2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Sandisw]

The language screenshot here does not have any language I see even mentioning reallocation of points just declaration. Am l missing something?

Regarding definition of “unit” there is a legal definition section at beginning of document. It provides definition and references the definitions laid out in chapter 718 of Florida statutes (link below). The definition here is legal jargon but makes reference to unit and unit owners by the legal definition of units for deeded ownership. I’m not going to spend more time reading through to convince myself the definiton of unit is consistent with what I presume it would be by the legal language and my legal deed but if you see a way I’m mistaken and missed something please let me know.
https://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0718/0718.html

I’m going to have to stop posting as not getting anywhere with the primary posters but to others reading I’ve provided language from akv pos that grants authority to balance demand by day to day point reallocation with expressed limitations these changes cannot change total points in units. I see no other authority to change point charts on akv documents that would imply these changes are legal and would recommend anyone else upset with these changes or the implications they may have for future allocations to contact dvc management expressing concern leveraging the language in these documents to highlight position this change is expressively forbidden.

I have said several times now that I am not sure what is legally allowed and what is not. I have provided examples of why my position is where it is and I am just not as convinced as you that it is expressly forbidden to balance against the whole resort.

ETA: I have also not seen any analysis that even with the changes, that any specific declared unit is not still balanced.

I really hope those that are upset with what happened at AKV and PVB take it up the chain with DVC because it would be nice to see what they do.

To be fair, everyone really does have to do their own reading of the contract and decide what it means.....this is always going to be one of those areas that people see differently.

ETA: I know I saw earlier posts of you looking at the total number of rooms, but it would be fasinating to see it broken down into the specifc units if you have done it!

 

[Tatebeck]

I’m going to have to stop posting as not getting anywhere with the primary posters but to others reading I’ve provided language from akv pos that grants authority to balance demand by day to day point reallocation with expressed limitations these changes cannot change total points in units.

You are so close to understanding both sides. But I understand if you are stuck. It was a looong time before I started putting both possible interpretations together and understanding how my initial thoughts may be incorrect.

We both agree that point chart changes cannot change total points in each of the units. And that those points actually can't change at all. So let's start there now.

So they cannot change the number of total points in a unit or the number of points/percentage ownership in your ownership interest. Blanket statement that they said. No way to, no matter what.

Now what happens when they do/if they try to adjust the point charts a crazy amount over time, across units?

Did any of the rooms disappear in the unit you own? Or did your interest percentage in that number of rooms that make up your unit change? No, those rooms are all still there, and you still own the same percentage of the same number of rooms. Did the points that they give you every year change? No they said those were fixed and attached to the ownership percentage and it can't change either. Nothing has changed with your ownership, or with the points in your unit, just as they promised.

The point of DVC is that you don't have to use your specified room/unit. You can stay at any of them at your home resort or try to trade out into other resorts later. You most likely very rarely if ever actually use your points at your given unit. And if you bank/borrow/trade out to another resort your ownership interest still isn't affected, you are just choosing to stay somewhere else.

The adjustments are just the closest thing DVC has to that. They can move the points around, as long as they balance as promised.

In other words, DVC changing the point charts do not EVER actually CHANGE how many points are IN a unit (the rooms), just how many points it will take for any of the eligible members to book that room during that year. And as long as they balance out in the end and follow the rest of the contract agreements they may be able to do whatever they want across units. It just depends on how you interpret that one section and how you think of the actual ownership interest vs the points we use.

 

[Leight19]

For my own interpretation, I am not convinced "unit" was meant to mean a specific one. I see the word to mean " cluster of rooms" vs. a single vacation home....

Like I have said, there is enough other language in the POS for me to say I think they can move things by use day across vacation homes because units are mixed and that the balance has to match total points sold, since they can do a max reallocation for bookings which would not necessarily match against what was sold......

I have no idea which one would win in court...but I lean that as long as the resort stays balanced, then if they need to adjust and a unit has a few more or less points, its within the rules....

I also think that even with the questions arising by what was done, except maybe PVB because it seems they are clustering with the tower, my guess is that even at the actually unit level, as defined by the declaration, they'd be pretty darn close.

ETA: And that is why, if someone really wants to know that, they can't just total all the rooms by type, and add them up...they'd actually have to compare to each individual declared unit to see if it matches....because, declared units all have different number of rooms and points sold to them.

I have said several times now that I am not sure what is legally allowed and what is not. I have provided examples of why my position is where it is and I am just not as convinced as you that it is expressly forbidden to balance against the whole resort.

ETA: I have also not seen any analysis that even with the changes, that any specific declared unit is not still balanced.

I really hope those that are upset with what happened at AKV and PVB take it up the chain with DVC because it would be nice to see what they do.

To be fair, everyone really does have to do their own reading of the contract and decide what it means.....this is always going to be one of those areas that people see differently.

ETA: I know I saw earlier posts of you looking at the total number of rooms, but it would be fasinating to see it broken down into the specifc units if you have done it!

So I started to do the math but didn’t complete. However, proving they moved across units is actually very easy here. Kidani has no value or concierge rooms but Savanah view 2 bedrooms have been deceased. It’s a small decease but shows those points definitely moved units as no unit has jambo and kidani.

 

[Sandisw]

So I started to do the math but didn’t complete. However, proving they moved across units is actually very easy here. Kidani has no value or concierge rooms but Savanah view 2 bedrooms have been deceased. It’s a small decease but shows those points definitely moved units as no unit has jambo and kidani.

