Buy where you want to stay?

[blluefaerie]

Is it legally possible for Disney to ever make it mandatory for a buyer to stay where they purchase? In other words one cannot reserve at other DVC resorts even at 7 months.

Does anyone have any feedback on this?

Thank you
Blluefaerie

 

[mickeyman]

Is it legally possible for Disney to ever make it mandatory for a buyer to stay where they purchase? In other words one cannot reserve at other DVC resorts even at 7 months.

Does anyone have any feedback on this?

Thank you
Blluefaerie

I think if they ever did existing members would be grandfathered into how it is now. But I don't see them ever changing it because then nobody would buy Saratoga or other resorts outside of Disney so it wouldn't be as valuable.

 

[lovin'fl]

I have always heard that they can't do this, or won't do this. I do think they could change the 11-7 month windows to shorten the time you can book non-home resorts.

 

[bpadair32]

Could they? Probably. Will they? Almost certainly not IMO. It would devalue too many of the not "top tier" resorts too much and cost them a great deal of good will.

 

[DisDadDVC]

My interpretation is that they can NOT do this.

 

[caracarn]

I think while the "could" do this, they also understand the flexibility is what makes DVC very different than other timeshares. I had considered Marriott for example and had contracts in hand to sign and ultimately decided to go with DVC instead almost solely on the ease of accommodation changes. My guess is I'm not the only one and DVC marketing knows that and therefore would be highly, highly, highly unlikely to change that.

 

[dizfan]

From what I remember, the POS states Disney could legally sell off any property. If that occurred, I believe it would no longer be part of the system.

 

[disneynutz]

Disney has made sure that the legalize allows them to do whatever they want. You can bet that they will do whatever benefits them and not us other than a gratuitous minor benefit that looks impressive during their direct sales presentations. That being said, I don't see any reason for them to place additional restrictions on non-home resort bookings.

Bill

 

[djohn06]

It could change and other timeshares do this. Starwood does this with some of their resorts. DVC is a timeshare co designed to make money. Better believe if DVC saw a benefit they would do it!

 

[Minniesgal]

Also buy where you want to stay isn't so much about fear of Disney removing access to other properties it is insurance that you will get a room in a place you want to stay when choice and availability tightens

 

[JimMIA]

Is it legally possible for Disney to ever make it mandatory for a buyer to stay where they purchase? In other words one cannot reserve at other DVC resorts even at 7 months.

Yes, of course it's possible.

But there is only one way: Disney could remove a resort from Disney Vacation Club. If they did that, other members would not be able to book that resort and owners of that resort would not be able to book at DVC resorts. All of the boards of the resort owners associations are controlled by Disney, so they could make such a move at any time.

But why would they? About the only reason I can imagine is if there were some catastrophic event at one of the resorts -- like a hurricane destroyed VB or HHI. Or if they sold a resort like Aulani, VB or HHI.

 

[supersnoop]

I think if they ever did existing members would be grandfathered into how it is now.

This would not be legally possible. In order to restrict usage, the resort would have to be completely removed from the association.

 

[chalee94]

Is it legally possible for Disney to ever make it mandatory for a buyer to stay where they purchase? In other words one cannot reserve at other DVC resorts even at 7 months.

not a real issue.

if an OKW owner can't trade into another resort, then that limits the other resort's owners from booking at OKW. they can't limit things from just one side.

the risk, as others have said, is that DVC removes the entire resort from the DVC system - which is only a risk (and a small one at that) for VB owners IMO.

but buying where you want to stay and booking at 10-11 months out does eliminate a lot of headaches for many DVC owners (assuming you have a strong preference for where to stay).

 

[Dean]

Is it legally possible for Disney to ever make it mandatory for a buyer to stay where they purchase? In other words one cannot reserve at other DVC resorts even at 7 months.

Does anyone have any feedback on this?

Thank you
Blluefaerie

Sure, they could do this by removing a given resort from the system. However, I think that's unlikely in the abscense of a a fire or hurricane type situation. The real issue is that availability isn't guaranteed even if the possibility of access remaines.

 

[michelleiada]

I'm pretty sure the contracts are worded to allow disney to do this if they wanted but I doubt it would happen. However, I still always tell prospective DVCers to buy where you really want to stay. Otherwise you may not be happy when you can't stay where you really want to stay.

 

[staceymay00]

Is it legally possible for Disney to ever make it mandatory for a buyer to stay where they purchase? In other words one cannot reserve at other DVC resorts even at 7 months.

Does anyone have any feedback on this?

Thank you
Blluefaerie

I think it is very unlikely that will ever happen but you never know. The best strategy, in my opinion, is to own where you will not be disappointed to stay if you cannot book something else. I would not buy points at a resort where I have no interested in staying.

 

[bonrea]

I think the real question shouldn't be will they take one out at any time but; when the end of life for the resorts come (i.g. OKW) will they resale points that were part of the the original contracts that have now come to the end of their life? Or take the resort out of the system and demolish it and build new. If the later then they can sell new points to whatever new resort they may build in its place.