DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[BWV Dreamin]

That is a great find…one more answer as to the potential rules for future properties. Now, let’s see if they decide to do anything unique with the Poly tower units!

This is going to be the ultimate question! How long before we get an answer?

 

[BeachClub2014]

This is going to be the ultimate question! How long before we get an answer?

Too long

 

[Sandisw]

This is going to be the ultimate question! How long before we get an answer?

I say within the next 6 months. My hope is 3!

 

[SpaceMountain77]

For anyone that owns other timeshares, is a hybrid model, of fixed, floating, and trust offerings, common? Are there any trust only systems or examples of a previously floating and fixed offering system becoming exclusively trust?

 

[Cfabar1]

For anyone that owns other timeshares, is a hybrid model, of fixed, floating, and trust offerings, common? Are there any trust only systems or examples of a previously floating and fixed offering system becoming exclusively trust?

Marriott and Hyatt come to mind to me.

 

[bwvBound]

For anyone that owns other timeshares, is a hybrid model, of fixed, floating, and trust offerings, common? Are there any trust only systems or examples of a previously floating and fixed offering system becoming exclusively trust?

Replying to the 'best of my knowledge' ... which could be completely flawed:

To your first question: Wyndham is a hybrid of former Fairfield Fixed/Floating weeks with Club Wyndham Points (trust) and goodness-knows what else added in. (Lots of variables in under the Wyndham umbrella?)

To the second question, Part a: Worldmark the Club is, as related to the context of your question, trust only. (All the resorts are held in common and "points are points" -- no home resort, no fixed weeks, etc.)

To the second question, Part b: I don't know of any that have evolved to point of exclusively trust. (There may be such, I just don't know of one. Seems legacy products might just linger until they fully expire?)

 

[drusba]

Because DVD, in the original press release to announce it would build Poly 2, stated it would be part of the Polynesian resort, and then repeated that statement at the Dec 2023 annual meeting, many still feel DVC Poly 2 will be made part of the original DVC Poly 1 resort. As I have noted before that is not necessarily true because saying it will be part of the Poly resort could mean only that it will be in the same resort where there is a DVC Poly 1 and a lot of Disney hotel rooms.

Points previously viewed as leaning against adding Poly 2 it to Poly 1 include DVD's likely desire to continue to make future resorts subject to the Riviera resale restrictions, make Poly 2 a full 50-year resort, and have higher per night point requirements than Poly 1 ( and thus have more points to sell to offset costs of building Poly 2.

Having read through the CFW filings, there are now new things of importance that indicate DVD will want to make Poly 2 a separate resort subject to its new trust plan:

A. The "DVC Resort" Use Plan

What is being put into the trust via the current POS documents filed with Orange County Comptroller is an initial set of cabins (appears to be 30) that will be in the Cabins of Fort Wilderness Use Plan. It is noteworthy that "Cabins of Fort Wilderness," is not the named "DVC Resort" being added. Instead the CFW Use Plan itself is identified as the DVC Resort, See, e.g., DVC Resort Agreement. Purchasers of trust beneficiary interests in that plan will be like existing DVC members who reserve at their home resort at 11-months out and others at 7-months out.

DVD can later add more cabins to that plan that will be subject to the same 11/7 limitation of that plan. In addition, as provided in the CFW POS documents, it can create new trust plans that can include CFW cabins, units from other resorts, or entire other resorts owned by the existing trustee, First National. And any such trust plan can be a separate DVC Resort from the current CFW Use Plan and capable of having purchasers who will be able to reserve at 11-months out at any of the resorts put into the new trust plan, and 7-months out at other resorts. To put any cabins into that new plan will require amending the existing CFW documents, but DVD has reserved the exclusive right to make any such amendments. With use of trust plans, DVD could do the same with Poly 2 -- put some units into the plan initially that would have the same 11/7 reservation rights of existing DVC resorts, and then later make additional trust plans/DVC Resorts that include Poly 2, CFW, and potentially other resort units for which the purchasing member would have the 11-month reservation right at all such resorts, and still 7 at others. If it adopts a trust plan for Poly 2, I do not see any way it can make Poly 2 part of the Poly 1 DVC Resort

B. There are Other New Changes That DVD Likely Wants Poly 2 to Have

The change to the trust system is not the only change the CFW POS makes to previous rules applicable to Poly 1 and other existing resorts, and there are at least three other major changes that DVD could not do if Poly 2 is just made part of Poly 1:

1. Fixed Week Interests.

Fixed week ownership interests will exist with the new CFW trust plan and Poly 1 also has them. However, from terms mentioned in the CFW Membership Agreement, it appears there are going to be fixed week owners who will be able to purchase plans that provide for having their week during a "special event," such as a holiday, or possibly even a race event, every year despite annual date changes for the event. e.g., owners could get fixed weeks that would allow them to move their fixed week annually to cover the same event every year such as Thanksgiving, Easter, or even marathon weekend. That allowance for varying the fixed weeks does not exist in Poly 1 or other existing resorts.

