How do you know for sure what youre buying?

[chalee94]

IMHO the cost vs value is with resales. With that said changes that can be made by disney as was with 2011 changes are there. If they make too many changes they will face a backlash by DVC owners

they've also made a number of changes that affected both direct and resale purchasers, such as taking away free valet parking (surprise - park for free, wake up the next morning and get charged!) and reallocating the point charts (lots of sunday to thursday DVC owners suddenly couldn't stay as many nights as they used to).

so far, DVC has borne any "backlash" with no ill effects...

 

[GrnMtnMan]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned title insurance and estoppel letters in this thread. Those are the things that assure you that you are getting what you agreed to in the contract.

The estoppel letter is a statement by DVC clearly explaining what the seller 'owns' and the status of the ownership...meaning are dues up to date, and how many points have been used or banked. The title company compares this information with the contract and only transfers ownership and money if the two things are in agreement.

Title insurance would get you your money back if there was some unknown issue with the seller's ownership.

 

[ELMC]

No problem, I understand splitting hairs is part of internet message boards. It was not an AKV contract, that wasn't the price, that wasn't the number of points, it wasn't raised before I could object and it wasn't glanced over. You weren't there and I didn't provide a complete transcript of the conversation, so I don't expect you to know how it went down. I'm just saying it was an honest presentation without resorting to scare tactics that I have seen quite a few people report. You don't have to believe me.

In order to put your comments in perspective, would you care to share the resort, price per point, number of points and timeline as to when this happened? Obviously I was just giving an example because you did not share this information in your initial post.

 

[bighoo93]

In order to put your comments in perspective, would you care to share the resort, price per point, number of points and timeline as to when this happened? Obviously I was just giving an example because you did not share this information in your initial post.

Not really, because giving a detailed account of the conversation wasn't the point. It was an honest presentation without the scare tactics and deception that some have reported here. I repeat what I said in my first post: it was pretty much the straight honest truth. You can disagree or not believe me or whatever else if you like. I'm comfortable with that. I'm not interested in debating what constitutes "a few."

 

[Dean]

so far, DVC has borne any "backlash" with no ill effects...

And that's the key. If they make changes there will be snarling and complaints but it's unlikely to have any real overall effect. You see periodically here someone who buys retail and pays about double for no reason of value.

I am surprised nobody has mentioned title insurance and estoppel letters in this thread. Those are the things that assure you that you are getting what you agreed to in the contract.

The estoppel letter is a statement by DVC clearly explaining what the seller 'owns' and the status of the ownership...meaning are dues up to date, and how many points have been used or banked. The title company compares this information with the contract and only transfers ownership and money if the two things are in agreement.

Title insurance would get you your money back if there was some unknown issue with the seller's ownership.

I think many of us assumed them but neither are perfect. It's still possible to have changes to the account after the letter is generated and title insurance only covers the big picture, not short term changes like the points were used.

 

[ELMC]

I guess the question is when the "backlash" will shift from complaining and griping on message boards over to real action. People can complain all they want, but until it starts to hit Disney in the pocketbook I doubt they'll really reconsider any of the changes they make. A good comparison would be ticket prices. We all complain that they are continuously going up, yet we still go to the parks. I'm sure some people might go less because of the prices, but it clearly hasn't hit a critical mass because the prices keep going up.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

It's still possible to have changes to the account after the letter is generated and title insurance only covers the big picture, not short term changes like the points were used.

A sales contract specifies how many points I am supposed to get when I take ownership. If those points are not there, the ownership will not change or I would have the grounds to make a title insurance claim and/or sue the title company, broker, or seller for breach of contract.

DVC will not allow a change in ownership while their is a existing reservation. And if a seller were to book a reservation between estoppel and closing, they'd have to go on that trip during that window. If the title company didn't catch this when they provided the ownership transfer to DVC, well, then, see above.

The bottom line is that you know what you are getting when buying resale...it's not like buying a used car where you can't truly know the repair history of a car. There's nowhere to hide surprises that are anything but outright and very obvious fraud. And I doubt that the scenario I described above is actually possible. I'd imagine there is some flag on an account once it has entered or passed the ROFR process that makes using the points raise some alarm.

 

[Dean]

A sales contract specifies how many points I am supposed to get when I take ownership. If those points are not there, the ownership will not change or I would have the grounds to make a title insurance claim and/or sue the title company, broker, or seller for breach of contract.

DVC will not allow a change in ownership while their is a existing reservation. And if a seller were to book a reservation between estoppel and closing, they'd have to go on that trip during that window. If the title company didn't catch this when they provided the ownership transfer to DVC, well, then, see above.

