2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Sandisw]

So, what I am reading is that the VGF Resort Studios can be redone however they want - in essence - because they were all declared at once.

But, for the other resorts, they don't have the same flexibility according to the contract.

Still am confused about the lock-off premium - and how that can be adjusted at DVCs discretion - isn't there a maximum number of points they cannot exceed even in that instance? Both in terms of the allocation number in the contract - and in the number of available points in an ownership interest.

I wish they had adjusted some of the seasonality around early December and to a lesser extent early May, and they had lowered some of the summer pricing. But, they seem interested in doing this.

I am still confused how Poly can add point costs and have no reductions elsewhere. I understand maybe they are adding more rooms to other views, but you would think DVC would have wanted to share that no later than when points charts were revealed.

It's not that they declared BPK before it opened, its that they chose to make it only two units....Unit 11 and Unit 12...each with 101 resort studios in it.

Becuase of that, and the fact that they are all the same room type, makes it much easier to move around....and it will also at the same time be very easy to keep each unit balanced too because each one is identical to the other....

The lock off premium that is in the charts are points that are there, but are not tied to an ownership interest. The points in the charts for lock off rooms are based on what it would take to book them as 2 bedrooms....the reason being is they can't sell more than what would be a 1:1 use to room ratio.

If they sold the lock off points, or created a point chart with more weekend days in it, the resort would be oversold when those situatioins didn't exist. Its the same with Leap Year...that extra day's worth of points is not deeded anywhere....

Now, the VGF POS seems to imply that they can increase or decrease the lock off premium points at their discretion and they don't have to balance it out any where else....but, it is not written that way in RIV...and I don't believe in PVB either...not sure about other ones.

I do know that is something that was fought in 2019, and they rolled it back, and it may be because only VGF has that language but the others don't?

I think the belief is that it can go up or down, but can't exceed the premimum that was chosen from the start...

Since BWV 2 bedrooms are all lock offs, its a good example of how that resort probably ends up with more breakage because people are booking the studios part at a higher rate than the 2 bedrooms....

For PVB, because it is still in active sales, without all inventory declared, they have time to adjust and when you reclassify rooms (which some believe has happened at the tower), it would explain that.

But, this brings up really the big question that people have and are on different sides of the fence.....can DVC balance the points for booking in the points charts across the entire resort, as long as total points remain balanced, or must they balanced within the points that were actually sold for that unit....

If its the first, then that explains why the long houses might see increased with no decreases noticed....if it is the second, then its because they are making adjustments at the tower because its all one association.

As I mentioned above, I think that when you read all the documents, depending on which way you think it should be, you can find stuff that can support either stance....and such, why no one really knows for sure..

What we do know is that DVC believes that they are allowed to balance across vacation home or homes, as long as the resort is balanced because they did it at SSR with both the treehouse reallocations and the changes to preferred and standard sections. And now, potentially with PVB because they are adding more units.

 

[Leight19]

It is not black and white forbidden. The part you keep emphasizing is just saying that they can change each day/room on the chart as much as they want each year up to 20% provided that it doesn't ACTUALLY CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP (point #, percentage ownership of a unit) And spoiler; it doesn't. And they say so


"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 discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

Just before that section is the section that is the key. There they specifically say that your Ownership Interest is fixed, and cannot change.

"The number of Home Resort Vacation Points that a Club Member has with respect to an Ownership Interest will remain fixed and will always be symbolic of the Club Member's Ownership Interest"

No qualifiers or buts.

They specifically say that your ownership cannot change, and then right after they say how they are allowed to reallocate points, and it won't change your ownership interest.

They made it confusing with the wording, which got me at first too. But they aren't saying that they cannot make certain changes because it WOULD affect the point ownership, they are saying IMO that they CAN make any changes up to 20% and reiterate that that act will NOT change the actual point ownership. Just like you borrowing points doesn't turn a 100pt contract into a 200pt contract magically. Points usage is determined by, but is slightly different and more flexible than, point ownership

And if you look at the newer wording in the newer docs that is how they read more clearly

I think I understand what you’re trying to say. Your take seems to be the language isn’t limiting them from making the change; the language is just saying that if they do make the changes the points in units don’t change.

This is clearly not what is communicated here. The context of the contract is very clearly restricting these changes. The contract grants them the authority of balancing “use day” demand by moving points from one “use day” to the another “use day”. It then in same clause places a direct limiter to that authority as “provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation”.

I don’t know how it could be any clearer this isn’t a permission to make changes ignoring unit point balance but is clearly worded, limited authority to balance day to day demand (not room category demand) within constraints of not manipulating points in unit.

