New $500 Resale DVC Transfer Fee

[maui22]

If we transfer our deeds to a trust, we now have to pay $500 per deed. Is this correct?

Also, if someone passes away and the deed is transferred to their children, the children have to pay $500 for each deed?

 

[VGCgroupie]

If we transfer our deeds to a trust, we now have to pay $500 per deed. Is this correct?

Also, if someone passes away and the deed is transferred to their children, the children have to pay $500 for each deed?

Great question. I am on the fence about transferring to a trust since many commercial renters also use trusts. But transferring to children in the event of a death I feel should be waived.
Edit I am not on the fence. Trusts should also have to pay the fee.

 

[eticketplease]

I don't think a $500 one-time fee will change a lot of people's minds. It is less than what deluxe resorts usually charge per night, or about 6 month's worth of dues on a 150 point contract. The resale market will still be robust, but yeah it will take a marginal hit.

Hey now!! said the CFW owner

 

[eticketplease]

If we transfer our deeds to a trust, we now have to pay $500 per deed. Is this correct?

Also, if someone passes away and the deed is transferred to their children, the children have to pay $500 for each deed?

I don't think so since that would not be considered a sale.

 

[Tatebeck]

The way it reads I do NOT think it will apply to retitles/gratuitous transfers. It specifically talks about reselling the contract and retitling/gratuitous transfers are by definition not selling as there is no money changing hands

Another way to think about it is "would this contract (if it was direct/grandfathered) lose it's benefits in this transaction?" If yes then it would incur the fee. If not, then I don't think it will incur the fee

Anyone buying directly into a trust would pay it, and anyone selling out of a trust would too. So it would still hit the commercial renters who strip and flip for a total of $1,000 for each strip and flip

 

[SL6827]

Isn’t another way of looking at it that they increased the cost of studios and decreased the cost of 1 bedrooms?

If I remember correctly, it wasn't just that. It was the fact that they were being able to create more points for themselves out of the deal.

 

[mrjack5]

I might suffer from a bit of persecution complex, but I strongly remember all the headwind we had to fight on this board to try to convince people that we could fight the point charts. Some even said that increasing the lockoff premium could be advantageous because it would increase room availability. I remember also people saying: we don't have the data, only Disney does, we cannot say for sure that 1BR book much less than 2BR.
At the end (by Disney statement) only a couple dozen people complained to them, even if it was recommended to write/call.

Anyway, you're also conflating two separate events. The 2020 original charts had the lockoff premium increase and a reallocation between Poly bungalows and CCV cabins and other units. The point charts with the 7 seasons that caused an increase of points depending on when Easter fell, happened later. Not sure when, I think 2023 point charts.

ETA: to complete the history of DVC playing dirty, there was the time a DISboard user (Bing Showei) managed to force DVC to rollback the way they handle tax refunds on dues for sold contracts.

No--the "lockoff premium" chart increased both. And that's why it was absolutely bonkers.

There is a good argument for raising studios and lowering 1BRs, but unfortunately doing so would probably require violating the Residential Unit is Constant provision in most resorts. If any RUs in any given resort have different ratios of studios and 1BRs, then you can't just reallocate between those room sizes without reallocating across RUs, because math.

There is also the problem that reallocating across unit sizes would violate the maximum reallocation values published in the governing documents, but that did not stop them when they reallocated across SSR, raising the 2BRs at the expense of Treehouses, so who knows?

I think the direction the wind is blowing is such that that DVC is no longer interested in reallocating across RUs, but I've been wrong before.

I remember that too, but that argument was wrong on its face. It was obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention to availability that 1BRs are the last room size to book system-wide. So I never gave them much of my attention.

In fact, that might explain a few entries on my ignore list.

I suspect I was on your "this guy is a jerk" list, because my attitude was almost certainly: "Of course you are right, and these charts are crap. But a lawsuit is pointless, because if Disney wants to crush you, they will." Happily, we never had to test that hypothesis.

If I remember correctly, it wasn't just that. It was the fact that they were being able to create more points for themselves out of the deal.

I thought florida timeshare law, total bucket of "points" couldn't increase unless more inventory was added EG Island tower, Poly Bungalos, VGF more rooms added.

Unless there was an increase in inventory then if one season/room category increased then there had to be decrease somewhere else? Isn't that correct?

But even if that was true they could inflate studios point cost and decrease bungalos without ever having real world changes because very few people booked the bungalos?

 

[Sandisw]

I don't think so since that would not be considered a sale.

The language was there related to sale,,,but that doesn’t mean it’s only when it’s a sale.

It could be related to any change in ownership once the new deed has been recorded and sent.

However, my guess is that transfers to a trust or between family might not incur the fee.

I wlll be doing some estate planning next year and wlll get to test this out!!

 

[eticketplease]

But even if that was true they could inflate studios point cost and decrease bungalos without ever having real world changes because very few people booked the bungalos?

It is still a "real world" change as now you have a lot more people that can't book the accommodations that they bought points for at PVB.

 

[eticketplease]

The language was there related to sale,,,but that doesn’t mean it’s only when it’s a sale.

It could be related to any change in ownership once the new deed has been recorded and sent.

However, my guess is that transfers to a trust or between family might not incur the fee.

I wlll be doing some estate planning next year and wlll get to test this out!!

Right now all we have is that FAQ which only mentions resale, not direct or any other contract modification so fingers crossed for you and others.

Hopefully we will get a real document posted soon.

 

[RivShore]

Lots of timeshares have that. Most name-branded Hawaii locations for example. And as the system scales up cracks may appear because demand is not guaranteed to scale with supply.

