Anyone extending their OKW contract?

[CarolA]

That's just the point. Disney is forcing those folks it cannot contact to buy the extension, and is (probably) forcing those folks how don't want the extension to pay maintenance costs for the years they don't want. Had Disney structured the deal in a way that didn't force anything one anyone, people wouldn't have complained.

OK
1. WHO do you think Disney CANNOT contact??? They get MONEY from us EVERY year they KNOW where we are LOL!

2. I spoke to a friend who does real estate law. She thinks that the "forcing" you to say NO is actually probably to ensure that Disney can PROVE you got the offer which reduces your ablity to sue them for "taking away your value"

3. Disney was not going to LOWER the maintance costs as the years went on. There seems to be this "subculture" that thought in 2041 Disney will stop charging maintenace? HUH????? Disney was not going to allow thier asset to "devalue" LOL! There were never going to be "reserves' to return Disney would have just spent all the
"reserves" on improvements in the last few years and there would have been nothing you could have done. (Disney is not a charity it does not give things back!)

I am throughly amazed at the theories on this board. The "reading" of "selected" parts of the contract. (Contracts have to read as a WHOLE, you can't pull out the two paragraphs you like and claim you are being taken advantage of)

The part of the whole contract that I don't think people ever seem to get is DISNEY HAS ALL THE POWER. This is NOT your local homeowners association where you get a real vote. I knew that going in and decided I could live with it. If you want, a "real vote" this is not a good deal for you

 

[rsinj]

.

 

[salmoneous]

1. WHO do you think Disney CANNOT contact??? They get MONEY from us EVERY year they KNOW where we are LOL!

They may know where our banks are - they don't necessarily know where we are.

I work in the financial services industry. Anyone who has done mailings knows a 100% response rate is impossible. Even "please return this card so we can send we money we own you" mailings don't get anywhere near 100% responses. It is absolutely certain Disney won't get a 100% response rate.

3. Disney was not going to LOWER the maintance costs as the years went on.

How do you know? But, in any case, that's not the question. It's not whether they will go up or down in an absolute sense. It's whether this deal will cause them to be higher than if the deal had not gone through. Unless Disney does something they haven't told us about, this deal will cost owners money, even if they turn down the extension.

DISNEY HAS ALL THE POWER.

No, they don't. They have to obey their contract and the law. They have a lot, but their power isn't unlimited.

You may have signed over a blank check to Disney and are OK with them doing whatever the heck they want. I'm not.

 

[DVC92]

I am throughly amazed at the theories on this board. The "reading" of "selected" parts of the contract. (Contracts have to read as a WHOLE, you can't pull out the two paragraphs you like and claim you are being taken advantage of)

The part of the whole contract that I don't think people ever seem to get is DISNEY HAS ALL THE POWER. This is NOT your local homeowners association where you get a real vote. I knew that going in and decided I could live with it. If you want, a "real vote" this is not a good deal for you

I've only cited the relevant parts of the contract pertaining to my 1992 contract where DVC has not given themselves license to extend. What do you believe in part or whole of the contract cedes DVC the power to extend, absent that language?

Also, DVC doesn't have all the power. Clearly, they have many discretionary powers, but they cannot circumvent the terms of the contract or violate the Florida Statutes.

 

[rsinj]

.

 

[DVC92]

On the matter of maintaining a reserve fund (common surplus), the Board has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the owners to accrue and spend it. If the Condominium terminates in 2042 as originally contracted for, the need for maintaining heavy reserves should subside as 2042 approaches. Theoretically, if properly administered, there would be little or no money in the reserve fund on January 31, 2042. Obviously, a proper special assessment in the later years could be used in an emergency, such as storm damage.

By extending the Ground Lease to 2057, everything changes.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Okay, so has EVERYONE here gotten the extension letter yet? We have not. We did get a small postcard announcing it a couple weeks ago, but no extention contract to sign or send back.

