DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[New Mouse]

At the end of the day for the x time, it seems dvc and its leadership is content on trying to screw over their customers are at most or are incompetent at least. History would tell you its the first reason.

 

[mgarbowski]

Personally, the PUC is a summary of the contract but it still says at the bottom of it to refer to the resort POS and multisite POS...so, I think those are still the ultimate guide into it all.

The PUC is to simply bringing forward things that are important enough that someone cannot accuse DVD of burying it in the fine print...at least that is how I viewed it when buying my direct contracts.

I found the operative language from the POC for BLT. This is Section 3.3 to the DVC Membership Agreement for Bay Lake, part of the Component Site POS. Unfortunately though the JPG scans are clear they do not enlarge well, but I think the PDF is pretty good. I believe the language is consistent with the representations made in the PUC. It also has a definition of "Base Year," which I will type:

"The Home Resort Vacation Point values established by the DVCMC that are symbolic of all Ownership Interests will be based a 365 Day Use Year calendar year containing a minimum number of Fridays and Saturdays distributed through high demand periods (the 'Base Year')."

I think that means the base year they pick has to have as few Fridays and Saturdays in "high demand periods" as possible. But I think there's a fair bit of flexibility in the term "high demand periods."

But apart from that, the provisions I think make it pretty clear that the total number of points required to book all the rooms in one year should not change by more than a very insignificant amount.

 

[Sandisw]

I found the operative language from the POC for BLT. This is Section 3.3 to the DVC Membership Agreement for Bay Lake, part of the Component Site POS. Unfortunately though the JPG scans are clear they do not enlarge well, but I think the PDF is pretty good. I believe the language is consistent with the representations made in the PUC. It also has a definition of "Base Year," which I will type:

"The Home Resort Vacation Point values established by the DVCMC that are symbolic of all Ownership Interests will be based a 365 Day Use Year calendar year containing a minimum number of Fridays and Saturdays distributed through high demand periods (the 'Base Year')."

I think that means the base year they pick has to have as few Fridays and Saturdays in "high demand periods" as possible. But I think there's a fair bit of flexibility in the term "high demand periods."

But apart from that, the provisions I think make it pretty clear that the total number of points required to book all the rooms in one year should not change by more than a very insignificant amount.

View attachment 552295View attachment 552294

High demand and minimum certainly appear to give some flexibility. However, I read it as a minimum number that are ascribed to those high demand times need to be spread out to ensure a balance.

Master of Cotenancy of BLT is detailed in how ownership interest is determined to convert to points...the ability to create seasons, square footage etc, ..which is written differently in RIV.

 

[EM Lawrence]

Is it possible that Poly and RIV could be bound by different methodologies when it comes to their point charts, based on the updated language that @Sandisw has noticed? As a Poly owner, I hope not. I certainly bought Poly with the understanding that all of us have had, which is that if points are increased on one area, there must be a corresponding decrease in another area so that the total points remain unchanged.

 

[Henwen88]

I 100% understand the products I purchased. Point values are static (except normal variations for holidays, leap year, etc) and if 1 room points increase, another will decrease. 2013 SSR and 2017 CCV state POC state just this (attached). Something seems to have shifted (with the new management? prior?) as it appears the RIV document has changed. This should not affect the other resorts retroactively, however, as our contracts have not changed.

 

[drusba]

Here is what I believe now that I have reviewed several of the POS's. I will use terms from the POS’s that have a “base year” concept and Product Understanding Checklists that limit annual point increases to those caused by natural calendar changes, which should be all resorts created since BRV in 2,000, except potentially Riviera and Poly (although I am not clear on what those actually provide). BWV and OKW differ only in not having the base year concept but simply declare in the DVC membership agreement that total points cannot increase from year to year (a stronger statement than even the base year resort Membership Agreements provide).

Conclusion (I recognize some may disagree)

The original seasons applicable to a resort were initially created by DVD, not DVCM, and DVD’s authority was limited to creating the applicable seasons at the time when the resort first went on sale. DVD retained no power to later change those seasons. After the initial point chart was created for a resort, the only thing DVCM could do to change annual points was to shift them among seasons by raising them for any Vacation Home (a room) for some nights while lowering them by an equal amount in other nights, resulting in no change of total points. Total points for a year after the initial point chart was created could increase at times due to normal calendar changes-- such as the addition of a day in leap year, the fact that some years have an additional weekend night, and the fact that in some years a higher point season may have one more weekend night than other years – but otherwise they could not be raised for any year.

The 7-season point charts, which rely heavily on the annual change in Easter’s date to significantly increase total points in many years, are improper because DVCM had no power to create them.

Basis of Conclusion.

