Urgent help needed - Marriott resale week through presentation [OceanWatch Ultimate Occupancy]

[SueDonJ]

In the OP's original post which contained the attachment from Marriott (now removed by Moderator) that specified some personal information,
it plainly stated on that attachment that the purchased unit's view category was "OceanView", which according to the resort's NAMES of the unit types
(Oceanfront, Oceanside, Oceanview, Garden)
means it's the top floors (floor 8 & above in one back building, and floor 9 & above in the second back building).
That's where they're located if "OceanView" is the view type category purchased.
That's why I said I believe the purchase was for a "back building unit" in the higher floors which are universally known as the OceanView units.
I find it very difficult to believe an owner has the annual option to book either an OceanView villa OR an OceanFront villa by virtue of owning an "Ultimate Occupancy" week.
If that's true, would EVERY owner of an OceanView week not request to book Oceanfront???????

Yep, Marty, the deed references both, but the meaning is clear. Here's how the provision in my SurfWatch Oceanside Week reads:

"... Unit 5448 ... subject to a specific limit of occupancy set forth as follows ... although Grantee has been granted and undivided fractional interest in a Gardenview Unit(s) in Building 5400 (aka Building E) of the Regime, it is intended that when Building 5400 containing the Gardenview Unit Type is available for occupancy Grantee's occupancy rights will always be restricted to the Oceanside Unit Type in either Building 5100 (a/k/a Building A) or Building 5500 (a/k/a Building D) of the Regime. Accordingly, Grantee's occupancy rights shall be limited to said Oceanside Unit Type."

It's been a while and I had the building schedule at SurfWatch backwards (i.e. Gardenview was last-built, not first.) My Week must be an offset of an Ultimate Occupancy Gardenview that was sold as a certified-for-occupancy Oceanside, but the basic premise of all Ultimate Occupancy-affected Weeks is the same - i.e. the Week number referenced in the deed does NOT refer to the actual unit view/type purchased, and when occupancy is certified for the actual purchase then occupancy will ALWAYS be restricted to the purchased unit/view type.

An "annual option to book either" was NEVER attached to ANY Ultimate Occupancy-affected Weeks! The qualifier was the date that occupancy was officially certified for the unit view/type purchased - prior to, you were placed in a unit view/type that you didn't purchase and after, into what you did purchase. (Or, if you purchased within a certain time period of the expected occupancy certification your first year's usage was automatically the Bonvoy Points exchange.)

Also, note again, UO information is IN THE DEEDS SPECIFICALLY, and it's referenced in multiple sections in the governing docs. As with all transfers/resales, every provision except those specifically noted (such as the Bonvoy exchange benefit) which UO is not specifically noted, is attached to each succeeding transfer.

I took time out at work today to do this:
I called Marriott Owner Services, and also called Oceanwatch Resort Sales Dept, and neither rep had a clue about what I was talking about.
My question, "Are you familiar with the term 'Ultimate Occupancy' and what it means as it relates to purchasing ownership of
Oceanview and Oceanfront deeded weeks at Marriott's Oceanwatch Resort?"
The answer that came back was "What is that? No, I don't know what that is. You need to call (the OTHER department)."
And yes, the "other department" was Owner Services if I was speaking to the Sales Dept guy, or the Sales Dept if I was speaking to the Owner Services guy.
What? Going in circles.

It's been years since Ultimate Occupancy provisions affected actual placement at both SurfWatch and OceanWatch. I wouldn't expect Sales reps or just anyone at Owner Services to be aware of UO or even to know where to direct such calls! That's why in any of the threads that reference UO, I always suggest that you specifically request to be transferred to the Owner Modifications office, and when you get through to them you ask to speak with someone who recognizes the term "Ultimate Occupany," you reference the specific deed number and you word your questions specifically. With my Oceanside deed referenced above, I would ask:

"I understand UO is at play with this interval. Can you please confirm, as it's stated in the deed, that although the Unit Number "5448" referenced in the deed is physically located in a building designated "Gardenview," my placement will always be in a building designated "Oceanside."

And for people who don't own but are considering a resale purchase:

"An owner is telling me that UO is at play with a Week I'm considering purchasing. The deed number is "AB*1234*56" and it contains Unit Number "7890." Can you please confirm what the owner is claiming, that this particular deed doesn't represent the unit view/type of the specified unit number because of the Ultimate Occupancy provision, and confirm the unit view/type attached to this specific deed?"

