DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[Mumof4mice]

I like an "I am Spartacus" moment as much as the next guy, but I would instead encourage anyone reading this who doesn’t feel the point chart inflation is right, who appreciates the efforts of those members who have talked with Disney, who value the legal and regulatory research people have put into this issue; I would implore you to call Disney. Please email Disney. Take time to reach out and have a conversation about how you don't want your ownership interest diluted.

It’s all good and well to hit the like button on a post, to be upset enough to post about selling (you won't), or to stop proselytizing the virtues of a Disney timeshare, but Disney needs to hear you’re not ok with Management not acting in your best interest. Absent this, Disney will assume they are fine doing what they have done.

Please reach out.

Email
https://disneyvacationclub.disney.go.com/contact/email/
Member Services
(800) 800-9800
(407) 566-3800 - option 1

Fax Number
(407) 938-4151

Snail Mail:
Disney Vacation Club
Member Services
1390 Celebration Boulevard Celebration, FL 34747

I want to add to this excellent post and address a few potential deterrents to contacting DVCM.

1. It's too time-consuming.
You do not have to pen a lengthy essay, with legal analysis to the standard of @drusba. We are concerned clients of Disney. The onus is on DVCM to address our concerns.
My email to member services simply stated: I noticed total points were more than declared points. Could you please explain?

2. The amount is too small to bother.
This is true. However if cost were the only consideration, none of us should have bought DVC. I did not object to several DVCM actions with much higher financial impact (resale restrictions, seasonal shift of points), because they were potentials we agreed to when we purchased. I don't even particularly care if DVCM wants to reallocate points between different unit types, and I own PVB points.

Total points staying neutral is different. It's clear cut, easily achievable, and something DVD and DVCM repeatedly asserts. It should be honored.

3. I don't like confrontation.
By personality I avoid confrontation. Thanks to general Covid frustration this is currently not an issue! When Club Strategy offered to help me out with my points that might expire before travel restrictions end -
Me, in my head: Don't you [beep] try to [beep] bribe me. The points are on me. If I wanted communism I would have moved to...

I had to remind myself DVC managers are employees working hard to prove their worth to their company. Trust me, you'll have no trouble speaking your mind as soon as the explanations start flowing.

Hope everyone's staying safe and well!

 

[EM Lawrence]

After dallying on this for weeks, I have finally sent an email. Thanks for all of the information on this thread. I think I’m finally able to have a coherent conversation with them about it if they call me.

 

[SL6827]

I wonder if the threat of a lawsuit will be the only thing that will make Disney back down? I just wonder if they are going to play chicken with the DVC members taking them to court?

 

[Lorana]

4. DVCM is legally obliged to balance demand.

They are also legally obliged to not increase points. I had recently added on at both CCV and RIV, and in re-reading my RIV contract, it's pretty clearly laid out:



"The total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

While it seems DVCM can exceed the 20% limitation at their discretion (because they don't provide demand patterns data to us), that does not preclude them from having to ensure that the point totals do not increase.

 

[Eldon32]

I wonder if the threat of a lawsuit will be the only thing that will make Disney back down? I just wonder if they are going to play chicken with the DVC members taking them to court?

I think it would likely make them stop talking at all - since that's pretty much all-around good advice.

My novice opinion is to collect as much information as possible; try to make as much noise as we can as members, then pass it to the state. If the state doesn't find anything logical, then you have to decide how to escalate from there. I would say that just as multiple members need to complain to DVC to make a difference, the same goes for the state - either via separate complaints or via a petition of multiple signatures to the same complaint.

I should also point out, that FL law seems to require non-binding arbitration to occur before you can use other legal means. Even though it's non-binding, you may have to pay for the other sides costs due to a loss: http://www.myfloridalicense.com/DBPR/condos-timeshares-mobile-homes/arbitration/

In other news, they have rescheduled my call for 2/26; so I have a few more weeks before I can see what more I can learn. I do want to ask though who is paying the maintenance fees on these extra points?

 

[Cabius]

They are also legally obliged to not increase points. I had recently added on at both CCV and RIV, and in re-reading my RIV contract, it's pretty clearly laid out:

View attachment 554500

"The total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

While it seems DVCM can exceed the 20% limitation at their discretion (because they don't provide demand patterns data to us), that does not preclude them from having to ensure that the point totals do not increase.

Technically, they have not increased the number of points that exist, only made them less valuable.

It’s the difference between printing more money, and raising prices. They can’t print more money, but they can raise prices, which effectively devalues the supply that does exist.

 

[Lorana]

Technically, they have not increased the number of points that exist, only made them less valuable.

It’s the difference between printing more money, and raising prices. They can’t print more money, but they can raise prices, which effectively devalues the supply that does exist.

They increased the total number of points in the year above the total declared points for the resort, however, which is the basis of the discussion in the thread and the analysis done by @i<3riviera, @drusba and others.

