Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[TheDailyMoo]

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe I'm thinking about it all wrong. Say the remaining RIV points are declared and put into the trust. Isn't the trust the actual owner just like us and would have to follow the original POS at a higher level? Then the trust itself would have its own POS and rules? Or do the points just get "declared into the trust" (or whatever this is called) and bypass the original POS?

Not necessarily. There is language that allow them to declare units in the same assocation under a different vacation plan.

But, the units that are left could go right into the trust under a RTU plan and not be tied to the RIV POS at all.

They simply say they are activating X units from the Riviera Resort into the Riviera Use Plan in the trust. That means they are independent of the current DVC.

The only units that are part of the current RIV condo assocation are the ones declared. Until they are, they are not technically even DVC rooms.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

Not necessarily. There is language that allow them to declare units in the same assocation under a different vacation plan.

But, the units that are left could go right into the trust under a RTU plan and not be tied to the RIV POS at all.

They simply say they are activating X units from the Riviera Resort into the Riviera Use Plan in the trust. That means they are independent of the current DVC.

The only units that are part of the current RIV condo assocation are the ones declared. Until they are, they are not technically even DVC rooms.

Ok, I get the undeclared stuff. So wouldn't this support not having anything already declared go into the trust unless the home resort advantage stays the same? Otherwise I would think they'd have to be careful that'll they don't violate the POS, if that's something they even care about.

 

[zavandor]

Not necessarily. There is language that allow them to declare units in the same assocation under a different vacation plan.

But, the units that are left could go right into the trust under a RTU plan and not be tied to the RIV POS at all.

They simply say they are activating X units from the Riviera Resort into the Riviera Use Plan in the trust. That means they are independent of the current DVC.

The only units that are part of the current RIV condo assocation are the ones declared. Until they are, they are not technically even DVC rooms.

Wouldn't it require a change to the Riviera POS to allow someone to combine Deeded and Trust points at 11 months? It might be too much of a pain for DVC to call a members vote just for this.

 

[mamaofsix]

In the case of Riviera, the undeclared points are not part of the association right now.

So, they are not governed by the POS, or anything else. They are owned by Disney, and those rooms Disney can do whatever they would like with them.

I am skeptical, given the large amount of points that were recently declared into RIV (the largest or 2nd largest ever) that RIV finds its way into the trust.

I have many concerns with the cabins even beyond the trust including, but not limited to:
- What does maintenance/replacement look like?
- Will dues be extremely high given the resort's unique needs
- What do the points charts look like (sounds like maybe not too bad)?
- How are they Disney Deluxe accommodations?
- The room layout I would not personally find enjoyable
- The location is not ideal for me, though I do love the nature approach
- The waffling on pet-friendly

Not having read the documents . . . are all 30 cabins going to be available as pet-friendly? Or will there be only a certain amount designated for that purpose? Our daughter has severe dog allergies, so we would never stay in a unit where a dog has been, no matter how well it was cleaned.

 

[Brian Noble]

Wouldn't it require a change to the Riviera POS to allow someone to combine Deeded and Trust points at 11 months?

They don't have to be combined during the Home Resort period. Wyndham does not. If someone owns a Converted Week/UDI deed at Resort X, and also owns points in Access that includes Resort X, they cannot combine those two buckets during ARP. From the point of view of inventory control, Resort X is really two different resorts: one that is deeded, and one that is part of the trust.

 

[Jlo85]

From what @drusba They have define the trust property and units declared already to current resorts can’t be split up.

I get they (probably) can’t split up units. But any units that have not been sold could be rolled to the trust pretty easily. I am assuming that DVC sells unit-by-unit, so there should be unsold whole units available to move to the trust.

I think it does depend on whether they have to get association approval to reword the other resort documents. Based on how CFW was filed with trust language, I kind of assume they do, but it could change.

Also depend on whether DVC is OK with selling two products and for how long. Though, I agree with others here that the differences is pretty meaningless. And I think DVC will still be handing out deeds to buyers of both products (like Marriott did for its trust), even though the deeds are different. Marriott took the position to go all-in on the trust, and I could see DVC taking that same route.

Could explain the silent ROFR for almost a year. Because DVC would have had to piece together the units to roll to the trust, and my guess is they have no interest in doing that work.

 

[AwfulWaffle]

Not having read the documents . . . are all 30 cabins going to be available as pet-friendly? Or will there be only a certain amount designated for that purpose? Our daughter has severe dog allergies, so we would never stay in a unit where a dog has been, no matter how well it was cleaned.

Some just as it is today.

 

[Jlo85]

I am skeptical, given the large amount of points that were recently declared into RIV (the largest or 2nd largest ever) that RIV finds its way into the trust.

If DVC is going all-on on the trust, they are going to include as many resorts as they reasonably can for marketing purposes.

 

[Sandisw]

I get they (probably) can’t split up units. But any units that have not been sold could be rolled to the trust pretty easily. I am assuming that DVC sells unit-by-unit, so there should be unsold whole units available to move to the trust.

I think it does depend on whether they have to get association approval to reword the other resort documents. Based on how CFW was filed with trust language, I kind of assume they do, but it could change.

Also depend on whether DVC is OK with selling two products and for how long. Though, I agree with others here that the differences is pretty meaningless. And I think DVC will still be handing out deeds to buyers of both products (like Marriott did for its trust), even though the deeds are different. Marriott took the position to go all-in on the trust, and I could see DVC taking that same route.

Could explain the silent ROFR for almost a year. Because DVC would have had to piece together the units to roll to the trust, and my guess is they have no interest in doing that work.

Actually they don’t sell unit by unit once declared. If you look at the VDH thread about sales. You can see DVD deeded people across many from the start.