2. DVCM's Power to Reallocate Points

Under the rules in the membership agreements of prior resorts, if changes in reservation patterns occur during a year in relation to "use day" demand of a vacation home, DVC could make nightly points lower or higher for given use days in a given vacation home during a future calendar year by an amount not to exceed a 20% change for any given use day. Any increase (or decrease) made had to be offset by another decrease (or increase) for other use days. The clause appeared to require that increases made in one kind of room, such as studios, could be offsetted by decreases in "other days" for the same type of room. That interpretation was supported by other documents provided at time of sale which declared DVD's interpretation of the clause to mean only seasonal point changes could be made in relation to the same of type rooms, and the power could not be used to fix demand changes that occurred between differ sizes of rooms, e.g., raising points year round for studios while lowering them for 2BRs and Grand Villas.

Raising points year round for studios and lowering them for 2BRs and GVs was exactly what DVC attempted to do when it issued the 2020 WDW charts in December 2018. The response by members was vociferous, asserting such a change was not allowed. Before that 2020 point chart went into effect, DVC withdrew it and essentially adopted the 2019 chart to be the 2020 chart.

The CFW membership agreement changes the rules. It says DVCM's reallocation of points can be made across all vacation home types, and point changes made for a vacation home can be offset by changes to other vacation homes. In essence, what DVC could not do in 2020, it can do now when it changes point charts for a new trust plan resort. Having that power as to the cabins seems somewhat pointless since they will likely have the same point requirements, but undoubtedly DVD wants that change to apply to future resorts.

3. New Rental Restrictions

CFW members, like prior resort owners, will have the right to rent their interests. Under Poly 1 and other prior DVC resorts the only restriction to such rentals was that it was improper for a member to rent for a "commercial purpose," defined as a pattern of rental activity from which the Association, in its reasonable judgment could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. Commercial enterprise is actually a legal term found in many statutes and refers to a person or company engaging in the business of doing something. Long ago, consistent with that concept, DVC established a rule declaring that members who did more than 20 reservations in a 12-month period could be presumed to be violating the commercial purpose rule but when challenged could prove otherwise.

The CFW membership agreement creates a much more rental adverse rule. It provides that DVCM will be the party that has the sole power and discretion to determine if a member is using rooms for a commercial purpose, i.e., members found guilty will not even be able to challenge the ruling. Moreover, DVCM can find a commercial purpose violation if the there is any pattern of the member: (a) making reservations for persons other than family; (b) engages in repeated advertising or solicitation for rentals (e.g,. such as on the DIS boards); (c) frequently uses DVC rental sites; (c) frequently rents already existing reservations; (d) joining with other members, via partnerships, creations of corporations, or otherwise so combined they can own more than the total limit of points allowed a member.

 

[Cfabar1]

If it adopts a trust plan for Poly 2, I do not see any way it can make Poly 2 part of the Poly 1 DVC Resort

This is very important to note. Thank you for sharing this.

So at this point, we have two options:
Disney keeps their word and puts PVB2 into the existing association
OR
For many reasons, as @drusba points out above, Disney decides that information has changed, and they are adopting a different approach and moving forward with a new Poly use plan in the Trust for the Poly2.

If Disney keeps the 11/7 within the buy where you want to stay, I don't really care all that much whether it is RTU or deeded.

While some owners may complain about Disney's ability to reprice units, as long as the total number of points stay the same, and as long as they are contractually obligated to tie those points to actual demand, I am comfortable with them being able to make that change as well.

My only issues have been not honoring existing resort commitments, which seems unlikely, and also putting all resorts moving forward into one big soup and not having a home resort.... I suspect that will change in time - especially if they want to keep HHI, VB, etc. But, as someone who has no interest in the cabins, I don't want to be having people with those points purchasing Polynesian on my behalf.

