OKW 2042 - 2057 deed

[BWV Dreamin]

The present value of 15 extra years 35 years from now is about two or three dollars, at most. $15 dollars invested at nine percent, which is not an unreasonable return, would grow to more than $300 in 35 years. $25 would grow to $510. So take the $25, multiply by the minimum point purchase of 150 to get $3,750, put it in a tax-deferred retirement account, and you will have $76,552 to spend in 35 years. Of course, if you figure 12 percent, which is the historic return of the stock market, that figure grows to $197,998. Both of these figures far outstrip inflation. If you figure inflation at five percent, which is far more than it has been for the past 20 years, then it will take $20,685 to in 35 years to match the buying power of $3,750 today.

This buy 15 extra years scheme is one of the biggest scams I've seen in a long time. The way Disney is forcing the members to opt out or be billed is sure to cause some lawsuits, as well it should. This is as crooked a deal as I've ever seen.

Lets not forget who has the power.....Disney will end up forcing this on OKW owners (if not all the 2042 contracts), if not in extensions, then certainly in MF's.

 

[salmoneous]

Right now, I believe OKW resale is about $75 and other resorts are about $100.

SSR goes for about $81 resale, for a similar resort with 12 extra years. The resale market isn't currently putting much value on years starting in 2042.

It seems to me that having the longer time could be a benefit for resale and a detriment if one does not have it.

I see 2042 OKW going down in value and 2057 OKW going up in value for resale.

I don't see why having a 2057 option would harm the resale value of 2042 contracts.

 

[zzyzx409]

SSR goes for about $81 resale, for a similar resort with 12 extra years. The resale market isn't currently putting much value on years starting in 2042.



I don't see why having a 2057 option would harm the resale value of 2042 contracts.

Too many threads on this topic...

We have been rethinking the whole thing, I've posted those new thoughts there, and just to keep in sync I'll add those thoughts here.

In essence, we will not be extending. The cost/benefit just desn't look favorable for us.

Andy

 

[DVC92]

After further reflection concerning the legality of the association's intended action, I intend to file a complaint with Florida's Timeshare Bureau. If such action by Disney is legal (i.e., unilaterally restructure our contracts), they could just have easily forced us to have only one option, pay for the extension or forfeit your ownership now. Effectively, they have the power to do whatever they desire since they control the vote as our sole authorized voting representative. Pay up or get out! What's next?

I hope others also complain to the Timeshare Bureau. Their phone # is 850-488-1122. They will send you a complaint form or direct you to their website where it can be downloaded.

 

[DVC Mike]

After further reflection concerning the legality of the association's intended action, I intend to file a complaint with Florida's Timeshare Bureau. If such action by Disney is legal (i.e., unilaterally restructure our contracts), they could just have easily forced us to have only one option, pay for the extension or forfeit your ownership now. .

I just don't understand why folks are up in arms. Your purchased OKW knowing that it was going to expire in 2042, and that was it. You have no rights beyond 2042. Now Disney is offering an extension -- you can take it or leave it. Why are you so upset?

 

[salmoneous]

Now Disney is offering an extension -- you can take it or leave it. Why are you so upset?

Disney isn't offering an extension. It is forcing people to buy the extension, then giving them the option to sell it back to Disney. At least 3 problems

First is putting the onus onto the members. If you don't want to get stuck with a huge bill, you have to take action. That's not right.

Second, there is the precedent. Disney is claiming the right to force members to buy an extension. That needs to be protested immediately. This time Disney is giving owners the option to sell back the extension. Who is to say they will make the same offer next time?

Finally, what bugs me most is the Disney is supposed to be acting on our behalf. I don't understand all Disney's different corporate entities, or the exact governance. But I do know Disney isn't supposed to just screw over the membership. When this sort of vote takes place, somebody is supposed to be representing us and our interests. There is no possible way that agreeing to a $25/point price for the extension is in our interests. Even if Disney offers to buy the extension back from us, even if Disney offers some sort of discount, there is a horrible precedent being established here. A piece of Disney that is legally bound to look out for us is agreeing to buy something (with Member's money!) from another piece of Disney for an outrageously overpriced fee. Something has gone very wrong. They need a reminder that they are supposed to represent us, not to make other parts of Disney rich.

