Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[nlenguyen]

If they put the CFW in trust, they could sell it at the current price per point of RIV/AUL. Problem solved with guessing if it would be lower

 

[bama_ed]

So as a complete novice, if the CFW are the first property to be placed in the trust, does that likely mean future DVC properties (new builds or even 2042 properties that might eventually age out) roll into that trust too?

As a loyal Fort Wilderness Camper for over 20 years, I kinda looked forward to considering a CFW offering at some level because "buy where you want to stay". But if you don't buy into a specific deeded resort, then what other future properties would be part of the trust? I would want to wait till I see what else became part of a trust. Actually, I prefer a deeded CFW product offering for myself - and not part of anything else.

CFW in a trust would kick out one of the three legs of my trailer "stool" leaving me only the beach and the mountains which is a check mark against such a plan. It would be a negative factor definitely.

Bama Ed

PS - could they possibly offer some CFW in the trust but also still sell deeded CFW contracts? Or is it "all or nothing" either way, do you think?

 

[Brian Noble]

with this new language, I think we will possibly couod a trust that has multiple locations, but each as it’s own plan.

I'm starting to wonder if the only thing that is changing is moving from deeded leaseholds to use plans, but the "mechanics" of it will otherwise remain exactly the same. So, from a day-to-day using-DVC perspective, it looks just like it looks today.

There are several advantages to a use plan, the most notable being it is much easier to terminate the account of an owner who is not paying MFs, as no foreclosure is required. Florida has a form of non-judicial foreclosure, but the owner can object and force the full process.

 

[Cfabar1]

I'm starting to wonder if the only thing that is changing is moving from deeded leaseholds to use plans, but the "mechanics" of it will otherwise remain exactly the same. So, from a day-to-day using-DVC perspective, it looks just like it looks today.

There are several advantages to a use plan, the most notable being it is much easier to terminate the account of an owner who is not paying MFs, as no foreclosure is required. Florida has a form of non-judicial foreclosure, but the owner can object and force the full process.

This makes sense to me...

I'm not sure how they could have a combined trust but only allow you access to a part, and not all of the trust.

So each resort would have its own use plan, meaning no one is a deeded owner. In practice, that might not be too terrible actually, as Disney already limits the rights of owners so much compared to the other systems I am aware of, and owners in many other systems have recourse where they can (theoretically) terminate the management company, unlike DVC, and it is their ownership forever (which has some advantages and disadvantages, but does give the owners more leverage overall).

 

[Jlo85]

Nope. It says it is the Cabins at Fort Wilderness Resort Use Plan. It sounds like right now, they will not be selling deeded ownership interests in the resort itself. . The initial cabin phases will be part of the trust and one would become on owner to use the trust property.

At least my understanding for the Marriott trust is that they still issue a deed, there is just really no underlying property for the deed. At least Marriott has been sued for this very topic, but I think Marriott successfully defended it (News Article). Some relatively recent Florida law that allowed them to issue deeds in that way.

 

[DonMacGregor]

There are several advantages to a use plan, the most notable being it is much easier to terminate the account of an owner who is not paying MFs, as no foreclosure is required. Florida has a form of non-judicial foreclosure, but the owner can object and force the full process.

That certainly makes legal sense, but from a practical aspect, how many people are really fighting a timeshare foreclosure?

 

[Brian Noble]

If I remember the discussion on TUG correctly, it is pretty easy to "object" accidentally. Dim middle-aged memory disclaimers.

And even a non-judicial foreclosure is probably a more heavyweight operation than "You lose! Good day, sir!"

 

[Sandisw]

At least my understanding for the Marriott trust is that they still issue a deed, there is just really no underlying property for the deed. At least Marriott has been sued for this very topic, but I think Marriott successfully defended it (News Article). Some relatively recent Florida law that allowed them to issue deeds in that way.

The documents filed for CFW spell out that it won’t be offering both at this time….it is only offering the purchase into them via the trust.

Could they decide to set up future sales for units they are not declared differently? Yes. But right now, the actual declarations .and DVC membership agreement for the resort say they will not be selling that way.

Lots of language throughout that is different than previous resorts

 

[tom1944]

As a resale purchaser I wonder what that market will look like for the people who are interested in buying those contracts on the resale market in the future.