There are very few of us on TUG who actually own SurfWatch or OceanWatch Weeks with deeds that are affected by Ultimate Occupancy provisions. It's proven to be such a nothing burger that I think there are probably owners who don't even realize that UO is a factor in their deeds! There is absolutely ZERO difference in the longterm performance of intervals sold subject to UO provisions and intervals sold without.

 

[dioxide45]

I think the only time UO would revert to the actual deeded unit would be if the timeshare plan ended and the unit ownership reverted to tenant in common. But since it is written into the deeds, it is hard to say. I probably won't be around to find out.

 

[SueDonJ]

I think the only time UO would revert to the actual deeded unit would be if the timeshare plan ended and the unit ownership reverted to tenant in common. But since it is written into the deeds, it is hard to say. I probably won't be around to find out.

If it would make a difference for compensation at the end of the resort's life then I'd argue that I paid Marriott the price at the time for an Oceanside ownership that consisted of a premium over and above the price of a Gardenview ownership, so I would expect that to be a consideration. (And the same for the even-higher premium I paid for the Oceanvista ownership that has an UO Gardenview provision!) The eventuality might already be referenced in the Master Deed or any of the other governing docs and maybe someday I'll look for it, if/when I sell it on the external resale market, but I don't expect that to happen and like you I also don't expect to be around if/when the resort dissolves.

 

[SueDonJ]

I ran into the same response during an attempt to buy a unit a couple years back. I was trying to buy an oceanside unit but couldn't figure out why the unit number was not in one of the two oceanside buildings. The real estate agent (Sam) representing the seller seemed to have all this figured out and explained why my apprehensions were unfounded - this was supposedly a special deal during the building of the various buildings. Owner Services personnel at the time were unable to explain this supposed special right of exchange. So, I walked from the transaction and pursued another.

I'm not saying a booking reservation right isn't attached to these units. However, there should be something in writing from Marriott and owner services should know of this right. Who wants to deal with this uncertainty years after the initial purchase of the units?

There is something in writing - multiple references in fact in the specific deeds as well as in the governing docs that consist of hundreds of pages. And Owner Services is aware of the UO provision although I wouldn't expect base employees to be aware of every minute detail, which is why I specifically suggest contacting the Owner Modifications unit and referencing the specific deed at issue.

FYI, I just confirmed via Chat on the website -
- the email address for Owner Modifications is owner.modifications@vacationclub.com
- to reach them by telephone call the usual Owner Services number and ask to be transferred to Owner Modifications
- for snail mail you can send it to the usual Owner Services address (Marriott Vacations Worldwide Owner Services; 310 Bearcat Drive; Salt Lake City, UT 84115-2544) but include "Attn: Owner Modifications."

The rep made a point of saying that your initial inquiry is best if tel/email and if they require anything further, they'll likely give you direct email/address/tel contact info so that your inquiry will be handled by a specific person. As with anything else Marriott-related, if I didn't get satisfaction from the direct inquiry I'd be inclined to escalate to the executive offices in Orlando.

{ETA} I really want to be clear about this - Ultimate Occupancy was never a "special deal" in direct-purchase Weeks, and it's not at all a "special right of exchange." UO is at its most basic an accounting/inventory issue that allowed MVC to sell at two distinct properties - SurfWatch and OceanWatch in South Carolina - intervals in buildings which were slated for or in the process of construction prior to the occupancy permits for those buildings being issued by the state agencies. Nothing more and nothing less. By making more of it than is warranted, especially by ignoring or misrepresenting the information specifically contained in the actual deeds, you are diminishing the ownerships of the thousands of people who own and have actual user experience of any affected deeds. To be precise, MVC sales reps at the introduction and during the years that these affected units were being sold directly were upfront and knowledgeable about why the provision existed and how it would affect ownership during the earliest year or two of ownership only with regard to unit placement, and the governing/ownership documents contain the related information that's necessary to the owner. During that time there were no price differences between like unit view/types based on whether or not an UO provision was attached to a certain interval, and IMO misrepresenting any aspect of Ultimate Occupancy is akin to saying that there should be a premium paid for an unaffected interval at resale. I completely disagree with that, and I base my objection on the fact that my ownership has proven to be no less than that of any deeds that don't contain UO provisions. If someone is unable or unwilling to accept actual experience with UO ownerships as a qualifier for accuracy that's on them, but given the opportunity here on TUG I won't let it go unchallenged that UO-affected deeds are lesser for any reason.

