2020 Point Charts

[KAT4DISNEY]

I have now going through the new point charts and something I was not sure of definitely stands out now other than just the issue that the changes have improperly increased or decreased the total points in a unit. I repeat here the applicable language in the BWV DVC Membership Agreement:

“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 decrease or increase for another Use Day or Use Days.”

What DVCMC is allowed to do in response to fluctuations in Use Day demand is increase or decrease the points required for a given Vacation Home (a studio,1BR,2BR etc.) as long as it offsets that with a "corresponding decrease or increase for another Use Day or Days." That clearly indicates the last sentence is referring to the first in that it is talking only about the same Vacation Home, i.e., the offsetting decrease must be in a different Use Day than the increase for the same Vacation Home. The DVC argument is that it is allowed to do the offsetting decrease in any other Vacation Home but its own 2020 point chart proves how wrong that position is. A review of the charts for most of the resorts shows this: DVC raised the points needed for studios and 1BRs for virtually all Use Days in the year. It then offsets that increase with a decrease in 2BRs and/or GV's, bungalows, or cabins IN THE SAME (not other) USE DAYS OF THE YEAR. That is definitely not what the clause allows.

So I may need to go back and evaluate my charts from the last reallocation to consider these statements but looking at it again the overall view of that reallocation showed every villa type having both increases and decreases and it is very possible they followed this language. The majority of that was about shifting points from weekends to weekdays though and the visual on my charts of the increases and decreases last time did not warrant any questions from me in that regard. This one looked off from the start and by all appearances seems to violate the language you have quoted.

Whomever did the calculations on this might have been under the same beliefs that had existed here - that as long as the overall point total remains the same and is done within the 20% change of a given day then the points can be moved around in any manner between Vacation Homes - ie, between studios, 1BR's, 2BR's etc. That would be an awfully big oops by DVC but they've had big oops's before.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I remember with the last round of reallocations someone posted they knew it could happen but assumed it wouldn't, shame on them.

In a way my thoughts were that. Many long time owners that I considered pretty savvy on DVC on these boards actually stated that thought for several years - that they did not expect any reallocations - based on the history that certain times had long been out of whack and DVC had not addressed it. Did I nash my teeth that DVC was awful and I was going to sell? I don't think so but yes, I was surprised because of the history of inaction. I had read the POS and knew it could be done though.

FWIW you were not one to state that.

 

[MommaBerd]

I have been reading this thread closely, and I want to say thanks to you watchdogs and investigators/analysts! I appreciate your time and effort to really tease out the details...and then to report back and explain to us. Every organization needs accountability, and as owners, we must not blindly accept every change that Disney makes. I am a shareholder; I trust Disney management. But that doesn’t mean that they are above reproach in everything they do.

 

[drusba]

So does that mean in your opinion, that the reallocations, including the SSR THV, preferred/standard PVB etc were in violation of the contract? If the other contracts resemble BWV ‘s.

I believe the argument is strong for the 2020 change for the THV's, and the SSR studios and 1BRs, since those have been increased for every use day of the year and the supposed offset via the decrease in the 2BRs is for many of the same use days of the year, which the section should not be interpreted to allow, and which shows that DVC's argument that it can offset any increase of those rooms with a decrease in another vacation home is itself wrong. If you are asking about the THV change in 2013 and the standard and preferred change in 2017, then the argument would have been strong if it had been raised at the time, but raising to now for something that was not challenged when it occurred can lead to defenses including those involving timeliness for raising the issue.

As to PVB, the same argument would apply to the current change which reduces bungalows throughout the year and raises studios throughout the year -- the offsetting decrease is for the same not different use days of the year.

 

[Madame]

I believe the argument is strong for the 2020 change for the THV's, and the SSR studios and 1BRs, since those have been increased for every use day of the year and the supposed offset via the decrease in the 2BRs is for many of the same use days of the year, which the section should not be interpreted to allow, and which shows that DVC's argument that it can offset any increase of those rooms with a decrease in another vacation home is itself wrong. If you are asking about the THV change in 2013 and the standard and preferred change in 2017, then the argument would have been strong if it had been raised at the time, but raising to now for something that was not challenged when it occurred can lead to defenses including those involving timeliness for raising the issue.

As to PVB, the same argument would apply to the current change which reduces bungalows throughout the year and raises studios throughout the year -- the offsetting decrease is for the same not different use days of the year.

Thanks @drusba. I think I understand the difference & appreciate you taking the time to share your interpretations with us.