As to the power to create and change point charts, there are three relevant documents from the POS, the Master Co-tenancy Agreement (MCA) and particularly its Exhibit A, the DVC Membership Agreement (DVCMA) and particularly section 3.3, and the Product Understanding Checklist (PUC) provided to, and required to be signed by purchasers at time of sale, which provides DVD’s summary of its own understanding of the important terms of the POS.

A. Exhibit A to MCA

The only entity empowered to create the applicable seasons to be used in the point chart for a resort is DVD. Exhibit A to the MCA states that DVD “shall initially assign” each day in the year to a “season.” DVD can initially create as many seasons as are necessary and desirable. That is the sole stated power that exists which relates to creating or changing the number and days in the seasons. Nowhere does the POS provide that the initially-created seasons can be changed.

DVCM’s sole role in creating the initial point chart for a resort was to create the Home Resort Vacation Points that would represent the total ownership interests created and distribute those points among the Vacation Homes (rooms) and the seasons already created. Exhibit A then provides that DVCM can later reallocate points in accordance with the terms of the DVCMA.

B. DVCMA

Section 3.3 of the DVCMA sets out DVCM’s powers in relation to point charts. It says the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points established by DVCM needed to reserve all vacation homes during a 365-day year referred to as the “base year” must always equal the total number of Ownership Interests owned by Club members. The base year is undoubtedly a reference to the year used for the initial point chart created by DVD and DVCM as et out in Exhibit A to the MCA. In BWV and OKW, the clause declares that the number of Home Resort Vacation points shall always remain fixed and equal the total ownership interests owned by Club Members and does not mention the term “base year.”

DVCM then retains the power to respond to demand changes from year to year by increasing the points needed to reserve any Vacation Home for a use day or days as long as any such increase is met by an equal decrease in other days, i.e., total points cannot change as a result. Its exercise of that power could eventually result in in a “leveling of all seasons,” i.e., all use days would have the same number of required points. However, nothing is said to allow DVCM to do any change to the identity of the seasons or designated days within each season.

Thus, the DVCMA does not provide that DVCM can change seasons or days in a season or do any act that could increase total points for any year.

C. PUC

The PUC’s recognize DVCM’s power to shift points among seasons but declare that, from year to year, the total number of vacation points needed to reserve all the rooms for the year can never increase, except for those increases caused by adding more Vacation Homes and thus more points to a resort, or those increases caused by normal variations in the calendar from year to year. As to DVCM’s ability to change points for a Vacation home due to demand changes, the PUC notes that such power is limited to meeting any increase in points for a use day by an equal decrease in points in other use days, i.e., DVCM has no power to do any act that increases total points in any way.

There is other evidence to show that total points can be increased from year to year only by normal calendar changes and that DVCM can do nothing to increase total points or change seasons. A member on these boards (whose identity I cannot currently recall) provided a link to a DVC promotional video from YouTube in 2012. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFQm8Ag8HY&feature=youtu.be -- relevant portion is from about 10 minutes to 11½ minutes into the tape). In the video. DVC provides an Animal Kingdom point chart and states, that except for changes caused by normal calendar changes, the total points per year can never be increased and that will be true in every year that the resort will exist until expiration such as 2025, 2035 and 2045.

 

[Minniemoo15]

Here is what I believe now that I have reviewed several of the POS's. I will use terms from the POS’s that have a “base year” concept and Product Understanding Checklists that limit annual point increases to those caused by natural calendar changes, which should be all resorts created since BRV in 2,000, except potentially Riviera and Poly (although I am not clear on what those actually provide). BWV and OKW differ only in not having the base year concept but simply declare in the DVC membership agreement that total points cannot increase from year to year (a stronger statement than even the base year resort Membership Agreements provide).

Conclusion (I recognize some may disagree)

The original seasons applicable to a resort were initially created by DVD, not DVCM, and DVD’s authority was limited to creating the applicable seasons at the time when the resort first went on sale. DVD retained no power to later change those seasons. After the initial point chart was created for a resort, the only thing DVCM could do to change annual points was to shift them among seasons by raising them for any Vacation Home (a room) for some nights while lowering them by an equal amount in other nights, resulting in no change of total points. Total points for a year after the initial point chart was created could increase at times due to normal calendar changes-- such as the addition of a day in leap year, the fact that some years have an additional weekend night, and the fact that in some years a higher point season may have one more weekend night than other years – but otherwise they could not be raised for any year.

The 7-season point charts, which rely heavily on the annual change in Easter’s date to significantly increase total points in many years, are improper because DVCM had no power to create them.

Basis of Conclusion.

As to the power to create and change point charts, there are three relevant documents from the POS, the Master Co-tenancy Agreement (MCA) and particularly its Exhibit A, the DVC Membership Agreement (DVCMA) and particularly section 3.3, and the Product Understanding Checklist (PUC) provided to, and required to be signed by purchasers at time of sale, which provides DVD’s summary of its own understanding of the important terms of the POS.

