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

[Pit]

There is absolutely no illegality. No rights or priveleges of the non-member are being denied. The only thing being denied is their ability to trade in the SVN... which Starwood is completely up front about and it's spelled out in contracts.

I don't believe its the right to use SVN which is in question here. It is the right to use one's own property. I do think the rights of the non-member are violated if they are prevented from using their personal property.

I don't know the "correct" answer here either, but my common sense says if I own a piece of property, and I pay for the maintenance and upkeep of that property, then I darn well have a right to use it. And, if someone else (Starwood, who doesn't own the property) lets others use it without my permission, I'd be steamed. I believe all states have laws which protect the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's personal property.

 

[DavidnRobin]

I don't believe its the right to use SVN which is in question here. It is the right to use one's own property. I do think the rights of the non-member are violated if they are prevented from using their personal property.

I don't know the "correct" answer here either, but my common sense says if I own a piece of property, and I pay for the maintenance and upkeep of that property, then I darn well have a right to use it. And, if someone else (Starwood, who doesn't own the property) lets others use it without my permission, I'd be steamed. I believe all states have laws which protect the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's personal property.

Don't give up J-Girl - I hear what you are saying - I just don't agree with the interpretation. Considering all the SVO week owners (now and in future) for HI, and that these SVO contracts are reviewed by HI - it seems unlikely that this would go unnoticed by attorneys on both sides.

There are not two separate pools.

SVO is not selling more units than they have to deed.

These are float units that we are speaking about - just because you are deeded a week/unit - doesn't mean you get that week/unit (only a week within the float season - and unit type - if reserved before 8-months)

They are also not denying resale V usage - the owners are denying themselves if they do not resrve in time.

I do think if an owner fails to follow-thru that SVO will compensate regardless, but since most V resort weeks are not hard to reserve - it shouldn't be an issue. WPORV may be different as it may be a sold out resort for quite a while.

If any owner fails to call at the 8-month point - they lose their right of usage for their deeded week/unit if all is sold out (according to contract) - all owners (except resale V owners) have a recourse if this happens. In reality, I don't see this happening.

Taken to the extreme (as this seems to be scope of this thread) - can a V resale owner never call to reserve and then wait until a week beforehand for their usage (i.e. week 50 for a float season week 1-50) - or 30, 60, 90 days before for that matter - and insist that they have a right to usage? I think not, and I would advise against trying. What exactly would be the cut-point if not 8-months - none?

 

[jerseygirl]

D & R --

I do agree that the extreme will probably never occur, but I'm sticking with my interpretation that Hawaii statutes require two separate pools of weeks once they create two separate classes of ownership.

It's okay to agree to disagree! I have no dog in this fight -- my only SVN week is at Harborside, where it doesn't apply, thank goodness. I hate long flights way too much to ever become a Hawaii owner!

- Jerseygirl

 

[DavidnRobin]

D & R --

I do agree that the extreme will probably never occur, but I'm sticking with my interpretation that Hawaii statutes require two separate pools of weeks once they create two separate classes of ownership.

It's okay to agree to disagree! I have no dog in this fight -- my only SVN week is at Harborside, where it doesn't apply, thank goodness. I hate long flights way too much to ever become a Hawaii owner!

- Jerseygirl

Yeah - we have a looonnnngggg flight to STJ in a couple of weeks - thanks to Ambien - it goes buy quicker. You must get out to HI sometime - really nice islands (much different than the Carib).

 

[jerseygirl]

Heading there in January -- my d's choice (I have to bribe her with a vacation to get her to spend time with me between college terms!). Who knows, maybe I'll become a convert!

 

[KOR5Star]

I don't believe its the right to use SVN which is in question here. It is the right to use one's own property. I do think the rights of the non-member are violated if they are prevented from using their personal property.

I don't know the "correct" answer here either, but my common sense says if I own a piece of property, and I pay for the maintenance and upkeep of that property, then I darn well have a right to use it. And, if someone else (Starwood, who doesn't own the property) lets others use it without my permission, I'd be steamed. I believe all states have laws which protect the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's personal property.

But you DO have the right to use it. You have to play by the rules you signed up for when you bought the unit. You have to reserve your week, just like you agreed to and just like the rest of the owners... whether they are members or not.

How are you being denied usage of your unit? How are your rights different than anyone elses?... other than being able to trade to other SVN locations.

 

[KOR5Star]

D & R --

I do agree that the extreme will probably never occur, but I'm sticking with my interpretation that Hawaii statutes require two separate pools of weeks once they create two separate classes of ownership.

