Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[drusba]

I don't see that they withheld "material facts" as the possibility of a re-allocation has always been clearly spelled out in our documents. As far as not disclosing the current re-allocation earlier, you would need to somehow prove just "when" DVCMC decided to go ahead with the change in points, as I would guess that there are several possible (maybe every possible) point re-allocation charts that have been filed away at Disney since OKW opened that they will pull put and use depending on changing demand.

Legally, in determining whether material information has been withheld, there is big distinction between revealing to a buyer that you reserve the right to make a change in the future, which arguably they have revealed (but there is a question, particularly for BLT owners, there), and revealing that you actually intend to make that change in the very near future, particularly before the buyer even gets to make a reservation for the resort. The "concealed" information would be Disney's knowledge that it was intending to make a change in points when it was selling to recent purchasers.

There is also a serious question as to whether Disney revealed it even has the right to make the change it did at BLT. Even when you get to the very section in the POS under which Disney reserves its right to make a change, Disney says that its right is to make adjustments "to respond to actual Club member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand" and a change can occur if it is "evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year" and the right is reserved "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Component to accommodate Club Member demand." Even Disney's lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how this section gave it the right to make a point chart change before anyone had ever even made a reservation at BLT and thus before there was ever any "actual" use patterns and changes or before there was ever any experience at the resort on which to base a change.

Also, if one actually pursued legal action, it would be very easy to determine when Disney knew it was going to make a change. In any such action, Disney would be required to produce to the buyer all documents, including all emails, that exist which reflect on the change from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility until the time the point charts were announced.

 

[Mattsmommy]

DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.

Some of us don't have the luxury of taking a whole week off of work. At my job I am not allowed to take vacation during the summer but I combine my 2 days off with a few days of paid time off and that is our summer "vacation".

 

[dianeschlicht]

The big deal for me is that I live on the west coast and can't fly down to WDW for a long weekend. I go for at least two weeks. I no longer have enough points to do the same trip I have been doing for the past 13 years. Not a big deal to some, but for my family it is.

Well, my point was that we too live a long ways away and travel for about 2 weeks at a time and have been doing so for more than 12 years. I'm saying that it really does NOT effect me much if I look at those same trips I have booked in the past and what they would "cost" now. I only saw one case where it went up, and that was only by 2 points over the length of the stay.

 

[Sammie]

Originally Posted by mickeymom629
The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.

The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.

That's the way I see it.

This I agree with. I think many members bought points to fit their vacation profile, they did not profile their vacation to fit their points. I think they sat down with their agent and said this is what I can do based on my job, my lifestyle, my kids etc. How many points will I need? Now this has changed but the way they can vacation has stayed the same.

I know we won't change to weekends simply because the points changed. We have enough points to cover the change, some don't.

The comments from some that show no empathy for those that are affected in a very adverse way, really do not surprise me, as bascially DVC did the same thing especially at BLT. This behavior toward BLT members and the manner in which they conduct business is my greatest concern. It does not show a great deal of professionalism on their part.

 

[tjkraz]

Also, if one actually pursued legal action, it would be very easy to determine when Disney knew it was going to make a change. In any such action, Disney would be required to produce to the buyer all documents, including all emails, that exist which reflect on the change from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility until the time the point charts were announced.

If we want to give DVC the benefit of the doubt, it would be pretty easy to insulate themselves from any accusations of wrongdoing. I assume they would have hired an outside firm to calculate the reallocations. That's a no-brainer since it eliminates any claims of Disney trying to manipulate the figures and limits liability on their part.

And to address timing issues, DVC could have simply requested that the final report be delivered just a few weeks before the new charts were announced. If this is the first time any reallocation analysis has been performed--at least within the last 5 years or so--DVC could accurately claim that they had no idea what the outcome might be.

It's entirely possible that DVC execs did not even see the updated charts until sometime after January 1st--perhaps not even until 1/15 when the sales changes were made. All DVC had to do was take the auditors' numbers and format them for distribution.

