Lawsuit

[Tdisney]

I am new to DVC but I have a friend that has been an owner since the 1st beachclubs were built. I told him about the new developments with DVC. He was telling me he was planning on selling his points to buy baylake towers. So now he is wondering about what his points will be worth on the resale market. The way he sees it is that this is in breach of a contract if the value of the points go down because the value of the points should not change no matter who owns the points. So the points that he has now wont be worth as much now because of the new rules. If the government all the sudden comes out and says the dollar you have is only worth 50 cents if you give it to someone else. Therefore essentially devaluating the dollar. Anyway he was wondering if anyone is preparing to sue disney over this. I bought my points just a month ago so Im covered and I only plan on using them to go to disney and am hoping points go down in value so I can buy some more but everyone should be concerned if they plan on selling them anytime in the future if they allow disney to change what the points can be used for. What if they come out and say you can only use your points at your home resort next. There seems like there should be some protection for the owner of the points not just disney. I am sure this has been discussed before but just curious about your thoughts.

 

[CarolMN]

I really doubt anyone will be filing a lawsuit over the recent changes. IMO, it would just be a waste of money and thus virtually impossible to find a competent attorney to take the case.

The perks that were removed were never guaranteed by contract. Neither were there any contractual representations regarding resale value.

There hasn't been any breach of contract. I fear your friend either did not carefully read the POS and the other purchase documents, or did not completely understand them.

 

[DVCconvert]

The way he sees it is that this is in breach of a contract if the value of the points go down because the value of the points should not change no matter who owns the points.

Tell you're friend "good luck with that one!"

When he/I/you purchased a DVC interest. The rights were all spelled out.
DVC is acting in a manner consistent with the agreed to terms & conditions.

 

[CarolAnnC]

There will be no grounds for a lawsuit. Plus, timeshare values will go down in price as time progresses. Like a car, the value will not be there years down the road anyway. Why has he waited to sell if he no longer wanted the BCV? Just curious...

 

[AmberHeartsDisney]

Everything depreciates, homes, cars. He signed a contact to "own" part of that "DVC" for xxx amount of time by him selling he would be the one terminating the contact not Disney. This is my thinking anyways.

 

[Tdisney]

I can tell you we were involved in a lawsuit involving something similar to this with a beach condo development. We bought preconstruction from a developer with hope of flipping it before it was completed. However many of the units were not presold and the developer then tried to sweeten the pot or unsweeten the pot for people that bought preconstruction after construction was completed. People that were trying to resell after construction was completed would not be able to transfer the use of certain amenities that was part of the original contract. Instead if any one bought the units from an individual instead of the developer, they had to also purchase a lifetime contract from the developer to use the amenities. This was taken up in a class action lawsuit and was won by the owners. It did take 6 years to finally close and has not benefited us in in anyway because we had to hold on to the condo. But now there is a lawsuit going on trying to recoup losses do to the fact that the condos were essentially tied up in litigation.

Disney is essentially creating two classes of owners and the points will have different values based on who you bought them from. This is definitely against free marketing.

Your thoughts ?

 

[Deb & Bill]

... People that were trying to resell after construction was completed would not be able to transfer the use of certain amenities that was part of the original contract. ...

The difference here is that trading out to the Disney Collection was never part of the original CONTRACT. The original contract only gives the member the right to book at their home resort.

 

[JWG]

There have been no changes to the contract terms. I don't see how any lawsuit or class action would survive. I think Disney would very quickly and successfully reach summary judgment and no class certification would occur.

The difference in "perks" are not guaranteed to anyone.

 

[bmtta2003]

I am not a lawyer but have learned that winning the lawsuit is not always the goal. If a lawyer or law firm found a court to hear the case, it's possible to keep Disney tied up in litigation for years costing tons of time, money and bad publicity. If it lasted long enough Disney would be forced to settle.

What would that do for us DVC owners? Nothing the already overpriced gifts, food, and admissions would surely go up even more.

I don't believe lawsuit is the answer. However going public with DVC owner dissatisfaction would surely get Disney's attention. I have never bought into a time share before. I believe they are all rip-offs, but I trusted the Disney name, only to find I was ripped off anyway!

I have referred 3 friends into buying into DVC and now greatly regret it. I will now unfortunately advise people against the purchase.