It's okay to agree to disagree! I have no dog in this fight -- my only SVN week is at Harborside, where it doesn't apply, thank goodness. I hate long flights way too much to ever become a Hawaii owner!

- Jerseygirl

There are not two classes of ownership. I think you're confusing rights and privileges within SVN with the rights and privileges of real estate ownership.

Whether someone buys timeshare through Westin or resale makes absolutely no difference with regards to the real estate ownership portion of timeshare. The rest, the part you think is unfair, is not real estate. It's membership in a program and as such is not subject to any real estate statutes to which you refer.

 

[jerseygirl]

I'm not confused by your statements -- I just don't agree with them.

 

[Westin5Star]

I'm not confused by your statements -- I just don't agree with them.

I still see both sides of this arguement from both an ethical and legal aspect. As promised and now that I am home from WKV, I will be contacting Starwood via email to see what I can get out of them. I will post my findings; hopefully by using cut and paste!

 

[jerseygirl]

That's very nice of you to offer to do. We used to have the name of the Starwood attorney who handled voluntary/mandatory issues floating around here, but I've lost track of it. Personally, I wouldn't trust an answer from anyone but her (assuming it's still a "her!").

 

[DavidnRobin]

I really (really) hate to bring this up - I was curious about issues discussed in this thread and decided to read parts of the WPORV CC&R/OM (>400 pages) - and... I cannot find the info that says that WPORV is a Voluntary resort (meaning that SVN privledges are not passed onto a resale buyer) - yes seriously...

Anybody - have the location of this section? I could have sworn that someone posted it months ago. In re-reading the WPORV OM - it reads much like WKORV.

 

[vacationtime1]

It was my previous post originally found at http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=252077#post252077 which I copy below:

The Purchase Agreement for the Westin Princeville Ocean Resort Villas (which I signed and rescinded) contains a paragraph 7, entitled "Starwood Vacation Network", which provides

" . . . . Membership and participation in SVN is entirely voluntary . . . . "

The Starwood Vacation Network Owner Membership Agreement for the property includes the following language:

16(a) "Owner's membership in SVN is voluntary",

16(h) "If Owner elects to sell the Vacation Ownership Interest(s) or otherwise elects not to participate in SVN, SVN Operator will not refund any payments or fees paid by Owner", and

16 "Owner acknowledges that his or her membership in SVN . . . cannot be transferred or assigned."

 

[DavidnRobin]

It was my previous post originally found at http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=252077#post252077 which I copy below:

The Purchase Agreement for the Westin Princeville Ocean Resort Villas (which I signed and rescinded) contains a paragraph 7, entitled "Starwood Vacation Network", which provides

" . . . . Membership and participation in SVN is entirely voluntary . . . . "

The Starwood Vacation Network Owner Membership Agreement for the property includes the following language:

16(a) "Owner's membership in SVN is voluntary",

16(h) "If Owner elects to sell the Vacation Ownership Interest(s) or otherwise elects not to participate in SVN, SVN Operator will not refund any payments or fees paid by Owner", and

16 "Owner acknowledges that his or her membership in SVN . . . cannot be transferred or assigned."

This explains why i couldn't find it (altough it should be in the OM)- it is in the PA - I will take a look at mine tonite.

 

[KOR5Star]

I'm not confused by your statements -- I just don't agree with them.

You don't agree that membership in the SVN and ownership of a deeded week of timeshare are two separate things?

Hawaii only cares about the deed and real estate ownership issues. Why should they care whether or not Starwood allows you to trade outside of your home resort within the SVN?

May I assume you also think the State of Hawaii should also care that Starwood doesn't allow conversion to StarPoints for resales?

I'm not being sarcastic. I see the issue being one and the same. The StarPoints, like the ability to trade within the SVN, is a privilege given by the developer IN ADDITION TO interval ownership. It is not an integral part of the ownership.

As far as real estate goes. All we own is the particular unit and particular week on our contracts. That's it. Everything else could be considered as temporary benefits from a "club" we belong to.

 

[DavidnRobin]

This explains why i couldn't find it (altough it should be in the OM)- it is in the PA - I will take a look at mine tonite.

The CC&R/OM does state that participation is entirely voluntary in the Disclosure statement. (Sec 3.2.D)
Never Mind.

 

[Bill4728]

You don't agree that membership in the SVN and ownership of a deeded week of timeshare are two separate things?