 

[Sandisw]

It is not black and white forbidden. The part you keep emphasizing is just saying that they can change each day/room on the chart as much as they want each year up to 20% provided that it doesn't ACTUALLY CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP (point #, percentage ownership of a unit) And spoiler; it doesn't. And they say so


"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 discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

Just before that section is the section that is the key. There they specifically say that your Ownership Interest is fixed, and cannot change.

"The number of Home Resort Vacation Points that a Club Member has with respect to an Ownership Interest will remain fixed and will always be symbolic of the Club Member's Ownership Interest"

No qualifiers or buts.

They specifically say that your ownership cannot change, and then right after they say how they are allowed to reallocate points, and it won't change your ownership interest.

They made it confusing with the wording, which got me at first too. But they aren't saying that they cannot make certain changes because it WOULD affect the point ownership, they are saying IMO that they CAN make any changes up to 20% and reiterate that that act will NOT change the actual point ownership. Just like you borrowing points doesn't turn a 100pt contract into a 200pt contract magically. Points usage is determined by, but is slightly different and more flexible than, point/resort ownership. It's a different and difficult concept. You don't "lose" your ownership during the year after you borrow points. The ownership is still there, you just moved the points!

And if you look at the newer wording in the newer docs that is how they read more clearly

This a really good explanation of how the ownership interest doesn't really change based on point reallcations. I know I have said it a lot but if extra points in a unit can never be there, then they would have to completely revamp things when there is a Leap Year, or when there are more weekend days in a travel period than the year before.

The lock off premium alone adds points to the unit that are not deeded....and that would not be legally possible if you have to have points that always balance against what was sold to the unit.

 

[Leight19]

This a really good explanation of how the ownership interest doesn't really change based on point reallcations. I know I have said it a lot but if extra points in a unit can never be there, then they would have to completely revamp things when there is a Leap Year, or when there are more weekend days in a travel period than the year before.

The lock off premium alone adds points to the unit that are not deeded....and that would not be legally possible if you have to have points that always balance against what was sold to the unit.

The lock off premium is explicitly called out as something they can include and no unit is declared based on the lock off premium. I think I’m going to have drop out of conversation as the contract is very clearly preventing changes that move points across units and short of repeating the language again idk how to make that any more clear. Any discussion of concierge or lock off premium are explicit exceptions granted in specific scenarios; they actually are evidence of the restriction as the need to declare these exceptions to the rule forties the interpretation that the rule exists.

 

[Tatebeck]

I think I understand what you’re trying to say. Your take seems to be the language isn’t limiting them from making the change; the language is just saying that if they do make the changes the points in units don’t change.

This is clearly not what is communicated here. The context of the contract is very clearly restricting these changes. The contract grants them the authority of balancing “use day” demand by moving points from one “use day” to the another “use day”. It then in same clause places a direct limiter to that authority as “provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation”.

I don’t know how it could be any clearer this isn’t a permission to make changes ignoring unit point balance but is clearly worded, limited authority to balance day to day demand (not room category demand) within constraints of not manipulating points in unit.

I know it is confusing, and I think this stems from the confusing ";provided, however that..." linkage used in some of the original home resort POS documents (I have been looking at Poly specifically because of the point chart changes this year) but has been fixed in the newer versions of the Multi-Site POS document.

"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 discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

Now depending on who you ask that linkage sounds like different words or meanings!! Like the word IF , AND, BECAUSE, or the word BUT. You are reading it like the word IF, I am reading it like the word AND or BUT.

It is a known problem so many people recommend against using it, and the newer documents don't use that language anymore

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/provided-however-that#:~:text=Provided, however, that almost always,applicable statute of limitations periods.

They specifically say that your ownership interest CANNOT change. 100%, so the IF interpretation of the linkage is very unlikely to be correct as it is redundant.
----
EX.
I have an apple. You can have some apple, but only if I happen to have some apple. We just said that I have some apple, so that doesn't make much sense.

I have a apple. You can have some apple, and remember, I have some apple!
I have a apple. You can have some apple, because, I have some apple!

those make more sense

 

[Leight19]

I know it is confusing, and I think this stems from the confusing ";provided, however that..." linkage used in some of the original home resort POS documents (I have been looking at Poly specifically because of the point chart changes this year) but has been fixed in the newer versions of the Multi-Site POS document.

"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 discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

Now depending on who you ask that linkage sounds like different words or meanings!! Like the word IF , AND, or the word BUT. You are reading it like the word IF, I am reading it like the word BUT.