A. Exhibit A to MCA

The only entity empowered to create the applicable seasons to be used in the point chart for a resort is DVD. Exhibit A to the MCA states that DVD “shall initially assign” each day in the year to a “season.” DVD can initially create as many seasons as are necessary and desirable. That is the sole stated power that exists which relates to creating or changing the number and days in the seasons. Nowhere does the POS provide that the initially-created seasons can be changed.

DVCM’s sole role in creating the initial point chart for a resort was to create the Home Resort Vacation Points that would represent the total ownership interests created and distribute those points among the Vacation Homes (rooms) and the seasons already created. Exhibit A then provides that DVCM can later reallocate points in accordance with the terms of the DVCMA.

B. DVCMA

Section 3.3 of the DVCMA sets out DVCM’s powers in relation to point charts. It says the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points established by DVCM needed to reserve all vacation homes during a 365-day year referred to as the “base year” must always equal the total number of Ownership Interests owned by Club members. The base year is undoubtedly a reference to the year used for the initial point chart created by DVD and DVCM as et out in Exhibit A to the MCA. In BWV and OKW, the clause declares that the number of Home Resort Vacation points shall always remain fixed and equal the total ownership interests owned by Club Members and does not mention the term “base year.”

DVCM then retains the power to respond to demand changes from year to year by increasing the points needed to reserve any Vacation Home for a use day or days as long as any such increase is met by an equal decrease in other days, i.e., total points cannot change as a result. Its exercise of that power could eventually result in in a “leveling of all seasons,” i.e., all use days would have the same number of required points. However, nothing is said to allow DVCM to do any change to the identity of the seasons or designated days within each season.

Thus, the DVCMA does not provide that DVCM can change seasons or days in a season or do any act that could increase total points for any year.

C. PUC

The PUC’s recognize DVCM’s power to shift points among seasons but declare that, from year to year, the total number of vacation points needed to reserve all the rooms for the year can never increase, except for those increases caused by adding more Vacation Homes and thus more points to a resort, or those increases caused by normal variations in the calendar from year to year. As to DVCM’s ability to change points for a Vacation home due to demand changes, the PUC notes that such power is limited to meeting any increase in points for a use day by an equal decrease in points in other use days, i.e., DVCM has no power to do any act that increases total points in any way.

There is other evidence to show that total points can be increased from year to year only by normal calendar changes and that DVCM can do nothing to increase total points or change seasons. A member on these boards (whose identity I cannot currently recall) provided a link to a DVC promotional video from YouTube in 2012. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFQm8Ag8HY&feature=youtu.be -- relevant portion is from about 10 minutes to 11½ minutes into the tape). In the video. DVC provides an Animal Kingdom point chart and states, that except for changes caused by normal calendar changes, the total points per year can never be increased and that will be true in every year that the resort will exist until expiration such as 2025, 2035 and 2045.

This is an excellent analysis - thank you so much for taking the time to do this and sharing this with us.

As for Poly - if CCV has the more explicit POC language, can’t we assume Poly did as well when it opened since it is an older resort ? I think a previous poster may be accurate in thinking that they may have updated the POC after 1/19.

Now the question is ... what can we do?

 

[MommaBerd]

@drusba - Thank you so much for your analysis and summary. And, I appreciate so much the work of @i<3riviera, @zavandor, and *many* others on this thread to hold DVCM accountable for their decisions. I am a relatively intelligent person and understand this at a high level, but the deep dive into the calendar and point intracacies and the legal document analyses makes my head swim. I am just disappointed that your efforts are even necessary.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I'm more than happy for Disney to take my money legitimately. Charging as much as people are willing to spend on points, pocketing normal breakage income, contracting other Disney departments (instead of the lowest tender) to provide services at a premium and charging a percentage management fee on top - that's all fine by me; the cost of doing business. If there's no profit in it, good companies can't be enticed to run quality operations for our enjoyment.

These chart manipulations are one step too far. In sheer dollar value, the cost to an individual member is small. What's concerning is the apparent willingness of DVCMC to try moves with questionable legality.

I want to believe that individual sections are desperately trying to meet their budget any way they can, and the petty nickel and diming doesn't represent a departure from the core values of TWDC (fleecing guests in a magical way). Even if it were the case, management is ultimately responsible, for approving and rolling out those charts.

I have a restauranteur friend who can't bring himself to order salad or anything uncooked when dining out. I feel like I unwittingly walked into the DVC back-of-house, and now I can't un-see how our meals are planned and executed.

