New $500 Resale DVC Transfer Fee

[Sandisw]

I prefer businesses to come up with new products that I want to buy (in my case Disney is usually reasonably successfully with this) instead of monetising products that I already bought with fees that weren't mentioned in the contract but I respect your position.

The contract does say they can charge fees. I posted the clause last week.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I have been watching some things and I now believe the $500 fee is also being implemented to stop these profiteers from profiting as much while buying small contracts. With the new transfer rules it is more profitable for them to buy multiple small contracts then get points transferred into the contract than buy one normal sized. This also allows them to skate the 11 month window as well. They buy a cheaper resort small contract and they get points from a more expensive resort transferred in and then they can utilize 11 month booking windows to spec rent. Many are brokers or are connected to a broker and get the transfer points on the cheap and then they turn around and rent out for $25-$30pp when they only paid $10-$15pp for the transfer. Rinse and repeat. It's proving to be a good method because now you will see these people actively on the hunt for transfers online.

 

[walt34]

The contract does say they can charge fees. I posted the clause last week.

In this thread? Can you please help me find the post? I guess I'm not using the search function correctly but I can't find it.

 

[Frederic Civish]

View attachment 1028488
https://disneyvacationclub.disney.go.com/faq/reselling/information-required

Just sharing because I saw it on a DVC-related FB page and I don't recall reading this anywhere on these boards. Another fee to make resale less attractive over direct points. Will be interesting to see if brokers default to this being paid by the seller or the buyer. And, also interesting to see whether they continue the fast transfers we've seen this past month or revert to the slow transfer process, but now with a $500 fee.

Is it actually within "the rules" for Disney to do this? What possible legal challenges, or legal controls, might there be on these? SURELY there are legal questions here that could be explored in court.

Who controls the fees and expenses and where do they go? Who will decide what is fair in the future, and why?

Exactly what is Disney Vacation Club Management, LLC? Exactly who owns it? Who manages it?

WHY are they (DVCM) the ones who approve these contracts -- I'm sure that is why they were set up, but is it possible for anyone else to manage DVC contracts?

If this is for the Vacation Club, then who has oversight of these costs and administration fees? Or are they just 'profit' for Disney Vacation Club Management, LLC? Or for Disney themselves? Do the DVC Members have any input?

I really would like to know. I do know that the answers to these questions most likely are burried in the 43 pages (and counting) of responses here, but could someone create an ongoing, "Managed" list of questions like this and their brief answers?

 

[VGCgroupie]

Is it actually within "the rules" for Disney to do this? What possible legal challenges, or legal controls, might there be on these? SURELY there are legal questions here that could be explored in court.

Who controls the fees and expenses and where do they go? Who will decide what is fair in the future, and why?

Exactly what is Disney Vacation Club Management, LLC? Exactly who owns it? Who manages it?

WHY are they (DVCM) the ones who approve these contracts -- I'm sure that is why they were set up, but is it possible for anyone else to manage DVC contracts?

If this is for the Vacation Club, then who has oversight of these costs and administration fees? Or are they just 'profit' for Disney Vacation Club Management, LLC? Or for Disney themselves? Do the DVC Members have any input?

I really would like to know. I do know that the answers to these questions most likely are burried in the 43 pages (and counting) of responses here, but could someone create an ongoing, "Managed" list of questions like this and their brief answers?

I will post here what I similarly posted in response to another one of your posts. You get paid for transfers which is clearly written in the contract that is not allowed. Yet you are here to question if DVC is doing something in violation of their contract. Ironic.

 

[disneylandtour]

I will post here what I similarly posted in response to another one of your posts. You get paid for transfers which is clearly written in the contract that is not allowed. Yet you are here to question if DVC is doing something in violation of their contract. Ironic.

I'm of the opinion that from a contractual standpoint this DVD chance will likely be fine in Florida and South Carolina. But I am interested if there are laws overseeing administrative fees for Aulani for the resorts in California.

