New $500 Resale DVC Transfer Fee

[Sandisw]

One interesting question is whether these fees in other systems have the same legal basis as DVC or do those direct contacts already mention an administrative fee for transfers?

Since we don't have a clear explanation of what the CAF is for, we are all making assumptions that it is to handle the work done once an ownership interest has changed hands..

Let's assume that turns out to be true, then all that is happening is that DVCMC is now charging for something they have previously offered to do for free for buyers/sellers.

My reading of what would need to be included in contracts is a fee charged by the condo association....which is different than DVCMC LLC...to approve a sale, transfer or leasing of the unit...that statute relates to condos, which all but CFW are....But, timeshares also have rules under FL 721 too.

So, that is the unknown. Since its not being charged by the assocation, but the management company to handle administartive work (whatever that turns out to be) then the contract may not come in to play.

Sellers have to pay $150 estoppel fee to DVC.....just for them to create the document to confirm the financial state before a sale can happen....and title companies won't/cant close without it...so sellers, are already on the hook for this....and its possible that the $500 CAF may now include this....but that fee isn't included in the contract because its not a fee related to being allowed to sell.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

They are not


They do.

View attachment 1029103

Yep - this is why I deleted my reply lol.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

How long before we see a fee to call MS for anything you can't do online? Following the trend of charging for something that was free before? Some airlines already do it, I understand Disney is not an airline but wouldn't be surprised if it takes examples from elsewhere

Hahaha.
“Your call is important to us. Please enter your credit card number now and an agent will be with you shortly.”

 

[eticketplease]

Yep - this is why I deleted my reply lol.

No worries it gets so confusing lol

 

[gvel]

The more I think about this one I reach the same conclusion. This one stings and it is an unfair, hefty and punitive tax on resale buyers...but I don't think there is anything we can do about it. Chances are some executive will get a big bonus for coming up with a new revenue stream.

With time we will all ultimately see this as an extra closing cost that wil be built in the resale market pricing. This is just the latest example of the dulition of the magic and Disney experience like when they got rid of magical express, free fast passes etc. Yet we keep doing business with the mouse.

That being said I truly believe there is a line somewhere out there that at some point Disney will cross and they will have their own Vegas moment. They will have to scramble to try to win back not just us Disnerds but the average american.

 

[walt34]

So, that is the unknown. Since its not being charged by the assocation, but the management company to handle administartive work (whatever that turns out to be) then the contract may not come in to play.

Maybe, but then the fee should probably be closer to the actual cost of the administrative work (+ an upcharge) than an arbitrary price set by Disney. Maybe it is but I find it hard to believe that this is many hours of work.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

I truly believe there is a line somewhere out there that at some point Disney will cross and they will have their own Vegas moment.

“they will have their own Vegas moment” is well said. It really encapsulates what many of us are trying to express. There is a threshold that exists. Vegas is experiencing this.

Iger took a 1/2 step back from the line by eliminating the resort parking fee at WDW but I haven’t seen much walking back since. Most other moves are in the “parking fee” sort of direction.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

Maybe, but then the fee should probably be closer to the actual cost of the administrative work (+ an upcharge) than an arbitrary price set by Disney. Maybe it is but I find it hard to believe that this is many hours of work.

I guess this guy works at DVC

 

[Sandisw]

I found one aspect of the FL 721 that may provide support that anyone in contract prior to Jan 1st, 2026, would not be required to pay this management fee..unless it was included in the original contract that defined costs.

However, my reading of it does seem to suggest that a managing entitiy....in this case DVCMC LLC, can implement the CAF, or transfer fee as this clause is under the section dealing with the process of a consumer selling their interest via resale. FL 721.17

 

[disneylandtour]

My reading of what would need to be included in contracts is a fee charged by the condo association....which is different than DVCMC LLC...to approve a sale, transfer or leasing of the unit...that statute relates to condos, which all but CFW are....But, timeshares also have rules under FL 721 too.

This is actually one of my questions. I'm sure the laws in Florida will allow Disney to charge whatever they want for administrative work. Probably the same for SC as well--but I do know little about that. But I believe there are more restrictive laws in California and Hawaii. Is this being onboarded for all properties or just some in certain states?

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe, but then the fee should probably be closer to the actual cost of the administrative work (+ an upcharge) than an arbitrary price set by Disney. Maybe it is but I find it hard to believe that this is many hours of work.

I do not believe that there is anything that requires them to justify the fee they are charging.....with the caveat that it isn't something that could in no way be considered "reasonable" or industry standard.

Does $500 for this service seem on the higher side? Yes, it does....but, is it so out of line with other fees out there? Doesn't seem to be for me...