 

[Scotch]

Okay, so has EVERYONE here gotten the extension letter yet? We have not. We did get a small postcard announcing it a couple weeks ago, but no extention contract to sign or send back.

They haven't sent an extension contract yet. Instead, this weekend I received a fancy 2 piece mailing with a response card to return -- I'm supposed to tell them via that card whether I plan to accept the extension for $15 a point by a February date or decline the extension (and, in such case, they'll send me the paperwork to deed the property back).

 

[JimC]

If contract law is about anything, it is about a meeting of the minds. Terms not in a contract can't be inserted by one party. Our contracts specifically state that they can't be amended or modified unless agreed to in writing by both parties. Clearly, Disney's insertion of the extension language in later contracts evidences that they felt a definite need for it, but even that language doesn't constitute a meeting of the minds.

Also, the Florida Timeshare Statutes clearly state that the contract must state the specific number of years constituting the term of the timeshare plan. Disney is simply trying to employ some creative methods to circumvent the termination date.

"Inserting terms" and a contract being silent on an issue are not the same thing. We do not know the reasons for the change. For all we know the controlling legislation might have changed in the intervening years or they wanted to clarify a point that had been silent in earlier versions.

I don't have the time nor the interest to read all of the documents used over the years to ensure a thorough understanding of each contract in its entirety nor research the relevant legislation and case law.

Each should do what they feel is proper. I will evaluate the offer and make a judgment call (more likely a SWAG) on how it will affect resale value, then decide to accept or not.

 

[JimC]

With respect to the reserves. My understanding is that Disney has the right to keep them at termination of the contract because ownership reverts back to them. It is logical for them to retain the reserves, in my view. And I do not understand how the differing termination dates would affect the reserves. I only see it as affecting our obligation to fund them.

 

[salmoneous]

I think you're grasping for straws or simply get joy out of playing devil's advocate.

I don't believe I'm grasping at straws. I believe there are members who will not respond. Disney has told us those people will be assessed the amount of the purchase.

I don't "enjoy playing devil's advocate." I do enjoy taking about DVC - that's why we're here, right? As I said, I honestly believe that at least some people who do not affirmatively say they want to buy will be charged for the extension. (If that weren't the case, Disney would say so instead of talking about liens.) My honest opinion is that we shouldn't be put in that position.

We joined a vacation club, not a record club. If Disney wants to run things like a record club, they should be clear.

 

[DVC92]

With respect to the reserves. My understanding is that Disney has the right to keep them at termination of the contract because ownership reverts back to them. It is logical for them to retain the reserves, in my view. And I do not understand how the differing termination dates would affect the reserves. I only see it as affecting our obligation to fund them.

That is not the case. The reserves are part of the common surplus which is the property of the owners (us). When the Condo terminates, it is the current owners at that point among whom it will be divided. When the Ground Lease ends, the Condominium Association terminates. Disney doesn't become the owner of the common surplus.

If the Condominium terminated as contractually stated in 2042, the following citations should control:
Chapter 718.117 of the 2007 Florida Statutes controls termination of Condominiums.
Article II, Section 2.4 of The Declaration of Condominium defines Association Property.
Article II, Section 8.4 of The Declaration of Condominium defines each owner's share of the Common Surplus.

 

[RobDoc]

I don't believe I'm grasping at straws. I believe there are members who will not respond. Disney has told us those people will be assessed the amount of the purchase.
...

When did Disney tell us anything about how an assessment would be handled?

I have certainly not received anything outlining what will happen if I don't respond and , in fact, Disney has no way of knowing whether I even received any information regarding this extension since nothing has been sent requiring a return receipt. I would expect that before any member has a lien placed on his membership or suffers any financial hardship as a result of any change that Disney will have proof of receipt of that information.

I have received the initial "invitation" with intructions about accepting or declining the extension. The final documents must be requested by returning the attached card and DVC will then forward the appropriate documents for signing. To my knowledge no one has yet received a copy of the actual documents pertaining to this extension.

 

[salmoneous]

When did Disney tell us anything about how an assessment would be handled?