 

[fwm]

Disney isn't offering an extension. It is forcing people to buy the extension, then giving them the option to sell it back to Disney. At least 3 problems

Actually, that is not correct.

Disney is extending the end date of the contract. If you do not want the extended date, then you decline and Disney takes over after 2042. If you want the extension, then you pay. You are not paying for the extension and then selling it to Disney. You are declining to accept it. The only action you are required to take is to sign a documnent and mail it back.

 

[disneybass]

Very well and simply put FWM. I think people are reading way too much into this. Just another business proposition offered to us. All we have to do is say no. Not a big deal.

 

[tjkraz]

Very well and simply put FWM. I think people are reading way too much into this. Just another business proposition offered to us. All we have to do is say no. Not a big deal.

While I do think some are reading way too much into this development, there is one financial aspect which could well impact all owners.

Part of our annual dues include contributions to a reserve fund. The reserve fund is used for major scheduled renovations that will occur throughout the lifetime of the resort. For instance, if the buildings were constructed with 20-year roofs, all members are collectively paying for 1/20th of the replacement cost every year. This fund also covers things like major room renovations, parking lot paving, and so forth.

With contracts ending in 2042, one would expect the reserve fund to be drawing to a close in the latter years. If OKW is scheduled for roof replacements in 2011 and 2031 (sticking with the 20-year intervals), there should be no need for further collections beyond 2031--the final roof should last until 2042 when the resort goes back to Disney.

But, now that the 2057 date has been introduced, it should make one question how the calculations will be performed. With another replacement on the horizon for 2051, why should non-extending members be expected to contribute (from 2032 thru 2042) to a project that will not occur during their ownership period?

While I wouldn't go running to any governmental agencies find my answers, I think it at least warrants an inquiry to DVC to see how they intend to address this issue.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

While I do think some are reading way too much into this development, there is one financial aspect which could well impact all owners.

Part of our annual dues include contributions to a reserve fund. The reserve fund is used for major scheduled renovations that will occur throughout the lifetime of the resort. For instance, if the buildings were constructed with 20-year roofs, all members are collectively paying for 1/20th of the replacement cost every year. This fund also covers things like major room renovations, parking lot paving, and so forth.

With contracts ending in 2042, one would expect the reserve fund to be drawing to a close in the latter years. If OKW is scheduled for roof replacements in 2011 and 2031 (sticking with the 20-year intervals), there should be no need for further collections beyond 2031--the final roof should last until 2042 when the resort goes back to Disney.

But, now that the 2057 date has been introduced, it should make one question how the calculations will be performed. With another replacement on the horizon for 2051, why should non-extending members be expected to contribute (from 2032 thru 2042) to a project that will not occur during their ownership period?

While I wouldn't go running to any governmental agencies find my answers, I think it at least warrants an inquiry to DVC to see how they intend to address this issue.

Well said! IMHO, all OKW owners will be forced to pay something, and I see increased MF's coming next. I also feel this is not the end, but eventually all 2042 WDW resort owners will have to deal with this as well.

 

[tvwalsh]

Actually, that is not correct.

Disney is extending the end date of the contract. If you do not want the extended date, then you decline and Disney takes over after 2042. If you want the extension, then you pay. You are not paying for the extension and then selling it to Disney. You are declining to accept it. The only action you are required to take is to sign a documnent and mail it back.

In order to pay the new assessment, each member will need to pay the $15 or $25, or formally fill out a warranty deed transfer which must not only be signed and notarized, but witnessed by a third party. They will also have to sign and return a compliance agreement, a seller affidavit, an occupancy and use affidavit, and a non-foreign certification to avoid withholding on the money Disney is "giving them". Oh yes, that needs to be notarized, too!