 

[Bing Showei]

Here is what I believe now that I have reviewed several of the POS's. I will use terms from the POS’s that have a “base year” concept and Product Understanding Checklists that limit annual point increases to those caused by natural calendar changes, which should be all resorts created since BRV in 2,000, except potentially Riviera and Poly (although I am not clear on what those actually provide). BWV and OKW differ only in not having the base year concept but simply declare in the DVC membership agreement that total points cannot increase from year to year (a stronger statement than even the base year resort Membership Agreements provide).

Conclusion (I recognize some may disagree)

The original seasons applicable to a resort were initially created by DVD, not DVCM, and DVD’s authority was limited to creating the applicable seasons at the time when the resort first went on sale. DVD retained no power to later change those seasons. After the initial point chart was created for a resort, the only thing DVCM could do to change annual points was to shift them among seasons by raising them for any Vacation Home (a room) for some nights while lowering them by an equal amount in other nights, resulting in no change of total points. Total points for a year after the initial point chart was created could increase at times due to normal calendar changes-- such as the addition of a day in leap year, the fact that some years have an additional weekend night, and the fact that in some years a higher point season may have one more weekend night than other years – but otherwise they could not be raised for any year.

The 7-season point charts, which rely heavily on the annual change in Easter’s date to significantly increase total points in many years, are improper because DVCM had no power to create them.

Basis of Conclusion.

As to the power to create and change point charts, there are three relevant documents from the POS, the Master Co-tenancy Agreement (MCA) and particularly its Exhibit A, the DVC Membership Agreement (DVCMA) and particularly section 3.3, and the Product Understanding Checklist (PUC) provided to, and required to be signed by purchasers at time of sale, which provides DVD’s summary of its own understanding of the important terms of the POS.

A. Exhibit A to MCA

The only entity empowered to create the applicable seasons to be used in the point chart for a resort is DVD. Exhibit A to the MCA states that DVD “shall initially assign” each day in the year to a “season.” DVD can initially create as many seasons as are necessary and desirable. That is the sole stated power that exists which relates to creating or changing the number and days in the seasons. Nowhere does the POS provide that the initially-created seasons can be changed.

DVCM’s sole role in creating the initial point chart for a resort was to create the Home Resort Vacation Points that would represent the total ownership interests created and distribute those points among the Vacation Homes (rooms) and the seasons already created. Exhibit A then provides that DVCM can later reallocate points in accordance with the terms of the DVCMA.

B. DVCMA

Section 3.3 of the DVCMA sets out DVCM’s powers in relation to point charts. It says the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points established by DVCM needed to reserve all vacation homes during a 365-day year referred to as the “base year” must always equal the total number of Ownership Interests owned by Club members. The base year is undoubtedly a reference to the year used for the initial point chart created by DVD and DVCM as et out in Exhibit A to the MCA. In BWV and OKW, the clause declares that the number of Home Resort Vacation points shall always remain fixed and equal the total ownership interests owned by Club Members and does not mention the term “base year.”

DVCM then retains the power to respond to demand changes from year to year by increasing the points needed to reserve any Vacation Home for a use day or days as long as any such increase is met by an equal decrease in other days, i.e., total points cannot change as a result. Its exercise of that power could eventually result in in a “leveling of all seasons,” i.e., all use days would have the same number of required points. However, nothing is said to allow DVCM to do any change to the identity of the seasons or designated days within each season.

Thus, the DVCMA does not provide that DVCM can change seasons or days in a season or do any act that could increase total points for any year.

C. PUC

The PUC’s recognize DVCM’s power to shift points among seasons but declare that, from year to year, the total number of vacation points needed to reserve all the rooms for the year can never increase, except for those increases caused by adding more Vacation Homes and thus more points to a resort, or those increases caused by normal variations in the calendar from year to year. As to DVCM’s ability to change points for a Vacation home due to demand changes, the PUC notes that such power is limited to meeting any increase in points for a use day by an equal decrease in points in other use days, i.e., DVCM has no power to do any act that increases total points in any way.

There is other evidence to show that total points can be increased from year to year only by normal calendar changes and that DVCM can do nothing to increase total points or change seasons. A member on these boards (whose identity I cannot currently recall) provided a link to a DVC promotional video from YouTube in 2012. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFQm8Ag8HY&feature=youtu.be -- relevant portion is from about 10 minutes to 11½ minutes into the tape). In the video. DVC provides an Animal Kingdom point chart and states, that except for changes caused by normal calendar changes, the total points per year can never be increased and that will be true in every year that the resort will exist until expiration such as 2025, 2035 and 2045.

When I brought up the marketing materials with DVCMC I was reminded that the owner agreement acknowledges that sales language (by way of guides or promotional materials) are non-binding. Disney has gone as far as to tell some members (can't find reference) that the PUC was considered material to aid with consumer understanding, but was also legally non-binding; I have trouble buying this last bit given it's one of the few things we actually sign acknowledging what we are buying.

