OKW 2042 - 2057 deed

[DVC92]

First, as far as the capital raised by this extension going towards improvements in OKW, you can simply forget it. The notice clearly states that "extending the Disney Vacation Club Condominium .......in exchange for the payment by the Association to DVD of $25.00 per Vacation Point (the "Extension Fee")". The money raised goes directly into the pockets of DVD (the lessee), not ours, for presumably eventual payment to LBVC (another Disney company), the lessor of the Ground Lease.

Further, this extension is only being done now for one reason, putting Disney's financial gain ahead of anything to do with bettering DVC. How any member can believe this is not a big deal escapes me, if for no other reason than it creates a precedent involving the levying of "special" assessments of all kinds in the future. Keep your assets liquid and a credit line handy.

As far as the time limit for payment, I'm sure Disney will graciously offer to finance your extension payment at an equitable interest rate if you don't happen to have thousands of dollars at your disposal if you choose to extend. When I purchased at OKW in 1992, I believe the minimum purchase was 230 points with sales pushing everyone to get at least 270, resulting in no less than an approximately $5,750 - $6750 outlay on short notice.

There is simply no reason that this action is being shoved down members' throats in this manner. I forgot to leave my legacy at the EPCOT entrance or the walkway in front of the Magic Kingdom. My picture has been removed from Olivia's, so now they've offered me another means of leaving something at WDW (a lease that can be extended forever with more $$$ at 15 year intervals) my loved ones can remember me by. Hope they can keep up with the annual assessments. Give me a break.

 

[rsinj]

.

 

[salmoneous]

Everyone bought a product, that product has a life through 2042 - as everyone is well aware of and absolutely nothing has changed with that. Everyone still owns that same product, that product still gets you the exact same benefits it did before - nothing changes with the product that has been purchased.

Absolutely nothing has changed? Not quite. OKW 2042 owners are going to have to pay maintenance fees to build a reserve fund to cover repairs during the 2042-2057 period. Given that the buildings will be 50-65 years old in that period, that fund may be pretty hefty.

 

[rsinj]

.

 

[salmoneous]

I can't see how there is any intent to use this as a "gotcha".

Disney could have structured the deal so that only those people who want to buy would have to respond. If you do nothing, you get the status quo. Instead, they structured the deal so that, unless you take action, you will buy the extra years, whether you want them or not. Ask yourself why Disney structured it the slimy way instead of the straightforward way.

I suppose they could just start selling fresh new DVC contracts today beginning in 2042 for 15 years at $25 per point,

That would be the straightforward way - fair to everyone, and even avoiding the issue of making 2042 folks pay for 2042-2057 reserve funds.

but how many people would really buy that today?

Ah, there's your answer. Had Disney done it the fair and straightforward way, they wouldn't have gotten as many sales. It's always about the Benjamins isn't it?

 

[rsinj]

.

 

[DVC92]

And, why do you think the money shouldn't go directly into the pockets of DVD? You don't own anything after 2042 - why is that concept so difficult to understand? DVD owns your rights after 2042 if nothing is done.

How any member can twist what the purpose and end result of this is escapes me. It is a "special" assessment for the purpose of purchasing a DVC contract. If it were a "special" assessment of the kind you are twisting the meaning to be, you would have no option to pay it or not pay it - you would be required to pay it, just like your annual maintenance. If you don't like the wording or terms it has been put to you, I'll give you the translation:

"DVD is giving you the option to purchase a new DVC contract beginning in 2042 through 2057. You can buy this contract today for $25 per point and be guaranteed that you can continue using your DVC membership without interruption. You have absolutely no obligation to purchase this new DVC contract, but, in the event that you don't, since your ownership terminates in 2042, DVD has every right and intention to resell the ownership at any time prior to 2042. You may repurchase a new DVC contract at any time, however, DVD cannot guarantee what the price will be. DVD is guaranteeing you a price of $25 per point for the 15 years now. Again, you are under no obligation whatsoever to take it. Should you choose not to take it, absolutely nothing changes with the membership you own."



The action is not being "shoved" down member throats, there are just some members who choose to view it that way. You either take the extension or you don't - again, what is so difficult to understand? Nothing changes with what you own today. Nothing is being taken away from you.



