Adding Resorts to Timeshare Plan

DonMacGregor

Sub Leader
Joined
May 13, 2021
Has anyone noticed this specific language that has been included (date unknown to me) to the current purchase agreement?:

"The next proposed projects at Reflections-A Disney Lakeside Lodge and at Disneyland are only possible component sites which may never be added to the Disney Vacation Club multi site timeshare plan. The proposed additional building with additional Vacation Homes at the Villas at Disney’s Grand Floridian Resort may not be built or added to the Disney Vacation Club multi site timeshare plan. Do not purchase an interest in a Disney Vacation Club Resort in reliance upon the addition of these component sites, any new resorts or additional Vacation Homes. Neither DVD nor any of the TWDC Companies have any obligation to build any additional Disney Vacation Club resorts or to add additional component sites or Vacation Homes to the Disney Vacation Club."

I know the current belief is that "VGF2" is being added to the current VGF timeshare plan, and that this is just CYA language, but it is interesting that they do reserve the right to do so, and view the new DVC units at GF in the same light as a new resort (as they do with DLT).

I'm only looking at it in light of the plethora of "they would never do it" and "they COULD never do it" posts in the forums.
 

erionm

DIS Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Those additional units are not official until they start to declare them into member inventory. Until such time, anything can change.
 

Sandisw

DVC Forums
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
It is interesting that they have included the language. I know most have said the reason they don’t think it would be different is because they announced it that way.

But, there was a post that someone watched a podcast that speculated they may add more than one building. Maybe that means they will rethink this being part of VGF.

I mean, I can see them changing their plans and making it a new resort like CCV, with its own charts, it’s own association AND it’s own restrictions.

Until it actually happens and things are declared, etc. its a wait and see.
 

DonMacGregor

Sub Leader
Joined
May 13, 2021
Similar language has been added every time they've announced a new DVC resort and it will remain until sales officially start for that resort.
That’s my point though. I get that it is CYA language, but they did include GF leaving their options open to define it as a new resort, when clearly it’s an existing building in a cash hotel being converted to DVC where DVC villas already exist.
 

erionm

DIS Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
That’s my point though. I get that it is CYA language, but they did include GF leaving their options open to define it as a new resort, when clearly it’s an existing building in a cash hotel being converted to DVC where DVC villas already exist.
That language also covers them if they ultimately decide to cancel the conversion.
 

DonMacGregor

Sub Leader
Joined
May 13, 2021
That language also covers them if they ultimately decide to cancel the conversion.
Again, I understand that. Let me try it this way:

I find it interesting that so many members on this forum argue that the new villas at GF cant or won’t be added as a new, distinct and discreet resort, apart from the existing DVC resort there, when language giving Disney the option to do just that is very clearly included in bolded text (or as an attorney would say, “with emphasis”) within the existing purchase agreement.

It’s just a point of interest and discussion, nothing more.
 

Jimmy Geppetto

Mouseketeer
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Again, I understand that. Let me try it this way:

I find it interesting that so many members on this forum argue that the new villas at GF cant or won’t be added as a new, distinct and discreet resort, apart from the existing DVC resort there, when language giving Disney the option to do just that is very clearly included in bolded text (or as an attorney would say, “with emphasis”) within the existing purchase agreement.

It’s just a point of interest and discussion, nothing more.
I hear what you are saying. From my perspective, if there is more money to be made by having VGF2 as a stand alone resort we should all count on it happening. The demand is there.
 

Sandisw

DVC Forums
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Again, I understand that. Let me try it this way:

I find it interesting that so many members on this forum argue that the new villas at GF cant or won’t be added as a new, distinct and discreet resort, apart from the existing DVC resort there, when language giving Disney the option to do just that is very clearly included in bolded text (or as an attorney would say, “with emphasis”) within the existing purchase agreement.

It’s just a point of interest and discussion, nothing more.
I think the only reason it’s being supported here is because Disney said it would be part of the same association.

The fact that the language that was added gives them the option to change their mind adds another element to the discussion.

Given this, I agree we can no longer point to the announcement as though it can’t be changed,

They obviously want the option!
 

Brian Noble

Gratefully in Recovery
Joined
Mar 23, 2004
that this is just CYA language
I suspect it might be a consequence of Florida timeshare law, which I believe forbids developers to sell based (in part) on promises of future inventory that hasn't actually been included yet.

Reflections may or may not ever be built as envisioned, but that plot won't stay vacant forever. VGF2 is going to happen on schedule, barring another black swan event (9/11, pandemic remix, etc.) that tanks travel. Neither will be marketed without some opportunity to exchange into other DVC properties. The specific mechanisms of exchange might evolve, but something will exist. And, if they can exchange out, someone will be able to exchange in.
 

OKW Lover

Retired and living 2 miles from The Castle.
DIS Lifetime Sponsor
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
I think the only reason it’s being supported here is because Disney said it would be part of the same association.

The fact that the language that was added gives them the option to change their mind adds another element to the discussion.

Given this, I agree we can no longer point to the announcement as though it can’t be changed,

They obviously want the option!
Florida has some very severe laws governing Time Share properties (which DVC is one) as a result of some past scams. If DVC were to renege on its comments about VGF2 being part of the original association, I wonder if that would run afoul of FL laws.
 