It is a known problem so many people recommend against using it, and the newer documents don't use that language anymore

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/provided-however-that#:~:text=Provided, however, that almost always,applicable statute of limitations periods.

I mean I still don’t get what’s ambiguous here. They specially mention moving points from one use day to another use day, there’s no mention of authority to balance across room types or any other authority beyond moving points needed from one day to another to balance day to day demand. The only reference to language on moving across units is language that expressly forbids changes in day to day allocations that would increase or decrease points of a unit type. Where at all do you read into this authority to do something that’s only mentioned as been expressly forbidden?

 

[Tatebeck]

I mean I still don’t get what’s ambiguous here. They specially mention moving points from one use day to another use day, there’s no mention of authority to balance across room types or any other authority beyond moving points needed from one day to another to balance day to day demand. The only reference to language on moving across units is language that expressly forbids changes in day to day allocations that would increase or decrease points of a unit type. Where at all do you read into this authority to do something that’s only mentioned as been expressly forbidden?

If they were attempting to say (even if poorly/confusingly) that they are able to reallocate over the entire resort, then in makes sense that they wouldn't say at first that they "can allocate across units/different room types". That is contained within/implied. They have since added extra and changed some language because members were confused.

If I said that you could have 2 of my apples, I wouldn't specifically have to say that you can have 1 apple, it is implied/contained within/lesser than the 2 that I already offered

 

[Tatebeck]

This a really good explanation of how the ownership interest doesn't really change based on point reallcations. I know I have said it a lot but if extra points in a unit can never be there, then they would have to completely revamp things when there is a Leap Year, or when there are more weekend days in a travel period than the year before.

The lock off premium alone adds points to the unit that are not deeded....and that would not be legally possible if you have to have points that always balance against what was sold to the unit.

Thanks! It did take a while to wrap my head around everything and separate the two.

 

[Sandisw]

I think I understand what you’re trying to say. Your take seems to be the language isn’t limiting them from making the change; the language is just saying that if they do make the changes the points in units don’t change.

This is clearly not what is communicated here. The context of the contract is very clearly restricting these changes. The contract grants them the authority of balancing “use day” demand by moving points from one “use day” to the another “use day”. It then in same clause places a direct limiter to that authority as “provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation”.

I don’t know how it could be any clearer this isn’t a permission to make changes ignoring unit point balance but is clearly worded, limited authority to balance day to day demand (not room category demand) within constraints of not manipulating points in unit.

I think the reason is not clear to everyone is there is other information throughout the POS that, IMO, can contradict that this use of the word "unit" was meant to be an individual unit as sold vs. unit in the general sense to mean a collection of vacation homes that are owned by a group of owners...

Points are just respresentative of an ownership and the same number of points can represent a different % of ownership based on the make up of a unit...

Heck, the word personal use is used in the contract to mean two different things...what you can use the room for when you stay in it and your reason for booking the reservation..

I am not even sure if the initial charts that were put out for any resort actually balanced against each individual unit....especially since they don't declare all the units at the start....

It definitely one of those areas that I can see both sides and the only real way to know is to push it with DVC and see what they say and how they explain it and go from there.

 

[Sandisw]

The lock off premium is explicitly called out as something they can include and no unit is declared based on the lock off premium. I think I’m going to have drop out of conversation as the contract is very clearly preventing changes that move points across units and short of repeating the language again idk how to make that any more clear. Any discussion of concierge or lock off premium are explicit exceptions granted in specific scenarios; they actually are evidence of the restriction as the need to declare these exceptions to the rule forties the interpretation that the rule exists.

If it was really that clear, then everyone would easily see it. I just don't see that language to mean what you think it means when there is other language that I think contradicts the idea to a degree that I can't say for sure they can't and it makes sense to me that balancing at the resort level when you have to balance for demand.

But, I readily admit that I wouldn't bet on either one...

 

[Tatebeck]

The lock off premium is explicitly called out as something they can include and no unit is declared based on the lock off premium. I think I’m going to have drop out of conversation as the contract is very clearly preventing changes that move points across units and short of repeating the language again idk how to make that any more clear. Any discussion of concierge or lock off premium are explicit exceptions granted in specific scenarios; they actually are evidence of the restriction as the need to declare these exceptions to the rule forties the interpretation that the rule exists.

The lockoff premium and Club level points exceptions had to be explicitly spelled out because those things are not accounted for on the Base Year point chart that the point chart has to in the end be balanced against. Lockoff points are extra and so are the Club level points. They are points that are NOT in the Base Year points chart because they are independent of the rooms that were declared.

