DVC Survey

[Sandisw]

There are some old threads on this topic. I delved into them not too long ago. I didn’t get too deep, but my reaction was that there was a plausible legal argument that the terms governing the O14 resorts were violated by the admission of RIV/CFW/VDH into BVTC. But, any purchaser of direct or resale since the restrictions were introduced have implicitly agreed to this change so I don’t think they’d have any legal standing to challenge it. If someone had the legal standing to challenge it, I think it would be a pre-restriction direct purchaser or a grandfathered resale owner. And the argument they would basically be making is, kick RIV/CFW/VDH out - they should never have been allowed entrance to BVTC. And why would any of them want to make that argument? Would they no longer want the ability to trade into those resorts? And, what damages have they suffered to argue for such a result? Decline of resale value for their own contracts? What evidence do they have of that?

So, even if there is a plausible legal argument somewhere in there, a lot of hurdles to ever successfully making a case.

The language that people have relied on to say it should not allowed was the all future DVC resort agreements should be substantially similar.

That language doesnt exist in newer versions. And the grandfathering of owners who bought when it did helps limit claims.

Substantially similar does not mean it had to be exactly the same. So, the question becomes whether or not legally, owners can challenge on that.

What would substantially similar look like that isn’t exactly the same?

The fact that DVD did it the way they did leads me to believe at least their lawyers feel they could withstand a legal challenge and those owners who have bought since 2019 did buy with that language in place.

No clue what the courts would decide.

 

[Tatebeck]

One thing I’ve wondered about… how is it that a restricted resort may trade into a resort where some of those owners are unable to reciprocate?

Take Beach Club resale owners. It’s a small resort of only around 2 million points. Some portion owners cannot trade into RIV, yet everybody who can trade at RIV can do so with BCV.

On some level how can someone own inventory that they must share with a resort that they are not allowed reciprocal inventory access?

Like what is the technical reason for this? Does inventory less than 7 months no longer belong to the home association owners?

I don't think it's that weird when you think about it.

RIV resale owners won't have access to BVTC at all (so less RIV owners accessing other resorts)
Post 2019 resale owners at O14 resorts won't have access to RIV via BVTC (less O14 owners accessing RIV)
So it will help balance it somewhat because it is limited both directions.

And the BVTC 7 month bookings were never going to be perfectly balanced anyway, because there are always going to be resorts that are smaller and/or more desirable (BCV, BWV, etc.) and other resorts that are larger and/or less desirable (SSR, etc.) So some will always have more scarce 7 month availability than others and there will always be imbalance between the number of eligible owners at the different sized resorts. There are more SSR owners that are able to book at BCV at 7 months for example than there are BCV owners eligible to book at 7 months at SSR (even if they realllly shouldn't )

BVTC can be avoided by booking in the home resorts priority period, which in the end is the only thing you are really guaranteed with your DVC contract and what we should be buying a resort for. I just wouldn't recommend buying at somewhere like BCV if you plan to use the points at 7 months often.

 

[lowlight]

But, what if they just create a new trading option in the BVTC?
Let's say we have the option to enroll our points into the Buena Vista Trust Exchange (BVTX). We still keep 11 months priority for our home resort. But at 7 months we get to exchange into any other Trust resort or any other resort up to the availability enrolled in the BVTC.
For example, if 1,000,000 BWV points are enrolled in the BVTX, then:
- BWV owners can book at 11 months potentially 100% of nights
- any owner of enrolled points can book BWV at 10 months up to 1,000,000 points (minus enrolled points used at 11 months)
- any owner can book at 7 months any resort (with resale restrictions applying).

DVC could ask for a fee to enroll points.
Future Trust resorts may be automatically enrolled in the BVTX.

So basically, DVC would not declare units into the trust, but individual owners can enroll in the new programme.

This may or may not combine with Trust priorities. For example, points in a Trust Use Plan can book any resort declared into the same Use Plan. Then at 10 months they can book BVTX points. At 7 months any other resort.

I think legally it would work.

Disclaimer: this is not a rumor or anything, just a thought experiment

Your scenario keeps most of the contract promises in place (1 month priority etc) and doesn't require them to place undeclared units from resorts currently for sale into the trust, which I think would be a no-no, but I think it's still materially changing the product of those owners who don't enroll into the hypothetical BVTX at their own home resort. BVTX didn't exist at the time they signed their contracts, but suddenly if they wanted to pick up a night at 9 months, they are now competing against a whole segment of people that didn't exist previously, which in my tiny mind seems different than lowering the home resort priority from 4 months to 1 month (which doesn't run afoul of the contract) for members utilizing BVTC, as that is spelled out in the contract as a possibility. In your scenario, Disney would also undoubtedly attempt to add point washing into the mix to further increase profits.