Does the $500 fee include gratuitous transfers?

[Sandisw]

There was absolutely nothing in contract at time of sale that I’m aware of that allows them to do this. If there’s a requirement to disclose fees such as this by Florida timeshare law the idea they can be put it in retroactive is ludicrous; that’s the opposite of meeting requirements for disclosure.

Unless there’s something in original contract that grants them authority to charge this it’s just another in long line of illegal things dvc management has done over the past few years. That said, it likely falls into category idk if they’ll be forced to repeal as anything is legal if others do not have the funds or will the challenge it.

This has nothing to do with the contract and isn’t being charged to the seller in order to sell.

It is a contract administer fee to be part of the closing costs for the buyer…which FL timeshare has language that supports the management company can charge.

It just has to be included at the time the agreement to purchase is signed.

That is why they are grandfathering all contracts that are signed and submitted prior to January 1st.

Now, if the association was requiring a fee by an owner to receive approval to sell their timeshare, or to rent it, then that type of fee had to be included in the contract.

Or, it was an increase in the fee for the seller to get estoppel…which is required for them to sell…then it would not mesh with some of the statutes. Hence why that is capped at $150.

But, this is not that…this is simply something that the buyer will be responsible for paying if they want to buy a DVC resale contract.

Of course, just like all closing costs, it can be negotiated.

This is a standard fee that other timeshares charge to buyers…

I see nothing to support that they don’t have the authority to charge for this service.

 

[intamin]

Dollar amount aside. It is good to hear that the fee is leading to quicker service.

Jeff Haslam on the DVC show made an interesting point, like I wonder how many people would've opted for a 500 dollar fee to have their points loaded that much faster. Like a ROFR lightning lane sort of lol. Depending on how soon some people's trips people may have paid for it. I guess it doesn't matter at this point since Disneys made it mandatory for all resale contracts but it would've been an interesting option.

 

[Leight19]

This has nothing to do with the contract and isn’t being charged to the seller in order to sell.

It is a contract administer fee to be part of the closing costs for the buyer…which FL timeshare has language that supports the management company can charge.

It just has to be included at the time the agreement to purchase is signed.

That is why they are grandfathering all contracts that are signed and submitted prior to January 1st.

Now, if the association was requiring a fee by an owner to receive approval to sell their timeshare, or to rent it, then that type of fee had to be included in the contract.

Or, it was an increase in the fee for the seller to get estoppel…which is required for them to sell…then it would not mesh with some of the statutes. Hence why that is capped at $150.

But, this is not that…this is simply something that the buyer will be responsible for paying if they want to buy a DVC resale contract.

Of course, just like all closing costs, it can be negotiated.

This is a standard fee that other timeshares charge to buyers…

I see nothing to support that they don’t have the authority to charge for this service.

I feel you are very difficult to debate things with here because many of your agruments come down to Disney says they can do this or other timeshares do this so it’s legal. We bought contracts with specific terms that did not include this fee. Them imposing this fee will directly impact the value of my ownership on resale market and it’s not something they legally established they can do in any contract that exists that describes my deeded interest in property.

If at time of our original purchase of contract they had language about this fee being legal or had a line saying they could impose in future that would be proper notice. I’ve not heard or seen anything that indicates this to be true (if anyone can find something that gives them this right then everything I say here is wrong). If it’s not there in original contract and Disney is trying to add a retroactive constraint, it absolutely will not be considered legal no matter what Disney says or what other timeshares do with contracts they authored. Disney can’t unilaterally change rules around sale of contract in a way that negatively impacts our ownership and unjustly enriches themselves regardless of whether it’s now standard practice in other contracts. Now the true question would be by what avenue would a lawsuit emerge to challenge this? I could see a class action with damages to resale value of our property but historically these things haven’t progressed when Disney made other illegal changes so it’s very possible they just goes through unless the big resale companies or commercial owners challenge it.

 

[Sandisw]

I feel you are very difficult to debate things with here because many of your agruments come down to Disney says they can do this or other timeshares do this so it’s legal. We bought contracts with specific terms that did not include this fee. Them imposing this fee will directly impact the value of my ownership on resale market and it’s not something they legally established they can do in any contract that exists that describes my deeded interest in property.

If at time of our original purchase of contract they had language about this fee being legal or had a line saying they could impose in future that would be proper notice. I’ve not heard or seen anything that indicates this to be true (if anyone can find something that gives them this right then everything I say here is wrong). If it’s not there in original contract and Disney is trying to add a retroactive constraint, it absolutely will not be considered legal no matter what Disney says or what other timeshares do with contracts they authored. Disney can’t unilaterally change rules around sale of contract in a way that negatively impacts our ownership and unjustly enriches themselves regardless of whether it’s now standard practice in other contracts. Now the true question would be by what avenue would a lawsuit emerge to challenge this? I could see a class action with damages to resale value of our property but historically these things haven’t progressed when Disney made other illegal changes so it’s very possible they just goes through unless the big resale companies or commercial owners challenge it.

