Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

Well first, I edited my post way before you replied (like 10 minutes ago) so I'm sorry you still ended up replying to it.

Anyway, I pulled it because I know I misread something in your post. With that said, I have no idea at all what transcript you're talking about. I didn't provide any transcript.....

Sorry, I started to respond to your post before you chose to edit your comments.

I also apologize as the transcript was not posted by you - it was provided by @DVCDisneyRunner which you later stated you now proudly own and presumably were referring to in the post I quoted before you edited your comments.

From the transcript of the video:

"drumroll please...
each Disney Vacation Club Resort has a total number of vacation points assigned to it.
aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and
while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

The use of "any" is much more inclusive then what is stated in the POS. This is especially true in the context of the video as a whole. They taught how they have studios, 1 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms... for places like SSR. The POS only sees them as 2 bedrooms.

Also I can't find where this frame is covered in the POS with this kinda of clarity:
 
Doc---I actually think we're fairly well aligned on this particular area of the discussion and I misread your post. Sorry about that.
 


It says that in the VGF POS
Can you provide that portion of the POS? The VGF POS you posted earlier in this thread does not seem to make that statement, only that the Lockoff Premium is not restricted by the 20% limitation unless I have misunderstood. I would be interested in seeing where the Lockoff Premium does not need to be balanced.
 
We may end up agreeing to disagree here, but I will take one more shot at it.

I think you would say that the POS allows for and perhaps even spells out that the LO premium can be increased without any decrease having to be made to adjust for that increase. For example they could raise all the studios at SSR by 2 points per night and per the POS they would not have to have a decrease any where else in the point chart to balance this increase since the POS only recognizes the lock-offs as 2 bedrooms.

I hope we agree that you believe the above to be true (please correct me if I am putting words into your mouth) and I am with you on that.

Now for the video it says and I will quote

"Aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year, this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and
while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year, it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

the above text was preceded by host going over how many points a studio and one bedroom would cost at different times and days of the year. (this context can not be discarded and is a large part of why it is not in alignment with the POS IMHO)

You are saying you watched the video and heard the host going over the studio and one bedroom point cost then go directly into the quoted text above and believe it states they can increase the point cost of all studios at a resort like SSR and not have a decrease anywhere else. How are you getting that from the video?

I feel they are going out of the way to be very direct in saying that they will not raise points of any accommodations without a decrease off setting that increase and is what the sales team has been selling for the last 25+ years and this is not how it is outlined in the POS.
There's no way to cover every scenario in this situation on a video and you wouldn't want to. The legal definition of the words and contractual issue would be and those are as I posted before. You want to hang on every nuance of the wording and that's overly restrictive IMO.

As my son said yesterday, "You are technically correct ........ which is the best form of being correct", LOL.

UGH!!! Just because something is written in a contract does not mean that is is enforceable. Courts strike through clauses in contracts all the time for various reasons and deem them unenforceable. In this case, it could be deemed:

1) ambiguous and interpretation will go to the less sophisticated party (the members)
2) in direct conflict with what members were told (and shown) by the "knowledgeable" salespeople
3) a breach of fiduciary duty to the members where Disney acted in their own best interest and not that of its members which it is required to do by law

These are 3 valid arguments that I thought of off the top of my head. I'm sure if I had more time to think about it, I could come up with many more. Again, something very ambiguous being written in a contract but not clearly outlined to the consumer is troublesome and can be struck down despite its existence. There's nothing else to say about this. They talked to their lawyers and saw that we would all have a case against them for various reasons, so they changed course. Move on!!! There's nothing left to discuss. The point chart has reverted back to 2019 levels. Should they try this again, we can talk about it then.
In the absence of a challenge, the wording of the state statues and POS are all we have, the rest is just opinion at best.

Where and in which POS does it state that no offset is needed for lockoff Studio/1BR point changes?? I have never seen that in print in any DVC document.
It doesn't from what I have seen.

