Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[mkatsy]

I’m not so sure about that 2042 OKW I don’t know if any owners have consulted an attorney BUT in looking for information on the trust model (which I didn’t find) I did find 721.1255 Extension of Timeshares the law [subsection (2)(a)] looks pretty straightforward. If you extend your timeshare then the new date REPLACES the old one as if it (the old one) never existed. There aren’t two expiration dates. According to the state of Florida EVERYONE at OKW is 2057. I don’t own there so it doesn’t affect me, but if you own OKW 2042 and didn’t sign anything waiving your rights, it might be worth checking.

Edited to add: those Quit Claim deeds are making a whole lot of sense now. They knew it too.

 

[Sandisw]

That is not the only change in the AKV charts, and not the one I am talking about. From 2026 to 2027, the Concierge rooms did go up. But, the Value rooms also went up. In exchange Savanna went down. This effectively shifts points from Kidani to Jambo, but I am 90% sure there are no Residential Units that include Vacation Homes in both buildings. So, by my IANAL reading of the AKV POS, the reallocation is not allowed.

At least around these parts, the conventional wisdom is that the only reason to own at AKV is for Value/Concierge. If that's true (I'm not sure it is, but...) the AKV ownerships were (arguably) devalued.

But the way I read the POS, the extra CL points come from somewhere else. They are not part of those specific 5 2 bedrooms. If CL closes, it states those extra points go back to other rooms

Does anyone knkw which units those came from? They could very well have been taken from the Value rooms originally

If they did, then DVC might be able to put them back…raising the price of value back to match?

And then, take points from the Savannah rooms and now give those to CL…lowering SAvannah view.

That is why is said CL is unique and one would really have to dig into specifics

I have no idea if this would balance but because the extra CL points appear to be taken from other units, one has to know that piece, I would think, to understand what shifts are possible there because of it.

No other resort has that.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not so sure about that 2042 OKW I don’t know if any owners have consulted an attorney BUT in looking for information on the trust model (which I didn’t find) I did find 721.1255 Extension of Timeshares the law [subsection (2)(a)] looks pretty straightforward. If you extend your timeshare then the new date REPLACES the old one as if it (the old one) never existed. There aren’t two expiration dates. According to the state of Florida EVERYONE at OKW is 2057. I don’t own there so it doesn’t affect me, but if you own OKW 2042 and didn’t sign anything waiving your rights, it might be worth checking.

Edited to add: those Quit Claim deeds are making a whole lot of sense now. They knew it too.

What I can say is that DVD believes, based on updated wording in the multi site POS, that owners who did neither are assumed to agree the contract ends in 2042.

But, if that law states that, it could get interesting.

That is why the other 2042 resorts can’t have anything happen to them until they expire and why I don’t see them doing an extension again.

 

[Tatebeck]

Maybe I'll buy an OKW 2042 contract in in 2040 or 2041 for a handful of raspberries and see if I get lucky

 

[VGCgroupie]

Maybe I'll buy an OKW 2042 contract in in 2040 or 2041 for a handful of raspberries and see if I get lucky

 

[mkatsy]

Maybe I'll buy an OKW 2042 contract in in 2040 or 2041 for a handful of raspberries and see if I get lucky

I know!! Me too … I was also reading that in the state of Florida a quit claim deed can be revoked by court order. I wish I knew how DVC presented the option to extend. Did the notification in any way misrepresent the circumstances?

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe I'll buy an OKW 2042 contract in in 2040 or 2041 for a handful of raspberries and see if I get lucky

It would be fun except any owner who is an original owner selling has to sign the quit claim deed as part of the sale.

DVD already thought of that!!!

 

[Sandisw]

I know!! Me too … I was also reading that in the state of Florida a quit claim deed can be revoked by court order. I wish I knew how DVC presented the option to extend. Did the notification in any way misrepresent the circumstances?

IIRC, what happened is that everyone was extended and you had the option to pay for the extension or sign the quit claim deed

DVD just acted unilaterally first and expected everyone to choose one or the other.

But, from the start, owners were told it was either/or.

Owners were being “asked” rather forcefully at check in to sign if they had not paid or signed.

I don’t remember how it played out but basically DVD was forced to stop that practice.

