OKW 2042 - 2057 deed

[BigTigger]

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!!!

I bought in 1995 which I still consider early as OKW was still called DVC and BWV was just being built. I paid about $16.6K for 350 points as DVC was offering a credit for your current lodging spend up to $2,500 if you signed while onsite. I've paid about $12K for maintenance since buying. Given we've averaged 9 nights a year in a 2 BR for those 13 years, my "investment" has worked out to a per night cost of just under $250. While I'd love to not put anymore capital into OKW and just have my annual cost per night = maintenance / nights used, DVC seems to still allow that option by taking back the 2042 to 2057 years. Even with the addititional capital cost of $8,750 (if it's $25 per point) for the extra 15 years, my cost per night over the next ten years will not go up significantly. So I guess I don't see "sucker" blinking brightly on my forehead under either scenario. Does this whole thing still have a bad smell to it - YES. Do I agree with your logic that some MBA in DVC found this creative way to screw the earlier investors in DVC - YES. I just don't think DVC will impact my cost that greatly if I choose not to extend. That's my fuzzy math on all this and I'm sticking to it !!

 

[DVC92]

Just a further thought. It seems to me that we are already paying a substantial sum of money for this exercise. The cost of postage, paper, etc. for the current mailings and the future mailings to effect the necessary transactions to purchase or return the deed is coming out of our Association dues. The Association may also have to pay for recordation and other ancillary fees or taxes. In the past, any solicitation regarding purchase of DVC usage originated with DVD, and they bore the cost. Not this time. I guess another "special" assessment may be required for the shortfall related to administrative costs. Also, where is the $25/point going?

 

[ATCMickey]

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.

Thanks DVC92...please let us know what response you receive. There are so many ways that DVC could have proposed doing this that would have yielded good will and plenty of revenue. I can't imagine that an organization as insightful as DVC lacks the foresight to see how this could be perceived.

I recognize that this is their first swipe at this. I know that many will say "big deal, just sign the papers and you're out"...maybe that's how DVC figured everyone would view it. But even if that's the way you feel, even the most ardent dismisser must admit that an involuntary extension of your contract sets a very disturbing precedent!

ATCMickey

 

[tjkraz]

Just a further thought. It seems to me that we are already paying a substantial sum of money for this exercise. The cost of postage, paper, etc. for the current mailings and the future mailings to effect the necessary transactions to purchase or return the deed is coming out of our Association dues. The Association may also have to pay for recordation and other ancillary fees or taxes. In the past, any solicitation regarding purchase of DVC usage originated with DVD, and they bore the cost. Not this time. I guess another "special" assessment may be required for the shortfall related to administrative costs. Also, where is the $25/point going?

One question: Why not call DVC and ask?

...even the most ardent dismisser must admit that an involuntary extension of your contract sets a very disturbing precedent!

The right to do so is listed in the POS so it's been a possibility for a long time now. I don't see what's so "disturbing" about it.

 

[ATCMickey]

The right to do so is listed in the POS so it's been a possibility for a long time now. I don't see what's so "disturbing" about it.

With all due respect, please direct me to the section of the POS that you contend allows DVC or the member's association to act in this manner...that is, to extend an individual's contractual end date on a member's behalf. I don't mean this as argumentative, I really would like to know. I asked this question 4 days ago and as of yet no one has been able to make reference to the location of the terms that afford this asserted right.

ATCMickey

 

[tjkraz]

It's in Section 17.2 Expirtion of Ground Lease. I'm not going to type the entire thing but here is part:

"If DVD renews the Ground Lease or enters into another lease of the property underlying the Condominium prior to the expiration or termination of the Ground Lease, DVD may, in DVD's sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, unilaterally elect to continue the Condominium for the duration of such renewal."

It goes on to say that all owners contracts are automatically extended until the ending date of the new lease. It doesn't specifically state that there are costs associated with the extension, nor does it state that the extension will be free to owners.

In another passage regarding dues and fees the POS states that members are responsible for all costs associated with the Ground Lease. Put the two together and you've got DVD with the ability to extend the lease and pass along the cost to members.

If DVD were not offering members a way avoid the fees, then perhaps it would be worthy of a challenge. But given that DVD is offering an "out" which will require little more than a few signatures and a notarization (if that, since we still have NO idea what will actually be required), I think Disney is on solid footing here.

The only issue I would have concerns the dues in the latter years of the contract. If I were an owner at OKW, that's the question I would pose to them before agreeing to anything.