Hawaii only cares about the deed and real estate ownership issues. Why should they care whether or not Starwood allows you to trade outside of your home resort within the SVN?

May I assume you also think the State of Hawaii should also care that Starwood doesn't allow conversion to StarPoints for resales?

I'm not being sarcastic. I see the issue being one and the same. The StarPoints, like the ability to trade within the SVN, is a privilege given by the developer IN ADDITION TO interval ownership. It is not an integral part of the ownership.

As far as real estate goes. All we own is the particular unit and particular week on our contracts. That's it. Everything else could be considered as temporary benefits from a "club" we belong to.

THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT. Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal. They must allow the ability to use my unit up until 60 days. THey have taken the unit and not compensated the owner. Starwood could simply say they will give any owner who can't get into their own resort a banked week with II but they aren't saying that. They are saying if you don't reserve at 8 months starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation.

 

[Transit]

THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT. Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal. They must allow the ability to use my unit up until 60 days. THey have taken the unit and not compensated the owner. Starwood could simply say they will give any owner who can't get into their own resort a banked week with II but they aren't saying that. They are saying if you don't reserve at 8 months starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation.

With floating weeks you would have ample opportunity to book something between week 1-52 the deeded unit you own is for recording purposes you can actually go past you deeded unit date and stiil book a unit .If you can't book a unit you can bank it to your II account.I don't know how a t/s could be any more flexable.Nowhere does it state in any Starwood document that I've read that at 8 months that Starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation. The 8th month point has to do with being the latest you can probably book a prefered season .

 

[jerseygirl]

What he said!


Edit: Oops -- Transit snuck in a post.

What Bill said!

 

[skim118]

THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT. Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal.

I fully agree with Bill.

Moreover what happens to a Voluntary owner's reservation made at 12 months if he needs to make any changes due to change in travel plans at 7 months ?

Under current policy, are the only choices to rent it out or deposit with II or SFX ?

Resale Voluntary resort owners are treated different than SVN owners even at their "home resort" !!

 

[jerseygirl]

With floating weeks you would have ample opportunity to book something between week 1-52 the deeded unit you own is for recording purposes you can actually go past you deeded unit date and stiil book a unit .If you can't book a unit you can bank it to your II account.I don't know how a t/s could be any more flexable.Nowhere does it state in any Starwood document that I've read that at 8 months that Starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation. The 8th month point has to do with being the latest you can probably book a prefered season .

That's not my understanding of what's being said. Starwood is saying that resale (i.e. non-member) owners can lose their week if they don't book it by the 8-month mark because they are not keeping two separate pools of inventory.

In other words, at the 8-month mark, SVN members from other resorts can book weeks that may in fact belong to non-SVN members who have no ability to book at other resorts.

Example:

Year One

• 100 Member Weeks at Mandatory Resort A
• 100 Member Weeks at Voluntary Resort B
• All 200 Member Weeks are in the SVN network as resales are not yet available

Year Five

• 100 Member Weeks at Mandatory Resort A
• 50 Member Weeks at Voluntary Resort B
• 50 Non-Member (Resale) Weeks at Voluntary Resort B

At the 8 month mark of Year 5:

• 25 of the non-member (resale) owners have failed to book their weeks at Resort B
• 25 members from Mandatory Resort A grab those weeks as part of their SVN privileges (Resort B has become much more in demand... it is newer and in a not unprecedented move, Starwood has allowed Resort A to get a little run down )
• The 25 non-member (resale) owners have no recourse -- they're not allowed to book at another resort

What Bill and I are saying is that Starwood MUST keep two separate inventories once there is a combination of "members" and "non-members" at a voluntary resort. We do not believe that Hawaii law permits them to allow members to use the weeks that belong to non-members who have no recourse to book elsewhere.

That's where the difference of opinion comes into play.

I have no dispute with the legality of the network itself (and I agree it's a great system). I just disagree with the information Starwood gave to Westin5Star.

 

[DavidnRobin]

THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT. Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal. They must allow the ability to use my unit up until 60 days. THey have taken the unit and not compensated the owner. Starwood could simply say they will give any owner who can't get into their own resort a banked week with II but they aren't saying that. They are saying if you don't reserve at 8 months starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation.

I didn't realize you owned a resale V resort?

