• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

[2016 - Lennen v. Marriott]

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
This is an interesting argument that I have not previously seen.

It will be interesting to see if the court agrees with their argument that the DC Points Program is nothing more than a financial 'get of jail free' card that Marriott Corporate developed to 'recycle' unsold/foreclosed weeks inventory by selling imaginary title to non-existent real estate while charging costs associated with owning actual real-estate, like closing costs, title insurance, etc..

Is there something rotten in Denmark?

Cue suspenseful music ... :cool:
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,355
Reaction score
18,922
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
It doesn't even look like the plaintiffs own beneficial interests in the trust. GIven that, I think the case would be thrown out. They are not monitarilly injured by the DC program.
 

classiclincoln

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
924
Reaction score
79
Points
238
Location
Southern New Jersey
Sounds like the suit alleges that they were "duped" into buying an interest in a physical property but in reality were not. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's not gonna fly because (while I have never seen the points contract) I doubt the points contract says anything like that.

Yup, lawyers will end up getting enough to buy some of those points and the owners are gonna get "ugatz"....
 

larryallen

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
683
Reaction score
25
Points
238
Location
Vegas Baby!
Resorts Owned
KOBC x6, Westin Kierland x2, and we went to the darkside and bought points!
PS. I really should add that I am against class action lawsuits in general. They mostly do not benefit anyone but these lawyer outfits.


Agreed generally but don't forget that class action lawsuits are aimed at avoiding future bad conduct by that defendant and preventing others. So even if the direct class action doesn't significantly benefit each class participant maybe they will help people in future. There is a public benefit is all I am saying.
 

mjm1

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
1,291
Points
548
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Resorts Owned
Marriott: Resorts and Destination Club Points;
Westin Kierland Villas;
HGVC Flamingo & Blvd;
Hyatt Pinon Pointe
I can't see this going anywhere either.

They even refer to legacy owners not being able to exchange their units like they used to. While it has been discussed here whether the DC program has affected our ability to trade, there have been many trades completed, either into other Marriott's or non-Marriott's.

Mike
 

Fairwinds

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
716
Reaction score
128
Points
253
Location
Virginia
Well this part of the claim is certainly false ....... “The scheme also harms owners of Marriott’s traditional week-to-week timeshares whose interests have been subordinated in favor of the far more profitable and competing points program. In fact, those traditional timeshare owners must now also buy into the points program in order to take advantage of exchange rights they used to enjoy.”
 

BocaBoy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
410
Points
368
Location
Wisconsin
Resorts Owned
Grand Chateau
I really should add that I am against class action lawsuits in general. They mostly do not benefit anyone but these lawyer outfits.
I could not disagree more. There are examples, of course, of the class action vehicle being misused, but also many, many examples of the public good being served by such suits. Individual plaintiffs usually do not have the resources to pursue valid claims based on a cost/benefit analysis. And individual plaintiffs often do benefit from class action verdicts or settlements. As one personal example, a couple years ago I personally won a nearly $30,000 award in a securities fraud class action jury verdict. The case took 12 years to litigate, appeal, etc ., because of the delaying tactics of the defendants. No individual plaintiff could have persevered on his o her own.
 

BocaBoy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
410
Points
368
Location
Wisconsin
Resorts Owned
Grand Chateau
Technically, I think the trust points are legally a share of deeded real estate so I suspect the suit will be dismissed. However, I am sympathetic to the substance of the argument because in reality I think it nails the operational reality (if not the technicalities) of the points program. Heck, if I understand correctly, the "owners" of points don't even have the right to vote their own shares of the trust.
 

mj2vacation

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
482
Reaction score
56
Points
338
Location
New Jersey
I can't see this going anywhere either.

They even refer to legacy owners not being able to exchange their units like they used to. While it has been discussed here whether the DC program has affected our ability to trade, there have been many trades completed, either into other Marriott's or non-Marriott's.

Mike

That is true, however, if they had a recording of a sales presentation where they were told, as many have before, that they need to have points to fully utilize he program, that would be an issue for Marriott.

On our one and only presentation, the sales guy started down that path, and when he essentially said "what you used to do through interval, you can't do anymore unless you supercharge with trust points", I responded that well, if that were true, why would I trust MVC to not screw me in the future to make me buy something else?

As someone who has trained professional sales people, I always stress the importance of not getting into a box that you can't get out of. I actually use that example in my training. He brought the box and tape, I just closed it for him....

We did enroll our existing weeks, and have one external bought after the cut off, and really do like the flexibility. However, I have no interest in buying more points from them.
 
