• 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!

Kaanapali vote to offer 33 units as float

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,374
Reaction score
18,932
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
Dioxide the only reason it would matter is- if you every HAD to give up your week (death in the family, something comes up)- and you didn't have time to rent your week- you'd release your week and search for any other date. I checked yesterday- there's nothing available in Ka'anapali for a year right now, so it's already hard. If 33 units get split off in a separate pool, our resort will have just gotten 25% smaller and it would just make trading if you ever had to impossible.

And I see your point pathways- but wouldn't you prefer being in a larger pool than a smaller one? Increases possibilities I'd think?

So, again, you don't want this to happen? Don't vote yes, don't vote no, don't do anything (-:
But even if they continued to sell them all as fixed, you would end up having that many more owners to compete against for those same units. Right now it doesn't seem like Hyatt is putting the unsold units in to the club. Having owners of 98 units vying for 98 units is really no different than 131 vying for 131. As they continue to sell the resort, the numbers don't really change. The property is hard to book, I don't think the additional units would make a difference because you also have that many more owners competing for them. Even if they do sell them as float, those units would still be available for other owners when a float owner books inside the club to somewhere else.
 

taffy19

newbie
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
593
Points
398
I tend to agree.

Future state holds the possibility that the more FW/FU's sold, eventually more of those owners may want a 'different' week or want to trade to another Hyatt or RCI, opening up more units to non Ka'anapali Beach owners. If these go into a points program, the current state will remain.
Hyatt exchanges with II currently so why do you mention RCI?
 
Last edited:

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
Location
Louisiana
I think ILG is making a mistake to not open up more HKB inventory to existing owners using points since there is likely a greater chance of one of us buying (if we had a chance to stay there) than all those visiting using 3-4 night packages that cost little. Just a real lack of leadership at ILG..
 
Last edited:

Kal

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,406
Reaction score
511
Points
499
Location
Redmond, WA
The booking dot com site shows a 3-BR, 1 night stay at Kaanapali at $1,539 plus a $34.03 resort fee.
 

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
Location
Louisiana
The booking dot com site shows a 3-BR, 1 night stay at Kaanapali at $1,539 plus a $34.03 resort fee.


Yes, I think ILG is making $ off of much of the remaining inventory instead of opening it up to other HRC owners. I still wonder if any HRC owner has been able to reserve a 7 night stay at HKB using points?
 
Last edited:

bdh

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
782
Reaction score
196
Points
403
Yes, I think ILG is making $ off of much of the remaining inventory instead of opening it up to other HRC owners.


ILG or the developer? I don't believe ILG/HRC are the developers at HBK - so the bulk of any money made from the use of unsold units goes to the developer. In the typical HRC property, another entity is the developer that partners with Hyatt to use the "Hyatt" brand name and management company. The bulk of the money to develop/construct a property comes from the developer in lieu of Hyatt. So the unsold units are not Hyatt's to put into the exchange program - only units that are sold to John Q. Public are put into the HRC exchange program.

From what I remember: in Key West, the developer of each property was Spottswood and in Colorado, the developer at each property was East-West Partners. The only ones that I'm aware of where Hyatt is the developer is Wild Oak and Coconut Plantation.

If anyone knows others or has a correction on the above, feel free to chime in.
 

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
Location
Louisiana
ILG or the developer? I don't believe ILG/HRC are the developers at HBK - so the bulk of any money made from the use of unsold units goes to the developer. In the typical HRC property, another entity is the developer that partners with Hyatt to use the "Hyatt" brand name and management company. The bulk of the money to develop/construct a property comes from the developer in lieu of Hyatt. So the unsold units are not Hyatt's to put into the exchange program - only units that are sold to John Q. Public are put into the HRC exchange program.

From what I remember: in Key West, the developer of each property was Spottswood and in Colorado, the developer at each property was East-West Partners. The only ones that I'm aware of where Hyatt is the developer is Wild Oak and Coconut Plantation.

If anyone knows others or has a correction on the above, feel free to chime in.

We have no way of knowing what the arrangement is between the developer and ILG. It might well be in the developer's best interest to allow ILG to put some of the unsold inventory in HRC (temporarily), allowing for exchanges using points. Would be a great way to market the units, and I suspect they would make some sales this way.
 

Kal

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,406
Reaction score
511
Points
499
Location
Redmond, WA
Traditionally the developer does not have the marketing capability for the unsold units. So they partner with Hyatt to get the units either sold or rented. That way the developer gets some cash flow, but Hyatt will take a substantial share because they provided the marketing function. If Hyatt placed those units into the HRC, there would be no cash back to the developer.