 

[DRH90277]

There is something in writing - multiple references in fact in the specific deeds as well as in the governing docs that consist of hundreds of pages. And Owner Services is aware of the UO provision although I wouldn't expect base employees to be aware of every minute detail, which is why I specifically suggest contacting the Owner Modifications unit and referencing the specific deed at issue.

FYI, I just confirmed via Chat on the website -
- the email address for Owner Modifications is owner.modifications@vacationclub.com
- to reach them by telephone call the usual Owner Services number and ask to be transferred to Owner Modifications
- for snail mail you can send it to the usual Owner Services address (Marriott Vacations Worldwide Owner Services; 310 Bearcat Drive; Salt Lake City, UT 84115-2544) but include "Attn: Owner Modifications."

The rep made a point of saying that your initial inquiry is best if tel/email and if they require anything further, they'll likely give you direct email/address/tel contact info so that your inquiry will be handled by a specific person. As with anything else Marriott-related, if I didn't get satisfaction from the direct inquiry I'd be inclined to escalate to the executive offices in Orlando.

I'm not refuting anything you have said or heard or even your first hand experience in making reservations. My only point is why would I make a purchase of any timeshare with this legend when I can buy one without it. Your outlook is fine for you and many others. I passed on one of these once as I don't need the hassle now, if the kids inherit it, or if it is sold someday.

 

[SueDonJ]

I'm not refuting anything you have said or heard or even your first hand experience in making reservations. My only point is why would I make a purchase of any timeshare with this legend when I can buy one without it. Your outlook is fine for you and many others. I passed on one of these once as I don't need the hassle now, if the kids inherit it, or if it is sold someday.

I just finished adding an {ETA} to the quoted post while you were posting this so you might want to go back and read that. You'll see that I obviously disagree with your implication that UO lessens the value of any affected deeds. In my view you're making something out of nothing - which would be absolutely fine if you were the only one affected by that, but you're not. Any readers of this thread could come away with the idea that UO is a problem waiting to happen, and the experience of thousands of owners just like me as well as the many SW and OW resales since the resorts' introductions disprove that idea completely.

I will concede that UO provisions are something that should be discussed at the time of a resale, but there again if there are problems they are generally the fault of owners/sellers who don't know what they're selling. I'd chalk that up to ignorance, and in the timeshare resale market there are far more issues than just the possibility of an UO provision that factor ignorance into many resales.

 

[DRH90277]

I just finished adding an {ETA} to the quoted post while you were posting this so you might want to go back and read that. You'll see that I obviously disagree with your implication that UO lessens the value of any affected deeds. In my view you're making something out of nothing - which would be absolutely fine if you were the only one affected by that, but you're not. Any readers of this thread could come away with the idea that UO is a problem waiting to happen, and the experience of thousands of owners just like me as well as the many SW and OW resales since the resorts' introductions disprove that idea completely.

Please let this go. The fact that I passed on one of these is my privilege and the best decision for me. I do not buy something that "I view" as compromised in use. Do and say what you want, it's ok.

 

[5finny]

I know nothing about the underlying issue
My own rule is that if I am uneasy with any aspect of a timeshare purchase I cancel if I can ( timeshare sales simply have a long history of fraud and misrepresentation connected with them )
Undoubtedly this has caused me to loose some good deals
It has however allowed me to sleep better at night

 

[SueDonJ]

Please let this go. The fact that I passed on one of these is my privilege and the best decision for me. I do not buy something that "I view" as compromised in use. Do and say what you want, it's ok.

Like I said, if this were only about you then I wouldn't be challenging your view. My objection - to the view that an Ultimate Occupancy deed is in any way "compromised" - is for any other readers who come here looking for actual experience and the truth conveyed by it.

 

[bnoble]

I don’t think anyone is saying it is compromised. But it is complicated. That fact impacts its value with at least some prospective purchasers.

 

[SueDonJ]

I don’t think anyone is saying it is compromised. But it is complicated. That fact impacts its value with at least some prospective purchasers.

Can't help but smile - the post I was responding to literally said, "compromised in use."