Now, owners sign it when they sell. That is why the 2042 resale contract stay 2042 because a quit claim has been executed.

 

[Brian Noble]

I will be very VERY surprised if owners who neither paid for the extension nor signed the quitclaim can just keep using their points from February 1st, 2042. It might be messy, but there is no way The Mouse is giving away that cheese.

 

[mkatsy]

I will be very VERY surprised if owners who neither paid for the extension nor signed the quitclaim can just keep using their points from February 1st, 2042. It might be messy, but there is no way The Mouse is giving away that cheese.

It’s so far away, there’s no way of knowing what the political climate in Florida will be. If the battle were today, the state is watching timeshares like a hawk. The owners “might” have a chance. Who knows who will be in office, and who the judges will be on the bench in 2042. (Although the lawsuit, if someone decides to pursue it, will probably come a bit earlier).

 

[bama_ed]

It is freakishly close to pioneer hall. What’s the over/under that they have plans for that space, and demolish it?

I don't think they would demolish the new ugly resort rooms that soon, @mkatsy, but it might be sooner than later based on your suggestion. But I like your idea!

Some houses (like Fort Wilderness) are built on stone and last a long time....

...And some houses are built on sand (like ugly time shares) and wash out to sea....

https://www.accuweather.com/en/wint...north-carolinas-outer-banks-snowstorm/1859497

Your support counts for a lot.

Bama Ed

PS - I really do appreciate your support of the obvious. Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles ALL agree with you that the new resort behind FW is ugly. It's like any blind person can see the truth ....

 

[mkatsy]

I don't think they would demolish the new ugly resort rooms that soon, @mkatsy, but it might be sooner than later based on your suggestion. But I like your idea!

Some houses (like Fort Wilderness) are built on stone and last a long time....

...And some houses are built on sand (like ugly time shares) and wash out to sea....

https://www.accuweather.com/en/wint...north-carolinas-outer-banks-snowstorm/1859497

Your support counts for a lot.

Bama Ed

PS - I really do appreciate your support of the obvious. Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles ALL agree with you that the new resort behind FW is ugly. It's like any blind person can see the truth ....

If you’re looking for dirty deeds done dirt cheap, Florida has a lot to offer you: toxic black mold, sink holes, lightening, hurricanes, termites … that’s between you and the powers that be

 

[Genie+]

I've looked a little bit. It uses the same language as some of the others before RIV and the Trust (like BWV and Poly). So murky wording at best. I think that DVC themselves believe that they are able to do this according to the contracts, though others would disagree

I'm not overly upset by it as an owner. They needed to increase the value rooms IMO anyway. They are still cheaper than standard/resort view so I see no problem with it. I am more likely to be effected by the increase in club level as I would choose that if available almost every time. But those are so hard to get I understand why they increased them too.

Yes, it didn’t upset me either when BWV did similar a year prior. Standard view studios 9-12pts were changed to 10-11pts. The lowest 3 seasons went up a point on weeknights and were offset elsewhere. Summer was made a little more attractive.

DVC says they could/would balance demand this way. Just like AKV value rooms, this category was getting slammed by confirmed reservations. Demand was crazy because the points were too low relative to other options.

Whatever gets raised due to demand, something else gets lowered and becomes a better value proposition. As long as they’re maintaining point averages and sticking to where demand warrants, I’m ok with that.

Side Note:
https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/listings/boardwalk/?tab=point-charts
BWV 2026/2027 is not correct

 

[Mikey15]

I know people are down on AKV for being bus-only and a far ride from three of the parks, but that 2027 Value vs. Savannah View adjustment IMO makes SV an amazing deal. You basically get the best (non-CL) view category at AKV for roughly the same points as CCV/BRV/BCV/BWV!

Not sure about the implications of it re: DVD's capacity for point chart alterations, but this is one case where I don't think anyone will be upset that Value walking + confirmed reservation renting becomes a little less attractive, while SV becomes a better deal.

 

[Kailunkat]

They can’t add any inventory from resorts that are sold out because DVD doesn’t own those units and they are already declared into a different association.

So, they can’t move them to the trust association.

Couldn't they do this through units they ROFR though? They wouldn't even need to own the entire unit right? Maybe I am still just misunderstanding things but it seems like they could take any bought back points and immediately flip them into trust RTUs if they wanted to?

