New rule enforcement on points

[Dean]

Dean if this is true, and I'm more than willing to accept your interpretation, then what should/can we do about it? I'm not sure arguing with a MS costomer services rep is the proper approach or even a manager...it seems to me it will just be a back and forth kind of thing of me saying you can't limit my transfers and them saying they can

Is there some other way to approach this?

It depends. In 1999 DVC insisted and repeatedly told members at OKW & VB that they could not borrow 2000 points into 1999 and get the free passes. They were taken to task and realized they did not have the power to enforce this stance so they reversed their decision. In this case it's really academic. It was one way, changed then partially changed back (the banking option wasn't reversed). Currently the rule is one in OR one out though there may still be some issue as to how multiple owners are handled. All we're really arguing is how to you read the statues and rules, basically what principles apply. And what did the previous version really say.

If one felt this change were a violation of the statutes and rules in place, the process available would be to complain to DVC, a formal Complaint to DBPR, non binding arbitration as required in the POS and ultimately legal action. I don't disagree with Doc's assessment that it's a MOOT point as to action, unless one sees it as a greater risk to other issues. I'm pretty sure there is a current class action law suite currently against DVD though I don't have any details.

Rob, there is another provision in the POS that essentially say that DVC can't change things in a way that negatively affects the majority of the owners without their direct consent, I'll find it and quote it if you desire. And there are provisions in chapter 721 & 718 that would supersede many changes that one might see from an unscrupulous management company though I'm not saying that is DVC at this point but you never know what will happen over the next 30-40 years.

 

[RobDoc]

That would be great, since I've never found such language in the POS and it would contradict the quoted language in the POS giving DVC "sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion" regarding amendment of the rules. The quoted policy even specifically mentions that these changes may affect the ability for members to use their membership.

Please provide the quote that you're basing your disagreement on - it's nice to be able to read the actual words used instead of depending on a lay interpretation.

 

[Longhairbear]

Personally I think that DVC should waitlist all owner requested non member guest reservations until the 60 day window. That would give member guests a better chance at getting exactly the dates and accomodations they want, and deserve as members. Once the blue card carrying members are taken care of,then let the non cardcarriers in.
If an owner tries to get around that rule,and books in his own name, and a different person checks in when they check ID's, then charge back the owner the DVC rack rates. If they didn't charge enough to rent the points, that's just too bad. If it is a family or friend gift trip,too bad.
Many of us would like the chance at getting holiday reservations, or coordinating trips wth other DVC member friends who have a different use year, and as such different 11 month windows. Sometimes, we find out 3 or 4 months out that we can take the time off from work . Some employers use a lottery system for vacations,instead of senority.
After the 60 day window,charge what you want to rent, and nobody loses. I am sure renters will still get some good deals, gifted family trips will still find accomodations during off peak times and DVC owners will not get the short end of the deal as guests or rentors.

 

[Steamboat Bill]

Personally I think that DVC should waitlist all owner requested non member guest reservations until the 60 day window. That would give member guests a better chance at getting exactly the dates and accomodations they want, and deserve as members. Once the blue card carrying members are taken care of,then let the non cardcarriers in.

Now that is an intersting idea...blue card carriers unite.

 

[Anjelica]

Personally I think that DVC should waitlist all owner requested non member guest reservations until the 60 day window. That would give member guests a better chance at getting exactly the dates and accomodations they want, and deserve as members. Once the blue card carrying members are taken care of,then let the non cardcarriers in.
If an owner tries to get around that rule,and books in his own name, and a different person checks in when they check ID's, then charge back the owner the DVC rack rates. If they didn't charge enough to rent the points, that's just too bad. If it is a family or friend gift trip,too bad.
Many of us would like the chance at getting holiday reservations, or coordinating trips wth other DVC member friends who have a different use year, and as such different 11 month windows. Sometimes, we find out 3 or 4 months out that we can take the time off from work . Some employers use a lottery system for vacations,instead of senority.
After the 60 day window,charge what you want to rent, and nobody loses. I am sure renters will still get some good deals, gifted family trips will still find accomodations during off peak times and DVC owners will not get the short end of the deal as guests or rentors.

 

[childsplay]

From the POS:

Thanks Doc,
Based in the information you provided from the POS, it seems that changing the transfer rules would fall under the umbrella of DVC's juristiction.

 

[RobDoc]

Personally I think that DVC should waitlist all owner requested non member guest reservations until the 60 day window. That would give member guests a better chance at getting exactly the dates and accomodations they want, and deserve as members. Once the blue card carrying members are taken care of,then let the non cardcarriers in.