Tell me - when should DVD begin reselling all of the DVC contracts that end in 2042? Tell me how you would do this? When would you begin selling contracts that cannot be used until 2042 and how much would you charge people for the ability to own DVC in the future? What did you realistically expect to happen when you no longer own your DVC membership when it expires in 2042?

It wasn't I who brought up the subject that any money collected would be used for capital improvements to OKW. If this is legal, which I doubt, the money should go to pay for the Ground Lease.

I also don't need you to reiterate the wording to me. A proper "special assessment" for operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the common elements is not something I desire but have no problem with. What I have a big problem with is using a so-called special assessment to purchase future property rights without my consent. That simply is not a legal purpose for a special assessment, but they could not figure another way to achieve their goal of making money NOW.

Yes, some things do change. One, it could affect any possible resale value if I don't extend because of competition with 2057 end dates; although, I never considered my purchase in 1992 to have any resale value in the future. Second, any reserves remaining in 2042 would be divided up among the current owners. That will no longer be the case, so I will be funding something I no longer have an ownership interest in.

Simply stated with respect to how this should have been done, as 2042 approaches and if WDW is still a viable entity, additional years could be offered at whatever the going rate is. If I opt in now, are they going to refund the fee if WDW disappears? I don't think so. I just hope I'm alive and kicking in 2042.

 

[DVC92]

I'm not here to argue salmoneous - if you and others look to do that, you're more than welcome. Disney and any company/subsidiary has done right by us for decades. This company is not in the business of screwing people over, though there are many that enjoy believing that to be the case. I am sure they chose the current structure as it is the most practical for all parties. Disney is not in the business of screwing people or DVC would not have grown the way it has, or increased in value over the years while nearly every other timeshare has gone down in value.

You and a few others are clearly having issues with this whole thing. That's you're right and you're welcome to complain how much you're being screwed over as much as you choose.

We'll just say ""no thank you" and be done with it. No sense getting worked up over non-issues.

I'm done on this topic.

No, Disney doesn't always do right by us. When DVC first started in 1991, and OKW was called Conch Flats, the amenities and the accommodations that I purchased were far superior. The units had numerous silk plants, woven placemats, napkins with napkin rings, tie-back cushions on the chairs, decorator shower curtains with separate liners, color-coordinated peach towels, many hand-painted decorative pottery pieces, etc. They have all vanished to create a generic DVC.

 

[salmoneous]

Disney and any company/subsidiary has done right by us for decades. This company is not in the business of screwing people over, though there are many that enjoy believing that to be the case. I am sure they chose the current structure as it is the most practical for all parties. Disney is not in the business of screwing people or DVC would not have grown the way it has, or increased in value over the years while nearly every other timeshare has gone down in value.

Disney has been good to us. Disney has acted differently from many other timeshares. I am still very happy with Disney and DVC. I do not enjoy complaining about Disney, or enjoy believing that they are "screwing up over"

However, in this extension, I see Disney acting very differently. What should I think...

1) Disney has treated us well in the past, so I should assume they have some good reason for structuring the deal this way and are really doing it for the good of all.

2) Be worried that this is a change in character and try and find an appropriate way to complain about the change. Believe that, although this deal isn't all-that-evil, it's a step in the wrong direction. Try and encourage Disney to get back on the right path now before they do worse.

 

[tjkraz]

Disney could have structured the deal so that only those people who want to buy would have to respond. If you do nothing, you get the status quo. Instead, they structured the deal so that, unless you take action, you will buy the extra years, whether you want them or not.

Seems to me that we really don't know how the offer will be structured at this time. The offer could still be worded such that a failure to respond constitutes a declination.

Lots of assumptions flying around here.

Ask yourself why Disney structured it the slimy way instead of the straightforward way.

That would be the straightforward way - fair to everyone, and even avoiding the issue of making 2042 folks pay for 2042-2057 reserve funds.

Do you even know if the "straightforward", non-slimy approach you suggest is legal?

Is it possible, in the highly-regulated timeshare industry, to sell something a customer cannot take possession of for another 35 years? Is it possible to simultaneously have deeds on record giving ownership of the same physical structure to different groups of individuals? The deeds don't list ending dates on them. Will Orange County allow DVC to simultaneously file deeds equivalent to 200% ownership for a single unit?