I realize the risks are low and the protections very good. However, anything that requires you to pursue legal action to try to be whole is a losing proposition in this situation. I believe that most title insurances only cover that you're getting what you listed in big picture, not this years points for example. I am aware of several non DVC timeshares where the week was not available as agreed. We've also seen several reports the last few years where the points were not as agreed and there was back and forth between the seller, broker and buyer. Plus, I'm of the opinion that title insurance is not generally worth the cost with DVC.

 

[Caren90]

The problem for the salespeople is the ever-growing gap between direct and resale prices. I could understand people paying 10 or 20 percent more for direct contracts. But Disney keeps raising the price of their points and the cost of resale keeps falling, so it becomes difficult to justify paying twice as much for a direct contract than you would pay for resale.

Good point!

Stephen

 

[GrnMtnMan]

I realize the risks are low and the protections very good. However, anything that requires you to pursue legal action to try to be whole is a losing proposition in this situation. I believe that most title insurances only cover that you're getting what you listed in big picture, not this years points for example. I am aware of several non DVC timeshares where the week was not available as agreed. We've also seen several reports the last few years where the points were not as agreed and there was back and forth between the seller, broker and buyer. Plus, I'm of the opinion that title insurance is not generally worth the cost with DVC.

Not worth $200 for title insurance? Really, on a $10,000-$20,000 purchase?

Anyway, there's a huge difference between caveat emptor and having recourse. And any scenario where you did not get what you agreed to get in the contract, you have recourse.

Not to mention the seller possibly committing fraud (criminal, if they knowingly take the sale money and use the points), and the broker and title professionals putting there licenses and reputations at risk.

 

[Dean]

Not worth $200 for title insurance? Really, on a $10,000-$20,000 purchase?

Anyway, there's a huge difference between caveat emptor and having recourse. And any scenario where you did not get what you agreed to get in the contract, you have recourse.

Not to mention the seller possibly committing fraud (criminal, if they knowingly take the sale money and use the points), and the broker and title professionals putting there licenses and reputations at risk.

From a risk standpoint DVC is very easy to investigate. For most purchases I do not believe the cost is worth it but it does depend on the actual cost to a degree (of insurance and package) and it depends on the situation. If you're buying a divorce or bankruptcy situation it may be but not for the routine. I would suggest that having recourse and being successful in collecting are 2 different things. Plus, you might spend as much or more trying to collect. You also can't get blood out of a turnip or the seller may be in another country. Criminal actions also don't help you get your money back.

Most brokers and closing companies do a good job in this area, the info that you get from the broker and estoppel are helpful and there is a fair amount you can do yourself to protect yourself. You can also get the appropriate AG and BBB involved if needed. Heck, getting the title insurance to pay when they might should can be an issue in some situations. My point is there are many things you can do to protect yourself but NONE of them are absolute.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

In thinking about this some more, the fraud that I suggested might be possible, and Dean is also suggesting is possible, not really be realistically possible after all.

Why not? Because of the right-of-first-refusal process.

I don't know that DVC 'locks' an account once it has passed the ROFR process, but I have to assume that DVC reviews the account status against the sales contract once the ownership transfer is being made. Why? because if the terms of the sale have changed (terms included what years of points the buyer is getting) DVC wants its opportunity to buy those points and that contract for itself.

Dean: do you know of any *DVC* resale transactions where the buyer did not get the points that were specified *in the sales contract*?

 

[Dean]

In thinking about this some more, the fraud that I suggested might be possible, and Dean is also suggesting is possible, not really be realistically possible after all.

Why not? Because of the right-of-first-refusal process.

I don't know that DVC 'locks' an account once it has passed the ROFR process, but I have to assume that DVC reviews the account status against the sales contract once the ownership transfer is being made. Why? because if the terms of the sale have changed (terms included what years of points the buyer is getting) DVC wants its opportunity to buy those points and that contract for itself.

Dean: do you know of any *DVC* resale transactions where the buyer did not get the points that were specified *in the sales contract*?

I'm aware of non DVC sales where the week was gone and of DVC sales where the points weren't where they should have been at close. My recollection is there was a dance where the broker tried to make the buyer whole and the buyer had to make a decision if they couldn't. I'm not aware of anyone that closed and found out all was off afterwards. I don't think DVC locks the account until closing since many that pass ROFR never close.

 

[JimMIA]

Dean: do you know of any *DVC* resale transactions where the buyer did not get the points that were specified *in the sales contract*?

I remember one several years ago, but I don't think there was any fraud involved. I think there was a simple mistake made somewhere by someone and nobody was sure who messed up.

The broker involved made the buyer whole via a transfer from his personal account without even being asked, IIRC.

 

[Dean]

I remember one several years ago, but I don't think there was any fraud involved. I think there was a simple mistake made somewhere by someone and nobody was sure who messed up.

The broker involved made the buyer whole via a transfer from his personal account without even being asked, IIRC.

That sounds c/w one I recall, there was a similar one where it wasn't working out so well but I don't thing there was ever a solution posted and the OP went AWOL or it was taken off line.