we DO know at minimum the Board knew in July 2023 that necessary items such as insurance and utilities had resulted in a budget deficit of over 100k at that time AND was projected to result in a deficit of 400k by year-end.

Agreed, there are a lot of other facts missing to draw complete conclusions as to a lot of the discussions in this thread, but that doesn't mean discussion is unhealthy. I am sure there are problems on both sides of the coin as regards the relationship between the HOA/BOD and MVCI, but they both have decided to make it public and as such I think a debate here on TUG is a healthy way of people considering the various factors that are important here.

I've looked at a few more of the minutes from the past few years...there unfortunately doesn't appear to be much detail included on any areas of disagreement. Not helpful is that neither the October 2022 nor October 2023 minutes are posted, and I would expect these final meeting of the year minutes to contain some of the best detail on the topics discussed in this thread. However, for all other meetings I can see, aside from a lack of disagreement, I can't see anything particularly "brand standards" focused being heavily spent on. Most of the big expenditures appear to be normal required maintenance (roof repairs, painting...etc). I'm just striking out as to where the (avoidable) overspend is being observed.

 

[WBP]

Regarding MVC and their attorneys, I suspect that a search of litigation against MVC may demonstrate a number of alarming failures by MVC. The first, very costly failure of MVC's that comes to mind, involved the (whole ownership) residence owners at The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences, San Francisco over the Mello-Roos Tax, in San Francisco.

[Marriott] loses lawsuit against owners of RC San Francisco

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, 11 residential unit owners at The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences, San Francisco, questioned the adequacy of disclosures made prior to 2008, when the Company’s business was part of Marriott International, Inc., regarding bonds issued for that project under...

tugbbs.com

Then, there was the case of The Ritz-Carlton Club, Aspen Highlands. I don't remember the final outcome:

Court rules that Ritz-Carlton Aspen Highlands owners can seek punitive damages

A magistrate judge is allowing owners at the Ritz-Carlton Aspen Highlands to seek punitive damages in addition to monetary awards for claims that their fractional ownerships tanked in value

www.aspentimes.com

Business Monday: Aspen Highlands Ritz-Carlton owners’s suit clears legal hurdle

More than 240 owners of timeshares at the Ritz-Carlton Club at Aspen Highlands scored a recent legal victory in their litigation claiming their properties’ values dropped by more than

www.aspentimes.com

And then, this case went for MVC's heart, over human resources issues (MVC lost this lawsuit, as well):

Roger-Vasselin v. Marriott International, Inc., No. C04-4027 THE | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Roger-Vasselin v. Marriott International, Inc., No. C04-4027 THE, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[Dean]

This doesn't seem to have a good end. Either a Special Assessment and a fee increase if this is worked out or a smaller SA & possibly more modest fee increase if the 2 entities separate. I have mentioned the possibility of members here buying a fractional there and enrolling a number of times if looking at a lot of points and there are friends here who own there with enrolled ownerships. I feel for those owners no matter the outcome. Hopefully it's still a good deal comparatively speaking if the resorts continue with MVC. If they separate, that's a problem for many of the owners there. I'm reminded of when MVC dumped the resorts previously and how some were blindsided having bought for the internal trading preference. I personally considered buying Spicebush or Swallowtail for that reason but ended up buying Harbour Pointe instead.

 

[dougp26364]

This doesn't seem to have a good end. Either a Special Assessment and a fee increase if this is worked out or a smaller SA & possibly more modest fee increase if the 2 entities separate. I have mentioned the possibility of members here buying a fractional there and enrolling a number of times if looking at a lot of points and there are friends here who own there with enrolled ownerships. I feel for those owners no matter the outcome. Hopefully it's still a good deal comparatively speaking if the resorts continue with MVC. If they separate, that's a problem for many of the owners there. I'm reminded of when MVC dumped the resorts previously and how some were blindsided having bought for the internal trading preference. I personally considered buying Spicebush or Swallowtail for that reason but ended up buying Harbour Pointe instead.

After 25 years of owning timeshare, I still say the best advice is only buy what you can use if all else fails. Every deed I have, I can use regardless of who manages the property.

We looked at GR when it was very early in sales. We didn’t buy for 2 major reasons, The buy in and continuing cost of a quarter share and the inability to use those 13 weeks should all else fail. Yes there was the rental option, but being able to rent plus variable rental value is variable. For instance something like a Pandemic could create a perfect storm that would have created great financial strain. If we’d have been closer to retirement, I might have pulled the trigger. It would have been a great location to spend 3 months out of the year.

But that leads me back to the best practice of buy what you can use. Nothing else is guaranteed. The thought had crossed my mind that, with the Abound program, we’d be able to effectively use that ownership until we hit retirement. I just never really looked hard into it and now I’m glad I followed my own advice of buy what you can use.

