DVC Survey

[PolyRob]

And yet, the question in the survey makes very clear that they're investigating a 12 months option for a fee. How can they reconcile that?
It's very clear, I've highlighted in your screenshot the FCFS part.
It's true that the POS doesn't explicitly forbid to have two different booking windows for home resort priority, but if that is the basis, then calling it a stretch is an euphemism.

Also, let's remember, the Management company, who is responsible to make this kind of decisions, is a fiduciary of the membership. They must act for the benefit of the whole membership. Asking for a fee (probably going into Disney's pockets) to have an earlier booking window, would greatly benefit Disney and a minority of owners, for the detriment of everyone else.
If the fee is small enough that a majority of owners will use it, then if everyone has a booking privilege , then no one has a booking privilege, the booking window just becomes 12 months. But then the only net result is that Disney makes a bunch of money.

ETA: the only explanation is that would be for future resorts only and it'll have to written in the POS.

I think what you previously outlined with owners still booking first then paid members booking between owners and regular swaps is the most feasible based on what's written.

Anything outside of that is going to get a lot of pushback. I will gladly join whatever legal fight it takes to keep my home resort booking advantage without an additional fee!

 

[Carouselofplanning]

There would be an absolute mutiny from the membership if different classes of members were established as it relates to the ability to make a reservation at resorts you have access to beyond the well established 11-7 rules. It’s one thing to say new rules apply to new resorts. It’s one thing to say Direct owners get freebies that resale owners don’t get. It’s a whole other thing to say either big point owners or just direct owners can now book earlier than others. A very whole other thing. This will trigger litigation.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not sure how they can legally make home resort booking window a paid benefit.

 

[Cfabar1]

There would be an absolute mutiny from the membership if different classes of members were established as it relates to the ability to make a reservation at resorts you have access to beyond the well established 11-7 rules. It’s one thing to say new rules apply to new resorts. It’s one thing to say Direct owners get freebies that resale owners don’t get. It’s a whole other thing to say either big point owners or just direct owners can now book earlier than others. A very whole other thing. This will trigger litigation.

There would be a mutiny, but I suspect if they wanted they could get away with it based on the POS...

However, what I do not think would be possible would be to have non-Home Resort owners be allowed to book prior to members.

The gray area is making the window for owners so far in the future that in practicality it renders home availability useless - say owners need to book 24 months out for home resort priority, and then from 23 through 7 months it is premium booking for non owners as well as continued access for owners... I suspect that would cause the membership to mutiny... I also don't know why or how that would help their mission of selling more points practically... It would essentially turn all of DVC into a "trust product" for the majority of owners (apart from those who are uber planners or have fixed weeks).

How much they care... probably depends on what they think they can get away with... That's the biggest disadvantage to any timeshare system, you've already handed them a huge amount of money and a contract that obligates you to whatever sums of money they dictate...

When I put It like that...
Why am I buying another contract?

 

[Cfabar1]

I’m not sure how they can legally make home resort booking window a paid benefit.

Agreed. The POS seems clear enough to me in that regard.

 

[Sandisw]

And yet, the question in the survey makes very clear that they're investigating a 12 months option for a fee. How can they reconcile that?
It's very clear, I've highlighted in your screenshot the FCFS part.
It's true that the POS doesn't explicitly forbid to have two different booking windows for home resort priority, but if that is the basis, then calling it a stretch is an euphemism.

Also, let's remember, the Management company, who is responsible to make this kind of decisions, is a fiduciary of the membership. They must act for the benefit of the whole membership. Asking for a fee (probably going into Disney's pockets) to have an earlier booking window, would greatly benefit Disney and a minority of owners, for the detriment of everyone else.
If the fee is small enough that a majority of owners will use it, then if everyone has a booking privilege , then no one has a booking privilege, the booking window just becomes 12 months. But then the only net result is that Disney makes a bunch of money.

ETA: the only explanation is that would be for future resorts only and it'll have to written in the POS.

I am pretty sure that the way FL timeshare laws and the POS prohibit a different booking windows for home resort outside of the FW, which was built into the contracts already at the start.

Now, it might be something they can adjust moving forward, especially with the trust model.

I’ll see if I can find anything re FL 721

 

[Sandisw]

There would be an absolute mutiny from the membership if different classes of members were established as it relates to the ability to make a reservation at resorts you have access to beyond the well established 11-7 rules. It’s one thing to say new rules apply to new resorts. It’s one thing to say Direct owners get freebies that resale owners don’t get. It’s a whole other thing to say either big point owners or just direct owners can now book earlier than others. A very whole other thing. This will trigger litigation.

