New rule enforcement on points

[Dean]

Actually, you have not "always said so" which was the reason for asking the question.

In this post you stated that "unlimited transfers were specified" (they were not and have never been) and "I'm not sure this will hold up without having the members vote on it. The way I read the POS, any change that adversely affects the members would need approval of the members themselves and not the voting representative. But overall I don't think it's a big deal and suspect it will have little effect one way or another for most members. IF I were one adversely affected, I'd file a complaint with DVC, ask for arbitration then file a complaint with the state of FL. I suspect DVC will back down or put it to a vote of the members, something they've never done."

Thanks for the agreement that DVC can make rule changes without needing a vote of the membership though - in spite of prior comments to the contrary.

You quote out of context. I questioned this one aspect and said I wasn't sure it would hold up. I'm still not sure it would if litigated but I doubt we'll know.

 

[OneMoreTry]

Dean..... Doc..... This is like the heavyweight championship of the world going on here!!!

This is one of those things were you sit and watch and are just glad you're not in the ring with either one of you!

 

[OneMoreTry]

I bet that the people that get an extra transfer will be the ones that plead or whine or nag or coax or sweet talk and know nothing about the POS or DVD or Florida law. (See recent post somewhere on the "super secret' exception.) They probably don't even read Vacation Magic.

The irony.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

You quote out of context. I questioned this one aspect and said I wasn't sure it would hold up. I'm still not sure it would if litigated but I doubt we'll know.

How can something be "out of context" when a link to your entire post was provided? Hopefully, you were able to follow that link - just to be safe I'll copy/paste the entire post for you so it will all be in context for everyone to see.

Either DVC has the right to make rule changes or they don't. You've already stated (in context) that you "have always said so" when specifically asked if that right exists and now you're "still not sure". Which is it?

Originally Posted by WebmasterDoc
Actually, this is exactly how Transferring is defined in our documents. While MS has allowed members more than one transfer, the documents do not state that more than one transfer is allowed per Use Year.

With the recent "changes" described , it appears that all they are doing is actually following the policies already in place and spelled out in our legal documents.

What's next - following the occupancy limits?


Actually it's the way it's defined in our older documents. Starting with the multi site POS that included SSR in 2003, unlimited transfers one way per use year were specified. More specifically, no limitations were included other than in OR out but not both. Seems everyone has forgotten that FACT. I'm not sure this will hold up without having the members vote on it. The way I read the POS, any change that adversely affects the members would need approval of the members themselves and not the voting representative. But overall I don't think it's a big deal and suspect it will have little effect one way or another for most members. IF I were one adversely affected, I'd file a complaint with DVC, ask for arbitration then file a complaint with the state of FL. I suspect DVC will back down or put it to a vote of the members, something they've never done. But if it indeed hold to be true, it will hurt members far more than renters IMO. And I'd frankly be surprised if the rule was even changed, more likely a zealous employee who read old documents and is telling others at MS wrong info, but we shall see.

...

 

[Doctor P]

I would also point out that the statement "any change that adversely affects the members" is a misstatement of the POS language. A lawyer would quickly recognize that the actual POS language cited is what I would term boiler plate legal terminology related to the prejudice or infringement of property rights related to the ownership of real estate. Its application is much narrower than any change that adversely affects members and I believe it applies to very specific types of legally defined property rights with respect to real estate. Transfer rules are a pretty mundane issue compared to things contemplated by clauses like this, and may not even be a material part of our contract with DVD. But, like others have said, I think it is a moot point on this particular issue.

 

[ralphd]

1) How many of us actually and truly believe a timeshare salesman.
2) Truth is a tough concept when BIG sales commissions are involved.
3) Next time, get it in writing.

I do not think DVC salespeople are on commission. They are paid a salary and can receive a bonus based on meeting objectives.

 

[OneMoreTry]

Dean or Doc,

What were the regulations regarding transfers in the original POS from 1991? Unlimited in OR out but not both? Or just 1 transfer -- period?

 

[WebmasterDoc]

The original language was (from the 5/93 POS):

1. Banked, Borrowed, or Holding Account Vacaton Points may not be Transferred.

2. Only one (1) Transfer per Club Member, either as Transferee or Transferor, will be permitted during a given Use Year.

3. Club Members who are delinquent in the payment of any Annual Dues may not Transfer or receive a Transfer.

4. Transferred Vacation Points may not be Banked, Borrowed, Exchanged, or retruned to the Transferring Club Member.

5. Club Members desiring to give or receive Ttransferred Vacation Points will not be referred by DVC to other Club Members for this purpose.

6. Club Members are expressly prohibited from receiving compensation for engaging in any Transfer activity.

 

[Chuck S]

Dean or Doc,

What were the regulations regarding transfers in the original POS from 1991? Unlimited in OR out but not both? Or just 1 transfer -- period?