 

[skier_pete]

So I see a lot of people thinking things are off. Is anyone pursuing something? I could see putting something into a gofundme, but I won't pretend I have the motivation to pursue myself.

 

[Madame]

So I see a lot of people thinking things are off. Is anyone pursuing something? I could see putting something into a gofundme, but I won't pretend I have the motivation to pursue myself.

I’m game to contribute but have no expertise to offer.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

So I may need to go back and evaluate my charts from the last reallocation to consider these statements but looking at it again the overall view of that reallocation showed every villa type having both increases and decreases and it is very possible they followed this language. The majority of that was about shifting points from weekends to weekdays though and the visual on my charts of the increases and decreases last time did not warrant any questions from me in that regard. This one looked off from the start and by all appearances seems to violate the language you have quoted.

Whomever did the calculations on this might have been under the same beliefs that had existed here - that as long as the overall point total remains the same and is done within the 20% change of a given day then the points can be moved around in any manner between Vacation Homes - ie, between studios, 1BR's, 2BR's etc. That would be an awfully big oops by DVC but they've had big oops's before.

To follow up - I did go back and look at the 2010 reallocation and if I've gotten all my input correct things are close enough to say that DVC followed the verbiage with one exception - VWL. They appear to have take that time to shift points between studios and 1BR's (actually decreasing studios and increasing 1BR's ) AKV was a little difficult to consider between views - there might have been some shifting but overall for villa size it appeared appropriate. There also would be a little variance depending on what the base year actually is.

When compared to the 2020 reallocations I do not see the same thing. If they are supposed to follow Vacation Homes and use days it does not appear that they did at the locations that have Dedicated studios and 1BR's if my numbers are correct. I'm uncertain how it applies to resorts that only have lock-offs although if nothing else they shifted points between the GV's/THV's and other Vacation home types.

 

[freediverdude]

I think this is going to end up being a big oops they will have to correct. Probably a different person and people in charge did the allocations this time, thinking they were being smart and didn't know the ins and outs of the rules in place.

 

[zavandor]

So I see a lot of people thinking things are off. Is anyone pursuing something? I could see putting something into a gofundme, but I won't pretend I have the motivation to pursue myself.

Trying to gather interest for a lawsuit, please see this new thread: https://www.disboards.com/threads/j...to-stop-revert-the-2020-reallocation.3726101/

I believe the argument is strong for the 2020 change for the THV's, and the SSR studios and 1BRs, since those have been increased for every use day of the year and the supposed offset via the decrease in the 2BRs is for many of the same use days of the year, which the section should not be interpreted to allow, and which shows that DVC's argument that it can offset any increase of those rooms with a decrease in another vacation home is itself wrong. If you are asking about the THV change in 2013 and the standard and preferred change in 2017, then the argument would have been strong if it had been raised at the time, but raising to now for something that was not challenged when it occurred can lead to defenses including those involving timeliness for raising the issue.

As to PVB, the same argument would apply to the current change which reduces bungalows throughout the year and raises studios throughout the year -- the offsetting decrease is for the same not different use days of the year.

There is very little doubt that the current reallocation violates the POS. And that is also true for the previous SSR reallocations (THV and standard/preferred) and the views reclassifications (AKV and MLT), but I have no idea if there is a time limit for complaints on older reallocations.
However there is another issue. In the POS it is described how DVCMC can change the POS itself:

Amendment of this agreement: DVCMC, in its sole, absolute unfettered discretion, may change the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Home and Resort Rules and regulations. These changes may affect an Owner's right to use, exchange and rent the Ownership Interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of the Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club membership. Such changes may be made by DVCMC without the consent of any Club member and may adversely affect a Club Member's rights and benefits and increase or decrease the Club Member's cost of ownership. Further, although DVCMCM generally is required to make such changes in a manner which, in its reasonable business judgement, improves upon the quality and operation of the Vacation Ownership Plan and furthers the collective enjoyment of its benefits by the Club members taken as a whole, such changes under some circumstances may not be to the advantage of some Club Members and could adversely affect their ability to secure reservations when and where they want them.