 

[DisFlan]

Well...I've read this whole thread and I agree that DVC did what they had to do. But I know what we'll be doing, too. Our kids live in Orlando and we'd rather visit them there more often, not less - so we'll still be doing Sun-Thur (with a couple of nights elsewhere) to get more trips in. A weekend night would now cost us a trip. The weeknights will now cost us more points, but that's just the way it is.

We've occasionally stayed a weekend night in the past, but now, this is less likely for us than it was before the reallocation.

For the first time, we're seriously considering renting an off site condo for all or part of a few trips to be able to stay longer and bring more family along - instead of buying more points. Which would also likely mean we'd be spending less time on site and forking over as many $$$ to Disney. (Harry Potter put Universal on our radar for the first time in years.) And we probably aren't the only members with this idea right now.


DisFlan

 

[drusba]

If we want to give DVC the benefit of the doubt, it would be pretty easy to insulate themselves from any accusations of wrongdoing. I assume they would have hired an outside firm to calculate the reallocations. That's a no-brainer since it eliminates any claims of Disney trying to manipulate the figures and limits liability on their part.

And to address timing issues, DVC could have simply requested that the final report be delivered just a few weeks before the new charts were announced. If this is the first time any reallocation analysis has been performed--at least within the last 5 years or so--DVC could accurately claim that they had no idea what the outcome might be.

It's entirely possible that DVC execs did not even see the updated charts until sometime after January 1st--perhaps not even until 1/15 when the sales changes were made. All DVC had to do was take the auditors' numbers and format them for distribution.

In a legal action, the buyer would also be entitled to get all documents of any such consultant and any communications between the consultant and Disney. What you describe could not have been the case because Disney as the manager and fiduciary of the members cannot just delegate away its responsibility to a consultant and then try to remain ignorant of what it was doing for months (doing so itself would be improper). It would be required to keep track and would be charged in any legal action of having all the same information and knowledge that its agent, the consultant, had when the consultant had it. I have seen many cases where the right hand tried to claim it did not know what its left hand was doing and it is a defense that I have never seen work.

 

[LIFERBABE]

Legally, in determining whether material information has been withheld, there is big distinction between revealing to a buyer that you reserve the right to make a change in the future, which arguably they have revealed (but there is a question, particularly for BLT owners, there), and revealing that you actually intend to make that change in the very near future, particularly before the buyer even gets to make a reservation for the resort. The "concealed" information would be Disney's knowledge that it was intending to make a change in points when it was selling to recent purchasers.

There is also a serious question as to whether Disney revealed it even has the right to make the change it did at BLT. Even when you get to the very section in the POS under which Disney reserves its right to make a change, Disney says that its right is to make adjustments "to respond to actual Club member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand" and a change can occur if it is "evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year" and the right is reserved "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Component to accommodate Club Member demand." Even Disney's lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how this section gave it the right to make a point chart change before anyone had ever even made a reservation at BLT and thus before there was ever any "actual" use patterns and changes or before there was ever any experience at the resort on which to base a change.

Also, if one actually pursued legal action, it would be very easy to determine when Disney knew it was going to make a change. In any such action, Disney would be required to produce to the buyer all documents, including all emails, that exist which reflect on the change from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility until the time the point charts were announced.

I agree.

It was a material fact that they did not disclose and waited to disclose it until they could benefit even more from it via the 100 point minimum. That is not good faith negotiations and fraudulent.

If I priced a contract artificially hi to get past ROFR and then kicked back a few thousand to my friend that purchased the contract after the sale, that would be a material fact that was not disclosed and DVC would probably break out the dogs on me.

Brogan I also agree with many of the points you have made. It's too bad that this thread has been combined into 1 big brick wall, that we must all pound our head against.

I will say that the snarkiness and condescension displayed by some is totally unnecessary. There should be room for all viewpoints even if they do not agree.

Not everyone used their DVC the same. As many may recall, that was a selling point of the program. The ability to use the points to fit your family, not someone else's. Now we are trying to dictate to those families how they should have used their DVC

DVC, DVD, Jim Lewis, BVTC, CRO, or whatever or whoever they are, they set out to intentionally withold vital information in the sale of BLT and their actions prove that. It is a real estate transaction and they will be held accountable.