They certainly can lengthen or shorten the home resort period as that is built in.

And, the DVC resort agreements already say that trading rules can change, including fee based rules.

 

[Cfabar1]

And, the DVC resort agreements already say that trading rules can change, including fee based rules.

This is why I cannot get over "Buy Where You Want To Stay...." View trading as a plus up, not a guarantee...

 

[Sandisw]

This is why I cannot get over "Buy Where You Want To Stay...." View trading as a plus up, not a guarantee...

Exactly! There is a lot they can do in that regards. They don’t even have to treat each resort the same.

For example, they could decide to give BWV owners a longer home resort period than VGF owners if they wanted to.

And, throw in the options they can do with the trust? I can see them structure it differently.

So, you have your home resort booking window at 12 months, your ability to trade into other trust properties at 11 months and then trade to non trust at 7 months.

It’s the paid part that I do t see applying to home resort for current resorts outside the trust.

 

[lowlight]

I wish I were better with using AI, because there are decades of posts on the Disboards that could be parsed in a very interesting way. People almost always post on the Disboards when they are sent a survey, and I think it would be interesting to see the percentage of questions that are asked on a survey that eventually make it into Disney policy, and the timeframe in which they do it. I do have a feeling that this is going to happen, although maybe only applicable to the trust? The survey questions are too specific to be in the "idea" stage, in my opinion.

 

[AstroBlasters]

The only thing guaranteed with home resort advantage is that you get a first come first serve one month advantage of non-home resort owners… that’s it….

If they want to make it 11m for home resort, 10m for non-home resort with a fee, 9m for non-home resort with 500+ direct points, 8m for non-home resort 250+ direct points, and 7m for resale non-home resort points then I believe they can do it…..

But PLEASE look at the wording that said “at select resorts”…. I.E. that could mean resorts that most people can book a lot of the year at 7m anyways….

 

[drusba]

Personal view is that the suggestions listed in the survey cannot be done (answers here rely mainly on the BWV POS, but others have the same key terms):

A. The 12-month-Reservation-For-a-Fee Suggestion.

The declarations expressly declare that “all units” in the resort shall be available to “all” owners of that resort on a “first come first serve reservation basis” using the Home Resort Reservation Component. BWV Declarations ¶12.12(a). That first come first serve rule is repeated in a number of places in the POS. Moreover, even the purchase agreements declared that all owners of a resort would be able to reserve on a first come first served basis, DVC cannot offer to some owners of a resort (for a fee or otherwise) a better than first come first serve basis for making a reservation since the terms of the declarations and elsewhere are designed to treat all owners of a resort the same.

One exception to that rule was created for CFW for which its membership agreement adopted a right that new purchasers of a new DVC Resort could be allowed some period of time to make reservations more than 11-months out. That is a so what. It neither adopts the rule that one can pay extra for a longer reservation right and applies it only to new resorts. In creating a new resort, DVD can make new reservation rules for that resort but it cannot make any such rules applicable to already existing resorts.

The only exception that can apply to the existing condominium resorts is the Special Season Preference List, actually covered in the POS’s, under which DVC can place a time period of high demand and chosen resorts on such a list and then, starting at some designated time before 11-months out, anyone from any resort can put in a special request for a reservation (room and time) and then before 11-months out, MS awards reservations for a resort to any members from any resorts either on a random basis or in order of getting onto the list, until the rooms are full or the list runs out. That has been used only once in DVC history in the late 1990s, and was mainly created in anticipation of what DVC believed would be a huge number of reservations for time around the turn of the century.

B. Giving the 11-month Reservation Window to Everyone for Hilton Head

For the same reasons as above, DVC cannot change Hilton Head to a resort that allows everyone from other resorts to book at 11-months out just like the owners. The Home Resort reservation advantage applies only to the owners of the resort, and the declarations (and other parts of the POS) declare that Home Resort reservation advantage shall apply only to such owners for all reservations made, on a first come first served basis, during the Home Resort Priority Period. Declarations ¶12.12(b). That rule also rules out the suggestions made by some above that DVC could allow members, such as high point members, to reserve other resorts at 10 months or 9 months out. The Home Resort Priority Period can be reduced to one month, but no one from another resort can reserve a room at 10-months out unless such a reduction applicable to the entire resort is actually made.

