Considering a mid-size resale contract - thoughts?

[Sandisw]

I do understand. It seems like we have contradicting information. The problem is that those contracts are not linked together as one qualifying contract. They qualify for direct under your membership, but they do not qualify on their own the same way as a 150 point contract purchased when the requirement was 150, or as a 50 point contract purchased when the requirement was 50points. When they are handed down they are handed down as three 50 point contracts purchased when the requirement was 150. If the new requirement for direct benefits is 300, the person receiving 3x50 will need another 150 in direct contracts. I am happy to be wrong here, but this is how it was explained to us by our guide. Most people splitting 150 into 3x50 are doing so for resale anyway, so not an issue. Why else would you split a contract like that? It would be great if Disney would spell it out either way in writing. It makes me wonder if they will just say one day that benefits can’t be transferred at all.

If the three 50s are handed down to one person and they own all of them, the benefits stand.

They do not need to buy more. However, if you gave one 50 to one child and 100 to the other then each would lose the benefit and be forced to meet new minimum.

IMO, the only reason to split is because you plan to have more contracts that are eligible, or have some that already are do you can downsize.

If these will remain the only ones eligible for membership benefits, then I don’t see the need.

 

[Brian Noble]

Disney is not going to provide a written guarantee of Membership Extras for any particular future scenario, because they are not currently guaranteed to anyone at all. So they are not going to explain in writing how future inheritances will be treated.

Historically, Disney has (a) grandfathered the overall membership benefits for the original owner based on how they qualified at the time of purchase and (b) conveyed those benefits when the qualifying parts of the membership passed to an immediate family member.

It is reasonable to assume that Disney is likely to continue to do both of those things, and if they do, a child (or children) who obtain a parent's membership that today qualifies for Membership Extras will continue to do so. However, this is not---and has never been---guaranteed. Nothing prevents Disney from discontinuing either (a) or (b), and that's because Disney can change Membership Extras in any way they wish at any time.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Disney is not going to provide a written guarantee of Membership Extras for any particular future scenario, because they are not currently guaranteed to anyone at all. So they are not going to explain in writing how future inheritances will be treated.

Historically, Disney has (a) grandfathered the overall membership benefits for the original owner based on how they qualified at the time of purchase and (b) conveyed those benefits when the qualifying parts of the membership passed to an immediate family member.

It is reasonable to assume that Disney is likely to continue to do both of those things, and if they do, a child (or children) who obtain a parent's membership that today qualifies for Membership Extras will continue to do so. However, this is not---and has never been---guaranteed. Nothing prevents Disney from discontinuing either (a) or (b), and that's because Disney can change Membership Extras in any way they wish at any time.

Agreed. In this case it seems like the guide didn’t want to do the extra work of multiple contracts OR the poster misunderstood what the guide was saying.

 

[AstroBlasters]

My guides recommendation:

Aloha AstroBlasters, Once the kids are 18, you can add them to your deed's via re-titling. Any Direct contracts they're added to need to be paid off and then they can be re-titled. Hope this helps! Mahalo, Ashley Have a magical day!

Ashley Patinio (S) Disney Vacation Club Guide CA License #02204373 Disney Vacation Club (808) 458-7160 Ashley.Patinio@DisneyVacationClub.com

 

[JackosinDIS]

My guides recommendation:

Aloha AstroBlasters, Once the kids are 18, you can add them to your deed's via re-titling. Any Direct contracts they're added to need to be paid off and then they can be re-titled. Hope this helps! Mahalo, Ashley Have a magical day!

Ashley Patinio (S) Disney Vacation Club Guide CA License #02204373 Disney Vacation Club (808) 458-7160 Ashley.Patinio@DisneyVacationClub.com

I would love it if you real life name was actually Mr AstroBlasters

 

[Girlstar30]

My guides recommendation:

Aloha AstroBlasters, Once the kids are 18, you can add them to your deed's via re-titling. Any Direct contracts they're added to need to be paid off and then they can be re-titled. Hope this helps! Mahalo, Ashley Have a magical day!