This means that DVCMC could change the POS to allow the reallocation of points across different units and resubmit the new points charts. As far as we know they might even have already done it and not yet communicated it to members.
I can see only a few things blocking them to do so:
- they can do any change they like, but "DVCMCM generally is required to make such changes in a manner which, in its reasonable business judgement, improves upon the quality and operation of the Vacation Ownership Plan". Changes must be in the ownership interest, within reasonable business judgement, that is something that could be debated in court. Please remember that DVCMC business is manage the resorts for the owners interest, not sell points.
- changing the POS to explicitly allow studios to cost more after the resorts are sold out could backfire greatly from a PR perspective.
- I am not sure it could be legal to begin with, they still have to comply with Florida laws. We still do not know why the lockoff premium wording was included in the VGF POS and not in CCV. Someone might have questioned it could go against Florida laws, maybe? It would mean creating points out of thin air for the developer's benefits, I can see there could be some regulations that could prevent that. Also, I am not sure if the points reallocation across units could create problems with our contracts that are formulated as % ownership of the total points allocated to that unit. If the points required to book the unit change, should our ownership % be modified? It is way over my understanding so if anyone is more expert than me (not difficult) please comment on this.

 

[freediverdude]

Trying to gather interest for a lawsuit, please see this new thread: https://www.disboards.com/threads/j...to-stop-revert-the-2020-reallocation.3726101/



There is very little doubt that the current reallocation violates the POS. And that is also true for the previous SSR reallocations (THV and standard/preferred) and the views reclassifications (AKV and MLT), but I have no idea if there is a time limit for complaints on older reallocations.
However there is another issue. In the POS it is described how DVCMC can change the POS itself:

Amendment of this agreement: DVCMC, in its sole, absolute unfettered discretion, may change the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Home and Resort Rules and regulations. These changes may affect an Owner's right to use, exchange and rent the Ownership Interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of the Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club membership. Such changes may be made by DVCMC without the consent of any Club member and may adversely affect a Club Member's rights and benefits and increase or decrease the Club Member's cost of ownership. Further, although DVCMCM generally is required to make such changes in a manner which, in its reasonable business judgement, improves upon the quality and operation of the Vacation Ownership Plan and furthers the collective enjoyment of its benefits by the Club members taken as a whole, such changes under some circumstances may not be to the advantage of some Club Members and could adversely affect their ability to secure reservations when and where they want them.

This means that DVCMC could change the POS to allow the reallocation of points across different units and resubmit the new points charts. As far as we know they might even have already done it and not yet communicated it to members.
I can see only a few things blocking them to do so:
- they can do any change they like, but "DVCMCM generally is required to make such changes in a manner which, in its reasonable business judgement, improves upon the quality and operation of the Vacation Ownership Plan". Changes must be in the ownership interest, within reasonable business judgement, that is something that could be debated in court. Please remember that DVCMC business is manage the resorts for the owners interest, not sell points.
- changing the POS to explicitly allow studios to cost more after the resorts are sold out could backfire greatly from a PR perspective.
- I am not sure it could be legal to begin with, they still have to comply with Florida laws. We still do not know why the lockoff premium wording was included in the VGF POS and not in CCV. Someone might have questioned it could go against Florida laws, maybe? It would mean creating points out of thin air for the developer's benefits, I can see there could be some regulations that could prevent that. Also, I am not sure if the points reallocation across units could create problems with our contracts that are formulated as % ownership of the total points allocated to that unit. If the points required to book the unit change, should our ownership % be modified? It is way over my understanding so if anyone is more expert than me (not difficult) please comment on this.

Well obviously yes they could change the verbiage in the POS in their sole discretion, but there is probably a requirement that they give notice to members when doing so, which they would not have done here. So they would still be violating the contract I would think.

 

[Wakey]

Well obviously yes they could change the verbiage in the POS in their sole discretion, but there is probably a requirement that they give notice to members when doing so, which they would not have done here. So they would still be violating the contract I would think.

There's something on the actual declaration of condominium saying it can only be changed if it is not detrimental to members interests. Not sure how that plays in.

 

[zavandor]

There's something on the actual declaration of condominium saying it can only be changed if it is not detrimental to members interests. Not sure how that plays in.

Exhibit G can be changed at will, given that it makes "business sense". So that would be open for interpretation, given that DVCMC business is managing the resorts, not selling points.

 

[Dean]

In a way my thoughts were that. Many long time owners that I considered pretty savvy on DVC on these boards actually stated that thought for several years - that they did not expect any reallocations - based on the history that certain times had long been out of whack and DVC had not addressed it. Did I nash my teeth that DVC was awful and I was going to sell? I don't think so but yes, I was surprised because of the history of inaction. I had read the POS and knew it could be done though.