 

[DaveNan]

Resale restrictions combined with the trust get even more interesting. Resale restrictions limit you to the home resort. Does the trust make anything (Points owned by the trust) in the trust, your home resort. Does trust ownership pass with resale? Would a resale trust buyer have access to:
A. the entire trust points and all points at your "home" resort
B. only non-trust at the "home resort", or
C. just all trust points, independent of "home resort"?

There are 4 groups of points:
Trust points at "home resort"
Non trust points at "home resort"
Trust points at "non-home resort"
Non trust points at "non-home resort"

My general understanding was with the trust, you really would not have a "home resort", you would have 11 month privilege at all the points in the trust. If you still had a "home resort" in the trust, at 11 months you would have access to all rooms (points) at your home resort and the rooms (points) owned by the trust at other resorts at 11 months, but not the rooms (points) at other resorts, which are not owned by the trust.

Adding resale restrictions makes it even more complicated. Exact trust wording will be critical.

 

[Brian Noble]

from a practical aspect

I'm also reminded of one of the Big (But Old) Conversations in Timeshare Land that was still going on when OKW first came up for sale: Deeded (perpetual) vs. RTU.

The conventional wisdom at the time was that Deeded ownership was superior, because it was real property, you owned it forever, and it and carried voting rights and could not easily be taken away. There were certainly debates about it, because the limited-time nature of RTU has its advantages as well. But, I remember a few articles on TUG and elsewhere that essentially said: "Deeded wins."

Then, along comes the legal team at DVD, who invent an RTU that is still attached to a deed. Now, the sales prospect that comes on the floor who has some concept of "Deeded is better" can be assured that of course it's real property that is backed by a deed. Nothing to worry about! I remember thinking that this was simply brilliant. I think I even remember a few DVC ecosystem articles that said "Of course deeded is better, but DVC is deeded so it's fine."

Fast forward a few decades, and several other timeshare systems have been selling use plans very successfully: WorldMark may have been the earliest example that has significant scale in teh US market, but there are certainly others. Marriott's pure point product that debuted in 2010 or so is not deeded. Wydnham's trust-based product also debuted around then. Seeing Marriott in particular do this successfully may have been enough to convince DVC that there is no reason not to start going down that route.

Correction: I think Marriott may be deeded as well, but with no particular home resort. I see conflicting statements Out There. But Wyndham's CWA definitely is not.

 

[sethschroeder]

If someone needs a place for 2 adults and 4 children to sleep, then the cabins make sense. But I would not want to be a party of 6 adults cramming in there.

But for a party of 5, a Kidani 1-bedroom (with its 2 bathrooms) makes a lot more sense.

For this reason, the cabins should IMO cost fewer points per night than a Kidani 1-bedroom.

Also, the cabins should cost fewer points per night than 2 Studios at OKW or SSR. 2 Studios is going to be a much better arrangement for 6 adults.

I would say personally if AKV 1BR Standard view is same price I might go for the Cabin.

With Cabins at least I avoid what I find to be awful AKV bus service. If the savanna view is same then I lean towards AKV.

That being said will likely do the cabins once just to do it for the fun of it.

 

[Sandisw]

Resale restrictions combined with the trust get even more interesting. Resale restrictions limit you to the home resort. Does the trust make anything (Points owned by the trust) in the trust, your home resort. Does trust ownership pass with resale? Would a resale trust buyer have access to:
A. the entire trust points and all points at your "home" resort
B. only non-trust at the "home resort", or
C. just all trust points, independent of "home resort"?

There are 4 groups of points:
Trust points at "home resort"
Non trust points at "home resort"
Trust points at "non-home resort"
Non trust points at "non-home resort"

My general understanding was with the trust, you really would not have a "home resort", you would have 11 month privilege at all the points in the trust. If you still had a "home resort" in the trust, at 11 months you would have access to all rooms (points) at your home resort and the rooms (points) owned by the trust at other resorts at 11 months, but not the rooms (points) at other resorts, which are not owned by the trust.

Adding resale restrictions makes it even more complicated. Exact trust wording will be critical.

The current documents for CFW seem to say that resale purchases will be limited to booking only at CFW.

It does not give you access to any other resorts, Since people are not buying into any home resort, but buying a right to use a property, the owner of the actual inventory..the trust…sets the rules in which owners can access its properties.

