What happens to Starwood's owners at mandatory resorts when others have sold out?

[duke]

I
Has anyone seen a bee?
QUOTE]


I got several in my backyard (Los Angeles).
You are welcome to grab a few.

 

[Westin5Star]

Answer From Starwwod

I am at WKV right now having an awesome week. I didn't want to spend the time for the owner's update but I did pose the question to the SM on premises. What happens to a resale owner of a voluntary resort that doesn't reserve at least 8 months out? He had to make some calls (I believe to Orlando) to get the correct answer: IF YOU ARE VOLUNTARY RESALE AND YOU DO NOT MAKE YOUR RESERVATION 8 MONTHS OUT YOU RISK LOSING GETTING YOUR UNIT; YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH II SINCE YOU CAN'T CONVERT TO POINTS OR EXCHANGE OPTIONS. They do not hold rooms for owners that buy resale or even have a system to separate that data. The bottom line is that if you buy resale at a voluntary resort you need to make sure to put in your reservation at least 8 months in advance. I hope that this answers any questions or speculation.

 

[jerseygirl]

I really don't think the 8-month rule appears anywhere in the language of the CCRs for the pre-Starwood units! Nor is it anywhere in the user guides on mystarcentral.

Of course, it is theoretically possible that an owner who calls too late could be out of luck. But, in practice, Starwood bulk banks with II based on historical patterns, then offers a late requesting owner a previously deposited II week if there are no weeks left for usage.

I can't believe it would be legal for them to commingle the two inventories for reservation purposes. Even RCI purports to balance the inventories betweens points and weeks!

 

[Bill4728]

I own several TS which have this same thing going on. two sets of owners. One set which own at that one resort location and one set which own points and can reserve at any of the companies several locations. What they do (and what I believe starwood is legally required to do) is keep seperate pools of units. If you are a single location owner, you reserve your time from the pool of units which are owned by similar owners. If you're a points owner, you reserve all the units owned by company which manages the points inventory.

To allow the single resort owners inventory to be used by non single resort owners would appear to be illegal.

 

[jerseygirl]

I agree Bill. But, lets give the SM two points for a nice try.

 

[timeos2]

Appeal to the vanity - it works

How do the weasels answer the obvious question from all these ploys to degrade what prior buyers already bought and paid for?

"What surprises will you have for ME if I buy one of these weeks/memberships?"

Of course most never ask as the weasels know they are appealing to the "I'm better than everyone else" gene by making them "VIP" or "Gold" or whatever. By the time they realize they paid way too much to get a bogus title the 7 or 10 days are over and the weasel is using their money to pay the lease on the beemer.

 

[Westin5Star]

I agree Bill. But, lets give the SM two points for a nice try.

I specifically asked this question. According to Starwood, if you don't reserve 8 months out on a resale voluntary you risk losing your week (or having to II it). The SM and Starwood had a vested interest in giving me a good answer as they obviously wanted to sell me on Princeville which is a voluntary resort. They told me that they are not required in the CC&Rs or by law to hold weeks for resale owners or voluntary resorts after 8 months out. I also reviewed my Lagunamar (also voluntary) paperwork thoroughly and found nothing to support your idea that Starwood is somehow legally bound to protect or reserve rooms after the 8 month point for resale voluntary.

 

[Pit]

I also reviewed my Lagunamar (also voluntary) paperwork thoroughly and found nothing to support your idea that Starwood is somehow legally bound to protect or reserve rooms after the 8 month point for resale voluntary.

Playing devil's advocate here. Did you see anything which gives Starwood the legal right to trade away usage rights of non-SVN owners after the 8-month point? I would think that by law, rights are conferred to the property owner and can only be traded away by same (unless of course the owner gave up those rights somewhere in the fine print).

 

[Westin5Star]

Playing devil's advocate here. Did you see anything which gives Starwood the legal right to trade away usage rights of non-SVN owners after the 8-month point? I would think that by law, rights are conferred to the property owner and can only be traded away by same (unless of course the owner gave up those rights somewhere in the fine print).

I didn't look up that information, nor did I ask. I did get the impression that these weeks could be given traded away at 8 months regardless of SVN status. I believe that one of the initial points of this blog was related to voluntary owners of resale weeks. The reason for this is that there is only a handful of mandatory resorts and most if not all future properties will be voluntary; thus mandatory and SVN owners should be able to easily exchange into other resorts using StarOptions.

