Can DVC do this..?

[Disney Dad ADL]

But they couldn't completely take away the opportunity to book at resorts other than home resort, correct? They can only change the timeframes that non home resorts may be booked if available? Not a guarantee that a non home resort would be available, but they couldn't completely take that option away from only resale could they?

I don't believe that they can take away booking rights from only resale members, based on the Condominium Declaration. The Association of the specific DVC resort and the Buena Vista Trading Company (which runs the DVC Reservation Component) could theoretically agree to part ways, but then the whole resort would be out of the DVC Reservation Component, not just the resale members. Otherwise, the Condominium Declaration states "first come, first served" at all times (with the exception of special seasons, which currently are not being exercised), for both Home resort booking and non-home resort booking.

Edit: it may be possible to create a new exchange for new DVC resorts and call it the DVC Platinum collection or something, and only allow direct members to exchange into it as an Incidental Benefit, but not for the resorts in the current exchange.

 

[tjkraz]

Can they limit you to your home resort...probably.
Will they do so? Unlikely. The ability to book outside your home resort to another DVC resort really doesn't cost DVC Management or members anything for domestic (USA) DVC locations

This, exactly.

With each new resort that comes on line, DVC has the ability to market not just that one resort but a dozen others. It makes absolutely no sense for DVC to want to limit availability to just one resort.

Every so often, someone will come along who intends to stay at their Home every single trip. But there are dozens of others who would never buy that property if limited to just one destination.

Right now, DVC isn't just selling the Polynesian. It's selling points at the Polynesian, combined with the ability to book Bay Lake, Grand Floridian, Hawaii, Grand Californian, Beach Club and many others. Forget the likelihood of actually getting some of those destinations...it's still an option.

Nearly 10 years ago when Animal Kingdom Villas was preparing to come online, I distinctly remember a discussion here in which some posters adamantly believed that DVC would place AKV in a separate system so that the lowly (my word) owners at SSR, OKW, HHI and others would not have access to it. Does anyone here really believe that AKV would have sold better if it were isolated in its own system with no reciprocal rights to other resorts?

Do you really believe that ANY resort would have sold BETTER than it did if it were the only destination available to owners?

 

[jerseyduke]

That is indeed curious. I wonder if that's how they intend to handle the final three years; you can only book at your home resort. That could solve the problem many have forecast about availability problems due to the various use years.

I can not say for sure, but I am pretty sure I know the reason for this.
Going back to what I said earlier, DVC is under no obligation to make any new property part of the existing system. Currently the Polynesian is part of the system. Starting with Wilderness Lodge 2, DVC could say, nope....new system. (I do not think they will do this, just saying).

Anyway, at the time BLT was built, AKL had the latest expiration date...2057! So, technically, from 2057 - 2060, there was only 1 DVC property guaranteed to exist....BLT(Barring unforeseen destruction of the property such as fire or hurricane of course); so at the time, it would have been impossible to trade out for those last 3 years.

 

[Meandnevaeh]

I can not say for sure, but I am pretty sure I know the reason for this.
Going back to what I said earlier, DVC is under no obligation to make any new property part of the existing system. Currently the Polynesian is part of the system. Starting with Wilderness Lodge 2, DVC could say, nope....new system. (I do not think they will do this, just saying).

Anyway, at the time BLT was built, AKL had the latest expiration date...2057! So, technically, from 2057 - 2060, there was only 1 DVC property guaranteed to exist....BLT(Barring unforeseen destruction of the property such as fire or hurricane of course); so at the time, it would have been impossible to trade out for those last 3 years.

But as those resorts start expiring so will those with ownerships start expiring. So it is very much possible that for those last three years for example AKL owners will only have AKL and Poly and Aulani to choose from to stay at, and since there will be fewer people with memberships it should all work out ok, at least that's what I'm thinking.

 

[Dean]

That is indeed curious. I wonder if that's how they intend to handle the final three years; you can only book at your home resort. That could solve the problem many have forecast about availability problems due to the various use years.

No way to know but the reality is there isn't enough inventory to handle all points for the 2041 UY. My guess that it'll be a combination of some of these; not being able to bank the last few years and a lottery or reduced points in some way (with reduced fees). They could also just do a free for all and some will not be able to use the points but I think that's less likely. I don't think the varied RTU issues will be a problem for each end point. They'll likely announce how it'll be handled 3-5 years out depending on what decisions they make. Some will have to go into effect earlier than others.