 

[Cabius]

They increased the total number of points in the year above the total declared points for the resort, however, which is the basis of the discussion in the thread and the analysis done by @i<3riviera, @drusba and others.

Absolutely, and I’m outraged by that.

But I imagine that they would read the passage you quoted as referring to the fact that they cannot create or sell more points, and that their actions here don’t contradict that clause. They didn’t increase the number of points that *exist* only the number of points that are *required* — and that difference is is precisely the problem!

 

[Lorana]

Absolutely, and I’m outraged by that.

But I imagine that they would read the passage you quoted as referring to the fact that they cannot create or sell more points, and that their actions here don’t contradict that clause. They didn’t increase the number of points that *exist* only the number of points that are *required* — and that difference is is precisely the problem!

The section I quoted was under Section 6. Vacation Point system, so I don't see how they could legally argue that they can increase the number of points required to book 100% of the unit in a year. This goes back to the fact that the contract is also clear that I have purchased an "ownership interest" which is an "undivided X.XXX% interest in Unit XX of Disney's Riviera Resort" and that "an 'Ownership Interest' is an undivided, real estate property interest in a unit ("A Unit") in the Condominium."

Further, my points represent that interest: "As defined in and pursuant to paragraph 6, PURCHASER's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as XX Vacation Points (defined in paragraph 6)." In that paragraph 6 includes the part I quoted above. Thus, it seems pretty clear that they cannot increase the total number of points required to book a unit in a year beyond the total number of declared points: "The total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

 

[Eldon32]

Absolutely, and I’m outraged by that.

But I imagine that they would read the passage you quoted as referring to the fact that they cannot create or sell more points, and that their actions here don’t contradict that clause. They didn’t increase the number of points that *exist* only the number of points that are *required* — and that difference is is precisely the problem!

The preceding paragraph not in that screenshot says that the initial value is based on 365 days and must be equal to the total number of points sold. Points are a fictitious representation of the ownership percentage of a unit.

The following paragraph not in that screenshot says any point increase, must result in a corresponding increase or decrease on another day.


If:
* You are purchasing a percentage of time within a 365 day year.
* The points sold must initially match the points required for reservations during that 365 day year, 1-to-1.
* In subsequent years, an increase on required points one day, results in a decrease in points required on another day.

I don't see how they can increase the total points required for the year. You are chained to the initial maximum and chained to a like-for-like trade between days.

 

[EM Lawrence]

The section I quoted was under Section 6. Vacation Point system, so I don't see how they could legally argue that they can increase the number of points required to book 100% of the unit in a year. This goes back to the fact that the contract is also clear that I have purchased an "ownership interest" which is an "undivided X.XXX% interest in Unit XX of Disney's Riviera Resort" and that "an 'Ownership Interest' is an undivided, real estate property interest in a unit ("A Unit") in the Condominium."

Further, my points represent that interest: "As defined in and pursuant to paragraph 6, PURCHASER's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as XX Vacation Points (defined in paragraph 6)." In that paragraph 6 includes the part I quoted above. Thus, it seems pretty clear that they cannot increase the total number of points required to book a unit in a year beyond the total number of declared points: "The total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

In my very short email to Member Services, this is what I focused on. I actually own a percentage of a villa which is represented by points. When they inflate the points in the charts, they dilute my ownership interest. It seems pretty clear to me that they cannot do that, no matter how minor the inflation is.

 

[Lorana]

The preceding paragraph not in that screenshot says that the initial value is based on 365 days and must be equal to the total number of points sold. Points are a fictitious representation of the ownership percentage of a unit.

The following paragraph not in that screenshot says any point increase, must result in a corresponding increase or decrease on another day.


If:
* You are purchasing a percentage of time within a 365 day year.
* The points sold must initially match the points required for reservations during that 365 day year, 1-to-1.
* In subsequent years, an increase on required points one day, results in a decrease in points required on another day.

I don't see how they can increase the total points required for the year. You are chained to the initial maximum and chained to a like-for-like trade between days.

Yes. Here's the full section, for those curious:

 

[Lorana]

In my very short email to Member Services, this is what I focused on. I actually own a percentage of a villa which is represented by points. When they inflate the points in the charts, they dilute my ownership interest. It seems pretty clear to me that they cannot do that, no matter how minor the inflation is.

Exactly. That is what I focused on as well. It's the premise of our ownership, a simple question to ask, and one that should have a simple answer (as outlined in the legal documents).

 

[Heather07438]

Technically, they have not increased the number of points that exist, only made them less valuable.

It’s the difference between printing more money, and raising prices. They can’t print more money, but they can raise prices, which effectively devalues the supply that does exist.

That’s a good angle to look at it.

