Disney restrict you to "home resort"?

[jcf]

Or alter the 11/7month window booking policy eventually?

 

[Chuck S]

They have the right to do so. I think the possibility is remote, except perhaps durning the final year or two of the contracts to control availability. No one knows what the eventual plans are, except Disney, if they even know what they will do for the contract ends. They have left themselves the legal wiggle room for whatever they decide.

 

[Lenc324]

That is when I sell off my points.

 

[CarolA]

And if it's the last year or two of your contract... good luck selling those points LOL!

I wouldn't sell since I bought at places I like to stay. (That's one reason I sold HH points. I don't ever want to stay there)

 

[RobDoc]

The only guarantee we have regarding the Home Resort Reservation Priority is a one month advantage at our home resort - so it could be changed to 11/10. It could also be changed to 11/4 (or 3,5,6,8,9,etc).

I don't foresee any change in the near future - or at any time.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

That is when I sell off my points.

1) How would you market something with only a few years left?
2) How would you price it?
3) Who would pay for it?
4) Once you get closer to the end, sales would be difficult or impossible.

Example: If you have 10-years left, amortizing the sales price over such a short period would make this a horrible investment for anybody.

 

[drusba]

Doubtful they will change the 11/7 period (they don't try to change what works). There is one situation in which they can do away entirely with the home resort booking advantage -- by designating a high demand time as a Special Season where members get on a "preference" list and then ressies are given in order of when you got on the list. A number of years back, Christmas week was so designated and you could start getting on the list two years beforehand. DVC stopped that, mainly because it was too much of a hassle for DVC -- cost and time involved in contacting the ones on the list and confirming their ressies -- so it is not likely to happen again (unless the Olympics come someday to Orlando).

Also, they cannot just choose to restrict you only to your home resort. What can happen is that a resort can be removed from the DVC reservation system upon the happening of certain events, in which case the owners of that resort could be restricted to their own resort and others could not reserve there. The events are unlikely: a) the government takes over a resort by eminent domain; b) the owners (meaning us) vote to remove the resort from the DVC system; c) a resort suffers a casualty (e.g., Vero Beach sinks into the ocean) but, unless the resort is not reasonably reparable, the removal will be temporary while the resort is being repaired; d) DVC can choose to remove a resort from the DVC system if the owners vote to eliminate Disney's management company as the manager of the resort; e) the management company fails to maintain the resort up to Disney standards (this complements d in the event DVC chooses not to eliminate a resort just because the members ousted Disney's management company); f) the DVC reservation component contracts are terminated (not easy to do before end of resort's offical term -- 2042 for the older resorts).

 

[Maistre Gracey]

1) How would you market something with only a few years left?
2) How would you price it?
3) Who would pay for it?
4) Once you get closer to the end, sales would be difficult or impossible.

Example: If you have 10-years left, amortizing the sales price over such a short period would make this a horrible investment for anybody.

There will be a segment of people who plan on visiting WDW during that 10 year period. Maybe their kids will be in their teens, and they don't want a 40 year commitment.
Price it well cheaper than the cost of the associated resort (WL, BC, BWI), and it will sell without a hitch.

With inflation, the actual dollar figure probably won't be much different than it is now. Of course, if you adjust for inflation, it will be worth much less.

MG

 

[Dean]

Actually they can restrict you totally by excluding any given resort from DVC if they wanted.

 

[RobDoc]

Actually they can restrict you totally by excluding any given resort from DVC if they wanted.

Can you provide where this can be found in the POS?

I'm not familiar with any language that would allow DVC to arbitrarily exclude a resort from the DVC program unless other conditions were in place first.

 

[Dean]

Can you provide where this can be found in the POS?

I'm not familiar with any language that would allow DVC to arbitrarily exclude a resort from the DVC program unless other conditions were in place first.

The language related in the POS is that DVC must be the manager for the resort to be a member. There is no wording in the POS nor in the management contract that requires DVC to continue to manage any given resort. So my interpretation is that DVC could divest themselves of any resort if they wanted by simply passing on the management of a given resort to another company. Obviously there is a list of for cause reasons for a resort to be excluded as well. I think it's extremely unlikely this will happen but I suspect it would surprise a lot of people more than myself if it were to, esp. for VB and HH. Marriott has divested itself of 9 different resorts over the period I've been in timesharing if I recall correctly and many people said how those would never happen either.

 

[RobDoc]

The language related in the POS is that DVC must be the manager for the resort to be a member. There is no wording in the POS nor in the management contract that requires DVC to continue to manage any given resort. So my interpretation is that DVC could divest themselves of any resort if they wanted by simply passing on the management of a given resort to another company. Obviously there is a list of for cause reasons for a resort to be excluded as well. I think it's extremely unlikely this will happen but I suspect it would surprise a lot of people more than myself if it were to, esp. for VB and HH. Marriott has divested itself of 9 different resorts over the period I've been in timesharing if I recall correctly and many people said how those would never happen either.