That would preclude the ability of a member to reserve more than one villa for a family trip. Members could not plan a trip for their children or grandchildren requiring more than one villa or allow their children to take a trip unaccompnied by the parent/owners. Such a policy would likely be far more restrictive for members than the perceived issue you are trying to prevent.

If an owner tries to get around that rule,and books in his own name, and a different person checks in when they check ID's, then charge back the owner the DVC rack rates. If they didn't charge enough to rent the points, that's just too bad. If it is a family or friend gift trip,too bad.

Only a person whose name is on the reservation can check in right now. There is no way to transfer a reservation without a name change. The person won't be allowed to check in and the member will lose the points anyway.

Many of us would like the chance at getting holiday reservations, or coordinating trips wth other DVC member friends who have a different use year, and as such different 11 month windows. Sometimes, we find out 3 or 4 months out that we can take the time off from work . Some employers use a lottery system for vacations,instead of senority.

Making reservations has NOTHING to do with your Use Year- the ability to make any reservation is dependent on whether the member is within 11 months at his home resort or 7 months at other resorts. There is no hardship regarding Use Year as that has nothing to do with making your reservation.

After the 60 day window,charge what you want to rent, and nobody loses. I am sure renters will still get some good deals, gifted family trips will still find accomodations during off peak times and DVC owners will not get the short end of the deal as guests or rentors.

At 60 days, all unreserved villas are already turned over to CRO for cash reservations. DVC members benefit from this policy because the cash generated from those rentals is used to offset our dues. It appears as a line entry in our budget each year under "Breakage Income".

Be careful what you wish for ...

 

[OneMoreTry]

Personally I think that DVC should waitlist all owner requested non member guest reservations until the 60 day window. That would give member guests a better chance at getting exactly the dates and accomodations they want, and deserve as members. Once the blue card carrying members are taken care of,then let the non cardcarriers in.

I think this is a good topic for discussion, but since the current thread has crystallized into another specific and important question it may be helpful to start this as another thread.

Just my suggestion.

 

[DBBN]

Only a person whose name is on the reservation can check in right now. There is no way to transfer a reservation without a name change. The person won't be allowed to check in and the member will lose the points anyway.

We've experienced otherwise and MS has explained otherwise as well. Yes, usually only one name appears on the reservation/confirmation and usually only they can complete the check-in process. But not always. We have on several ocassions had our guests check-in after we had already checked-in (same villa) while only my name appeared on the reservation/confirmation. This comes in handy when our guests arrive at the resort at different times throughout the day. It's much easier for us to have the front desk provide keys and the villa number than it is for us to get all the keys to hand them out when we meet at a specific time and location. For us it's a simple matter of convenience, nothing more. To do this MS adds the names of the guests who WE choose to allow to check-in for themselves to the "check-in record" that is available to the front desk but does not appear on the confirmation. Quite simple to do and MS has always been very happy to do this for us. The front desk is very accommodating as well from what our guests have reported to us. We last did this in August 2005, at OKW.

Theorhetically, my name could be the only name appearing on the reservation/confirmation for each and every reservation I have on my membership while never checking-in or staying at the villa.

 

[RobDoc]

We've experienced otherwise and MS has explained otherwise as well. Yes, usually only one name appears on the reservation/confirmation and usually only they can complete the check-in process.

My comment that you chose to quote was in regard to the suggestion that members should only be allowed to make reservations for themselves until 60 days prior to arrival. However, in order for ANYONE to check into a villa, their name MUST be on the reservation (I never said it needed to be on the printed confirmation - they are two different things.). If the name is not on the reservation, there is no way DVC will allow someone to check into a villa using someone elses points.

I seriously doubt you have ever been allowed to check into someone elses room or that MS has ever suggested that it would be allowed. If the name does not appear on the reservation, that person will not be able to check into a room.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

. . . BTW, when i purchased (spring of '05) I was told by original DVC guide that transfers were permitted (up to the max. amount of yearly points); along with banking & borrowing to allow 3 years' usage of maximum points. Various TS reps & posters on this board seconded the motion . . .

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.

 

[granmanh603]

Hi I don't know if this is relevant. But a few years ago my son checked into the room before we arrived. I sent him a copy of our reservation and he had no proplem and he got all the keys. He of course has the same last name. There we 5 of them too. I remember because he went to the supermarket before we arrived and he found that expensive one at Crossroads and I felt bad for him. Carol

 

[RobDoc]

Quote: . . BTW, when i purchased (spring of '05) I was told by original DVC guide that transfers were permitted (up to the max. amount of yearly points); along with banking & borrowing to allow 3 years' usage of maximum points. Various TS reps & posters on this board seconded the motion . . .


