Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[KAT4DISNEY]

There is a fourth option - allow owners to only book at their home resort. This of course applies to all owners. Your 3 are much better options.

Every resort would need to be removed from the Club in order to do that and in general that isn't something that they can just decide to do because they want to. Destruction of a resort is one of the few ways it can be done so easily if you want to call that easy.

 

[sndral]

This gives Disney the right to adjust the plan to balance use and demand. As you emphasize, they must do so to benefit the plan as a whole. That is quite a different concept than arbitrarily giving some owners a greater benefit at the expense of other owners.

Indeed, the argument could be made that 721.556(6) was enacted to protect consumers from the type of amendment DVC is attempting with Riviera.
If anyone reaches out to DVC I’d be curious to know DVC’s reason for limiting Riviera access - all I’ve heard so far is the claim that direct owners have complained that it’s hard to book, which doesn’t seem to be an adequate basis for change under the statute.
Interestingly the statute also requires that any amendments be based on reasonably available evidence, given the lack of evidence DVC had to justify the point reallocation debacle, I’d be interested in what their ‘evidence’ supporting this latest move is. They’ve added a dozen DVC resorts thus they must have the numbers showing them the impact of each additional resort on the system as a whole and I doubt that said evidence shows that resale owners have a disproportionate impact on the system v. direct owners.

 

[Katie L]

I really believe that current leadership vastly underestimates the value of goodwill and word of mouth to DVC’s success.

Up until now, current DVC owners have been the best advertisements for DVC, and the most consistent buyers of new resorts.

This whole chapter of DVC - these last six months - with drip after drip of undermining that goodwill and silencing that word of mouth has been an unmitigated disaster for DVC as a brand.

They need to rethink more than the legality of what they’re trying to do. They need to seriously rethink service recovery to their brand vis a vi current owners walking this back could generate.

We have just had our first offer accepted in resale. We decided to go for it after having rented a year ago. I’m fairly appalled at how they began treating resale buyers around 2016 - but the latest one in January is pretty shocking to me. If we weren’t going to Disney every year we wouldn’t be even considering - as it is we see no pixie dust. Simply seeing it as a way to pre-pay for lodging we would not spring for otherwise. It would have been much more “magical” if it was like the “good old days”, I think. For whatever that is worth - apparently not much to dvd. There are very few it makes financial sense for - and I think that number approaches zero when buying direct. It makes me sad, and we aren’t even owners yet!!!

 

[Katie L]

Indeed, the argument could be made that 721.556(6) was enacted to protect consumers from the type of amendment DVC is attempting with Riviera.
If anyone reaches out to DVC I’d be curious to know DVC’s reason for limiting Riviera access - all I’ve heard so far is the claim that direct owners have complained that it’s hard to book, which isn’t a basis for change per the statute.
Interestingly the statute also requires that any amendments be based on reasonably available evidence, given the lack of evidence DVC had to justify the point reallocation debacle, I’d be interested in what their ‘evidence’ supporting this latest move is. They’ve added a dozen DVC resorts thus they must have the numbers showing them the impact of each additional resort on the system as a whole and I doubt that said evidence shows that resale owners have a disproportionate impact on the system v. direct owners.

It’s not even POSSIBLE for that to be true as every resale owner contract WAS ONCE A DIRECT CONTRACT... it’s not as though resale contracts appear out of thin air. SOMEONE bought them direct. The whole idea that this is being discussed boggles my mind. Disney rarely misses the mark so clearly. But I really think they have with this one.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It’s not even POSSIBLE for that to be true as every resale owner contract WAS ONCE A DIRECT CONTRACT... it’s not as though resale contracts appear out of thin air. SOMEONE bought them direct. The whole idea that this is being discussed boggles my mind. Disney rarely misses the mark so clearly. But I really think they have with this one.

And contrary to the argument that is usually used to support the decision I don't believe for a second that every resale purchase would have been a direct purchase. I'm not even convinced that the majority would have otherwise provided a direct purchase.

 

[ziravan]

We have just had our first offer accepted in resale. We decided to go for it after having rented a year ago. I’m fairly appalled at how they began treating resale buyers around 2016 - but the latest one in January is pretty shocking to me. If we weren’t going to Disney every year we wouldn’t be even considering - as it is we see no pixie dust. Simply seeing it as a way to pre-pay for lodging we would not spring for otherwise. It would have been much more “magical” if it was like the “good old days”, I think. For whatever that is worth - apparently not much to dvd. There are very few it makes financial sense for - and I think that number approaches zero when buying direct. It makes me sad, and we aren’t even owners yet!!!

