Report Abuse

[Q=phill12] This was one of the points I was making and I have heard of resorts pulling this! The resort takes Paul's week 27 and if it is a good week they then rent it or give it to another owner. The resort then gives Rci a slow week as the deposit probably along with many more slow weeks. If the deposit still handled by Rci then week 27 would be week Rci would get and resort gets nothing but another body in the unit. By resort handling the deposits they can play their games and maybe make a profit off this owner's week and many other owner weeks. This may also be why members ask why a resort shows up with many weeks available in a short time span. PHILL12[/Q] As I've thought more about this situation, I'll speculate that the resort MIGHT well be able to mandate a seemingly unfair "deposit" procedure like this by virtue of the fact that, for Paul and others, it's NOT really a deeded fixed week OWNERSHIP which they have, but a Mexican 20 year right to use (RTU) access contract instead. In essence, this is a "finite, date specific membership" --- NOT a "deeded, permanent ownership". That very important distinction might very well give the Mexican resort lots more latitude to impose and dictate its own deposit policies and procedures, albeit potentially unfair for exchange value equality. THEY (i.e., the resort) are really the actual OWNERS of the weeks. The RTU contract holders are not "owners", but are instead "contractual members" who are provided with an annual week of access (i.e., right to use) for a clearly defined and finite time period. That likley makes a HUGE difference in just what the resort can and cannot do with weeks which, in essence, they OWN. Speculation on my part, but I'd still certainly be willing to bet...