Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[Jlo85]

Also, I am still learning this stuff, but it is interesting to me that Disney has yet to 'Declare' anything into the Cabins. My impression from looking at records is that Riviera had inventory declared well prior to opening. So that could suggest to me that Disney cannot declare any real property into the cabins (because of the Mobile Home issue), thus necessitating a trust.

 

[Mikey15]

I guess what throws me is that Marriot setup their trust Timeshare Plan as "Marriot Vacation Club Destinations" and the Trust Association as "MVC Trust." Disney setup the Timeshare Plan as "Cabins at Fort Wilderness Lodge Use Plan" and the Trust Association as "Palmetto Trust." It just seems like very odd branding and setup for Disney if they intend to expand the trust in a meaningful way to be a collection of resorts. My guess is that the expansion opportunity could be limited to the Reflections area next door.

Is that overthinking too though? I mean, we throw around “DVD” and “BVTC” in this thread because we all know what they are, but all the branding the marks in the general public see is “DVC.” Couldn’t they use any DBA or branding they want to to sell it?

I mean, I think it’s technically possible for Disney to sell a ‘Timeshare as a Service’ trust product with a buy-in, annual fees, and even expiry, that’s entirely RTU and all future “properties” could go in there, including expiring DVC resorts. That doesn’t mean that’s the direction they’re going in.

I doubt “Palmetto Trust” is seen in public anywhere outside of legal documents and fine print.

 

[Jlo85]

Is that overthinking too though? I mean, we throw around “DVD” and “BVTC” in this thread because we all know what they are, but all the branding the marks in the general public see is “DVC.” Couldn’t they use any DBA or branding they want to to sell it?

I mean, I think it’s technically possible for Disney to sell a ‘Timeshare as a Service’ trust product with a buy-in, annual fees, and even expiry, that’s entirely RTU and all future “properties” could go in there, including expiring DVC resorts. That doesn’t mean that’s the direction they’re going in.

I doubt “Palmetto Trust” is seen in public anywhere outside of legal documents and fine print.

I think we could be overthinking the trust in general. But thinking about this further, it is kind of telling that:

DVC did not declare the Cabins as a condominium like the other DVC resorts. My assumption is because it doesn't meet that definition since it's a mobile home park.

DVC did not declare the Cabins as a mobile home park. My assumption is because the Cabins would need to own the underlying land for the mobile homes to count as real property under Florida law. DVC could have deviated from it's model and shifted the land to the Cabins, I would think, to be able to declare it. But they didn't. That could suggest to me that they are dedicated to expiration dates and the current model.

I know some here have theorized trust ownership could have an expiration date, but I am skeptical. Marriott's doesn't expire. Have we seen that expiration in the real world? How do you timebox someone's real estate ownership? Yes, the underlying property could expire, be sold, etc... but the trust would continue until there is no underlying property.

 

[drusba]

Also, I am still learning this stuff, but it is interesting to me that Disney has yet to 'Declare' anything into the Cabins. My impression from looking at records is that Riviera had inventory declared well prior to opening. So that could suggest to me that Disney cannot declare any real property into the cabins (because of the Mobile Home issue), thus necessitating a trust.

The likely problem is entirely different. The POS documents filed for CFW say that about 30 cabins are going to be put into the initial CFW use plan. The problem DVD is having is not an issue concerning the "trailers" but getting all of its documents done correctly to be what is required for a trust system timeshare, and then approved, something DVD has never done before.

The initial declarations made the Palmetto Trust both the association controlled by DVD and the trustee of the cabins to be added. That was illegal since such trustee under timeshare law must be independent of the developer. It was not until last week that DVD filed documents, not signed until Dec 29, 2023, making First American the trustee that will have legal ownership of the cabins put into a trust, while the purchasers will get a beneficial interest in that trust (which beneficial interest is also considered under the law to be a real property interest that can be transferred by deed). In essence, DVD was very late in hiring the needed trustee. They likely decided to keep Palmetto Trust as the association to avoid making too many corrections to existing documents. There will probably be more corrected documents filed to make sure the prior document terms conform with the addition of the new trustee. And DVD really cannot proceed until it informs the timeshare bureau of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, that the finals of the necessary documentation have all been filed.

To have the trust form of a timeshare resort requires "accommodations" to be put into the trust, and accommodations are defined to include cabins, and also includes any private or commercial structure permanantly attached to land, designed to be used for overnight stays. Moreover, trailers attached to land are generally considered to be real property under Florida law. DVD has faced no real property or timeshare issue that could raise doubts as to whether the cabins can be deemed real property timeshare accommodations. For many years in the past, those cabins have been considered under Florida law to be real property hotel rooms, and any such hotel rooms can be made into timeshare units.

