Can someone explain the rumors of tiered membership?

[ScubaCat]

I think the real question is not about what the condo declaration says now, rather than how is condo law written in Florida? How strict is it? If it is vague in spots and/or grants latitude to the developers (such as DVD) they can amend, rewrite, and rescind as they see fit. THAT is what most of us aren't that clear on.

What stops Disney and DVD from doing things is legal and PR exposure, and the fact that they are more long term slash "big picture" thinkers. In other words, they are aware that market value and ability to sell in the future can make direct sales more appealing. So, there is risk in chaging the rules down the road. They only took away incidental benefits, and there was quite a reaction.

As to the resale market, be aware that the vast majority of people aren't aware of it. I talked to a couple at the pool yesterday that had been thinking of buying DVC for years*. They were absolutely shocked to hear that there was such a thing.

(*translation: DW was trying to bully DH I to it, something I have first-hand experience with.  )

 

[Wakey]

I think the real question is not about what the condo declaration says now, rather than how is condo law written in Florida? How strict is it? If it is vague in spots and/or grants latitude to the developers (such as DVD) they can amend, rewrite, and rescind as they see fit. THAT is what most of us aren't that clear on.

What stops Disney and DVD from doing things is legal and PR exposure, and the fact that they are more long term slash "big picture" thinkers. In other words, they are aware that market value and ability to sell in the future can make direct sales more appealing. So, there is risk in chaging the rules down the road. They only took away incidental benefits, and there was quite a reaction.

As to the resale market, be aware that the vast majority of people aren't aware of it. I talked to a couple at the pool yesterday that had been thinking of buying DVC for years*. They were absolutely shocked to hear that there was such a thing.

(*translation: DW was trying to bully DH I to it, something I have first-hand experience with.  )

The very issue is about what the declaration says now. Those are the rules that were formed on inception, the basis of everyone's contracts and even what the oft quoted, but not very relevant to give DVC protection if they change something, POS were based on. Based on the logic that all legally binding contracts can be altered with a swipe of the lobbied legislators pen, we had all better be very worried about all manner of things much more important than DVC. They cannot.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Well direct vs. resale are now treated different in regards to the perks, and I believe it is just going to continue. Disney is going to do what they can to make themselves more money. They do not care about equality, they care about money.

They sure like to preach it, though. Do as I say, not as I do. Hypocrites.

 

[crisi]

I think the real question is not about what the condo declaration says now, rather than how is condo law written in Florida? How strict is it? If it is vague in spots and/or grants latitude to the developers (such as DVD) they can amend, rewrite, and rescind as they see fit. THAT is what most of us aren't that clear on.

What stops Disney and DVD from doing things is legal and PR exposure, and the fact that they are more long term slash "big picture" thinkers. In other words, they are aware that market value and ability to sell in the future can make direct sales more appealing. So, there is risk in chaging the rules down the road. They only took away incidental benefits, and there was quite a reaction.

As to the resale market, be aware that the vast majority of people aren't aware of it. I talked to a couple at the pool yesterday that had been thinking of buying DVC for years*. They were absolutely shocked to hear that there was such a thing.

(*translation: DW was trying to bully DH I to it, something I have first-hand experience with.  )

It would be unconstitutional to change the law in that fashion, as I understand it. One of the foundations of running a country is business, one of the foundations of business is contracts - to legislatively allow someone to change the terms of a contract (unless its deemed illegal) would be very bad for business.

 

[ScubaCat]

It would be unconstitutional to change the law in that fashion, as I understand it. One of the foundations of running a country is business, one of the foundations of business is contracts - to legislatively allow someone to change the terms of a contract (unless its deemed illegal) would be very bad for business.

Most likely they'd implement any change for new contracts effective when the announcement is made, similar to how incidental benefits are grandfathered to resale buyers prior to 4/4/16.

 

[ziravan]

Most likely they'd implement any change for new contracts effective when the announcement is made, similar to how incidental benefits are grandfathered to resale buyers prior to 4/4/16.

Seems to me that all it'd take is a one page addendum that DVC could make signing a necessary requirement to process deed change.

Most timeshare companies have requirements to transfer deeds, normally a fairly hefty fee. This wouldn't be any different.

Whatever deal DVV made to its original owners it's probably bound by law to keep. It probably isn't bound by law to make the same deal with some future owner.

 

[Wakey]

Seems to me that all it'd take is a one page addendum that DVC could make signing a necessary requirement to process deed change.

Most timeshare companies have requirements to transfer deeds, normally a fairly hefty fee. This wouldn't be any different.

Whatever deal DVV made to its original owners it's probably bound by law to keep. It probably isn't bound by law to make the same deal with some future owner.