I think what's complicated is that I'm using all of the words in the documents to try to make the simple point, that Ultimate Occupancy was a tool used by Marriott to pre-sell units during the ongoing construction phrases prior to completion and occupancy permits for those specific units being issued by the state. Nothing more, nothing less. The deeds and the governing docs make the issue clear.

My objection is so strong because I don't understand AT ALL how this impacts the value, not if a buyer has it explained to him/her and doesn't turn it into a phantom negative that hasn't ever come to fruition! It would be like me saying to someone whose deed specifies a third-floor unit that it's worth less than a deed specifying a fifth-floor unit, despite the fact that they're the same unit view/type in a floating system and during stays they could both actually be placed into any unit on any floor from one to fifteen! It just makes no sense to me. Wouldn't anyone object strenuously if their ownerships were being inexplicably devalued here even more than the already-devalued timeshare resale market that already exists?!

 

[bnoble]

Let me put it even more simply: You don't get to tell someone else whether they will/will not consider UO in how they value a purchase here. You can tell them whether you think they shoiuld, but that's not the same.

 

[SueDonJ]

Let me put it even more simply: You don't get to tell someone else whether they will/will not consider UO in how they value a purchase here. You can tell them whether you think they shoiuld, but that's not the same.

Oh geez, let me be properly chastised then.

The OP in this thread asked very simply, "We bought a resale week at Marriott directly through their sales presentation as part of hybrid bundle of points plus week. We are told guaranteed ocean front but when contract papers came they read ocean view but ocean front as ultimate occupancy when available. Is that normal?" After the first couple responses s/he then added, "So a manager called who said been doing deeds for years. He is saying ours will be guaranteed oceanfront . Just says when available that’s because that’s how it’s worded. Our ultimate occupancy is ocean front but the deed is ocean view. Looks like. Did you check the screen shot I sent ? Please kindly do. Does yours said the same?"

As near as I can figure I'm the only responder in the thread who actually owns a deed with the same provision that spurred the OP's questions, and I didn't get to the thread until it was already implanted in the OP's mind that the "when available" phraseology in the provision was suspect (Post #2) and that Marriott was selling them something other than what they wanted (Post #4.) Neither of those things are true in the context of Ultimate Occupancy, and the same applies for the rest of the klaxons that people started setting off for no reason.

This OP is guaranteed OCEANFRONT placement for the duration of his/her ownership despite the unit number specified in his/her deed not being a designated oceanfront unit; that's indisputable and stated clearly in the deed and supported by the underlying governing docs. The Ultimate Occupancy provision supporting the unit placement will carry through to any succeeding owners; that's indisputable and supported by the governing docs. There, both of the OP's questions answered. But no, typically the thread veered off into phantom warnings that do nothing but muddy the waters and contribute to an already-diminished external resale market, to the point where it's apparently reasonable that every deed that contains a UO provision is worth less than like unit/view type intervals.

About the only thing I do agree with in the responses were the immediate - and again, typical - calls for rescission. It's a perfectly reasonable and timely suggestion for anyone who doesn't understand what they've purchased. But it only makes sense in this thread because the OP has questions and is facing a time constraint - it makes no sense at all just because someone other than the OP can't be bothered recognizing that their misunderstanding of UO is wrong.

 

[Dean]

If this were a resale deed I might take the additional risks involved, but not for retail. While it might work out every time, the subject to availability as represented by "ultimate occupancy when available" is a concern. That's contractual and clearly delineates there is risk here. The other issue which might have been addressed, but if it was I missed it in reviewing, is what are the associated points and what is the price category assigned to the unit. If it's priced OV and points are OV but one may get OF, then it might be reasonable to proceed. If it's price OF, IMO, it's not even if the points are OF level. The other issue is what is the amount of options involved, if it's more than 3000, I'd say it's a no go. Even at 3000, that might be too much. I'd rather have a week with a bundle than the points anyway.

 

[SueDonJ]

If this were a resale deed I might take the additional risks involved, but not for retail. While it might work out every time, the subject to availability as represented by "ultimate occupancy when available" is a concern. That's contractual and clearly delineates there is risk here. The other issue which might have been addressed, but if it was I missed it in reviewing, is what are the associated points and what is the price category assigned to the unit. If it's priced OV and points are OV but one may get OF, then it might be reasonable to proceed. If it's price OF, IMO, it's not even if the points are OF level. The other issue is what is the amount of options involved, if it's more than 3000, I'd say it's a no go. Even at 3000, that might be too much. I'd rather have a week with a bundle than the points anyway.

