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

[jerseygirl]

I only dropped out of the conversation because it was getting personal and non-productive, which was certainly never my intention.

Pit has stated my position more eloquently than I could have ever done. I agree with everything he's stated.

As far as someone with voluntary paperwork posting the language, D&R did just that -- and it's my belief that the reference to "60 days," as posted by D&R, completely supports what we've been saying.

 

[Pit]

We can't talk about this without going 'round and 'round. I sincerely think you are misinterpreting the statute. The wording is pretty clear to me. Our problem is the wording is pretty clear to you too... only we have significantly different interpretations.

Agreed. We just disagree.

If what you claim is true, NO timeshare could open it's doors to anyone but owners until 60 days out. Think about that. It's impossible. This has nothing to do with SVN member or not. All timeshares would be effected.

Considering the costs of going to Hawaii and the necessity of planning ahead for airlines and such, this statue would effectively kill timeshareing in the State of Hawaii.

Either you have it wrong or the authors really screwed up.

Again, the developer is bound by this statute, not the owner. The owner is free to make reservations at any time, well in advance of their check-in.

This makes perfect sense, as it prevents the DEVELOPER from renting or exchanging owned units prior to sixty days out. It has no bearing on when the OWNER makes a reservation or what the owner does with that reservation (use, rent, or exchange).

I did a search, but couldn't find anything. I seem to remember reading that someone bought a voluntary resale and was offered SVN membership for something like $600. I remember reading it clearly, but can't find it.

I would be very interested to know which resort this was at, if you happen to find it again.

 

[jerseygirl]

Owners at the pre-Starwood resorts (Broadway Plantation, Desert Oasis, Vistana Resort -- possibly others) received multiple (annual?) offers to join SVN when the network was new. The offers were theoretically limited to those who purchased from the original developer (Embassy, Vistana) but there were numerous reports of resale buyers getting offers as well. The various theories at the time (5 years ago???) were:

-- Starwood couldn't easily distinguish between "original developer buyers" and "pre-Starwood resale buyers," or
-- It was too much trouble to figure it out, or
-- They didn't really care (at the time) 'cuz they needed members to get the network up and running

There were also numerous reports that Desert Oasis continued to extend the offer to additional (post-SVN) resale buyers, or said yes to those who requested membership. These people were allowed to "buy in" at a blended StarOptions point value (the original units were sold as Float 1-52). Note that when these Desert Oasis resale buyers called HQ and made the request, they were told no. But, the resort itself was getting the memberships through for a while.

Over the last 3 years or so, I haven't personally heard/read of anyone receiving the offer or being allowed to join for just a fee. Of course, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

[RLG]

This thread is of interest to me as a potential SVO resale purchaser.

The "one pool" method of allocation means that a resale purchaser of SMV today, could find that their unit has already lost its right to 2008 occupancy.

Two observations:
1) this is manifestly inequitable;
2) it may or may not be permitted by the relevant documents and applicable laws and regulations.

I don't think the legality will be known unless and until it is litigated in the appropriate jurisdictions.

I am quite puzzled by the number of people who seem to think that this treatment is standard for floating week timeshares. In fact KOR5Star seems to think it's so typical that timesharing in Hawaii would be wipe out if it were prohitited.

I'll use a simplified example to illustrate why I don't believe this is correct.

Assume a timeshare with 2 units and a platinum season of weeks 1-16. The developer sells 32 floating weeks.

1) Standalone resort.

Every floating week owner is *guaranteed* that they will get a week, so long as they reserve before any weeks go unoccupied. One holder could theoretically wait until 12/31 to book for 2008, and still know that there will be exactly 1 week available

2). Trading with traditional exchange companies.

Owners can deposit their weeks with exchange companies. Exchange companies can only use the number of weeks which are deposited by owners. The last reserving owner is still guaranteed a week as long as he reserves before the first week goes empty.

3) SVN trading

During months 12-8, owners can choose to deposit floating weeks with SVN in consideration for staroption points After month 8, owners who are participating in SVN have agreed that their week will automatically be deposited for staroptions if they haven't reserved it themselves.

a) the way some think it should work:

SVN only has access to the number of weeks which have been deposited with it in return for staroptions (i.e. just like RCI/II). As a result until some weeks have gone unused, there will always be at least as many unreserved weeks as there are non-SVN owners who haven't reserved.

b) the way some think it does work:

Once it has used up the weeks which it acquired in return for staroptions, SVN can take for it's own use and for no consideration any remaining weeks which would otherwise have been available to non-SVN owners. As early as 210 days before the start of the year, non-SVN owners could find their next year useage has been wiped out.

The key difference from "normal" in case 3a is that SVN is allowing itself to exchange more weeks than were deposited.

 

[KOR5Star]

Discrimination is legal! You can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, smelly people, etc.; just not protected groups and even then only in certain situations (employment and other misc.) qualify.