Even armed with the language and charts upon charts of provided by i<3riviera, most of us have been either given the same canned, generic responses from management, told the base year version of "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Or in zavandor's case, just straight up told there is no base year. What can we do?

I feel like the only thing that worked to affect any change with the 2020 point charts back in 2019 weren't the lengthy conversations people had with Yvonne, but rather the threat of some legal action, or at least potential legal action, on the part of a certain Italian Brit vis-a-vis https://www.whatswrongwithdvc.com/, or likely some correspondence you had with them.

What can we realistically do at this point? That's not a rhetorical question. Is there something actionable we can do? Or something new we can say? I'm at a loss for how to take this past the re-hashed excuses from 2019 about how DVCMC is simply working within their legal rights.

 

[Minniemoo15]

One advantage we may have is that this year’s point reallocation concern is much easier for others to understand. Many many members believe (rightfully so) that total points at a resort cannot increase for the length of the contract. The 2020 point chart concern was more difficult for the average member (including myself) to wrap their head around in terms of lockout premiums, shifting points between units etc. I had to do a lot of reading and background knowledge before I understood the concern. But this is fairly simple. Total Points have gone up at all resorts by a greater margin than previous years. Increases to weeks were not met with similar decreases in other weeks.

 

[DL1WDW2]

I would suggest bringing the most important legal issues to the attention of members on the other DVC sites. If you post elsewhere.. start the discussion.
I feel this is not being discussed elsewhere. The outrage was successful with 2019/2020 point chart because more members were aware.
I also think every member should try to attend the yearly meeting Or at least listen to the meeting. I guarantee when they open the floor , even tho they invite only 1 or 2 token members to the floor , just the sight of everybody raising their hands seeking the valuable chance to bring forth discontent for a second ...
Might give a visible alert to those Boardmembers present on that stage...
I assume they want to keep their impressive titles and give the impression to Corporate Disney that all is well within ranks. DVC is powerful and mportant to maintain a happy content Vacation Club that can continue to increase prices and dues and point charts that actually balance.
I hope everybody is watching the virtual stream today. We Go On 30 and join anniversary celebration .
Happy Anniversary !

 

[zavandor]

Or in zavandor's case, just straight up told there is no base year. What can we do?

A good sign is that they've changed their line regarding the Base Year. I think after telling people different versions about the Base Year (it changed, it didn't change, it's the same for all resorts, it's different for all resorts), they've realized the POS doesn't authorize them to change it. So they've invented the new concept of "minimum year" which is exactly the Base year but called in a different way.
I bet they know they're on shaky grounds with that.

I don't think last time they backtracked because of the clamour around the issue, we're a very vocal minority, but still a small minority among the 250k members, most of which had no idea what was happening. We did hit a weak spot on the legal foundations of the reallocation and they didn't want to risk to be challenged.

The second good sign is that in my last call they've told me they'll discuss the issue and come back to me. In 2019 they rolled back the changes after telling me they wouldn't do it.

And we've not fired all our ammos: I didn't discuss with them the latest findings by Drusba, if they tell me nothing will change it'll be another topic I'll talk about.
I'm ready to give them a bit of time before going to the next stage (the blog, posting on the Facebook groups, contacting the Florida regulators, even starting legal action), hopefully we won't have to go that far. In the meantime, it would be good to keep up the pressure. So anyone unhappy with the change should write to DVC and tell them so. It's quite simple, just use the email button on the members website.

 

[mgarbowski]

Here is what I believe now that I have reviewed several of the POS's. I will use terms from the POS’s that have a “base year” concept and Product Understanding Checklists that limit annual point increases to those caused by natural calendar changes, which should be all resorts created since BRV in 2,000, except potentially Riviera and Poly (although I am not clear on what those actually provide). BWV and OKW differ only in not having the base year concept but simply declare in the DVC membership agreement that total points cannot increase from year to year (a stronger statement than even the base year resort Membership Agreements provide).

Conclusion (I recognize some may disagree)

The original seasons applicable to a resort were initially created by DVD, not DVCM, and DVD’s authority was limited to creating the applicable seasons at the time when the resort first went on sale. DVD retained no power to later change those seasons. After the initial point chart was created for a resort, the only thing DVCM could do to change annual points was to shift them among seasons by raising them for any Vacation Home (a room) for some nights while lowering them by an equal amount in other nights, resulting in no change of total points. Total points for a year after the initial point chart was created could increase at times due to normal calendar changes-- such as the addition of a day in leap year, the fact that some years have an additional weekend night, and the fact that in some years a higher point season may have one more weekend night than other years – but otherwise they could not be raised for any year.