So, it appears that this trust may be set up differently once other properties are added, assuming they are….that you might be buying a RTU in one of the trust plan sites, but then have access to the other trust properties before they open up to other DVC owners who would be trading in via BVTC.

 

[sethschroeder]

If I understand right, the trust sounds like a really good option for families who travel the same week(s) every year. Provides the added benefit of being able to try different resorts with the 11 month home booking advantage.

Be aware though if there is no restriction on which resort points are in the trust percentage wise you could end up with like 50% of the points being SSR so you now are competing with people for that 5% allotment of POLY or whatever it is.

 

[pkrieger2287]

 

[Cfabar1]

Yes @pkrieger2287 that's about how it feels right now!!! We all have our conspiracy and prediction boards going up....

In all seriousness, I feel like this has to be a good thing for the resale market though.... As soon as resale guides can say "buy from us and you'll actually own something, with Disney all you own is a promise", I'd imagine prices will hold steady, and maybe even go up... Even for places like Riviera....

Also, does the trust document have any language that Disney can terminate the agreement or adjust the agreement? And if so, is the owner entitled to any kind of renumeration?

It feels to me if you are just buying "access", termination should be mentioned in the contract.

 

[jolynne28]

Well, this potential purchaser is now officially out.

Quite honestly, as an aside, we are considering getting an RV and that is more economical than the cabins anyway (and I can use it all year round). (ETA: Fully understand that any RV purchase may not be "economical" )

We have one and absolutely love the fort. But we are probably going to buy resale DVC and sell it. There is SO MUCH maintenance, I can't even explain the amount of time we spend on upkeep and also just packing/unpacking. Travel time increases as well, along with more planning regarding stops b/c you can't just pull in anywhere.
The campsites aren't cheap, what we spend a night at the fort is comparable to what you price DVC out at per night over the course of your contract. We also have only used it for Disney, we aren't true campers. Just wanted to add this perspective.

 

[Nabas]

I would say personally if AKV 1BR Standard view is same price I might go for the Cabin.

With Cabins at least I avoid what I find to be awful AKV bus service. If the savanna view is same then I lean towards AKV.

I'm not sure if you've ever stayed at Fort Wilderness, but there are multiple buses at Fort Wilderness. As I recall, there are 3 internal bus loops. Each is color coded.

You walk in the open (which stinks if it's raining) from your cabin/campsite to wait at a stop for a bus in one of the internal loops. This internal loop bus (which itself makes multiple stops) then takes you to the front, where you get off and then wait for a second bus to take you to a theme park. (There is boat service to the Magic Kingdom, but you have to either take a bus to get to that or rent/bring your own golf cart to get to the boat dock.)

Fort Wilderness is 750 acres. Depending on where you are, you need to take a bus to one of the pools, one of the stores, or the restaurant. (Again, this is if you don't have your own golf cart.)

With a party of 5, I'll take a Standard View one-bedroom at Kidani every time. Heck, I'll give up the second bathroom and stay in a Standard View one-bedroom at Jambo House for the same number of points.

 

[Jlo85]

It does not give you access to any other resorts, Since people are not buying into any home resort, but buying a right to use a property, the owner of the actual inventory..the trust…sets the rules in which owners can access its properties.

I'm gathering that resale restrictions would be limited to the trust. So if you buy resale trust points, you can only use trust points. For non-trust resorts, there will be a points conversion. At least that's my reading of the below. The 'Ownership Interest' will be deeded membership to the Trust. That's my impression based on the wording below.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm gathering that resale restrictions would be limited to the trust. So if you buy resale trust points, you can only use trust points. For non-trust resorts, there will be a points conversion. At least that's my reading of the below. The 'Ownership Interest' will be deeded membership to the Trust. That's my impression based on the wording below.

View attachment 822439

This is specifically about the Cabins trust plan., that specific resort plan is what people are currently goi g to buy.

Further in the document it states they can have different trust plans as part of the overall trust assocation which can be different component sites…but with its own set of rules. Here it is…which reads to me that people will be buying into a resort like now, just not deeded…so, those in the trust who buy resale will be limited to only the trust property they have an RTU interest in. Buying direct would be giving you access to other trust properties and will as those part of BVTC…that is what it reads to me.