This explains a lot. I've been kicked out of places for being fat, smelly and ugly. I went to a lawyer, asking to sue. He kicked me out because I was stupid.

Now I realize I just didn't have a case.

 

[KOR5Star]

I only dropped out of the conversation because it was getting personal and non-productive, which was certainly never my intention.

Pit has stated my position more eloquently than I could have ever done. I agree with everything he's stated.

As far as someone with voluntary paperwork posting the language, D&R did just that -- and it's my belief that the reference to "60 days," as posted by D&R, completely supports what we've been saying.

I searched through the thread and couldn't find any quoted contract verbage.

I'm most interested if the section "BINDING NATURE OF YOUR PROMISES." is in the voluntary contract. If so, all subsequent owners are bound.

 

[DavidnRobin]

I searched through the thread and couldn't find any quoted contract verbage.

I'm most interested if the section "BINDING NATURE OF YOUR PROMISES." is in the voluntary contract. If so, all subsequent owners are bound.

OK - eventhough I said I would no longer comment.

I have offered the PDF file of the WPORV CCE&Rs if anyone wants to read it - no takers. I have looked at it and no where would I interpret anything else but the following: {quite simple really}

1) Owners of a V resort are given a chance to be SVN-members if they so decide - and should be aware of the consequences (below) if they decide not to be SVN members

2) Resale buyers of a V resort do not have a chance to be SVN-members- and should be aware of the consequences (below) if they decide to buy a V resort resale
[btw, it is not SVO responsibility to inform them of the Rules&Regulations of accepting a contract to buy a V resort - but they certainly are bound by the R&R as stated within the CCE&Rs that the original buyer contractually accepts.
SVO also states that they may decide to let non-SVN members become SVN members at SVO's disgression and they must pay the associated SVN fees]

3) There is no mention of separate pool of units for non-SVN members - however, there is mention of other pools of unit types.

The consequences:
A) All owners must abide by the Rule&Regulations of the CCE&Rs - most importantly the "Reservation Rules" which are spelled out - and discussed here ad naseum.

B) Non-SVN members (just like SVN members) can reserve a Home unit up to 60-days beforehand - HOWEVER - there is no guarentee of availability (based on the "Reservation Rules")


AGAIN - Owners are given a choice whether or not to participate in SVN - AND - Resale buyers are given a choice of either accepting the terms of the CCE&Rs which means they are de facto accepting the consequences of not being SVN members, or not buying the resale V resort in the first place.

If I were a seller of a V resort to a resale buyer - I would make certain that the buyer was given a copy if the CCE&Rs and acknowledged receipt of theses documents within the purchase agreement (just like SVO makes a buyer do when they sign a SVO VOI contract).

WARNING to those who are thinking about purchasing a float resale V unit - DO NOT rely on some of the statements made in this thread (e.g. that the Home resort is required by law to hold a unit for you). If so, you may be very disappointed with the outcome.

Good luck - and have happy vacations.

Out - I promise this time. (no need to respond to this post)

 

[jerseygirl]

I searched through the thread and couldn't find any quoted contract verbage.

In D&R's Post #96:

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.

I'm most interested if the section "BINDING NATURE OF YOUR PROMISES." is in the voluntary contract. If so, all subsequent owners are bound.

Yes ... there is "binding successor-type" language in every CCR I've ever seen. However, there is no mention of SVN (since it was not in existence) in the original CCRs (to which I agreed to be bound) for two of the voluntary resorts I've owned.

I agree that post-SVN CCRs will be entirely different, but I do not agree that they can trump the Hawaii (or other state) statutes.

 

[jerseygirl]

I contacted two different people at Starwood corporate this morning via email with our issue. I already received a reply back that this was sent to the legal department and that I will get a reply with an answer. I will forward that reply as soon as I receive it. I do want to reiterate that I was definitely told by an executive at Starwood last week that there are not two different pools! The person that I talked to could have been wrong, however, if that was the case my email this morning would have been easily answered. Until then...

Still no response? That's disappointing.

I'm sticking with my stated opinion until I see a response to the contrary from Starwood's Legal Department.

 

[KOR5Star]

In D&R's Post #96:

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.

This makes no sense to me no matter how many times I read it. I think I'm making the same mistake over and over, but can't see my own error.

Doesn't this apply to everyone? What owner can't reserve their float week up to 60 days before check-in?... depending on availability of course.

Yes ... there is "binding successor-type" language in every CCR I've ever seen. However, there is no mention of SVN (since it was not in existence) in the original CCRs (to which I agreed to be bound) for two of the voluntary resorts I've owned.

You might have given your voting rights away when you first bought or were in the minority when the transition happened. The SVN contracts have a provision in them that allows the management company to make decisions for me. I stumbled on it when I was looking through the papers. I can't quote it without finding it again, but it basically gave them a limited power of attorney for decisions regarding the property.

I agree that post-SVN CCRs will be entirely different, but I do not agree that they can trump the Hawaii (or other state) statutes.