 

[Dean]

But as those resorts start expiring so will those with ownerships start expiring. So it is very much possible that for those last three years for example AKL owners will only have AKL and Poly and Aulani to choose from to stay at, and since there will be fewer people with memberships it should all work out ok, at least that's what I'm thinking.

If they just let it fade away (unlikely), availability won't be the issue but dues will. It may be a little like cutting back government trying to reduce the infrastructure. More likely they'll build more resorts, possibly extend some and possibly resell some as new resort.

 

[jerseyduke]

But as those resorts start expiring so will those with ownerships start expiring. So it is very much possible that for those last three years for example AKL owners will only have AKL and Poly and Aulani to choose from to stay at, and since there will be fewer people with memberships it should all work out ok, at least that's what I'm thinking.

It is certainly all speculation at this point in time as to what will happen when the "End of Days" comes, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that every POS states that owners can exchange out until XX/XX....that date being the expiration date of the last Resort Built.

As stated, BLT says 2057 - when AKL expires.
Someone would have to check, but I am thinking AKL says 2054 (SSR expiration date)
SSR states 2042 (the previous expirations)
GVF states 2060(BLT expiration date)
Poly states 2063(VGF expiration date)
VWL2 will state the Poly expiration date.

DVC can only guarantee the ability to switch out to existing resorts, so until VGF was officially added to the system, DVC could only guarantee BLT owners the right to switch out until 2057, because, at least at that point in time, from 2057-2060, BLT was going to be the only DVC resort. Now that has changed.

And unless anyone can think of a significant benefit to Disney to limit this, why would they?

 

[jerseyduke]

If they just let it fade away (unlikely), availability won't be the issue but dues will. It may be a little like cutting back government trying to reduce the infrastructure. More likely they'll build more resorts, possibly extend some and possibly resell some as new resort.

Absolutely.

Barring some major world event that causes a significant decrease in population, Disney is going to need more rooms, not less.

I saw a population projection that has the US population increasing by about 50 million people by 2045. (It did not differentiate between new births, vs immigration), but that is certainly a lot of potential new customers (even if you just count the new births, since anyone that immigrates to the US could theoretically already be a customer).

In fact, I think DIS will be expanding their hotel offering within the next few years. Whether it be the "completion" of AoA, or something new.

Orlando hotel occupancy increases every year.

 

[gonzalj1]

I actually don't think it's true (well, it is true but not in the way that you mean).

The reason why they don't guarantee the ability to reserve a room is because a resort could be booked up, and they don't want people complaining that they couldn't book at VGF at the 7-month window, not because they plan on blocking out resale members from booking outside the home resort.

Here is the BLT Condominium Declaration:
http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...532599&id=DOC293S21987.A0&parent=DOC293S21987

The process of booking DVC outside of your home resort is laid out in the Condominium Declaration and explains the process as we all know it (section 12.12).

One interesting note is that the agreement with BLT to the DVC Reservation Component (the exchange that allows you to reserve outside your home resort), ends on 1/31/2057, while the BLT contract ends in 2060 if I remember correctly. I suppose it theoretically possible that they could change it from the years of 2057-2060.

Based on the Condominium Declaration, they cannot give reservation priority to one member over the other for any reason, both Home Resort booking and non-home resort booking. Must be "first come, first served" (sections 12.12.1 and 12.12.2).

Could they blow up the current exchange and start a new one like OP is suggesting? I don't know, but I feel that would be a pretty risky move by Disney from a legal perspective. Not only DVD, but the individual DVC resort management associations (who would have to agree to pull out of the exchange) as well.

Keep reading until you get to Exhibit H - Section 3.1.e,f and g gives them the right to "delete" any DVC resort from the list of resorts at which you can reserve and that you have no say in the matter. That decision is made at their sole discretion.

 

[supersnoop]

Keep reading until you get to Exhibit H - Section 3.1.e,f and g gives them the right to "delete" any DVC resort from the list of resorts at which you can reserve and that you have no say in the matter. That decision is made at their sole discretion.

True, but that would apply to all owners at that resort.

 

[Meandnevaeh]

I think that the op was asking if they can ever restrict resales to only booking home resort, I do not believe that can ever happen, until we get down to those last few years and then that will not be only resales that will be everyone. Basically it's part of the deal with DVC that you can book your home resort at set date and non home resort at another date, they may be able to change those restrictions based on direct vs resale, but the opportunity will still be there to book non home resort even for resales, if the availability is there when u want it.

