Can someone explain the rumors of tiered membership?

[bobbiwoz]

But what if I have, say, 50 direct points for the Poly and 160 resale points @ Animal Kingdom, can I still book the Poly 11 months out using my AK points to fill out what I need?

No, at 11 months out, you can only use your Poly points to book Poly. Whether your points are direct or resale, you can only book the resort they are from at 11 months.

 

[NewEngland47]

I agree with Bill that on the legal front Disney can, and will, be able to find a way to navigate to whatever end they need to. As a lawyer myself I am a little annoyed about the definitive statements re the docs. I know enough to know that even as a lawyer my own reading may be flawed, but having reviewed them closely, i would argue that the DVC documents have enough wiggle room to basically get the fantasy and the Dream through - and I believe that given the currently hot market, coupled with savvier buyers going resale and an ever widening gap between resale and direct prices, a tired home resort booking window is definitely possible - perhaps even likely. Per my reading of the current docs they already explicitly have the right to create MORE than one home resort priority window (for example they could allow direct to book at 11 mos, resale at ten) plus sprinkled throughout every document is repetitive wording giving DVD tons of discretion to essentially amend unilaterally. They may not go there, but again given the factors above, plus what seems like an increase in disney's exercising their ROFR and more selling directly of sold out Resorts - well, my gut says more than one home resort booking window is probably on the horizon. Otherwise why would people keep buying direct? And their goal is always going to be to continue increasing both direct sales volume and prices. However in my opinion they are close to maxing out price so I think they will turn to trying to increase volume and benefits of buying direct.

 

[Dean]

I also hear what you are saying Dean, but I looked at the declarations to try and get an answer and it says the bookings must be on a first come, first serve basis. If you open up a waitlist to only some members allowing them first call on a home resort priority booking, it will be actionable, I believe as it will not longer meet that basic requirement- how can it? I am not a US lawyer though.
Whether they would be able to implement a wait list and give priority at non home resort (when let us face it most waitlists are used) though- I haven't looked for an answer for that, possibly though.
I do think they will have a VIP club with more perks for those members.
I think all they can do is add perks, they cannot take anything away from what is on the deed.There are things they could take away though that could have an impact for sure, that are not contractual.
Don't get too hung up over the POS. That is pre contractual documentation to advise the consumer prior to purchase. It can only work against DVD - if it was misleading it would be actionable against DVD. It does not take priority the other way over what is in the deeds and declarations. The POS also varies in what it contains in different jurisdictions.
I have not looked at BG and the contractual documentation or the history to see what allowed them to do what they did.
Let us wait 5 years, and then see if they have managed to change booking windows for non direct purchasers compared to direct purchasers. If I was wrong I will happily come back on here and eat humble pie.
I do think DVD will raise the minimum buy in to 50 all around. I think CCV was a tester- too many people are getting to know the 'buy 25 points' for benefits 'loophole'. It is even regularly given as advice to the 35,000 DVC members on the official DVC Neighbourhood Facebook page.
Interestingly, according to DVC Resale Market blog, DVD are being more aggressive still it seems on ROFR- now running at nearly 10%, even though prices are increasing. Wonder if this is a change in strategy to push resale higher, or because its a knock on of demand for 25 point contracts at older resorts such as SSR?

Since another similar system based in Fl has both initiated and modified a VIP program, that says it all I think. Regardless, I think there's plenty of wiggle room and ambiguity within the POS to substantiate a fairly robust VIP program. Plus they clearly have the ability and have shown the willingness to change the POS in favor of direct sales. IF they want it to happen, it'll happen.

 

[bwvBound]

But what if I have, say, 50 direct points for the Poly and 160 resale points @ Animal Kingdom, can I still book the Poly 11 months out using my AK points to fill out what I need?

Bobbi answered it above. I agree with her post.

At 11 months, you may use up to 150 points for a Poly reservation using banked + current + borrowed points all from the Poly contract, 50 points each year. At 11 months, you may use up to 480 points for an AKV reservation using banked + current + borrowed points all from the AK contract, 160 points each year. At 7 months you can book any available resort using points combined from AKV and Poly -- provided your resale AKV and direct Poly contracts are of the same UY, titled the same and both attached as contracts to the same membership number.

 

[CarolMN]

.....(snip)....... Per my reading of the current docs they already explicitly have the right to create MORE than one home resort priority window (for example they could allow direct to book at 11 mos, resale at ten) plus sprinkled throughout every document is repetitive wording giving DVD tons of discretion to essentially amend unilaterally. .......

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I know that DVCMC gave itself the unilateral right to alter the Membership Agreement in its sole discretion. However, the wording in my copy of the Membership Agreement also says:

" DVCMC reserves the right to extend or decrease the Home Resort Priority Period provided, however, in no event shall the Home Resort Priority Period be for a period of less than one (1) month prior to the period during which the other Club Members have the right to reserve that Vacation Home during that Use Day."