 

[Bo1203]

We could probably find the recorded real property declaration stating the mobile home was affixed to the land, converted from personal property to real property. They would need to surrender the certificate of title and file a real property declaration with the county. That would tell us they could have done deeds if they wanted.

It's also possible they built the new cabins as modular homes.

 

[Cybertruck]

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" )

With the age of our kids with missed out on the DIY Schoolie craze. Much less than an RV and a great way to tour America between Disney trips. Seriously considered building one for our retirement years before we moved to Florida. Not possible now with the Florida HOA rules.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I know all the resort units in the original VGF were put into the DVC Resort. I thought there were still units in the new studios building that have not yet been declared into the VGF resort. If they have, then DVD will not be able to put in undeclared units from VGF into the trust. It could turn other VGF hotel buildings into a DVC Resort that is included in the trust, but that would be a separate DVC Resort from the existing VGF DVC Resort, e.g., like CCV is separate from BRV. The same issue may exist with CCV -- it all units have been declared into it then DVD does not have CCV related units to put into a trust.

If I'm understanding correctly, the difference (maybe only a slight one) would be that they could declare some units at a new resort into an existing association and other units into the trust.

So, rather than a circumstance where one building is its own resort/association and the building next door is in a different association, you could literally have units in the same building (Poly tower?) that are technically two separate resorts (some units declared into the existing association, which would be part of PVB and other units declared into the trust).

Imagine how difficult it would be to explain to people (especially those who might own both), that part of the Poly tower (or whatever future resort) is actually a separate resort even though the rooms could be next door to each other and indistinguishable, other than how/where they have been declared.

If something like this does come to fruition, you could theoretically have owners with two different types of points for Poly tower which, presumably, they would not be able to combine for a stay since they would actually own at two different resorts housed in the same building?

 

[Jlo85]

The likely problem is entirely different. The POS documents filed for CFW say that about 30 cabins are going to be put into the initial CFW use plan. The problem DVD is having is not an issue concerning the "trailers" but getting all of its documents done correctly to be what is required for a trust system timeshare, and then approved, something DVD has never done before.

The initial declarations made the Palmetto Trust both the association controlled by DVD and the trustee of the cabins to be added. That was illegal since such trustee under timeshare law must be independent of the developer. It was not until last week that DVD filed documents, not signed until Dec 29, 2023, making First American the trustee that will have legal ownership of the cabins put into a trust, while the purchasers will get a beneficial interest in that trust (which beneficial interest is also considered under the law to be a real property interest that can be transferred by deed). In essence, DVD was very late in hiring the needed trustee. They likely decided to keep Palmetto Trust as the association to avoid making too many corrections to existing documents. There will probably be more corrected documents filed to make sure the prior document terms conform with the addition of the new trustee. And DVD really cannot proceed until it informs the timeshare bureau of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, that the finals of the necessary documentation have all been filed.

To have the trust form of a timeshare resort requires "accommodations" to be put into the trust, and accommodations are defined to include cabins, and also includes any private or commercial structure permanantly attached to land, designed to be used for overnight stays. Moreover, trailers attached to land are generally considered to be real property under Florida law. DVD has faced no real property or timeshare issue that could raise doubts as to whether the cabins can be deemed real property timeshare accommodations. For many years in the past, those cabins have been considered under Florida law to be real property hotel rooms, and any such hotel rooms can be made into timeshare units.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but if the Cabins are Real Property, why not set the timeshare up as a Condominium? Why a "Use Plan"?

 

[Sandisw]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but if the Cabins are Real Property, why not set the timeshare up as a Condominium? Why a "Use Plan"?

I will guess…because they want to move away from a leasehold condominium timeshare model?

It gives them a lot more flexibility I think for what to do, especially when they can adjust points across accommodations, tighten up the rental rules, etc. and several other that we potentially a possibility.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

hey you can stay schnazzy campground when the Polynesian isn't available when you want it .

I can't imagine that moves the needle for many. And even more so, dvc sales are likely to become more deceptive to cover up that fact.

This relates to what I was asking about earlier... seems like kind of a bait and switch if they sell a trust product where the sales pitch highlights that you can stay at any of these awesome resorts in the trust (or these cabins).

People buy in expecting to stay at the resorts being touted in the sales pitch, but all that's left when they try to book is cabins.

Granted, there are going to be SOME people who would buy into the trust with the intent of using their points at the cabins, but I believe many more would be focused on other resorts in the trust. This would create a sort of reverse Bungalow point imbalance. I call it that because one of the complaints about PVB (and CCV) is that points are sold against those high-cost specialty rooms, but most people buying in planned to use them for Studios. That makes the studios harder to get.

