Contract Addendum Help

[supersnoop]

Maybe there was some information given that allowed it?

My idea is speculation as i am just guessing what could have happened but honestly no idea but it seems there would be leeway that while it does say reservation canceled, which happened, it doesn’t address the rest honestly no idea how it would stand up against a legal inquiry.

You're absolutely right; this was handled exactly how it should have been. I can't find anything in my DVC sales contracts, but all my other real estate deals include a clause that the buyer and seller agree that the closing agent has the authority to correct any non-material mistakes and that all parties will work together to make any such corrections. In this case, the buyer got what they paid for and any mistakes have been corrected.

 

[sndral]

Maybe there was some information given that allowed it?

My idea is speculation as i am just guessing what could have happened but honestly no idea but it seems there would be leeway that while it does say reservation canceled, which happened, it doesn’t address the rest honestly no idea how it would stand up against a legal inquiry.

Legally the buyer now has what they bargained for, thus any action would likely be deemed to be moot, unless the buyer could show that the delay caused by the seller/broker‘s failure to disclose resulted in damages.
I use the word moot in its’ legal sense, eg; when a case or controversy no longer exists the suit is deemed to be moot & dismissed by a court.

 

[KalamityJane]

You're absolutely right; this was handled exactly how it should have been. I can't find anything in my DVC sales contracts, but all my other real estate deals include a clause that the buyer and seller agree that the closing agent has the authority to correct any non-material mistakes and that all parties will work together to make any such corrections. In this case, the buyer got what they paid for and any mistakes have been corrected.

But did the closing agent correct the mistakes? As far as I can see, Disney corrected the mistakes, and the broker( I’m assuming they or the title agency are the closing agent) did squat.

 

[Kylie kaiser]

But did the closing agent correct the mistakes? As far as I can see, Disney corrected the mistakes, and the broker( I’m assuming they or the title agency are the closing agent) did squat.

Yes, I can confirm the closing agent did nothing. Disney fixed it. I am pursuing the admin fee still to hold them accountable for that. But personally would never do business with that broker again.

 

[RoseGold]

You're absolutely right; this was handled exactly how it should have been. I can't find anything in my DVC sales contracts, but all my other real estate deals include a clause that the buyer and seller agree that the closing agent has the authority to correct any non-material mistakes and that all parties will work together to make any such corrections. In this case, the buyer got what they paid for and any mistakes have been corrected.

That’s the opposite of what my most recent contract said. Maybe yours did?

 

[RoseGold]

Legally the buyer now has what they bargained for, thus any action would likely be deemed to be moot, unless the buyer could show that the delay caused by the seller/broker‘s failure to disclose resulted in damages.
I use the word moot in its’ legal sense, eg; when a case or controversy no longer exists the suit is deemed to be moot & dismissed by a court.

You think transferring four figures of points isn’t damages? assuming the contract says the points are OP’s?

I guess it’s possible their contract says a third party can transfer after close to correct their mistakes at close. Or maybe that was in the addendum.

 

[Matty B13]

Maybe there was some information given that allowed it?

My idea is speculation as i am just guessing what could have happened but honestly no idea but it seems there would be leeway that while it does say reservation canceled, which happened, it doesn’t address the rest honestly no idea how it would stand up against a legal inquiry.

There really shouldn't be any "leeway" after a deed has been recorded and all paperwork has been signed and paid in full. This really is a horrible precedent that DVC is setting, and should not be taken lightly and really shouldn't be allowed. I'm sure if they got taken to court, this would turn out very bad for both the broker and DVC.

 

[Sandisw]

There really shouldn't be any "leeway" after a deed has been recorded and all paperwork has been signed and paid in full. This really is a horrible precedent that DVC is setting, and should not be taken lightly and really shouldn't be allowed. I'm sure if they got taken to court, this would turn out very bad for both the broker and DVC.

So, had the OP been given points they were not entitled to per the sale agreement, then could the seller go after them for the value?