I never take DVCs word for anything. What I do is my own research to review the contract, the statutes and then contact DVC to ask for further questons as well as discuss those I know in the timeshare/legal world and draw my conclusions from there.

This clause comes directly from the POS (p.35 of RIV) and certainly reads to me that purchasers can face addtonal charges, including from DVC,


(3)
Charges by Other Entities. The following entities may alter the charges to which
the Purchaser may be subject: the Board; any applicable governmental entities including the county tax assessor; WDPR, pursuant to its assessment rights for shared expenses as defined in and pursuant to the terms of the Master Declaration; any External Exchange Company; DVCM; WDPR; and BVTC. The owners of Commercial Units or surrounding commercial areas may also increase or decrease the user fees for the use of any service or enterprise conducted in such Commercial Unit or surrounding commercial areas.

So, the contract does indeed address additional fees, and it gives the board and DVCMC…along with others…the right to impose them.

IMO, the new CAF fits into the above category

Now, anyone who reads that clause and doesn’t believe it applies, should definitely contact DVCMC.

As I said above, I’m not even convinced the contract would apply since this is being touted as as a closing cost, which is typically the buyers responsibility.

But. nonetheless, contract language is there.

 

[Leight19]

I never take DVCs word for anything. What I do is my own research to review the contract, the statutes and then contact DVC to ask for further questons as well as discuss those I know in the timeshare/legal world and draw my conclusions from there.

This clause comes directly from the POS (p.35 of RIV) and certainly reads to me that purchasers can face addtonal charges, including from DVC,


(3)
Charges by Other Entities. The following entities may alter the charges to which
the Purchaser may be subject: the Board; any applicable governmental entities including the county tax assessor; WDPR, pursuant to its assessment rights for shared expenses as defined in and pursuant to the terms of the Master Declaration; any External Exchange Company; DVCM; WDPR; and BVTC. The owners of Commercial Units or surrounding commercial areas may also increase or decrease the user fees for the use of any service or enterprise conducted in such Commercial Unit or surrounding commercial areas.

So, the contract does indeed address additional fees, and it gives the board and DVCMC…along with others…the right to impose them.

IMO, the new CAF fits into the above category

Now, anyone who reads that clause and doesn’t believe it applies, should definitely contact DVCMC.

As I said above, I’m not even convinced the contract would apply since this is being touted as as a closing cost, which is typically the buyers responsibility.

But. nonetheless, contract language is there.

Id have to read the pos for riviera but from above i agree with you at first glance it appears to be legal for Riviera. The question I have is whether it’s included in original pos for the other dvc resorts formed before Disney started taking potshots at resale? If it is I’ll say you’re right and concede the point to you. However, I believe it’s not included historically and the inclusion in riviera would not make it retroactive for other resorts. Please correct me if I’m wrong and you see it in okw or others.

Edit to add: I read okw and does appear to be there so I believe I’m wrong in my original assessment. That said the language there appears to be in section that describes the total financial burden of the original purchase so makes me wonder what upper limit exists for this? The same language here is broad enough it means it’s legal for them to charge $10k for this service or to charge $100 each time you log into the website or other fees that clearly wouldn’t be legal in context of rest of contract so I’m not sure how to interpret this clause that appears with no limiter.

 

[Sandisw]

Id have to read the pos for riviera but from above i agree with you at first glance it appears to be legal for Riviera. The question I have is whether it’s included in original pos for the other dvc resorts formed before Disney started taking potshots at resale? If it is I’ll say you’re right and concede the point to you. However, I believe it’s not included historically and the inclusion in riviera would not make it retroactive for other resorts. Please correct me if I’m wrong and you see it in okw or others.

Edit to add: I read okw and does appear to be there so I believe I’m wrong in my original assessment. That said the language there appears to be in section that describes the total financial burden of the original purchase so makes me wonder what upper limit exists for this? The same language here is broad enough it means it’s legal for them to charge $10k for this service or to charge $100 each time you log into the website or other fees that clearly wouldn’t be legal in context of rest of contract so I’m not sure how to interpret this clause that appears with no limiter.

That would certainly be something to watch..but my initial thought is that it might fall under any other language that seems to stack in favor of the developer and DVcMC.

Reasonable vs completely out of line. An example would be the definition for renting for commercial purposes…it gives them sole authority to define,,,but it still has to match the law, and appear to be a pattern that can reasonable conclude you are commercial.

 

[disneylandtour]

Could someone sell their contract to say a relative under gratuitous transfer, and just pay recieve funds directly from the realitive? By passing ROFR?

Legal reasons aside (which are substantial), you do not want to do this. A title company for the sale of a contract will make (or at least should make) sure everything is transferred correctly, including the funds. This protects you from future legal action (from the buyer) and also secures the funds to you directly, with a wire receipt (that is overseen by the title company). Trying to skirt this to save $500 on a $30k or $50k or even $10k contract is asking for problems. If the title transfer is made--and if you aren't paid in full--and if you disguised this as a gratuitous transfer, you would have zero meaningful recourse to rectify the situation.