So while they haven’t increased the owned points above 100% of a Unit, have they effectively decreased that collective ownership to under 100% by increasing the amount of points needed to fully book a resort year significantly beyond 100% of what was bought?

 

[SL6827]

It is like it is no holds barred anymore with Disney, DVC, ect. The sky will be the limit on what they may try to do next, or in the next ten years.

 

[Cabius]

That’s a good angle to look at it.

So while they haven’t increased the owned points above 100% of a Unit, have they effectively decreased that collective ownership to under 100% by increasing the amount of points needed to fully book a resort year significantly beyond 100% of what was bought?

Yes, that’s my point.

They’ve reduced the value of our ownership interests for sure. That is theoretically possible by creating more points, or by inflating point charts such that our points have less purchasing power. They’ve done the latter.

If there are 4mm points and they increase it to 4.1.mm then our points no longer represent the ownership interest that we purchased.

If there are 4mm points and they inflate the chart so that it takes 4.1mm points to book the resort, then once again our points no longer represent the ownership interest we purchased.

Functionally, adding new points and inflating the point chart have the same impact. Legally there is probably a difference - they could argue that they didn’t “add points” because they haven’t adjusted the points declared — but inflating the point chart in this way has the same effect as just creating more points and giving them to DVC for cash bookings.

 

[Henwen88]

Yes, that’s my point.

They’ve reduced the value of our ownership interests for sure. That is theoretically possible by creating more points, or by inflating point charts such that our points have less purchasing power. They’ve done the latter.

If there are 4mm points and they increase it to 4.1.mm then our points no longer represent the ownership interest that we purchased.

If there are 4mm points and they inflate the chart so that it takes 4.1mm points to book the resort, then once again our points no longer represent the ownership interest we purchased.

Functionally, adding new points and inflating the point chart have the same impact. Legally there is probably a difference - they could argue that they didn’t “add points” because they haven’t adjusted the points declared — but inflating the point chart in this way has the same effect as just creating more points and giving them to DVC for cash bookings.

Agreed, this was the crux of the issue that I addressed in my email to DVC. How they accomplished it this year included the 1 week season near Easter. How they attempted it last time was the lock-off premium. I'm curious to see if they (upper management) are as confident in the legality of the 2022 changes as they were of the 2020 debacle???

I did also ask how exactly this would benefit the membership, (unless they changed the breakage cap somehow and all our dues will be decreased... hmmm, prob not)?

 

[DVCSunDevil]

Yes, that’s my point.

They’ve reduced the value of our ownership interests for sure. That is theoretically possible by creating more points, or by inflating point charts such that our points have less purchasing power. They’ve done the latter.

If there are 4mm points and they increase it to 4.1.mm then our points no longer represent the ownership interest that we purchased.

If there are 4mm points and they inflate the chart so that it takes 4.1mm points to book the resort, then once again our points no longer represent the ownership interest we purchased.

Functionally, adding new points and inflating the point chart have the same impact. Legally there is probably a difference - they could argue that they didn’t “add points” because they haven’t adjusted the points declared — but inflating the point chart in this way has the same effect as just creating more points and giving them to DVC for cash bookings.

Yes, adding new points and inflating the point chart has the same impact. However, inflating the point chart doesn't reduce our ownership interest. We still own the same % of the resort.

That being said, inflating the point chart reduces the value of our ownership. Doing what DVC did with the point chart in no way help the members, as they are claiming. And correct me if I'm wrong, but DVC can't inflate the point chart, per the rules of the contract. That's been the main point of this thread. The point chart is required to maintain the same total points from year to year.

 

[dismedvc]

However, inflating the point chart doesn't reduce our ownership interest. We still own the same % of the resort.

I disagree. If a resort had 100 identical rooms, and a member bought enough points so they could reserve one room for 365 nights a year under the old point chart, they would own 1% of the resort. However, if under the new point chart (that is inflated by .5%) they are now only able to reserve 363 nights. I would argue they now own less than 1% of the resort.

 

[Sandisw]

I disagree. If a resort had 100 identical rooms, and a member bought enough points so they cold reserve one room for 365 nights a year under the old point chart, they owned 1% of the resort. However, if under the new point chart (that is inflated by .5%) they are now only able to reserve 363 nights. I would argue they now own less than 1% of the resort.

I will add there is a clause in the POS membership agreement that specifically defines how many nights your ownership will get you. It will tell you if you own X points, you are guaranteed to have at least X number of nights bookable, based on availability for every Y number of points, in each of the accommodations at the resort.

For example, at RIV, it says I am guaranteed that for EVERY 16 points I own there, I must be given the ability to book at studio. That means the chart has to include at least that many nights for me for my 175, which means about 8 - 9 nights a year, They can never adjust the charts that cause any owner to not have those days as possible.

ETA. Before anyone asks, yes, this interpretation came from my conversations when seeking legal advice.