And what about the residents of states or countries to whom DVC is not able to sell? Should Nebraska OKW owners just be SOL on any sort of extended ownership because DVC can't legally initiate any sales-related discussions with individuals residing in that state? (Probably shouldn't even ask that one since I can guess the response.)

The language in the POS regarding extensions of the ground lease seem to state that if the lease is extended, ownership is also extended. Would offering separate contracts even be legal? (In other words, one could argue that it would violate the terms of the POS to extend the ground lease and NOT extend ownership of current members.)

As someone else pointed out, people have been asking about contract extensions for years. DVC has hosted surveys on the topic and apparently there is widespread interest among owners. I don't see anything here that points toward fraud or gross negligence on DVC's part--in fact it may well be the only avenue available to them.

 

[DVC92]

Seems to me that we really don't know how the offer will be structured at this time. The offer could still be worded such that a failure to respond constitutes a declination.

Lots of assumptions flying around here.



Do you even know if the "straightforward", non-slimy approach you suggest is legal?

Is it possible, in the highly-regulated timeshare industry, to sell something a customer cannot take possession of for another 35 years? Is it possible to simultaneously have deeds on record giving ownership of the same physical structure to different groups of individuals? The deeds don't list ending dates on them. Will Orange County allow DVC to simultaneously file deeds equivalent to 200% ownership for a single unit?

And what about the residents of states or countries to whom DVC is not able to sell? Should Nebraska OKW owners just be SOL on any sort of extended ownership because DVC can't legally initiate any sales-related discussions with individuals residing in that state? (Probably shouldn't even ask that one since I can guess the response.)

The language in the POS regarding extensions of the ground lease seem to state that if the lease is extended, ownership is also extended. Would offering separate contracts even be legal? (In other words, one could argue that it would violate the terms of the POS to extend the ground lease and NOT extend ownership of current members.)

As someone else pointed out, people have been asking about contract extensions for years. DVC has hosted surveys on the topic and apparently there is widespread interest among owners. I don't see anything here that points toward fraud or gross negligence on DVC's part--in fact it may well be the only avenue available to them.

I completely agree with you concerning the concurrent ownership issue. That is exactly the reason they need the extensions; however, deeding back to them only the years 2042-2057 for a particular unit may or may not be legal. I do know that when I purchased, the property needed to convey immediately.

Another issue, and the reason they are enacting a special assessment to effect this deal, is that many of the original owners at OKW do not have an extension clause in their contracts or POS. They are simply trying to skirt this fact.

 

[LIFERBABE]

Another issue, and the reason they are enacting a special assessment to effect this deal, is that many of the original owners at OKW do not have an extension clause in their contracts or POS. They are simply trying to skirt this fact.

This is my thought also. And the reason they are offering the opt-out to OKW owners. They have to treat OKW this way, they DO NOT have to do it for the other resorts where the extension clause already exists without concession.

 

[RobDoc]

...
Another issue, and the reason they are enacting a special assessment to effect this deal, is that many of the original owners at OKW do not have an extension clause in their contracts or POS. They are simply trying to skirt this fact.

Unless you have a non-summarized copy of the POS, I'm not sure you can make this assertion. Last night, in response to your question in this same thread, I posted the documentation I have regarding the ability to extend contracts and quoted the caveat from the POS about requesting copies of all documentation since the POS provided is a "summary" and does not include the entire content of the document and associated Exhibits and other references. As of 3/95 I know there is mention of extending the ground lease even in the summary. I have a number of POS documents ranging from 3/93 thru 7/2003, but I do not have a non-summarized copy of any POS.

I don't see how any of us can explain the reason why DVC is doing anything unless we really have the full POS (instead of a summary) and copies of all exhibits and other references - (or unless we were one of those making the policy decision itself). Personally, I'm going to wait until we are notified by DVC about how the 9/24 resolution vote will affect me before making any accusations or speculating on the reasons why.

 

[DVC Mike]

Disney could have structured the deal so that only those people who want to buy would have to respond. If you do nothing, you get the status quo. Instead, they structured the deal so that, unless you take action, you will buy the extra years, whether you want them or not. Ask yourself why Disney structured it the slimy way instead of the straightforward way.

I don't think it's fair to Disney to make such a sweeping characterization about their offer given the limited information we have so far.