Last edited:

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
Technically, I think the trust points are legally a share of deeded real estate so I suspect the suit will be dismissed. However, I am sympathetic to the substance of the argument because in reality I think it nails the operational reality (if not the technicalities) of the points program. Heck, if I understand correctly, the "owners" of points don't even have the right to vote their own shares of the trust.
I too suspect it will be dismissed. Isn't this essentially the essence of buying a TIMESHARE. Any damages would be to things covered legally up front including the fact that much of the resort was converted to the trust and thus not available to book. But one signs that they understand this possibility up front.

That is true, however, if they had a recording of a sales presentation where they were told, as many have before, that they need to have points to fully utilize he program, that would be an issue for Marriott.
Since it's illegal in FL to record without notification, I doubt it'd be admissible and might get the owners in legal trouble if that were the case.
 

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
It doesn't even look like the plaintiffs own beneficial interests in the trust. GIven that, I think the case would be thrown out. They are not monitarilly injured by the DC program.

Even if they aren't enrolled, which they may not be, they also appear to be making an argument that their ownership as weeks owners has been damaged by the loss of ability to book weeks at other MVCI resorts that have been placed into the 'points trust' unless they submit to enrolling in the points program to regain access to them.

Again, interesting if held to be the case that only by being an enrolled owner can one access weeks that are now placed into the 'points trust'. They either have to enroll or lose this 'benefit' that was previously available to them under their existing weeks ownership.

If I understand correctly, there is still II availability for MVCI exchanges, but now it is greatly reduced and only based on individual owner deposits. The large corporate deposits that Marriott once made to II are now being withheld and managed internally by Marriott through it's own exchange mechanism as part of the points program.

If you don't own points, you can no longer get to these previously unsold/foreclosed weeks that were previously available as part of your week's ownership.

Is that 'harm' to a legal standard? We'll have to see. :cool:
 

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
Well this part of the claim is certainly false ....... “The scheme also harms owners of Marriott’s traditional week-to-week timeshares whose interests have been subordinated in favor of the far more profitable and competing points program. In fact, those traditional timeshare owners must now also buy into the points program in order to take advantage of exchange rights they used to enjoy.”

This is what I was referring to. There may be something here, depending on how Marriott's governing docs were written at the time the plaintiff purchased their weeks as well as past corporate practice. Governing docs are the strongest, but pattern and practice also carries some legal weight.

If they can no longer exchange in a manner provided for in their governing docs without having to enroll in the points program because all of the 'corporate owned' weeks are now inside the points trust now and no longer available through II ...
 

TheTimeTraveler

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
5,952
Reaction score
2,857
Points
648
Location
Florida
Why now?

This never seems to stop. :(

http://therealdeal.com/miami/2016/0...-illegal-timeshare-scheme-seeks-class-action/

PS. I really should add that I am against class action lawsuits in general. They mostly do not benefit anyone but these lawyer outfits.



Next month, June 20, 2016 will mark the 6th anniversary of the Marriott Destination Club program, and I guess my question is why did the Plaintiff wait six years to file this?

With that said, I wonder if this potentially could be thrown out just because of untimely filing?

This will be interesting to watch......






.
 

BocaBoy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
410
Points
368
Location
Wisconsin
Resorts Owned
Grand Chateau
Next month, June 20, 2016 will mark the 6th anniversary of the Marriott Destination Club program, and I guess my question is why did the Plaintiff wait six years to file this?

With that said, I wonder if this potentially could be thrown out just because of untimely filing?
I doubt that it could be thrown out on that basis. The statute of limitations is likely 10 years (although I have not researched this) and more importantly, the damage (if there is any) is continuing, which typically resets the statute of limitations. If the statute were 5 years, for example, the damages would normally be limited to the past 5 years, but if the "illegal" practices are continuing, a suit for the most recent 5 years would still be timely.
 

Ty1on

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
5,119
Reaction score
1,952
Points
348

PeterS

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
277
Reaction score
54
Points
388
Marriott and First American have been sued in Orlando for racketeering based on their points program.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...s-marriott-timeshare-rico-20160524-story.html

Thoughts?

It looks like it is focused on MVC calling DC points a real estate investment including taxes and closing costs, when DC points owners only have a recorded interest in the real estate, but no ownership.

Does it seem strange, that this is what Disney Vacation Club has always done?
Could DVC be next?

Is it really illegal or just the way it is marketed?

Pete
 

Fairwinds

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
716
Reaction score
128
Points
253
Location
Virginia
This is what I was referring to. There may be something here, depending on how Marriott's governing docs were written at the time the plaintiff purchased their weeks as well as past corporate practice. Governing docs are the strongest, but pattern and practice also carries some legal weight.