Now lots of things could happen as the calendar gets close to the developer's unit-week.
 

gdonnersc1

Guest
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
Points
163
Location
Bluffton, SC
I can think of lots of questions that could impact how I vote. For example, it seems to me that an owner with a fixed week and who uses the resort virtually every year will have more of a sense of ownership than a points member that rotates from resort to resort and that this may impact maintenance fees. I don't know that to be the case but I would bet that ILG has some information on that which they could share.

I would also be curious how they will assign units to reservations. I would assume that now they do it on some kind of timestamp. So that if there are 8 units in the upper 3 bedroom (floors 5-12), I would assume that currently, the first timestamp gets 12, the second 11, etc. How would that work if this is approved and if one of the 33 units is a 3 bedroom. Since the booking process for those would be different, would they handle the assignment the same or differently?

As with everything, the devil is in the details and there is little to no transparency.

What we really need is someone that would step up to be a proxy to vote as follows: a) if a quorum is not otherwise reached, do not vote so as not to facilitate a quorum. If a quorum is reached, vote no. I am not an attorney. Does anyone know how that can be done?

In the mean time, I am going to send Lisa Trosset a list of questions and say that I don't think that a vote can be valid without answers to these questions in the hands of all owners with sufficient time to consider the impact of the responses prior to voting.
 

ocjohn

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
12
Points
118
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Residence Club Ka'anapali Beach
Hyatt Residence Club Incline Village (Lake Tahoe)
Vidanta Kingdom of the Sun (maybe, someday), Grand Luxxe now
I have guessed the 33 units and their associated weeks would be "walled off"- we never seem them, they don't see us. As if the resort were smaller. But that's my guess.

But for the proxy - it seems easier than that to me gdon... We know that no more than 20%-25% of the non-developer owners will probably vote (see previous post on this)... and even if every single one of those votes was a "no" that wouldn't be enough to counter the developers' yes votes. So even if you had an agent there it wouldn't matter.

So it remains simple- if you don't want this to happen- don't vote at all.
Any vote, yes or no, helps establish a quorum. And if there'
s a quorum, this will happen.
John
 

Kal

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,406
Reaction score
511
Points
499
Location
Redmond, WA
Based upon my understanding of the proposal, it is really, really bad for the owners:
- There is no proxy, you have to be present
- Included in the proposal is a deletion of a line item where in the event of a sale of the resort, fixed week owners are no longer guaranteed their fixed week
- The float is for 33 2-BR units, Weeks 1-50 (1650 unit weeks, divided up into the various floor groupings)

Let's say you are the first buyer. All the float program has to do is provide a week in the 50. Then what if that week is on Floor 9-12 and you bought in on a lower floor?

This has all the ear markings as a set up for a points program.
 

Tucsonadventurer

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
649
Points
224
Location
Tucson
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Pinon Pointe, Hyatt Beach House, Westin Kierland
Based upon my understanding of the proposal, it is really, really bad for the owners:
- There is no proxy, you have to be present
- Included in the proposal is a deletion of a line item where in the event of a sale of the resort, fixed week owners are no longer guaranteed their fixed week
- The float is for 33 2-BR units, Weeks 1-50 (1650 unit weeks, divided up into the various floor groupings)

Let's say you are the first buyer. All the float program has to do is provide a week in the 50. Then what if that week is on Floor 9-12 and you bought in on a lower floor?

This has all the ear markings as a set up for a points program.
I agree Kal. The district rep who, we spoke with did tell us that Hawaii would eventually be in the Portfolio program but that it would take awhile until the units were sold. He then said he could not tell us everything yet.I am just glad that not all of the units will be.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,374
Reaction score
18,932
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
Based upon my understanding of the proposal, it is really, really bad for the owners:
- There is no proxy, you have to be present
What are you talking about? This is what is in the PDF in post #1.

Capture.JPG
 

taffy19

newbie
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
593
Points
398
The weeks they are looking to convert to float are 1-50 in the 33 units. So it isn't less desirable weeks. It looks to perhaps be units where they haven't sold a single week from yet. So they are unbroken units. They will sell weeks 51 and 52 at fixed. So they will have a season that is weeks 1-50 at these 33 units. It is quite possible that they will dump them in to the new Pure Points since that will just be a land based trust.

Edited to add: Thinking about this more. Hyatt doesn't need the weeks to be floating in order to dump them in to Pure Points. They could do that now with any week at any resort. Not sure the motive behind this. It is probably easier to sell a float week given how the industry has changed.
I agree with you, dioxide45 that we should know the real motive behind this.

but bringing it back around, if you owned a fixed week in Kaanapali (like us), would you

1. vote for letting float week units happen
2. vote against
3. not care either way since you could always use your fixed week? (-:
A few of us don't see it that way, John. Please, read page 6 where they struck-through the following text. Are you sure that you know what that means?

