Declining the 15 extra years

[salmoneous]

maybe this is also been discussed, but what other option would DVC have other than a legal accept/decline?

Just about every other business on the planet is able to operate in such a way that folks don't have to do anything to NOT buy.

DVC is doing something extraordinary with the sale - forcing folks to take action to not buy. I don't know the legalities; it's possible Disney explored every other option and there was no way to offer extensions to folks who wanted them without putting a burden on those who don't. But, even if that's the case, Disney should be going through extraordinary measures to make it as easy as possible for those who don't want to buy to opt out. So far, it doesn't sound like they are doing that.

 

[psu4glory]

Very well put, Doc, and my "perception" is leaving a bad taste in my mouth over this whole affair. I'd rather they waited until about 2040 to make this move.

'perception is reality' - and this, along with the new exchange fees for booking non-DVC resorts - is creating the growing perception among some that the value of DVC is declining...continued decisions made by DVC that are perceived as not having the majority of the members' interests in mind may, ultimately, come back to haunt them. it happens in every other business / industry...disney is not immune from the effects of human nature.

 

[Mtnman44]

Not exactly. For most situations, the $15 cost is way too much if you think it through. Even DVC only raised their price on the new extended contracts by $6 for new buyers.

It's also not the same as simply buying DVC as prepaid vacations. In that scenario you get to start using those points right away. In this situation you are literally not getting any value from your money for 35 years. Some people specualte that by extending now, they will keep their contract up with market prices and sell-ability, etc. This is true, but to what extent is a big IF. Right now, they currently CANNOT sell their OKW extended contract on the resale market for $15 per point more than regular ones. Will they ever? Perhaps, but including the opporunity cost of the investment, the best case scenario may be break even. Extended OKW does not appear to have the potential to have a resale value any higher than SSR will.

If DVC had priced this extention at $5, they would have had A LOT more people signing up. $15 is a rip off to anyone other than those who absolutely know they will want and use their OKW contract past the 2042 deadline. for them, it may be worth it but not for financial / resale value.

seems like a decent enough deal to me. points are over $2 per point/per year at this point with new contracts--how can you beat the price?

not prepaying for something you cant use for 35 more years--well thats exactly what we are doing with DVC, isnt it? we all bought in knowing we have ponts we cant use for 40-50 years.

 

[blizzard]

I'm going to request a meeting with my guide at the end of January, and I'm hoping that I can sign the OKW paperwork then. I want to meet with her regarding adding on at GCV anyway, so hopefully they will notarize the other paperwork for me.

If the guides are refusing to meet with owners wanting to get their refusal paperwork signed for any reason other than that the papers aren't ready yet (which is frustrating, but not the individual guide's fault) then I think some complaints should be forwarded to the management at DVC.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I'm going to request a meeting with my guide at the end of January, and I'm hoping that I can sign the OKW paperwork then. I want to meet with her regarding adding on at GCV anyway, so hopefully they will notarize the other paperwork for me.

If the guides are refusing to meet with owners wanting to get their refusal paperwork signed for any reason other than that the papers aren't ready yet (which is frustrating, but not the individual guide's fault) then I think some complaints should be forwarded to the management at DVC.

I doubt you will get to do it. I got the distinct impression that this had to go through other channels. I do NOT understand why though. Guides sell contracts all the time. Perhaps it has something to do with a "closing document" or some such thing, and maybe it needs to go through a different department, but if that's the case, they need to convey that information!

 

[LIFERBABE]

Im just glad the "L" word is being used freely in this thread.

Because that's what it is, a LIEN! And anytime someone uses that word and "magical" in the same document, I have problems!

I am trying to overlook all the mess that is DVC right now and just enjoy my planned vacations.

Between this, the AKV Tapestry, the jacked up website, the simplification fees, and the in your face marketing, it's hard to stay magical.

 

[flipflop]

Because that's what it is, a LIEN! And anytime someone uses that word and "magical" in the same document, I have problems!

QUOTE]

A magical lien is an interesting marketing scheme.

 

[DVC Mike]

Didn't I see, hear or read that DVC is giving ALL of us OKW members a credit on our Annual Maintenance/Dues to cover the costs of a notary, time to do so, etc?

For some reason $25 sticks in my mind............

I recall being told they are going to credit all OKW owners $30 for the time and money spent on having to do the paperwork.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

The extension by itself is fine - it's the dictum that members have 3+ months to make full payment for something unilaterally added to a contract that is my objection and the foot-dragging-making-it-otherwise-impossible-to-decline. Whether or not it's a "good deal" can be viewed in a number of ways and, IMO, is a personal decision to be made by each member. I can think of many situations where it would be attractive and can support those making that decision as long as others can support my decision not to accept the extension. If DVC wanted 100% acceptance, they could have just added the additional years without expecting any additional payment. However, by expecting payment, they are in the position of needing to present their "offer" to members in the best light - just like any other sales offering they've created over the years.

