California Right of Recission Period

DonMacGregor

Sub Leader
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
6,471
It was mentioned by a poster in another thread here in this forum, that the Electronic Media Disclosure Statement accompanying VDH sales packets indicates a 10-day recission period. However, California law provides a 7-day period, not 10 days. The current DVC "California Public Report", filed with the Department of Real Estate also references 7 days:
2. You may cancel the purchase of the time-share interest(s) in the time-share plan without any penalty or obligation
and you are legally entitled to the return of all money and other consideration you have given towards the purchase.
You must notify the developer in writing of your intent to cancel within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the public
report or the date you sign the purchase contract, whichever date is later.
Can anyone else confirm that the current VDH docs say 10 days? I'm curious if this is a typo or cut-and-paste error from a prior Florida document (where the period IS 10 days). 3 days is a big deal, and we could see some folks missing the cut-off due to misinformation. I spent a good bit of time looking into this and can't find any exceptions to or tolling of the 7 day period.

Thoughts?
 
I wonder whether it relates to the state where the purchase is made, i.e., Florida? I know that on TUG, when people ask for help rescinding, one of the first questions is where they signed the papers, which isn’t necessarily where the timeshare is that they bought. I’ll ask the folks on TUG.
 
Actually, as I was typing the question on TUG I realized that it doesn’t matter. California law requires the timeshare developer to give the buyer at least 7 days, but it doesn’t forbid them from allowing a longer rescission period. DVD is apparently comfortable allowing a longer period of time for buyers to change their minds and isn’t going to say “Gotcha! You’re too late!” to someone who submits their rescission on the eighth or ninth day.
 
Actually, as I was typing the question on TUG I realized that it doesn’t matter. California law requires the timeshare developer to give the buyer at least 7 days, but it doesn’t forbid them from allowing a longer rescission period. DVD is apparently comfortable allowing a longer period of time for buyers to change their minds and isn’t going to say “Gotcha! You’re too late!” to someone who submits their rescission on the eighth or ninth day.
I think my question was more to whether all of the documents say 10 days or if some say 7. While I’m not suggesting Disney would do anything nefarious, I’m also not ready to assume they won’t stick with the minimum the law provides. Also, setting aside any extension Disney may voluntarily offer, a buyer still loses their legal right to cancel at 7 days and after that you are wholly relying on DVC and not the law and people should still be aware of that.
 

I think my question was more to whether all of the documents say 10 days or if some say 7. While I’m not suggesting Disney would do anything nefarious, I’m also not ready to assume they won’t stick with the minimum the law provides. Also, setting aside any extension Disney may voluntarily offer, a buyer still loses their legal right to cancel at 7 days and after that you are wholly relying on DVC and not the law and people should still be aware of that.
While you are right that the law and disneys intentions are two very different things I can’t imagine Disney writing one or even two different things in signed documents and going back on them.

Imagine the exposure Disney would open up for, those law suits would just be waiting to happen.

If Disney’s intentions are only to give you what the law requires then they might change the wording in their documents going forward but I can’t imagine them going back on already signed documents.
 
While you are right that the law and disneys intentions are two very different things I can’t imagine Disney writing one or even two different things in signed documents and going back on them.

Imagine the exposure Disney would open up for, those law suits would just be waiting to happen.

If Disney’s intentions are only to give you what the law requires then they might change the wording in their documents going forward but I can’t imagine them going back on already signed documents.
Again, my point was only that the poster I mentioned made the statement "California has a ten day recission period". Based, I'm assuming, on the documents received. That is factually not true, but it looks like it is an easily made mistake given what the documents apparently say.

I'm certainly not arguing that Disney can't extend that period voluntarily, and doing so (and honoring the extended period) is certainly good business and I doubt Disney would renege on it. I was just curious how many people believe, after receiving their documents, that the statutory right of recission period in California is 10 days.

I was further curious if the docs might say something like: "California law guarantees your right to cancel this sale for a period of seven days after signing or receiving the POS, however DVC/Disney/DVD has extended this period to ten days" or something to that effect. I also asked if there may be conflicting information within the documents, again not by design or intended to mislead, but possibly due to one document surviving similar use in Florida, where the period is 10 days by law.

Sales agreements are typically required to specifically define your minimum protections as provided under the law, not what a private entity has opted to provide you (even if it exceeds the minimum statutory protections).

That's all.
 
The purchase agreement says 10 days.
The actual cancellation notice says 7 days.
So the State of California official cancellation notice says you have 7 days, but the DVD contract says Disney will allow you an extra 3 days to change your mind. Makes sense, as it avoids confusion between their different sales locations. I think AUL sales allow 10 days as well, which is longer than Hawaii requires. For once, Disney is consistent, LOL!

Edited to add - consistent for our benefit, not theirs!
 
Last edited:
California is very strict and I do not believe Disney is generous .E4B07012-CEF4-4848-AC2F-EBE1382C7D53.png
 
Last edited:















New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top