I just posted, but in reading over the Fl 721 again, I just don't see anything that prevents the management entitty from charging their own fee to cover their part in a resale transation.

We know they handle this for DVD for direct sales...and I think I see my confusion now with tying this to DVD...DVD would be responsible if we did not have a seperate managing entity in play.

 

[Sandisw]

This is actually one of my questions. I'm sure the laws in Florida will allow Disney to charge whatever they want for administrative work. Probably the same for SC as well--but I do know little about that. But I believe there are more restrictive laws in California and Hawaii. Is this being onboarded for all properties or just some in certain states?

The FL statutes require them to comply with all out of state laws but they do not get involved in making sure they do. However, my guess is that the right to charge this CAF for properites outside of FL would have to follow whether those states allow managing entities to charge for it.

The FAQ does not distinguish so my guess is that all resale contracts will be required to include this $500 CAF as part of the costs associated with the sale.

If I had to speculate, I think it will be the responsiblity of the buyer, but will be able to negotiate it like everything else....that is part of my question for them next week.

 

[disneylandtour]

I'll just add in some numbers. I believe that there are about 400 resale contracts recorded each month, give or take. So that's $2.5M total revenue for the year for doing existing work.

 

[disneylandtour]

The FL statutes require them to comply with all out of state laws but they do not get involved in making sure they do. However, my guess is that the right to charge this CAF for properites outside of FL would have to follow whether those states allow managing entities to charge for it.

The FAQ does not distinguish so my guess is that all resale contracts will be required to include this $500 CAF as part of the costs associated with the sale.

If I had to speculate, I think it will be the responsiblity of the buyer, but will be able to negotiate it like everything else....that is part of my question for them next week.

I'm guessing that in Hawaii--and maybe even California--there might be a way to push back on this. But also, I'm sure DVD knows that, on the front end, this would require both organization of owners and those owners to put up legal fees which almost surely isn't happening. But possibly five years from now there could be a lucrative class action for those states that might interest a law firm without upfront investment from owners. I'm thinking that around 2030 this might be a more complicated story. But I'm with others in that there's nothing practical to be done now.

 

[Genie+]

Well, the difference is that I am free to use or not use a resale company (if I don’t like their fees) while as an owner, who is now suddenly affected by this fee, I have to accept the resulting loss in value and cannot avoid it.

Yes but the same could be said for restrictions.

Anybody who bought DVC prior is not excluded from their resale buyer being impacted. That also hurt the value to the original owner.

 

[mkatsy]

I'll just add in some numbers. I believe that there are about 400 resale contracts recorded each month, give or take. So that's $2.5M total revenue for the year for doing existing work.

Highway robbery… the Orange County Comptroller values the clerks labor at $25 for a transfer. Orange County DMV values the clerks labor at $75 for a transfer. DVCMC LLC values labor for a transfer at $500

 

[Sandisw]

I just add one more piece of information....I just went through my RIV POS and it goes through the duties of DVMC in managing the vacation plan and none of them include handling of resale transfers.

So, whatever revenue they are currently using to cover those costs, it doesn't appear to me its part of the 12%......

ETA: Just for those new....each resort has a condo assocation which is responsible for running of the vacation plan that DVD created when it created the resort. The board of each condo assocation transferred the duties to DVCMC to handle on our behalf.

 

[Genie+]

I really do wonder if DVD is thinking this fee might drive people to handle their own transactions without brokers.

DVD is the one confirming state of contract and setting up the new account. So if push comes to shove, people can trim costs by creating ways for buyers and sellers to find each other without a broker.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Unfortunately, that is the way life is and businesses get to charge what they want. Many say the % that resale brokers charge to sell contracts is too high for the work they do, or the amount of closing costs buyers have to pay for title companies to handle the sale, etc. and on and on.

So, while $500 is a pretty steep price, and maybe they should charge less, they get to decide what they charge. Now, owners who are bothered by this amount should defintiely be contacting DVC and sharing their thoughts....

Yeah I never understood why so many chooses NOT to use https://www.lttransfers.com/. They are cheaper and IMO just as good - or at least that’s my experience.

 

[Sandisw]

I really do wonder if DVD is thinking this fee might drive people to handle their own transactions without brokers.

DVD is the one confirming state of contract and setting up the new account. So if push comes to shove, people can trim costs by creating ways for buyers and sellers to find each other without a broker.

View attachment 1029130

Great find! I thought DVD has some role in it! So, it may be what I originally thought.

I’d be surprised that was it, but who knows! What we do know is that starting Jan 1st, it will be an additional cost incurred

When I ask for them to share more details next week; I will specifically ask if this new fee will include estoppel that sellers currently pay $150.

If it does, then it’s only $350 in new fees.