I did have a chance to go through WPORV docs more carefully. Turns out that this is something that impacts both a SVO owner (that doesn't join SVN) and a resale owner (who can't join SVN) - they are actually are treated exactly the same in this case. Non-SVN members (as they are classified) have an opportunity to reserve their float VOI season up to 60 days before check-in. HOWEVER, this is based on availability since the 'RESERVATION RULES' are applicable to all VOI owners.

Again - SVO is not denying non-SVN members the use of their VOI, but they must follow the same Reservation Rules as owners who are SVN members, or they could potentially lose their annual week. The SVO reservation system would fall apart otherwise.

btw, SVO and SVN are 2 separate entities

Bill - send me an email address that can handle large docs (36K KBs) and I will gladly send you the very large (400+ pages) PDF file of the WPORV Disclosure docs so you can go through them yourself and then contact the State of Hawaii to tell them that SVO has an illegal TS contract (that has already been reviewed and approved by the State of Hawaii).

Here's a scenerio - since we are talking hypothetical extremes - what if no WPORV owner becomes a member of SVN and therefore all are classified as non-SVN members - and then every single one of them waited to 60 days out to make their reservation? (because according to the HI TS law - SVO must hold their float VOI week) What a clusterf*ck that would be.

btw, I do not plan to become a SVN member for WPORV since I plan to use it - and reserve 12 months out. I was trying to find out if I my SVN membership from our 3 M SVO resorts applies to WPORV, but could not. Also, if I read it correctly, the docs state that the SVN membership is paid for during the first year of ownership, but after that the owner has a choice on whether to continue SVN or not (of course by paying the necessary SVN use fees)

 

[DavidnRobin]

That's not my understanding of what's being said. Starwood is saying that resale (i.e. non-member) owners can lose their week if they don't book it by the 8-month mark because they are not keeping two separate pools of inventory.

In other words, at the 8-month mark, SVN members from other resorts can book weeks that may in fact belong to non-SVN members who have no ability to book at other resorts.

Example:

Don't need examples - because there is an easier one - since we are talking about a SVO Voluntary resort - NO owner is required to become a SVN member - and non-SVN members are classified exactly the same whether buying directly from SVO or resale.

btw, as stated above - the cut-off mark is 60-days for non-SVN members - not 8-months - but according to the Reservation Rules' all reservations are subject to availability - so every owner (SVN member and non-SVN member) can lose their right to use their Home VOI. Of course, SVN members have an out using an SVN exchange, and SVO owners can convert to SPs, but neither will be guarenteed their Home VOI (what - isn't that also against the law!? since what is being stated above is that any owner is entitled to use their Home VOI regardless of what they contractually agreed to.)

 

[jerseygirl]

I didn't realize you owned a resale V resort?

I did have a chance to go through WPORV docs more carefully. Turns out that this is something that impacts both a SVO owner (that doesn't join SVN) and a resale owner (who can't join SVN) - they are actually are treated exactly the same in this case. Non-SVN members (as they are classified) have an opportunity to reserve their float VOI season up to 60 days before check-in. HOWEVER, this is based on availability since the 'RESERVATION RULES' are applicable to all VOI owners.

D&R --

Your documentation actually supports what Bill and I are saying. All float systems are based on availability -- that's never been the issue. The only remaining issue (at least in my mind) is whether or not Starwood is required to maintain two separate inventories. The sales rep told Westin5Star that they are not, but the statute is pretty clear:

If the timeshare plan has more than one class of timeshare interest, then the requirement must be satisfied within each class.

A use night counted to satisfy the requirement for one class may not also be counted to satisfy the requirement for a competing class.

-JG

 

[jerseygirl]

Don't need examples - because there is an easier one - since we are talking about a SVO Voluntary resort - NO owner is required to become a SVN member - and non-SVN members are classified exactly the same whether buying directly from SVO or resale.

The example wasn't for you -- it was in response to Transit's post.

Re non-SVN members are classified exactly the same whether buying directly from SVO or resale

Not suprising, why wouldn't they be? A non-member is a non-member.

Of course, SVN members have an out using an SVN exchange, and SVO owners can convert to SPs, but neither will be guarenteed their Home VOI (what - isn't that also against the law!?

That's timesharing 101 ....

since what is being stated above is that any owner is entitled to use their Home VOI regardless of what they contractually agreed to.)

Where was that said? Certainly not by me.

 

[Transit]

I think Westin 5 star is correct in that the only true way to see the validity in this sceanario is to veiw the documents involved. I'm confident that it will show that owners are bound by Starwoods contracts and resevation system. I also doubt that legal issues pertaining to owner useage were just disregarded...........Or I could be wrong