 

[DVC Mike]

It's in Section 17.2 Expirtion of Ground Lease.

"If DVD renews the Ground Lease or enters into another lease of the property underlying the Condominium prior to the expiration or termination of the Ground Lease, DVD may, in DVD's sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, unilaterally elect to continue the Condominium for the duration of such renewal."

It goes on to say that all owners contracts are automatically extended until the ending date of the new lease. It doesn't specifically state that there are costs associated with the extension, nor does it state that the extension will be free to owners.

In another passage regarding dues and fees the POS states that members are responsible for all costs associated with the Ground Lease. Put the two together and you've got DVD with the ability to extend the lease and pass along the cost to members.

I'm glad someone took the time to actually read the POS! A bunch of folks have talked about writing letters to government officials or drawing up lawsuits since they were offended by what they thought was Disney's illegal action.

Maybe this will quiet talk of doing that. Gee, perhaps DVC is within their rights after all?

 

[DVC92]

It's in Section 17.2 Expirtion of Ground Lease. I'm not going to type the entire thing but here is part:

"If DVD renews the Ground Lease or enters into another lease of the property underlying the Condominium prior to the expiration or termination of the Ground Lease, DVD may, in DVD's sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, unilaterally elect to continue the Condominium for the duration of such renewal."

It goes on to say that all owners contracts are automatically extended until the ending date of the new lease. It doesn't specifically state that there are costs associated with the extension, nor does it state that the extension will be free to owners.

In another passage regarding dues and fees the POS states that members are responsible for all costs associated with the Ground Lease. Put the two together and you've got DVD with the ability to extend the lease and pass along the cost to members.

If DVD were not offering members a way avoid the fees, then perhaps it would be worthy of a challenge. But given that DVD is offering an "out" which will require little more than a few signatures and a notarization (if that, since we still have NO idea what will actually be required), I think Disney is on solid footing here.

The only issue I would have concerns the dues in the latter years of the contract. If I were an owner at OKW, that's the question I would pose to them before agreeing to anything.

I joined OKW in 1992 and section 17.2 of Article XVII in my POS reads as follows:

Termination or Expiration of Ground Lease

Upon termination or expiration of the terms of the Ground Lease, this Condominium shall automatically terminate and all Owners' interests therein and all mortgagee liens thereon shall terminate.

There is nothing that I can find concerning DVD's right to extend our contracts.

 

[tjkraz]

I joined OKW in 1992 and section 17.2 of Article XVII in my POS reads as follows:

Termination or Expiration of Ground Lease

Upon termination or expiration of the terms of the Ground Lease, this Condominium shall automatically terminate and all Owners' interests therein and all mortgagee liens thereon shall terminate.

There is nothing that I can find concerning DVD's right to extend our contracts.

Perhaps the POS has been amended over the past 16 years.

Again, a call to DVC might net some answers....

 

[DVC92]

In addition to section 17.2 of the Declaration of Condominium, Article XI, section 3 of the Master Declaration of Covenants states:

Termination

These Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall run with and bind the land for a term commencing from the date this instrument is recorded and continuing until January 31, 2042, after which time they shall automatically terminate.

 

[zorro77]

We received our letter about the extension last week, live in Minnesota. We have been a member since 93 and currently have 755 pts. It is hard to decided what to do with the extension. We are talking to our kids who are in early twenties if they would continue to go when they would be in their late 50's. I think the issue is it worth it to keep the value up so that we could sell our property later in our life or if the kids would sell it. The re-sale is the key point. If they come back with the $15 deal we would probably re-do one of our contracts for 350 pts. Also when would they want payment ? Are they going to work out deal so it is not near time that clients pay yearly fees.

 

[DVC92]

Perhaps the POS has been amended over the past 16 years.

Again, a call to DVC might net some answers....

I noticed that you are an owner at SSR. Your POS may be different than that of OKW. I cannot find any amendment of OKW's documents since I joined which adds language that you quoted.

 

[jarestel]

I noticed that you are an owner at SSR. Your POS may be different than that of OKW. I cannot find any amendment of OKW's documents since I joined which adds language that you quoted.

As tjkraz said, this is a question you probably want to clarify with DVC if it's of great interest to you.

Good luck!