We don't. Disney hasn't given us much communication at all...

There are two possible approaches. (A) Nobody will have to pay for an extension unless they tell Disney they want it, or (B) Some people will be forced to pay for an extension, even though they haven't told Disney they want it.

I hope the answer is (A). That's they way I expect Disney to treat us. That's the way I expect any company not called "Columbia House" to treat us.

As time passes and Disney doesn't tell us that they will use method (A), my confidence that they will do the right thing drops. If they intend to use (A), why not say so?

 

[RobDoc]

Until DVC makes a statement about how this will be handled why even make comments like "I believe there are members who will not respond. Disney has told us those people will be assessed the amount of the purchase. " ?

Comments like that sure suggest a bias even though you now admit that DVC hasn't communicated anything about assessing members who fail to respond.

 

[larrytau]

We received our letter on Saturday in NC, Diane.

Okay, so has EVERYONE here gotten the extension letter yet? We have not. We did get a small postcard announcing it a couple weeks ago, but no extention contract to sign or send back.

 

[Doctor P]

We received our letter on Saturday in NC, Diane.

And we got ours today in Illinois.

 

[DVC92]

When did Disney tell us anything about how an assessment would be handled?

I have certainly not received anything outlining what will happen if I don't respond and , in fact, Disney has no way of knowing whether I even received any information regarding this extension since nothing has been sent requiring a return receipt. I would expect that before any member has a lien placed on his membership or suffers any financial hardship as a result of any change that Disney will have proof of receipt of that information.

I have received the initial "invitation" with intructions about accepting or declining the extension. The final documents must be requested by returning the attached card and DVC will then forward the appropriate documents for signing. To my knowledge no one has yet received a copy of the actual documents pertaining to this extension.

I agree that they have no verification of receipt of anything by members. At the 9/24 Board meeting, it was further resolved that the "Association" was required to promptly mail special assessment notices to each member and the special assessment shall be due and payable on or before 2/29/08. I believe the current package with postcard attachment we received is that notice. Since only the postcard with a yes or no choice is required back, I believe DVC is accepting the postcard return as a pledge card as to how you plan to pay off your assessment. It doesn't fully follow what was established at the Board meeting. Since the special assessment is due and payable by 2/29/08, non-return of the postcard means ????? DVC could still allow you to return the deed as payment, or they could charge you $25/pt with late fees and interest accruing beginning 3/1/08. Regardless, you have been assessed, and if not satisfied, you can immediately lose your right of use, and possible foreclosure of your ownership interest. The only question is the timetable they will follow for these actions.

 

[salmoneous]

Until DVC makes a statement about how this will be handled why even make comments like "I believe there are members who will not respond. Disney has told us those people will be assessed the amount of the purchase. " ?

Comments like that sure suggest a bias even though you now admit that DVC hasn't communicated anything about assessing members who fail to respond.

This particular path of the conversation came about when a poster suggested that Disney isn't forcing anything on anybody. That statement might not be true. I felt it worth pointing that out. Do you think I shouldn't have?

People have suggested that everyone will respond to the notice. I think that is incorrect, and am positive Disney won't get a 100% response. Should I have said nothing?

While Disney hasn't told us how they will enforce the assessments, they have structured this deal as an assessment, not an offer. I didn't bring the word assessment into the conversation, Disney did. Disney could put some mechanism in place to avoid huring those people who don't respond. But, so far, they haven't mentioned any such mechanism. They have talked about liens. Again, I didn't bring the word lien into the coversation, Disney did.

The point of my comments is to point out one of the resons I'm concerned about the way the deal is structured? How do you think I should have expressed that concern?

 

[DVC92]

Regarding the lien, the first "Further Resolved" clause in the Notice of Special Meeting of the Board clearly stated that "The special assessment shall be a personal obligation of each Member and the Association shall have a lien on each Member's ownership interest to secure payment of the special assessment." The lien is already in place. How the lien is enforced is yet to be determined.