 

[jerseygirl]

They told me that they are not required in the CC&Rs or by law to hold weeks for resale owners or voluntary resorts after 8 months out. I also reviewed my Lagunamar (also voluntary) paperwork thoroughly and found nothing to support your idea that Starwood is somehow legally bound to protect or reserve rooms after the 8 month point for resale voluntary.

Your Lagunamar CCR was created post SVN -- my point related to the pre-SVN units. Not surprising if the post-SVN voluntary CCRs don't deal with this issue, but not very well thought out either.

The SM and Starwood had a vested interest in giving me a good answer as they obviously wanted to sell me on Princeville which is a voluntary resort.

I agree that they gave you a "good" answer (for their purpose -- trying to sell you a voluntary unit). The question is whether or not they gave you a legally defensible answer.

I'm too tired to think through the "calendar year" vs. "float year" ramifications of their statement, but I think it adds a complication they couldn't possibly have accounted for with their statement to you.

 

[jerseygirl]

thus mandatory and SVN owners should be able to easily exchange into other resorts using StarOptions.

I think you're absolutely correct about this regardless of the answer to the other question. Realistically speaking, only a very small number of members sell each year. Therefore, the majority of owner weeks will remain SVN eligible for many years to come. Despite my opinion on the other issue, I don't think members at voluntary resorts have anything to worry about from a reservation point-of-view (but should be concerned about resale value should the need ever arise.)

 

[skim118]

He had to make some calls (I believe to Orlando) to get the correct answer: IF YOU ARE VOLUNTARY RESALE AND YOU DO NOT MAKE YOUR RESERVATION 8 MONTHS OUT YOU RISK LOSING GETTING YOUR UNIT; YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH II SINCE YOU CAN'T CONVERT TO POINTS OR EXCHANGE OPTIONS. They do not hold rooms for owners that buy resale or even have a system to separate that data. The bottom line is that if you buy resale at a voluntary resort you need to make sure to put in your reservation at least 8 months in advance. I hope that this answers any questions or speculation.

I do not see how it answers all the questions.

If I am a resale buyer at a voluntary resort, Starwood is excluding me from SVN & how am I forced to follow the rules of SVN ?

I am legal deeded owner to that property and if there are 51 other resale owners I clearly expect 1 unit to be removed from SVN pool permanently.

Just because Starwood is currently is not following these rules does not mean it correct and cannot be challenged in the future.

It's Starwood fault for selling this hybrid deed/staroptions sytem & then complicating it up further by removing the "staroptions" for resale buyers in some resorts.

Until now the issue has been moot; but now with the advent of attractive voluntary resorts like (Cancun, Princeville) we are in uncharted territory.

 

[Westin5Star]

I do not see how it answers all the questions.

If I am a resale buyer at a voluntary resort, Starwood is excluding me from SVN & how am I forced to follow the rules of SVN ?

I am legal deeded owner to that property and if there are 51 other resale owners I clearly expect 1 unit to be removed from SVN pool permanently.

Just because Starwood is currently is not following these rules does not mean it correct and cannot be challenged in the future.

It's Starwood fault for selling this hybrid deed/staroptions sytem & then complicating it up further by removing the "staroptions" for resale buyers in some resorts.

Until now the issue has been moot; but now with the advent of attractive voluntary resorts like (Cancun, Princeville) we are in uncharted territory.

***Nothing in this or my other posts are intended to discuss preStarwood properties.

I do not believe that the 8 months rule is a SVN rule; I understand it to be a rule of all (if not most) of their resorts that applies to all owners (mandatory, voluntary, direct, & resale).

Having a deeded ownership does not mean that you do not have to follow the rules of being an owner at the property. Therefore, your expectation of having a week set aside for you after the 8 month period (from what I was told and from what I read) is not going to happen.

What rules is Starwood not following? I agree that this doesn't seem fair; but they are following the rules as I can see it.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Again - read the CC&R/Owners Manual that is agreed to in becoming an SVO owner. Reservation rules are clearly stated. Especially note that an owner who doesn't reserve within the stated reservation windows may lose the ability to reserve the week.

I have both the WPORV and WSJ-BV CCR/OM (both V resorts) - and they clearly state that (regardless of what type of ownership) that an owner may lose their week if not reserved in time - so... if you buy a resale Voluntary SVO week under these conditions - I would advise not waiting until the last minute to make a reservation because you think that since you are deeded into the resort that SVO is legally bound to get you a week - they are not.