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I am sure that Disney/DVC has consulted with their lawyers before any of this was made public. I feel any legal action by any members will be for not. The real information to get out of Disney is what ramifications the extensions will have on MF's, and if this will be passed on to all OKW owners, not just the extenders. IMHO, I see this coming, and we may begin to see a sell off of 2042 contracts, which will further drive the price per point down, thus Disney will ROFR cheap!

 

[salmoneous]

I'm glad someone took the time to actually read the POS! A bunch of folks have talked about writing letters to government officials or drawing up lawsuits since they were offended by what they thought was Disney's illegal action.

Maybe this will quiet talk of doing that. Gee, perhaps DVC is within their rights after all?

So, do you see any legal restrictions on DVC at all here? In your view, do they have the legal right to add years anytime they want, charge any price they want, and force us to take? If you don't think they have that right, what restricts them?

 

[DVC Mike]

So, do you see any legal restrictions on DVC at all here? In your view, do they have the legal right to add years anytime they want, charge any price they want, and force us to take? If you don't think they have that right, what restricts them?

Yes, DVC is restricted by the POS as well as Florida State law. Are we certain they have actually violated either? If so, what section of the POS or what statute have they violated. It's unclear to me.

Since I don't know if any of you are real estate lawyers (and I'm not), and since I must assume that Disney vetted their proposal with their own lawyers before moving forward, I would assume they are within their rights or knew there was little chance of a successful lawsuit succeeding. Of course, I've been wrong before.

 

[tvwalsh]

If there is one thing I know, it is that juries hate big money grubbing companies like Disney. I say, Sue their flabby ***** off!

 

[fwm]

If there is one thing I know, it is that juries hate big money grubbing companies like Disney. I say, Sue their flabby ***** off!

What are you going to sue them for?
What are the damages? A postage stamp?

 

[DVC92]

Yes, DVC is restricted by the POS as well as Florida State law. Are we certain they have actually violated either? If so, what section of the POS or what statute have they violated. It's unclear to me.

Since I don't know if any of you are real estate lawyers (and I'm not), and since I must assume that Disney vetted their proposal with their own lawyers before moving forward, I would assume they are within their rights or knew there was little chance of a successful lawsuit succeeding. Of course, I've been wrong before.

The following is from the Florida law concerning timeshares:

721.06 Contracts for purchase of timeshare interests.--
(1) Each seller shall utilize and furnish each purchaser a fully completed and executed copy of a contract pertaining to the sale, which contract shall include the following information:
(f) A brief description of the nature and duration of the timeshare interest being sold, including whether any interest in real property or personal property is being conveyed and the specific number of years constituting the term of the timeshare plan.

As far as OKW is concerned, the specific years were specified. With respect to SSR, the end year was in the contract with the caveat that DVD could alter it at their discretion. I don't believe the DVD open-ended extension clause is legal under Florida law for SSR, but I don't have an ownership interest in that resort.

It is clear that those SSR options favorable to Disney don't apply to OKW. This is why DVD is attempting to use a back door approach with the "special" assessment; otherwise, they would merely extend our contracts and not have to go through these odd procedures. None of this was in their sights when OKW was created.

 

[ATCMickey]

I'm glad someone took the time to actually read the POS! A bunch of folks have talked about writing letters to government officials or drawing up lawsuits since they were offended by what they thought was Disney's illegal action.
Maybe this will quiet talk of doing that. Gee, perhaps DVC is within their rights after all?

DVC Mike,

Do I sense a little sarcasm in your post? The courts are filled awaiting rulings of differing interpretations of contracts and contract law. Perhaps many of these good folks have read the POS and happen to have a differing interpretation. Even if they haven't, maybe all they are doing, in their own way, it trying to seek out answers. But with all due respect, your sarcasm is out of line.

Well guess what, I too have read the OKW POS. I appreciate the response from TJKraz and his conveyance of his interpretation. I happen to disagree with it but nonetheless still appreciate it. I can disagree with someone and still show them respect. In the end, this may not be about whether it's legal or not, but it definitely will be about whether it was the right way for DVC to do it. DVC members will vote with their $$$ when they decide what to do. From your signature, I see you don't own at OKW. Maybe a little compassion for those struggling with how they will address this. For me personally, this is a $25,000 decision. If they expand it to other resorts, my obligation will more than double. In the end what DVC is doing might be ruled legal, but the real question is was what they did the right way to do it. I imagine they'll have their answer round about February 29, 2008. Just because a company is within their rights, doesn't make the way they go about doing it right.

Gee, maybe the owners are just excercising their rights

ATCMickey