I am unlikely to buy Poly in the trust, but if it were deeded I'd strongly consider adding on, depending on the points charts, etc.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

1. Fixed Week Interests.

Fixed week ownership interests will exist with the new CFW trust plan and Poly 1 also has them. However, from terms mentioned in the CFW Membership Agreement, it appears there are going to be fixed week owners who will be able to purchase plans that provide for having their week during a "special event," such as a holiday, or possibly even a race event, every year despite annual date changes for the event. e.g., owners could get fixed weeks that would allow them to move their fixed week annually to cover the same event every year such as Thanksgiving, Easter, or even marathon weekend. That allowance for varying the fixed weeks does not exist in Poly 1 or other existing resorts.

DVC had first introduced the adjusted fixed week interests with Copper Creek Villas & Cabins, but I do not think many people noticed. Named Stay Magical Mile After Mile, the aim was to market to and convert runDisney participants. Adjusted fixed weeks could be purchased for any of the following runDisney events:

• Disney Wine & Dine Half Marathon Weekend
• Walt Disney World Marathon Weekend
• Disney Princess Half Marathon Weekend
• Star Wars Rival Run

Provided below, please find a link to the promotional materials:
https://events.rundisney.com/events...vent_offers/75125559bbf49bacf47b?is_live=true

 

[BWV Dreamin]

This is very important to note. Thank you for sharing this.

So at this point, we have two options:
Disney keeps their word and puts PVB2 into the existing association
OR
For many reasons, as @drusba points out above, Disney decides that information has changed, and they are adopting a different approach and moving forward with a new Poly use plan in the Trust for the Poly2.

If Disney keeps the 11/7 within the buy where you want to stay, I don't really care all that much whether it is RTU or deeded.

While some owners may complain about Disney's ability to reprice units, as long as the total number of points stay the same, and as long as they are contractually obligated to tie those points to actual demand, I am comfortable with them being able to make that change as well.

My only issues have been not honoring existing resort commitments, which seems unlikely, and also putting all resorts moving forward into one big soup and not having a home resort.... I suspect that will change in time - especially if they want to keep HHI, VB, etc. But, as someone who has no interest in the cabins, I don't want to be having people with those points purchasing Polynesian on my behalf.

I am unlikely to buy Poly in the trust, but if it were deeded I'd strongly consider adding on, depending on the points charts, etc.

But that is one of the questions. Would DVD have both deeded and Trust points available for purchase?

 

[BWV Dreamin]

DVC had first introduced the adjusted fixed week interests with Copper Creek Villas & Cabins, but I do not think many people noticed. Named Stay Magical Mile After Mile, the aim was to market to and convert runDisney participants. Adjusted fixed weeks could be purchased for any of the following runDisney events:

• Disney Wine & Dine Half Marathon Weekend
• Walt Disney World Marathon Weekend
• Disney Princess Half Marathon Weekend
• Star Wars Rival Run

Provided below, please find a link to the promotional materials:
https://events.rundisney.com/events...vent_offers/75125559bbf49bacf47b?is_live=true

Yes I remember this option. So if I am reading drusaba correctly that option would continue with the trust based points option? A little confused about the FW comment.

 

[zavandor]

2. DVCM's Power to Reallocate Points

Under the rules in the membership agreements of prior resorts, if changes in reservation patterns occur during a year in relation to "use day" demand of a vacation home, DVC could make nightly points lower or higher for given use days in a given vacation home during a future calendar year by an amount not to exceed a 20% change for any given use day. Any increase (or decrease) made had to be offset by another decrease (or increase) for other use days. The clause appeared to require that increases made in one kind of room, such as studios, could be offsetted by decreases in "other days" for the same type of room. That interpretation was supported by other documents provided at time of sale which declared DVD's interpretation of the clause to mean only seasonal point changes could be made in relation to the same of type rooms, and the power could not be used to fix demand changes that occurred between differ sizes of rooms, e.g., raising points year round for studios while lowering them for 2BRs and Grand Villas.

Raising points year round for studios and lowering them for 2BRs and GVs was exactly what DVC attempted to do when it issued the 2020 WDW charts in December 2018. The response by members was vociferous, asserting such a change was not allowed. Before that 2020 point chart went into effect, DVC withdrew it and essentially adopted the 2019 chart to be the 2020 chart.

