DVC resale question

[dlindsay]

This is for any legal eagles in Fla real estate law. We purchased 150 pts at OKW in 1995 and 100pts at BC in 1998. The only resale restriction at that time was ROFR. In 2011 DVC changed the resale rules retroactively and reduced the benefits to the resale buyers thus greatly reducing the value of my investment. Now, from what I understand, DVD can exercise their ROFR and then sell them again with full benefits. Is this legal and has it been challenged in court?

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

From what I understand, the benefits were never guaranteed and were not what you purchased. You purchased a place to stay, that’s it. Taking away the benefits and giving them back have nothing to do with your ability to stay there.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

This is for any legal eagles in Fla real estate law. We purchased 150 pts at OKW in 1995 and 100pts at BC in 1998. The only resale restriction at that time was ROFR. In 2011 DVC changed the resale rules retroactively and reduced the benefits to the resale buyers thus greatly reducing the value of my investment. Now, from what I understand, DVD can exercise their ROFR and then sell them again with full benefits. Is this legal and has it been challenged in court?

They have not retroactively changed benefits. With every change they have grandfathered exisitng owners so you still have exactly the same set of rules that you had when you purchased in 1995 and 1998. Any new buyers after any change are made aware of the restrictions that comes with their contracts. What does happen is if you sell then the new buyer will get hit with all the restrictions but it's also hard to argue a loss as resale prices have only gone up and the cost per point you would receive in any sale would be greater than what you paid.

 

[DVC Doctor]

Considering you probably bought new for around $60, may have received free passes as a bonus, used them to stay at Disney villas cheaper than cash rates for 20+ years, and now they are worth around $90-$100 resale.....and now they added a small restriction to future resale buyers to incentivise the sale of new resorts to make the DVC collection better......what was your complaint again?????

Perhaps you should search Westgate, Marriott, Bluegreen, and any other timeshare buyers to see if they think you have a case when they have lost 90% of their original purchase value.

 

[DVC Doctor]

In 2011 DVC.............greatly reducing the value of my investment.

First of all, a timeshare is NOT an investment

Second, your resale price is actually greatly higher than what you originally paid

Third, I will buy all your contracts for the same price you paid, thus your cost will be $0 and all the 20+ years of use would be a fantastic savings and benefit to you.

Fourth, I know of no other timeshare company that hold value (or even increases in value) like DVC

 

[_auroraborealis_]

None of your benefits were deeded. That is the key. The only thing that is deeded is the real estate interest/RTU.

 

[Minniesgal]

This is for any legal eagles in Fla real estate law. We purchased 150 pts at OKW in 1995 and 100pts at BC in 1998. The only resale restriction at that time was ROFR. In 2011 DVC changed the resale rules retroactively and reduced the benefits to the resale buyers thus greatly reducing the value of my investment. Now, from what I understand, DVD can exercise their ROFR and then sell them again with full benefits. Is this legal and has it been challenged in court?

No benefits were removed retroactively.

 

[OKW Lover]

Now, from what I understand, DVD can exercise their ROFR and then sell them again with full benefits. Is this legal and has it been challenged in court?

As you noted the ROFR has been there since the beginning. Once Disney buys back a contract it is theirs to resell under whatever conditions it deems appropriate.

 

[stuartsong]

What are you complaining about?

 

[Wakey]

I don’t know about back then, but for a long time you have signed a waiver, effectively saying you are not buying for benefits.
It is ironic though that the benefits are marketed as the incentive to buy DVC and people say they are buying direct to get the blue card benefits.
My view is it is a dysfunctional market where still more regulation and consumer protection is needed.

 

[dlindsay]

What are you complaining about?

I wasn’t complaining, I was simply asking a question. Note the question mark at the end.

 

[Ben E N]

I wasn’t complaining, I was simply asking a question. Note the question mark at the end.

But you made two incorrect statements, phrased as a complaint, before ending with a question.
1. DVC is an investment. It is not. It's a timeshare.
2. The value of it has reduced. It has instead gone up.
As was pointed out, any legal challenge would not even make it into court. They clearly point out that any benefits are unrelated to your ownership, and can be taken away at any time.

While I am very frustrated with some of the recent DVC changes, I am grateful that they grandfathered me in with only 25 points direct. That allows me to buy discounted APs and other benefits that current buyers of only 25 points do not get. I understand and fully accept that if I sell my contract, the new buyer would not get those same benefits.

 

[DougEMG]

One could easily look at It that by changing the Interutation of the contract and making new resale owners operate under a different set of rules than existing owners that DVC has reduced the potential resale price of all existing owner's contracts. One of the first questions people were asking when the changes were made was how much would resale prices drop as there was a clear expectation that they would. And while they might be higher than when the change was made, they potentially could have been even higher.

This has nothing to do with benefits which DVC can set and give out however they please.

 

[jerseyduke]

DVC could just stop giving all benefits to everyone.

I am not sure about the legality of things but you did indeed by a time share, and fortunately it has appreciated. I cant see a court upholding a claim that your INVESTMENT was devalued, as it was not an investment, but really a depreciating asset.

 

[Great3]

One could easily look at It that by changing the Interutation of the contract and making new resale owners operate under a different set of rules than existing owners that DVC has reduced the potential resale price of all existing owner's contracts. One of the first questions people were asking when the changes were made was how much would resale prices drop as there was a clear expectation that they would. And while they might be higher than when the change was made, they potentially could have been even higher.

This has nothing to do with benefits which DVC can set and give out however they please.

I see your point, and I often wonder the same thing. If the prices would be higher if they didn't implement any of the resale restrictions. However, I have a feeling resale prices are going to be about as high as it's going to get (in direct line of DVC raising direct prices and ROFR), because if prices get too much higher, people would start thinking, I might as well buy direct.

Maybe some will just try to save every penny / dollar compare to direct if there's no restrictions whatsoever, and the benefits remain exactly the same, but I wonder.

Nevertheless, I don't think anybody will try to challenge this in court.

Great3

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

But realistically Disney is not legally obligated to maintain the resale value of the timeshare. A timeshare is not an investment. It is the ownership of something that gradually decreases in value, like a car.

 

[skey13]

Thank-you for the information! Looking to do something with my DVC in the next few years.