Did DVC Violate The Contract For Beach Club Villa Owners?

awilliams4

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
775
There are several threads out now on a few forums where there are BCV owners that appear to be a bit POed (including myself) about the Jacuzzis being removed from the 1 and 2 Bedrooms at the BCV.

I believe our contract states that general amenities will not be downgraded. Removing Jacuzzis and replacing them with soakers appears to be a pretty reasonable argument that it is a downgrade in amenities.

Apologies if this type of post is not allowed here.

With that said:

a. Anyone know if it is very reasonable to suggest that this did violate the contract?
b. If so, any other owners out there willing to see if we can get together and contact a lawyer about this to see if we have any avenues to fight this?
 
As DVC owners we put up with many issues with DVC. A website that only works sometimes, weird messages displayed on our accounts, waitlists that aren't filled when rooms are available, waitlists worked but never notified, all of these things could be an amenity in a way. DVC pretty much does what they want unchecked.

:earsboy: Bill

 
Can soaker tubs have jets, etc?

I guess it's one of those 'matter of preference' things. I can see people thinking it's an improvement.

The ones at the Grand Floridian Villas do. The ones at the Beach Club however, do not.
 

I'm pretty sure if you tried legal action on that basis you would not only lose, but you'd be giggled at by the court.

IANAL
 
There are several threads out now on a few forums where there are BCV owners that appear to be a bit POed (including myself) about the Jacuzzis being removed from the 1 and 2 Bedrooms at the BCV.

I believe our contract states that general amenities will not be downgraded. Removing Jacuzzis and replacing them with soakers appears to be a pretty reasonable argument that it is a downgrade in amenities.

Apologies if this type of post is not allowed here.

With that said:

a. Anyone know if it is very reasonable to suggest that this did violate the contract?
b. If so, any other owners out there willing to see if we can get together and contact a lawyer about this to see if we have any avenues to fight this?
If you took this to court, and won, you would win a judgement against yourself, since the owners pay for the refurbishment.
 
If you took this to court, and won, you would win a judgement against yourself, since the owners pay for the refurbishment.

I would hope that DVD would pay if the ruling suggested that the funds were improperly used to remove the Jacuzzis.
 
/
I wouldn't think so, they can't be expected to keep everything exactly the same. They have to make decisions and this is the route many timeshares have gone because it's cheaper up front and better from a maintenance/future damage cost standpoint. I don't have time to look right now but I'm confident there is wording in the POS that covers this.
 
This seems to be a BCV issue only since BWV kept the jacuzzi tubs that were there before.

The documents the buyers received at time of sale from Disney included the sales contract, product understanding acknowledgement document, the component site public offering document (containing declarations, by-laws, association's powers and duties, member agreements and others) and multi-site public offering document (prinicipally related to the reservation system for use of the multiple resorts).

The documents actually say little about the tub and furnishings in the vacation homes. One provision states that "DVD" (the developer and seller) reserves the right to make substantial design changes to units owned solely by it, implying that it cannot make such changes to units owned by members, but that provision is likely irrelevant because DVD is not the entity that makes repairs or refurbishments of the rooms after they have been sold. The applicable entity is the Association for each resort, which by designation also means the managing agent, Disney Vacation Club Management Company (DVCMC). The association has the duty to operate and maintain the resorts, including collecting dues for that purpose. The documents do not specifically say anything about allowing or prohibiting particular changes during a refurbishment. There are related provisions as to the association's obligations when units or vacation homes in the resort have been damaged and need to be repaired or replaced as a result. In that situation, the rules provide:

"Any reconstruction, replacement, or repairs, must be substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications for the damaged property as originally constituted, or in lieu thereof, according to the plans and specifications approved by the Board of Directors and DVD in accordance with the provisions of the Master Declarations." Declarations §11.2.