If they can no longer exchange in a manner provided for in their governing docs without having to enroll in the points program because all of the 'corporate owned' weeks are now inside the points trust now and no longer available through II ...

Just my opinion but: I've never read any part of a contract that guaranteed any availability in II and a pattern of bulk deposits can't set a requirement. By that reasoning if MVC had successfully sold all their weeks as they clearly intended to do and all or most owners occupied their home unit wouldn't MVC then also be liable for diminished trading. I just don't think I have lost anything or been harmed by the Club. I believe (as advertised) that I have just been offered additional options. And in fact, if one decides to enroll doesn't access likelihood improve?
 
Last edited:

AlmostRetired

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
525
Points
474
Location
Long Island, NY
Resorts Owned
Grande Ocean Platinum, 2 x Grand Chateau 3 Bedroom (annual, EOY Odd)
When you have a front line sales structure that is not held accountable for telling the truth during the sales process, it leads to misunderstanding and confusion on the product.

The industry is regulated and the point system too widespread for the suit to have merit. It doesn't mean that a smart lawyer will not find a tee not crossed or an i not dotted.

I hope what comes out of it is more responsibility and transparency by Marriott during the sales and inventory/trading processes.

Not a fan of the point program but a big fan of the Marriott brand to feel anything illegal is going on.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
Just my opinion but: I've never read any part of a contract that guaranteed any availability in II and a pattern of bulk deposits can't set a requirement. By that reasoning if MVC had successfully sold all their weeks as they clearly intended to do and all or most owners occupied their home unit wouldn't MVC then also be liable for diminished trading. I just don't think I have lost anything or been harmed by the Club. I believe (as advertised) that I have just been offered additional options. And in fact, if one decides to enroll doesn't access likelihood improve?
The legal paperwork specifically says exchange options are not guaranteed and/or can change.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
Just my opinion but: I've never read any part of a contract that guaranteed any availability in II and a pattern of bulk deposits can't set a requirement. By that reasoning if MVC had successfully sold all their weeks as they clearly intended to do and all or most owners occupied their home unit wouldn't MVC then also be liable for diminished trading.

I think you are correct. The only "Right" any timeshare week owner owns is the right to occupy their home week in their home season (or their owned week in the case of a fixed week owner). Any opportunity to exchange is an added benefit, but it is not an owned right. I believe the legal documents all state that there is no legal obligation for the developer/program manager to even maintain an exchange program, so if exchange options just diminish, I can't see how that would violate any terms of the contract.

Somewhat similarly, in the Points system, every owner has a legal right to book something with the points they own, so there is guaranteed to be an adequate supply of potential bookings for every point owned. But there is no guarantee of any specific date or any specific location/unit.

Since the weeks and points systems are managed separately, there are two pools of inventory, each of which should have a balance of available weeks/points and owned weeks/points.
 

Wahorn

newbie
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Chesapeake, Va
I agree with the article. The value of my Manor Club week went down substantially after the points system was introduced. They said they wanted to add flexibility, however, my week was devalued by Marriott. I used to trade for another Marriott annually. Now, with the points I get from Marriott, I can trade for another Marriott every other year. I also notice that is is much harder to get another week as most are probably not trading anymore. Plus, my maintenance fees have increased from $546 (2001) to $1,261 (2016) per year!!! Hopefully something comes out of the lawsuit. I feel like I'm being held captive by Marriott since they can raise price/point at anytime and change what my week is worth anytime as well.
 

rthib

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
644
Points
473
Location
DFW, TX
I think you are correct. The only "Right" any timeshare week owner owns is the right to occupy their home week in their home season (or their owned week in the case of a fixed week owner). Any opportunity to exchange is an added benefit, but it is not an owned right. I believe the legal documents all state that there is no legal obligation for the developer/program manager to even maintain an exchange program, so if exchange options just diminish, I can't see how that would violate any terms of the contract.

Somewhat similarly, in the Points system, every owner has a legal right to book something with the points they own, so there is guaranteed to be an adequate supply of potential bookings for every point owned. But there is no guarantee of any specific date or any specific location/unit.

Since the weeks and points systems are managed separately, there are two pools of inventory, each of which should have a balance of available weeks/points and owned weeks/points.

Right on. The weeks owners have no rights to point weeks, the same as a you do not have a right to my week. The docs are pretty well written from a lawyer standpoint in that almost nothing is guaranteed.

As for the point above about recording or anything that was said, the docs also include language that you agree that only what is written is what is promised and no oral promises are binding.

The said part is that even though this will get thrown out or lose, it is still costing lawyer time.
Also, even if for some reason they lose, Companies don't pay class action lawsuits, their customers do. All these things do is raise maintenance fees.
 
Top