 

[tjkraz]

If you are referring to members, then why are you blaming them for using their membership the way it is allowed?

Probably for the same reason that many appear to be upset with DVC for tweaking the program in a way that is allowed.

These latest "member enhancements" move it towards the rest of the run of the mill timeshares IMO.

In terms of program administration, DVC has no choice other than to be "just another timeshare." DVC is just one of many point-based timeshare programs...all of which are subject to the same set of laws.

The reallocation possibility was disclosed from day one and is necessary to maintain the health of the program.

 

[december14disney]

I am very happy that DVC made the change. The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system. Timeshares are to benefit everyone. They should make the points equal for all days. I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.

DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.

Wooo-ee. Harsh. While logistically this might help with availability, etc....some of us just dont have the money to have a lot of points and found great vacations Sun-Thurs....

 

[DeeCee735]

The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.

The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.

That's the way I see it.

I agree. I don't think this was an answer in anyway. I do understand the ecomonic reasoning of supply and demand, however the fact that weekends are still higher remains the same, and now with the weekdays higher as well, seems it's just added to the problem. We NEVER stay 7 nights, actually we usually just do Sun - Thurs, and sometimes, but not often, Sun through Friday.

Now, we either have to borrow points, cut our amount of trips per year, cut our length of stays, or down grade our room size or view. So, if alot of people downgrade their room size or their view (where applicable), than there is going to be an overload of reservations going to standard views/parking lot views and an overload of people requesting studio's or one bedrooms, leaving the higher point views and larger rooms with vacanies, so how does this help? And all the while still costing more in points because no matter how you cut it, weekends are still higher, so those people out there like us......they are going to continue Sun-Thurs stays, and will have to use more points to do so, or even if people start thinking that they'll try weekend stays, they are higher points then what those families are used to using.....JMO

 

[aurorafan]

While I agree with you overall here, I think we have a disagreement in a 'chicken/egg' scenario. For example, you think there is no need for a discount in this period because it sells out. I think it sells out because there is a discount.

How many people would vacation in that period if it was Magic Season? Shifting August/September down could ultimately run that into being sold out at 11 months in the same way December is.

I'm not sure about that for a couple of reasons. Weather, hurricanes and school being the primary ones . A lot of people like me are willing to pull their kids out of school in Dec. because they're well into the school year. I would never pull them out end of Aug.-beginning of Sept. because they're just starting and need to get acclimated, settled, etc. Given a choice I'd rather go when the weather is more moderate than when it's guaranteed stifling, and lots of people aren't willing to risk being in Florida when a hurricane might appear.

So I could be wrong, but if they make Dec. higher I probably won't go then (or at least as often), but I won't change to Aug./Sept. simply because they lower it, and I imagine there are many others who feel the same .

 

[tjkraz]

I will say that the snarkiness and condescension displayed by some is totally unnecessary. There should be room for all viewpoints even if they do not agree.

Meh. We're over a hundred pages with countless posters throwing out terms like like fraudulent, dishonest, misleading, deceptive (and many, many more) toward DVC / DVD / Disney / Jim Lewis.

The terms of the POS are pretty much the only known quantity here. Nevertheless, many are playing judge, jury and executioner by condemning the above despite having little first-hand knowledge of the facts. There's also a lot of personal bias coming thru, here.

The thread is not exactly a glowing example of open-minded discussion and universal respect.

 

[Dean]

Why? What prevented DVD from telling potential customers that DVCMC has hired outside consultants to recommend changes to the point chart for 2010?

If Disney withheld "Material Facts" from buyers, they won't have a choice if pressed. At some point, point reallocation moved beyond theoretical possibility. Consultants were hired, etc. If a buyer can credibly show that information would have changed their buying decision and Disney withheld it, you don't think Disney will let them out of the deal?

They couldn't discuss any changes that were to be approved and had not, they could have discussed they were contemplating changes but as I've said, I think that would be a poor business move. Once approved, they could have and may have chosen not to until the day of change. Given that the buyer signed they received the POS and it is clearly spelled out that the change could occur, I don't think DVC would have any legal risk or obligation. As noted, one could rescind up until a certain point. But there is the point of no return, likely when the deed has been sent for recording which I'm guessing they do by courier rather than mail. Some have already been told they could change their add on and I know some have been initially denied some changes.

