Vistana rep refused to add a guest name for 10/5 on SBR deeded week, sent me a form to fill out.

[timsi]

This is what the governing documents for Bella Florida Condominium (Sheraton Vistana Villages) has to say about commercial use. This is not for VSN or the exchange, but the underlying use of a deeded week. This would ultimately be up to the HOA to enforce or the HOA to have the management company enforce. So far, it doesn't seem that Vistana nor any of the resort HOAs enforce commercial use.

1. Personal Use Restriction. Each Vacation Ownership Unit shall be occupied only as vacation accommodations.
No Owner may occupy a Vacation Ownership Unit or use any facilities of the Condominium at any time other than
during the Unit Week owned or reserved in accordance with the Condominium Documents and the Club
Documents. Use of all Vacation Ownership Units and the facilities of the Condominium by Owners is limited solely
to the personal use of Owners, their guests, invitees, and lessees and for recreational uses by corporations and other
entities owning Unit Weeks. Use of Vacation Ownership Units or the facilities of the Condominium by Owners for
commercial purposes or any purposes other than the personal use described in the Declaration is expressly
prohibited. “Commercial purpose” includes a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the
Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. This
paragraph shall not apply to Units or Unit Weeks owned by the Developer or to Commercial Units.

"and for recreational uses by corporations" This part further clarifies that the unit is intended for vacation purposes only, so setting up a shop in the unit is not allowed. It does not prohibit corporate rentals, as long as the units are used as regular vacation units.

It's important to realize that when it comes to explicitly allowing owner rentals, they refer to renting "reserved Vacation periods," not “units”.
At Lagunamar for example: “14.4. Rentals. Members may rent their reserved Vacation Periods by signing a Member rental agreement with the Property Association or a third party. Members will be responsible for coordinating any third party rentals with the Property Association. “ This clearly refers to renting out the reservation for a specific period, not the physical unit itself as they were doing when talking about usage of the unit at the resort level. If renting as a business was an issue, this paragraph would be the appropriate place to add a sentence disallowing it, rather than in the paragraph referring to usage of your unit only as a vacation spot.

Think of it like this: you're renting your pre-booked time slot at the resort, not the actual room or villa. Essentially, the obvious interpretation is that you're allowed to rent out your vacation time (business or not) , but not physically use the resort unit for commercial purposes.

 

[dioxide45]

Let me take this a step further. Even if I were mistaken and "commercial activity" applies to rentals, not just vacation use, the bylaws clearly state that enforcement of this rule falls under the association's responsibility. Is there any evidence that ANY association has formally interpreted this rule and delegated enforcement authority to the property manager? If not, how can the manager have any say in this matter when it falls outside their prerogatives?

You don't seem to understand the purpose of a resort management company and a management agreement. I would suspect the bylaws also state that the association will also collect any maintenance fees and assessments, yet we pay those to the resort manager. The association hires a manager to take over day to day operations and bylaw enforcement.

Also, if said language was present, does the lack of enforcement make it okay for people to do it. Perhaps someone does setup a barber shop in their unit. If no one is enforcing it, is it okay for the owner to do that?

 

[timsi]

You don't seem to understand the purpose of a resort management company and a management agreement. I would suspect the bylaws also state that the association will also collect any maintenance fees and assessments, yet we pay those to the resort manager. The association hires a manager to take over day to day operations and bylaw enforcement.

Also, if said language was present, does the lack of enforcement make it okay for people to do it. Perhaps someone does setup a barber shop in their unit. If no one is enforcing it, is it okay for the owner to do that?

Actually the management contract (approved by the association) clearly stipulates that the manager is in charge with collecting the MF:

“Assessment Collection. Management Company shall be responsible for the collection, on behalf of Owners Association, of all assessments for Association Expenses, charges, or other payments from Members including the annual maintenance fee and all other monies and debts which may become due to Owners”.



Regardless, this was just a supporting point and not very important in the grand scheme.

 

[dioxide45]

Actually the management contract (approved by the association) clearly stipulates that the manager is in charge with collecting the MF:

“Assessment Collection. Management Company shall be responsible for the collection, on behalf of Owners Association, of all assessments for Association Expenses, charges, or other payments from Members including the annual maintenance fee and all other monies and debts which may become due to Owners”.

I do not see any evidence that the manager is in charge with enforcing the bylaws: "Compliance with Laws. Management Company is authorized to and shall be responsible for taking action as may be necessary to comply with all laws, statutes, ordinances, and rules of all appropriate governmental authorities. "
As you can see the bylaws seem to be excluded.

Regardless, this was just a supporting point and not very important in the grand scheme.

You still didn't answer my other question?

Also, if said language was present, does the lack of enforcement make it okay for people to do it. Perhaps someone does setup a barber shop in their unit. If no one is enforcing it, is it okay for the owner to do that?