Mine were bought retail during the construction phases. One is an Oceanside 3BR Week that's designated "oceanside/gardenview" in my account to denote that it's an UO-affected interval; it cost the same at the time of direct purchase as every other Oceanside 3BR Week; it's allotted the same Club Points as every other Oceanside 3BR enrolled Week; after the first year of ownership (which was automatically "in lieu of" the same amount of Bonvoy Points as every other eligible Oceanside 3BR Week) my unit placement has always been and will always be in an Oceanside 3BR unit; and when it's resold it will be the same as every other Oceanside 3BR Week. My other is an Oceanvista 3BR Week and the same is true - in my account it's designated "oceanvista/gardenview" to denote it as an UO-affected interval but in all respects it is exactly the same as every other Oceanvista 3BR Week.

The phraseology of "when available" in the construct of Ultimate Occupancy is/was applicable only during the initial first couple of years after resort introduction when the certain unit view/type actually being purchased was not available in any building onsite. It effectively meant that when the slated building or buildings with the unit view/type became available by virtue of occupancy certification by the state, from that point on my placement would be in that unit view/type. It is not at all the same "subject to availability" typical constraint of a floating timeshare system with reservations based on demand. SurfWatch has those constraints, the same as any other Marriott resort with a floating calendar, but the specific wording in the Ultimate Occupancy provision referred only to the phased permitted occupancy of the resort's buildings at the resort's introduction.

I don't know how to make it any clearer that there aren't risks involved in purchasing intervals supported by deeds that contain Ultimate Occupancy provisions! But if I were made apprehensive by it (which I'm not because I know what to look for and what it all means) it would be with external resales, not direct sales or resales, because of owners who may not know what they're selling and/or buyers who see risk when there is, simply, none. Know what you're buying - it's as simple a timeshare mantra as can be, and Ultimate Occupancy doesn't present any more of a risk than any other timeshare thing that needs to be understood. And to me it makes no sense to not challenge someone who wants to ascribe a risk that just doesn't exist. As I said, I have no doubt that there are SurfWatch and OceanWatch owners out there whose deeds contain UO provisions and those owners have no clue because it has never presented an issue.

 

[dioxide45]

What about the owners that have Gardenview/Oceanfront, would one be more comfortable buying that over an Oceanfront/Gardenview? The former is actually gardenview where the latter is Oceanfront. Both have UC provisions.

 

[Dean]

Mine were bought retail during the construction phases. One is an Oceanside 3BR Week that's designated "oceanside/gardenview" in my account to denote that it's an UO-affected interval; it cost the same at the time of direct purchase as every other Oceanside 3BR Week; it's allotted the same Club Points as every other Oceanside 3BR enrolled Week; after the first year of ownership (which was automatically "in lieu of" the same amount of Bonvoy Points as every other eligible Oceanside 3BR Week) my unit placement has always been and will always be in an Oceanside 3BR unit; and when it's resold it will be the same as every other Oceanside 3BR Week. My other is an Oceanvista 3BR Week and the same is true - in my account it's designated "oceanvista/gardenview" to denote it as an UO-affected interval but in all respects it is exactly the same as every other Oceanvista 3BR Week.

The phraseology of "when available" in the construct of Ultimate Occupancy is/was applicable only during the initial first couple of years after resort introduction when the certain unit view/type actually being purchased was not available in any building onsite. It effectively meant that when the slated building or buildings with the unit view/type became available by virtue of occupancy certification by the state, from that point on my placement would be in that unit view/type. It is not at all the same "subject to availability" typical constraint of a floating timeshare system with reservations based on demand. SurfWatch has those constraints, the same as any other Marriott resort with a floating calendar, but the specific wording in the Ultimate Occupancy provision referred only to the phased permitted occupancy of the resort's buildings at the resort's introduction.

I don't know how to make it any clearer that there aren't risks involved in purchasing intervals supported by deeds that contain Ultimate Occupancy provisions! But if I were made apprehensive by it (which I'm not because I know what to look for and what it all means) it would be with external resales, not direct sales or resales, because of owners who may not know what they're selling and/or buyers who see risk when there is, simply, none. Know what you're buying - it's as simple a timeshare mantra as can be, and Ultimate Occupancy doesn't present any more of a risk than any other timeshare thing that needs to be understood. And to me it makes no sense to not challenge someone who wants to ascribe a risk that just doesn't exist. As I said, I have no doubt that there are SurfWatch and OceanWatch owners out there whose deeds contain UO provisions and those owners have no clue because it has never presented an issue.