 

[Buckeye Fan]

The difference here is that trading out to the Disney Collection was never part of the original CONTRACT. The original contract only gives the member the right to book at their home resort.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, this has nothing to do with what we've lost or our perception of what we lost, and more to do with what Disney promised us when we purchased (either direct or resale), which was the ability to book at our home resort based on availability. Nothing more, nothing less.

As much as I hope my properties retain some value and I can continue to do certain things such as resort hop among DVC properties, I do realize I could be limited to my home resort (thus why people encourage to buy where you want to stay). I'm not an attorney, and don't know if there's been a breach of contract, but based on what I've read, I don't think a class action would have a leg to stand on. JMHO. Disney gave ample notice on policy changes, grandfathered all resale purchases prior to March 21, 2011 in with the old rules, and can prove that contracts were selling very quickly for fair market value for those who wanted to sell prior to the change. If anything, it became a sellers market for a moment in time. Plus, mark my words, Disney's corporate attorneys ran through these changes with a fine tooth comb prior to implementing any of them.

 

[arthur06]

It's not always easy to successfully sue when the the person your suing has much deeper pockets.

I don't see any real grounds for suing, but maybe you/they do, so best of luck.

 

[GrumpysFamily]

Any reputable attorney who saw the DVC Contracts, POS, etc. would advise his client that there is no breach of contract claim. DVC/DVD has merely changed the "perks" afforded to its members. Furthermore, they gave advance notice of the changes and grandfathered in those members who purchased prior to the changes which is more than they were obligated to provide members under the various contracts and documents. It is similar to your rewards debit/credit card changing the terms of the rewards system. Would you sue Am Ex simply because you can no longer exchange your member points for Continental Frequent Flier miles, which they will in fact be implementing this summer? In exchange for my yearly membership fee, Am Ex still provides the member points and exchange benefits but modifies how they are applied. Same here.

Members may be upset about the changes, but we were given notice and no contractual rights were taken away and there has been no breach of contract. I have no doubt that this change was throughly vetted by Disney's attorneys before they decided to implement this change. I would question any legal advice that suggests any class action claim exists, noting that if a class is certified all attorneys' fees are paid out of the settlement on the top which is why attorneys love to certify classes -- bigger settlements equal more money. And BTW I am an attorney and have no issues, legally or otherwise, with what DVC/DVD is doing (however, I will make it clear that I am not offering any legal advice to anyone here just stating how I see things).

 

[Sandisw]

I also think that there really is no grounds for any lawsuit. You would have to show breach of contract and at this point, nothing Disney has done breaches the contract that we have with them.

As mentioned, the POS even specifically discusses resale value and what is and is not part of what we are buying so in essence, I feel they have done their job to even prevent anyone from claiming that they were mislead by Disney since the language of the contract clearly gives them the right to do what they have done.

 

[disneynutz]

The current changes are just one item to consider. The resale value of our 26 contracts have been going down for the last 2 years. Did Disney's changes and pricing cause the devaluation, maybe?

Transfer rule changes, banking rule changes, wait list rule changes, loss of free valet, 2 point reallocations, and increased software and website problems may have caused members to sell. Add that to increasing room problems, CM's with attitude and less room availability and you could say that Disney has caused our points to loose value.

Were we damaged, yes, can you prove it, probably not.

Bill

 

[Dean]

I am new to DVC but I have a friend that has been an owner since the 1st beachclubs were built. I told him about the new developments with DVC. He was telling me he was planning on selling his points to buy baylake towers. So now he is wondering about what his points will be worth on the resale market. The way he sees it is that this is in breach of a contract if the value of the points go down because the value of the points should not change no matter who owns the points. So the points that he has now wont be worth as much now because of the new rules. If the government all the sudden comes out and says the dollar you have is only worth 50 cents if you give it to someone else. Therefore essentially devaluating the dollar. Anyway he was wondering if anyone is preparing to sue disney over this. I bought my points just a month ago so Im covered and I only plan on using them to go to disney and am hoping points go down in value so I can buy some more but everyone should be concerned if they plan on selling them anytime in the future if they allow disney to change what the points can be used for. What if they come out and say you can only use your points at your home resort next. There seems like there should be some protection for the owner of the points not just disney. I am sure this has been discussed before but just curious about your thoughts.