Sorry, it is never easy to transfer real estate or property rights.

 

[fwm]

In order to pay the new assessment, each member will need to pay the $15 or $25, or formally fill out a warranty deed transfer which must not only be signed and notarized, but witnessed by a third party. They will also have to sign and return a compliance agreement, a seller affidavit, an occupancy and use affidavit, and a non-foreign certification to avoid withholding on the money Disney is "giving them". Oh yes, that needs to be notarized, too!

Sorry, it is never easy to transfer real estate or property rights.

I must have overlooked that in the letter from DVC.

I guess I will just wait a few weeks and see what is actually required to sign and then deal with it, rather then speculate on what I might have to do.

My guess is that no one commenting here has ever dealt with this type of situation and thus no one (perhaps even DVC) really knows yet what will have to be done. In the meantime, I suggest that everyone else go out and support the legal community to challenge DVC for whatever it is they think DVC is going to do.

 

[jarestel]

I don't own at OKW and, at least for now, am not impacted by anything that happens there one way or the other. I do think though that if DVC offered a FREE extension for those who mailed in their response within a certain time period, not many folks would have a problem with signing and mailing the papers. Suddenly, all of the objections about DVC unilaterally extending the length of the contract and expecting members to sign some papers and mail them back would pretty much disappear.

The dues questions regarding the extensions are certainly legitimate but still a long ways off before anyone pays a penny for 2042 and beyond. I guess I see most of the objections stated so far as much ado about nothing. But I reserve the right to change my mind once the actual details of the extension become known and especially if they apply them to VWL.

 

[Mississippian]

Actually, that is not correct.

Disney is extending the end date of the contract. If you do not want the extended date, then you decline and Disney takes over after 2042. If you want the extension, then you pay. You are not paying for the extension and then selling it to Disney. You are declining to accept it. The only action you are required to take is to sign a documnent and mail it back.

Really? First, have you ever belonged to a record or book club. Ever noticed how incredibly difficult it is to get the card returned? Have you ever noticed that mail gets lost all the time, or at least it does around my house.

My guess is that this thing will have to be notarized, not merely signed, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It means that both husband and wife must both be sitting around doing nothing during business hours, and then must go downtown to a lawyer's office to have this document notarized.

Then the couple must return the document to the envelope, perhaps find a stamp, seal the envelope, and take the envelope to the post office. All of these are quite laborous undertakings.

All in all the value of the burden put on the DVC owner is no less than $50, and for many owners that figure can easily run into the hundreds, depending on the value of their time.

Why didn't Disney do just the opposite, and let people who wanted the extension sign and return the document? That way, those who lose or forget the document don't get stuck. Of course, that's exactly what they are counting on.

 

[salmoneous]

If you want the extension, then you pay. You are not paying for the extension and then selling it to Disney. You are declining to accept it.

I think if you look at what is actually happening, you will see that you cannot just decline the offer. You will get your contract extended, and you will have a large assessment made against you. You can then choose to settle the assessment by paying, or by turning over your extended years to Disney.

However, in the end that's a bit of a semantic argument. For discussion, let's assume you are 100% right. That still doesn't change my 3 objections.

1) Members are still getting a letter telling them that unless that take action, they are going to get socked with a big bill. Even if Disney makes the action fairly easy (which I think they will), it's still an incredibly slimy tactic.

2) Disney is still acting as if they have the right to force members to take a large assessment to extend the contract. They should not have that right. People need to speak up before the precedent is set. Do you want Disney to have that right?

3) Somebody supposedly acting in our interest is agreeing to a $25/point. That's outrageous, and an indication that they are not acting in our interests. Members need to use every available means to force Disney to act in our interests.

Disney's behavior is outrageous, egregious, preposterous. If Disney doesn't back down, we need help...

 

[ralphd]

I think if you look at what is actually happening, you will see that you cannot just decline the offer. You will get your contract extended, and you will have a large assessment made against you. You can then choose to settle the assessment by paying, or by turning over your extended years to Disney.

