Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[CanadaDisney05]

I am a DVC owner as well but you have to realize that in reality we are all renters. We purchased a right to use DVC until 2054 for SSR. After that, who knows if they will offer an extension. While I like to believe DVD has our best interests in heart, it's not always the case. I don't think Disney shut down simply on our behalf. The state of Florida had a lot more input than members lol. I understand the point you are trying to make. This whole situation is new territory. The brokers were not prepared for something like this, but regardless, the burden to make it right should fall on their shoulders, not renters and owners. If an owner is trying to keep their points and the 70% initial payment, shame on them. Now that DVC has extended points there's no reason owners can't make new reservations. If you gave a Broker 200 points to rent, what difference does it make if he makes a new reservation with them. Yes, he's getting a second commission, but let him sleep with that.

I feel the brokers should have given renters the option for a refund, credit, or rebook. They should have went to owners and said, we are going to pay u the remaining 30%, but we own the rights to those points now and will take on the risk of the expiration of those points. At least one of the brokers showed their true colors a couple years back and I would never use one again. You would think a business that does really well, some say in the millions of profits a year, would take care of their customers. I believe that situation is still on the BBB website.

Just to be clear, my post was not in support of the broker. It was more about the general concept of where does the risk lie (owner/renter).

I'm not a Florida real estate lawyer, but from my understanding, the contract is more than a leasehold agreement. This is not a landlord/renter situation (in terms of our contracts with Disney when we bought our DVC contracts as owners). The membership as a whole has full ownership of the property until 2054 when it reverts back to Disney. Until 2054, the entire risk falls on our shoulders. We essentially own the resort until 2054. At that point, we agreed to sell the resort back to Disney for zero compensation.

 

[McCrae]

I am a DVC owner as well but you have to realize that in reality we are all renters. We purchased a right to use DVC until 2054 for SSR. After that, who knows if they will offer an extension. While I like to believe DVD has our best interests in heart, it's not always the case. I don't think Disney shut down simply on our behalf. The state of Florida had a lot more input than members lol. I understand the point you are trying to make. This whole situation is new territory. The brokers were not prepared for something like this, but regardless, the burden to make it right should fall on their shoulders, not renters and owners. If an owner is trying to keep their points and the 70% initial payment, shame on them. Now that DVC has extended points there's no reason owners can't make new reservations. If you gave a Broker 200 points to rent, what difference does it make if he makes a new reservation with them. Yes, he's getting a second commission, but let him sleep with that.

I feel the brokers should have given renters the option for a refund, credit, or rebook. They should have went to owners and said, we are going to pay u the remaining 30%, but we own the rights to those points now and will take on the risk of the expiration of those points. At least one of the brokers showed their true colors a couple years back and I would never use one again. You would think a business that does really well, some say in the millions of profits a year, would take care of their customers. I believe that situation is still on the BBB website.

I agree with a lot of what you have written.

David's has however pushed the idea that owners contracts are with him and not individual renters. Legally this may or may not be the case. Potentially you could as an owner provided David's with points to re-rent and then find yourself with a claim from your original renter. This makes me want to wait and see how things develop.

If charge backs are declined it will make me more confident to re-rent points.

 

[MIDisFan]

Just to be clear, my post was not in support of the broker. It was more about the general concept of where does the risk lie (owner/renter).

I'm not a Florida real estate lawyer, but from my understanding, the contract is more than a leasehold agreement. This is not a landlord/renter situation (in terms of our contracts with Disney when we bought our DVC contracts as owners). The membership as a whole has full ownership of the property until 2054 when it reverts back to Disney. Until 2054, the entire risk falls on our shoulders. We essentially own the resort until 2054. At that point, we agreed to sell the resort back to Disney for zero compensation.

My comment was more to the reality of the situation as opposed to the legality of our ownership. Members don't own 100% of the points at any resort, don't have any say in the decisions effecting those resorts, nor do we have any rights to the property after the expiration of the contract. Seems more like a rental agreement, even though I still call myself a DVC owner. Sounds better lol.

 

[McCrae]

My comment was more to the reality of the situation as opposed to the legality of our ownership. Members don't own 100% of the points at any resort, don't have any say in the decisions effecting those resorts, nor do we have any rights to the property after the expiration of the contract. Seems more like a rental agreement, even though I still call myself a DVC owner. Sounds better lol.

You are correct, you have a maximum 50 year lease.

 

[MIDisFan]

I agree with a lot of what you have written.

David's has however pushed the idea that owners contracts are with him and not individual renters. Legally this may or may not be the case. Potentially you could as an owner provided David's with points to re-rent and then find yourself with a claim from your original renter. This makes me want to wait and see how things develop.

If charge backs are declined it will make me more confident to re-rent points.