The paragraph starts with a faint or greyed out heading of the word "Weeks".
Then the words "Fixed Weeks" are added (double underlined) plus more text and then the important strike-through text that may affect us who bought at the Hyatt Residence Club in Maui (H.M.K), including you. If anyone wants to read these documents, I will try to attach them in a private conversation or even here in this thread if that works.

This is how MAD I am at the Hyatt and ILG for not letting us know that a sale was pending in March 2014 when we bought. That sale had to be in the works already but it wasn't mentioned.

To me that is leaving off a very important material fact to a prospective buyer and may affect others too who bought in the first few months when they started selling the resort until it was announced publicly so was no longer a secret.

We wouldn't have bought there if we knew this fact because our plan was to mainly use our week in this Hyatt Residence Club tower (H.M.K) on the main Ka'anapali Beach in a 1 BR ocean view condo on the higher floors (5 - 10) and not on a different beach somewhere in Maui where there may be a sewer smell or anywhere else where there is a beach and not just in a "same Resort Unit Type unit" anywhere. This is not what we bargained for!

Here is the struck-through text

"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."
Doesn't this mean that we no longer have this right when the Resort Agreement is terminated since it is struck-through? They certainly do not explain it well except that "nothing changes for the fixed week owners" in the cover letter we received the second time. It seems to stay the same for a fixed week owner of week 52 and 53 but not for any other weeks as far as I understand it.

It is my opinion that ILG should have explained it in layman's language to all of us like they do in our voting booklet because that language is often also hard to understand plus they give us the "for" and "against" explanation too in simple English. Here, they gave us nothing and it is almost like they do not want us to understand what it means but, legally, they have to let us know.

When we bought, our salesman told us that all our rights, including using the Hyatt Resort amenities next door, would stay with the contract and transfer to the next owner. Is that still the case?

He also told us that ILG had the right to use their name on the Club as long as the quality remains to the Hyatt standards plus they wanted them to build a certain amount of new resorts within a reasonable time.

As far as I know, they haven't built one single resort yet since 2014 so I wonder if the developer of our resort wants to pull a group of condos out as that is his right to do. We were aware of that but not that they also had the right to take away what was deeded to us and is recorded too in the State of Hawaii.

Our salesman made a big deal about the fact that some other resorts lose these perks when the contract is sold but not here. I don't even care about losing the hotel amenities either or if II is replaced with RCI but I do care if we lose our location where we bought at a developer's high purchase price for the view and quality of the resort. This is totally unfair how they will change our legal documents when this 2nd amendment is replacing what we bought.

I wonder if the next step will be that we are no longer allowed to sell it ourselves if we want to keep these perks for the next owner or if we still can rent our week if, for any reason, we cannot use it ourselves one year. I knew already that we can use one of their brokers and pay a 25% commission but we could also rent the condo out ourselves, if we wanted to do that, or sell the condo with no perks taken away.

There were rumors floating around about a Marriott merger (which is less likely now from what I read on June 30 in Trading Alpha) but that was only a personal opinion.

Even Hilton is rumored too but, if that is true, then we will have RCI as the exchange company, I guess. Not that I care because it was never our plan to use any exchange company or visit another Hyatt resort since we only own one Hyatt timeshare but it will affect people who like to make exchanges with II and the other perks they have with them.

There is a lot of text that the proposed "floating unit owners" also need to read when they buy at this resort so start bugging them to get that information shown to you when you go on a presentation there and have them explain it to you in simple, plain English. I have seen some interesting terms mentioned that I have not seen before but too much to add on to this long post already. We never liked floating units so I didn't even finished reading it.
I have guessed the 33 units and their associated weeks would be "walled off"- we never seem them, they don't see us. As if the resort were smaller. But that's my guess.

But for the proxy - it seems easier than that to me gdon... We know that no more than 20%-25% of the non-developer owners will probably vote (see previous post on this)... and even if every single one of those votes was a "no" that wouldn't be enough to counter the developers' yes votes. So even if you had an agent there it wouldn't matter.