The CFW membership agreement changes the rules. It says DVCM's reallocation of points can be made across all vacation home types, and point changes made for a vacation home can be offset by changes to other vacation homes. In essence, what DVC could not do in 2020, it can do now when it changes point charts for a new trust plan resort. Having that power as to the cabins seems somewhat pointless since they will likely have the same point requirements, but undoubtedly DVD wants that change to apply to future resorts.

This is worrying because it means they believe it's legal to reallocate points across units, so they might attempt to do it also at other resorts.
But the fact it's written in the document doesn't mean they are allowed to do it.
The VGF POS states that the lockoff premium can be increased, but they have rolled it back too and never attempted it since.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

I have been following this conversation on this forum and other similar forums. While nothing has been announced and much is speculative, nothing positive has been shared by anyone who is reading the recent filings.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I have been following this conversation on this forum and other similar forums. While nothing has been announced and much is speculative, nothing positive has been shared by anyone who is reading the recent filings.

I get the consternation that has been expressed by many. I am more in the "let's wait to see what happens" school of thought. I don't see much changing for legacy DVC (we'll call it DVC 1.0) owners. Perhaps more competition at the 7-month mark, but that same increase in competition would occur regardless of how new resorts enter DVC. The Trust (we'll call it DVC 2.0) could be a cool thing by offering multiple resort options at the 11-month (or some other configuration) window.

Having new ownership options isn't necessarily a horrible thing.

 

[walt34]

I get the consternation that has been expressed by many. I am more in the "let's wait to see what happens" school of thought. I don't see much changing for legacy DVC (we'll call it DVC 1.0) owners. Perhaps more competition at the 7-month mark, but that same increase in competition would occur regardless of how new resorts enter DVC. The Trust (we'll call it DVC 2.0) could be a cool thing by offering multiple resort options at the 11-month (or some other configuration) window.

Having new ownership options isn't necessarily a horrible thing.

I agree, if only units can be moved and not points (as seems to be the consensus here), the legacy owners should be fine at 11 months. The negative effect on 7 months availability could be mostly limited to resale owners (because direct owners will get access to new resorts to compensate for the competition from additional owners) and it would be not different than DVD adding additional restricted resorts in the legacy model.

Whether the new model has any advantages for buyers will depend on the points mix. If you get equally attractive resorts (e.g. Poly 2, RIV) it can be a good thing, if they start adding (too many) converted moderates with too many points per room, it could be a setup for disappointment. But in this case, 7 months booking at all of the resorts will suffer.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I question the commercial viability of the potential trust with the resort options being discussed. As much as I personally love Aulani, the last ten years have proven that it’s not a DVC favorite. And as much as I love the Riviera, it isn’t either. And FWC is at best a niche product. And I’m not sure Poly2 is enough of a primary draw to justify paying extra for booking privileges at additional, relatively unpopular resorts with provenly weak sales, which at most times of the year are bookable with direct points at 7 months anyway! And who cares about additional benefits and resorts being added to the trust years from now? In the present, it appears to be a grab bag of unpopularity.

I also think that if DVD does not make Poly2 a part of the same association as Poly1, after saying but not officially confirming that it will be, they would have a PR nightmare on their hands, and cast a huge shadow of doubt on the organization’s trustworthiness just as they‘re starting Poly2 sales. Not that I think DVC execs are monumental geniuses, but they are too smart to have made a statement like that at their annual meeting without thinking the consequences through, backwards and forwards. I don’t think it was an off the cuff, in the moment kind if announcement, even if it was made to appear that way. And even though legal no doubt parsed every single word, to have implied one outcome while ultimately replacing it with another could still land DVD in hot water.

Also, attempting to sell Poly2 with two options for buyers with no understanding of how the system works, as part of a trust or as direct home resort points, and explaining to them the advantages and disadvantages of both, and whatever incentives are available for both, sounds like a complicated mess.

 

[Sandisw]

I question the commercial viability of the potential trust with the resort options being discussed. As much as I personally love Aulani, the last ten years have proven that it’s not a DVC favorite. And as much as I love the Riviera, it isn’t either. And FWC is at best a niche product. And I’m not sure Poly2 is enough of a primary draw to justify paying extra for booking privileges at additional, relatively unpopular resorts with provenly weak sales, which at most times of the year are bookable with direct points at 7 months anyway! And who cares about additional benefits and resorts being added to the trust years from now? In the present, it appears to be a grab bag of unpopularity.