It says that in the VGF POS
I don't have the VGF POS but going from memory on the subject it just acknowledges and names the issue but doesn't restrict it. The reality is the issue has been in place from the start of OKW with a lockoff premium, naming it doesn't change that at all.
 
Can you provide that portion of the POS? The VGF POS you posted earlier in this thread does not seem to make that statement, only that the Lockoff Premium is not restricted by the 20% limitation unless I have misunderstood. I would be interested in seeing where the Lockoff Premium does not need to be balanced.

It states the lock-off premium can be increased but IS restricted to no more than 20% in a given year. There is no statement included with that notice of the lock off premium in the POS that it needs to have a corresponding decrease anywhere. The previously proposed 2020 point charts followed that - increased the "lock-off" premium with no corresponding decrease.
 


In the absence of a challenge, the wording of the state statues and POS are all we have, the rest is just opinion at best.

Breach of fiduciary duties, interpretations of ambiguities in favor of the less sophisticated parties, and purposeful deception are not opinions, that's the law. I have no idea if you are an attorney or not, but you are wrong about it just being an opinion. The POS doesn't govern squat once challenged as it was here. Laws govern things. Disney balked before a lawsuit could be brought against them, and trust me, one was coming. I can put whatever I want to in a contract, that doesn't make it enforceable, conscionable, or legal. While my focus was criminal law, I did spend a few years in the civil sector and have consulted on a number of civil cases in the last few years. They didn't roll it back because of member feedback. There are so many legal issues with the reallocation that they probably wouldn't have won no matter how many lawyers they brought out. There are just as many, actually more, attorneys in private practice that would LOVE to sue Disney and win.
 
Last edited:
There's no way to cover every scenario in this situation on a video and you wouldn't want to. The legal definition of the words and contractual issue would be and those are as I posted before. You want to hang on every nuance of the wording and that's overly restrictive IMO.

No they can not cover every scenario. However, they did cover the studio and one bedroom scenario and that is the bases for my comments.

As my son said yesterday, "You are technically correct ........ which is the best form of being correct", LOL.

Well you got me here.
 
Beach of fiduciary duties, interpretations of ambiguities in favor of the less sophisticated parties, and purposeful deception are not opinions, that's the law. I have no idea if you are an attorney or not, but you are wrong about it just being an opinion. The POS doesn't govern squat once challenged as it was here. Laws govern things. Disney balked before a lawsuit could be brought against them, and trust me, one was coming. I can put whatever I want to in a contract, that doesn't make it enforceable, conscionable, or legal. While my focus was criminal law, I did spend a few years in the civil sector and have consulted on a number of civil cases in the last few years. They didn't roll it back because of member feedback. There are so many legal issues with the reallocation that they probably wouldn't have won no matter how many lawyers they brought out. There are just as many, actually more, attorneys in private practice that would LOVE to sue Disney and win.

Being an attorney, I concur. If sued, I believe the membership would have prevailed. However, the member feedback may have helped in the point retraction because of the bad press that they were getting for DVC in general.
 
Can you provide that portion of the POS? The VGF POS you posted earlier in this thread does not seem to make that statement, only that the Lockoff Premium is not restricted by the 20% limitation unless I have misunderstood. I would be interested in seeing where the Lockoff Premium does not need to be balanced.
See the second screen shot in this post. Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

Clearly, DVC was interpreting it that way when they increased the Points required to book studios and one bedrooms by 5 to 10% with no corresponding decrease elsewhere.

By the way, this now apples to ALL resorts. They did not send out revised POS to everyone because they don’t have to if, In their sole discretion, they deem the change to be immaterial. I think the length of this thread would be an indicator that this change is not considered to be immaterial by the members.
 