Total misunderstanding of the legal position I'm afraid Ziravan.
When a buyer buys a deed from a seller, they are not forming any new agreement or contract with DVD. They are simply buying the deed and the rights and obligations that flow from it.
DVD cannot interfere and offer any new contract - DVD are not even involved in the sale and purchase save they have a right of first refusal.
The deed and the rights and obligations flowing from it extend from the deed itself, and most importantly in this case the declaration.
It is these documents that give the purchaser his or her rights.
The declaration says home resort booking is on a first come first served basis.

 

[ziravan]

Total misunderstanding of the legal position I'm afraid Ziravan.
When a buyer buys a deed from a seller, they are not forming any new agreement or contract with DVD. They are simply buying the deed and the rights and obligations that flow from it.
DVD cannot interfere and offer any new contract - DVD are not even involved in the sale and purchase save they have a right of first refusal.
The deed and the rights and obligations flowing from it extend from the deed itself, and most importantly in this case the declaration.
It is these documents that give the purchaser his or her rights.
The declaration says home resort booking is on a first come first served basis.

Except DVC IS involved in the transfer of a deed and could probably condition its transfer on acknowledging a change in declaration.

heres my real point, that would be a different point of attack. The POS is complicated enough that there are probably dozens of points of attack for the Disney legal team to evaluate. All it takes is a positive court ruling on one of them.

I don't think they'll change booking windows. I do think they - or at least their guides - hint at it all the time as a sales tactic. That's where that rumor normally originates.

So far as tiers. I think a VIP status is coming. DVC has shown that they've moved from leader to follower and that's what other timeshares do.

My guess is that'll they'll be brutal about it. They want you to understand that there's a difference between resale and retail. My guess is next time they'll take it too far to prove the point.

 

[Matty B13]

Except DVC IS involved in the transfer of a deed and could probably condition its transfer on acknowledging a change in declaration.

heres my real point, that would be a different point of attack. The POS is complicated enough that there are probably dozens of points of attack for the Disney legal team to evaluate. All it takes is a positive court ruling on one of them.

I don't think they'll change booking windows. I do think they - or at least their guides - hint at it all the time as a sales tactic. That's where that rumor normally originates.

So far as tiers. I think a VIP status is coming. DVC has shown that they've moved from leader to follower and that's what other timeshares do.

My guess is that'll they'll be brutal about it. They want you to understand that there's a difference between resale and retail. My guess is next time they'll take it too far to prove the point.

But if they push it to far they could incur a legal push back from owners via a class action lawsuit, which they could lose far more than they could win. Along with maybe a vote or legal settlement to remove the board members for ones on the owners side. Things might not go DVC's way if it goes before the wrong judge.

 

[disneynutz]

Disney can't just change the contract terms unless the board votes to allow the change, thank goodness that we are on the board, wait a minute Disney is on the board just like they are on the board for RCID. Other than owners here on the DIS, most owners could give a hoot what Disney/DVC does.

Bill

 

[Dean]

The very issue is about what the declaration says now. Those are the rules that were formed on inception, the basis of everyone's contracts and even what the oft quoted, but not very relevant to give DVC protection if they change something, POS were based on. Based on the logic that all legally binding contracts can be altered with a swipe of the lobbied legislators pen, we had all better be very worried about all manner of things much more important than DVC. They cannot.

As I noted, I think there is enough latitude for them to do a lot if they want. Plus they can change the POS going forward. They already have to help with sales by implementing the exception for banking until the last day of the UY. In reality there is no contract that is written in stone, it's fluid. Obviously there are limits but not as much as some would think. As I've stated twice, another company based in FL and with fairly similar situation and POS to DVC has both implemented and changed the VIP system in favor of the VIP system. That says it all to me as to what can happen. But I'd agree any system would have to be somewhat within the framework of the POS though really only the POS for each resort, the multi site POS is completely fair game.

 

[crisi]

Disney can't just change the contract terms unless the board votes to allow the change, thank goodness that we are on the board, wait a minute Disney is on the board just like they are on the board for RCID. Other than owners here on the DIS, most owners could give a hoot what Disney/DVC does.

Bill

Disney can't change the terms of the contract. With or without the board. There are two parties to the contract, the member and Disney. With resale, you are buying the original contract - along with the original rights and obligations of membership. They can't add an addendum, they aren't a party. Moreover, the terms were determined when Disney filed the Declaration before opening - they cannot unilaterally change that, that is what we all bought to, and they are stuck with it until it expires - along with our points.

 

[ziravan]

Disney can't change the terms of the contract. With or without the board. There are two parties to the contract, the member and Disney. With resale, you are buying the original contract - along with the original rights and obligations of membership. They can't add an addendum, they aren't a party. Moreover, the terms were determined when Disney filed the Declaration before opening - they cannot unilaterally change that, that is what we all bought to, and they are stuck with it until it expires - along with our points.

I don't understand this insistence that DVC isn't a party to a deed change. Of course they are. If their accounting department doesn't process the change of ownership, then the new owner doesn't have an account or access to his points.

If DVC requires an addendum prior to transferring a deed, that's between them and the new owner - and would constitute a new agreement.

