New restrictions on resale contracts coming!?!? (Nothing official)

[Dean]

Access to inventory is part of your deeded right; they can't give any preference to direct owners in relation to the underlying real estate interest.

I believe this is true also with the exception that if they did institute a VIP program, they could make retail part of the requirements. One might say they couldn't do that but given that Marriott, Wyndham and Bluegreen all have, I'd suspect they could.

 

[supersnoop]

I believe this is true also with the exception that if they did institute a VIP program, they could make retail part of the requirements. One might say they couldn't do that but given that Marriott, Wyndham and Bluegreen all have, I'd suspect they could.

I don't know how they could institute a VIP program. Or, at least I don't know what types of benefits they could provide. They might be able to change the rules, but then they'd have to grandfather everyone in. And I can't imagine they'd want to have two separate classes of grandfathered members.

 

[Dean]

I don't know how they could institute a VIP program. Or, at least I don't know what types of benefits they could provide. They might be able to change the rules, but then they'd have to grandfather everyone in. And I can't imagine they'd want to have two separate classes of grandfathered members.

Part of me agrees with you but both BG and Marriott have done so giving some owners priority over others with additional options including earlier reservations (or advanced wait list). Both have similar programs in many ways and both are based in FL. Marriott didn't grandfather anyone other than they gave everyone the chance to participate, at a fee. That fee was significantly higher for resale than retail buyers like $800 vs $2000 IIRC. And it still divided them up into points levels with priorities to the higher levels, now with 5 levels. Resale can't be included going forward at all. Bluegreen did grandfather but again divided into 5 levels, again striated by number of points. For a while they allowed new resale purchase to count but no longer. Now one has to pay a minimum price to get the benefits and buy through an approved source, a price that's essentially at retail levels. Examples of things they could do within a VIP program taken directly from these 2 would include allowing waitlisting earlier and more often, advanced reservation windows, a dedicated phone line easier to get through. Dedicated, better trained staff. More and better access to exchanges. Points for dues, tickets, etc. Waived fees they might institute in other areas including banking, midweek cleanings, etc. Cheaper short notice reservations, cheaper cash reservations. If they were going that route, which they apparently looked at a few yrs ago, you'd think we'd have info by now but I think it's still possible. Others can speak to Wyndham or Hilton.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

{Pandora's Box}

But I'm going to open it anyway. I'm sure this was discussed back when it happened but I can't remember what the final word was (Obviously Disney prevailed or it hasn't actually been court-tested yet.).

Would the current (or any future) restrictions really hold up to legal scrutiny if someone had the money and the resources to press the issue? I hate to over-simplify but for example, I bought points that were promised access to x,y and z. I should reasonably be able to sell those points with the buyer still having access to x,y and z. As a buyer, I should be able to expect the same.

To me, that begs the question, why hasn't someone holding a bunch of resale points pushed this issue? I guess it's because they are professional renters primarily for WDW anyway so it doesn't matter to them.

I'm not sure this would hold up in a court of law, but I'm sure Dean or somebody will come along and tell me why it will.

 

[goofy friend]

Bottom line is Disney makes more money off of park admissions, souvenirs, food purchases, etc. than they do from DVC sales. The important thing is getting as many people as possible in the park.

 

[tjkraz]

Bottom line is Disney makes more money off of park admissions, souvenirs, food purchases, etc. than they do from DVC sales. The important thing is getting as many people as possible in the park.

At TWDC, everyone to prove their worth.

Ken Potrock and Karl Holz have to answer for the profitability of Disney Vacation Development. They aren't judged (rewarded?) based upon the number of turkey legs and t-shirts sold in the parks. Their performance is judged based upon the DVC/DVD business unit.

I'm sure there is some high-level evaluation of major decisions. The-powers-that-be won't give Potrock and Holz carte blanche to run DVC in any manner of their choosing, regardless of the impact on other business units. But like all other Disney subsidiaries, they are expected to grow revenues / profits, not allow them to stagnate or decline.

It's not good enough to just get people into the parks. What they really want are people in the parks AND higher hotel occupancy AND improved DVC point sales AND higher guest spending AND longer average stays AND...

 

[keishashadow]

DVC is designed to be booked 98% of the time, The booking windows, 60 day transfers to CRO and other inventory adjustments makes that happen. For most members even if their preferred dates aren't available, they will stay during non preferred dates even at resorts that aren't their favorite. Renting brokers have increased the number of rentals so my guess is that more owners are renting.