So it remains simple- if you don't want this to happen- don't vote at all.
Any vote, yes or no, helps establish a quorum. And if there'
s a quorum, this will happen.
John
 
Last edited:

taffy19

newbie
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
593
Points
398
Aren't fixed owners tied to their week and unit already? Aren't they fixed week fixed units? So the 33 units being float really has no impact on existing fixed owners. If Hyatt decides to sell these as float instead of points, then there is still no impact since those float owners would be reserving in to one of the 33 units. If a float owner books inside the club using the points assigned to their float week to stay at another property, then that float week opens up to others using points in the club. No? I don't really see how there is any impact on other owners at Ka'anapali. If they put the float weeks in to Pure Points, then I can see an impact to owners at other properties trying to use points to book in to Ka'anapali since they will effectively be locked out of these units unless an owner of these units book in to another week through the club.

I just don't see how there can be any impact to current owners that own fixed weeks.

No, we do not own a fixed week/unit at this resort. We own a fixed week and a unit in groups of higher, medium, and lower floors and they are different for the 1, 2 or 3 BR condos. I posted about it here because you requested that information, for when you get ready. :)

If we only owned a true fixed week/unit like at the Marriott next door, they couldn't do this to us but here they can, I guess, which is totally unfair. I doubt if that can be done with a proper fixed week/unit to which you hold an old-fashioned deed? I hope not. You know that ARDA is a very powerful lobby for the developers and get some of these laws changed in favor of the industry.

The irony is that we had no intention to buy at this resort but my husband loved the Lanai so much that he wanted to own there because we still needed that week to string our four weeks together and not having to rent anymore or stay in hotels.

Later that week, I started to get curious about the re-sale market so checked RedWeek and found a 3 BR fixed week/unit on the 9th floor in the Lahaina tower for the week we needed so I wanted to rescind the contract but my husband didn't want to and I couldn't do it alone and now this shenanigan here at the Hyatt tower next door. If I had only known this but I didn't so I am very upset about the whole thing.

I also agree with gdonnersc1 in post #60 that there are many questions that need to be answered and I feel the same way about the other comments too. Too much wear and tear from people checking in and out daily and we are going to have to pay the extra maintenance fees because the developer will not.

I can think of lots of questions that could impact how I vote. For example, it seems to me that an owner with a fixed week and who uses the resort virtually every year will have more of a sense of ownership than a points member that rotates from resort to resort and that this may impact maintenance fees. I don't know that to be the case but I would bet that ILG has some information on that which they could share.

I would also be curious how they will assign units to reservations. I would assume that now they do it on some kind of timestamp. So that if there are 8 units in the upper 3 bedroom (floors 5-12), I would assume that currently, the first timestamp gets 12, the second 11, etc. How would that work if this is approved and if one of the 33 units is a 3 bedroom. Since the booking process for those would be different, would they handle the assignment the same or differently?

As with everything, the devil is in the details and there is little to no transparency.

What we really need is someone that would step up to be a proxy to vote as follows: a) if a quorum is not otherwise reached, do not vote so as not to facilitate a quorum. If a quorum is reached, vote no. I am not an attorney. Does anyone know how that can be done?

In the mean time, I am going to send Lisa Trosset a list of questions and say that I don't think that a vote can be valid without answers to these questions in the hands of all owners with sufficient time to consider the impact of the responses prior to voting.

There are several legal entities but the developer seems to be the "Maui Timeshare Venture, LLC." as that question was asked by bdh in post #57.
 

ecwinch

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,731
Reaction score
1,119
Points
748
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
Let me clarify...There is no proxy for a NO vote.

It is easy to get confused about how HOA (i.e. corporate elections) work. While you may receive a ballot to vote, in most states your mail-in ballot is a directed proxy authorizing the Club Secretary to vote on your behalf in the manner you mark your ballot. In most states, all votes must be cast in person. So if you cannot vote in person, they you are either giving someone a general proxy to vote as they see fit or a directed proxy to vote as you marked your ballot. In a corporate election, there is not the concept of mail-in ballot as you find in a public election.
 

ocjohn

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
12
Points
118
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Residence Club Ka'anapali Beach
Hyatt Residence Club Incline Village (Lake Tahoe)
Vidanta Kingdom of the Sun (maybe, someday), Grand Luxxe now
- Included in the proposal is a deletion of a line item where in the event of a sale of the resort, fixed week owners are no longer guaranteed their fixed week...
This has all the ear markings as a set up for a points program.

Good catch Kal and Taffy... sure enough page 6.
So the developer's plan sounds to me like "we want to convert to pure points. To do so, first snatch 33 unsold units for float by way of this amendment. Then wait for an inevitable sale, since selling the resort will eliminate fixed weeks (page 6). So it would sell for way more because of fixed weeks going away. Huge incentive for it to sell! So it probably will.

Now image existing owners. Our mid level 2 bedroom ranged in price from $61.8k (starting week 36) to $115k (week 52). Everyone gets a letter- "the resort sold- you all have floating weeks now... have a nice day".