And -

"Club Member shall mean the owner or record of an Ownership interest."


IMO , (I am not a Florida lawyer specializing in timeshares), the "IN NO EVENT" wording along with the definition of Club Member precludes DVCMC from treating direct and resale purchasers differently as far as booking their home resort.

Isn't it also true if a contract is contradictory or not entirely clear, courts interpret it in favor of the party who did not write the agreement?

I do agree that the documents do not prevent Disney from establishing some type of VIP Program. I just don't think that such a program could include different booking windows for direct and resale purchasers.

Again, JMHO. YMMV.

 

[disneynutz]

We always thought that DVC was a club that any buyer was a member of. We never thought that Disney would create two different classes of owners, direct and resale buyers. Based on this reality, I wouldn't put anything past them when it comes to increasing profit. VIP members, different booking windows, different perks, different extras, the differences could anything or everything. Sounds like they just had a private meeting on the member cruise with 1000 point owners, seems like they are serious about creating a third class.

Bill

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I know that DVCMC gave itself the unilateral right to alter the Membership Agreement in its sole discretion. However, the wording in my copy of the Membership Agreement also says:

" DVCMC reserves the right to extend or decrease the Home Resort Priority Period provided, however, in no event shall the Home Resort Priority Period be for a period of less than one (1) month prior to the period during which the other Club Members have the right to reserve that Vacation Home during that Use Day."

And -

"Club Member shall mean the owner or record of an Ownership interest."


IMO , (I am not a Florida lawyer specializing in timeshares), the "IN NO EVENT" wording along with the definition of Club Member precludes DVCMC from treating direct and resale purchasers differently as far as booking their home resort.

Isn't it also true if a contract is contradictory or not entirely clear, courts interpret it in favor of the party who did not write the agreement?

I do agree that the documents do not prevent Disney from establishing some type of VIP Program. I just don't think that such a program could include different booking windows for direct and resale purchasers.

Again, JMHO. YMMV.

My interpretation is that every owner of record shall have at least 1 month priority for reservations at their home resort vs club members who do not own at that home resort as the home resort is not mentioned when stating "other Club Members". I'd think it would have to say "other Club Members at the same Home Resort" or something similar. So I do not see anything that every Club member is guaranteed the same priority of 1 month at their home resort vs other Club members at their home resort.

Not a lawyer either but it seems it could be argued that way.

 

[CarolMN]

My interpretation is that every owner of record shall have at least 1 month priority for reservations at their home resort vs club members who do not own at that home resort as the home resort is not mentioned when stating "other Club Members". I'd think it would have to say "other Club Members at the same Home Resort" or something similar. So I do not see anything that every Club member is guaranteed the same priority of 1 month at their home resort vs other Club members at their home resort.

Not a lawyer either but it seems it could be argued that way.

Not sure we are disagreeing.

I am only trying to show that an owner who purchases via resale is no different from an owner who purchases direct as far as booking windows go. In other words, DVCMC can't change the rules such that resale points from Resort A have a different booking window than direct points from Resort A.

For example, all BWV points, no matter how they were purchased, are entitled to at least the one month booking priority. They can't change the rules to allow direct purchasers to book at 11 months and require resale purchasers to wait until 10 months (as NewEngland47 suggested).

 

[NewEngland47]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I know that DVCMC gave itself the unilateral right to alter the Membership Agreement in its sole discretion. However, the wording in my copy of the Membership Agreement also says:

" DVCMC reserves the right to extend or decrease the Home Resort Priority Period provided, however, in no event shall the Home Resort Priority Period be for a period of less than one (1) month prior to the period during which the other Club Members have the right to reserve that Vacation Home during that Use Day."

And -

"Club Member shall mean the owner or record of an Ownership interest."


IMO , (I am not a Florida lawyer specializing in timeshares), the "IN NO EVENT" wording along with the definition of Club Member precludes DVCMC from treating direct and resale purchasers differently as far as booking their home resort.

Isn't it also true if a contract is contradictory or not entirely clear, courts interpret it in favor of the party who did not write the agreement?

I do agree that the documents do not prevent Disney from establishing some type of VIP Program. I just don't think that such a program could include different booking windows for direct and resale purchasers.

Again, JMHO. YMMV.

I completely see your points above - good and valid - but I feel the home resort requirement above would be met if - for example - tier one members / owners who bought direct had 11 months, tier 2 resale owners had a 10 month priority, then everyone else had 7 months - as that would still give both direct and resale owners more than one month priority over other members who aren't home resort owners. That being said I am not a licensed FL attorney and know zero about timeshare laws in FL so I could be totally wrong. As far as your question about contract interpretation - like any contract it would rely on the outcome of litigation and/or the arbitrator (if there's a binding arbitration clause. I can't remember if there is..) However I tend to believe that all too often the legal advantage unfortunately would not go to the party who didn't write it but to the party who can provide the best legal team / analysis which would probably be Disney. Sorry if that is cynical but in my experience - with the exception of rare cases - this unfortunately tends to be true.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Not sure we are disagreeing.

