Kaanapali vote to offer 33 units as float

[dagger1]

Theoretically, if enough people voted to change the CC&R's to make it completely floating, yes. But the threshold of yes votes is usually very high, usually well above 50%; like 75% or 90%.

This is a rabbit hole... If the HOA can negate the fixed unit portion of a recorded deed, I am guessing they could negate the fixed week as well... That would effectively make everyone a "floating" owner, first come, first serve...
Might be hard to do if it takes a 75% or more supermajority to implement. But, as wisely said above, worth thinking about...

 

[alexadeparis]

This is a rabbit hole... If the HOA can negate the fixed unit portion of a recorded deed, I am guessing they could negate the fixed week as well... That would effectively make everyone a "floating" owner, first come, first serve...
Might be hard to do if it takes a 75% or more supermajority to implement. But, as wisely said above, worth thinking about...

As I said I don't own at that resort, but having dealt with (regular) how issues, I know there is usually a clause specifying what percentage is needed, so I would assume one exists here.

 

[bdh]

If the HOA can negate the fixed unit portion of a recorded deed, I am guessing they could negate the fixed week as well... That would effectively make everyone a "floating" owner, first come, first serve...
Might be hard to do if it takes a 75% or more supermajority to implement. But, as wisely said above, worth thinking about...

While possible by a developer controlled HOA, it's difficult to imagine by a deeded week owner controlled HOA. Unless it's an extremely poorly run property that owners want to escape the POS property and MF, what owner votes to turn over their deeded week/unit??? Depending on where you own if its really worth thinking about.

 

[WalnutBaron]

While possible by a developer controlled HOA, it's difficult to imagine by a deeded week owner controlled HOA. Unless it's an extremely poorly run property that owners want to escape the POS property and MF, what owner votes to turn over their deeded week/unit??? Depending on where you own if its really worth thinking about.

The issue, though--at least in my mind--is that owners of HKB may unwittingly vote in favor of losing this right because of the underhanded way ILG has worded this plebiscite. The proposed amendment--which is purportedly aimed at releasing 33 units which are currently earmarked as fixed weeks to become floating weeks--also contains a provision which would strike all fixed weeks owners' rights to use their fixed weeks in the event of a sale of the property. See posts 62, 66, and 85 in this thread for more information on this. The specific language is quoted in 66 and 85. I agree, bdh, with your premise--no owner would willingly give up that right. But if an owner has not read carefully the 48-page proposal which is littered with legalese and misses this unrelated and by all appearances innocuous clause inserted at the bottom of Page 6 of the document, they may put themselves in the position where they absolutely would lose those rights if the vote results in an affirmative outcome and the resort is later sold.

 

[ocjohn]

Walnut I think the struck through section of the amendment that made he believe we'd lose fixed weeks on sale was added back in 3.2(d)- see the attached.

 

[lizap]

Walnut I think the struck through section of the amendment that made he believe we'd lose fixed weeks on sale was added back in 3.2(d)- see the attached.

Are you saying that ILG went back and changed it? Did you receive another e-mail with that change?

 

[ocjohn]

no that's the original amendment- but you have to read the whole darn thing carefully and there it is. This is hard to evaluate without a summary or independent pros and cons page... but... this may not be a sneaky deal

 

[WalnutBaron]

Walnut I think the struck through section of the amendment that made he believe we'd lose fixed weeks on sale was added back in 3.2(d)- see the attached.

First, thanks ocjohn for working with me to try to understand what I believe is deliberately circuitous and obscure language in the Proposed Amendment document. ILG's lawyers certainly did NOT want to make it easy for HKB owners to understand what the heck they're supposed to voting on.

In any case, I believe your assertion that the right of ownership HKB owners currently have is restored in Section 3.2 is not correct. Here's my interpretation: the specific language states "[In the event the Resort Agreement is terminated] (my abbreviation of the actual language), the owner of each timeshare interest, other than a Floating timeshare interest, shall retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed week in a resort unit of the same resort unit type (my emphasis) in which the timeshare interest is owned."