Bill

hmmm, i'm not sure if majority of members are flexible as to changing dates or interested in staying at all the resorts/unit categories. I agree that professional renters have likely reduced the pool of availability during peak periods. They are working within the current system, that's one of the reasons why I'd like to see home field window extended.

Aside from the major holidays, WDW has created many events throughout the year to increase the gate. To complicate the process further, it's not uncommon for members to plan trips wherein they have to work with traveling companions' schedules as well as their immediate family member obligations as the kids get older.

Over the years I've transferred points in & out and rented to other members but now tend to bank any extra points. At least with the banking option, I'm not locked in or obligated to stay at a resort that I feel isn't the best usage of my points. We used to have great luck booking 'DVC last minute' i.e. a few months out.

Re renting points from another member or broker: there are plenty of 4 star properties offsite in the Disney area that can be booked at a great discount (less than a disney value) via hotwire or orbitz, etc. It's the route we usually decide to pursue before the 30 day period begins if our DVC waitlist hasn't materialized.

We all have our own way of navigating DVC ownership

 

[drusba]

{Pandora's Box}

But I'm going to open it anyway. I'm sure this was discussed back when it happened but I can't remember what the final word was (Obviously Disney prevailed or it hasn't actually been court-tested yet.).

Would the current (or any future) restrictions really hold up to legal scrutiny if someone had the money and the resources to press the issue? I hate to over-simplify but for example, I bought points that were promised access to x,y and z. I should reasonably be able to sell those points with the buyer still having access to x,y and z. As a buyer, I should be able to expect the same.

To me, that begs the question, why hasn't someone holding a bunch of resale points pushed this issue? I guess it's because they are professional renters primarily for WDW anyway so it doesn't matter to them.

I'm not sure this would hold up in a court of law, but I'm sure Dean or somebody will come along and tell me why it will.

To date, nothing has happened to any resale purchaser to affect rights he may have as a DVC owner. The only restriction on resale purchasers that DVD has ever adopted is the one that took away the ability to trade out to most of the Disney Collections (hotels, cruise, adventures). The Disney Collections have always been a "perk" provided by DVD outside of any contractual or other legal obligations it may have to members. Perks are not rights of members. DVD has always stated perks can change or be taken away as to anyone at any time. Tomorrow, it could, if it wanted to, announce the same perk is no longer available to direct purchasers. The only kind of case one could develop for loss of a perk is that one purchased on reliance of some assurance that the perk would not be terminated and it was then taken away. That would be a weak case to begin with but DVD avoided the possibility entirely by grandfathering in all the pre-March 21, 2011 resale purchasers and giving months of fair warning of the restriction that would apply to sales after the designated effective date.

Many things members seem to fear may happen to resale purchasers cannot happen. DVD can do all it wants with perks, including taking them away from certain members or giving more to a designated VIP class. But things it cannot do, regardless of how broad many incorrectly believe DVD's power is under the official documents, include restricting resale purchasers to their home resort, or giving them a shorter reservation period than direct purchasers for home resort or other resorts (and that includes that DVD cannot allow direct purchasers to start reserving at midnight at 11 or 7 months out while resale purchasers start at 8 a.m.)

The amendments to the timeshare law being made will likely have little impact on DVC. For example, I keep seeing posters mention the change that allows 60% of the voting interests of a timeshare to vote to terminate or extend a timeshare period and members seem to believe that would give DVD the power to extend timeshare periods and charge owners for doing so. The provision is completely irrelevant to DVC for the following reasons: (a) it seems to be something to allow the owners to do rather than the developer and actually has a provision that when the timeshare is a multisite timeshare like DVD, it is the developer/part owner who gets to prevent it from happening regardless of any vote; (b) the provision does not allow any real extension of a DVC timeshare period by vote of any voting interests because your ownership end date is defined by the end of the lease term for the property based on the lease that DVD has with the Disney entity that owns the property; you can vote to extend the timeshare period forever but that won't extend the lease, which would require the consent of that Disney entity, and won't change the provision that says all your property and other interests end when the lease ends; (c) the new provision states it applies unless the timeshare documents provide something different on the issue of termination and extension; as to an extension, the DVC documents actually provide that only DVD can do an extension of the timeshare period even if the lease is extended (and it does not provide it can force you to pay for the extension); as to termination, there are certain unlikely events, such as a disaster that destroys the entire resort or the government takes over the resort via eminent domanin, that could result in termination, but a voluntary termination of the entire timeshare plan requires a 100% vote of all owners and mortgage holders; you can get a partial termination by a resort's withdrawing from the DVC system and becoming its own independent timeshare but that also requires an unlikely event to occur, like a 60% vote of the members to kick out the Disney managment entity for the resort.