IMO, this "offer" has been presented like someone stepping out of an alley as you walk down the street, opening an overcoat and trying to attract your attention by saying "Psst, have I got a deal for you!". I know just how I respond to those "offers". This one was first presented in the form of a legal notice of the meeting to "vote" on the resolutions. The words "lien" were part of those resolutions as well as the artificial date of February 29, 2008 ( "Psst"). IMO, it came across more as a threat than an offer.

The followup letter also suggested the ease of completing the "requirement" to fullfill the resolution by accepting ... or declining ... the "offer". It appears that accepting the offer is being made very easy but those wanting to decline are being stonewalled. We have been informed that we will need to have documents notarized and returned to DVC - but thus far, no documents are in the hands of those declining and signing/notarizing documents at the DVC office is not an option at all. ("Psst, have I got a deal for you.")

The value of the offer is definitely in the eye of the individual making the decision. How DVC decides to implement the forced legal proceeding can certainly affect the perception of DVC for the members involved.

thanks Doc I can certainly understand your point of view there

sounds like a bit of pressure

the only problem would be how to do it differently, even if the flat out extended the contracts without requiring additional payment, people would surley still complain

either the dues they had to pay for 15 additional years and even if that was covered, Im sure some would complain that now they had to worry about what to do with it in their will or whatever

I do agree that maybe this wasnt the best way to deal with it

 

[Sammie]

Personally I think the way they are handling this, is just another sign of the new management type at DVC, which is high pressure, high sales oriented. This offer could have been made so simple, yet DVC has made it difficult.

By making it More difficult to refuse the extension, than Accept, they are putting pressure on members to just give in and accept the offfer, and probably some will cave and do that.

Also I think possibly some will simply be so confused by the requirements to "refuse" they will accept without even being sure what the heck they did.

I am sorry to say but I seriously think DVC at this time is going to h### in a handbasket.

 

[dvc at last !]

subscribing...............

 

[dianeschlicht]

Well I'll keep you posted about how long it takes from the time I have requested the paperwork and receiving it. I want this taken care of before the year is out, and if it isn't here by the time the end of the year comes, I'll be making some "extra" calls and write some"extra" letters until it's done. I don't want a hold put on my membership just because they can't get their act together.

 

[RobDoc]

I'm at 6 weeks and counting right now. If nothing comes in the meantime, I will be asking some questions at the sales center on our next trip in December - or maybe even at the Annual Meeting.

At this point I'm also tempted to just hold off sending anything back by any phony "deadline" since they are obviously not in any rush to get anything sent out to me in a timely fashion. Should any restrictions be imposed on my account in the meantime, I am also prepared to deal with that.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I'm at 6 weeks and counting right now. If nothing comes in the meantime, I will be asking some questions at the sales center on our next trip in December - or maybe even at the Annual Meeting.

At this point I'm also tempted to just hold off sending anything back by any phony "deadline" since they are obviously not in any rush to get anything sent out to me in a timely fashion. Should any restrictions be imposed on my account in the meantime, I am also prepared to deal with that.

SIX WEEKS???? Good grief, and I just started the process. I didn't even send in my card, because I wanted to do it direct, and that's why I called our guide. In fact, our yes/no card disappeared before we got it sent in. I had really hoped to get it done while we were down next week, but I guess it's too much to ask.

 

[simzac]

I'm at 6 weeks and counting right now. If nothing comes in the meantime, I will be asking some questions at the sales center on our next trip in December - or maybe even at the Annual Meeting.

At this point I'm also tempted to just hold off sending anything back by any phony "deadline" since they are obviously not in any rush to get anything sent out to me in a timely fashion. Should any restrictions be imposed on my account in the meantime, I am also prepared to deal with that.

I haven't kept track of how long it's been since I sent my card back, but 6 weeks sounds about right.

 

[snowbunny]

I'd rather they waited until about 2040 to make this move.

Right, but of course, the whole thing is designed to pump up the bottom line NOW.

 

[CarolMN]

SIX WEEKS???? Good grief, and I just started the process. I didn't even send in my card, because I wanted to do it direct, and that's why I called our guide. In fact, our yes/no card disappeared before we got it sent in. I had really hoped to get it done while we were down next week, but I guess it's too much to ask.