C. Reduce the Points Needed to Reserve Rooms at 60 to 90 Days Out

That may sound enticing but there is a major legal problem. There is a law that provides total ownership interests, and thus total points issued for reserving the entire resort in a year, cannot exceed the number it would take to reserve all the rooms for a year. If you reduce the points needed to reserve rooms during part of the year that will mathematically result in total points available to make reservations exceeding the yearly total it would take to reserve all rooms. It is the same issue DVC has when it lowers points needed to reserve rooms during a season, as it has done in the past. In that situation the law and the DVC Membership Agreements expressly require that any such reduction in a designated period or season of the year must be offset by an equal increase in another time or season. In essence, if DVC wants to lower points needed for parts of the year, it needs to raise them in other parts.

I do own a lot of points and certainly would not refuse some extra benefits. But even if DVC wants to create additional benefits, I do not believe it should be trying to change the reservation system and its first come first serve rule. Now if DVC offered to cover some meals or lower my cost for purchasing park passes, I would be more than appreciative.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

The “Disney can do whatever it wants” and “it’s a timeshare they can do whatever they want” crowd always appears. They will never admit there is a limit to what nonsense DVC can pull.

 

[atthebeachclub]

Maybe all these questions are more aimed at how they choose to build the future trust product? I doubt most of this could be done with current resorts, but they needed examples for membership understanding.

 

[Girlstar30]

Hopefully whatever they do to make it worse wont affect us.

They have a tendency to grandfather current members with the rules that applied when they bought. Im assuming theyre going to do whatever they can to make resale less and less attractive as has been the trend and maybe theyre fishing for their next move.

But its hard enough to book at 7 months, I know when I first bought the lack of availability and how hard it is to get some resorts surprised me, so I will be mad if someone paying more puts me at the bottom of the totem pole, when I didnt buy into something like that.

 

[Cfabar1]

That rule also rules out the suggestions made by some above that DVC could allow members, such as high point members, to reserve other resorts at 10 months or 9 months out. The Home Resort Priority Period can be reduced to one month, but no one from another resort can reserve a room at 10-months out unless such a reduction applicable to the entire resort is actually made.

Can you elaborate on this? Is that actually spelled out? Would be great if that was the case.

I agree the idea of discounting close in is extremely unlikely with the current structure, I'd be curious how Wyndham got around the requirements of a finite number of points. Unless somehow it is subsidized by the company for premium members with them using their own inventory...

 

[Tatebeck]

Personal view is that the suggestions listed in the survey cannot be done (answers here rely mainly on the BWV POS, but others have the same key terms):

A. The 12-month-Reservation-For-a-Fee Suggestion.

The declarations expressly declare that “all units” in the resort shall be available to “all” owners of that resort on a “first come first serve reservation basis” using the Home Resort Reservation Component. BWV Declarations ¶12.12(a). That first come first serve rule is repeated in a number of places in the POS. Moreover, even the purchase agreements declared that all owners of a resort would be able to reserve on a first come first served basis, DVC cannot offer to some owners of a resort (for a fee or otherwise) a better than first come first serve basis for making a reservation since the terms of the declarations and elsewhere are designed to treat all owners of a resort the same.

One exception to that rule was created for CFW for which its membership agreement adopted a right that new purchasers of a new DVC Resort could be allowed some period of time to make reservations more than 11-months out. That is a so what. It neither adopts the rule that one can pay extra for a longer reservation right and applies it only to new resorts. In creating a new resort, DVD can make new reservation rules for that resort but it cannot make any such rules applicable to already existing resorts.

The only exception that can apply to the existing condominium resorts is the Special Season Preference List, actually covered in the POS’s, under which DVC can place a time period of high demand and chosen resorts on such a list and then, starting at some designated time before 11-months out, anyone from any resort can put in a special request for a reservation (room and time) and then before 11-months out, MS awards reservations for a resort to any members from any resorts either on a random basis or in order of getting onto the list, until the rooms are full or the list runs out. That has been used only once in DVC history in the late 1990s, and was mainly created in anticipation of what DVC believed would be a huge number of reservations for time around the turn of the century.

B. Giving the 11-month Reservation Window to Everyone for Hilton Head

For the same reasons as above, DVC cannot change Hilton Head to a resort that allows everyone from other resorts to book at 11-months out just like the owners. The Home Resort reservation advantage applies only to the owners of the resort, and the declarations (and other parts of the POS) declare that Home Resort reservation advantage shall apply only to such owners for all reservations made, on a first come first served basis, during the Home Resort Priority Period. Declarations ¶12.12(b). That rule also rules out the suggestions made by some above that DVC could allow members, such as high point members, to reserve other resorts at 10 months or 9 months out. The Home Resort Priority Period can be reduced to one month, but no one from another resort can reserve a room at 10-months out unless such a reduction applicable to the entire resort is actually made.

