New $500 Resale DVC Transfer Fee

[Sandisw]

So this could be their idea of discouraging commercial renters from buying contracts to strip and then sell the carcass? Because I have definitely noticed a lot of stripped resale contracts out there with no points in the next year (because they’ve already been borrowed…)

Lets put it this way,.,it certainly isn’t going to be welcomed by those who buy and sell a lot with the commercial purpose intention.

Even at $500, I am not sure it will deter anyone, but I could see them saying this might be a positive consequence of it!

 

[VGCgroupie]

Remember when many of us cautioned that changes they will make in an attempt to impact commercial renters cold have unintended consequences…..

This could push them to just keep the contract and use it to rent more rather than sell it.

 

[eticketplease]

4) They think it’s reasonable to charge for this work since it was done once already when the points were purchased direct and is a misuse of dues to do it twice or more on the same already sold by DVC contract.

Was this a typo?

They think it is reasonable to charge the $500 but then it is a misuse of dues if they do it again?

Maybe I'm just not understanding as I have not listened to the show.

 

[Sandisw]

This could push them to just keep the contract and use it rent more rather than sell it.

True. DVC still has a commercial use policy in play to use.

As of today, they have not rolled out any updates to it or additional policy related to it, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still working on that.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Just listened to the MyDVC Points podcast this am where they had Andy Berry from the board sponsor (DVCRM) on to talk about this fee. Was an interesting discussion. Their take was:
1) In adding this fee they also removed language about the estoppel fee which suggests it’s now rolled into this $500 fee.
2) The DVC front line sales force was not given a heads up on this change before it was published in a Q&A section of the website which is atypical and suggests the Q&A was mistakenly updated before the scheduled rollout.
3) It was strongly implied they think this fee will not be imposed on contracts currently submitted to ROFR before the end of the year.
4) They think it’s reasonable to charge for this work since it was done once already when the points were purchased direct and is a misuse of dues to do it twice or more on the same already sold by DVC contract.
5) Their most objectionable take was if this fee bothers you then maybe you can’t afford DVC in the first place.
6) Since it’s likely the Q&A got ahead of the rollout we will know much more very soon.

I guess I have borderline Stockholm syndrome because I kind of agree with all of this.

 

[airjay75]

Was this a typo?

They think it is reasonable to charge the $500 but then it is a misuse of dues if they do it again?

Maybe I'm just not understanding as I have not listened to the show.

I just listened to the podcast. They think the cost of transfers is currently coming out of our dues. If I'm understanding what others have said in this thread, that is not entirely accurate - sound like it is coming from the 12% DVCM fee (but that is 12% of what? I don't think I know that).

 

[Sandisw]

Just listened to the MyDVC Points podcast this am where they had Andy Berry from the board sponsor (DVCRM) on to talk about this fee. Was an interesting discussion. Their take was:
1) In adding this fee they also removed language about the estoppel fee which suggests it’s now rolled into this $500 fee.
2) The DVC front line sales force was not given a heads up on this change before it was published in a Q&A section of the website which is atypical and suggests the Q&A was mistakenly updated before the scheduled rollout.
3) It was strongly implied they think this fee will not be imposed on contracts currently submitted to ROFR before the end of the year.
4) They think it’s reasonable to charge for this work since it was done once already when the points were purchased direct and is a misuse of dues to do it twice or more on the same already sold by DVC contract.
5) Their most objectionable take was if this fee bothers you then maybe you can’t afford DVC in the first place.
6) Since it’s likely the Q&A got ahead of the rollout we will know much more very soon.

Makes a lot of sense! I don’t know dues cover or every have covered this and I don’t agree that the only reason to be bothered is based on your ability to afford.

But, in the end, this is a business situation.

 

[Sandisw]

I just listened to the podcast. They think the cost of transfers is currently coming out of our dues. If I'm understanding what others have said in this thread, that is not entirely accurate - sound like it is coming from the 12% DVCM fee (but that is 12% of what? I don't think I know that).

The 12% management fee is 12% of each condo associations budget for operating expenses.

It’s what is paid in accordance with the property management agreement and to oversee the implementation of the vacation plan, which includes setting point charts, deciding on HRR, maintaining records and such.

 

[pkrieger2287]

I discussed things a bit in today's November 2025 Average Price Blog: https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/blo...-2025/?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=dvcfan

Officially: We know nothing more than we did the day this was discovered. Although in theory its surprising the Member Administration knows nothing about this at the moment, I'm also not surprised whatsoever that Mickey's right hand isn't talking to his left hand.

Unofficially, here's my take on some of the discussion:

• We are continuing to see fast ROFR turnaround times... this is not coincidental, I think. They either have better staffing/automations, or they are trying to push things out ahead of this fee. Whichever the reason, both can be viewed as a win in one way or another.
• To the estoppel fee conversation: I view these personally as two different fees and think these might remain two separate fees. Estoppel = Seller / CAF = Buyer in my opinion. The meaning behind these fees seems completely separate.
• This is being talked about A LOT here, but we often forget we are a small, well-informed corner of the broader DVC space. New direct buyers aren't going to think about this fee when they buy. Small add-on buyers direct aren't going to think about this fee. If we see an impact on the resale market, it'll be with small resale contracts, but I'm going to even say maybe to that one. It's more likely to just become a cost of doing resale business, and very, very lightly changes all those value proposition spreadsheets.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

Was this a typo?