Sandisw

DVC Forums
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Florida has some very severe laws governing Time Share properties (which DVC is one) as a result of some past scams. If DVC were to renege on its comments about VGF2 being part of the original association, I wonder if that would run afoul of FL laws.
Great question and I don’t know. I think It would probably be based on official papers filed vs what was in an announcement.

But, this language seems to allow them to change their mind so my guess is they can change things prior to official declarations?
 

Marionnette

Children see magic because they look for it
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
I think that it's language that was added to give them a legal "out" in the event that proposed projects never come to fruition. This paragraph is part of the current sales agreement for direct sales. It's just a statement to make the buyer aware that Reflections, DLT and VGF2 could never happen and that the buyer should not purchase with the expectation of being able to use their points at a resort that does not currently exist except on paper. I wouldn't read anything more than that into the statement.
 

HappyDisneyWife

Powered by pixie dust... and espresso ;)
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
I think that it's language that was added to give them a legal "out" in the event that proposed projects never come to fruition. This paragraph is part of the current sales agreement for direct sales. It's just a statement to make the buyer aware that Reflections, DLT and VGF2 could never happen and that the buyer should not purchase with the expectation of being able to use their points at a resort that does not currently exist except on paper. I wouldn't read anything more than that into the statement.
This seems like the most likely answer to the problem… and I totally agree.
 

DonMacGregor

Sub Leader
Joined
May 13, 2021
I think that it's language that was added to give them a legal "out" in the event that proposed projects never come to fruition. This paragraph is part of the current sales agreement for direct sales. It's just a statement to make the buyer aware that Reflections, DLT and VGF2 could never happen and that the buyer should not purchase with the expectation of being able to use their points at a resort that does not currently exist except on paper. I wouldn't read anything more than that into the statement.
My point was more specific to the language that reads " may not be built or added to the Disney Vacation Club multi site timeshare plan". It's a two part statement, the former saying they "may not be built", and the latter stating "or added to the... timeshare plan". If it were simply an out in case the projects never come to fruition, then the former statement would suffice and the latter would be unnecessary. If something is never built it cannot, logically, be added to anything (it doesn't exist). The language could also have been written to read "may not be built AND added to the... multi site timeshare plan", but it says "or" which represents an option.

While I certainly agree with your interpretation of the former, the latter part of the statement also allows them to build future resorts and not add them to the current "multi site timeshare plan", either as standalone (no "O14" or whatever we want to call it) timeshare entity (which makes sense as they will likely eventually need to set up a new plan as the existing resorts sunset). This is logical and before anyone jumps all over it, it is nothing new. We all know that. It's what many have suggested may be the trend, beginning with the restrictions already imposed at RR.

The intriguing part was the inclusion of the new building at GF. A plain English reading of the language would indicate that, as with any "new" resort, they could have chosen not to build it at all, or if they do build it, have the option to not include it in the existing multi site timeshare plan and sell it as a completely stand-alone project not only unrelated to the existing GF DVC resort, but unrelated to any of the exiting multi plan resorts.

Just food for discussion.
 

Marionnette

Children see magic because they look for it
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
My point was more specific to the language that reads " may not be built or added to the Disney Vacation Club multi site timeshare plan". It's a two part statement, the former saying they "may not be built", and the latter stating "or added to the... timeshare plan". If it were simply an out in case the projects never come to fruition, then the former statement would suffice and the latter would be unnecessary. If something is never built it cannot, logically, be added to anything (it doesn't exist). The language could also have been written to read "may not be built AND added to the... multi site timeshare plan", but it says "or" which represents an option.

While I certainly agree with your interpretation of the former, the latter part of the statement also allows them to build future resorts and not add them to the current "multi site timeshare plan", either as standalone (no "O14" or whatever we want to call it) timeshare entity (which makes sense as they will likely eventually need to set up a new plan as the existing resorts sunset). This is logical and before anyone jumps all over it, it is nothing new. We all know that. It's what many have suggested may be the trend, beginning with the restrictions already imposed at RR.

The intriguing part was the inclusion of the new building at GF. A plain English reading of the language would indicate that, as with any "new" resort, they could have chosen not to build it at all, or if they do build it, have the option to not include it in the existing multi site timeshare plan and sell it as a completely stand-alone project not only unrelated to the existing GF DVC resort, but unrelated to any of the exiting multi plan resorts.

Just food for discussion.
The language is in a purchase agreement being given to current direct purchasers. IMO, it is nothing more than Disney legalese designed to enable them to pivot on a dime and use that clause to say "we told you so" in the event that a resort is planned but not built (Reflections) or if it is built and does not join the BVTC as a DVC resort.

Could they change direction and create a DVC2? Can they make a VGF2 that is a separate condo association from VGF1? According to the language in the purchase agreement, they certainly can. But anyone who has bought into DVC was never guaranteed anything other than the ability to book at their home resort or to trade their points at 7 months to book a non-home resort thru the BVTC.
 

Connect

TODAY'S HEADLINES

Top