I think what the broker is saying is that they purchased your points and should be able to do with them what they want. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. If the original person files a charge back claim, that would be against the broker not the owner, so again I don't see what the owner has to loose by agreeing to re-book. The only contention could be the remaining 30%. If I were an owner in the same position, I would allow the broker to re-book under the stipulation that they would still pay the 30% if the points expired before they found a renter.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

My comment was more to the reality of the situation as opposed to the legality of our ownership. Members don't own 100% of the points at any resort, don't have any say in the decisions effecting those resorts, nor do we have any rights to the property after the expiration of the contract. Seems more like a rental agreement, even though I still call myself a DVC owner. Sounds better lol.

Think of it more like a condo rather than a freehold. It's common ownership. As a condo owner, you own 100% of your unit plus a portion of the common areas. You hold 100% of the risk of your unit, but share the proportionate risk of the common areas. Because it is unrealistic to have everyone agree on everything, and equally take part in decision making, condo owners collectively pay a management company to run the day to day and make decisions based on the best interest of the condo owners.

When buying into the condo, you accept the fact that you are not going to be able to make decisions autonomously for the property that you own. You are bound to a certain set of rules that could change at anytime by the management company. In exchange, you are getting access to common areas, and sharing the operating costs and risks amongst the other owners. When the elevator breaks in the condo, the owners don't go back to the builder and ask them to fix it because it's outside of their individual unit. The owner's collectively pay for it through their condo fees. If you want to have a bbq on your deck , but the agreed upon rules state you are not allowed to, you cannot just change the rules because you are an owner. Depending on the specific condo association, you would need the owners collectively request that the rules be changed.

DVC is very similar. I don't know the exact legalities, but I'm sure if enough owners made a formal protest that they didn't believe DVCM was acting faithfully in our best interest, we could have them removed and pay another management company to do the work. But this would have to be a collective decision. Not an individual decision.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

You are correct, you have a maximum 50 year lease.

I actually don't think this is true. If the resort burns down and cannot be rebuilt, the owners get to collectively share the insurance proceeds. If this was a lease, we would get the "prepaid" portion of our original payment returned. The property would also not be legally deeded to us.

My interpretation of what is actually happening is that we are buying the property, and have already agreed in the purchase agreement to resell the property back to Disney at the end of the 50 years for $0.00. During the 50 years, we take on the full risk of ownership.

 

[McCrae]

I think what the broker is saying is that they purchased your points and should be able to do with them what they want. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. If the original person files a charge back claim, that would be against the broker not the owner, so again I don't see what the owner has to loose by agreeing to re-book. The only contention could be the remaining 30%. If I were an owner in the same position, I would allow the broker to re-book under the stipulation that they would still pay the 30% if the points expired before they found a renter.

If charge backs are successful, it would make it clear that David's no refunds clause is not legally enforceable. Not all renters will have paid by credit card and those that haven't could have a case to pursue the owner.

 

[lovethesun12]

I paid the dues on those points. Do the math and you'll see that it was thousands of dollars that would have been wasted by not utilizing those points in some way.

The point.

For the record, I haven't read through your specific posts on the topic; this is not meant to be argumentative at all. I'm just quoting this one in general to point out the obvious.

A rental transaction is a mutually beneficial (usually) transaction between owners and renters.

It's completely ridiculous to try to argue anything else.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

If charge backs are successful, it would make it clear that David's no refunds clause is not legally enforceable. Not all renters will have paid by credit card and those that haven't could have a case to pursue the owner.

Chargebacks are offered as a complimentary service by credit card companies for using their cards. It is not a court order. Also keep in mind, that law is governed by the jurisdiction. David's operates in Ontario. You would have to sue them in small claim's court in Ontario.

 

[McCrae]

I actually don't think this is true. If the resort burns down and cannot be rebuilt, the owners get to collectively share the insurance proceeds. If this was a lease, we would get the "prepaid" portion of our original payment returned. The property would also not be legally deeded to us.

My interpretation of what is actually happening is that we are buying the property, and have already agreed in the purchase agreement to resell the property back to Disney at the end of the 50 years for $0.00. During the 50 years, we take on the full risk of ownership.

I dont think you are correct about DVC members sharing an insurance payout. I believe any payment in these circumstances would come from Disney. DVC rights are temporary and therefore it's a lease.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I dont think you are correct about DVC members sharing an insurance payout. I believe any payment in these circumstances would come from Disney. DVC rights are temporary and therefore it's a lease.

I could be mistaken. That was not my understanding though. Maybe someone else could chime in.

 

[Dracula]

Chargebacks are offered as a complimentary service by credit card companies for using their cards. It is not a court order. Also keep in mind, that law is governed by the jurisdiction. David's operates in Ontario. You would have to sue them in small claim's court in Ontario.

Chargebacks are not exactly offered by the credit card companies out of their generosity. In the US there are laws for consumers protection that mandate credit card companies to keep consumers harmless in case of fraudulent card use, goods / services not delivered etc.

 

[MIDisFan]

Think of it more like a condo rather than a freehold. It's common ownership. As a condo owner, you own 100% of your unit plus a portion of the common areas. You hold 100% of the risk of your unit, but share the proportionate risk of the common areas. Because it is unrealistic to have everyone agree on everything, and equally take part in decision making, condo owners collectively pay a management company to run the day to day and make decisions based on the best interest of the condo owners.