 

[Sandisw]

In this thread? Can you please help me find the post? I guess I'm not using the search function correctly but I can't find it.

Here is the clause. This is from RIV, p.35 but it has been found in other resorts POS as well.

 

[Sandisw]

Is it actually within "the rules" for Disney to do this? What possible legal challenges, or legal controls, might there be on these? SURELY there are legal questions here that could be explored in court.

Who controls the fees and expenses and where do they go? Who will decide what is fair in the future, and why?

Exactly what is Disney Vacation Club Management, LLC? Exactly who owns it? Who manages it?

WHY are they (DVCM) the ones who approve these contracts -- I'm sure that is why they were set up, but is it possible for anyone else to manage DVC contracts?

If this is for the Vacation Club, then who has oversight of these costs and administration fees? Or are they just 'profit' for Disney Vacation Club Management, LLC? Or for Disney themselves? Do the DVC Members have any input?

I really would like to know. I do know that the answers to these questions most likely are burried in the 43 pages (and counting) of responses here, but could someone create an ongoing, "Managed" list of questions like this and their brief answers?

See post above. The POS allows additional fees to be charged and this fee seems to be covered with that clause.

Our contracts are written to give the board the power to hire the management company and they have chosen DVcMC.

We simply pay them to do certain things and owners can request a copy of the property management agreement that the condo association of each resort has with DVCMC.

The contract gives DVD, the developer the ROFR, and they are the ones making that decision.

In addition to managing the program, DVCMC has duties that are outside their role in managing the program which includes the work MA does for sales, including resales.

DVCMC is, to simplify is a divison or subsidiary of TWDWC. It was created to manage the timeshare.

As owners, since we agreed to give the board the right to hire who manages the program, and we gave up our right to vote to the board, it would be up to them to decide to choose a different management company,,,and owners trying to influence that is pretty near impossible.

In terms of oversight, we, as owners, don’t get a say in DVCMCs operations,..we pay them a straight 12% of operating costs to do what we contracted them to do.

They do not have to account for how they spend that fee or have to explain what other revenue they get from other sources.

Now, they do go through financial audits like any other business, so that is what would play a role in ensuring laws are being followed.

Any records of the association can be viewed by owners who make a request to review them in the offices,

But, DVCMC is not required to share their profit/loss, expenses, etc. with us.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm of the opinion that from a contractual standpoint this DVD chance will likely be fine in Florida and South Carolina. But I am interested if there are laws overseeing administrative fees for Aulani for the resorts in California.

Someone should check the AUl and VGC contracts to see if that same clause is there?

 

[walt34]

Here is the clause. This is from RIV, p.35 but it has been found in other resorts POS as well.

Thanks, I found it in the POS of other resorts too. It would be great to have a Florida lawyer give his opinion on whether this really gives Disney (Board of Directors, WDPR, etc.) carte blanche to invent new fees.

 

[Bucketfoot]

Frankly I am shocked it too Disney so long to do this. There is no benefit in a resale contract to them, only the expense of having to process it.

 

[Sandisw]

Thanks, I found it in the POS of other resorts too. It would be great to have a Florida lawyer give his opinion on whether this really gives Disney (Board of Directors, WDPR, etc.) carte blanche to invent new fees.

What do you mean? It states that purchasers might be subject to fees by those entities.

This is a closing cost though being billed to the buyer so my info is that the POS may not even come into play.

 

[walt34]

What do you mean? It states that purchasers might be subject to be charged additional fees.

So, those names entities can invent any fees they like for (resale) purchasers? How about a $10,000 'have fun at WDW' fee? My guess is, there are limits to this, but I am not a Florida lawyer.

 

[Sandisw]

So, those names entities can invent any fees they like for (resale) purchasers? How about a $10,000 'have fun at WDW' fee? My guess is, there are limits to this, but I am not a Florida lawyer.

There certainly could be limits to it…because the charge would still have to be considered an appropriate fee related to the program and not violate any laws.