Ashley Patinio (S) Disney Vacation Club Guide CA License #02204373 Disney Vacation Club (808) 458-7160 Ashley.Patinio@DisneyVacationClub.com

Does retitiling cost extra? Let's say i want to get my wifes name off the deed one day, is it hard to drop? (im totally not doing this just wondering )

 

[AstroBlasters]

Does retitiling cost extra? Let's say i want to get my wifes name off the deed one day, is it hard to drop? (im totally not doing this just wondering )

I think it’s a few hundred dollars.

https://www.lttransfers.com/timeshare-ownership-transfer-services/

 

[Girlstar30]

I think it’s a few hundred dollars.

https://www.lttransfers.com/timeshare-ownership-transfer-services/

Thanks for the link!

 

[Moonspinner]

Disney is not going to provide a written guarantee of Membership Extras for any particular future scenario, because they are not currently guaranteed to anyone at all. So they are not going to explain in writing how future inheritances will be treated.

Historically, Disney has (a) grandfathered the overall membership benefits for the original owner based on how they qualified at the time of purchase and (b) conveyed those benefits when the qualifying parts of the membership passed to an immediate family member.

It is reasonable to assume that Disney is likely to continue to do both of those things, and if they do, a child (or children) who obtain a parent's membership that today qualifies for Membership Extras will continue to do so. However, this is not---and has never been---guaranteed. Nothing prevents Disney from discontinuing either (a) or (b), and that's because Disney can change Membership Extras in any way they wish at any time.

I haven’t seen any examples of this.

 

[Moonspinner]

My guides recommendation:

Aloha AstroBlasters, Once the kids are 18, you can add them to your deed's via re-titling. Any Direct contracts they're added to need to be paid off and then they can be re-titled. Hope this helps! Mahalo, Ashley Have a magical day!

Ashley Patinio (S) Disney Vacation Club Guide CA License #02204373 Disney Vacation Club (808) 458-7160 Ashley.Patinio@DisneyVacationClub.com

But if you notice, your guide doesn’t spell out anything beyond that you can transfer the deed. I would just advise people if they really plan on handing it down, to not split contracts below the current required amount for direct. Just in case.

 

[WeIcomeHome]

Under current rules, a gratuitous transfer will grandfather in the recipients DVC-Y if the points transferred to their name currently qualify you for those benefits. My wife was added to her parents old resale contracts and was DVC-Y because those old resale contracts qualified for the blue card before rules were updated.

Gratuitous transfer can be completed for WDW property all in around 20 to 30 dollars per deed if you do it yourself. There is an entire thread dedicated to gratuitous transfers.

 

[AstroBlasters]

But if you notice, your guide doesn’t spell out anything beyond that you can transfer the deed. I would just advise people if they really plan on handing it down, to not split contracts below the current required amount for direct. Just in case.

There is just absolutely no example of that ever needing to be true or language that requires it anywhere in any DVC document.

 

[Brian Noble]

Gratuitous transfer can be completed for WDW property all in around 20 to 30 dollars per deed if you do it yourself. There is an entire thread dedicated to gratuitous transfers.

If you have someone else do the paperwork, it isn't that much more expensive---and that avoids the risk of screwing something up. For example, I've used LT Transfers (https://www.lttransfers.com/) even for timeshares worth pennies on the secondary market. They do a great job for a few hundred bucks. For something worth thousands to tens of thousands, having a professional do it is an easy call for me.

I haven’t seen any examples of this.

Not sure what you mean by "this".

 

[Moonspinner]

There is just absolutely no example of that ever needing to be true or language that requires it anywhere in any DVC document.

Unfortunately, there is also no language in any dvc document supporting your claim either. This is not a personal challenge btw. I have no skin in this. I am just passing into people that this is a grey area and that our guide advised us to do one contract that qualifies for direct for each child. It could be that our guide is wrong, no problem. Doesn’t matter to us. But people should be aware that there seems to be differing opinions and to proceed with caution since Disney does not appear to have put it in writing.