I bought my first resale contract (BCV) in 2014 and that experience led us to buy our first direct contract 6 months later, at Poly.

Being a resale buyer DID make DVD money and DID score them a direct purchase. And I don’t believe that’s unusual.

 

[Drewferin]

I've been reading this thread since it began and the resale legal minds are definitely reading through our contacts.

What were the updates from those contacting higher ups in DVD? Do we have any parties actually filing legal paperwork for a cease and desist at the point or we stuck in a complaining pattern on the threads? Its hard for me to believe that a couple dozen legal letters wouldn't get their attention.

 

[Mousewerks]

Indeed, the argument could be made that 721.556(6) was enacted to protect consumers from the type of amendment DVC is attempting with Riviera.
If anyone reaches out to DVC I’d be curious to know DVC’s reason for limiting Riviera access - all I’ve heard so far is the claim that direct owners have complained that it’s hard to book, which doesn’t seem to be an adequate basis for change under the statute.
.

This, right here, is what I believe is the crux of the issue. The brain trust at DVC has gotten into their heads that resale hurts direct sales. Obviously every contract that is purchased resale must have been purchased direct at some point. Further, they have the ability to ROFR any resale so there is a never-ending pool of direct points they can sell. They may have gotten some complaints from owners who really are selfish in that they think that it's hard for them to book, so it must be easy for resales to book. This is patently false but it seems to be the meme that has sway right now.

We as a community must disabuse them of this notion and put the correct notion in their head. Namely that they created the current mess by building more and more resorts and telling everyone they can book any of the DVC resorts. Perhaps they didn't recognize that people will book cheap rooms first (duh!).

Thank you to drusba for doing the yeoman's work of putting the pieces together for the rest of us. Lots of calls are in order telling them in no uncertain terms that resales are NOT their problem

 

[skier_pete]

I think it's hard to argue that resale doesn't hurt direct sales. I am not saying every resale buyer would buy direct, but I think it's pretty likely that SOME amount of resale buyers would. I myself would never have bought in at direct prices and still would not, it simply was too much money for me. That doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

That said, the resale buyers HAVE to exist. Not everyone is going to keep their units, if there was no demand, then Disney would either have to ROFR a ton of units and be constantly trying to sell old properties, or they would have a ton of foreclosures to deal with in the same manner.

I am still curious - has ONE person even talked to DVD about this? The other thread about the re-allocation there were at least 10 people that posted about those conversations, but nothing yet here.

 

[Katie L]

And contrary to the argument that is usually used to support the decision I don't believe for a second that every resale purchase would have been a direct purchase. I'm not even convinced that the majority would have otherwise provided a direct purchase.

No way would we at current rates. If direct prices were maybe 10-20% more than resale we would consider.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I think it's hard to argue that resale doesn't hurt direct sales. I am not saying every resale buyer would buy direct, but I think it's pretty likely that SOME amount of resale buyers would. I myself would never have bought in at direct prices and still would not, it simply was too much money for me. That doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

That said, the resale buyers HAVE to exist. Not everyone is going to keep their units, if there was no demand, then Disney would either have to ROFR a ton of units and be constantly trying to sell old properties, or they would have a ton of foreclosures to deal with in the same manner.

I am still curious - has ONE person even talked to DVD about this? The other thread about the re-allocation there were at least 10 people that posted about those conversations, but nothing yet here.

We are ones that bought direct after buying resale. Would we have bought direct without resale? That I honestly don't know but I am doubtful it would have happened without having a little less expensive option to get our foot in the door and see what it was about. This was back in a different pricing period for DVC but we've bought at a newer resort as well. Another person posted they did similar so I think it goes both ways. Removing perks from resale was petty enough for me but not as bad since the core product was still the core product. Now they are attacking the core product and in doing so are also indirectly attacking those same direct buyers that they want so badly. I have not been a big recommender of DVC to people I know but did once and they bought. There are a couple other family members that might have had some interest a little further down the road but I will not recommend it to them. And no matter what I will not buy any more direct with this direction they have taken.