I just looked at the AKV chart and it looks like there are changes in SV studios and one bedrooms, which is separate than the value and CL changes.

Couldn’t that discrepancy in the 2 bedrooms be because of that?

Unless you are saying that there are no units at Kidani that have mixed room types in them?

 

[Leight19]

I just looked at the AKV chart and it looks like there are changes in SV studios and one bedrooms too.

Couldn’t that discrepancy in the 2 bedrooms be because of that?

Unless you are saying that there are no units at Kidani that have mixed room types in them?

So my understanding is no dedicated studios or 1br at kidani just 2br and 2br lock off. But even if they were since the only adjustments were Savanah down and value/conceirge up the changes at kidani would have had to have come from jambo units. This is easy to see in the point comparison tool as the whole chart is red with no green.

 

[Sandisw]

So my understanding is no dedicated studios or 1br at kidani just 2br and 2br lock off. But even if they were since the only adjustments were Savanah down and value/conceirge up the changes at kidani would have had to have come from jambo units. This is easy to see in the point comparison tool as the whole chart is red with no green.

Thanks! I am not an AKV owner so don’t know the make up.

What I can say is that this situation would certainly be the best test case to get an explanation from DVC.

 

[Sandisw]

Just had another potential explanation for the SV at AKV.

The extra points for CL rooms come from other units. There is nothing that states which units.

Since Jambo and Kidani are all one association, maybe the points went from the SV rooms to CL?

The 2 bedrooms didn’t have very many dates that changed…it was the studio and 1 bedrooms which could simply be the reduction of the lock off premium.

 

[atthebeachclub]

No there are 2 camps. One one side they would agree with you and that Unit declarations matter and they must balance point chart changes across each unit every time. The other side (now including me) would say that they can probably reallocate whatever they want, as long as the whole resort balances.

I always thought it was the latter, as that made the most sense.

 

[PolyRob]

I've read this entire discussion and see both sides. As a VGF owner it does concern me that there are no dedicated deluxe studios or dedicated one-bedrooms combined with the 20% lock-off increase language. I hope the clarification about PVB and AKV puts me at ease.

@Cfabar1 here is the maximum reallocation for OG VGF if you're interested: https://dvcnews.com/resorts/grand-floridian/news/2237-grand-floridian-points-chart-preview

 

[JackosinDIS]

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”.

100% correct.

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.

You have made it very clear!

";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.

“Provided” has a very specific meaning and use in legal contracts. I am reading this wording as someone who has been drafting real estate contracts for 20 years and it could not be any clearer to me!

You are so close to understanding both sides. But I understand if you are stuck. It was a looong time before I started putting both possible interpretations together and understanding how my initial thoughts may be incorrect.

I honestly think you are looking for interpretations that don’t exist to try and reason your way out of DVC doing something that is not permitted under the contract!

 

[Cfabar1]

I've read this entire discussion and see both sides. As a VGF owner it does concern me that there are no dedicated deluxe studios or dedicated one-bedrooms combined with the 20% lock-off increase language. I hope the clarification about PVB and AKV puts me at ease.

@Cfabar1 here is the maximum reallocation for OG VGF if you're interested: https://dvcnews.com/resorts/grand-floridian/news/2237-grand-floridian-points-chart-preview

I'm not sure how this addresses the lockoff premium though. This shares what would happen if the resort was flatlined throughout the entire year. They can certainly charge more per night, and without language capping the lockoff I imagine they can add more lockoff points.

Reading through all this, I am surprised that DVC caved on the points charts a few years ago. It seems to have been well within their rights to make them.

It also makes me think fixed week is the way to go moving forward if I were to buy another contract.

 

[Genie+]

Yes, ‘Unit’ is capitalized, and defined as being the Units added in the declarations.

What I’m questioning is how does the this use of the term unit (example below) get mixed into the point reallocation conversations?


(https://www.disboards.com/threads/vdh-unit-and-sales-tracker.3918952/post-64808418)

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I'm not sure how this addresses the lockoff premium though. This shares what would happen if the resort was flatlined throughout the entire year. They can certainly charge more per night, and without language capping the lockoff I imagine they can add more lockoff points.

Reading through all this, I am surprised that DVC caved on the points charts a few years ago. It seems to have been well within their rights to make them.

It also makes me think fixed week is the way to go moving forward if I were to buy another contract.

I just bought a Sept GW at PIT. If I would have just bought points instead I would be furious that this chart changed in under 12 months from purchase.

This happened to me when BLT first went on sale and I purchased a small 50 pt contract. Shortly after purchase, boom, points charts changed leaving me “ 2 points” short. After that I pledged never again would I purchase without some points buffer. Once guaranteed weeks ( previously fixed weeks) happened, I sold all my points and purchased only GW’s.

 

[Orbiter_Fan]

I just bought a Sept GW at PIT. If I would have just bought points instead I would be furious that this chart changed in under 12 months from purchase.

This happened to me when BLT first went on sale and I purchased a small 50 pt contract. Shortly after purchase, boom, points charts changed leaving me “ 2 points” short. After that I pledged never again would I purchase without some points buffer. Once guaranteed weeks ( previously fixed weeks) happened, I sold all my points and purchased only GW’s.

This is the way...FW at Riviera. Although we have yet to used it in '24, '25 or '26, ha.