 

[Disney Dad ADL]

Keep reading until you get to Exhibit H - Section 3.1.e,f and g gives them the right to "delete" any DVC resort from the list of resorts at which you can reserve and that you have no say in the matter. That decision is made at their sole discretion.

True, but that would apply to all owners at that resort.

I believe this is correct. The issue is that everyone who buys DVC, whether resale or direct, is an Owner with Ownership Interest. There are no provisions that I found (though it's almost 100 pages so I could be wrong) that allows for creating tiers of Owners for anything that is covered in the Condominium Declaration. This includes Home Resort Booking and non-Home resort booking. Any decision regarding booking will affect all Owners equally, which includes pulling out of the DVC exchange (which is legally possible). There is nothing in the Condominum Declaration that discusses membership perks, which is why DVD is free to set whatever rules they want with those, as well as exchanges into other exchange groups. Pool hopping also doesn't seem to be protected, and probably the Epcot Member Lounge. TotWL appears to be a Common Element to BLT, so that will always be open to anyone staying at BLT.

Edit: also, based on Exhibit H Section 3.1, BVTC can only unilaterally terminate a resort in cases of destruction of the property that is not repaired, or in cases of eminent domain (the U.S. government buys BLT to tear it down and build a highway). It can't just kick out a resort because it feels like it, as far as I can tell.

I think that the op was asking if they can ever restrict resales to only booking home resort, I do not believe that can ever happen, until we get down to those last few years and then that will not be only resales that will be everyone. Basically it's part of the deal with DVC that you can book your home resort at set date and non home resort at another date, they may be able to change those restrictions based on direct vs resale, but the opportunity will still be there to book non home resort even for resales, if the availability is there when u want it.

Actually, I don't think it is possible to change the booking windows for based on direct vs. resale for either home resorts or non-home resorts. They can change them, but it would affect all owners of the affected resort equally. It's quite clear that all reservations are "first come, first served", and allowing direct buyers to go first would violate that under the current agreement.

OP wanted to know if you could basically get around that restriction by destroying the DVC Reservation Component (the exchange that DVC members use to book outside their home resort) as well as the company running it (Buena Vista Trading Company). Then create a new exchange called "The New DVC Reservation Component" and a new company called "The New Buena Vista Trading Company", then have carte blanche to set whatever rules you want. I don't know the answer to that, seems pretty drastic though.

I think I mentioned this in a previous post, but I think the much more likely scenario if they really really wanted to do something like that is to create a new Premium DVC Exchange and start adding new resorts to it. The new resorts are not yet part of the current DVC structure, so they can go into a new exchange with whatever rules they want. Then, allow direct DVC members access to the new exchange but exclude resale members. However the all the current DVC resorts and the current system would remain intact. Based on what others have said, this seems similar to what they did at Wyndham (though I am not familiar at all with it, so I could be wrong). As others have mentioned, though, it's not clear that Disney would have much to gain from doing something like that, but you never know.

 

[drusba]

Keep reading until you get to Exhibit H - Section 3.1.e,f and g gives them the right to "delete" any DVC resort from the list of resorts at which you can reserve and that you have no say in the matter. That decision is made at their sole discretion.

That is not correct. I summarized the reasons allowed for termination of rights to reserve resorts other than your own in post #25 in the prior page of this thread. The section you are referring to is in the acknowledgements for the DVC Resort Agreement entered into among the association of the resort, DVD, the Buena Vista Trading Company (BVTC), the designated entity that handles inter-DVC resort reservations, and the Disney Vacation Club Management Co (DVCMC), the management company of the resorts. Section 3.1e, the one of that group of acknowledgments dealing with deleting a resort from participating in being able to have owners reserve other resorts, says BVTC (not DVD or DVCMC or the association) can delete a resort "in accordance with Section 6.3" and says nothing about having the sole discretion to do it for no reason. Section 3.1f simply says that only BVTC can make the decision to delete a resort, and not the association, DVD or DVCMC.

Section 6.3 provides that a resort is automatically deleted upon its end date and also lays out when BVTC has the "discretion" to delete a resort, or a portion of it, from participation in the inter-resort reservation system, and it can do so only when the resort or a part thereof (a) has been destroyed and not reconstructed, or (b) has been taken over by the governement via eminent domain, or (c) is terminated as a DVC resort by the specific termination provisions in the DVC Resort Agreement.