But, my comments are related only to whether or not they can institute this specific CAF fee…both the contract and FL timeshare law support they do.

And, the $500 charge doesn’t appear to be out of industry standard in related to other timeshares.

 

[Genie+]

So, those names entities can invent any fees they like for (resale) purchasers? How about a $10,000 'have fun at WDW' fee? My guess is, there are limits to this, but I am not a Florida lawyer.

$500 CAF is still within reason. $10k would flat out come across as unreasonable to most owners and buyers.

I feel if DVC were desperate enough to pull something like that we’d all have bigger things to worry about. Why would they unnecessarily burn down their own brand while there’s still plenty of other options open to them?

If they wanted bigger money than this CAF they could open point washing on resale. Then you’d have people in the DVC communities comparing the math and product across 3 avenues: Direct; Resale; Resale + Point Wash. That’s a much easier path, and done correctly plenty of members would choose to spend it.

 

[walt34]

But, my comments are related only to whether or not they can institute this specific CAF fee…both the contract and FL timeshare law support they do.

And, the $500 charge doesn’t appear to be out of industry standard in related to other timeshares.

The remaining question regarding other timeshare programs is whether they implemented it in the same way (after sales, via a generic phrase in the contract allowing them to implement charges) or if those programs had a different starting point (e.g. mentioning this fee specifically in the contract when they were first sold).

 

[walt34]

$500 CAF is still within reason. $10k would flat out come across as unreasonable to most owners and buyers.

I feel if DVC were desperate enough to pull something like that we’d all have bigger things to worry about. Why would they unnecessarily burn down their own brand while there’s still plenty of other options open to them?

If they wanted bigger money than this CAF they could open point washing on resale. Then you’d have people in the DVC communities comparing the math and product across 3 avenues: Direct; Resale; Resale + Point Wash. That’s a much easier path, and done correctly plenty of members would choose to spend it.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't trying to argue that. The $10k example was just as a hypothetical to illustrate that I have a hard time believing that this generic clause allows them to implement any fee they want. The quoted passage from the contract does not limit them to a charge 'within reason'. So $10K should be ok, then? I don't think so. I also don't think they'd ever implement a $10K fee or anything like that.

 

[Sandisw]

The remaining question regarding other timeshare programs is whether they implemented it in the same way (after sales, via a generic phrase in the contract allowing them to implement charges) or if those programs had a different starting point (e.g. mentioning this fee specifically in the contract when they were first sold).

I guess I am still confused.

We have contract language that support it, the FL statute also seems to support it as long as it’s disclosed when a contract is being written for sale and we know it’s also industry standard for others to charge.

I get people are not thrilled that it is $500 but beyond that?

Nothing points to them not being able to charge resale buyers a CAF as part of their closing costs.

 

[Genie+]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't trying to argue that. The $10k example was just as a hypothetical to illustrate that I have a hard time believing that this generic clause allows them to implement any fee they want. The quoted passage from the contract does not limit them to a charge 'within reason'. So $10K should be ok, then? I don't think so. I also don't think they'd ever implement a $10K fee or anything like that.

Yeah, so I was also looking at it from if they could, then why not view.

 

[walt34]

I guess I am still confused.

We have contract language that support it, the FL statute also seems to support it as long as it’s disclosed when a contract is being written for sale and we know it’s also industry standard for others to charge.

I get people are not thrilled that it is $500 but beyond that?

Nothing points to them not being able to charge resale buyers a CAF as part of their closing costs.

Maybe I'm the only one who is confused. I'm not a Florida lawyer. In the jurisdictions I am familiar with, consumer protection is apparently stronger, so a fee like this, implemented after the initial sale of a property, would have to meet quite a high standard (probably staying close to the actual costs).

I'm just puzzled that a generic clause like this allows them to raise any fee they like. If this is the case, I'm surprised it hasn't been misused by other, less reputable timeshare companies. I suppose many services could be 'improved' with an 8x markup to boost profits.