Club level rooms could turn into reguar rooms so they were probably declared as regular rooms+a club level fee. And lockoffs were declared and balanced the original chart as 2BRs so any lockoff premium is extra.

 

[Cfabar1]

Could they increase the lockoff premium (in theory) to any amount they want? For example, could they say a studio lockoff unit could go for 100 points per night? Wouldn't be a big deal at VGF, there's lots of other studios available that would be exempt from lockoff issues- but could be a major issue at BWV - where nearly every unit is a lockoff....

 

[Tatebeck]

Could they increase the lockoff premium (in theory) to any amount they want? For example, could they say a studio lockoff unit could go for 100 points per night? Wouldn't be a big deal at VGF, there's lots of other studios available that would be exempt from lockoff issues- but could be a major issue at BWV - where nearly every unit is a lockoff....

Not infinitely, as they have the maximum cost for each room in the worst case for reallocation at each resort.

And even if they didn't have that in the documents if they made it too expensive everyone would just book as the 2BR if it costs almost the same for a studio, 1BR, or 2BR

 

[Cfabar1]

Not infinitely, as they have the maximum cost for each room in the worst case for reallocation at each resort.

And even if they didn't have that in the documents if they made it too expensive everyone would just book as the 2BR if it costs almost the same for a studio, 1BR, or 2BR

Does the maximum cost apply to the lockoff premium though?

I understand practically there is a limit, just am curious what their obligations are...

 

[Sandisw]

I mean I still don’t get what’s ambiguous here. They specially mention moving points from one use day to another use day, there’s no mention of authority to balance across room types or any other authority beyond moving points needed from one day to another to balance day to day demand. The only reference to language on moving across units is language that expressly forbids changes in day to day allocations that would increase or decrease points of a unit type. Where at all do you read into this authority to do something that’s only mentioned as been expressly forbidden?

Because I think that word "unit" is being used here in the plural sense to mean a cluster of vacation homes and not "unit" as in Unit 1 A or Unit 2G...

Units are mixed and in order for them to balance a use day in a specific room type, they to adjust it for all units...and since all units are not the same size, can be mixed with different room sizes, and be made up of a different number of points, I am not sure how they accomplish that without potentially varying the points for the resort....

Now, I readily admit I don't know how a court of law would see it and your interpretation might be the correct one...but, for me personally, there is enough information in the contract for me to say its plausible that this word unit was meant to distinguish it from a vacation home.

 

[Tatebeck]

Does the maximum cost apply to the lockoff premium though?

I understand practically there is a limit, just am curious what their obligations are...

It applies to the average cost of every room type. So the average cost of Studio (dedicated and lockoff), 1BR (dedicated and lockoff), 2BR (dedicated and lockoff), etc.

Usually it is worded like for every x points a member will always be able to book at least 1 average night in a studio, etc.

 

[Leight19]

Because I think that word "unit" is being used here in the plural sense to mean a cluster of vacation homes and not "unit" as in Unit 1 A or Unit 2G...

Units are mixed and in order for them to balance a use day in a specific room type, they to adjust it for all units...and since all units are not the same size, can be mixed with different room sizes, and be made up of a different number of points, I am not sure how they accomplish that without potentially varying the points for the resort....

Now, I readily admit I don't know how a court of law would see it and your interpretation might be the correct one...but, for me personally, there is enough information in the contract for me to say its plausible that this word unit was meant to distinguish it from a vacation home.

Please provide the language in akv document you feel grants them the authority to make this change. The only thing I’ve seen that grants the authority is the multi site document which cannot retroactively grant authorities that are not present and expressedly forbidden in our original contracts.

 

[Sandisw]

The lockoff premium and Club level points exceptions had to be explicitly spelled out because those things are not accounted for on the Base Year point chart that the point chart has to in the end be balanced against. Lockoff points are extra and so are the Club level points. They are points that are NOT in the Base Year points chart because they are independent of the rooms that were declared.

Club level rooms could turn into reguar rooms so they were probably declared as regular rooms+a club level fee. And lockoffs were declared and balanced the original chart as 2BRs so any lockoff premium is extra.

I think this is key in that these had to be explicility mentioned because these are additional points in the system that are not part of any unit....and therefore, are adding points above and beyond what was sold.

I see reallocations across all units, but keeping the points balanced to what was sold is a different situation. It really does come down to that word "unit" when it discussed reallocation and whether it was referring to each individual unit (cluster of rooms) as sold, or as I just posted, or to distinguish it from a vacation home....