Diane - Just to be on the safe side, send in your card. If you can't find the card, write a letter declining the extension and ask someone to send you the correct mailing address for the declinations. (If it were me, I'd send it with some type of delivery tracking so you can "prove" Disney received it). You can put a note on it that you previously called your guide if you like.

There are no records of phone calls and since they are talking "LIEN", well IMHO, it's better to be safe than sorry. While I'm sure things will eventually work out, I wouldn't want to even take a chance that I'd have to deal with any "hassles" using my points. Disney has the big stick here - anything we members could do in the event of a dispute or problem would definitely take time & effort and who knows what Disney might do while they are getting their act together. JMHO.

That sounded paranoid, didn't it? I suppose it was - but I still think it is a good idea!

 

[Quiksilvr]

From what I've read on the boards (I'm a new DVC member just browsing) the OKW extension seems like a ploy to keep the economic value of one class of points (OKW points) similar to the value of points issued from newer resorts. Why they care about that, I don't know. All corporations are governed by state corporate law, and also by their own bylaws. DVC is also subject to real estate transfer laws that certainly add to the complexity of compliance.

For corporations to not get sued (Disney knows all about getting sued...see the Eisner/Ovitz suit) they have to follow very complex disclosure and fiduciary rules. Disney is a public company with SEC obligations, which happens to own a subsidiary that sells timeshares. They have federal AND state law to contend with, and it sounds like this is just a conservative method of ensuring that they comply. This way, no one can come back in fifteen years and sue for not receiving disclosures or offers (and a group of DVC members can't get together in 15 years and file a class action suit in which the lawyers would try to squeeze tons of money out of DVC). I'm not exactly certain how Florida law affects liability, either. The OKW condominium association could potentially be on the hook for a suit if there was any hanky-panky between DVC and OKW (plaintiffs' lawyers would try to find a connection anyway to get into as many pockets as possible). To avoid all of that drama, Disney is doing it this way. It's smart on their part, even if an annoyance to the OKW membership.

This in no way should be construed as legal advice.

 

[salmoneous]

This way, no one can come back in fifteen years and sue for not receiving disclosures or offers (and a group of DVC members can't get together in 15 years and file a class action suit in which the lawyers would try to squeeze tons of money out of DVC).

It has to be something more that that. When Disney offered DVC members add-on's at the newly opened AKV, they didn't make anyone prove they didn't want the offer. When Disney offers us all add ons in Hawaii or the Grand Californian, I sure hope they don't make us prove we don't want the offer. When annual passes expire, they don't make people prove they don't want them renewed. And when we order just a burger at Buffalo Bill's, they don't make us prove we don't want fries with that.

In every other transaction we have with Disney - and every transaction we have with any other company - an offer is made. If you want the offer, you take action. If you don't, you do nothing. In all those other transactions - include real estate and timeshare transactions - companies don't force us to prove we have turned down the offer. Companies don't feel the need to protect themselves from class action lawsuits in other transactions. That can't be what is driving this.

There may be some weird legal logic that is forcing Disney to make folks just through hoops to NOT buy. But it is still an extraordinary thing for Disney to require. I do believe they should make it as easy as possible to meet the burden.

 

[Quiksilvr]

I understand your point, but there is a legal difference between an add-on at a resort you happen to have another interest in and an extension of an already properly recorded legal interest.

And actually, many companies are scared to death of class action lawsuits. Hospitals are scared to death of lawsuits, which is why you sign waivers and consent forms. Companies are scared of class action lawsuits, which is why they issue recalls when products have problems. Companies are scared of shareholder derivative suits and shareholder class actions, which is why they pay major law firms millions of dollars to make sure all of their SEC filings are in order. I don't even want to get into how scared employers are of employee benefit class action suits. The reason consumers don't have to do much in most cases is because the problems always happen on the back end of a transaction (like product recalls). This really seems like a CYA issue on Disney's part.

But I agree, they should make the process as simple as possible. Putting a lien on your property is really an odd way to go about ensuring election. Liens have to be recorded and I'm curious what kind of lien it would actually be (again, I have nothing invested in OKW so I have no idea about the particulars of the deal). Even mechanics' liens and other "lesser" liens against property only exist because the entity has a "legal" claim against the property (almost always for money).

As a small cog in the legal machinery of Corporate America, this whole thing seems to me like Disney wanting to cover every base before moving forward. I also agree with the other posters who believe that Disney is surprised by the number of people who don't want the extension. The legal department and outside counsel at Disney probably figured that DVC members would love a chance to re-up. They should reconsider the process now that people have shown them otherwise.

This is just my opinion, not advice.