This is different from a traditional Fixed Week ownership. At the two resorts I own in--Highlands Inn and Pinon Pointe--I not only own the Fixed week (which the above language provides for), but I also own the exact unit I purchased (which the above language does not provide for). If I were an owner at HKB, I would be pretty unhappy knowing that I will still get a higher floor 2BR unit (i.e. the same unit type), but not the specific unit I had bought with the specific view I had purchased.

Maybe HKB's ownership rights are different in the first place. Maybe a guaranteed unit is not part of the current Fixed Week ownership there, as it is at other Hyatt properties. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. But if HKB's Fixed Week ownership is the same as other properties, then Section 3.2 restores only the time of year and unit type, but not the specific actual unit.

 

[bdh]

The issue, though--at least in my mind--is that owners of HKB may unwittingly vote in favor of losing this right because of the underhanded way ILG has worded this plebiscite. The proposed amendment--which is purportedly aimed at releasing 33 units which are currently earmarked as fixed weeks to become floating weeks--also contains a provision which would strike all fixed weeks owners' rights to use their fixed weeks in the event of a sale of the property. See posts 62, 66, and 85 in this thread for more information on this. The specific language is quoted in 66 and 85. I agree, bdh, with your premise--no owner would willingly give up that right. But if an owner has not read carefully the 48-page proposal which is littered with legalese and misses this unrelated and by all appearances innocuous clause inserted at the bottom of Page 6 of the document, they may put themselves in the position where they absolutely would lose those rights if the vote results in an affirmative outcome and the resort is later sold.

WB - totally agree.

The thread was started on the HKB property, however there's been some mixing of apples and oranges as some of the comments across the various pages have been perceived to be on all properties in the HRC system in lieu of just the HKB location. With HKB not being sold out, the developer owns a significant portion of the units and accordingly makes HBK a developer controlled HOA. My comments have been to note the different scenario that exists at HBK from the other mature/sold out HRC properties (so that owners at mature/sold out HRC properties are clear that their deeded weeks are not involved/at risk).

 

[WalnutBaron]

WB - totally agree.

The thread was started on the HKB property, however there's been some mixing of apples and oranges as some of the comments across the various pages have been perceived to be on all properties in the HRC system in lieu of just the HKB location. With HKB not being sold out, the developer owns a significant portion of the units and accordingly makes HBK a developer controlled HOA. My comments have been to note the different scenario that exists at HBK from the other mature/sold out HRC properties (so that owners at mature/sold out HRC properties are clear that their deeded weeks are not involved/at risk).

Thanks for the clarification, bdh--and I agree with you. I guess my big takeaway from this whole HKB issue is the vital importance of all of us owners--wherever we own--being vigilant. If ILG gets away with this at HKB, any of the other HRC properties could and likely will be next. Yet another reason I am so grateful for this new forum is that it gives us owners an avenue to try to mobilize owners in these kinds of situations. True--there are only a handful of participants on this Bulletin Board right now, but if we stay with it, we will hopefully attract other owners to learn more and be more active participants in their ownership.

 

[ocjohn]

...
Maybe HKB's ownership rights are different in the first place. Maybe a guaranteed unit is not part of the current Fixed Week ownership there, as it is at other Hyatt properties. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. But if HKB's Fixed Week ownership is the same as other properties, then Section 3.2 restores only the time of year and unit type, but not the specific actual unit.

hey we're trying to figure this out togehter. And I'm not a lawyer so reader beware (-: And all we own is Ka'anapali so can't speak to anything else. But our deed shows a unit number on the 6th floor, however we will be assigned any available unit on floors 5 - 8 when we get there. We just get a unit in a band of floors. The attached is from the first amendment passed a long time ago, page 8. So this has been the rule for a long time in Ka'anapali. hope this helps.

still- Hyatt- a little help here?

 

[bdh]

First, thanks ocjohn for working with me to try to understand what I believe is deliberately circuitous and obscure language in the Proposed Amendment document. ILG's lawyers certainly did NOT want to make it easy for HKB owners to understand what the heck they're supposed to voting on.