This would be kind of the reverse of that because I think more people would be buying into the trust with the intent of staying at the "luxury" resorts in the trust, but the less desirable (subjective I know) cabin points also add to the total number of points in the trust even though fewer people may want to actually stay in them. That could result in not being able to get rooms at your desired resort and only having cabins available.

Now I could be really surprised when we discover that there TONS of cabin enthusiasts who will happily scarf up the cabin availability and not create this imbalance with other resorts in the trust, but I'm skeptical.

Of course, all of this is predicated on the trust including more resorts in addition to the cabins, and we don't know that yet.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I will guess…because they want to move away from a leasehold condominium timeshare model?

It gives them a lot more flexibility I think for what to do, especially when they can adjust points across accommodations, tighten up the rental rules, etc. and several other that we potentially a possibility.

The plot thickens...

If members are not deeded owners of property, but merely "users" of the vacation plan, then they perhaps would not be allowed to rent their points at all because they don't "own" the property to rent? Like the use plan could be non-transferable to non-members?

And since the units are not deeded, could a "use plan" give them the ability to adjust points across units with abandon? Yes, they've done it before in a few instances, but given the legal push-back, they've seemed to reluctant to repeat that tactic. But would this structuring open the door to being unconstrained in "balancing" point charts between units/room types?

 

[Genie+]

especially when they can adjust points across accommodations

This is how a trust with multiple properties and home priorities can avoid the demand imbalance issues today.

I like that potential aspect. Multi-home priority also interests me, especially in combo with that.

 

[cruisin5]

Wait until Disney IT tries to implement whatever this looks like.

 

[Sykes]

Wait until Disney IT tries to implement whatever this looks like.

Honestly, that's one of the strongest arguments in favor of things effectively remaining the status quo haha

 

[Bo1203]

It gives them a lot more flexibility I think for what to do, especially when they can adjust points across accommodations

Can the trust members have different point charts than deeded members? And when you say adjust across accommodations, are we talking within a resort point chart, or for example, increase RIV studios to decrease cabins etc?

 

[CarolynFH]

TONS of cabin enthusiasts

Or some cabin enthusiasts, plus some families of six who don’t want to buy 2BR worth of points, plus some families of 4 who like having a separate room for the parents apart from the kids but don’t want to buy 1BR worth of points, plus some who want to bring their dogs along - IOW, the cabins might appeal to some for reasons other than being in FW.

 

[Mikey15]

Can the trust members have different point charts than deeded members? And when you say adjust across accommodations, are we talking within a resort point chart, or for example, increase RIV studios to decrease cabins etc?

We don’t know if there will ever be resorts that exist simultaneously inside the trust and outside it.

Even if that happens though, and some existing resorts had some units carved out for the trust, based on what people are saying I think the points totals for the leasehold condominium units would have to remain the same, and there couldn’t be reallocations between those and the separate units in a trust.

 

[maui22]

I still can't wrap my head around the trust and how they will decide price and dues.

If prices are based on the so called home resort sold. Initially CFW. Disney likely faces a challenge where they offer higher incentives than other resorts.

• VDH or CFW makes sense based on location.
• RIV or CFW? Both at WDW. Wouldn't most buy RIV if the price is the same?
• CFW or PVB tower? Both at WDW. Wouldn't most buy PVB tower if the price is the same?

Looking at dues. I can't recall if dues for the CFW trust will be based on CFW only or if the trust would eventually be based on all resorts in the trust.

• If trust dues are based solely on the home resort you initially purchase. Example, CFW trust purchasers buy CFW and always pay dues solely based on CFW. If all trust purchasers (regardless of resort) are able to book at 11 months (no home resort advantage. How is someone who buys RIV trust going to feel when they pay more up front, pay for RIV dues, etc....but learn they are shutout of staying at RIV several years because someone who doesn't pay for the resort shut them out. This is not like the 11/7 month booking difference where a person had 4 months chance to book.
• If trust dues are averaged based on all the resorts in the trust. (Example, CFW trust + RIV trust + PVB tower trust combined divided by the number of points, etc). In this scenario, why would anyone buy the trust knowing DVD could decide to add a high dues resort to the system at any point in the future. Example, 2042 VB and HH could be added to the trust.

What am I missing?

 

[Genie+]

I still can't wrap my hear around the trust and how they will decide price and dues.

Price, dues, contract length, bank/borrow, trading within and outside the trust, membership rules, restrictions…

I have a humungous pile of questions and one lone teeny tiny answer: 30 cabins related to some kind of trust thingy.

 

[Jlo85]

May be nothing, but it's interesting to me that the Master Declaration mentions they intend to develop a "Resort Complex" and "Hotel" at the Cabins. I haven't seen the phrase "Resort Complex" in prior declarations for other resorts.