DVC have published the new point charts for 2020 and many members have been negatively impacted. This caused many of us to go and (re)read the POS and possibly discover that the reallocation done may not be legal in its current form.
The most contentious points are:

1) Reallocations should leave the total points needed to book one unit/vacation home unchanged

Reallocations are described in the POS document for each resort in "Exhibit G - Disney Vacation Membership Agreement for XXX RESORT"
For SSR (and as far as I know, every resort, please point out any resort with different wording), the reallocations are authorised as follows:

In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve a Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to designated periods of high demand which do not occur on the same Use Day each year. Any increase or decrease in the Home Resort Vacation point reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC’s right to make this Home resort Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease for another Use Day or Use Days.”

For a long time we have thought that Disney could do whatever they wanted with the point charts as long as the total points needed to book the whole resort for the whole year remained unchanged. Reading the POS is seems this is not the case.
  • The first highlighted sentence seems to restrict reallocations only to balance demand during the year, not across different vacation home sizes. If bungalows seat empty and studios fly off the shelves at 11 months, a reallocation cannot be used to balance demand
  • The second sentence says points can be shifted only "within a given Vacation Home". A Vacation Home is defined as "portion of a unit designed and intended for separate use and occupancy". This allows to move points only within the same room type. They can lower points for a studio for weekends and increase week days, they cannot increase studios and 1BR and lower 2BR
  • The third sentence says the total points allocated to a Unit cannot change. It seems the reallocation they did for the SSR treehouses is not legal, as all the treehouses are declared in their own units. Poly Bungalows are in different units from the studios, so the 2020 reallocation is not legal. Also, usually a unit includes different room types and different units within the same resort can have different compositions. If a unit includes 2 dedicated studios and 2 lockoffs, another might include only dedicated 2BR. Balancing units with different compositions might prove impossible if points are moved across different vacation home types.
In the first years of DVC, when a balancing act was needed to balance demand within the same room types, DVC created different booking categories with the same price point. This applied to BW view (same points as garden), and OKW HH (same points as the rest of the rooms). Those separate booking categories are a good advantage for owners, because they can book the better rooms before the 7 months window without paying a premium in points. Later DVC started moving points around balancing the points across the new booking categories. It might have been in good faith (at the beginning), but it doesn't seem to be allowed by the POS and it opened the way for strategic point allocations like the Poly bungalows: the high point cost for the bungalows allowed DVC to sell a lot of points while showing the points required by studios to potential owners.


2) The lockoff premium
The point needed to book a studio + a 1BR are greater than the points needed to book a 2BR. This has always been the case since DVC opening. It is called "lockoff premium" (and can be justified by the fact that managing two reservations can be more onerous).
For example, in 2019, in Adventure season:
- studio standard: 11 points
- 1BR standard: 22 points
- 2BR standard: 30 points (and not 11+22)
The lockoff premium is 3 points.
In 2020 the lockoff premium has increased, as both studios and 1BR have increased while the 2BR has decreased:
- studio standard: 12 points
- 1BR standard: 24 points
- 2BR standard: 28 points
The lockoff premium will be 8 points, nearly trebled.

VGF is the only resort there there is explicit mention of the lockoff with the wording authorising DVC to modify it at will. For other resorts there is no mention of it.
It is not clear if the lockoff premium is even legal in the first place, but it has always been there so it probably is. However it doesn't seem right that DVC can increase it at will. This would violate the reallocation rule written above (each Vacation Home/Unit must keep the same number of points constant over the whole year).
Increase the lockoff premium seems to benefit only Disney. The extra availability generated by the lockoff premium goes into the breakage inventory which is then booked by Disney for cash which is paid back into the resorts budget to lower the dues. However there is a cap to how much is paid back (2,5% of the total budget) and that cap has been already reached every year in the past. So an increase of the lockoff premium will cause more cash income that will be kept by Disney.

3) Unbalanced rebalance
Members have strong evidence that the least popular room size is the 1BR. Studios are the first to go, then 2BR and finally after a lot of time, 1BR. Also, the most common last minute availability is for 1BR.
So it seems that a reallocation increasing both studios and 1BR in favor of 2BR doesn't make sense.
The only possible explanation is that Disney want to push members to book larger vacation homes for the benefit of selling add-ons and larger contracts. At the expense of people who bought to stay in studios.