I have not seen a pattern of devaluing the points from DVC based on contractual issues. They have not simply raised the points at new developments as a routine just to make them cost more to existing owners. Outside of the adjustment from OKW to BWV, all other resorts that were higher had a real reason to be so. That doesn't mean I agree with the levels they chose but at least what they did was reasonable and appropriate. For example, I think VLW should have been a little lower than BCV & BWV and SSR should have been closer to OKW.

I can tell you we were involved in a lawsuit involving something similar to this with a beach condo development. We bought preconstruction from a developer with hope of flipping it before it was completed. However many of the units were not presold and the developer then tried to sweeten the pot or unsweeten the pot for people that bought preconstruction after construction was completed. People that were trying to resell after construction was completed would not be able to transfer the use of certain amenities that was part of the original contract. Instead if any one bought the units from an individual instead of the developer, they had to also purchase a lifetime contract from the developer to use the amenities. This was taken up in a class action lawsuit and was won by the owners. It did take 6 years to finally close and has not benefited us in in anyway because we had to hold on to the condo. But now there is a lawsuit going on trying to recoup losses do to the fact that the condos were essentially tied up in litigation.

Disney is essentially creating two classes of owners and the points will have different values based on who you bought them from. This is definitely against free marketing.

Your thoughts ?

It has been discussed extensively. Contractually all you really have is your home resort and as long as the club exists, a POTENTIAL to make a reservation later at other club resorts. This has not changed in any way. They changes are related to non contractual options that are clearly spelled out as being able to be changed or taken away. They are creating two classes and likely will create either a larger difference or more classes going forward.

I am not a lawyer but have learned that winning the lawsuit is not always the goal. If a lawyer or law firm found a court to hear the case, it's possible to keep Disney tied up in litigation for years costing tons of time, money and bad publicity. If it lasted long enough Disney would be forced to settle.

What would that do for us DVC owners? Nothing the already overpriced gifts, food, and admissions would surely go up even more.

I don't believe lawsuit is the answer. However going public with DVC owner dissatisfaction would surely get Disney's attention. I have never bought into a time share before. I believe they are all rip-offs, but I trusted the Disney name, only to find I was ripped off anyway!

I have referred 3 friends into buying into DVC and now greatly regret it. I will now unfortunately advise people against the purchase.

I can tell you that Disney is not afraid of lawsuits in this type of situation and they certainly aren't afraid of threats of them. However, if they don't have a clear leg to stand on, they will back down. In this case they clearly hold all the cards. For example, the crumbled quickly in 1999 by allowing borrowed 2000 points to be used for free passes by qualifying OKW and VB owners.

 

[DVCconvert]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, this has nothing to do with what we've lost or our perception of what we lost, and more to do with what Disney promised us when we purchased (either direct or resale), which was the ability to book at our home resort based on availability. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right. Also dvc has bent over backwards informing perspective members that membership is not an investment, it's a vacation club.

 

[Tdisney]

So just to understand, in the POS it doesn't state that DVC members have access to other resorts around the world that could be used for points ?

 

[DVCconvert]

So just to understand, in the POS it doesn't state that DVC members have access to other resorts around the world that could be used for points ?

It is not a part of what you are buying. It's offered aside from the deeded real estate interest, and at the pleasure of dvc. The only thing you are truely buying is the right to use your home resort until the contract expires.

As Dean said above:

Contractually all you really have is your home resort and as long as the club exists, a POTENTIAL to make a reservation later at other club resorts. This has not changed in any way. They changes are related to non contractual options that are clearly spelled out as being able to be changed or taken away.

 

[Brian Noble]

Your thoughts ?

It's your money (or, rather, your "friend's" money), and you can waste it however you like. If paying a lawyer to pursue a case with no reasonable basis will give you pleasure, go for it.

in the POS it doesn't state that DVC members have access to other resorts around the world that could be used for points ?

As an aside, this is still possible. Resale contracts will still have access to Worldwide Exchange. But, not the internal uses (DCL, ABD, and the Disney hotels.)

 

[DVCconvert]

If paying a lawyer to pursue a case with no reasonable basis will give you pleasure, go for it.

Isn't that the ATLA's new marketing tag line?