I am only trying to show that an owner who purchases via resale is no different from an owner who purchases direct as far as booking windows go. In other words, DVCMC can't change the rules such that resale points from Resort A have a different booking window than direct points from Resort A.

For example, all BWV points, no matter how they were purchased, are entitled to at least the one month booking priority. They can't change the rules to allow direct purchasers to book at 11 months and require resale purchasers to wait until 10 months (as NewEngland47 suggested).

What I was attempting to say is that they could do just that though. As long as an owner has 1 month priority over non-owners at their resort then the requirement is satisfied. I don't interpret it to mean that some owners at the resort couldn't have priority over other owners at the same resort. So direct could still have the 11 month priority, resale would be at 8 months and other resort owners could book at 7 and it would satisfy the statement.

Now some guides have attempted to cast fear that resale buyers at a resort will get the same booking window as owners from other resorts but that I don't see as possible due to the statement you have quoted.

 

[CarolMN]

What I was attempting to say is that they could do just that though. As long as an owner has 1 month priority over non-owners at their resort then the requirement is satisfied. I don't interpret it to mean that some owners at the resort couldn't have priority over other owners at the same resort. So direct could still have the 11 month priority, resale would be at 8 months and other resort owners could book at 7 and it would satisfy the statement.

Now some guides have attempted to cast fear that resale buyers at a resort will get the same booking window as owners from other resorts but that I don't see as possible due to the statement you have quoted.

Except that the club member definition says owner of record. It doesn't mention different classes of owners anywhere in the Membership Agreement that I could find.

IMO, DVCMC would be hard pressed to justify creating sub classes of owners since DVD didn't do so in the definitions sections of the initial documents. DVCMC can change many things, but they can't make material changes to the contract after the fact. I think making new classes of owners is a material change that wouldn't be legal.

Again, JMHO & YMMV. We can agree to disagree on this.

 

[disneynutz]

Except that the club member definition says owner of record. It doesn't mention different classes of owners anywhere in the Membership Agreement that I could find.

IMO, DVCMC would be hard pressed to justify creating sub classes of owners since DVD didn't do so in the definitions sections of the initial documents. DVCMC can change many things, but they can't make material changes to the contract after the fact. I think making new classes of owners is a material change that wouldn't be legal.

Again, JMHO & YMMV. We can agree to disagree on this.

But they did create a sub class, blue cards and white cards.

Bill

 

[CarolMN]

But they did create a sub class, blue cards and white cards.

Bill

For perks, discounts, selected events & programs, etc.

Those have never been contractually guaranteed to anyone, including direct purchasers (and you know that).

 

[disneynutz]

For perks, discounts, selected events & programs, etc.

Those have never been contractually guaranteed to anyone, including direct purchasers (and you know that).

If it will benefit Disney and their lawyers think that they can get away with it, they will do it. It all depends on how much pressure that they are under to increase profits and/or how much the executives what to stand out within Disney, (golden boy).

Bill

 

[ziravan]

Except that the club member definition says owner of record. It doesn't mention different classes of owners anywhere in the Membership Agreement that I could find.

IMO, DVCMC would be hard pressed to justify creating sub classes of owners since DVD didn't do so in the definitions sections of the initial documents. DVCMC can change many things, but they can't make material changes to the contract after the fact. I think making new classes of owners is a material change that wouldn't be legal.

Again, JMHO & YMMV. We can agree to disagree on this.

If they do as they've been doing, and grandfather current owners, it wouldn't change any contracts after the fact.

New resale buyers would sign new contracts with the new stipulations. Current owners would be under the older standard.

I think an owner would be hard pressed in the timeshare world to argue that a contract change affected resale values. That seems to be an industry standard.

 

[Sammie]

As prices rise for direct sales and resales are more robust with the assistance of social media I see them doing more to reward direct purchases. I don't see them taking away perks from those that have them now, I don't think that is what Ken is about. I do see them giving more and different perks, benefits, events to those with 1000 and above and I see no problem with that.

 

[Dean]

I tend to agree they can't do this along the lines of a division of resale vs retail directly but I do feel there is a lot they could do through a VIP program.

 

[deedubb]

As we tend to go during periods of high demand (eg. Christmas), suddenly having a 10 month window whereas others have 11 would possibly mean not being able to book a room. This would not make me purchase more direct points. It would probably make me sell all my points.