Re: Bees - I have a Brazilian Pepper Tree in my backyard that normally is swarming with bees at this time of year - zilch right now...

 

[skim118]

Again - read the CC&R/Owners Manual that is agreed to in becoming an SVO owner. Reservation rules are clearly stated. Especially note that an owner who doesn't reserve within the stated reservation windows may lose the ability to reserve the week.

Reservation rules are clearly stated for SVO owners who belong to SVN("the network").

What kind of timeshare is Starwood selling ? Is it truly deeded where one has an ownership interest(1 week/year) in a specific property or is it a points club(Worldmark) with it's own set of CCR's ?

Even after the home resort preference period, SVO owners who belong to the SVN & call in late, legally have to be allocated some "network" week for that Calendar year.

Since the concept of "network" week does not exist for the Voluntary resale owners, does this mean that SVO can legally "comandeer" this week for "network" usage and tell this SVO "deeded" owner to take a hike and get nothing in return.

Also as a resale owner even after making reservations promptly at 12 months out, think about the nightmare of having to make any changes to it less than 8 months out !

Thank you Starwood for creating an excellent second-class ownership system and effectively trashing the resale values of voluntary resorts (WMH and Kierland price difference says it all).

 

[Bill4728]

Reservation rules are clearly stated for SVO owners who belong to SVN("the network").


Since the concept of "network" week does not exist for the Voluntary resale owners, does this mean that SVO can legally "comandeer" this week for "network" usage and tell this SVO "deeded" owner to take a hike and get nothing in return.

Yes, that is why I don't believe what westin5* was told

IF YOU ARE VOLUNTARY RESALE AND YOU DO NOT MAKE YOUR RESERVATION 8 MONTHS OUT YOU RISK LOSING GETTING YOUR UNIT; YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH II SINCE YOU CAN'T CONVERT TO POINTS OR EXCHANGE OPTIONS. They do not hold rooms for owners that buy resale or even have a system to separate that data.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Reservation rules are clearly stated for SVO owners who belong to SVN("the network").

What kind of timeshare is Starwood selling ? Is it truly deeded where one has an ownership interest(1 week/year) in a specific property or is it a points club(Worldmark) with it's own set of CCR's ?

Even after the home resort preference period, SVO owners who belong to the SVN & call in late, legally have to be allocated some "network" week for that Calendar year.

Since the concept of "network" week does not exist for the Voluntary resale owners, does this mean that SVO can legally "comandeer" this week for "network" usage and tell this SVO "deeded" owner to take a hike and get nothing in return.

Also as a resale owner even after making reservations promptly at 12 months out, think about the nightmare of having to make any changes to it less than 8 months out !

Thank you Starwood for creating an excellent second-class ownership system and effectively trashing the resale values of voluntary resorts (WMH and Kierland price difference says it all).

I have these as PDF files - and if I could copy/paste the sections that discuss this - I would. Whether knowingly or unknowingly a resale buyer is aware of this is really not SVO's concern (I would gather) and certainly not something a seller would tell the resale buyer. SVN is merely the mechanism for performing SVO reservations and SVN exchanges - the reservation windows are part of SVO usage.

Thus, therefore, and why perhaps V resorts have lower resale value - but unlikely any buyer would have deep enough understanding of these nuances (especially when CCR/OM may not available to them)

Yet - I still bought WPORV from SVO - for reasons I have stated in other posts - knowing that if I were to ever sell - I would lose substaintial part of my investment. If I did sale, iit is unlikely that I would tell the prospective buyer about all the 'ifs' that would have to occur for this scenerio to become a reality (other than they do not get SVN privledges, SO-SP conversion, and would need to use II for external exchanges) - it is part of their DD, not mine.
aka Caveat Emptor.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Yes, that is why I don't believe what westin5* was told

Bill - It is true according to my reading of the two V resort CC&Rs/OMs that I have looked at (WPORV, WSJ-BV).

 

[duke]

Has anyone seen a bee?
{google: "what is happening to the bees")

http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/home/la-hm-bees26apr26,1,1736418.story

Don't worry David, (LA Times 4-26-07) they are still here.

 

[skim118]

Bill - It is true according to my reading of the two V resort CC&Rs/OMs that I have looked at (WPORV, WSJ-BV).

I believe you about WPORV documents and your interpretation based on it.

I just seems so highly inequitable and soon the word would spread in the timeshare world(you think Marriott sales will not pick up on it ?)