The 7-season point charts, which rely heavily on the annual change in Easter’s date to significantly increase total points in many years, are improper because DVCM had no power to create them.

Basis of Conclusion.

As to the power to create and change point charts, there are three relevant documents from the POS, the Master Co-tenancy Agreement (MCA) and particularly its Exhibit A, the DVC Membership Agreement (DVCMA) and particularly section 3.3, and the Product Understanding Checklist (PUC) provided to, and required to be signed by purchasers at time of sale, which provides DVD’s summary of its own understanding of the important terms of the POS.

A. Exhibit A to MCA

The only entity empowered to create the applicable seasons to be used in the point chart for a resort is DVD. Exhibit A to the MCA states that DVD “shall initially assign” each day in the year to a “season.” DVD can initially create as many seasons as are necessary and desirable. That is the sole stated power that exists which relates to creating or changing the number and days in the seasons. Nowhere does the POS provide that the initially-created seasons can be changed.

DVCM’s sole role in creating the initial point chart for a resort was to create the Home Resort Vacation Points that would represent the total ownership interests created and distribute those points among the Vacation Homes (rooms) and the seasons already created. Exhibit A then provides that DVCM can later reallocate points in accordance with the terms of the DVCMA.

B. DVCMA

Section 3.3 of the DVCMA sets out DVCM’s powers in relation to point charts. It says the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points established by DVCM needed to reserve all vacation homes during a 365-day year referred to as the “base year” must always equal the total number of Ownership Interests owned by Club members. The base year is undoubtedly a reference to the year used for the initial point chart created by DVD and DVCM as et out in Exhibit A to the MCA. In BWV and OKW, the clause declares that the number of Home Resort Vacation points shall always remain fixed and equal the total ownership interests owned by Club Members and does not mention the term “base year.”

DVCM then retains the power to respond to demand changes from year to year by increasing the points needed to reserve any Vacation Home for a use day or days as long as any such increase is met by an equal decrease in other days, i.e., total points cannot change as a result. Its exercise of that power could eventually result in in a “leveling of all seasons,” i.e., all use days would have the same number of required points. However, nothing is said to allow DVCM to do any change to the identity of the seasons or designated days within each season.

Thus, the DVCMA does not provide that DVCM can change seasons or days in a season or do any act that could increase total points for any year.

C. PUC

The PUC’s recognize DVCM’s power to shift points among seasons but declare that, from year to year, the total number of vacation points needed to reserve all the rooms for the year can never increase, except for those increases caused by adding more Vacation Homes and thus more points to a resort, or those increases caused by normal variations in the calendar from year to year. As to DVCM’s ability to change points for a Vacation home due to demand changes, the PUC notes that such power is limited to meeting any increase in points for a use day by an equal decrease in points in other use days, i.e., DVCM has no power to do any act that increases total points in any way.

There is other evidence to show that total points can be increased from year to year only by normal calendar changes and that DVCM can do nothing to increase total points or change seasons. A member on these boards (whose identity I cannot currently recall) provided a link to a DVC promotional video from YouTube in 2012. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFQm8Ag8HY&feature=youtu.be -- relevant portion is from about 10 minutes to 11½ minutes into the tape). In the video. DVC provides an Animal Kingdom point chart and states, that except for changes caused by normal calendar changes, the total points per year can never be increased and that will be true in every year that the resort will exist until expiration such as 2025, 2035 and 2045.

Thank you for the thorough and solid analysis. I'm going to disagree on one point, but it does not change your conclusion at all.

The issue concerns the seasons. I take your point that DVD was explicitly empowered to create initial seasons, and nothing in the documents suggest that DVD or any other entity can change those seasons. But,it is also clear as you note that DVCM can change point requirements within very broad parameters, with the most important being the requirement of perfect offsets for increases and decreases. In particular, and again as you note, it specifically allows that DVCM can effectively level off the seasons so much that that seasons become meaningless. "A maximum reallocation of Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a “leveling” of all seasons, such that Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements would have no variation based on seasonally or different times of the year." If that is the case, as I read it, then maintaining 5 seasons while there are no seasonal differences is a fiction. If that fiction is allowed, then I think any seasonal fiction is allowed. I believe that if they kept point totals the same they would be allowed to create a chart that would be best described as a 7-season chart, even if by law they are required to overlay a fiction that it is a 5-season chart.

Personally, I believe the seasons have no legal meaning and are just there to make organizing and communicating the point charts more easily. I think as long as they don't move things by more than 20% one year, and keep point totals even, and do not go above certain specified unit point amounts (eg in BLT you have to be able to rent a studio for 16 points at least one day every year), then they can do almost anything else.