I'm sorry but when it say on the contract, "when available", there is risk involved if one defines the risk of having issues getting what you need or expect. The risk may be small but all it takes is one rep who doesn't know and you don't get the preferred reservation that year. It might work out 99 times out of 100. If one is paying for OV and getting OF, that might be OK considering it's over priced anyway as a retail purchase and that the points are over priced with higher yearly fees than the week. Even if one gets an official letter from MVC to the contrary, there is still a certain element of risk. No amount of "I've never had a problem" or "it was sold that way", changes that. Looking at the whole picture that small risk may be worth it, or it may not.

 

[SueDonJ]

I'm sorry but when it say on the contract, "when available", there is risk involved if one defines the risk of having issues getting what you need or expect. The risk may be small but all it takes is one rep who doesn't know and you don't get the preferred reservation that year. It might work out 99 times out of 100. If one is paying for OV and getting OF, that might be OK considering it's over priced anyway as a retail purchase and that the points are over priced with higher yearly fees than the week. Even if one gets an official letter from MVC to the contrary, there is still a certain element of risk. No amount of "I've never had a problem" or "it was sold that way", changes that. Looking at the whole picture that small risk may be worth it, or it may not.

The reservation system is completely automated to match the info in owner accounts; there are no reps who don't use the automated system. Alleging or expecting that the system will wrongly book an owner of a UO-affected Oceanside unit into a Gardenview unit, for example, is an impossibility - it would be akin to the system wrongly booking an owner of a Plat season into a Gold season. In fact, the latter is more of a possibility because there are several resorts where Plat Plus (fixed) Weeks owners are contractually entitled to book into other seasons so the system would allow the error!

Dean, please look at the second paragraph in my Post #26 above, in which the actual deed wording at issue is quoted and italicized. Are you honestly saying that you read that and see that the wording can be misconstrued to mean anything other than, when units/buildings of a particular view/type become available by virtue of occupancy permits, the owner will always be placed into such units (despite the unit number in the deed not being designated the intended unit view/type of the purchase?) And, are there any other Marriott timeshare-related issues for which you mistrust the succession protections conveyed by the governing docs?

I don't see the risk you're claiming, not even minuscule. I doubt that any attorney would see it, I doubt highly that Marriott would try to defend it, and I know for a fact that IF ever Marriott tries to say that my UO-affected deeds are worth less than like intervals that are supported by deeds unaffected by UO, then I'll be suing Marriott and winning for breach of contract and failure to comply with inventory controls. There isn't much that would have me at odds with Marriott but this one is a slam-dunk.

I get the doubts inherent in timeshare ownership and agree that a healthy dose of mistrust in the developer/management company is necessary if an owner is going to get the most out of an ownership. But this doubt related to Ultimate Occupany at SurfWatch and OceanWatch, both of which were built in the early 2000's, is not healthy at all. It's completely unwarranted - no language in any of the docs or experience by owners/users justifies it. It's bonkers.

 

[dioxide45]

I'm sorry but when it say on the contract, "when available", there is risk involved if one defines the risk of having issues getting what you need or expect. The risk may be small but all it takes is one rep who doesn't know and you don't get the preferred reservation that year. It might work out 99 times out of 100. If one is paying for OV and getting OF, that might be OK considering it's over priced anyway as a retail purchase and that the points are over priced with higher yearly fees than the week. Even if one gets an official letter from MVC to the contrary, there is still a certain element of risk. No amount of "I've never had a problem" or "it was sold that way", changes that. Looking at the whole picture that small risk may be worth it, or it may not.

The reps aren't looking at your deed to determine what you can reserve and what you can't.

 

[vail]

I think some here have too much time on their hands?

 

[Dean]

The reservation system is completely automated to match the info in owner accounts; there are no reps who don't use the automated system. Alleging or expecting that the system will wrongly book an owner of a UO-affected Oceanside unit into a Gardenview unit, for example, is an impossibility - it would be akin to the system wrongly booking an owner of a Plat season into a Gold season. In fact, the latter is more of a possibility because there are several resorts where Plat Plus (fixed) Weeks owners are contractually entitled to book into other seasons so the system would allow the error!