Got a quote from the POS to support that interpretation?

 

[Dean]

Got a quote from the POS to support that interpretation?

I'm currently looking at the AKL POS under the Declaration of Condominium at the definition of Property Management Agreement which directly implies that DVD may assign it's Management rights. FL Statues 718 would apply which may offer other alternatives to termination other than those for cause options listed in the POS such as destruction or a vote of the members.

From an older version of the "Property Management Agreement"

18. Assignment. DVC may assign this Agreement to an affiliate or other company under common management or control with DVC without the consent of the Association.

There's also a long paragraph, # 29 on my copy that is titled Default by Association and is pretty broad. You can read it yourself and post your interpretation if you want. And in reading through I see nothing that requires DVCMC to continue to manage a given resort. Thus my interpretation stands.

3. Term - ...The Management Company shall have he unequivocal right, at any time either during the initial term or thereafter, to cancel this agreement upon sixty days written notice to the Association...

 

[RobDoc]

I'm currently looking at the AKL POS under the Declaration of Condominium at the definition of Property Management Agreement which directly implies that DVD may assign it's Management rights. FL Statues 718 would apply which may offer other alternatives to termination other than those for cause options listed in the POS such as destruction or a vote of the members.

From an older version of the "Property Management Agreement"

18. Assignment. DVC may assign this Agreement to an affiliate or other company under common management or control with DVC without the consent of the Association.

There's also a long paragraph, # 29 on my copy that is titled Default by Association and is pretty broad. You can read it yourself and post your interpretation if you want. And in reading through I see nothing that requires DVCMC to continue to manage a given resort. Thus my interpretation stands.

3. Term - ...The Management Company shall have he unequivocal right, at any time either during the initial term or thereafter, to cancel this agreement upon sixty days written notice to the Association...

As I only have copies of the OKW, HH and SSR POS, it is interesting that the one for AKV is so different than prior POS documents.

So, you're stating that the AKV POS specifically mentions FL Statute 718? I realize that is the statute that you have personally chosen to use to defend many of your "interpretations" in the past - but I've never seen it mentioned in ANY of the POS documents I have received over the years. I find it very curious why DVD would find it necessary to include reference to that statute in the POS for AKV.

"Directly implying" something and providing the actual quote are two different things though - which is the reason I asked if you had quotes to support your interpretation - or are you stating that the AKV POS actually uses the phrase "directly implies" as you state in your post?

As for the quote provided about assignment, it also clearly states that the resort would still be "under common management or control with DVC" - which hardly supports any thought that DVC can just walk away from management of the resorts. I'm certainly not clear how anyone would interpret it in that fashion - or is there more to the quote than provided?

Regarding the last quote - it appears to me to be an incomplete quote (what were #1 and #2?) . The portion of my POS documents that deal with this state that "The Property Management Agreement is a 3-year automatically renewable agreement between an association and DVCMC pursuant to which the association delegates its management, maintenance and operational duties (which may properly be delegated under Applicable Law) to DVCMC in consideration for the payment of a management fee." It then goes on to define the services to be provided by DVC. Interesting that your POS states that DVC can simply give 60 days notice with no other explanation or event to trigger walking away from management.

If that is actually the complete quote and there are no other qualifying statements, then I'd guess I'd agree that owners at that resort (AKV) could be restricted. I do find it hard to believe that the quote provided is the only requirement to end management responsibilities.

I'll still stand by my interpretation that DVC cannot "restrict you totally by excluding any given resort from DVC if they wanted " as asserted earlier in this thread.

 

[drakethib]

I would be fine with Home resort only but I would hope that would not happen.

 

[Dean]

As I only have copies of the OKW, HH and SSR POS, it is interesting that the one for AKV is so different than prior POS documents.

So, you're stating that the AKV POS specifically mentions FL Statute 718? I realize that is the statute that you have personally chosen to use to defend many of your "interpretations" in the past - but I've never seen it mentioned in ANY of the POS documents I have received over the years. I find it very curious why DVD would find it necessary to include reference to that statute in the POS for AKV.

"Directly implying" something and providing the actual quote are two different things though - which is the reason I asked if you had quotes to support your interpretation - or are you stating that the AKV POS actually uses the phrase "directly implies" as you state in your post?

As for the quote provided about assignment, it also clearly states that the resort would still be "under common management or control with DVC" - which hardly supports any thought that DVC can just walk away from management of the resorts. I'm certainly not clear how anyone would interpret it in that fashion - or is there more to the quote than provided?