I think the season argument is plausible, and if I were litigating this for members I would bring it up, but it would be a secondary argument. And when discussing this with DVC management I would not push this point because I think they have easy answers for it, eg "It cannot be that we are not allowed to change the 5 seasons, because we are explicitly allowed to allocate points as if there are no seasons." I don't see a value in getting lost in that discussion.

That said, this is my reading and opinion and maybe there is value in different people calling and writing with a variety of arguments. But if you make the season argument, I would expect the DVC reps to counter as I suggested, so be prepared.

 

[New Mouse]

They can make 364 seasons. It doesnt matter as at the end of the day if and when points move from 1 season they have to move to another season, regardless of anything else. The same could be said for weekends...all weekends within a season dont need to be the same amount of points, this is just done for convenience.

Id also argue tha the "demand" or at least the people analyzing it also cant be trusted as if they had been monitoring it each year, we wouldnt have these sudden movements. Its not like all of these changes are new trends.

If we are being real about booking demands and patterns, DVC should be analyzing every day as its own and changing point requirements accordingly.

 

[drusba]

Thank you for the thorough and solid analysis. I'm going to disagree on one point, but it does not change your conclusion at all.

The issue concerns the seasons. I take your point that DVD was explicitly empowered to create initial seasons, and nothing in the documents suggest that DVD or any other entity can change those seasons. But,it is also clear as you note that DVCM can change point requirements within very broad parameters, with the most important being the requirement of perfect offsets for increases and decreases. In particular, and again as you note, it specifically allows that DVCM can effectively level off the seasons so much that that seasons become meaningless. "A maximum reallocation of Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a “leveling” of all seasons, such that Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements would have no variation based on seasonally or different times of the year." If that is the case, as I read it, then maintaining 5 seasons while there are no seasonal differences is a fiction. If that fiction is allowed, then I think any seasonal fiction is allowed. I believe that if they kept point totals the same they would be allowed to create a chart that would be best described as a 7-season chart, even if by law they are required to overlay a fiction that it is a 5-season chart.

Personally, I believe the seasons have no legal meaning and are just there to make organizing and communicating the point charts more easily. I think as long as they don't move things by more than 20% one year, and keep point totals even, and do not go above certain specified unit point amounts (eg in BLT you have to be able to rent a studio for 16 points at least one day every year), then they can do almost anything else.

I think the season argument is plausible, and if I were litigating this for members I would bring it up, but it would be a secondary argument. And when discussing this with DVC management I would not push this point because I think they have easy answers for it, eg "It cannot be that we are not allowed to change the 5 seasons, because we are explicitly allowed to allocate points as if there are no seasons." I don't see a value in getting lost in that discussion.

That said, this is my reading and opinion and maybe there is value in different people calling and writing with a variety of arguments. But if you make the season argument, I would expect the DVC reps to counter as I suggested, so be prepared.

The setting of the seasons and dates in the seasons is allowed only once under the POS at time of creation of the resort. The reason is that it determines what the total ownership interests and total points for a year will be. It is the base year concept that assures no changes can occur to raise total points in any year except those that naturally occur as a result of normal changes in the yearly calendars. If maximum allowed reallocation occurs among the use days, you get equalization throughout all seasons but the seasons remain, particularly in case maximum reallocation is then undone by DVCM later moving points among seasons again to reflect changes in demand.

If you allow the seasons and dates within them to be changed, you get what has occurred -- DVCM's greatly raising total points in many years that results from changing the seasons. Moreover, you get the impermissible risk that every year DVCM will be able provide new charts with more or less seasons with varying dates resulting in more increases of points in many years.

For example, the new charts greatly raise points in many years because of the choice of 2035 as the new base year (what DVCM now is trying to claim is not a new "base" year even though it is being treated as one). Since that year has Easter at a very early date, total points for many years can greatly increase as the Easter date gets later and later. Next year we could see new charts that also divide November dates into three seasons rather than the current two -- making days before the three Thanksgiving days be in a season that has higher points while days in November after the the Thanksgiving dates are put in a lower season, thus causing a like effect of creating higher point years by the movement of the Thanksgiving date. And, interestingly, 2035, when Easter is at its earliest, also happens to be when Thanksginving is at its earliest, November 22. Thus, with such a seasonal change DVCM could even add a lot more total points to many years by having point totals rely on the annual movement of dates for both Easter and Thanksgiving and using 2035 as a base year.

DVCM could bring about further increases in total points for many years by using other moving holiday dates to raise yearly points, e.g., it could put January in two different seasons with points needed to reserve before or on MLK day being different from points needed after MLK Day. Like effect if February divides into two seasons before Presidents day and another season after Presidents Day. Same effect if you create seasons depending on the movement of Memorial Day or Labor Day. In other words, there is really no limit to the total annual point variations DVCM could create if it can change seasons and dates within seasons.