In any case, I believe your assertion that the right of ownership HKB owners currently have is restored in Section 3.2 is not correct. Here's my interpretation: the specific language states "[In the event the Resort Agreement is terminated] (my abbreviation of the actual language), the owner of each timeshare interest, other than a Floating timeshare interest, shall retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed week in a resort unit of the same resort unit type (my emphasis) in which the timeshare interest is owned."

This is different from a traditional Fixed Week ownership. At the two resorts I own in--Highlands Inn and Pinon Pointe--I not only own the Fixed week (which the above language provides for), but I also own the exact unit I purchased (which the above language does not provide for). If I were an owner at HKB, I would be pretty unhappy knowing that I will still get a higher floor 2BR unit (i.e. the same unit type), but not the specific unit I had bought with the specific view I had purchased.

Maybe HKB's ownership rights are different in the first place. Maybe a guaranteed unit is not part of the current Fixed Week ownership there, as it is at other Hyatt properties. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. But if HKB's Fixed Week ownership is the same as other properties, then Section 3.2 restores only the time of year and unit type, but not the specific actual unit.

When it comes to deeded weeks, HKB is different than all other HRC properties. HBK owners are NOT guaranteed a specific unit - they are only guaranteed a specific band of floors in which they purchased. Refer to the top half of post #34.

While one of the core basics of the HRC product from day one with the deeded week and unit has been an owner has a guaranteed week and unit if reserved during HRPP, HRC did not incorporate that core basic at HBK.

 

[WalnutBaron]

Thanks to both ocjohn and bdh for this clarification. In that case, I do think ocjohn is correct--Section 3.2d does indeed restore the right which was for some unknown reason removed in Section 3.2a. Why ILG's lawyers wrote the thing that way is a mystery to me, but--call me cynical if you will--whenever a relatively simple thing is deliberately obscured by circuitous language that seemingly is meant to create confusion, I always get suspicious.

 

[bdh]

I guess my big takeaway from this whole HKB issue is the vital importance of all of us owners--wherever we own--being vigilant. If ILG gets away with this at HKB, any of the other HRC properties could and likely will be next.

Not suggesting that it's not possible at other HRC properties, but it is not probable. In order for there to be the potential for a change at other HRC properties, HRC/ILG would first need to acquire/purchase ownership of a significant number of deeded weeks, then get their minions in place on the board to make even the voting scenario possible. Refer to the bottom half of post #34.

IE: Use HSH as example, it is a mature/sold out property and HRC/ILG/Developer owns only a handful of units. If HSH owners and HOA see HRC/ILG/Developer making a significant move to purchase deeded weeks in an attempt to take control of the property, the owners/HOA can vote to cancel the Hyatt contract/affiliation - without the ability for HRC/ILG/Developer to exchange their owned units to other HRC properties, HSH is no longer a desirable location for them - and the individual deeded owners retain their deeded property. Note: this is an Armageddon scenario that I personally don't believe is even remotely possible in occurring. FWIW: the HSH board hasn't changed since Moby-Dick was a minnow (I think there might be 1 member that's been on the board for 20 years.)

The key at HKB and other HRC properties is the HOA - is it developer controlled or deeded week owner controlled?

 

[TFTG]

A little late on this topic, but I received the info in the mail and also via email from XXXX{edited per TFTG to remove name} (Sales Ops Manager at HRC). I asked him some questions to which he replied fairly quickly, here is some of that info (taken with a grain of salt as he likely has a vested interest in all of us responding to reach a quorum)

Answers (in italics) from general questions I asked in regards to fixed vs float, pricing, relation to points program, etc:
Prices have not been finalized yet but will probably be in the high 70's for an annual and high 40's for an every other year. I'll be able to share official prices with you after the vote on Aug. 1. Based on the response we've received from owners so far, I expect the amendment to pass.
I am also a 2-bedroom fixed week Maui owner (week X {edited per TFTG to remove week owned}). I voted in favor of the amendment for the following reasons:

1. It makes the fixed weeks more scarce and therefore, in my opinion, ultimately more valuable. 20 years from now, if I ever want to sell my unit, I feel there might be more demand for a fixed week / guaranteed reservation and guaranteed view. Again, this is just my opinion and of course very speculative.
2. I also thought about exchange opportunities for fixed week owners. Fixed week owners tend to return to their home property more than floating week owners. If a floating week owner decides not to return to Maui then that week becomes available to all club members, including fixed week Maui owners. So I think this amendment potentially increases exchange opportunities for owners like you and me.

I certainly would not have vote in favor of the amendment if I thought it would negatively affect my fixed week ownership. And for those owners who might want a little more exchange flexibility from year to year, then I think the floating program will help. If you don't plan to return to Maui during your week and anticipate always trying to move your week, then you might consider a floating week. For the floating week, there is no view category, so you could be anywhere floors 1 to 12. Not sure if you see this as a pro or con.

The points program is something entirely different and will not affect Maui owners (fixed or floating) at all. The great thing about Maui is that there will always be a 1 to 1 ratio between owners and deeds. Our ownership can never be diluted and we have a guaranteed reservation in Maui every year forever.

And finally when asking about the fixed week language on page 6 of the amendment - answer came from Lisa Trosset:
The section you reference is struck through, however, the prior sentence in the amendment clarifies that if the Timeshare Plan is terminated that the Owner of each Timeshare Interest, other than a Floating Timeshare Interest, shall have the exclusive right to reserve and use a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type that such Owner owns during the Owner's Fixed Week, subject to the provisions of the Timeshare Plan and the Hyatt Residence Club Documents.

The Owners of the Fixed Week intervals will continue to have access to their fixed week even if the timeshare plan is terminated.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[lizap]

A little late on this topic, but I received the info in the mail and also via email from XXXX{edited per TFTG to remove name} (Sales Ops Manager at HRC). I asked him some questions to which he replied fairly quickly, here is some of that info (taken with a grain of salt as he likely has a vested interest in all of us responding to reach a quorum)

Answers (in italics) from general questions I asked in regards to fixed vs float, pricing, relation to points program, etc:
Prices have not been finalized yet but will probably be in the high 70's for an annual and high 40's for an every other year. I'll be able to share official prices with you after the vote on Aug. 1. Based on the response we've received from owners so far, I expect the amendment to pass.
I am also a 2-bedroom fixed week Maui owner (week X {edited per TFTG to remove week owned}). I voted in favor of the amendment for the following reasons:

1. It makes the fixed weeks more scarce and therefore, in my opinion, ultimately more valuable. 20 years from now, if I ever want to sell my unit, I feel there might be more demand for a fixed week / guaranteed reservation and guaranteed view. Again, this is just my opinion and of course very speculative.
2. I also thought about exchange opportunities for fixed week owners. Fixed week owners tend to return to their home property more than floating week owners. If a floating week owner decides not to return to Maui then that week becomes available to all club members, including fixed week Maui owners. So I think this amendment potentially increases exchange opportunities for owners like you and me.

I certainly would not have vote in favor of the amendment if I thought it would negatively affect my fixed week ownership. And for those owners who might want a little more exchange flexibility from year to year, then I think the floating program will help. If you don't plan to return to Maui during your week and anticipate always trying to move your week, then you might consider a floating week. For the floating week, there is no view category, so you could be anywhere floors 1 to 12. Not sure if you see this as a pro or con.

The points program is something entirely different and will not affect Maui owners (fixed or floating) at all. The great thing about Maui is that there will always be a 1 to 1 ratio between owners and deeds. Our ownership can never be diluted and we have a guaranteed reservation in Maui every year forever.

And finally when asking about the fixed week language on page 6 of the amendment - answer came from Lisa Trosset:
The section you reference is struck through, however, the prior sentence in the amendment clarifies that if the Timeshare Plan is terminated that the Owner of each Timeshare Interest, other than a Floating Timeshare Interest, shall have the exclusive right to reserve and use a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type that such Owner owns during the Owner's Fixed Week, subject to the provisions of the Timeshare Plan and the Hyatt Residence Club Documents.

