• Controversial Topics
    Several months ago, I added a private sub-forum to allow members to discuss these topics without fear of infractions or banning. It's opt-in, opt-out. Click Here

DVC Tour Frustration

Lucky sod, it was a giant pain. We just went through this in June... it took a total of 2 months to wrap everything
 
Sorry to say to all those defending but in this day that's a ridiculous response. Next thing I feel I will hear is thats a single woman doesn't have the means to buy on their own. What year is it?

Sorry, but they throw out gift cards at the drop of a hat. I'd call back OP. This time you'll be prepared if you get that same line. I guarantee though that they would not have gotten a dime of my money direct if I had heard that. Even in CA a married woman can own real estate in her name only. :rolleyes:

I'm guess though that you are looking at VGC for your purchase since you are a DL AP holder? That will almost certainly mean resale and you may possibly hear some mis-truths about resale if brought up during a tour. Other than seeing a model I did not find much if any additional information from a DVC tour. In fact, after my first one (which I was doing a small add on) I was tutoring the pretty new guide who was doing the paperwork. That was at DL.
 
Last edited:
The moment you said, "I would be purchasing this under my name alone," they should have set up the appointment. Anything else is ridiculous.
 
There may also be some legal issues in some states about one spouse owning and/or taking on debt for something like that, in which it also legally obligates the spouse, or gets split with the spouse in a divorce, even though their name isn't on the deed. Like possibly CA for instance, where all the assets of both people I believe are considered common property. So even though it may have sounded sexist and the person should have phrased it better to sound more mandatory for Disney to do it that way, there may be legal reasons why they have to do it that way. I'm not a lawyer though, maybe someone can chime in who knows more about real estate law.
 
Sorry to say to all those defending but in this day that's a ridiculous response. Next thing I feel I will hear is thats a single woman doesn't have the means to buy on their own. What year is it?

Sorry, but they throw out gift cards at the drop of a hat. I'd call back OP. This time you'll be prepared if you get that same line. I guarantee though that they would not have gotten a dime of my money direct if I had heard that. Even in CA a married woman can own real estate in her name only. :rolleyes:

I'm guess though that you are looking at VGC for your purchase since you are a DL AP holder? That will almost certainly mean resale and you may possibly hear some mis-truths about resale if brought up during a tour. Other than seeing a model I did not find much if any additional information from a DVC tour. In fact, after my first one (which I was doing a small add on) I was tutoring the pretty new guide who was doing the paperwork. That was at DL.

I have an AP on both coasts, but would be buying in Florida. I'm sure I got the letter because I was at Disneyland for a week on property in May and am back at DL for a week in September. Normally, I would've just looked in Florida when I'm back in November. This was just quicker and I actually had a free day to do it.

There may also be some legal issues in some states about one spouse owning and/or taking on debt for something like that, in which it also legally obligates the spouse, or gets split with the spouse in a divorce, even though their name isn't on the deed. Like possibly CA for instance, where all the assets of both people I believe are considered common property. So even though it may have sounded sexist and the person should have phrased it better to sound more mandatory for Disney to do it that way, there may be legal reasons why they have to do it that way. I'm not a lawyer though, maybe someone can chime in who knows more about real estate law.

Sure, that makes sense in many cases. Unfortunately, I wasn't even asked about that - but I am planning to pay cash out of an inheritance trust that belongs only to me, so ... :confused3
 
They will allow one to tour, just not get the gifts. While I've seen exceptions to this policy with timeshares in general, all of the policies I've ever heard of require a minimum income and both parties to tour if married. It's totally appropriate on their part and would be financially irresponsible of them to do otherwise. I've done many timeshare tours without my spouse but for free and often having to wait not the staff to finish up with other tours.
 
There may also be some legal issues in some states about one spouse owning and/or taking on debt for something like that, in which it also legally obligates the spouse, or gets split with the spouse in a divorce, even though their name isn't on the deed. Like possibly CA for instance, where all the assets of both people I believe are considered common property. So even though it may have sounded sexist and the person should have phrased it better to sound more mandatory for Disney to do it that way, there may be legal reasons why they have to do it that way. I'm not a lawyer though, maybe someone can chime in who knows more about real estate law.

Even community property states can have ownership by only one spouse.
 
I would think that there could be trouble if community property cash were used to purchase the property and only put in one of the names. In op's case it sounds like there is a trust so that it could be kept separate, but that wouldn't be commonly the case, and so Disney probably has to be careful in their policies about selling to only one of the spouses.
 
Even community property states can have ownership by only one spouse.
Only in very specific circumstances. Only if the asset was owned prior to marriage and never commingled with marital assets, or squired through an inheritance.
 
We got sucked into the timeshare time suck in Mexico and they required both spouses be present if you are married. I would be really offended by the "decision maker" comment. It's funny, my most sexist comment has also come from a woman. There was something wrong with air conditioning in a van we just purchased and when I called to ask about it the saleswoman, she was the head of the department, told me maybe I could have my husband look at it and explain it to me. I told her if we had to do that, we'd be in big trouble because I'm the handy one out of the two of us. (A fuse was missing).
 
They will allow one to tour, just not get the gifts. While I've seen exceptions to this policy with timeshares in general, all of the policies I've ever heard of require a minimum income and both parties to tour if married. It's totally appropriate on their part and would be financially irresponsible of them to do otherwise. I've done many timeshare tours without my spouse but for free and often having to wait not the staff to finish up with other tours.