What is the plan?
In this phase we are still gathering feedback and information. I have recently enquired Disney about the legality of reallocations across different vacation homes/units and I have yet to receive a reply.
Previously I questioned the legality of the increase of the lockoff premium and received a call back by a CM who just seemed to read from a script not addressing the problem: she told me the reallocation happened to balance demand cross seasons, but she seemed unaware about what the lockoff premium was and what the actual policy was about it.

We now have to gather potential support for a possible lawsuit.
The best outcome would be that given the weight of many members willing to pursue a lawsuit, DVCMC management would be willing to reconsider their decision and revert the changes. If not, I'll find a way for all people to communicate easily and decide what the best way to move forward will be.
If you want to join this group, please reply below. It would be important to have as much public support as we can get, but if you prefer to stay anonymous, please PM me.

Please note: as members we will pay with our dues for the legal expenses for DVCMC to fight us.

What will we ask
1/25/2019 will be the first day the new points charts will became effective, as it's the first day it'll be possible to book in 2020. As a matter of urgency, we ask DVC to suspend the application of the new points charts and use the same 2019 charts, only adjusted for floating holidays. However this could be achieved only if we find an agreement with DVCMC management. A Lawsuit will require a lot more time.

Currently, my intention is to ask:
- cancel any reallocation done (even in the past) that modified the number of points needed to book every vacation home
- remove the lockoff premium from the point charts
- create new booking categories for the rooms that have been reallocated in the past.
However, those points are open for discussions, if you would like to modify them or add other points, please post below.

How can you help?
Members reading the DISboards and informed about what's happening are a very small minority of the membership base. I am ready to bet that most people don't even know that the 2020 charts have been published, let alone that a reallocation happened.
So it is important to raise awareness in any way. Please post on Twitter, Facebook and other social media a link to this page. If you belong to any other forum or Facebook group, please post a recap of this post. Send a letter to the press. I have had a journalist interested in the topic and he's going to contact DVCMC management for an official position.


Yes, I would join in a class action suit to stop increases on point requirements. If DVC requires funding for maint, then increase point maint fees. NOT POINT VALUES! Doing so would be extremely unfair to members.
 
Since there seems to be such a differing view in the POS, should DVCM put out an Addendum to the POS, to specifically address the the lock-off premium at every resort with a maximum calculation/range for studios or 1 bedrooms in any season? I think this would go a long way to clear up all the ambiguity in all the contracts. Maybe say studios could only be a maximum of 55% of 2 bedroom points and 1 bedroom could be 65% of 2 bedroom points in the same season. If there was a clear calculation, I think everyone would be happy with that, that way you would buy the points you needed for your vacation and not have to worry about point inflation.

I really don't understand all the secrecy behind the calculations for point allocations, it should be a "black & white" issue and not this secret grey issue that we are dealing with.
 
Since there seems to be such a differing view in the POS, should DVCM put out an Addendum to the POS, to specifically address the the lock-off premium at every resort with a maximum calculation/range for studios or 1 bedrooms in any season? I think this would go a long way to clear up all the ambiguity in all the contracts. Maybe say studios could only be a maximum of 55% of 2 bedroom points and 1 bedroom could be 65% of 2 bedroom points in the same season. If there was a clear calculation, I think everyone would be happy with that, that way you would buy the points you needed for your vacation and not have to worry about point inflation.

I really don't understand all the secrecy behind the calculations for point allocations, it should be a "black & white" issue and not this secret grey issue that we are dealing with.

They can't retroactively put in these arbitrary amounts because we did not agree to them, which is why they will stay far away from something like this. I do agree that it should have been done at the outset of publishing of the POS, the clear calculations/limits/whatever you want to call them. What do you want to bet this "issue" is being remedied for Riviera paperwork as we speak?!? I bet these ambiguous terms will be well defined, in bold print, and pointed out to new purchasers with little to no ambiguity so that DVCM can do whatever they want going forward. You cannot claim ignorance or ambiguity if it will be clearly stated within certain parameters and explained to you before you purchase Riviera or any other resort going forward. They can't change the past, but they can alter the future of sales. I would think you could still argue a breach of fiduciary duty, but I don't want to go down that road again...
 