FWIW you were not one to state that.

Leading up to the 2010/2011 reallocation that would have been fair, people should have know it was a risk but didn't expect it. Still, being livid the it happened knowing it could is just unreasonable IMO. Not liking the change is fair.

I think this is going to end up being a big oops they will have to correct. Probably a different person and people in charge did the allocations this time, thinking they were being smart and didn't know the ins and outs of the rules in place.

I'll take that bet. They've had a number of reallocations, many far more life changing for members than this.

Well obviously yes they could change the verbiage in the POS in their sole discretion, but there is probably a requirement that they give notice to members when doing so, which they would not have done here. So they would still be violating the contract I would think.

There's something on the actual declaration of condominium saying it can only be changed if it is not detrimental to members interests. Not sure how that plays in.

No requirements to notify, putting the change not he website is technically sufficient but I agree it'd be nice if they would be more proactive with changes. There are things in the POS they can't change without the input of actual members and I doubt we'll ever see a vote of that type unless it's around the RTU expiration for resorts like HH & VB.

 

[Madame]

I'll take that bet. They've had a number of reallocations, many far more life changing for members than this

I agree. I don’t understand the lethargy or unwavering devotion or whatever it is many members have, but nothing will come of it. 2 choices, neither of which is ideal: submit or sell.

 

[Dean]

I agree. I don’t understand the lethargy or unwavering devotion or whatever it is many members have, but nothing will come of it. 2 choices, neither of which is ideal: submit or sell.

Unless one wants a fight. It's not that Disney/DVC can do no wrong. There are 2 specific issues where I think on could make the case they are/were in violation of the POS. Clearly with the OKW extension they threatened a Special Assessment against those that didn't sign over their rights or pay the fee. There is clear wording in the POS and in FL statue as to where they can levy a SA and it did not include that. If I had still owned at OKW at the time that came down (had sold all 3 contracts before of a total of 552 points) I would have insured that lawsuit. And I don't mean this light weight "can we get a class action lawsuit", I'm talking go hire a lawyer and go after them. Don't know where it'd have ended but my guess is they would have settled in my favor and paid the lawyer bills to make it go away or else buy me out at a price I couldn't have turned down. To my knowledge they never have enforced the SA, I'd love to hear if anyone has heard of them doings. The other area where I believe they MAY be in violation is member input on the board. Their stance is we've signed over that control and that's true up to a point but as I read the POS there are conflicting pieces of information there.

 

[Madame]

Unless one wants a fight. It's not that Disney/DVC can do no wrong. There are 2 specific issues where I think on could make the case they are/were in violation of the POS. Clearly with the OKW extension they threatened a Special Assessment against those that didn't sign over their rights or pay the fee. There is clear wording in the POS and in FL statue as to where they can levy a SA and it did not include that. If I had still owned at OKW at the time that came down (had sold all 3 contracts before of a total of 552 points) I would have insured that lawsuit. And I don't mean this light weight "can we get a class action lawsuit", I'm talking go hire a lawyer and go after them. Don't know where it'd have ended but my guess is they would have settled in my favor and paid the lawyer bills to make it go away or else buy me out at a price I couldn't have turned down. To my knowledge they never have enforced the SA, I'd love to hear if anyone has heard of them doings. The other area where I believe they MAY be in violation is member input on the board. Their stance is we've signed over that control and that's true up to a point but as I read the POS there are conflicting pieces of information there.

Sure, but that’s just it Dean. I don’t understand how/why people only care and are willing to make a stand when it affects them personally. It doesn’t sit well with me.

 

[Dean]

Sure, but that’s just it Dean. I don’t understand how/why people only care and are willing to make a stand when it affects them personally. It doesn’t sit well with me.

I agree when it's truly principle involved but IMO this is not principle material. Plus you have to cut your losses and it's likely best for me and everyone that I didn't own OKW at the time of the extension. Voting with my feet would have likely been my better choice.

 

[RRB]

Another thread is pushing for legal action. Before (or if) it gets to that, I would think that DVC would discuss this issue with a small group of members who have a good understanding of the issue. There has been a good amount of analysis done already and there is enough information to have a meaningful dialogue. What do you think?

 

[Madame]

Another thread is pushing for legal action. Before (or if) it gets to that, I would think that DVC would discuss this issue with a small group of members who have a good understanding of the issue. There has been a good amount of analysis done already and there is enough information to have a meaningful dialogue. What do you think?

^^ this