Ill also just add, these products are "newer" and the law (timeshare regulation in this case) is really slow to catch up.

Really good point. Disney will use whatever leeway they have to make a profit, it's the state that has to create/enforce the legal rules between users and the business. Scary thought

As long as the POS states that you are buying the RTU any and all property that in the plan at the time of sale and that they can add future property at other locations down the road and then your plan will be based on that, it’s not a bait and switch IMO.

But, I also don’t think we will see DVD stop using common sense when it comes to this because they still need to sell the product.

Demand will always play a role and I think that will be used by DVD to decide an upper limit on what point values they can attach.

Ultimately I agree with you. No one at Disney is interested in a "get rich quick" cashout, they have spent the time to build the brand and want to keep that. That being said, I think they will push the envelope a bit in terms of dues increases and point charts - otherwise why switch models?

 

[mkatsy]

Really good point. Disney will use whatever leeway they have to make a profit, it's the state that has to create/enforce the legal rules between users and the business. Scary thought

I have looked and looked, and I can’t find anything. There are guidelines on how to establish a timeshare trust, but that’s not really what we need. We need the Florida state guidelines on how developers are allowed to manage a trust once it’s established, and I just don’t think any exist

 

[Tatebeck]

Couldn't they do this through units they ROFR though? They wouldn't even need to own the entire unit right? Maybe I am still just misunderstanding things but it seems like they could take any bought back points and immediately flip them into trust RTUs if they wanted to?

They could do it with ROFR, but they would have to have reclaim an entire unit in order to add it as it stands now. They aren't adding partial units or just "points" into the Trust RTUs, they are adding the inventory as Vacation Homes now, which is entire rooms (instead of adding units of rooms/homes like they did in the past).

They just completely got rid of the units part of it, but are still declaring at least entire rooms, not partial rooms. And they can't add entire rooms or a unit of rooms if part of that unit/room is still owned by members.

 

[Cfabar1]

What owners are buying is use for any inventory that is activated as part of its plan. Once added, it can actually be replaced…with something that is similar…the exact wording is part of the trust language and the RTU plan.

This is my biggest concern... I think Disney could very easily argue that just about anything is similar...

To me the potential for constant adding and removing of inventory is what doesn't work for me... I want to know what I am buying...

I'm also curious, as time goes on how resale will be impacted by the trust model...

I know some other systems have just put undesirable inventory in their trusts - it appears DVC would not easily be able to do that with the clause they'd have to add an entire "unit" as I recall...

 

[Sandisw]

This is my biggest concern... I think Disney could very easily argue that just about anything is similar...

To me the potential for constant adding and removing of inventory is what doesn't work for me... I want to know what I am buying...

I'm also curious, as time goes on how resale will be impacted by the trust model...

I know some other systems have just put undesirable inventory in their trusts - it appears DVC would not easily be able to do that with the clause they'd have to add an entire "unit" as I recall...

I believe that there are reasons attached to that and it could even require some level of voting. But it is different because you don’t have an ownership interest in a specific resort.

One thing that I thought of today that might play a role is resale…they may decide to create all individual RTU plans with some level of reciprocal trading as home resorts, if you have direct points.

There is specific language that deals with that. Expiration will play a role IMO in how long they go before they would add new inventory.

This clause is interesting for sure! It gives them some broad abilities in creating use plans.

I still don’t think we will see radical changes in terms of use…I just think that if LSL becomes trust property and sold as a RTU plan, with or without CFW, people need to be sure they understand the difference between what one is buying vs the pre CFW resorts.

 

[mkatsy]

I believe that there are reasons attached to that and it could even require some level of voting. But it is different because you don’t have an ownership interest in a specific resort.

One thing that I thought of today that might play a role is resale…they may decide to create all individual RTU plans with some level of reciprocal trading as home resorts, if you have direct points.

There is specific language that deals with that. Expiration will play a role IMO in how long they go before they would add new inventory.

This clause is interesting for sure! It gives them some broad abilities in creating use plans.

I still don’t think we will see radical changes in terms of use…I just think that if LSL becomes trust property and sold as a RTU plan, with or without CFW, people need to be sure they understand the difference between what one is buying vs the pre CFW resorts.

Interesting that it mentions classes of ownership interests. What is that?