Membership Magic Beyond

[Sandisw]

Those cases go both ways (deals for each region) and one step further even with Florida residents.

The main difference for me in those cases is that no one is a paying member -- no one spent tens of thousands of dollars to buy in to a real estate interest, let alone paying more to buy direct from Disney for incentive benefits when doing so (DVC-Y members).

In any event, we will see how it all plays out. My belief is that it will level out based on what I heard when they called me to discuss it. But one never knows...

To be fair, we did not pay for membership extras. They are not part of what they bought

They are just that extras we are given for being DVc and they can go away at anytime.

Having said that, I can see how this is different in that if you are an eligible DVC owner, then the benefits offered, even the paid ones, should be offered to all unless their is a legal reason they can’t

Like the dining card we get for referrals. Those are not available to all owners because laws in individual states prohibit it.

 

[PalmettoPath]

To be fair, we did not pay for membership extras. They are not part of what they bought

They are just that extras we are given for being DVc and they can go away at anytime.

Having said that, I can see how this is different in that if you are an eligible DVC owner, then the benefits offered, even the paid ones, should be offered to all unless their is a legal reason they can’t

Like the dining card we get for referrals. Those are not available to all owners because laws in individual states prohibit it.

But we bought direct based on the sales pitch (and reality) of certain extras/benefits for DVC-Y members...which then became segmented right now as DVC-Y with restricted MMB based on region, the results of which put certain otherwise equal members at a disadvantage with no opportunity to buy-in.

Again, we can argue it all day. We'll see. If nothing changes I do see this as a legal argument to pursue (which I absolutely will) as I believe this is only the beginning of an new approach of paid benefits and I do not intend to do nothing and just accept it if that is the case. If it is the case, then Canadian and International DVC-Y members will become a new segment (a level down) and may as well buy resale because buying direct will continue to lose its shine.

Anyway, lots of points for attorneys to work with if we ultimately have to go that route to protect our investment. Sure it may go nowhere, but I am not one just to give in after spending significant amounts buying direct. No point in litigating it here.

 

[Brian Noble]

it can't be a tax issue. We can buy: OTUP, Annual passes, annual dues, cruises etc - if it was a tax issue we couldn't do those things either.

It could, but as a matter of execution, not a matter of ability. Disney IT is somewhat (in)famous for being decentralized, and it is possible that the process that they use for processing these payments is separate from those others, and does not yet "speak tax" in the way that those others do.

 

[Brian Noble]

But we bought direct based on the sales pitch (and reality) of certain extras/benefits for DVC-Y members

The contract is very clear about these "Incidental benefits", and it is even spelled out clearly in the marketing language. Quoting:

Membership Extras [...] are incidental benefits. These incidental benefits are subject to change or termination without notice, may require the payment of a fee and cannot be combined with any other offers or promotions.

"subject to change" could include region, or maybe it doesn't. Either way I suspect that the regional thing is (very) temporary, there is plenty of precedent for that suspicion in the form of LL, and by the time you got around to talking with counsel it will be fixed.

I do see this as a legal argument to pursue (which I absolutely will)

 

[PalmettoPath]

The contract is very clear about these "Incidental benefits", and it is even spelled out clearly in the marketing language. Quoting:

Membership Extras [...] are incidental benefits. These incidental benefits are subject to change or termination without notice, may require the payment of a fee and cannot be combined with any other offers or promotions.

The contract is very clear about these "Incidental benefits", and it is even spelled out clearly in the marketing language. Quoting:

Membership Extras [...] are incidental benefits. These incidental benefits are subject to change or termination without notice, may require the payment of a fee and cannot be combined with any other offers or promotions.

"subject to change" could include region, or maybe it doesn't. Either way I suspect that the regional thing is (very) temporary, there is plenty of precedent for that suspicion in the form of LL, and by the time you got around to talking with counsel it will be fixed.