I bought in 1992, on page I-A-5 of my POS (Rules & Regulations section)

EDIT: I was typing at the same time as Doc looks like the same wording.

TRANSFERS​

Transfers are designed to permit Club Members to use all or a portion of their Vacation Points together in a given Use Year subject to the restrictions set forth below. All transferred Vacation Points shall retain the Use Year of the transferring Club Member and shall expire, if not used in accordance with the Transfer restrictions set forth below, and at the end of the transferring Club Member's Use Year. Transfers are subject to the following restrictions:

1. Banked, Borrowed, or Holding Account Vacation Points may not be Transferred.

2. Only one (1) Transfer per Club Member, either as Transferee or Transferor will be permitted duringa given Use Year.

3. Club Members who are delinquent in the payment of any Annual Dues may not Transfer or receive a Transfer.

4. Transferred Vacation Points may not be Banked, Borrowed, Exchanged, or returned to the Transferring Club Member.

5. Club Members desiring to give or receive Transferred Vacation Points will not be referred by DVC to other Club Members for this purpose.

6. Club Members are expressly prohibited from receiving compensation for engaging in any Transfer activity.

 

[Steamboat Bill]

6. Club Members are expressly prhoibited from receiving compensation for engaging in any Transfer activity.

I am NOT an attorney, but how do you interpret "transfer activity"?

Does this mean you can't be compensated for acting as a transfer agent? or "does it mean you can't receive any money for the points?"

I believe that there are NO restricitons on the price of points, but there is a restriction for asking a commission to make a transfer happen.

I am sure this post will open another can of worms...but it is fun reading.

 

[Dean]

I would also point out that the statement "any change that adversely affects the members" is a misstatement of the POS language. A lawyer would quickly recognize that the actual POS language cited is what I would term boiler plate legal terminology related to the prejudice or infringement of property rights related to the ownership of real estate. Its application is much narrower than any change that adversely affects members and I believe it applies to very specific types of legally defined property rights with respect to real estate. Transfer rules are a pretty mundane issue compared to things contemplated by clauses like this, and may not even be a material part of our contract with DVD. But, like others have said, I think it is a moot point on this particular issue.

That protective statements clearly points out that this only applies to when the membership as a whole (for that resort) are adversely affected plus a few specific examples which I summarized previously, it is not directed at protection of a specific member. In a number of places there is also wording directing that DVC must act (paraphrase) in good faith and in an appropriate fiduciary manner.

I am NOT an attorney, but how do you interpret "transfer activity"?

Does this mean you can't be compensated for acting as a transfer agent? or "does it mean you can't receive any money for the points?"

I believe that there are NO restricitons on the price of points, but there is a restriction for asking a commission to make a transfer happen.

I am sure this post will open another can of worms...but it is fun reading.

Bill, DVC could even do away with transfers if they wanted, banking and borrowing also; the latter would have to be in the best interest of the members as a whole. I personally think the ban on payment for transfers IS enforceable though it'd simply be easier to do away with transfers than to try to police it. The problem with the current situation is that we've gone from a 3.5 year span where multiple transfers were allowed by DVC and under the rules in the POS to a more limited option. And even though it's almost a return to where things were in the old days (transferred points are currently still bankable), you have a number of people that have structured what they own based on the rules over the past few years. IF they bought with the idea of buying cheap points in some way and transferring in to morph the points, they will likely be a loser with the new system. If they just bought a lot of points with the idea of transferring for pay to other members OR transferring from one of THEIR own accounts to another, they will have to look for ways to live with the new system. For some this may mean selling some of what they have and that's OK. For others, it will likely mean reserving high demand times mostly Sun-Fri and renting them out.

 

[OneMoreTry]

.....
2. Only one (1) Transfer per Club Member, either as Transferee or Transferor will be permitted duringa given Use Year.

.....
4. Transferred Vacation Points may not be Banked, Borrowed, Exchanged, or returned to the Transferring Club Member.

......

It seems that allowing MORE transfers than one per year might be harmful to me as it may allow others to morph more points and reserve more space in my resort at the 11 month window. (Ie. the argument could go both ways.)

Likewise, allowing banking and borrowing of transferred points hurts me AND allowing morphing does, too.

Actually, the more I learn about this issue the more I'm glad DVC is fulfilling its responsibility to limit transfers and protect my points and my resort for me. (BTW I own at OKW so you can probably get a ressie there anyway unless you want a GV -- at least right now.)

 

[Dean]

It seems that allowing MORE transfers than one per year might be harmful to me as it may allow others to morph more points and reserve more space in my resort at the 11 month window. (Ie. the argument could go both ways.)