C. Reduce the Points Needed to Reserve Rooms at 60 to 90 Days Out

That may sound enticing but there is a major legal problem. There is a law that provides total ownership interests, and thus total points issued for reserving the entire resort in a year, cannot exceed the number it would take to reserve all the rooms for a year. If you reduce the points needed to reserve rooms during part of the year that will mathematically result in total points available to make reservations exceeding the yearly total it would take to reserve all rooms. It is the same issue DVC has when it lowers points needed to reserve rooms during a season, as it has done in the past. In that situation the law and the DVC Membership Agreements expressly require that any such reduction in a designated period or season of the year must be offset by an equal increase in another time or season. In essence, if DVC wants to lower points needed for parts of the year, it needs to raise them in other parts.

I do own a lot of points and certainly would not refuse some extra benefits. But even if DVC wants to create additional benefits, I do not believe it should be trying to change the reservation system and its first come first serve rule. Now if DVC offered to cover some meals or lower my cost for purchasing park passes, I would be more than appreciative.

There are creative ways they can do things behind the scenes by which IMO they could theoretically enable some of these things without truly falling afoul of the contracts. Some possible examples off the top of my head:

A. The first survey question clearly says at select resorts and pending availability. They could use undeclared inventory at new resorts (which they may have quite a bit of if they keep building) in order to afford this. Pay an extra fee to book DVCs own rooms in addition to the units declared to the members. That's basically how welcome home stays work and they have been doing those for a loooong time. Or they can just enable it in the contracts and documents of the newer resorts going forward and that would still be "select" resorts.

B. If Disney decides to ROFR a bunch of Hilton Head points, what is stopping them from letting other members "use" DVC's own currently owned HHI points in a swap in a way just like members renting out their points with a third party swap, but all in one transaction with Disney. When certain approved member books a stay in the system at HHI, it could use DVCs own HHI points, then take away the member's points that the offered up for trade when making the booking. No non-HHI points would be used at 11 months technically.

C. Whenever a discount is offered for a last second room, DVC could offer up some of their own points they own from unsold units or from ROFR acquired contracts to cover the shortfall. IE A room costs 12 points, discounted to 9. DVC on the backend marks 3 of their own points as "used" as well as the members.

 

[drusba]

Can you elaborate on this? Is that actually spelled out? Would be great if that was the case.

I agree the idea of discounting close in is extremely unlikely with the current structure, I'd be curious how Wyndham got around the requirements of a finite number of points. Unless somehow it is subsidized by the company for premium members with them using their own inventory...

The BWV (and other) declarations, ¶12.12(b). expressly provides that during the Home Resort Priority Period, which is currently defined as the four-month period from 11-months to 7-months out from the start of a desired reservation, the only owners who can reserve a DVC Resort are the owners of that resort. Owners from another DVC Resort can reserve that DVC Resort only after the Home Resort Priority Period Ends, which is currently at 7-months out. That Home Resort Priority Period could be shortened by DVCM but the Home Resort Priority Period must always be at least one month.

Result: no owner of one DVC resort can use points from that resort to reserve a room at another DVC resort during that applicable Home Resort Priority Period, which is currently four months (from the 11th to 7th month out). Thus, e.g., DVC cannot create a rule today stating that any owner from SSR can reserve a BWV room at 8-months out, or 9-months or 10-months out, without first formally changing the existing applicable Home Resort Priority period to a shorter period, which can never be less than a month.

I often see statements indicating Wyndham or some other timeshares can do something different. What many need to understand is that those other declarations and POS's are not the same as DVC's and DVC is legally bound to follow the terms of its own POS and declarations and not that of any other timeshare resort.

DVC could create new resorts with different rules than those in the POS of the prior resorts but that would not mean those rules would apply to the existing resorts. Example, as to HHI, it may be thinking that the only beneficial way to keep it after 2042 is to redo the declarations at the time to allow any and all DVC members to reserve at 11-months out.

 

[CinCrisis]

It boggles my mind that they would consider adding more levels of complication to an already complicated time share program.

Also concerned that these changes would be beneficial to US residents only like MMB. But y’all are the legal eagles and I’m just paranoid.