That would indicate that the redo would have to remain true to the original designs but that the Board of the association could approve differences via new plans that could have some design changes. In any event, the original plans and specifications for the the resort are included as an exhibit to the declarations and those show the basic design of the 1BR's, including showing an oval shaped tub in the 1BRs, but they do not say it has to be a jacuzzi tub. Other provisions provide that a 1BR has to have one bedroom, a living room, a bathroom, and a full kitchen that includes a stove, refrigerator, microwave, and dishwasher, but no mention of a jacuzzi tub. In fact, the word jacuzzi does not even appear anywhere in the documents.

The above does not completely rule out a possible case. The association is a fiduciary of the members and as such a member can assert that the association cannot make changes that would substantially change the rooms from their basic design as 1BRs, or make changes that are detrimental to the members as a whole such as changes that cause a real decrease in value of the rooms. There is serious question, however, as to whether the conversion to the soaking tub is really something that does that. There is also the potential detrimental reliance claim that purchasers from Disney could make by asserting they relied on the exisitng design of the rooms provided in promotional materials or walk throughs at time of sale, which included that the rooms had and would continure to have a jacuzzi tub. That kind of case would likely depend on the what each different purchaser believed and relied upon, and then also the basic question of whether having the jacuzzi tub was a material factor in deciding to purchase. Likely, that would be a difficult case for the owners.
 
Last edited:
some other upscale timeshares (Marriott?) have also removed them during renos. There seems to be an issue with cleaning/sanitation. In 15+ years, I have used a jetted tub 1X in a timeshare. I agree that soaker tub would likely be considered as equivalent or even an upgrade.
 
I think that giving feedback to DVC on things like this is definitely a step to take. Without it they will just assume everyone loved it. As to if anything could be done? I am doubtful but I also am not fond of what I consider to be a significant change like this. At least I would have thought they would do the bubble jetted tub in order to provide a similar, although not identical, amenity.

It's like adding the Murphy bed to the studios that were not sold with it. I'm very unhappy about that even though I have no issue with them building with it as a person knows it when buying. But I consider it a significant alteration. Would my view be different if I needed the bed? Probably, but I also could understand the complaints against it and would never have expected a change like that.
 
Since I don't own BCV, I really don't have standing to complain. If I did, I would consider the change to be an improvement. Some of the gunk that comes out of those jets is gross. Even though we almost always stay in a 1 bedroom, I haven't used the jacuzzi tub in many years. It just takes too long to clean out the jets. Betting I'm not the only one who is (or would be ) OK with the substitution.
 
I think sanitary issues are the concern, whether real or imagined really does not matter once people start complaining. Even just among us we don't agree. Like others I see this as an upgrade. I would use a soaker tub without any jets while I never used the other. I think that would be DVC's reply to any complaint.

To me a downgrade would be a mini frig replaces the full size frig.
 
Last edited:
So does this mean I can also complain in a class action suit about the switch in studios to the mini-fridges not having the freezer sections any more? We did use those freezers. Now we have to turn the temp of the fridge down so cold that nearly everything freezes up in them. (Just sayin' :rolleyes2. We all have something they've changed recently that we're not happy with.)
 
The question is whether such changes are reasonable and appropriate. Certainly eliminating a jetted tub replacing it with a similar item otherwise or a similar size fridge without a freezer (I know you were kidding Annie) are reasonable. If this were to go before a judge, Disney says they replaced the tub with a similar size and quality tub and didn't do the jetted tub because it was a lot more expensive (members pay), cleanliness issues or future maint concerns. Case closed.
 
I only stay in studios.

What are they replacing the Jacuzzi tubs with? What's a soaker tub?
 
Since I don't own BCV, I really don't have standing to complain. If I did, I would consider the change to be an improvement. Some of the gunk that comes out of those jets is gross. Even though we almost always stay in a 1 bedroom, I haven't used the jacuzzi tub in many years. It just takes too long to clean out the jets. Betting I'm not the only one who is (or would be ) OK with the substitution.

I do own at BCV and stay in 1BR and I agree.
 















New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top