Last edited:
I also, don't understand why as an "owner" I'm not allowed to see the way they calculated the reallocation of the points at my resorts that I own at! If this was all done above board, then there shouldn't be any problem with disclosing these calculations and number to the owners with the corresponding booking demand to prove the need for these reallocation. They can keep claiming it's proprietary, but we as owners have certain rights.
 
Breach of fiduciary duties, interpretations of ambiguities in favor of the less sophisticated parties, and purposeful deception are not opinions, that's the law. I have no idea if you are an attorney or not, but you are wrong about it just being an opinion. The POS doesn't govern squat once challenged as it was here. Laws govern things. Disney balked before a lawsuit could be brought against them, and trust me, one was coming. I can put whatever I want to in a contract, that doesn't make it enforceable, conscionable, or legal. While my focus was criminal law, I did spend a few years in the civil sector and have consulted on a number of civil cases in the last few years. They didn't roll it back because of member feedback. There are so many legal issues with the reallocation that they probably wouldn't have won no matter how many lawyers they brought out. There are just as many, actually more, attorneys in private practice that would LOVE to sue Disney and win.
It's your opinion it would apply here, it's mine it won't. I'm not a lawyer but I have a lot of experience with timeshares over the years. Are you a timeshare lawyer? In the absence of a successful suit it's just hearsay at this point. You never know what a court will do as they are often off the wall and what they might do in a given situation is anyone's guess. To prove those allegations you'd have to convince a court they did it for their own personal gain, which I don't believe for a second.
 
It states the lock-off premium can be increased but IS restricted to no more than 20% in a given year. There is no statement included with that notice of the lock off premium in the POS that it needs to have a corresponding decrease anywhere. The previously proposed 2020 point charts followed that - increased the "lock-off" premium with no corresponding decrease.
I'm not sure if I'm arguing with you are agreeing with the words posted. The 20% change per year is in all POS and applies to all changes unless there is a favorable vote of the actual membership. Based on what's been posted, the VGF POS addresses the issue directly and allows for a change but none of the POS preclude it and the lockoff premium has been in effect from day 1 with what's now OKW. There is no wording in the POS that I can find that precludes such a change directly.
 
It's your opinion it would apply here, it's mine it won't. I'm not a lawyer but I have a lot of experience with timeshares over the years. Are you a timeshare lawyer? In the absence of a successful suit it's just hearsay at this point. You never know what a court will do as they are often off the wall and what they might do in a given situation is anyone's guess. To prove those allegations you'd have to convince a court they did it for their own personal gain, which I don't believe for a second.

While I’m not a “timeshare attorney”, I do have experience litigating both civil and criminal matters including contracts in front of judges and juries in court. Just because you have owned timeshares for a while and researched them does not make you an expert on contract law and civil litigation. I’m going to end my involvement in this discussion here when you call something like this hearsay as you don’t know what you’re talking about. Nothing we have discussed is hearsay, but you clearly do not know the definition or the proper application of that term. I cannot argue the intricacies of civil litigation with someone who presumes to know the law better than the numerous attorneys who have chimed in and actually practice law. Should they try this again with the 2021 charts, we’ll be ready. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter.
 
Anyone else keep their old DVC sales DVDs sent directly to home? Mine has the exact same guy as the youtube video posted here talking about AKV points charts, but then what he says is different than the youtube video. Here's exactly what he says:
“But here’s a very cool secret about vacation points. Drumroll please. The total number of vacation points on this chart can never change for the life of your membership. While reservation requirements for seasons and dates will vary from year to year, the total number of vacation points for the year will be exactly the same this year as it will be many years later. Imagine bragging……”
 

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!




Latest posts










facebook twitter
Top