So - have they covered the loss of my potential direct purchase? And 2 of my family members albeit unknown if they would have gone for a new resort or resale? And they might not have gotten our previous direct purchases with resale looking just like any other timeshare. (and actually in thinking about it that was a big appeal for me so I can state that we would not have bought it without resale being the way it was). Am I that unique or might it be assumed there are others with similar thoughts that Disney has lost with these decisions. No, it's not as easy as assuming that every resale buyer is taking away direct sales and it's easy to forget how restrictions can be further reaching than just that single resale buyer.

I still feel they were different and could have remained different with waving carrots, even tiny carrots, vs wielding the stick just like any other timeshare.

 

[Aron1012]

I am still curious - has ONE person even talked to DVD about this? The other thread about the re-allocation there were at least 10 people that posted about those conversations, but nothing yet here.

Not that I have seen, but I am currently in the process of trying to buy another resale contract. We have both resale and direct contracts already. Part of the reason I was interested in buying more is seeing the number of contracts that are currently listed for sale and seeing some of the contracts accepted and passing ROFR. It seems to me that prices have dipped a little since January 19th so I think this might be a good time to buy. I will certainly use the passing of the 1/19 deadline in any negotiations.

Once we get a contract purchase completed I certainly intend to reach out to DVD and would be glad to explore the possibility of a lawsuit. I could argue that my current contracts are already harmed but that is a much more subjective argument as prices fluxuate all the time. However, being excluded from booking a resort, as @drusba so eloquently explained, that I am entitled to legally as an "owner" is a much clearer legal discussions. My guess is someone gets to that point much sooner because there are so many people who this will affect, especially the resale brokers and the large rental companies, that someone is absolutely going to challenge this in court if Disney follows through with it. And in this case it won't be our dues that will be footing the bill, it will be DVD.

Frankly I think the legal challenge of DVCMC operating as a "fidicuary" is a fight that has been brewing for a while. Disney has played fast and loose with their duties, but in the past has mostly operated in good faith. These recent developments are causing them to loose that benefit of the doubt and seems very likely it is a discussion headed for court sooner or later.

 

[ziravan]

I think it's hard to argue that resale doesn't hurt direct sales. I am not saying every resale buyer would buy direct, but I think it's pretty likely that SOME amount of resale buyers would. I myself would never have bought in at direct prices and still would not, it simply was too much money for me. That doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

That said, the resale buyers HAVE to exist. Not everyone is going to keep their units, if there was no demand, then Disney would either have to ROFR a ton of units and be constantly trying to sell old properties, or they would have a ton of foreclosures to deal with in the same manner.

I am still curious - has ONE person even talked to DVD about this? The other thread about the re-allocation there were at least 10 people that posted about those conversations, but nothing yet here.

Way upthread several people discussed with them the concept that the wording of the MS POS doesn’t say what they think it says.

This later discussion about the legality - in any case - of doing what they want is an offshoot of that original discussion.

Honestly, unless you are a lawyer active in a relevant field (real estate, timeshare) or you’re hiring a lawyer to make that case with Disney, I’m thinking that it’s such an “in the weeds” legal argument that “IANAL but...” seems like would not be entertained.

They are reading this thread. At issue isn’t how many phone calls this is going to generate, but the likelihood of an actual legal challenge to their interpretation.

There’s no gravitas here to just complain to management; it's a legal issue and their legal department isn't going to yield in their interpretation based on calls to management. Their attitude would almost certainly be some form of, "Show me the money"; put up or shut up.

 

[Aron1012]

Way upthread several people discussed with them the concept that the wording of the MS POS doesn’t say what they think it says.

This later discussion about the legality - in any case - of doing what they want is an offshoot of that original discussion.

Honestly, unless you are a lawyer active in a relevant field (real estate, timeshare) or you’re hiring a lawyer to make that case with Disney, I’m thinking that it’s such an “in the weeds” legal argument that “IANAL but...” seems like would not be entertained.

They are reading this thread. At issue isn’t how many phone calls this is going to generate, but the likelihood of an actual legal challenge to their interpretation.

There’s no gravitas here to just complain to management; it's a legal issue and their legal department isn't going to yield in their interpretation based on calls to management. Their attitude would almost certainly be some form of, "Show me the money"; put up or shut up.