Your comments are also specific to Laguanamar. Any thoughts about the text for SVV or SBR?

Perhaps you could also post the association documents for Lagunamar for the rest of us to inspect?

 

[daviator]

Let me take this a step further. Even if I were mistaken and "commercial activity" applies to rentals, not just vacation use, the bylaws clearly state that enforcement of this rule falls under the association's responsibility. Is there any evidence that ANY association has formally interpreted this rule and delegated enforcement authority to the property manager? If not, how can the manager have any say in this matter when it falls outside their prerogatives?

I don't think the association needs to do that. MVC acts as agent for each of the associations it manages, giving them the authority to interpret and enforce the CC&Rs and other governing documents without further specific actions being required by the association board. Of course, the board could direct MVC to focus on a certain area or not to enforce a certain clause, but I don't think that's what is happening.

I think MVC is trying to walk a line between allowing reasonable use of owned weeks and stopping those who might acquire or control large blocks of VOIs to use as a rental business.

While I don't have access to the Lagunamar documents, I don't think the restriction stating that Vacation Units can only be used as vacation accommodations somehow means that a commercial use restriction doesn't or can't apply to those who rent units as a business. I think these clauses are left intentionally vague because "commercial use" is hard to define – but to a large extent, you know it when you see it. They didn't want a strict definition that would impact legitimate owners who sometimes rent out their weeks. Of course, that's speculation on my part.

 

[timsi]

@dioxide45


You might be right about enforcement, but that's far from being the issue.

The term "commercial activities" in your quote from SVV refers specifically to the code of conduct for guests at the resort, not to owners renting out their units for vacation purposes.

It's clear that your quote from SVV pertains to on-site rules, as it is part of a larger section that ONLY outlines what is allowed and what isn't at the resort. This context indicates that the restrictions focus on guest behavior, rather than how owners choose to use their contracts and reservations (whether to occupy the units themselves, deposit or rent).

If you review that section in your SVV documents, you will find:

Personal Use Restriction: Each Vacation Ownership Unit shall be occupied only as vacation accommodations.
Permitted Users (Day use etc.)
Common Elements (Common areas )
Recreational Facilities
Nuisances
Signs: No signage
Solicitation: No solicitation etc
Parking
Watercraft
No Pets
Decoration of Units
Antennas
Barbecue Grills
Damage

Imagine this section from your SVV documents was printed as a pamphlet. This pamphlet could be handed to every guest at check-in, like a set of house rules. It's that straightforward!

 

[timsi]

I think MVC is trying to walk a line between allowing reasonable use of owned weeks and stopping those who might acquire or control large blocks of VOIs to use as a rental business.

While I don't have access to the Lagunamar documents, I don't think the restriction stating that Vacation Units can only be used as vacation accommodations somehow means that a commercial use restriction doesn't or can't apply to those who rent units as a business. I think these clauses are left intentionally vague because "commercial use" is hard to define – but to a large extent, you know it when you see it. They didn't want a strict definition that would impact legitimate owners who sometimes rent out their weeks. Of course, that's speculation on my part.

It's important to consider that these resorts were built 20-30 years ago (or more!), so Marriott's current business perspective might not be entirely relevant. As a younger, rapidly growing company in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, Vistana was primarily focused on building and selling. Competition from 'commercial' renters was likely not a significant concern at the time. Resale was also uncommon since most owners had recently purchased and had mortgages, making selling less feasible, not to mention people were less aware, in the absence of social media. I mention resale because that's where renting may become profitable, not when buying at full price.

It's plausible that if a travel company had wanted to buy 100 units at inflated retail prices, with the intention of renting them out, Vistana would have been happy to sell. If that's the case, why would they ban 'commercial rentals'? This further supports the idea that the original resort documents don't actually prohibit commercial rentals – there was simply no business reason to address it then. To understand the original intent, it's important to read the resort documents as they were written at the time. Looking beyond individual lines to the broader context of entire paragraphs and sections, it becomes clear to me that there was no attempt to prohibit renting VOIs at any scale, small or large. “Personal use” simply refers to not setting a shop at the resort and competing with their shops and restaurants. This is why they ban commercial "activities" and not commercial rentals.

While Marriott may now try to portray this issue in a different way, potentially with valid reasons at some of their own resorts, it's unlikely to be universally applicable, especially not to the original Vistana properties. Like many other issues, they might be relying on the dispersed ownership and the difficulty individual owners face in challenging such policies. This is likely why they may entertain the muddy status quo and don't formally pursue perceived 'violators,' as they might lose in court and officially open the gates for mega renters with much more difficult consequences for the developer.

