New $500 Resale DVC Transfer Fee

[Sandisw]

I don't agree with this statement.

They either have a fiduciary duty toward the members, in which case, if they are allowed to charge a fee, it should be only to cover expenses.
Or they don't, in which case if the law doesn't prohibit it, they can charge whatever they want (even 10K).

But one cannot claim they are acting in the interest of the membership when they stand to gain a couple of millions per year doing this (assuming 500K is more than enough to hire a few CM to handle the transfers)

Except they have a responsibility as the managing entity for DVD as well to ensure that the sales and transfer process is efficient for new owners.

If charging the fee is what is required to accomplish it, then IMO, they should be doing it.

It’s been a big frustration for new buyers to have it take a long time to get access to their points.

Now, with a fee, there is no excuse for it to take that long because DVCMC has new revenue to ensure the process is quick and efficient.

If the charging of the fee is legal, and it is going to benefit the program by reducing the times it takes for a resale transaction so buyers get access sooner, then I feel it is a move that benefits the program as a whole.

Charging $10k isn’t the same thing as $500 and you know that.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

Except they have a responsibility as the managing entity to DVD as well to ensure that the sales and transfer process is efficient.

And, if charging the fee does that, then they have an obligation to do it.

It’s been a big frustration for new buyers to have it take a long time to get access to their points.

Now, with a fee, there is no excuse for it to take that long because DVCMC has new revenue to ensure the process is quick and efficient.

If the charging of the fee is legal, and it is going to benefit the program by reducing the times it takes for a resale transaction so buyers get access sooner, then I feel it is a move that benefits the program as a whole.

Charging $10k isn’t the same thing as $500 and you know that.

The issue is charging $500 instead of something closer to what it actually costs even with a modest margin built in.
This price is closer to charging for a corporate law firm associate to process the transaction.

 

[Sandisw]

The issue is charging $500 instead of something closer to what it actually costs even with a modest margin built in.
This price is closer to charging for a corporate law firm associate to process the transaction.

Oh, I get people have an issue with the amount of the fee and I think it’s valid for an owner to ask them as to explain why the fee amount was chosen.

What we don’t know is if this will now include estoppel…if it does, then it’s an increase of $350 and not $500. Once we get more details, we will know.

From what others have posted, other timeshares charge $300 to $400? So, $500 isn’t that far off..

As I just posted, now that there will be a CAF, then there will be no excuse for them not to get things processed extremely quickly.

Owners should no longer have to wait a month to get use of their membership.

 

[walt34]

From what others have posted, other timeshares charge $300 to $400? So, $500 isn’t that far off..

do we have someone here who can verify that those fees aren’t already named in other timeshare contracts?

 

[Sandisw]

do we have someone here who can verify that those fees aren’t already named in other timeshare contracts?

From the reading of FL 721, the timeshare statute, this type of fee needs to be part of the sales contract and disclosed then.

That’s why I do t think they will be able charge it to anyone who entered a contract already without it.

But, there are people who own other timeshares who should be able to tell you that.

 

[RivShore]

Can we just keep this thread going... its entertaining my pre-caffeinated brain this morning.

Disboards must love the traffic stuff like this drives. 24 pages in the blink of an eye...lol

Have you not been able to get any more info from your contacts? You would think a title company would need details yesterday!

 

[Mirabell Rose]

Perhaps they were waiting to start cracking down on commercial renting until this new fee and the reservations hit the point where everyone had to certify personal use. When both of those go into place they can then make some money of their own when the owners that are renting for non personal use dump their contracts onto the resale market.

 

[davidhr]

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

So… just a typical Friday here!

 

[zavandor]

Except they have a responsibility as the managing entity for DVD as well to ensure that the sales and transfer process is efficient for new owners.

If charging the fee is what is required to accomplish it, then IMO, they should be doing it.

It’s been a big frustration for new buyers to have it take a long time to get access to their points.

Now, with a fee, there is no excuse for it to take that long because DVCMC has new revenue to ensure the process is quick and efficient.

If the charging of the fee is legal, and it is going to benefit the program by reducing the times it takes for a resale transaction so buyers get access sooner, then I feel it is a move that benefits the program as a whole.

Charging $10k isn’t the same thing as $500 and you know that.

This is borderline Stockholm syndrome.
They can very well guarantee a more efficient process charging $50 or $100.
Do we agree that charging 2,5 millions a year is disproportionate and most of it will be new revenue?

$500 and 10k are not the same. But if $500 is legal, would $700 be legal as well? And why not 1000? When do you stop?

If you think that they are allowed to create a new revenue stream at the expense of members, good, it's your opinion. But don't sell it to me like they're making me a favour.

 

[drusba]

Thanks for more details. The $150 matches with the estoppel fee which is all that they do provide.

But, what prohibits them for charging a fee to handle the process of creating accounts after the sale has been completed?

We don’t now yet what they are going to tell us it is for, but just wondering what would prohibit it.

The issue appears uncertain but those charges could possibly be considered as included in the definition of transfer fee in §721.112(2)(i). The other statute I mentioned above, §689.28 specifically includes in the definition of transfer fee charges to the buyer incurred for accepting the sale, which could include account set-up charges.

And ultimately, there is the issue of whether any such set-up costs charged to the buyer are something actually allowed by the POS documents. As a general matter, associations and managing entities cannot create new kinds of fees not previously charged unless there is something in the POS documents that allow their creation. In this case, it appears the fee was created by DVCM but no amendment has been made to allow such a fee, which means DVCM, to justify the charge, needs to be able to cite some provision in the POS that allows it.