4 month advantage at home resort shortened

[RobDoc]

I'll disagree with Doc only slightly. It is in the POS but it could be changed by a vote of the actual members, I think it's 60% but would have to check to be certain. So it could theoretically change to less than a month priority but would take some legal changes.

I may be wrong, but my take on the owner's ability to vote (I do think 60% is the needed majority) is that we can vote to remove DVC as management of our resort, but not to alter specific components of the POS. DVC certainly has many loopholes in the POS where they may make changes whenever they "deem it to be in the best interest of the members", but I don't see any mechanism for the collective body of owners to do that. It would have to be accomplished by the owners at each resort- not a 60% vote of all owners - so large resorts would have no more "control" than the smallest- either onsite of offsite. I think the vote would also need to be independently managed, as DVC is unlikely to initiate any such action.

Should the owners at any resort (and the language does suggest that owners at their resort would have to approve by the 60% margin) vote to replace DVC as the managing entity, they would automatically lose the ability to reserve at other DVC resorts.

I suppose if 60% of the owners at each resort voted to remove DVC, the new management could do whatever they wanted regarding the reservation system - DVC would have no control over that at all in that scenario.

I'll take a look at the POS again and see if I can find the exact language about what owners can change, but I think it's pretty limited.

 

[RobDoc]

OK, here is the language from the POS about owners voting. This is from Exhibit "10" to the Public Offering Statement - Overview of Vacation Ownership Plan, Section XI. Control :

DVD retains the right to control the Association even after a majority of the Ownership Interests in the Units have been sold. DVD will be authorized to cast the vote for a given Unit at Association meetings in whatever manner it deems appropriate unless it is otherwise instructed in writing in advance of such meetings by the owners of 60% of the ownership interests in that Unit. This authority extends to the election of the Board of Directors of the Association, as well as to other matters. At least 60% of the ownership Interests in at least a majority of Units would be required in order for the Owners to exercise any significant control over the Association. Therefore, as a practical matter, the owners of Ownership Interests in the Units in the Condominium will probably be unable to remove DVD from control of the Association throughout the term of the Condominium.

Purauant to Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, DVC cannot be removed as manager of the Condominium except by the vote of 75% of the voting representatives of all of the Units present at a meeting of the Association, called for that purpose where the Owners other than DVD have assumed control of the Association, or where Owners other than DVD own not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the voting interests in the Condominium. Because DVD is the designated voting cotenant of each Unit and can only be removed as such by the vote of sixty percent (60%) of Owners in each Unit, as a practical matter, Owners will have difficulty in accumulating sufficient votes to terminate DVC as the manager of the Condominium iin this manner. Pursuamt to Chapter 721, Florida Statutes, DVC may be removed as manager of the Condominium if at least sixty-six percent (66%) of the Purchasers voting, which shall be at least fifty percent (50%) of all votes allocated to Purchasers, vote to discharge DVC. In the event DVC is terminated as the manager of the Condominium, the contract for the management of Club Member's use rights would sever the relationships between the Condominium and other DVC Resorts and limit your use to accommodations then within the Condominium.

Condominium is defined as a specific resort, not the collective body of all resorts.

Unit is defined as a building (in the case of OKW) or grouping of villas.

In the clauses above, in order for the owners to depose DVC, or make any changes themselves, they'd need 60% of the owners of a majority of the Units to agree on any changes. To make any universal changes that would affect all DVC members, owners at each resort would have to independently meet the above requirements. A simple 60% of all DVC members would not have any affect- thus rendering useless any concerns about large or off-site resorts influencing changes to the reservatin priorities. They could vote to change those policies at their own resort, but that vote would have no bearing on the reservation policies at any of the other DVC resorts.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

very nice info

thanks for digging it up

 

[Dean]

I may be wrong, but my take on the owner's ability to vote (I do think 60% is the needed majority) is that we can vote to remove DVC as management of our resort, but not to alter specific components of the POS. DVC certainly has many loopholes in the POS where they may make changes whenever they "deem it to be in the best interest of the members", but I don't see any mechanism for the collective body of owners to do that. It would have to be accomplished by the owners at each resort- not a 60% vote of all owners - so large resorts would have no more "control" than the smallest- either onsite of offsite. I think the vote would also need to be independently managed, as DVC is unlikely to initiate any such action.

Should the owners at any resort (and the language does suggest that owners at their resort would have to approve by the 60% margin) vote to replace DVC as the managing entity, they would automatically lose the ability to reserve at other DVC resorts.

I suppose if 60% of the owners at each resort voted to remove DVC, the new management could do whatever they wanted regarding the reservation system - DVC would have no control over that at all in that scenario.

I'll take a look at the POS again and see if I can find the exact language about what owners can change, but I think it's pretty limited.

Doc, there are provisions for amending the legal issues. They can be presented by the Board or by members. And as I read the POS, any member can present an amendment if they chose, there's no limitation on getting signatures or the like from what I can see. And there's a provision that says that any material change that adversely affects the members (or something to that effect) must actually be voted on by the members.