Claims for concealing material information in a sale transaction can include statutory and common law claims in Florida, i.e., the statutory remedy does not preclude the buyer from also pursuing a common law claim for misrepresentation. The remedy can be, at the option of the party misled, either to rescind the agreement and get their money back, or confirm the agreement and seek damages for the difference in value between what was represented and what it would have been if the information had not been concealed. Also, for either option, if the seller is proven to have knowingly concealed material information, the buyer can seek punitive damages, which is often easier to get if you also show the seller misled numerous buyers rather than just you.

You never know what a court is going to do, they are often as or more irrational than the plaintiffs. Still, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff and Disney has some pretty good lawyers. Unless this is tested in court, no way to say otherwise and we're left with what the rules and statutes say.

Some of us don't have the luxury of taking a whole week off of work. At my job I am not allowed to take vacation during the summer but I combine my 2 days off with a few days of paid time off and that is our summer "vacation".

We all understand that everyone's situation is different but individual personal situations should not be involved in these types of decisions from DVC's side, only the needs of the membership overall.

 

[december14disney]

The thread is not exactly a glowing example of open-minded discussion and universal respect.

Admist all the in this thread thank you for this. It made me crack up here at my desk.

 

[DeeCee735]

Ouch that was harsh. There are a great deal fo 5 day renters that were trying to save points since the weekend had been highter points.

Agreed, harsh, nasty and uncalled for. Aside from saving points, some of us work 6 to 7 days a week, and taking a full week off from work can be an issue (such as my DH), so a 5 night trip is all he can muster at a time. You shouldn't be so judgmental when you have no idea what you're talking about......

 

[Dean]

Agreed, harsh, nasty and uncalled for. Aside from saving points, some of us work 6 to 7 days a week, and taking a full week off from work can be an issue (such as my DH), so a 5 night trip is all he can muster at a time. You shouldn't be so judgmental when you have no idea what you're talking about......

I would agree the wording was harsh but it is technically correct. I think we all are sympathetic to anyone who's adversely affected as I am, but in my case, it stops at sympathy and does not spill over to judgement of the change itself. I think most want to go way beyond that by saying DVC did a bad thing and I don't think that position is defendable.

 

[aurorafan]

I believe you are right, it should be the points for the entire resort can not increase, not a specific room. I might be wrong though but that was the way it was explained to me.

This is how it was explained to me also--the rooms/seasons/dates may change but the point total for the entire resort could not. I took that to mean that my points would always get me a room at AKV at sometime during the year--never that I would always be able to get a specific kind of room/view during a particular season for a specific number of days for the life of the contract.

 

[LIFERBABE]

Meh. We're over a hundred pages with countless posters throwing out terms like like fraudulent, dishonest, misleading, deceptive (and many, many more) toward DVC / DVD / Disney / Jim Lewis.

The terms of the POS are pretty much the only known quantity here. Nevertheless, many are playing judge, jury and executioner by condemning the above despite having little first-hand knowledge of the facts. There's also a lot of personal bias coming thru, here.

The thread is not exactly a glowing example of open-minded discussion and universal respect.

All of which are opinion. Just because some say the POS is the only known quantity, does not make it so. Just because some say others do not have first-hand knowledge of facts does not make that so either.

Why is it so important to discount what others are saying when in essence, all the posts are "throwing" terms around and showing personal bias and basing it as fact and understanding?

I didnt wake up 1 day and decide to blame all my problems on Jim Lewis. In fact, for several years I thought he was the best thing to ever happen to DVC. It was his actions and attitude towards the membership that let me know he was not.

My issue is with the BLT reallocation, and the way it was handled. Not the reallocation as a whole.

 

[CarolAnnC]

Just a reminder here folks that this thread exists to allow discussion of the 2010 point changes. Arguments, sarcasm, etc., will not be tolerated.

So let's all return to a respectful, sharing conversation please. Thanks in advance!