When buying into the condo, you accept the fact that you are not going to be able to make decisions autonomously for the property that you own. You are bound to a certain set of rules that could change at anytime by the management company. In exchange, you are getting access to common areas, and sharing the operating costs and risks amongst the other owners. When the elevator breaks in the condo, the owners don't go back to the builder and ask them to fix it because it's outside of their individual unit. The owner's collectively pay for it through their condo fees. If you want to have a bbq on your deck , but the agreed upon rules state you are not allowed to, you cannot just change the rules because you are an owner. Depending on the specific condo association, you would need the owners collectively request that the rules be changed.

DVC is very similar. I don't know the exact legalities, but I'm sure if enough owners made a formal protest that they didn't believe DVCM was acting faithfully in our best interest, we could have them removed and pay another management company to do the work. But this would have to be a collective decision. Not an individual decision.

When you purchase a condo, you own it until you decide to sell it. Not when the HOA determines. That's how traditional timeshares work. DVC is a right to use. Doesn't matter to me either way. Whether i say i own points or an interest in points. Either way they are going back to DVC in 2054

 

[McCrae]

Chargebacks are offered as a complimentary service by credit card companies for using their cards. It is not a court order. Also keep in mind, that law is governed by the jurisdiction. David's operates in Ontario. You would have to sue them in small claim's court in Ontario.

This is not correct. Credit card companies don't do this to be nice. They have legal obligations which require them to payback their customers if a contracted service is not provided. When reviewing an application for a charge back they make a call on who is correct. if the losing party disagrees they can take the dispute to court.

 

[CraigInPA]

I actually don't think this is true. If the resort burns down and cannot be rebuilt, the owners get to collectively share the insurance proceeds. If this was a lease, we would get the "prepaid" portion of our original payment returned. The property would also not be legally deeded to us.

My interpretation of what is actually happening is that we are buying the property, and have already agreed in the purchase agreement to resell the property back to Disney at the end of the 50 years for $0.00. During the 50 years, we take on the full risk of ownership.

Incorrect. We have leased the land from Disney for 50 years. Our lease hold improvements (buildings, pools, landscaping, driveways, parking lots, etc...) revert to the land owner at the expiration of the lease. There is no agreement to sell anything back to Disney at the end. In addition, if the property becomes unusable (burns down or the state of Florida goes underwater), we as DVC members holding that lease would be the beneficiaries of any insurance settlement. In the event the lease hold improvements need to be removed (for example, if there is a fire), the cost of doing so falls on the DVC members holding the lease.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

When you purchase a condo, you own it until you decide to sell it. Not when the HOA determines. That's how traditional timeshares work. DVC is a right to use. Doesn't matter to me either way. Whether i say i own points or an interest in points. Either way they are going back to DVC in 2054

I just pulled out the SSR Public Offering Statement to take a quick look. Without reading the whole thing, it appears that we "own" the buildings, but "lease" the land. The condo automatically terminates upon the expiration or termination of the ground lease.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

This is not correct. Credit card companies don't do this to be nice. They have legal obligations which require them to payback their customers if a contracted service is not provided. When reviewing an application for a charge back they make a call on who is correct. if the losing party disagrees they can take the dispute to court.

Chargebacks are not exactly offered by the credit card companies out of their generosity. In the US there are laws for consumers protection that mandate credit card companies to keep consumers harmless in case of fraudulent card use, goods / services not delivered etc.

I stand corrected. But that is not really the point I was making. The point was, that the chargeback is a service being offered (whether by choice or mandated by law) by the credit card companies. It is not a court order and is not a decision made by a judge. It is not a precedent that could be used in court which is what the poster I was replying to was suggesting.

 

[CraigInPA]

The point.

For the record, I haven't read through your specific posts on the topic; this is not meant to be argumentative at all. I'm just quoting this one in general to point out the obvious.

A rental transaction is a mutually beneficial (usually) transaction between owners and renters.

It's completely ridiculous to try to argue anything else.

I was answering your specific question as to why I rented points. Yes, it is obvious that one rents points they wouldn't be able use in order to obtain funds that could be used. Frankly, I see no other motivation for owners to rent points.

On the reverse side of the equation, renters are renting either to get accommodations not offered by CRO, or to get a "deal". They accept that they don't get cancellation privileges like a CRO reservation, no daily housekeeping, and no "free dining" or other promotional offers. From the renters point of view, these trade offs are factored into the price they pay.

It's completely ridiculous to argue that renters should get something for which they have not paid, and which they expressly knew was a fundamental difference between a DVC rental and a CRO reservation.

 

[Madame]

I think this lends credence to the fact that the renter is renting a reservation, not the points themselves. The renter is never given any indication of the type of points, restrictions on the points, risks to the points etc.... The renter requests a specific reservation, and the broker finds an owner that can make that reservation. IMO, the renter is renting a reservation, not the points themselves..... and I'm saying this as an owner, not a renter.

They might be renting a reservation from David’s, but David’s is renting points from the owner