 

[Sprinkles&Sprints]

Unfortunately, there is also no language in any dvc document supporting your claim either. This is not a personal challenge btw. I have no skin in this. I am just passing into people that this is a grey area and that our guide advised us to do one contract that qualifies for direct for each child. It could be that our guide is wrong, no problem. Doesn’t matter to us. But people should be aware that there seems to be differing opinions and to proceed with caution since Disney does not appear to have put it in writing.

Isn’t the whole point of a gratuitous transfer that they same rules carry over to the new owner vs. a traditional resale? So in order for that not to happen in this case, Disney would need to change the rules for existing Direct Owners? “Sorry Direct Owners - the 125 pt and 25 pt direct contracts purchased together (when 150 pt was minimum) no longer count and you now need to purchase one contract of 150 pts to continue qualifying?”

Obviously I don’t see that ever happening bc it would impact SO many owners so I guess I’m stuck on the legality of such a rule only applying in a gratuitous transfer…

 

[AstroBlasters]

Unfortunately, there is also no language in any dvc document supporting your claim either. This is not a personal challenge btw. I have no skin in this. I am just passing into people that this is a grey area and that our guide advised us to do one contract that qualifies for direct for each child. It could be that our guide is wrong, no problem. Doesn’t matter to us. But people should be aware that there seems to be differing opinions and to proceed with caution since Disney does not appear to have put it in writing.

Literally no one else has that opinion.

I specifically broke my direct contracts into smaller pieces and my guide told me at the time there was no issue as long as the beneficiaries have the correct number of direct points in the same membership at the time the points were PURCHASED.

 

[Sandisw]

Literally no one else has that opinion.

I specifically broke my direct contracts into smaller pieces and my guide told me at the time there was no issue as long as the beneficiaries have the correct number of direct points in the same membership at the time the points were PURCHASED.

This is what many of us were told, but everyone should realize that they can change the rules that more than one contract to the same beneficiary might not continue to work.

I think that is what was being advised. We did all of our direct contracts for membership in one contract to ensure there can’t be a change like above.

Some also don’t realize that if the threshold changes, and you sell any of the
specific contracts, that you know need to meet new ones even if you have other direct contracts that don’t meet minims when they were bought.

For examples you buy two 75 point contracts while it’s 150, and then decide to add another 100, but threshold when the 100 is bought is 200

If you sell one of the original 75, you lose benefits because the 100 point contract was bought when it was 200.

Everything DVC says and does should always be considered with caution.

 

[AstroBlasters]

This is what many of us were told, but everyone should realize that they can change the rules that more than one contract to the same beneficiary might not continue to work.

I think that is what was being advised. We did all of our direct contracts for membership in one contract to ensure there can’t be a change like above.

Some also don’t realize that if the threshold changes, and you sell any of the
specific contracts, that you know need to meet new ones even if you have other direct contracts that don’t meet minims when they were bought.

For examples you buy two 75 point contracts while it’s 150, and then decide to add another 100, but threshold when the 100 is bought is 200

If you sell one of the original 75, you lose benefits because the 100 point contract was bought when it was 200.

Everything DVC says and does should always be considered with caution.

I’ll be honest, it just seems like FUD from a guide that was too lazy to write up multiple contracts.

Absolutely nothing is guaranteed with DVC-Y anyways….

 

[Sandisw]

I’ll be honest, it just seems like FUD from a guide that was too lazy to write up multiple contracts.

Absolutely nothing is guaranteed with DVC-Y anyways….

It certainly could have been but if the contracts are being bought to be eligible for membership extras, IMO, splitting them isn’t necessary because you have to keep them to maintain benefits.

 

[Brian Noble]

Both of these things can be true at the same time:

1. Disney can change the Membership Extras rules however they want, whenever they want.
2. The chances that they will differentiate between a gratuitous transfer of two (or more) developer contracts totaling 150 points from that of a single 150 point contract are between "almost certainly won't" and "no."