I also think that if DVD does not make Poly2 a part of the same association as Poly1, after saying but not officially confirming that it will be, they would have a PR nightmare on their hands, and cast a huge shadow of doubt on the organization’s trustworthiness just as they‘re starting Poly2 sales. Not that I think DVC execs are monumental geniuses, but they are too smart to have made a statement like that at their annual meeting without thinking the consequences through, backwards and forwards. I don’t think it was an off the cuff, in the moment kind if announcement, even if it was made to appear that way. And even though legal no doubt parsed every single word, to have implied one outcome while ultimately replacing it with another could still land DVD in hot water.

Also, attempting to sell Poly2 with two options for buyers with no understanding of how the system works, as part of a trust or as direct home resort points, and explaining to them the advantages and disadvantages of both, and whatever incentives are available for both, sounds like a complicated mess.

The only thing I will add is I don’t think they will sell it as two. If the tower goes the way of the trust, they will never sell PVB points.

The probably don’t have a huge number of additional ownership interests in them, above the legal requirements and can treat it like they did VGC…we have nothing to sell you.

 

[Paul Stupin]

The only thing I will add is I don’t think they will sell it as two. If the tower goes the way of the trust, they will never sell PVB points.

The probably don’t have a huge number of additional ownership interests in them, above the legal requirements and can treat it like they did VGC…we have nothing to sell you.

With the word out now that FWC will be sold exclusively as a trust product, it just seems logical that the trust was formed, at least initially, not to lump together a bunch of semi unpopular resorts to make them more attractive to buyers, but rather as part of the FWC sales strategy alone. The podcast this morning theorized it might have something to do with the cabins possibly being classified as trailers, not actual deeded property, making financing more difficult. There will be more than enough buyers who want FWC, without having to incentivize them by throwing in a grab bag of unwanted resorts.

And, after DVC’s announcement at the annual meeting, selling Poly2 as a trust would come across as an untrustworthy bait and switch kind of tactic, implying one outcome but secretly planning another, so why would they even open themselves up to that kind of criticism by answering the question to begin with?

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

Because DVD, in the original press release to announce it would build Poly 2, stated it would be part of the Polynesian resort, and then repeated that statement at the Dec 2023 annual meeting, many still feel DVC Poly 2 will be made part of the original DVC Poly 1 resort. As I have noted before that is not necessarily true because saying it will be part of the Poly resort could mean only that it will be in the same resort where there is a DVC Poly 1 and a lot of Disney hotel rooms.

Points previously viewed as leaning against adding Poly 2 it to Poly 1 include DVD's likely desire to continue to make future resorts subject to the Riviera resale restrictions, make Poly 2 a full 50-year resort, and have higher per night point requirements than Poly 1 ( and thus have more points to sell to offset costs of building Poly 2.

Having read through the CFW filings, there are now new things of importance that indicate DVD will want to make Poly 2 a separate resort subject to its new trust plan:

A. The "DVC Resort" Use Plan

What is being put into the trust via the current POS documents filed with Orange County Comptroller is an initial set of cabins (appears to be 30) that will be in the Cabins of Fort Wilderness Use Plan. It is noteworthy that "Cabins of Fort Wilderness," is not the named "DVC Resort" being added. Instead the CFW Use Plan itself is identified as the DVC Resort, See, e.g., DVC Resort Agreement. Purchasers of trust beneficiary interests in that plan will be like existing DVC members who reserve at their home resort at 11-months out and others at 7-months out.

DVD can later add more cabins to that plan that will be subject to the same 11/7 limitation of that plan. In addition, as provided in the CFW POS documents, it can create new trust plans that can include CFW cabins, units from other resorts, or entire other resorts owned by the existing trustee, First National. And any such trust plan can be a separate DVC Resort from the current CFW Use Plan and capable of having purchasers who will be able to reserve at 11-months out at any of the resorts put into the new trust plan, and 7-months out at other resorts. To put any cabins into that new plan will require amending the existing CFW documents, but DVD has reserved the exclusive right to make any such amendments. With use of trust plans, DVD could do the same with Poly 2 -- put some units into the plan initially that would have the same 11/7 reservation rights of existing DVC resorts, and then later make additional trust plans/DVC Resorts that include Poly 2, CFW, and potentially other resort units for which the purchasing member would have the 11-month reservation right at all such resorts, and still 7 at others. If it adopts a trust plan for Poly 2, I do not see any way it can make Poly 2 part of the Poly 1 DVC Resort