However, in the end that's a bit of a semantic argument. For discussion, let's assume you are 100% right. That still doesn't change my 3 objections.

1) Members are still getting a letter telling them that unless that take action, they are going to get socked with a big bill. Even if Disney makes the action fairly easy (which I think they will), it's still an incredibly slimy tactic.

2) Disney is still acting as if they have the right to force members to take a large assessment to extend the contract. They should not have that right. People need to speak up before the precedent is set. Do you want Disney to have that right?

3) Somebody supposedly acting in our interest is agreeing to a $25/point. That's outrageous, and an indication that they are not acting in our interests. Members need to use every available means to force Disney to act in our interests.

Disney's behavior is outrageous, egregious, preposterous. If Disney doesn't back down, we need help...

We do not know how the deal will be structured, nor do we know how the deal must be structured under Florida law (unless you have taken the time to read the Florida timeshare statutes and the DVC/DVD POS).

 

[fwm]

Really? First, have you ever belonged to a record or book club. Ever noticed how incredibly difficult it is to get the card returned? Have you ever noticed that mail gets lost all the time, or at least it does around my house.

My guess is that this thing will have to be notarized, not merely signed, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It means that both husband and wife must both be sitting around doing nothing during business hours, and then must go downtown to a lawyer's office to have this document notarized.

Then the couple must return the document to the envelope, perhaps find a stamp, seal the envelope, and take the envelope to the post office. All of these are quite laborous undertakings.

All in all the value of the burden put on the DVC owner is no less than $50, and for many owners that figure can easily run into the hundreds, depending on the value of their time.

Why didn't Disney do just the opposite, and let people who wanted the extension sign and return the document? That way, those who lose or forget the document don't get stuck. Of course, that's exactly what they are counting on.

The operative word is guess.

 

[nakedbear]

I personally think this whole thing does not make me feel warm fuzzies for DVC. We purchased for a certain amount of time. Period. The way the letter reads you would think that this was a wonderful thing they are doing for all of us. Basically, it says, "you get nothing, but you can leave it to someone else". And "Oh, It is going to happen anyway"! How does that make me feel that this is a great offer? It is so obvious that Disney is doing this for their benefit of offering excess OKW contracts with extended years. If they want to be able to sell them with extended years, they could have just offered to extended it for free. I bet more people would taken them up on that, thus guaranteeing 15 more years of maintenance fees, which would mean much more money for them, as I am sure most of us would take it. It is pure greed on their part, no matter how you look at it. We are only leasing the place anyway, most other timeshares you own forever, and at much lower prices than what we pay. Don't get me wrong, membership has it's privilages, but to market this like it will be good for us, or special, is just a bold faced lie. I can't believe that people are even considering this. Especially, "for a better resale value"! Timeshares, even Disney are a bad investment. Anyone in financial planning will tell you that. Please! Invest that 25 per point in a CD or something. You will have far more greater vacations you can afford from 2042-2057! Or save the money for the maintenance fees that you are going to be paying. That money will come in handy in the future, mark my words. Shady, Shady, Disney! I think we all should write them. I am not feeling very "welcome" in my "home". As Judge Judy says,"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!"

 

[DVC92]

I couldn't agree with you more. My letter to the Florida Timeshare Division will be in the mail today to attempt to thwart what I feel is an unethical and illegal action on the part of Disney. Look around, they haven't built anything yet that lasts 65 years without a major gutting and rebulding effort. I'm not financing this one through an extension fee, excess annual maintenance fees, and real "special" assessments. However, if this goes through, gaze in the mirror and see sucker plastered across your forehead. Those of us that purchased early took a risk and were fortunate enough to have received a comparatively good deal. Disney can't live with that and feels that they need to recoup the money they might have made after DVC became successful. Pure greed!!!

 

[angeloco]

I am curious if anyone has tried to buy a resale through disney lately of in OKW? Have they mentioned the extension and if so, did they offer it at the same price? Or, are they already selling the contracts for 2057? I am just curious?