I think we're going to have to disagree about this. If I were representing an owner whose rentals were blocked by a manager (rather than by the entity having authority under the operative documents), I would expect to win the argument.
I'm not following why you believe the HOA doesn't have the CC&Rs in place prohibiting the commercial activity. The policies are not random; the policies are not MVW's; the policies are part of the HOA. Thus, it isn't the manager blocking anything; it is the manager enforcing the rules of ownership.
The manager (in this case, MVW) is hired to be the "agent" of the HOA. That means in pretty much every way, MVW can act in the HOA's stead as its agent. I am sure there are some guardrails in the management agreement, but I'd also bet those guardrails are pretty specific and would not exclude the agent from enforcing the CC&Rs against owners. That's literally one of the things the HOA hires them to do.
I do understand. I see it in the CC&R's. I am not a stupid person. I have a degree in English and can comprehend what is right in front of me. I have a copy of the CC&R's from years ago, around 2008, for the first timeshare I purchased resale. I believe they have changed. I need to find it. I hope I didn't shred it.
Just because it is DEEDED does not mean that there isn't an HOA that has CC&Rs which apply to your DEEDED week ownership. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on "DEEDED". Of course it is deeded. That is how all real property is conveyed -- by DEED.
It’s possible that the CC&Rs have changed for weeks newly sold by the developer, I guess, but in general, amending the CC&Rs would require a vote of the owners, I think, and I’m not aware that such a vote has ever been pursued by the developer, certainly not on the properties where I own (I think we both own at WKORV and WDW.). I’m a little unclear on whether they could record changed CC&Rs against properties (weeks) which they still own or reacquire, but it seems like it would be pretty messy if different weeks at the same property were subject to different rules.
To be fair, I don't think Marriott/Westin/Sheraton/Hyatt are the slightest bit concerned about whether or not Redweek survives. That's not their business, both literally and figuratively. As long as they get their MFs they don't care that nobody is renting through Redweek, or Koala or anywhere else for that matter.
That wasn't the point. The point was that the sheer number of rentals is astounding. I don't think Marriott cares one bit about Redweek.
I think it's impossible to know because the language related to it in the governing docs is vague, likely deliberately, and maybe more importantly, the language specifically gives Marriott the right to exercise related penalties on a case-by-case basis. So if/when they do exercise they can arbitrarily impose restrictions on one owner that they don't impose on another despite both doing the same thing, and they don't publicly share when or how they're exercising.
I'm not disagreeing with you in any way here, but I wonder if you have any comments about the difference in the language in the governing docs that I noted in Post #45? What would be the purpose of recognizing the "Declarant" in one set of docs and not another?
That only defines one trigger. That doesn't mean there can't currently or eventually be others. They recently modified the governing documents (in the past year or two) to include some more suggestive language.
It could simply be drafting styles used by different lawyers at the time. Or, another possibility is if these are the original documents created at the actual inception of the HOA, when an HOA is formed, the developer creates the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for [name of HOA]. In that initial document, the CC&Rs, the developer is the "declarant" (as distinguished from the "Association") because the HOA has not been officially formed yet so there is not an official "Association", and there has not been any meetings where corporate resolutions have been approved, so there is no BOD formed at that time. Many times the HOA incorporation documents are being filed only a day or so prior to recording the CC&Rs, so when the CC&Rs are drafted, the "declarant" is the one signing and they are awaiting the recording info from the Secretary of State where the HOA is incorporated. Then, once the HOA is created, and the official steps walked through to create the BOD, etc., only then can the HOA act. Once it is the HOA acting, it is the "Association".
Commercial activity, while not defined by MVW in any of the T&C, IMHO the term connotes a regular and routine business activity as opposed to personal enjoyment and usage.
I am thinking so too. Time to dump some Sheratons, but not all of them.
The test isn’t whether or not someone who’s staying at the property is doing work. The focus is the intent of the owner who is offering the rental. The owner cannot make it a business of renting. But if the owner is in the unit doing remote work for their job, that is fine. That isn’t “commercial” activity.