Regarding the last quote - it appears to me to be an incomplete quote (what were #1 and #2?) . The portion of my POS documents that deal with this state that "The Property Management Agreement is a 3-year automatically renewable agreement between an association and DVCMC pursuant to which the association delegates its management, maintenance and operational duties (which may properly be delegated under Applicable Law) to DVCMC in consideration for the payment of a management fee." It then goes on to define the services to be provided by DVC. Interesting that your POS states that DVC can simply give 60 days notice with no other explanation or event to trigger walking away from management.

If that is actually the complete quote and there are no other qualifying statements, then I'd guess I'd agree that owners at that resort (AKV) could be restricted. I do find it hard to believe that the quote provided is the only requirement to end management responsibilities.

I'll still stand by my interpretation that DVC cannot "restrict you totally by excluding any given resort from DVC if they wanted " as asserted earlier in this thread.

Rob, I disagree but we're both entitled. You should get a copy of the "Property Management Agreement" which is not part of the POS and is actually the contract between DVC and DVCMC. Once you've read that you may or may not change your mind. Regardless it will not be spelled out in black and white so you'll have to decide whether to infer from the wording what I believe or not. As I stated, the copy I have is several years old. I think asked for one recently when I was talking with Jeanette and I'm trying to remember the reason I didn't get it. If you agree that if DVCMC is no longer the management company that a resort may not still be in the club, then I think you agree with me. Then the question becomes under what circumstances could that happen and I can assure you it's much more broad than simply stated in the POS. Once you've read the info why don't you post your thoughts on it.

 

[RobDoc]

What I do not agree with (and you have not been able to provide any quotes to change my mind) is your statement :

Actually they can restrict you totally by excluding any given resort from DVC if they wanted.

All I asked for was where that was stated in the POS and you have been unable to do so.

You are certainly welcome to your personal interpretation, but I'll stick with what is included in the documents and actually feel that many, if not most, members are more interested in what the documents actually state rather than a lay interpretation or paraphrase when addressing a concern.

I agree, as others have also stated in this thread, that there are conditions which could cause a resort to be excluded from DVC. I have never found anything that suggests that DVC could just walk away from any of the resorts "if they wanted" and no one, including you, has provided anything to support that statement.

Even this statement -

The language related in the POS is that DVC must be the manager for the resort to be a member.

is contradicted with your subsequent statement -

18. Assignment. DVC may assign this Agreement to an affiliate or other company under common management or control with DVC without the consent of the Association.

.

I'm pretty certain that you are NOT trying to say that if DVC sub-contracts components of the management, that the resort and it's owners are no longer DVC members - but why make that statement (without providing any documentation) and then contradict it with a quote from the POS?

BTW- was there actually any reference to FL Statute 718 in the AKV POS or was that more personal interpretation of both documents?

 

[Dean]

BTW- was there actually any reference to FL Statute 718 in the AKV POS or was that more personal interpretation of both documents?

The references are in the "Property Management Agreement", I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. Why take such a stand without all the facts. The POS info is not the entire body of information in this situation. Get the info so you can be fully informed them form your own opinion accordingly and to post it.

 

[RobDoc]

The references are in the "Property Management Agreement", I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. Why take such a stand without all the facts. The POS info is not the entire body of information in this situation. Get the info so you can be fully informed them form your own opinion accordingly and to post it.

Ahhh, sorry. I took this statement

I'm currently looking at the AKL POS under the Declaration of Condominium at the definition of Property Management Agreement which directly implies that DVD may assign it's Management rights. FL Statues 718 would apply which may offer other alternatives to termination other than those for cause options listed in the POS such as destruction or a vote of the members.

to mean that you were actually using the AKV POS (or did you really mean AKL?) as your source - even though you chose not to provide an actual quote.


I've got stacks of DVC information from three different resorts going back 14 years and I have found nothing in any of them that would support your initial statement :

Actually they can restrict you totally by excluding any given resort from DVC if they wanted.

. That is the reason I merely asked for you to provide the quotes from the documents that will support your claim and you have yet to do that.

I already have all the information I need to form an opinion (along with others who have posted in this thread). I have also provided quotes that support my position. Unless someone is willing/able to provide new information there is no reason to change that position.

Quotes have been provided by several in this thread and drusba even explained the legal basis for the one she provided. No one, including you, has offered any quote that supports the statement you made above.

At this time, I'll stick with the position that DVC can't just exclude any DVC resort on a whim.

 

[Dean]

I've got stacks of DVC information from three different resorts going back 14 years and I have found nothing in any of them that would support your initial statement : . That is the reason I merely asked for you to provide the quotes from the documents that will support your claim and you have yet to do that.

I already have all the information I need to form an opinion (along with others who have posted in this thread). I have also provided quotes that support my position. Unless someone is willing/able to provide new information there is no reason to change that position.

Do you have a copy of one of the resort management agreements. IF not, you don't have enoiugh info to make an informed opinion. If you do, we may just have to disagree and hope we never find out otherwise.