Yeah...well... that's an issue we won't get anywhere on. I've been having the same conversation with Pit. I believe you guys are completely misinterpreting that statute. I think it's clear intent is only to bar timeshare operators from selling more inventory than they have and goes to great lengths to describe how inventory should be counted.

If it were intended as you and Pit believe, every timeshare in the State of Hawaii would be in violation.

There's nothing either of us are going to say to convince the other on this one, I'm afraid.

 

[KOR5Star]

Out - I promise this time. (no need to respond to this post)

You'll be back. It's like opening a bag of Hershey's Kisses. You eat a couple and say "that's it... no more today", but you keep going back to the bag to steal "just one more".

 

[califgal]

This has taken on a life of its own! :rofl: Yet, I'm so curious I have to keep reading!

 

[jerseygirl]

This makes no sense to me no matter how many times I read it. I think I'm making the same mistake over and over, but can't see my own error.

Doesn't this apply to everyone? What owner can't reserve their float week up to 60 days before check-in?... depending on availability of course.

Although you don't agree, Pit and I intrepret the Hawaii statute to govern more than just over-selling. If that were the case, the 60-day rule wouldn't come into play at all. We believe it's saying that timeshare operators/developers/etc. cannot give away an owner's right to use his/her property until the 60-day mark.

I think we all understand and completely agree with the availability factor and its affect on floating weeks. As long as all owners have the same rights, each and every one of them is subject to the availability clause. No one is questioning that point.

The difference of opinion comes into play with regard to whether members and non-members represent different classes. Pit and I believe they do, regardless of whether they are identified as such in the documentation (failure to address an issue does not make the issue disappear). This is the point on which D&R and I have agreed to disagree.

If we're correct, then the Hawaii statue trumps any clause in the SVO/SVN paperwork and Starwood is not permitted to give inventory that belongs to a non-member (who does not have reciprocal rights to book elsewhere) to an SVN-member from a different resort until the 60-day mark (not the 8-month mark).

We find no fault whatsoever with releasing unbooked "member" inventory at the 8-month mark. All members have identical rights and therefore belong to the same "class."

You might have given your voting rights away when you first bought or were in the minority when the transition happened. The SVN contracts have a provision in them that allows the management company to make decisions for me. I stumbled on it when I was looking through the papers. I can't quote it without finding it again, but it basically gave them a limited power of attorney for decisions regarding the property.

Yes, that's possible -- I think all timeshares have a similar clause. But, the management company and HOA are also subject to state statutes, so I don't think they can give away the basic ownership rights afforded to me by law. Same issue.

There's nothing either of us are going to say to convince the other on this one, I'm afraid.

Ah hah -- finally something on which we agree! That's why I'm anxiously awaiting the response from Starwood's legal department. If you don't get one soon, I'm happy to have my attorney send an official inquiry with regard to inventory procedures at Broadway Plantation. (I went with a retainer plan this year as it was time to update wills, create a trust, etc. -- have to make him earn it!).

 

[chemteach]

I have a simple solution for Starwood. They can hold back enough of the September, October, non-thanksgiving November, and non-holiday December weeks to cover the resale purchasers who didn't reserve at the 8 month mark. When someone phones, Starwood can simply explain that come Septermber of the prior year, these units will be available (for the person calling in August), but unfortunately, all rooms have been booked up for January though April with owners and SVN members at 8 months out.

Any owner should phone before 8 months out to make sure they get the best chance of getting a week they want. There is no guarantee even at 8 1/2 months that the week desired would be available. To get a prime week, an owner (SVN member or not) should phone a year in advance!

 

[zeke013]

This has taken on a life of its own! :rofl: Yet, I'm so curious I have to keep reading!

No kidding! I didn't realize that when I posted the question 6 pages ago I would be starting a firestorm. Interesting reading!

 

[Westin5Star]

Starwood Legal Response

As promised, here is the response from Starwood Legal. I debated even forwarding this as I hate to reopen a can off worms. As I was told before, this response definitely confirms that there are not two separate pools for SVN and non-SVN owners. Here we go:

If the resale owner has a floating ownership, he may reserve any week in his deeded season and deeded villa type and at his home resort. From twelve to eight months, he will compete only with other owners of the same season at his home resort. Beginning at eight months prior to his desired arrival date, he will compete with Starwood Vacation Network Members for his reservation. The reservations process for returning to the home resort work exactly as it does for a home resort owner who qualifies for Starwood Vacation Network membership.



As with any floating ownership, planning in advance is important for success in making reservations. If the owner has an exchange company membership, he may choose to deposit his week at any time.



Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.

 

[jerseygirl]

Thanks for posting the response. I can't challenge it on behalf of a Hawaii resort since I don't own one. But, I will attempt to find a similar statute on South Carolina's books and send an official request for information with regard to my non-SVN platinum Broadway Plantation week.