The reference to the specific termination provisions in the agreement are a reference to section VIII. That section provides that, besides the destruction and eminent domain reasons set out in 6.3, a termination can also occur before the end date of the resort when: (a) there is a material breach of the agreement (something that is obviously highly unlikely or probably impossible to occur among Disney entities); (b) the Disney entities named in the agreement or the association become insolvent or go bankrupt (unlikely to occur); (c) BVTC determines that DVCMC or DVD or the association has failed to follow the high Disney standards for maintaining and operating a resort (that one can actually occur only when DVCMC is removed as the manager of the resort and not replaced by another Disney entity, and DVCMC can be removed only by a 60% vote of the owners -- the actual owners themselves must vote not just a Disney designee -- and it is also highly unlikely to occur); (d) the parties to the DVC Resort Agreement mutually agree to terminate the agreement -- as I mentioned in my previous post that is the only clause that I believe creates any concern but as fiduciaries to the members, BVTC, DVCMC and the association would need a reason to terminate the agreement that is in the best interests of all the members, e.g., they cannot terminate the agremeent just so they can then do some new arrangement that eliminates the right of resale purchasers to reserve DVC resorts other than their own.

In other words, the documents do not provide that any Disney entity has unfetterred descretion to take away the members' ability to reserve DVC resorts other than their own.

 

[drusba]

Here is the BLT Condominium Declaration:
http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...532599&id=DOC293S21987.A0&parent=DOC293S21987

One interesting note is that the agreement with BLT to the DVC Reservation Component (the exchange that allows you to reserve outside your home resort), ends on 1/31/2057, while the BLT contract ends in 2060 if I remember correctly. I suppose it theoretically possible that they could change it from the years of 2057-2060.

Where are you finding that 2057 date? The DVC Resort Agreement (exhibit H to the declarations) which is the agreement that makes the resort subject to the DVC Reseration Component run by BCTC says, in the link you provide, that the agreement ends January 31, 2060 for BLT, which is BLT's end date.

 

[Disney Dad ADL]

Where are you finding that 2057 date? The DVC Resort Agreement (exhibit H to the declarations) which is the agreement that makes the resort subject to the DVC Reseration Component run by BCTC says, in the link you provide, that the agreement ends January 31, 2060 for BLT, which is BLT's end date.

Yeah, I see that, weird.

Section 12.12.2
"This Condominium's participation in the DVC Reservation Component will continue until January 31, 2057,unless sooner terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the DVC Resort Agreement."

 

[Dean]

Keep reading until you get to Exhibit H - Section 3.1.e,f and g gives them the right to "delete" any DVC resort from the list of resorts at which you can reserve and that you have no say in the matter. That decision is made at their sole discretion.

There are specific situations where a resort can be deleted but not at will.

Yeah, I see that, weird.

Section 12.12.2
"This Condominium's participation in the DVC Reservation Component will continue until January 31, 2057,unless sooner terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the DVC Resort Agreement."

Each should read the RTU date of the resort, if not, it's likely a typo.

 

[drusba]

Yeah, I see that, weird.

Section 12.12.2
"This Condominium's participation in the DVC Reservation Component will continue until January 31, 2057,unless sooner terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the DVC Resort Agreement."

It is a typo. The declarations for the other WDW resorts in the like section each provides its own designated end date, except Poly which just changed it to eliminate any specific date and instead says it continues until the "expiration" of the condominium.

 

[Dean]

It is a typo. The declarations for the other WDW resorts in the like section each provides its own designated end date, except Poly which just changed it to eliminate any specific date and instead says it continues until the "expiration" of the condominium.

While the wording is different, in effect they all have it that way because they all allow for extensions.

 

[malba2366]

Out of curiosity, what happens at the end date of a resort? Can disney simply start selling the points again or do they have to tear down the building and rebuild since it is owned by the members?

 

[drusba]

Out of curiosity, what happens at the end date of a resort? Can disney simply start selling the points again or do they have to tear down the building and rebuild since it is owned by the members?

Someone will likely come throw some flowers on my grave. Outside of that, if nothing is done to offer an extension of the timeshare, Disney (the main resort company not DVD, the timeshare company) gets back the property, members automatically lose all ownership rights, and Disney can do with it what it wants -- turn it into hotel rooms, tear it down, create a new timeshare with what is there, whatever it wants to do. Assuming WDW is still there and going strong, and assuming Disney at the time wants to continue the timeshare model, I would guess that at some point Disney may start offering a rather pricey extension of the existing timeshare to owners but it could just wait until expiration and then start selling new contracts.