We orginally wanted to buy in WPORV; when we found out it was Voluntary we said no way and we will wait for resales. Now for sure we will not buy in WPORV ever & we plan to buy resale WKORV-N instead.

Clearly resale prices of mandatory resorts are heading higher !

 

[DavidnRobin]

I believe you about WPORV documents and your interpretation based on it.

I just seems so highly inequitable and soon the word would spread in the timeshare world(you think Marriott sales will not pick up on it ?)

We orginally wanted to buy in WPORV; when we found out it was Voluntary we said no way and we will wait for resales. Now for sure we will not buy in WPORV ever & we plan to buy resale WKORV-N instead.

Clearly resale prices of mandatory resorts are heading higher !

Actually - they state it pretty clearly in the OM for those who actually bother reading it (which I assume are few) - the WSJ-BV OM states it in capital letters.

I think (and hope if we ever have to sell) that WPORV will be a different V resort because of it's uniqueness of being in Princeville, it's relationship with the St Regis Hotel being converted from the Princeville Hotel, being on a world-class championship golf course, and there are only 179 units being built. I am not sure how many owners will be interested in spending the $599 to be in SVN (plus the $104 per year SVN fee) since some will just want to go there every year - certainly the SO-SP conversion is not worth it (86K SPs).

I do know how many TSers really even pay attention to the TS market (or read their CC&R/OM) - I believe from my discussions with other TSers while at WKORV, WSJ, and WKV that more than 90% don't pay attention or really care - especially those who have spent ~$50K or more on a prime TS unit - as they seem to be a different breed than those who are in the cheap TS game using RCI exchanges and points to find the best travel deals. The prime SVO owners just want a great TS and vacation experience - and cost isn't as great an issue to them. Heck - the sellers of our WSJ unit donated this unit because it was too hard for them to go anymore, and they are too busy to attempt to sell it.

Just think of the 10s of thousands of SVO owners (#resorts x #units x 52 weeks) out there who never heard of TUG, TS resales, or know if they have a V or M resort (or what it even means). SVO resales, Tuggers, etc. are just a 'drop in the bucket' to SVO as a whole. They buy these expensive TS and never plan to sell - just pass them onto their kids...

I am not so sure M resales are increasing - WKORV costs seem to be dropping over the last 16 months that I have paid attention - going from ~32K to below $30K for OV - with the addition of WKORV-N and WKORV-NN - based on supply and demand - just not sure if this going to be the case. I think WKV offers some price increase (for the 81K+ SO units), but recent sales of the lesser SO WKV units have seemed to drop.

I think I could get more than what we paid just a few months ago for our 81K SO WKV unit. For WKORV - this was one reason we paid a premium for OF - because these types of units are in short supply - even WKORV-N OF units could not be considered 'true' OF like the WKORV OF units are. Time will tell.

 

[duke]

I am not sure how many owners will be interested in spending the $599 to be in SVN (plus the $104 per year SVN fee)

How does this apply to WPORV (princeville)??

 

[grgs]

How does this apply to WPORV (princeville)??

I believe what he's saying (and correct me if I wrong!) is that WPORV owners will be buying mainly to use and thus will not be interested in trading within Starwood. David thinks that if a resale owner was to be offered the opportunity to buy into SVN for $599, they wouldn't take the offer.

Glorian

 

[Westin5Star]

Yes, that is why I don't believe what westin5* was told

Bill, it is not just what I was told but is also what is in writing in the documents that I have reviewed and are in my possession. I have not read anything that would dispute what I was told.

The answer that came back to me also was not an instant answer. Several calls and checking were done at Starwood's main office to verify that the answer that I was given was correct!

I don't agree with the policy; I was just trying to be a good TUGer by reporting back on a quesiton that was asked but not verified and then answered.

If you have the wording or proof to dispute what I have found out then I will welcome it and take it back to Starwood for clarification.

 

[Bill4728]

Bill, it is not just what I was told but is also what is in writing in the documents that I have reviewed and are in my possession. I have not read anything that would dispute what I was told.

The answer that came back to me also was not an instant answer. Several calls and checking were done at Starwood's main office to verify that the answer that I was given was correct!

I don't agree with the policy; I was just trying to be a good TUGer by reporting back on a quesiton that was asked but not verified and then answered.

If you have the wording or proof to dispute what I have found out then I will welcome it and take it back to Starwood for clarification.

It isn't that I don't believe that you were told that. I simply saying that what Starwood told you is so outrageously unfair that I find it very hard to believe that it is true.