 

[DeniseM]

Wow! The ineptitude is astounding! I am helping a Westin owner do a name change on their home resort Westin reservation:

1. He can't make the name change online - gets error message every time.
2. Calls owner services and they insist that he must send in the Marriott long-form name change - he does.
3. Days later they change the name on the Marriott confirmation, but not the Vistana confirmation.
4. He calls again, and they change the name on the Vistana confirmation.
5. The owner's guest is in North Carolina, and can't go now, because of the hurricane damage to her home.
6. The owner sends in a new long form to change the name to someone else.
7. The new last name is Brandt - owner services changes the confirmations to Erandt. (No, there was no E. middle initial)
8. Owner calls for a correction - they ask for another Marriott long-form.
9. Owner sends in another Marriott long-form and they change the name back to the ORIGINAL NC GUEST'S name - not Brandt!

 

[Hindsite]

Wow! The ineptitude is astounding! I am helping a Westin owner do a name change on their home resort Westin reservation:

Oh my the beauty of a manual process and inadequate training. Once can only summon the IT spirits to automate it as soon as they can, and then hope it doesn't crash the websites.

 

[dioxide45]

He can't make the name change online - gets error message every time.

Are other owners getting the same error? Have they tried different browsers, clearing cookies and such?

 

[DeniseM]

Are other owners getting the same error? Have they tried different browsers, clearing cookies and such?

To make a long story short: At one time, this reservation had resort credit on it. Per owner services, you cannot transfer a reservation with resort credit to a guest, so they put a block on the reservation to prevent online name changes. When the owner discovered this, weeks ago, he had Vistana remove the resort credit, but the block is still on the reservation, and no one seems to know what to do about it. Well, their "solution" is the Marriott long-form name change request, but they don't seem to be able to process it accurately.

 

[DavidnRobin]

As mentioned - I made three name changes recently on-line, and after a few days it was reflected on my BonVoy account w/o using the MVC name change form. All were more than 60 days out, and no resort credit.

Looking forward to the Buster Posey era for our SF Giants.

 

[dioxide45]

As mentioned - I made three name changes recently on-line, and after a few days it was reflected on my BonVoy account w/o using the MVC name change form. All were more than 60 days out, and no resort credit.

Looking forward to the Buster Posey era for our SF Giants.

Yeah, they can handle the normal vanilla name changes pretty easy. If it is outside the box, forget about it!

 

[DeniseM]

UPDATE: 17 days later - Marriott/Vistana finally got the name correct. After sending many, many name change forms and many, many phone calls. This is what I think happened, and I don't think Marriott even understands how their system works:

- We originally requested a guest confirmation in Guest A's name - but she had to cancel due to the hurricane.

- Then we requested a confirmation in Guest B's name. Even though we sent them many name change forms, the name didn't update in the Marriott/Vistana system when they got the form, and all of our requests appeared to be in the name of Guest A - not Guest B.

- Even though we called them and emailed them numerous times, they couldn't grasp it. They still don't.

 

[Robotpedlr]

I was just able to do a successful name change on the Vistana site. As others have noted, you can no longer go into the Marriott site and change the name…but after a day or so, I noticed the resv dropped from My Trips on the Marriott site and when I entered the guests name it was able to locate the reservation under his name. So maybe there is some auto update that corrects after a short delay.

 

[dioxide45]

I was just able to do a successful name change on the Vistana site. As others have noted, you can no longer go into the Marriott site and change the name…but after a day or so, I noticed the resv dropped from My Trips on the Marriott site and when I entered the guests name it was able to locate the reservation under his name. So maybe there is some auto update that corrects after a short delay.

I don't think it is an auto update but rather a manual process of a human going in and making the change on the Marriott.com side of things.

 

[Robotpedlr]

I don't think it is an auto update but rather a manual process of a human going in and making the change on the Marriott.com side of things.

Yeah maybe that is the case…but I didn’t call Marriott to request that, the only thing I did was change the name on the Vistana site.

 

[dioxide45]

Yeah maybe that is the case…but I didn’t call Marriott to request that, the only thing I did was change the name on the Vistana site.

It's the same process with Marriott guest name changes. The owner fills out a form and then within a few days it is also changed on Marriott.com. It's all manual. With Vistana the only automated part is that the Vistana.com reservation updates instantly with the new guest names.

 

[daviator]

Yeah maybe that is the case…but I didn’t call Marriott to request that, the only thing I did was change the name on the Vistana site.

Vistana/MVC *has* to change it on the Marriott side, because they now use the Marriott reservations systems at all the resorts. So when you go to check in, if the name hasn't been changed in the Marriott hotel system, the front desk is not going to be able to find the reservation. So the change on the Marriott (hotel) side isn't just an interesting side-effect of changing the name on the Vistana site, it's crucial. As @dioxide45 said, I think it's a manual process, but it's critical and something they will always do.