Dean, please look at the second paragraph in my Post #26 above, in which the actual deed wording at issue is quoted and italicized. Are you honestly saying that you read that and see that the wording can be misconstrued to mean anything other than, when units/buildings of a particular view/type become available by virtue of occupancy permits, the owner will always be placed into such units (despite the unit number in the deed not being designated the intended unit view/type of the purchase?) And, are there any other Marriott timeshare-related issues for which you mistrust the succession protections conveyed by the governing docs?

I don't see the risk you're claiming, not even minuscule. I doubt that any attorney would see it, I doubt highly that Marriott would try to defend it, and I know for a fact that IF ever Marriott tries to say that my UO-affected deeds are worth less than like intervals that are supported by deeds unaffected by UO, then I'll be suing Marriott and winning for breach of contract and failure to comply with inventory controls. There isn't much that would have me at odds with Marriott but this one is a slam-dunk.

I get the doubts inherent in timeshare ownership and agree that a healthy dose of mistrust in the developer/management company is necessary if an owner is going to get the most out of an ownership. But this doubt related to Ultimate Occupany at SurfWatch and OceanWatch, both of which were built in the early 2000's, is not healthy at all. It's completely unwarranted - no language in any of the docs or experience by owners/users justifies it. It's bonkers.

When the contract leads to possible interpretation, there is risk though it may be small in this case. I too own a Surfwatch deed that did not match the original description so this is not a foreign concept to me. Four of my life Moto's are the following.

1. What the contact says governs the outcome.
2. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
3. A pesimist is an optimist with experience.
4. Murphy was an optimist.

As a minimum I'd want an official document that guarantees the view type.

 

[SueDonJ]

When the contract leads to possible interpretation, there is risk though it may be small in this case. I too own a Surfwatch deed that did not match the original description so this is not a foreign concept to me. Four of my life Moto's are the following.

1. What the contact says governs the outcome.
2. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
3. A pesimist is an optimist with experience.
4. Murphy was an optimist.

As a minimum I'd want an official document that guarantees the view type.

The deed guarantees the view type! The last line of the quoted information from my "oceanside/gardenview" UO-affected deed, info that I just asked you to look at, GUARANTEES my placement into Oceanside units! "Accordingly, Grantee's occupancy rights shall be limited to said Oceanside Unit Type." My deed includes a unit number in a building that's designated Gardenview, but that same deed states unequivocally that upon build-out of the resort my placement will always be Oceanside. Every other individual deed affected by Ultimate Occupancy contains similar details specific to the ownership conveyed by those deeds. What else is necessary?!?!

 

[SueDonJ]

I think some here have too much time on their hands?

I think some things are worth parsing to death despite some people not finding the subject interesting, especially if what's being discussed is something with the potential to further devalue my timeshare ownership beyond what's warranted.

No one is forced to be reading what proves my apparent lack of worthy endeavors. <eyeroll>

 

[disneymom1]

We own an ultimate occupancy week at Surfwatch we purchased resale several years ago. Prior to purchase, we made a phone call to Marriott owner modification services who verified the view. Easy peasy - only took a few minutes. As both Surfwatch and Oceanwatch are completed, the final ultimate occupancy view is the only view that can be reserved. Every year we make our reservations, we are given that confirmed view automatically. There is no confusion at resort check in either.

I agree is is somewhat confusing to someone not familiar with the ultimate occupancy provision, as it was for us before we purchased resale. Once explained, it made sense and we took the extra step to confirm the deeded view with Marriott. We have zero regrets purchasing the week.

Ultimately, it is up to the buyer to decide to purchase or not, as he/she needs to feel comfortable..

 

[garciajason7]

We bought a resale week at Marriott directly through their sales presentation as part of hybrid bundle of points plus week. We are told guaranteed ocean front but when contract papers came they read ocean view but ocean front as ultimate occupancy when available. Is that normal?

I want to rescind . But I might be getting close to the 10 day window… can I rescind online ? How do they count the 10 day mark? When they receive my letter or by the posting date of when I mailed ? Can someone advise on how to rescind Marriott contract ?

Moderator Note: [Edited to remove attachment containing personal info, at OP's request.] <--SueDonJ

Just curious how did you find a resort to sell you a resale week as a hybrid. Also, remind me of the benefits of a hybrid again? Please and thanks.