Your last line is obviously the desire. But growing up in a household of lawyers and a judge, it never hurts to be prepared

 

[PalmettoPath]

Your last line is obviously the desire. But growing up in a household of lawyers and a judge, it never hurts to be prepared

Also, always remember that just because something is written in a contract doesn’t mean a court can’t strike it down. Contract law is a fascinating field for counsel to argue.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Spend $50k on a legal challenge so you can save $99 on memory maker.
Seems like a good deal.

 

[Sandisw]

Also, always remember that just because something is written in a contract doesn’t mean a court can’t strike it down. Contract law is a fascinating field for counsel to argue.

And just because someone doesn’t like what a contract says doesn’t mean a court will strike it down when it is grounded in law

I don’t think anyone would suggest DVC owners should not seek information…which you did… if they think that something shouldn’t be done the way they are.

I did that last year for clarification on renting and I honestly don’t care if others rent.

But, my initial statement was about the notion that because DVC was expensive, and we spent a lot, it somehow negates the terms we agreed to when we bought in reference to incidental benefits.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Spend $50k on a legal challenge so you can save $99 on memory maker.
Seems like a good deal.

Not to mention the several hundred thousand US DVC owners who might not be too happy with how DVC reacts to the litigation.

 

[PalmettoPath]

And just because someone doesn’t like what a contract says doesn’t mean a court will strike it down when it is grounded in law

I’ll trust the lawyers on this one, no offense

 

[PalmettoPath]

Spend $50k on a legal challenge so you can save $99 on memory maker.
Seems like a good deal.

That’s not how it works with costs. You are speaking to a law household.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ll trust the lawyers on this one, no offense

You shoud! Just saying that the comment comes up a lot as a reason when people don’t like what is happening…to imply that things in a contract have no relevance.

As you said, until someone goes to court and wins, it what we have. The rules were written based off FL timeshare law so they are grounded in something legal.

If one wants to fight it, don’t you still have to support how the rules are a violation of a law in some way?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

That’s not how it works with costs. You are speaking to a law household.

Fair enough. Please enlighten me on how Florida law will work in this situation.

 

[PalmettoPath]

That’s not how it works with costs. You are speaking to a law household.

You shoud! Just saying that the comment comes up a lot as a reason when people don’t like what is happened…to imply that things in a contract have no relevance

Until a contract is challenged, we don’t know. The crux is not the benefits, that’s a side point. The crux is the segmentation of otherwise equal purchasers of the real estate interest.

 

[Sandisw]

Until a contract is challenged, we don’t know. The crux is not the benefits, that’s a side point. The crux is the segmentation of otherwise equal purchasers of the real estate interest.

That is where we are differing then. I am only referring to the benefits aspect of this and nothing to do with the purchasing of DVC.

 

[PalmettoPath]

Fair enough. Please enlighten me on how Florida law will work in this situation.

The counsel is Orlando based as that is the jurisdiction. Your sarcasm is not required (although not uncommon here). I am genuinely happy for all of our US resident DVC friends who are not affected by this. This is not your fight or slight.

 

[SL6827]

I personally think this international hiccup will be resolved soon just as it has with LLs.

 

[PalmettoPath]

That is where we are differing then. I am only referring to the benefits aspect of this and noting to do with the purchasing of DVC.

It is the catalyst for what is the bigger/core issue, which could become compounded going forward if, in fact, it is an issue. This could all be moot as well

 

[PalmettoPath]

I personally think this international hiccup will be resolved soon just as it has with LLs.

Hoping for hiccups. Hoping they drink a glass of water from the opposite rim (or whatever is the best cure)

 

[Maistre Gracey]

The counsel is Orlando based as that is the jurisdiction. Your sarcasm is not required (although not uncommon here). I am genuinely happy for all of our US resident DVC friends who are not affected by this. This is not your fight or slight.

It’s not sarcasm. You said I don’t understand how it works. I took you at your word, and asked for an explanation. You implied you know how it works.