Exactly, I am not an attorney but work in a field that deals heavily with real estate law and I do training on compliance with many of those laws though from a slightly different approach. Even as someone in that field I had to spend a considerable amount of reading and considering to fully come to the conclusion that this restriction is much difference than the incidental benefits. I also agree that Disney legal is much, much less likely to back off this position. Someone mentioned up thread that a contact to the Florida regulator may be worthwhile. I do believe that approach may get somewhere as generally regulators tend to have a pre-disposition to wanting to sink their teeth into those that abuse the system.

But ultimately a lawsuit is likely where all this is headed. Too many people stand to lose for it not to end up there. And I do believe an attorney would take this on a contingency basis and hope to get it certified as a class. The potential reward would be very significant....

 

[Mousewerks]

I think it's hard to argue that resale doesn't hurt direct sales. I am not saying every resale buyer would buy direct, but I think it's pretty likely that SOME amount of resale buyers would. I myself would never have bought in at direct prices and still would not, it simply was too much money for me. That doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

That said, the resale buyers HAVE to exist. Not everyone is going to keep their units, if there was no demand, then Disney would either have to ROFR a ton of units and be constantly trying to sell old properties, or they would have a ton of foreclosures to deal with in the same manner.

I am still curious - has ONE person even talked to DVD about this? The other thread about the re-allocation there were at least 10 people that posted about those conversations, but nothing yet here.

It's not hard, it really is all on them. There are a fixed number of points at a resort. The minimum direct purchase gives the maximum number of contracts for that resort. Disney creates every one of these contracts when it sells points. If the original purchaser chooses to re-sell that contract to a third party, the only thing they can do is ROFR that contract and put it back in their point pool. Once all the contracts are sold for a given resort, Disney cannot claim any resale hurts their direct sales because there are no more direct points to sell!

The actual problem is that Disney has sold the original contract and has multiplied contracts by selling low numbers of points per contract.

 

[DougEMG]

I think it's hard to argue that resale doesn't hurt direct sales. I am not saying every resale buyer would buy direct, but I think it's pretty likely that SOME amount of resale buyers would. I myself would never have bought in at direct prices and still would not, it simply was too much money for me. That doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

That said, the resale buyers HAVE to exist. Not everyone is going to keep their units, if there was no demand, then Disney would either have to ROFR a ton of units and be constantly trying to sell old properties, or they would have a ton of foreclosures to deal with in the same manner.

I am still curious - has ONE person even talked to DVD about this? The other thread about the re-allocation there were at least 10 people that posted about those conversations, but nothing yet here.

For sure some resale buyers would have bought direct if there was no resale market, but the opposite is also true, how many direct buyers would not have bought if there wasn't a good resale market.

 

[ziravan]

For sure some resale buyers would have bought direct if there was no resale market, but the opposite is also true, how many direct buyers would not have bought if there wasn't a good resale market.

Or like me, bought direct because resale put my foot in the door, and I got addonitis.

 

[ThinkBelieveDream&Dare]

Not that I have seen, but I am currently in the process of trying to buy another resale contract. We have both resale and direct contracts already. Part of the reason I was interested in buying more is seeing the number of contracts that are currently listed for sale and seeing some of the contracts accepted and passing ROFR. It seems to me that prices have dipped a little since January 19th so I think this might be a good time to buy. I will certainly use the passing of the 1/19 deadline in any negotiations.

Once we get a contract purchase completed I certainly intend to reach out to DVD and would be glad to explore the possibility of a lawsuit. I could argue that my current contracts are already harmed but that is a much more subjective argument as prices fluxuate all the time. However, being excluded from booking a resort, as @drusba so eloquently explained, that I am entitled to legally as an "owner" is a much clearer legal discussions. My guess is someone gets to that point much sooner because there are so many people who this will affect, especially the resale brokers and the large rental companies, that someone is absolutely going to challenge this in court if Disney follows through with it. And in this case it won't be our dues that will be footing the bill, it will be DVD.

Frankly I think the legal challenge of DVCMC operating as a "fidicuary" is a fight that has been brewing for a while. Disney has played fast and loose with their duties, but in the past has mostly operated in good faith. These recent developments are causing them to loose that benefit of the doubt and seems very likely it is a discussion headed for court sooner or later.