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.

There is nothing wrong with the statements made in the first quote above as that is all true. Transfering points between members IS allowed and always has been. Banking abd borrowing IS ALSO allowed and has been since DVC began.

These issues are already in writing since they have been included in every POS since 1991. Truth is not a tough concept when those claims made by DVC guides are already in the legal documentation whether there is a commission or not.

No problem with getting the opinion of various TS reps and posters on this board. Many have read the documents are do have an understanding of the contents.

 

[Dean]

That would be great, since I've never found such language in the POS and it would contradict the quoted language in the POS giving DVC "sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion" regarding amendment of the rules. The quoted policy even specifically mentions that these changes may affect the ability for members to use their membership.

Please provide the quote that you're basing your disagreement on - it's nice to be able to read the actual words used instead of depending on a lay interpretation.

First, the earlier quote you provided is specific to the rules and regulations and not all aspects included in the POS as I read it. The rules and regulations are a specific entity and are not a general term that refers to other components. I'll be the first to admit that DVC has significantly more latitude when it comes to issues that span multiple resorts such as in the Multi Site POS than for as single resort. Under Article XVI of the Declaration of Condominium:

No amendment of this Declaration permitted to be unilaterally made by DVD shall be permitted if such amendment would prejudjude or impair to any material extend the rights of any Owner or any Mortage of record.

Article VIII of the Master Declaration

No amendment may be made to this Master Declaration by Worldco as to all or any portion of the Master Property without the prior written consent of all Owners if such amendment would prejudjude or impair to any material extend the rights of any Owner or any Mortage of record.

That section goes on to say Worldco can amend the Declaration without consent for SPECIFIC reasons to include compliance with applicable law, allow title insurance, to insure institutional or government mortgage access, to correct errors or ambiguities, to allow expansion of the plan or property, if found necessary by Worldco provided it doesn't conflict with the above quote. Then there is a statement that says it must be recorded in the county or record to be effective.

Under the Master Cotenancy Agreement, number 4, where it talks about the voting certificate,

DVD also agrees that it will not cast the Unit's vote in any of hte follow respects without the prior concurrence of the Cotenants who own sixty percent of the Ownership Interests in the Unit

4.f amendment of the Declaration or the Articles of Incorporatin or the Bylaws of the Association in any manner that is materially adverse to the Cotenants as a whole...

There are a few others but they include things like raising DVCMC's percentages, lowering reserves, termination, increase in budget over 115%, reallocation of common interests.

 

[RobDoc]

Thanks, Dean.

Those are the quotes I expected you to provide but none of them have anything to do with the operating Rules and Regulations of DVC. Those do spell out the rights of DVD (you left out the quote pertaining to the rights or DVD from the Artical XVI- Amendments- but that doesn't apply to operating rules or regulations either). This language does cover how Directors are elected, how Bylaws are adopted, how amendments must be anounced in advance of the annual meeting, how amendments must be recorded with the FL Secretary of State and what responsibility Disney has to amend based on governmental statutes. Amendments covered by the quotes above would also apply to the definition of a Member (must be an owner), termination of prior owners as members, definition regarding definitions of the rights (or lack thereof) for an owner (we do not have any claim in the funds and assets of the owned Unit). There are several other sections spelling out the details of what is actually covered by the areas quoted, but none apply to the operating Rules and Regulations. Each area notes the specific aspects covered by the quotes such as Worldco and DVD, but none identify any of the DVC operational Rules and Regulations.

I agree with the purpose of all of the quotes you provided regarding the provisions I outlined above - HOWEVER - none of them pertain to operating Rules and Regulations which is what I thought we were trying to discuss here. My understanding was that you were going to provide POS language where DVC could not make changes to the operating rules without approval of the members.

None of the quotes you provided are contrary to the right of DVC to change the operating Rules and Regulations since none of those quotes cover that aspect of the POS.

Again, here is the quote from the POS which does cover DVC Rules and Regulations:

"3. Amendments: DVCMC reserves the right to amend these rules and regulations, in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion. These changes may effect a club member's right to use, exchange and rent the club member's ownership interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her ownership interest and the appurtenant club membership. Club members will be notified of any such changes through member services publications. Current publications supercede prior publications with respect to the terms and conditions of these rules and regulations."

 

[Dean]

Thanks, Dean.