Thus, one cannot just infer DVCM can change seasons and dates within seasons simply because a maximum reallocation might occur. There is a real reason why the seasons and days within a season are supposed to remain the same. It is what prevents DVCM from greatly raising total points in many years.

 

[mgarbowski]

If you allow the seasons and dates within them to be changed, you get what has occurred -- DVCM's greatly raising total points in many years that results from changing the seasons.

Under my reading, this is not allowed. I read the offset language as controlling regardless of the season changes. They simply cannot play with seasons or base years in a way that increases points, but they can play with seasons if they don't violate that parameter.

That said, I'm prepared to leave it at that, acknowledging it very well could be I'm mistaken.

 

[Sandisw]

The setting of the seasons and dates in the seasons is allowed only once under the POS at time of creation of the resort. The reason is that it determines what the total ownership interests and total points for a year will be. It is the base year concept that assures no changes can occur to raise total points in any year except those that naturally occur as a result of normal changes in the yearly calendars. If maximum allowed reallocation occurs among the use days, you get equalization throughout all seasons but the seasons remain, particularly in case maximum reallocation is then undone by DVCM later moving points among seasons again to reflect changes in demand.

If you allow the seasons and dates within them to be changed, you get what has occurred -- DVCM's greatly raising total points in many years that results from changing the seasons. Moreover, you get the impermissible risk that every year DVCM will be able provide new charts with more or less seasons with varying dates resulting in more increases of points in many years.

For example, the new charts greatly raise points in many years because of the choice of 2035 as the new base year (what DVCM now is trying to claim is not a new "base" year even though it is being treated as one). Since that year has Easter at a very early date, total points for many years can greatly increase as the Easter date gets later and later. Next year we could see new charts that also divide November dates into three seasons rather than the current two -- making days before the three Thanksgiving days be in a season that has higher points while days in November after the the Thanksgiving dates are put in a lower season, thus causing a like effect of creating higher point years by the movement of the Thanksgiving date. And, interestingly, 2035, when Easter is at its earliest, also happens to be when Thanksginving is at its earliest, November 22. Thus, with such a seasonal change DVCM could even add a lot more total points to many years by having point totals rely on the annual movement of dates for both Easter and Thanksgiving and using 2035 as a base year.

DVCM could bring about further increases in total points for many years by using other moving holiday dates to raise yearly points, e.g., it could put January in two different seasons with points before MLK day different from points needed after MLK Day. Like effect if February divides into two seasons before Presidents day and another season after Presidents Day. Same effect if you create seasons depending on the movement of Memorial Day or Labor Day, or In other words, there is really no limit to the total point variations DVCM could create in total annual points if it can change seasons and dates within seasons.

Thus, one cannot just infer DVCM can change seasons and dates within seasons simply because a maximum reallocation might occur. There is a real reason why the seasons and days within a season are supposed to remain the same. It is what prevents DVCM from greatly raising total points in many years.

This seems to suggest that it really doesn’t matter what the true demand is of owners once charts have been created.

If we should not infer that leveling means they can eliminate them, then I don’t think we should infer seasons and dates are fixed when nothing says that once determined, they can not be changed.

As you said, we won’t all agree and as owners we have to do our own homework. My biggest suggestion to everyone is to call and get first hand explanations of it all.

 

[dismedvc]

As @i<3riviera has shown, the point inflation averages about .5% per year. While that is a huge increase in total, for a member with 200 points that is only 1 point per year for that member, which for most members is not worth fighting about. While I have never been involved in legal proceedings, if DVC does not voluntarily roll back the changes, it seems like some type of class action is the only solution.

ETA: I realize there are a few members with over 1,000 points, but I assume the average is about 200.
Also, as pointed out by @drusba in post 316 above this could be just the beginning, so it is important to stop it now.

 

[Cabius]

As @i<3riviera has shown, the point inflation averages about .5% per year. While that is a huge increase in total, for a member with 200 points that is only 1 point per year for that member, which for most members is not worth fighting about. While I have never been involved in legal proceedings, if DVC does not voluntarily roll back the changes, it seems like some type of class action is the only solution.

ETA: I realize there are a few members with over 1,000 points, but I assume the average is about 200.
Also, as pointed out by @drusba in post 316 above this could be just the beginning, so it is important to stop it now.

I'm a PVB owner with 300 points. That's ~4 nights in a studio over the life of my contract, that Disney can sell for cash. That's perhaps not exorbitant for an individual - though it's still wrong - but it really adds up across the total number of owners.

That's about 900,000 points across the lifetime of PVB. That's probably over $25mm transferred from owners to Disney's pocket given what Disney charges for cash bookings.