There is a clause that says if the points represented in the contract aren’t actually there on transfer, the seller has to pay the buyer for not transferring it complete.

Regardless, if it were me, I would be fine with what occurred on MAs end after having been given all the details of what the contract had because I would not take something I wasn’t entitled to

 

[BeachClub2014]

So, had the OP been given points they were not entitled to per the sale agreement, then could the seller go after them for the value?

There is a clause that says if the points represented in the contract aren’t actually there on transfer, the seller has to pay the buyer for not transferring it complete.

Regardless, if it were me, I would be fine with what occurred on MAs end after having been given all the details of what the contract had because I would not take something I wasn’t entitled to

So this is what I continue to struggle to understand.

The OP bought a contract/points from the seller. I've seen no mention of a known pending reservation involving those points, therefore the buyer should receive ALL of the points contained within the contract. There can't be orphan points left behind.

The seller is supposed to provide the appropriate documentation to verify the status of the points, which should have shown a pending reservation, but apparently didn't. Which seems unlikely.

The seller and broker believed the reservation was made with points from the underlying contract, hence the addendum request for a closing "do-over". It sure seems as if the points for the reservation are part of the underlying contract purchased by the OP.

So the apparent resolution of DVC transferring the reservation (and points) into another contract held by the seller doesn't seem quite legit to me.

I could be totally misunderstanding this whole thing, but that's the way it reads to me.

 

[Sandisw]

So this is what I continue to struggle to understand.

The OP bought a contract/points from the seller. I've seen no mention of a known pending reservation involving those points, therefore the buyer should receive ALL of the points contained within the contract. There can't be orphan points left behind.

The seller is supposed to provide the appropriate documentation to verify the status of the points, which should have shown a pending reservation, but apparently didn't. Which seems unlikely.

The seller and broker believed the reservation was made with points from the underlying contract, hence the addendum request for a closing "do-over". It sure seems as if the points for the reservation are part of the underlying contract purchased by the OP.

So the apparent resolution of DVC transferring the reservation (and points) into another contract held by the seller doesn't seem quite legit to me.

I could be totally misunderstanding this whole thing, but that's the way it reads to me.

I get it and maybe my thoughts would not cut it in a court, But, it sounds to me that after the fact, it was discovered that the reservation was booked on the contract and why an addendum was needed.

Whether that was an honest mistake or the seller tried to get away with it, who knows.

And, maybe others would be comfortable with getting the extra points that were not listed as part of the sale, I would not and in this case, would have given MA permission to transfer them out to the other owner.

OP did talk directly to MA and at least from what was posted, it sounds like MA was made aware of what should happen and maybe that is why it went down the way it did.

 

[DonMacGregor]

So this is what I continue to struggle to understand.

The OP bought a contract/points from the seller. I've seen no mention of a known pending reservation involving those points, therefore the buyer should receive ALL of the points contained within the contract. There can't be orphan points left behind.

The seller is supposed to provide the appropriate documentation to verify the status of the points, which should have shown a pending reservation, but apparently didn't. Which seems unlikely.

The seller and broker believed the reservation was made with points from the underlying contract, hence the addendum request for a closing "do-over". It sure seems as if the points for the reservation are part of the underlying contract purchased by the OP.

So the apparent resolution of DVC transferring the reservation (and points) into another contract held by the seller doesn't seem quite legit to me.

I could be totally misunderstanding this whole thing, but that's the way it reads to me.

I think what was meant was that DVC restored OP’s points, and pulled the points for the pending reservation from another contract owned by the seller?

 

[BeachClub2014]

I think what was meant was that DVC restored OP’s points, and pulled the points for the pending reservation from another contract owned by the seller?

Now that would make more sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Now that would make more sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.

I could be totally wrong though. I was/am confused as well, but that is where my logical brain took me in trying to interpret the resolution.

 

[Suzabella]

It seems no accident that this keeps happening in dealings with the same broker. They clearly have issues that need resolved.