 

[disneynutz]

Disney will do what's good for Disney. We use the DVC as a discounted room, Disney uses the DVC as a business. The running of the membership, bookings, website issues, room and resort issues isn't that important to them, it's not their core business.

Selling new contracts and building new properties is their core business with teams of regulatory people, contract lawyers, marketing people, designers, revenue and project accounting teams. They have people who keep track of timeshare laws, state by state, country by country, they are members and or officers in various timeshare industry groups and associations, they have lobbyists who work to change laws in their favor, and they have PR people who work with the local and national media to only report the positive, Disney style.

The only reason the Aulani issue came to light is because the State of Hawaii found irregularities in their dues assessments which resulted in a tax under payment, not because the owners banded together to point out the issue.

Bill

 

[Dean]

{Pandora's Box}

But I'm going to open it anyway. I'm sure this was discussed back when it happened but I can't remember what the final word was (Obviously Disney prevailed or it hasn't actually been court-tested yet.).

Would the current (or any future) restrictions really hold up to legal scrutiny if someone had the money and the resources to press the issue? I hate to over-simplify but for example, I bought points that were promised access to x,y and z. I should reasonably be able to sell those points with the buyer still having access to x,y and z. As a buyer, I should be able to expect the same.

To me, that begs the question, why hasn't someone holding a bunch of resale points pushed this issue? I guess it's because they are professional renters primarily for WDW anyway so it doesn't matter to them.

I'm not sure this would hold up in a court of law, but I'm sure Dean or somebody will come along and tell me why it will.

I think so for 2 reasons. One, nothing currently affected comes under the POS or any legal or contractual component and they have absolute authority with no input when it comes to reservation related decisions. This is how Marriott instituted the ability for multi week owners to reserve a month earlier than everyone else a number of years ago.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

DVC absolutely did give advance warning before the prior restrictions. More than 2 months warning. It was posted on DVCMember.com, covered by the Orlando Sentinel and numerous other outlets.

http://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-pr...atement-on-resale-direct-purchase-distinction

Regardless 2 months is not advance warning in my book. And yes I broke the news as fact beforehand. But whatever. I don't trust Disney to make it easy for owners to know about the changes. Just be prepared changes can happen quickly. Hopefully owners will be grandfathered in.

 

[erionm]

Regardless 2 months is not advance warning in my book. And yes I broke the news as fact beforehand. But whatever. I don't trust Disney to make it easy for owners to know about the changes. Just be prepared changes can happen quickly. Hopefully owners will be grandfathered in.

From the Member Benefits Guide:

DVD reserves the right to amend the terms and conditions of the Disney Travel Program at any time and without notice, in its sole
discretion. Further, DVD reserves the right to modify, supplement or terminate the Disney Travel Program at any time and without
notice, in its sole discretion, subject to the obligation on the part of DVD to honor reservations for Disney Accommodations
confirmed prior to termination. In the event the Disney Travel Program, or any portion thereof, becomes unavailable as a result of
events beyond DVD’s control, DVD reserves the right to substitute a replacement benefit of a type, quality, value and term
reasonably similar to the Disney Travel Program. Reservations at a DVC Resort shall be deemed conclusively to be reasonably
similar to unavailable Disney Travel Accommodations.

https://dvc.disney.go.com/media/dvc...itsguide/01-12-2015-Member-Benefits-Guide.pdf

 

[BWV Dreamin]

From the Member Benefits Guide:

https://dvc.disney.go.com/media/dvc...itsguide/01-12-2015-Member-Benefits-Guide.pdf

Exactly.,

 

[Dean]

Regardless 2 months is not advance warning in my book. And yes I broke the news as fact beforehand. But whatever. I don't trust Disney to make it easy for owners to know about the changes. Just be prepared changes can happen quickly. Hopefully owners will be grandfathered in.

Better than the warning on the valet parking where some parked when it was free and picked up with a charge.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Better than the warning on the valet parking where some parked when it was free and picked up with a charge.

Hahahaha so true!