By "robust" I meant not just lots of resale transactions but also at high point values, close to and in some cases more than the original cost. Do the HI ones consistently get decent resale prices?

Again, my knowledge of other time shares is limited to a relatives experience many years ago, with an RCI mountain area TS that they literally could not give away. Their experience actually kept us from even considering DVC until I dug a bit into the details and saw that they have an end date, so you are not locked in forever, and then I discovered the resale and rental market and realized we should have bought DVC 20 years ago! lol

 

[Brian Noble]

Do the HI ones consistently get decent resale prices?

Yes. That's exactly what I meant.

Plus, cheap resales are great...if you buy resale!

 

[intamin]

What do we think the smallest contract size should be now when adding on considering the 500 dollar surcharge? 50? 75? 100? Is it still worth doing a 25 pt contract despite this essentially raising the price per point? Who do we think this cost will ultimately fall upon in most cases? Obviously it can be negotiated but ultimately I think it'll lean one way or another just like how closing costs usually fall on the buyer

 

[DanCali]

Someone earlier said "what stops them from making the fee $5000". Well my guess is that they can get away with a fee as long as it's somewhat justifiable. If they made the fee $5000 they would have to justify why it costs $5000 to process a contract. More difficult to do than $500. In the end, I think this would be difficult to fight.

I am not a lawyer and I am not sure if they do or they don't need to justify anything on this front. But timeshare developers fill the documents with things can can unilaterally change at their sole discretion. In fact, the purchase documents for my direct DVC contracts contain the word "discretion" at least 25 times!

How did Marriott vacation club increase the fee to buy 2000 resale Marriott Vacation Club Points (a relatively base number on the low end) from $2000 ($1/pt) in 2010, to $4000 ($2/pt) in 2014 to $6000 ($3/pt) in 2018? They just did it - no justification was needed... The sad part of that much if not most of the cost to buy resale Marriott points goes to Marriott rather than the seller - that's how cheap the points have become... the fees most likely contributed to that.

 

[Brian Noble]

The smallest add on I whould consider is the one I need. I would not buy more points than I need just to preserve some hypothetical salvage value.

But, if I needed more points, I would not break them up into chunks smaller than 50. So, I would need to be buying at least 100 before I considered splitting. And to be fair, I probably wouldn't even bother doing that. I don't think it makes that much sense to split until you get well above 150, and probably close to 200. Too much sugar for a dime.

 

[DoubleBaconBLT]

It's an hobby of mine to remind the world what happened in 2019. DVC published a point chart that increased the lockoff premium and reallocated points across units.
The general consensus was that Disney has an army of lawyers, so it would certainly be legal and it would be futile to fight it.
And yet a handful of members fought it and the changes were rolled back.

So at least one of the following is true:
- Disney doesn't have an army of lawyers
- lawyers are not consulted for every decision
- the lawyers are incompetent
- the lawyers warn management of the risks of a certain decision but greedy management do it anyway

So thinking this fee is legal just because Disney has lots of lawyers is not wise.

Whoa - aren't you one of the people who fought back (and won!) on this? I feel like I'm meeting a historical figure! Thanks for all the work you did on behalf of members - even ones like me who weren't even members yet! This feels like getting to thank James Madison for the Bill of Rights!

 

[WLB2025]

Yeah, I guess the question is what exactly is confirmed or approved during the ROFR process. I suppose you can argue that DVD has affirmatively approved the contract/transfer as is and so they have implicitly become a party to the contract. I tend to think of ROFR, though, as DVD simply declining to step into the buyer's shoes. As a practical matter, for any ROFRs between now and the end of the year, if they do plan on charging the $500 fee if the closing occurs after 1/1, they'd be smart to inform anyone passing ROFR about the fee. I guess we'll see.

I had one pass ROFR today & there's no mention of the fee by the broker or the title co.

 

[Moonspinner]

It's an hobby of mine to remind the world what happened in 2019. DVC published a point chart that increased the lockoff premium and reallocated points across units.
The general consensus was that Disney has an army of lawyers, so it would certainly be legal and it would be futile to fight it.
And yet a handful of members fought it and the changes were rolled back.

So at least one of the following is true:
- Disney doesn't have an army of lawyers
- lawyers are not consulted for every decision
- the lawyers are incompetent
- the lawyers warn management of the risks of a certain decision but greedy management do it anyway

So thinking this fee is legal just because Disney has lots of lawyers is not wise.

Yes. To be blunt, I would argue that Disney lawyers are incompetent (just like their executives , just like their IT, etc, etc). In house fortune 100 lawyers are not what they used to be and just hire outside counsel to do the real work. I doubt the Disney legal team went outside in this case. It’s just too dramatic to be the work of professional outside counsel. This could be pushed back on pretty easily IMO.

 

[MICKIMINI]

I think a buyer should write it into their offer that seller pays and see what happens. Of course, few buyers or sellers even know about this. The worst is the seller says no and you move on. Once the brokers decide how they "think" it should be settled it could go either way IMO and maybe a split will become the norm. It will certainly have the potential to get testy early on due to DVC's sneaky way of informing all parties to this fee.

If I were considering buying another resale now,I would spell it out that the seller pays and prepare to walk, but that is just me! Adding another $10 PP to each point (@ 50 points), especially 2042 resorts is pretty expensive.

 

[Moonspinner]

Whoa - aren't you one of the people who fought back (and won!) on this? I feel like I'm meeting a historical figure! Thanks for all the work you did on behalf of members - even ones like me who weren't even members yet! This feels like getting to thank James Madison for the Bill of Rights!

I agree. @zavandor is a real hero and put a lot of work into fighting for all dvc owners. Thank you @zavandor.