B. There are Other New Changes That DVD Likely Wants Poly 2 to Have

The change to the trust system is not the only change the CFW POS makes to previous rules applicable to Poly 1 and other existing resorts, and there are at least three other major changes that DVD could not do if Poly 2 is just made part of Poly 1:

1. Fixed Week Interests.

Fixed week ownership interests will exist with the new CFW trust plan and Poly 1 also has them. However, from terms mentioned in the CFW Membership Agreement, it appears there are going to be fixed week owners who will be able to purchase plans that provide for having their week during a "special event," such as a holiday, or possibly even a race event, every year despite annual date changes for the event. e.g., owners could get fixed weeks that would allow them to move their fixed week annually to cover the same event every year such as Thanksgiving, Easter, or even marathon weekend. That allowance for varying the fixed weeks does not exist in Poly 1 or other existing resorts.

2. DVCM's Power to Reallocate Points

Under the rules in the membership agreements of prior resorts, if changes in reservation patterns occur during a year in relation to "use day" demand of a vacation home, DVC could make nightly points lower or higher for given use days in a given vacation home during a future calendar year by an amount not to exceed a 20% change for any given use day. Any increase (or decrease) made had to be offset by another decrease (or increase) for other use days. The clause appeared to require that increases made in one kind of room, such as studios, could be offsetted by decreases in "other days" for the same type of room. That interpretation was supported by other documents provided at time of sale which declared DVD's interpretation of the clause to mean only seasonal point changes could be made in relation to the same of type rooms, and the power could not be used to fix demand changes that occurred between differ sizes of rooms, e.g., raising points year round for studios while lowering them for 2BRs and Grand Villas.

Raising points year round for studios and lowering them for 2BRs and GVs was exactly what DVC attempted to do when it issued the 2020 WDW charts in December 2018. The response by members was vociferous, asserting such a change was not allowed. Before that 2020 point chart went into effect, DVC withdrew it and essentially adopted the 2019 chart to be the 2020 chart.

The CFW membership agreement changes the rules. It says DVCM's reallocation of points can be made across all vacation home types, and point changes made for a vacation home can be offset by changes to other vacation homes. In essence, what DVC could not do in 2020, it can do now when it changes point charts for a new trust plan resort. Having that power as to the cabins seems somewhat pointless since they will likely have the same point requirements, but undoubtedly DVD wants that change to apply to future resorts.

3. New Rental Restrictions

CFW members, like prior resort owners, will have the right to rent their interests. Under Poly 1 and other prior DVC resorts the only restriction to such rentals was that it was improper for a member to rent for a "commercial purpose," defined as a pattern of rental activity from which the Association, in its reasonable judgment could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. Commercial enterprise is actually a legal term found in many statutes and refers to a person or company engaging in the business of doing something. Long ago, consistent with that concept, DVC established a rule declaring that members who did more than 20 reservations in a 12-month period could be presumed to be violating the commercial purpose rule but when challenged could prove otherwise.

The CFW membership agreement creates a much more rental adverse rule. It provides that DVCM will be the party that has the sole power and discretion to determine if a member is using rooms for a commercial purpose, i.e., members found guilty will not even be able to challenge the ruling. Moreover, DVCM can find a commercial purpose violation if the there is any pattern of the member: (a) making reservations for persons other than family; (b) engages in repeated advertising or solicitation for rentals (e.g,. such as on the DIS boards); (c) frequently uses DVC rental sites; (c) frequently rents already existing reservations; (d) joining with other members, via partnerships, creations of corporations, or otherwise so combined they can own more than the total limit of points allowed a member.

Very helpful & apologies if already addressed...But if THIS is the result "If it adopts a trust plan for Poly 2, I do not see any way it can make Poly 2 part of the Poly 1 DVC Resort" does that mean Poly 2 Trust contracts would NOT have 11-mo advantage at Poly 1 ?

 

[achinforsomebacon]

This is worrying because it means they believe it's legal to reallocate points across units, so they might attempt to do it also at other resorts.
But the fact it's written in the document doesn't mean they are allowed to do it.
The VGF POS states that the lockoff premium can be increased, but they have rolled it back too and never attempted it since.

I was actually thinking that maybe they realized what they tried before wasn't legal based on the POS wording so they added language in the new POS to give them the ability for new resorts going forward.

Unless you're saying it's not legal to reallocate regardless of what the POS says - if that's the case then I agree it's concerning.