 

[Wakey]

From a legal standpoint it seems quite straightforward. The declaration of condominium clearly states home resort booking priority is on a 'first come, first served basis'. Anything that goes against that; advanced waitlist, different booking periods etc would be actionable in my humble opinion albeit I am not a lawyer in the USA.
For those who think DVD can just do what they want, I understand the scepticism, but they cannot.
Currently DVD are advertising for a paralegal to help advise them on compliance.
For those who say DVD created two tiers of membership, well I agree it is disappointing they went along this route and given record resale it doesn't look like it helped them much.
All it's done is create an entitlement attitude and confusion and I'm convinced it's made the general market more aware of resale. Now the calls from direct buyers (who don't have a clue about the technicalities even though they sign disclaimers saying they have not bought for non contractual perks) is ' I'm a direct 'real' member- I demand more perks for my extra bucks.' DVD really let the genie out of the bottle on that one. Wait for the uproar when the Member's lounge closes. You see the demanding attitude on the Facebook pages daily.
It's even led to incorrect comments on boards such as this, for example, that resale members are not members. Probably exactly what DVD was hoping for?
But these 'two tiers' are not really tiers, certainly not within the bounds of what we only all paid for and what is in the contract. In that respect all owners are and always have been absolutely equal. DVD have never suggested (point me to the evidence if they have) that they will interfere with that. It seems to be more speculation by barrack room lawyers on the internet than actual facts.
DVD pressed the nuclear button and took away almost all non contractual rights; the things they use for marketing that they give out on a whim. There's a bit of nibbling around the edges they could do on non contractual rights, but some of those things would probably cause such outrage amongst DVC owners it wouldn't be productive to do so. Assuming DVD have already considered this stuff, here are a few things- Remove EMH for anyone booking on resale points, but that would then cause uproar and two tiers at people in the resorts; remove the ability to buy one time use points from DVD, stop resale bookers using the Magical Express (but that encourages car rental and then travel to Universal and eating off resort), make resale owners pay for parking at the parks. I cannot think of much more.
There's a limit to how much they'll give out for free for perks. The DVC lounge seems a great success. It will go as it is in currently unused space that will be needed. Do you see them scrambling to build new lounges, a highly popular member perk, over all the parks? No. They might, but I suspect the only reason they did the lounge was because of the unused space and peppercorn rent (if any). A full new build would push the envelope on the cost benefit analysis.
So the only 'tier' that exists is they took away what no one is entitled to anyway. As a resale buyer myself, I say good luck to them. This is totally different to impinging on my contractual rights.
Now they could try and launch additional clubs and then try to persuade people to transfer over etc, but the way DVC is set up it would be verging on the impossible. They wouldn't toilet the product which could well happen If they effectively set out to destroy the old club. Remember this is by far the most profitable timeshare in the world, even before you factor in Disney own most of the land already that they picked up for peanuts in 1968.
I do think they could introduce more perks for big spenders and give them extra non contractual benefits. If you drop over $100k on a timeshare you certainly deserve it. The cost would be minimal and it may encourage Disney nuts with money burning a hole in their pocket to splash out for 300 more points to reach what they see as a status symbol.
Remember executives like Iger and Ken are remunerated largely on financial performance. Every perk means more expenditure or a potential reduction in income (discounts) and a reduction in the bottom line unless revenue growth can be forecast to exceed the perk cost. And really they are looking relatively short term. If a perk may or may not have an impact on the bottom line, do you think the division wants to take a risk? Only if it's low risk (demonstrable revenue growth based on predictive analytics probably of which Disney are masters ) or low cost and worth a gamble, otherwise no sign off.
Carol in the UK at least (and USA has very similar contractual laws albeit I am not a US Lawyer so cannot profess to comment on US law) has what is known as the 'contra proferentum ' rule- an inconvlusive term in a contract is interpreted against the maker. However, I don't think there is anything inconclusive about the first come first served wording in the declaration of condominium.
BTW , off topic but relevant, I did find the clause in the declaration of condominium that does make owners responsible for damage caused by guests (renters). However there is nothing in there making them responsible for unpaid bills for for food etc run up with third parties such as Disney Parks, so they couldn't do that.

 

[crisi]

If they do as they've been doing, and grandfather current owners, it wouldn't change any contracts after the fact.

New resale buyers would sign new contracts with the new stipulations. Current owners would be under the older standard.

I think an owner would be hard pressed in the timeshare world to argue that a contract change affected resale values. That seems to be an industry standard.

Probably not, as the legal documents are actually filed in the Declaration before the resort opens. Unless Disney has a time machine.... They could maybe do it for new resorts, but at that point I'd actually expect a second entire "club" - since managing multiple sets of rules for multiple resorts in would create administration (and systems) complexity Disney probably doesn't want to deal with.

I really wouldn't worry about booking windows. Disney does not want to face the class action lawsuit - and no matter how many Florida state congresspeople they buy, this would be a court issue - not a legislative one. Separation of powers and all that. I would worry about perks. And I'd worry about perk removal being applied retroactively.