I'm happy for the happy ending but, as stated many times in this thread and in JGINPL's thread, this needs to be reported to authorities listed or they will keep doing it. This is a pattern not an oops. It makes me wonder how many buyers just go along with this scheme.

This is one company I will never do business with not matter how perfect the contract. It's just not worth it.

 

[vicarrieous]

It seems no accident that this keeps happening in dealings with the same broker. They clearly have issues that need resolved.

I'm happy for the happy ending but, as stated many times in this thread and in JGINPL's thread, this needs to be reported to authorities listed or they will keep doing it. This is a pattern not an oops. It makes me wonder how many buyers just go along with this scheme.

This is one company I will never do business with not matter how perfect the contract. It's just not worth it.

Agreed. This is no OOPS. The broker is either not verifying pending reservations or simply not disclosing them and I would lean towards the second. What is crappy about this is in the end the buyer and seller suffer and not the broker for their either lazy or purposefully shady work.

1. If the seller didn't disclose, the broker should be contacting the buyer ASAP and talking to them verbally to make the situation right.
2. If the broker is deliberately not disclosing delayed closings due to a reservation on the contract both the buy and seller have a right to bring qualms with the broker.

I find it sketchy that a random addendum was sent post closing via email. To me that sounds like a broker pushing something through with full knowledge that this existed or "forgot" to mention it.

 

[pianomanzano]

Interestingly enough, currently watching the board sponsor's latest vlog and they have a new (or at least new to me) Point Compensation Guarantee that states "DVC Resale Market is the ONLY broker to provide 100% peace of mind when purchasing, with its point compensation guarantee of $20 per point for any missing points." Not really sure how that's paid out (and would not want to experience it first hand!), but that's some kind of reassurance that would make me feel safer, especially after how these current issues are being handled because it seems that pointing out contract clauses to some brokers mean nothing but silence from their end and no attempts to get things resolved.

 

[vicarrieous]

Can I just say, I will be steering clear of this broker..... I hope OP feels compelled to make some sort of complaint if possible.

 

[Matty B13]

I get it and maybe my thoughts would not cut it in a court,

No they definitely wouldn't not cut it in court, that is why this is a big deal. The broker is supposed to know the laws on this and is paid a large fee and commission to handle this professionally and legally.

 

[pianomanzano]

Many have a missing points clause, although in this situation not sure it would have helped the buyer. They have the points promised just an unknown/undisclosed delay in closing from what I understand. I am not sure anyone has a distinct clause for delay in access to the account or delay in use of points.

I know when I purchased there was a clause that stated if the points in the contract were less than guaranteed they would pay 17pp which was 2 years ago. Little did we know about a week after offer acceptance that there were MORE points on the contract than advertised. Luckily for us the seller was happy to just pass them along. Talk about a happy surprise.

Right, know it’s not something that would’ve been applicable here. To me having an assurance from a broker who would personally pay out that guarantee versus a contract clause that says a seller will pay the buyer back for any missing points is safer. We won’t actually find out if there’s missing points until weeks after closing and well after the seller has their money. And I’m assuming most sellers will be unresponsive (if they were deceitful in disclosing points to begin with) and most brokers won’t do anything to resolve, I’d rather have that kind of guarantee than some long legal fight (where most of the funds you would get back will ultimately get paid to lawyers).

 

[Matty B13]

Right, know it’s not something that would’ve been applicable here. To me having an assurance from a broker who would personally pay out that guarantee versus a contract clause that says a seller will pay the buyer back for any missing points is safer. We won’t actually find out if there’s missing points until weeks after closing and well after the seller has their money. And I’m assuming most sellers will be unresponsive (if they were deceitful in disclosing points to begin with) and most brokers won’t do anything to resolve, I’d rather have that kind of guarantee than some long legal fight (where most of the funds you would get back will ultimately get paid to lawyers).

This is also why DVC should setup and load resale contracts as soon as they are notified after closing, and not drag out the process. I understand they want to make the resale process take a long time, but I don't think that it is fair to not allow access to a contract after it has been recorded for several weeks.