Yeah, I was never asked about a "minimum income", though I assume it's obvious to them by my on-site spending at Disney (now two full weeks at DL hotels, another two weeks at WDW resorts when I have a home address there, and APs on both coasts for just me and that's just since January).

That said - how would this be any different if I had just said I was a single woman? Because I would be purchasing DVC as a single woman, for all intents and purposes.
 
Yeah, I was never asked about a "minimum income", though I assume it's obvious to them by my on-site spending at Disney (now two full weeks at DL hotels, another two weeks at WDW resorts when I have a home address there, and APs on both coasts for just me and that's just since January).

That said - how would this be any different if I had just said I was a single woman? Because I would be purchasing DVC as a single woman, for all intents and purposes.
They know your income without asking though normally when you agree to the tour, they'll go over a list of qualifications that will include a minimum income, I'm not sure if DVC does. With many you actually sign that you do qualify and it will include a minimum income on the list. I've seen anywhere from $45K to $75K though I suspect some are higher like Ritz or Four Seasons and they'll change over time.

The reason it's different is that there is a lot of research to tell them who's likely to buy and who's not. One of the main ones is that if you don't buy at the tour, the odds of them making the same is dramatically less. Another is that if you only have one spouse of a couple, they are far less likely to close the sale at the tour. I haven't seen the list for DVD but in general it's both spouse's, minimum income, minimum time (usually 60-90 min but I've seen 120), no recent purchase (normally at least 3 months) and no recent compensated tour also usually 3 months but varies. That people say they're the decision makers, they plan to buy anyway, they'll buy later does not change any of this.

They're bribing you to increase the tour numbers and therefore sales. It's reasonable for them to target their audience to maximize their chances. They'll still sell to you and they'll still tour you just not for the bribes. They would have told your husband the same thing. I've even seen them exclude single people from the bribes likely because many people say they're single when they're not, just to get the bribes.

As for community property issues, I'm not a lawyer but my understanding it was the ownership of property and not the use of cash that was governed. Basically one could buy both might have rights to the asset and be responsible for the debts.
 
They are timeshare salespeople. They use every trick they can to overcome your objections to buying on the spot. They can't overcome "I need to discuss it with my spouse" if your spouse isn't present. It's as simple as that.
 
Only in very specific circumstances. Only if the asset was owned prior to marriage and never commingled with marital assets, or squired through an inheritance.
either way -- not sure why it would be disney's problem. They have no need to figure it out. The only thing they need to know is what name(s) should be on the title. If the couple gets into a fight over ownership at a later date -- the courts will be the ones to figure it out.
 
During our tour, the dvc guide spoke only to my then fiancée. He completely ignored me. The guy was an idiot. I was buying...

Fiancee (now husband) was a med student finishing his phd with a 20k stipend and tons of student loans. That was 5yrs ago. He's still finishing up Residency.

So these sexist jerks only talk to the male half of the equation not realizing I'm the current breadwinner and decision maker. Happened when we were purchasing our first home too.

I walked out of the dvc tour pissed and bought resale 6mo later.

So yah, there is sexism.

I'm also very feminist and sensitive to sexism as a 7 sisters alum....
 
During our tour, the dvc guide spoke only to my then fiancée. He completely ignored me. The guy was an idiot. I was buying...

Fiancee (now husband) was a med student finishing his phd with a 20k stipend and tons of student loans. That was 5yrs ago. He's still finishing up Residency.

So these sexist jerks only talk to the male half of the equation not realizing I'm the current breadwinner and decision maker. Happened when we were purchasing our first home too.

I walked out of the dvc tour pissed and bought resale 6mo later.

So yah, there is sexism.

I'm also very feminist and sensitive to sexism as a 7 sisters alum....
That may happen and it does sometimes with timeshare tours but it is not applicable to the OP.
 
Is this something normal or am I just being overly sensitive by feeling that this is all pretty sexist? This was my first extended encounter with anything having to do with potentially becoming a DVC owner and it's left a pretty poor taste in my mouth.
It's not sexist at all. When I wanted to book a tour, they told me my wife needed to be present. It makes sense. Regardless of who the breadwinner is, shouldn't both persons in a relationship be involved in a decision like this?

Sorry, didn't read this whole thread, in case this was addressed.
 
It's not sexist at all. When I wanted to book a tour, they told me my wife needed to be present. It makes sense. Regardless of who the breadwinner is, shouldn't both persons in a relationship be involved in a decision like this?

Sorry, didn't read this whole thread, in case this was addressed.

I think the overall consensus was that it makes sense that they have both parties present in order to avoid the non-attending party from pouring cold water on the deal after the fact. However, the guide in this case said the "decision maker" needed to be present -- which is completely uncalled for.
 
I would be insulted if they did the same to me. If I had been treated like that I am not sure I would have ever purchased either.

My DSIL did the tour at WDW and took the documents home for her DHs signature. He is not a Disney fan and would never have gone on the tour.

My question is do they only give the gift if you buy? If not they should have given the gift to a woman by herself because buying was not required to buy to get the gift. So what if her spouse wouldn't approve. That is false advertising.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!













facebook twitter
Top