If DVC didn't play a part in this process, you might be right that they aren't a party to a sale. But. They do. And so. They are.

Again. I doubt very seriously that they change the booking windows. But they are going to make more changes. And I suspect they'll be fairly brutal.

DVC has telegraphed that while they might not want to kill resale, they darn sure want to maim it. Their ambitions and teeth are bared.

 

[Dean]

Disney can't change the terms of the contract. With or without the board. There are two parties to the contract, the member and Disney. With resale, you are buying the original contract - along with the original rights and obligations of membership. They can't add an addendum, they aren't a party. Moreover, the terms were determined when Disney filed the Declaration before opening - they cannot unilaterally change that, that is what we all bought to, and they are stuck with it until it expires - along with our points.

Crisi, the POS is the contract and it can be changed. In many cases that can be done unilaterally though there is a limit. That limit where the membership would have to vote as well would center on things that are materially negative to the membership, which is where the argument against a tiered VIP system would have to center. I'm certain DVC wants to avoid a vote just because they don't want that precedent going forward. I think the issue where I see this differently than some is that I know there are ways they can satisfy the letter of the contract at it applies to the 11 month window and give VIP members a significant advantage. The exchange system to other DVC resorts is much more of a valid option in this situation, they really have almost total control there. I really don't expect to see a VIP system, it's really late in the game to do one, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[crisi]

Crisi, the POS is the contract and it can be changed. In many cases that can be done unilaterally though there is a limit. That limit where the membership would have to vote as well would center on things that are materially negative to the membership, which is where the argument against a tiered VIP system would have to center. I'm certain DVC wants to avoid a vote just because they don't want that precedent going forward. I think the issue where I see this differently than some is that I know there are ways they can satisfy the letter of the contract at it applies to the 11 month window and give VIP members a significant advantage. The exchange system to other DVC resorts is much more of a valid option in this situation, they really have almost total control there. I really don't expect to see a VIP system, it's really late in the game to do one, but it wouldn't surprise me.

They cannot change a contract unilaterally. If the POS is a contract, then they cannot change it during the term of the contract without both signatories adding an addendum to change the terms. If it is not a contract, then it is not binding on either party. A contract is binding. This is a basic of law. Doing so would open themselves up to a lawsuit, which they would lose.

 

[crisi]

I don't understand this insistence that DVC isn't a party to a deed change. Of course they are. If their accounting department doesn't process the change of ownership, then the new owner doesn't have an account or access to his points.

If DVC requires an addendum prior to transferring a deed, that's between them and the new owner - and would constitute a new agreement.

If DVC didn't play a part in this process, you might be right that they aren't a party to a sale. But. They do. And so. They are.

Again. I doubt very seriously that they change the booking windows. But they are going to make more changes. And I suspect they'll be fairly brutal.

DVC has telegraphed that while they might not want to kill resale, they darn sure want to maim it. Their ambitions and teeth are bared.

Because what we are talking about is not a change to the deed, but a change to the membership contract. That's different, and they aren't a party to the change in the membership other than in an administrative role.

 

[Matty B13]

If they did manage to change the booking window for direct and resale owners how would they implement it if you had points under the same master contract? Say if you had 100 direct points in a February UY and 100 resale points in a February UY at the same resort. Would you only be able to book with the direct 100 points???? and then at the next window use your other 100 points??? This would become a mess for MS really quickly along with getting several angry calls and emails with having to combine reservations.

Also if they grandfathered in contracts wouldn't this cause even more headaches.

I also don't get how they would get away with changing a deeded contract after the contract has been around for 25 years at a lot of resorts. Seems that a precedent is already set.

 

[SL6827]

Sounds to me like a huge can of worms that just maybe Disney doesn't want to open? If they did this wouldn't it de-value everyone's contracts?

 

[Wakey]

I can tell from the answers that crisi actually has some knowledge of contract law ;-)
I've already explained the POS isn't the contract, it' pre contract info, a prospectus. What's the obsession with changing that for?
One party to the contract and deed cannot change it.
Regarding the statements that this timeshare company introduced this or that, the ones I've seen altered non contractual and non deeded rights. We are talking about something different here.
The declaration of condominium clearly states home booking is on a first come first served basis.
You really think Disney want class action lawsuits like MVC now have- with allegations of racketeering etc? However, again, those lawsuits are different in that there isn't an allegation that MVC altered the actual declaration and deed to my knowledge, so DVD would have to go to an all new level that MVC are not being accused of.

 

[chalee94]

Sounds to me like a huge can of worms that just maybe Disney doesn't want to open? If they did this wouldn't it de-value everyone's contracts?

What makes you think that Disney cares about the resale value of your contract?

Do you think a resale contract would be worth more if it included the same AP and dining discounts as a direct contract? The whole point of that change was to discourage demand for resales.

Other timeshares sell for thousands direct and pennies resale - you'd have to be a Pollyanna to think Disney would have any problem with this being true of DVC.