But it's the morphing and not the transfer itself that is the issue. I believe that this change will make a certain percentage of members less willing to chance rentals and transfers. And that ultimately it will raise the cost of the points rented or transferred out and will increase the number of points it will take for cash equivalent exchanges like DCL.

 

[Longhairbear]

...and will increase the number of points it will take for cash equivalent exchanges like DCL.

If you mean that this will increase the number of points needed for a DCL, then the average DVC owner like myself is unaffected. I currently have enough points for 2 small trips annually to our DVC, but not enough for a cruise. At least a cruise, with a length of voyage, and accomodations we would want. We will probably never give up our regular stays to bank, or borrow points for a one time cruise that has used up several years worth of points.
It just makes the cruise further from our reach for us.

 

[Dean]

If you mean that this will increase the number of points needed for a DCL, then the average DVC owner like myself is unaffected. I currently have enough points for 2 small trips annually to our DVC, but not enough for a cruise. At least a cruise, with a length of voyage, and accomodations we would want. We will probably never give up our regular stays to bank, or borrow points for a one time cruise that has used up several years worth of points.
It just makes the cruise further from our reach for us.

If you are saying it makes a poor value even worse and that many people already avoid that option, I would agree with you. However, I think the combined percentage of members that were using the exchange options (or a stand in) in one way or another is not insignificant. Basically those who use the cash type exchange options plus those who were renting out points to pay for those or similar trips. I'd guess the total percentage of members who use some type of exchange options to be somewhere in the neighborhood of the mid to high teens including the exchange percentage (II plus BVTC) which we know to be in the range of 4%. Maybe a little higher if you add those renting to use the cash for the same type reason. If I'm correct, this has the potential to reduce the value of our membership for a resale as well but wouldn't affect one who plans to hold on to the very end.

 

[ralphd]

If I'm correct, this has the potential to reduce the value of our membership for a resale as well but wouldn't affect one who plans to hold on to the very end.

Dean,
How many members (especially new members) will even know about /or understand the effect of enforcing the point transfer policy. I will guess very few. Think the negative effect is overblown by the few members that are affected by the change.

 

[Jeremy&Susan]

But it's the morphing and not the transfer itself that is the issue. I believe that this change will make a certain percentage of members less willing to chance rentals and transfers. And that ultimately it will raise the cost of the points rented or transferred out and will increase the number of points it will take for cash equivalent exchanges like DCL.

Dean, I am in the box with you and SteamBoatBill on morphing being the real issue surrounding transfers and big point holders. But you can infer from the lack of DVC response that they either have no idea how to handle that problem or no desire to handle that problem.

Continuing to beat yourself and a few others up about it, is like campaigning for world peace or honesty in government.

Good luck with your campaign, because I'm sure this bit of light is not new to you nor will it change your approach.

Rink .......... like I need to say it, ...... feel free to comment.

 

[Dean]

Dean,
How many members (especially new members) will even know about /or understand the effect of enforcing the point transfer policy. I will guess very few. Think the negative effect is overblown by the few members that are affected by the change.

I'd guess more than you think. Especially if they aren't informed on the change and still think things are status quo. But part of my point was that I believe it will affect a lot more members because of the secondary effects and most of them will never know about it. ASAMOF, I doubt even those of us that are informed in this area would ever be able to be certain about much of the affects or even DVC itself.

Dean, I am in the box with you and SteamBoatBill on morphing being the real issue surrounding transfers and big point holders. But you can infer from the lack of DVC response that they either have no idea how to handle that problem or no desire to handle that problem.

Continuing to beat yourself and a few others up about it, is like campaigning for world peace or honesty in government.

Good luck with your campaign, because I'm sure this bit of light is not new to you nor will it change your approach.

Rink .......... like I need to say it, ...... feel free to comment.

You far over estimate my level of concern. I'm just willing to talk about it and those that are truly affected are likely fearful of posting about it. I would be if I were in their situation given the responses on this board. Dare I say it, I actually like talking about these type of intricacies far more than some of the light thread's on this board. Things will always change and some will be winners and others loser when it happens. The big issue I'd think for most should be the realization that the next change might affect them directly and adversely. But I do like your analogies.

 

[LakeAriel]

Does anyone know if there is an "effective date" for this change? I gave away 2 points a couple of months ago before it was posted here. I wonder if

I can now transferr 5 more?

 

[OneMoreTry]

My thoughts, FWIW:

I agree morphing is the problem. But since DVC can't do anything about that they have to limit transfers. Kind of like fighting cocaine trafficking because you can't eliminate the real problem of drug addiction and abuse. (An analogy, folks. Not meant to compare anyone here to drug addicts.)

I think resale prices are determined by ROFR more so than trade out value.

If rental rates go up, those who use that method to "trade out" will get more for their points, won't they?