The Owners of the Fixed Week intervals will continue to have access to their fixed week even if the timeshare plan is terminated.

Sorry for the confusion.

This may be true and it may not. Remember they work for and are paid by ILG.

 

[Tucsonadventurer]

This may be true and it may not. Remember they work for and are paid by ILG.

You have it in writing however which I put more stake in than a verbal reply

 

[gdonnersc1]

I had sent questions to Lisa Trosset and received a reply. She said I could share them here. She also indicated that there is likely to be a Q&A released. I will put each of my questions and her responses in a separate posting. Here goes the first:

My first question is as follows:


Your e-mail states the following:


“The usage rights you have for your fixed week, floating unit type will not be effected by this change.”


Based on this statement, as a fixed week owner I can continue to use the fixed weeks in the same floor band as I currently do if this passes. Is that correct? My confusion is that it appears that the following language is being removed from the current rules:


“In the event that the Resort Agreement is terminated (letters bolded by me) in accordance with its terms, the owner of each Timeshare Interest shall nevertheless retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed Week in a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type in which the Timeshare Interest is owned."


What does this mean and if it means that we are less protected in the case of a termination of the Resort Agreement then we currently are, how can you say that our usage rights are not changed?

Her response was as follows:

Your usage rights remain protected and have not changed. The language you cited was relocated from 3.2(a) to Section 3.2(d). In addition, new language was also added to Section 3.2(d) to recognize the new Floating Timeshare Interests. In the event that the Resort Agreement were to be terminated, Owners in the Fixed Week use plan retain the exclusive right to reserve and use the same Fixed Week in a Unit Type in which their timeshare interest is owned.

 

[gdonnersc1]

My second question has to do with maintenance fees. It would seem to me that floating week users have less of a sense of ownership then fixed users and as a result, maintenance costs and fees would increase under the proposal. Do you have data that would either support or refute this?

Her response follows:

Question #2

The annual HKB Vacation Owners’ Association budget is divided equally among all timeshare interests in the same resort unit type, regardless of the specific use plan. Your assessments will not change as a result of the new use plan. The owners in the new use plan will still have deeded ownership in the property and will be making a significant financial investment to acquire their timeshare interests.

 

[WalnutBaron]

A little late on this topic, but I received the info in the mail and also via email from XXXX{edited per TFTG to remove name} (Sales Ops Manager at HRC). I asked him some questions to which he replied fairly quickly, here is some of that info (taken with a grain of salt as he likely has a vested interest in all of us responding to reach a quorum)

Answers (in italics) from general questions I asked in regards to fixed vs float, pricing, relation to points program, etc:
Prices have not been finalized yet but will probably be in the high 70's for an annual and high 40's for an every other year. I'll be able to share official prices with you after the vote on Aug. 1. Based on the response we've received from owners so far, I expect the amendment to pass.
I am also a 2-bedroom fixed week Maui owner (week X {edited per TFTG to remove week owned}). I voted in favor of the amendment for the following reasons:

1. It makes the fixed weeks more scarce and therefore, in my opinion, ultimately more valuable. 20 years from now, if I ever want to sell my unit, I feel there might be more demand for a fixed week / guaranteed reservation and guaranteed view. Again, this is just my opinion and of course very speculative.
2. I also thought about exchange opportunities for fixed week owners. Fixed week owners tend to return to their home property more than floating week owners. If a floating week owner decides not to return to Maui then that week becomes available to all club members, including fixed week Maui owners. So I think this amendment potentially increases exchange opportunities for owners like you and me.

I certainly would not have vote in favor of the amendment if I thought it would negatively affect my fixed week ownership. And for those owners who might want a little more exchange flexibility from year to year, then I think the floating program will help. If you don't plan to return to Maui during your week and anticipate always trying to move your week, then you might consider a floating week. For the floating week, there is no view category, so you could be anywhere floors 1 to 12. Not sure if you see this as a pro or con.