Our resale contract (which passed ROFR and hopefully will be closing soon) states that we will not have access to any DVC resorts which open after 19th January 2019.
Here's an exact copy and paste of the relevant part:

1. This contract shall be closed on or before 3/26/2019 (BUT NOT BEFORE 3/19/19) or within 45 days from when the estoppel information is provided by Disney to the closing company, unless extended by other provisions of the contract. If this contract is not executed by Seller by 2/12/2019 or upon presentation, or if Disney repurchases the contract, the deposit shall be refunded to the Buyer. Buyer to escrow money and contract to The Timeshare Store, Inc. by 2/12/2019, or contract is null and void.
2. MEMBERS WHO PURCHASE THEIR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN ANY DVC RESORT FROM A PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN DIRECTLY FROM DVD SHALL NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE VACATION
POINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT OWNERSHIP INTEREST FOR RESERVATIONS OR STAYS THROUGH THE INCIDENTAL BENEFITS KNOWN AS THE ADVENTURER COLLECTION, CONCIERGE COLLECTION,
OR THE DISNEY COLLECTION. YOU WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OTHER DISNEY VACATION CLUB INCIDENTAL BENEFITS (ALSO KNOWN AS MEMBERSHIP EXTRAS) SUCH AS MEMBER DISCOUNTS ON
DINING, SHOPPING, MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE EVENTS, AND CERTAIN SPECIAL MEMBER OFFERS. DO NOT PURCHASE YOUR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN RELIANCE ON ACCESS TO OR THE ABILITY TO
TRANSFER THESE DISNEY VACATION CLUB INCIDENTAL BENEFITS. YOU WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY DISNEY VACATION CLUB RESORTS DVD OPENS AFTER 1/19/2019.
3. Seller shall convey DEED, EXPIRES 1/31/2057 to Buyer (Trustee, Guardian's or Personal Representative's Deed to be used in event of Trust, Guardianship, or Estate). Property shall be free and clear of all encumbrances.

 

[ziravan]

Our resale contract (which passed ROFR and hopefully will be closing soon) states that we will not have access to any DVC resorts which open after 19th January 2019.
Here's an exact copy and paste of the relevant part:

1. This contract shall be closed on or before 3/26/2019 (BUT NOT BEFORE 3/19/19) or within 45 days from when the estoppel information is provided by Disney to the closing company, unless extended by other provisions of the contract. If this contract is not executed by Seller by 2/12/2019 or upon presentation, or if Disney repurchases the contract, the deposit shall be refunded to the Buyer. Buyer to escrow money and contract to The Timeshare Store, Inc. by 2/12/2019, or contract is null and void.
2. MEMBERS WHO PURCHASE THEIR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN ANY DVC RESORT FROM A PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN DIRECTLY FROM DVD SHALL NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE VACATION
POINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT OWNERSHIP INTEREST FOR RESERVATIONS OR STAYS THROUGH THE INCIDENTAL BENEFITS KNOWN AS THE ADVENTURER COLLECTION, CONCIERGE COLLECTION,
OR THE DISNEY COLLECTION. YOU WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OTHER DISNEY VACATION CLUB INCIDENTAL BENEFITS (ALSO KNOWN AS MEMBERSHIP EXTRAS) SUCH AS MEMBER DISCOUNTS ON
DINING, SHOPPING, MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE EVENTS, AND CERTAIN SPECIAL MEMBER OFFERS. DO NOT PURCHASE YOUR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN RELIANCE ON ACCESS TO OR THE ABILITY TO
TRANSFER THESE DISNEY VACATION CLUB INCIDENTAL BENEFITS. YOU WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY DISNEY VACATION CLUB RESORTS DVD OPENS AFTER 1/19/2019.
3. Seller shall convey DEED, EXPIRES 1/31/2057 to Buyer (Trustee, Guardian's or Personal Representative's Deed to be used in event of Trust, Guardianship, or Estate). Property shall be free and clear of all encumbrances.

2057 expiry so OKW? The OKW POS says differently and apparently so does Florida law.

That disclaimer won’t stand up — if challenged.

That contract will make you a club member with deeded rights to being treated the same as every other club member “as a whole” with specific respect to the reservation component. DVC can take away perks, but they cannot redefine what “club member” means — not when it’s is part of the deed, as an “appurtenance” of the deed.

 

[TK-Tampa]

This is a disclosure on the contract between you and the buyer to protect the buyer from any claims that you were not informed of the rules. It has no legal standing to the underlying deed.