 

[Dean]

After 25 years of owning timeshare, I still say the best advice is only buy what you can use if all else fails. Every deed I have, I can use regardless of who manages the property.

We looked at GR when it was very early in sales. We didn’t buy for 2 major reasons, The buy in and continuing cost of a quarter share and the inability to use those 13 weeks should all else fail. Yes there was the rental option, but being able to rent plus variable rental value is variable. For instance something like a Pandemic could create a perfect storm that would have created great financial strain. If we’d have been closer to retirement, I might have pulled the trigger. It would have been a great location to spend 3 months out of the year.

But that leads me back to the best practice of buy what you can use. Nothing else is guaranteed. The thought had crossed my mind that, with the Abound program, we’d be able to effectively use that ownership until we hit retirement. I just never really looked hard into it and now I’m glad I followed my own advice of buy what you can use.

I would agree up to a point. IMO one should look at the up front costs, yearly costs and how one plans to use it. For those just starting out I do tend to suggest they consider something they'll use to get started even if it's not their main focus. For me, I have taken an in between approach as I wouldn't have the opportunity to ONLY buy what I'll use because I want to try different places. I own weeks to use, weeks to exchange and weeks for points. Some of those weeks fit into one of two buckets on different years. A few are for personal use some years and points others. A couple are for exchange at times and points at others. I'd say at this time what I own that I use personally is about 60 to 65% of my travel, exchange about 15% and the rest for points. This is based on total units, not weeks of travel. Even then most of the points stays are for additional weeks for our family trip where a full half my owned weeks are that we use for our family trip. Once I'm retired I'll do more exchanging. Were I only to own what I'd use, my costs and fees would be infinitely more for the same travel options. Or were I to only own what I'd use and do privately rentals of the same or similar options, my costs would also be considerably more but I would have more choices and less limitations.

I do think it risky to go to either extreme for most people unless they have a clear understanding of their long term usage which most don't have going in. For example, someone who wants to go to HI or Aruba every 3 years and buys there to use then exchange the rest of the time is going to lose the game financially IMO. On the other extreme, someone who focuses too much on up front cost and takes too many chances on exchange options is likely going to be frustrated and disappointed frequently. An example there might be buying a Gold week at one of the exchange resorts and trying for higher end options like HI, Aruba or HHI during the higher demand times. Even a Platinum week and good exchange practices can be risky in this situation depending on expectations and flexibility. While each situation is different I do find that more often than not, a new buyer to MVC goes to one extreme or the other unreasonably. That's why I tend to suggest renting privately AND spending like 6 months investigating the options.

 

[TimGolobic]

I don’t think this number is a default. Our fees are due quarterly, unlike most resorts, though many pay annually in advance. At the time of this budget I believe two of the quarters are due, thus 50% not yet due, so the fact that 29% is still outstanding is not in itself a concern.

This is true. GRC actually has the lowest unpaid fees of any MVC location by the end of the year when the final payment is due. Management always points this out in each annual meeting. The 29% was the unpaid amount for the entire year, but reported at the mid-point of the year. Like saying right now the property has a 99% unpaid MF for 2024. That 29% isn't past due, just still unpaid.

 

[bizaro86]

There are no facts to support what you are saying. Neither you nor I are privy to any settlement agreement reached regarding the allocation. You are basing your view on hearsay. Unless and until the facts are available, it is merely speculation on your part that there was a reimbursement.

As I said initially, and as I will continue to say, I was not privy to the wage and hour litigation. I am aware of how that type of litigation works in California. If the company allocated the litigation expenses among the various California locations as was claimed, then it supports my assumption that it was indeed representative litigation which by law will impact any and all employees similarly situated. I do not understand why you have such a difficult time grasping that an allocation would be done as a matter of business based upon the data maintained by the business. There would be facts and data to back up any such allocation. My assumption is reasonable. Were there adjustments to the allocations? I don't know. Neither do you.

It is reasonable to assume that with a publicly traded company whose financials are prepared per GAAP, and with audited financials prepared for all associations as well as corporate, that any such litigation based allocation would be known by the auditors and reviewed in normal business operations. Moreover, you are also ignoring the fact that counsel would have been involved. All lawyers who work for the company as outside litigation counsel would have been contacted by the auditors and provided information to the auditors regarding matters of consequence. There would not be some wild conspiracy among and between the company, auditors and the lawyers to intentionally shift the financial burden to random associations. Believe it or not, lawyers typically value their license, and aren't going to jeopardize their ability to practice law. So, guess you can say that my position is not based solely on my impression of the company's reputation. It is based upon 35 years of law practice and an understanding of how the business world operates.

You keep writing multiple paragraphs about this, but you never address the logical issue I presented.

If they were so very absolutely correct to charge this HOA, why did they refund them when challenged?