So- if you don't want this to happen, don't "go to the light". If you are in Ka'anapali on Aug 1, stay away from the meeting. If you go, they must record your name and that will help them get quorum. If they get quorum, this PASSES.

No matter how many more emails we get from Hyatt saying "everybody vote! Come on, weigh in!", don't listen. Every vote, yes or no, helps get quorum. And if they get quorum, this passes.

They have all the cards. They will continue to email all owners, and all we can do is reach owners that happen to see this board. It's a David and Goliath story. But maybe our fight here will end up like that one did (-:
 

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
Location
Louisiana
If I was a fixed week owner here, I would be extremely upset about this. Heck, I'm a HRC owner hoping to stay there once in a while, and I'm upset. There has to be a way to get the word out to existing owners (e.g., carrying signs outside the resort, which might get some attention, posting on internet, contacting an attorney). Somebody needs to take the lead on this.. BTW, there is little doubt that ILG will eventually sell Vistana and/or Hyatt. They are in way over their head..
 
Last edited:

WalnutBaron

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
2,585
Points
574
Location
California
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Highlands Inn, Hyatt Pinon Pointe
If ocjohn is right--and he may very well be--the current owners of HKB are in the process of getting screwed. My sense is that ILG has decided that HKB is too valuable a property to simply leave in the traditional HRC system as it is presently configured. A sale of the property triggers the clause that eliminates fixed weeks ownership at HKB. The 33 units is the straw man, but the real objective is to take back the use rights from existing owners. I wouldn't even be surprised if the developer and HRC are already working in concert behind the scenes and have a buyer lined up once this thing passes.
 

taffy19

newbie
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
593
Points
398
Hey everyone. My better half is a lawyer, and I finally got him to look into this.
What I was looking at before are bylaws. The proposal is to amend the CC&Rs. Different Rules.

In order to amend the CC&Rs, a special meeting of the owners must be called. In order for the special meeting to be valid, it must have a quorum. A quorum means at 50% of the owners (including the developer as owners of the unsold units) attend or give proxies to Hyatt to vote. Once a quorum is reached, then the amendment to the CC&Rs can pass so long as at least 50% of the attendees approve.

So, here's the math. There are 131 units x 52 weeks = 6,812 owners. In order for a quorum to exist to run the special meeting, 3,406 owners must attend or give proxies. We suspect the developer owns the remaining 33 unsold units which they want to convert to floating. So, 33 units x 52 weeks = 1,716 "owners" are the developer. Since we know the developer will attend, that means they need another 1,690 owners to attend or submit proxies.

Let's assume exactly 1,690 other owners attend or give proxies. Now, a quorum exists. So, in order for the amendment to pass, 50% of the attendees (3,406 owners x 50%) or 1,703 owners must approve of it. Given that the developer already has 1,716 votes, the amendment passes.

So, the bottom line is this: if you don't want this to happen, you cannot submit anything. This prevents the developer from getting a quorum. If the developer gets a quorum, game over. This is most important: you can't even vote No. Once you vote No, you are helping the developer get a quorum. The only way your No vote helps is if almost everyone submits a No vote so that it overwhelms the developer's Yes votes.
John, did your better half read this paragraph? You have the complete document and I may and hope that I am mistaken and understood the document wrong because I do not understand all the legalese but he is a lawyer.

I just can't believe that a Big Corporation would do that to us but what else is new in the timeshare industry? So many big timeshare developers are corrupt and let the salesforce lie during their presentation so long they get a sale.

We already knew that our value would drop at least by 50% the moment we had signed the dotted line. We could live with that but not with taking our rights away also.
 

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
Location
Louisiana
I was hoping ILG wouldn't stick it to Hyatt owners, but looks like that's exactly what they're going to do. The pattern is becoming increasingly clear. We're going to have to reassess our Hyatt ownership.
 

gdonnersc1

Guest
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
Points
163
Location
Bluffton, SC
I sent the following e-mail to Lisa Trosset and will report on the response if and when I receive it:

I have four questions and do not feel that I have adequate information to vote. I also feel that this is true for the other owners.


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 sale then we currently are, how can you say that our usage rights are not changed?


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?


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.


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


I look forward to your answer. I believe that this information is relevant to all owners and that you should provide this information and other relevant Q&A to all owners prior to the vote so that we can make good informed decisions. I believe that a failure to do this could invalidate the outcome of the vote.
 

lizap

TUG Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
240
Points
173
Location
Louisiana
I'm not an attorney but I would guess a good attorney could get an injunction for stopping the vote until the information is made clear.
 
Top