The points program is something entirely different and will not affect Maui owners (fixed or floating) at all. The great thing about Maui is that there will always be a 1 to 1 ratio between owners and deeds. Our ownership can never be diluted and we have a guaranteed reservation in Maui every year forever.

And finally when asking about the fixed week language on page 6 of the amendment - answer came from Lisa Trosset:
The section you reference is struck through, however, the prior sentence in the amendment clarifies that if the Timeshare Plan is terminated that the Owner of each Timeshare Interest, other than a Floating Timeshare Interest, shall have the exclusive right to reserve and use a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type that such Owner owns during the Owner's Fixed Week, subject to the provisions of the Timeshare Plan and the Hyatt Residence Club Documents.

The Owners of the Fixed Week intervals will continue to have access to their fixed week even if the timeshare plan is terminated.

Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks, TFTG, for the information. Ultimately, we all have to believe that this Amendment Proposal is being done for the benefit of ILG and NOT for the benefit of HKB owners. bdh's comments in posts 103, 109, and 112 pretty well summarize the reason why ILG felt they had a unique opportunity--they still controlled a substantial voting bloc through the unsold units, and they're going for it--to the direct detriment of HRC owners who would have wanted to trade into HKB.

 

[gdonnersc1]

My third question is how units are assigned today and how they would be assisgned when some of the weeks are floating and some are fixed. Please describe that to me.

Her response follows:

Question #3

Units today are reserved by owners during their Home Resort Preference Period based on their fixed week and their resort unit type (resort unit types are based on the type of unit and the floor band). When assigning a particular unit for an owner’s use, we give consideration to the order in which reservations are made and any special requests. This process will not change. With the addition of the 33 units, there will, of course, be more units available for reservation and additional owners seeking to obtain reservations within certain resort unit types; but the proposed amendment sets aside for fixed week timeshare interest owners that number of reservations required in each resort unit type to fully accommodate such fixed week owners’ reservation rights. Please see Section 3.6(d) of the proposed amendment which ensures that all fixed week owners will continue to be able to make a reservation for their fixed week during their Home Resort Preference Period by restricting the number of reservations available to floating timeshare interest owners.

 

[gdonnersc1]

My fourth and final question is specifically which units are included in the 33 that are being proposed for floating.

Her response follows:

Question #4

Please see attached a copy of the exhibit that list the unit numbers for the 33 units.

I can forward the list to anyone that wants it but it was all 2 bedroom units--8 lower level, 13 mid level and 12 upper level

 

[gdonnersc1]

My conclusion as it relates to our units--I do not feel that the language change changes our protection for our fixed week and floor band. I would have liked to have received better information on how units are assigned and the potential impact on maintenance fees.

I do wish that we could better negotiate and understand what they would want and what we should want in return. But that is not how timeshares work.

So we will probably vote in favor since it would be good to have the property sold out in my opinion

 

[WalnutBaron]

Great questions, gdonner, and thanks for posting the answers. I admit I'm pretty incredulous that ILG/Hyatt did not provide this kind of information in an FAQ document at the time they sent the proposed amendment to the HKB owners. The vote is only 16 days away and likely many owners have already voted, without having the benefit of this information. Probably exactly what ILG was hoping would happen.

 

[lizap]

My, how gullible some are. No type of response is binding until signed and officially notarized. WalnutBaron is correct in that whatever they plan to do, the odds are excellent that it is not in the best interest of the owners. It is interesting that the people who emailed did not ask about PPP. Is it in the best interest of HRC owners? We all know the likely answer. Let us not forget that these same ILG representatives likely are aware that HRC owners are very concerned and confused about how PPP will affect them. I would encourage those who have received emails to request formal notarized correspondence. In your emails, please also ask these ILG representatives to address specifically how the PPP program will impact current HRC owners. When you receive this correspondence, please post on TUG for us all to view. I seriously doubt this will happen though...