Those are the quotes I expected you to provide but none of them have anything to do with the operating Rules and Regulations of DVC. Those do spell out the rights of DVD (you left out the quote pertaining to the rights or DVD from the Artical XVI- Amendments- but that doesn't apply to operating rules or regulations either). This language does cover how Directors are elected, how Bylaws are adopted, how amendments must be anounced in advance of the annual meeting, how amendments must be recorded with the FL Secretary of State and what responsibility Disney has to amend based on governmental statutes. Amendments covered by the quotes above would also apply to the definition of a Member (must be an owner), termination of prior owners as members, definition regarding definitions of the rights (or lack thereof) for an owner (we do not have any claim in the funds and assets of the owned Unit). There are several other sections spelling out the details of what is actually covered by the areas quoted, but none apply to the operating Rules and Regulations. Each area notes the specific aspects covered by the quotes such as Worldco and DVD, but none identify any of the DVC operational Rules and Regulations.

I agree with the purpose of all of the quotes you provided regarding the provisions I outlined above - HOWEVER - none of them pertain to operating Rules and Regulations which is what I thought we were trying to discuss here. My understanding was that you were going to provide POS language where DVC could not make changes to the operating rules without approval of the members.

None of the quotes you provided are contrary to the right of DVC to change the operating Rules and Regulations since none of those quotes cover that aspect of the POS.

Again, here is the quote from the POS which does cover DVC Rules and Regulations:

I don't think we are on the same wavelength. My post offering to provide quotes was obviously more generalized than the narrow scope you apparently intended.

Rob, there is another provision in the POS that essentially say that DVC can't change things in a way that negatively affects the majority of the owners without their direct consent

My point was that there are instances where DVC would be required to get a vote of some sort, you suggested there were not. I certainly haven't argued with the general ability to make changes in many of the rules and many times, in a way that your or I might not prefer.

 

[RobDoc]

I don't think we are on the same wavelength. My post offering to provide quotes was obviously more generalized than the narrow scope you apparently intended.
My point was that there are instances where DVC would be required to get a vote of some sort, you suggested there were not. I certainly haven't argued with the general ability to make changes in many of the rules and many times, in a way that your or I might not prefer.

I did NOT suggest that there were not instances where DVC would need a vote- in fact, I even included examples of some of those instances in my post. I did state that DVC does not need approval of the membership to make changes in the Rules and Regulations and provided the language from the POS giving DVC that authority. My statement was specifically narrow in it's scope and you chose to offer quotes for other unrelated components of the POS.

You even quoted my comments about the "narrow" scope when you provided the quotes . You included my statement:

That would be great, since I've never found such language in the POS and it would contradict the quoted language in the POS giving DVC "sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion" regarding amendment of the rules. The quoted policy even specifically mentions that these changes may affect the ability for members to use their membership.

Please provide the quote that you're basing your disagreement on - it's nice to be able to read the actual words used instead of depending on a lay interpretation.

You still insisted on providing quotes that DO NOT pertain to the operating Rules and Regulations (and admitted that before including your quotes) even ignoring the scope of my comments and you even used my words and then offered something unrelated in response.

As I stated in my last post, "I agree with the purpose of all of the quotes you provided regarding the provisions I outlined above - HOWEVER - none of them pertain to operating Rules and Regulations which is what I thought we were trying to discuss here."

You have also stated (in reference to the current transfer rule in another thread):

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."

The quotes you provided do not support that statement at all- they are in reference to other specific areas in the POS. Transfer rules are operating rules and as such are covered by DVC's "right to amend these rules and regulations, in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion." and the clarification that "These changes may effect a club member's right to use, exchange and rent the club member's ownership interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her ownership interest and the appurtenant club membership."

So, do you agree that DVC does have the right to make changes to the operating Rules and Regulations without prior approval of the members as outlined in this quote?

"3. Amendments: DVCMC reserves the right to amend these rules and regulations, in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion. These changes may effect a club member's right to use, exchange and rent the club member's ownership interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her ownership interest and the appurtenant club membership. Club members will be notified of any such changes through member services publications. Current publications supercede prior publications with respect to the terms and conditions of these rules and regulations."

 

[Dean]

So, do you agree that DVC does have the right to make changes to the operating Rules and Regulations without prior approval of the members as outlined in this quote?

I do and have always said so. The question is where is the line drawn and what can they change and what can not be changed without consent of the members. In this context you're likely correct.

 

[TCPluto]

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!

 

[RobDoc]

I do and have always said so. The question is where is the line drawn and what can they change and what can not be changed without consent of the members. In this context you're likely correct.

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.