They think it is reasonable to charge the $500 but then it is a misuse of dues if they do it again?

Maybe I'm just not understanding as I have not listened to the show.

No typo. The general idea is that when DVC sells a direct contract they have it budgeted to set up an account for a new owner. What they don’t budget for is closing that account and creating a new one for the subsequent owner (and potentially doing that again and again each time that contract gets sold). They claim the set up work being repeated for the subsequent owners should not be paid for by the membership or through dues.

 

[juliebee]

I love this thread!

It has been seriously entertaining to read everyone's comments, especially the hyperbole. Let's recap a few of the finer points summarized below:

• DVC (I use this generically because all of the incestuous companies involved are too hard to track) is likely breaking Florida law through this new fee
• The $500 fee is clearly excessive and just a money grab
• DVC lawyers (if they were involved at all in this decision) are incompetent
• DVC management is incompetent for either not checking with their lawyers or not listening to them
• This new fee is a manifestation of DVC just being greedy
• DVC is breaking its fiduciary responsibility to members/owners
• The fee was implemented because of nefarious motives
• DVC is trying to kill off the resale market, and this is another tool to do so
• The fee is unfair to resale buyers
• DVC is trying to snuff out the competition
• DVC is always trying to screw over its customers

Did I miss any themes?

Edited to add (can't believe I forgot these):

• DVC is becoming another slimy timeshare company, just like all of the rest
• This move takes DVC one step closer to becoming just like Vegas

Add that DVC's communication sucks. This was not a professional way to communicate this change.

 

[Sandisw]

Add that DVC's communication sucks. This was not a professional way to communicate this change.

From what Paul just posted, it sounds like maybe someone added it to the website before they should have and thus this wasn’t meant to be the announcement.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

Add that DVC's communication sucks. This was not a professional way to communicate this change.

Hear hear. It’s not a good look.

 

[VGCgroupie]

From what Paul just posted, it sounds like maybe someone added it to the website before they should have and thus this wasn’t meant to be the announcement.

Maybe the same person who released the Christmas special to you tube early on accident

 

[Carouselofplanning]

From what Paul just posted, it sounds like maybe someone added it to the website before they should have and thus this wasn’t meant to be the announcement.

But it was. I have images in my head of a George Costanza like employee shouting in the middle of the DVC office “Who’s in charge here?”

 

[davidhr]

Maybe the same person who released the Christmas special to you tube early on accident

Maybe is a member of these forums and they were bored. “November was pretty boring. I’m not going to allow the same to happen again in December. Let’s spice it up!”

 

[mkatsy]

The 12% management fee is 12% of each condo associations budget for operating expenses.

It’s what is paid in accordance with the property management agreement and to oversee the implementation of the vacation plan, which includes setting point charts, deciding on HRR, maintaining records and such.

I came across this fee somewhere I was reading about management companies and 12% is customary and reasonable. So at least this part is a non issue. It can pay for as much or as little as both parties agree to in their contract.

 

[Patmcpsu]

I discussed things a bit in today's November 2025 Average Price Blog: https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/blo...-2025/?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=dvcfan

Officially: We know nothing more than we did the day this was discovered. Although in theory its surprising the Member Administration knows nothing about this at the moment, I'm also not surprised whatsoever that Mickey's right hand isn't talking to his left hand.

Unofficially, here's my take on some of the discussion:

• We are continuing to see fast ROFR turnaround times... this is not coincidental, I think. They either have better staffing/automations, or they are trying to push things out ahead of this fee. Whichever the reason, both can be viewed as a win in one way or another.
• To the estoppel fee conversation: I view these personally as two different fees and think these might remain two separate fees. Estoppel = Seller / CAF = Buyer in my opinion. The meaning behind these fees seems completely separate.
• This is being talked about A LOT here, but we often forget we are a small, well-informed corner of the broader DVC space. New direct buyers aren't going to think about this fee when they buy. Small add-on buyers direct aren't going to think about this fee. If we see an impact on the resale market, it'll be with small resale contracts, but I'm going to even say maybe to that one. It's more likely to just become a cost of doing resale business, and very, very lightly changes all those value proposition spreadsheets.

I think the emotions on this thread stem from everyone feeling like each of their contracts lost $500 overnight - either by the seller eating the fee, or buyers offering a lower $/pt offset the $500 fee if they have to pay it. We don't know *how* we're losing $500 per contract, but sense *that* it's happening.

This board is full of nerds who overanalyze the DVC economy (I'm happily one of them), but we also believe that resale is the free market operating efficiently (whereas the direct market is central-planning by Disney). If this fee applied to direct sales, I could absolutely see buyers shrugging their shoulders. But this fee applies to resale, and those buyers... I'm not so sure about. But then again, Paul has better familiarity with the typical resale buyer than I do.