So, the only units at those resorts that I believe could be an option are the ones that have not yet been declared.

So, at RIV, only 25% of rooms are left. Which now makes me wonder if that resort won’t be added? Or they will declare it sold out for deeded interests with the 75% of units there, and keep the unsold ones for their own use.

Then, only sell as a trust product. Basically, not sell deeded and trust product together It’s one or the other.

And, until we see another RTU plan created tied to different resort, we don’t know if they are going all in with a trust product.

Poly tower will be the test. If that comes out deeded, then we have our answer.

 

[Sandisw]

Wouldn't it require a change to the Riviera POS to allow someone to combine Deeded and Trust points at 11 months? It might be too much of a pain for DVC to call a members vote just for this.

I am trying to read again , but my guess is that it might be too difficult to manage that way.


There is some language that says about things not being part of other plans…which is what would happen I think if they tried to add partial units and sell.

 

[walt34]

If DVC is going all-on on the trust, they are going to include as many resorts as they reasonably can for marketing purposes.

Well, they have all resorts at 7 months same as today. But adding too little inventory from a sold out resort (if they can) can also backfire, if it leads to many unhappy customers at 11 months.

 

[pkrieger2287]

Two questions I'm not sure have been discussed:

1) Do we think the trust in any way relates to the laws or restrictions related to the sale of property that is considered a mobile home or trailer? Historically, in real estate, I believe those have different real estate law requirements and implications that may have prohibited Disney from selling them in a deeded real estate form.

2) Along that same line of thinking, but trust-related, do we think Disney will need to creatively find a new way to finance this product since they are selling an RTU in the Trust with no physical collateral, which falls outside a regular mortgage loan type of situation?

 

[Brian Noble]

1: No idea!

2: If you mean "Disney financing the construction", I don't think so. It's not like they are getting a pre-construction loan from Wells Fargo. If you mean "financing customer purchases" the collateral has always just been the points.

 

[Jlo85]

Poly tower will be the test. If that comes out deeded, then we have our answer.

I do love the irony that this board thought DVC was going all-in for resale restrictions for Poly2, but now we're more cautioned on the trust. I get why, it's just funny. Will give us months of something new to speculate on.

 

[maui22]

2) Along that same line of thinking, but trust-related, do we think Disney will need to creatively find a new way to finance this product since they are selling an RTU in the Trust with no physical collateral, which falls outside a regular mortgage loan type of situation?

During the great recession, the third party who used to finance all DVC mortgage loans was forced to stop because so many contracts were in default. Disney stepped in and started financing those loans. Not sure if that's still the case.
If Disney is still financing the DVC purchases (mortgage loans), do they have extra leeway?

 

[kneely58]

During the great recession, the third party who used to finance all DVC mortgage loans was forced to stop because so many contracts were in default. Disney stepped in and started financing those loans. Not sure if that's still the case.
If Disney is still financing the DVC purchases (mortgage loans), do they have extra leeway?

One of the documents Disney recorded on Monday is a master mortgage agreement which contains provisions that will be incorporated by reference into each mortgage for CFW contracts. It looks like they will be pretty much traditional mortgages. I've attached a redline against the Master Mortgage Agreement referenced in the current Riviera mortgages. It notes that the Vacation Ownership Interests constitute timeshare estates pursuant to Section 721.05(34), Florida Statutes and are a parcel of real property under the laws of the State of Florida.

 

[Bo1203]

1) Do we think the trust in any way relates to the laws or restrictions related to the sale of property that is considered a mobile home or trailer? Historically, in real estate, I believe those have different real estate law requirements and implications that may have prohibited Disney from selling them in a deeded real estate form.

If a land-lease is involved, manufactured homes are considered personal property and not real property/real estate. You can’t get a typical mortgage. Nor can a real estate agent sell them.

 

[DonMacGregor]

If by "knowledge" you mean "knows about what the average DIS-DVC forum member does", most of people aren't buying from the developer anyway outside of a few very specific bargains. So it's fine.

If by "knowledge" you mean "current owners," well--spend some time talking to folks in the hot tub next time you are there, and you'll see what I mean.

While I'm never one to discount the ignorance of any social, political, religious, or economic group/cohort, I do find it interesting that as of today, of the 517,000 recorded points sold at VDH, fully 26% were sold (and recorded) during the May member pre-sale period (it might actually be higher than that as some of those sales likely didn't record until June or even July). Of those 517k, 147k recorded in May, and 162k recorded in June. Sales then dropped off a precipice down to 95k in July, then 52k in August. Because the pre-sale period ended on May 30, there's zero chance that none of those June points were sold to existing members during pre-sale, so sales to existing members could very easily be closer to 40% when you add in some of the early June recordings, plus some residual sales in the following 6 months (as well as those who put the purchase on credit cards over multiple payments and who's sales also wouldn't record until after the final payment was received and the sale closed).

Again, that's not to say that, as a group, those members were any more cognizant of the nuances of resale restrictions, etc., but I'm not willing to suggest they are all frequent hot tub dwellers.

 

[Sandisw]

Two questions I'm not sure have been discussed:

1) Do we think the trust in any way relates to the laws or restrictions related to the sale of property that is considered a mobile home or trailer? Historically, in real estate, I believe those have different real estate law requirements and implications that may have prohibited Disney from selling them in a deeded real estate form.

2) Along that same line of thinking, but trust-related, do we think Disney will need to creatively find a new way to finance this product since they are selling an RTU in the Trust with no physical collateral, which falls outside a regular mortgage loan type of situation?

I don’t know about the first one…but I think the documents discusss the financing aspect of it all.

It seems like it is set to go and that the trust itself does have real property. The owners are simply buying a right to use.

So, I don’t see financing being an issue.