Post reply

Re: Manhattan Club Lawsuit (by Sally W.):

mazarati wrote:

The 9 month rule is not the problem here. It's other things. The 9 month rule is important as those needing a full week must have that opportunity or there would be nothing but fragmented weeks available. Every timeshare on earth that allows less than one week stays has the 9 month rule because it's absolutely necessary.

The problem is that almost all timeshares who offer less than one week reservations are flawed. Timeshare only really works well for those who want whole weeks AND can plan ahead. If you ask timeshare to give you 3 nighters and on short notice, you will be very disappointed (as you are). Most timeshare experts in places such as Red Week or TUG know this. It's not what people want to hear but unfortunately it's reality.

What we really need at the MC is control of the board. If we get that, we can address the abnormally high management fees etc and get our annual maintenance fees back down below $2000 per year. Maybe even down to $1800 or so. We need to have control like other projects. Eichners built in a clause saying as long as he owns one single MC ownership, he has board control. Normally after about 60% sellout, owners gain control. This is the problem.

I disagree. For many of us, the 9-month rule IS the problem here. It was not a rule when I purchased my timeshare in 2005. For the first few years I could book a room with just 2 or 3 months notice. Then it got longer, and now it's 9 to 12 months (you are not guaranteed to get your choice with only 9 month's notice). It is NOT standard everywhere and should NOT be affected by split weeks. I have a number of friends with timeshares other than TMC and they all said they've never heard of booking 9 months in advance. Most of us don't have the luxury of knowing with certainty when we can plan a getaway that far in advance. So as far as I'm concerned, the 9-month rule IS the problem here, and the reason TMC shareholders are complaining that they never get to use their units.