 

[DVC92]

Unless you have a non-summarized copy of the POS, I'm not sure you can make this assertion. Last night, in response to your question, I posted the documentation I have regarding the ability to extend contracts and quoted the caveat from the POS about requesting copies of all documentation since the POS provided is a "summary" and does not include the entire content of the document and associated Exhibits and other references. As of 3/95 I know there is mention of extending the ground lease even in the summary. I have a number of POS documents ranging from 3/93 thru 7/2003, but I do not have a non-summarized copy of any POS.

I don't see how any of us can explain "why" DVC is doing something unless we really have the full POS (instead of a summary) and copies of all exhibits and other references. Personally, I'm going to wait until we are notified by DVC about how the 9/24 resolution vote will affect me before making any accusations or speculating on the reasons why.

I don't know what material DVC was giving out to later purchasers, but in 1992, I was given a bound copy of the POS accompanied by the Covenants, Declaration of Condominium, all Exhibits, and other References totaling about 300 pages. I believe I possess all documentation. There is no extension clause; only language relating to the termination date of 2042, with the caveat of "unless the Ground Lease is terminated sooner". There was no guarantee made to buyers that the Club would even exist for 50 years in light of Article XVII (Termination) of the Declaration of Condominium.

 

[RobDoc]

I don't know what material DVC was giving out to later purchasers, but in 1992, I was given a bound copy of the POS accompanied by the Covenants, Declaration of Condominium, all Exhibits, and other References totaling about 300 pages. I believe I possess all documentation. There is no extension clause; only language relating to the termination date of 2042, with the caveat of "unless the Ground Lease is terminated sooner".

My copies are also bound and over 240 pages - but they also state that they are summaries. If you are absoultely certain that you purchased with no possible means for DVC to modify the end date, then by all means exercise all of your legal rights.

I'm merely pointing out that as of May, 1993 the POS documents given to buyers was NOT all inclusive and a warning was provided that interested buyers should request full doumentation. I posted the exact language, per you request last night but have not seen any subsequent comment regarding that information. I am also aware that DVC gave itself certain ability to modify the POS (I'm certain that right is included in your complete POS and DVC has definitely modified the POS numerous times over the years), so unless you have full documentation of all subsequent changes to the POS you are offering "explanation" for DVCs action without full knowledge - and you've already stated that your documentation is from 1992 and NOT from subsequent changes. I'd sure hate to see you base your lawsuit on incomplete information.

 

[DVC92]

Notwithstanding what each POS states, I am curious about the language contained in everyone's actual contract/Purchase Agreement. In reviewing mine, item #2 (Ownership Interest Purchased) states that my ownership interest is subject to the Ground Lease and the last paragraph in item #4 (The Disney Vacation Club) states, "The term of the DVC ownership plan is concurrent with the term of the Ground Lease underlying the Condominium and will continue until January 31, 2042, which is the expiration date of the Ground Lease or unless the Ground Lease is sooner terminated in accordance with its own terms." Do newer contracts contain the extension clause?

My main issue is ceding the power to Disney to effectively purchase property in my name and threaten a lien on my current legal ownership unless I sign the new deed over to them.

 

[ATCMickey]

ATCMickey, I apologize if you took my post as disrespectful of your or other's opinions. I had read post after post of people complaining about the "illegal action on the part of Disney" where they are "forcing people to buy the extension".

DVCMike,

No worries and thanks for your reply. My main point is that I think DVC should have garnered more owner input and done more owner notification before proceeding definitively. Had they done that, the passengers on this boat may have been able to help point out some of the iceburgs that lie ahead...unfortunatley this feels like "full steam ahead captain, what the passengers don't know won't hurt them so don't wake them up"

As I said earlier, I have been ready for years to purchase additional years onto my OKW contracts. I was just waiting/hoping for the opportunity. I have always told friends that one of the things I liked so much about DVC was the no-pressure nature of the sales. They have a great product and they don't need to force it on anyone. We walked out of timeshare presentation after timeshare presentation because of "buy it now-the price goes up tomorrow", presumptive, armbending pressure tactics. Who knows, those may have been great resorts but I just didn't want to do business with someone who treated me that way.

Then we found DVC in 1993 and knew it was right. We were shown the product and told if you want it we'll be here next week - next month, the price will be the same, and we won't call you unless ask us to. DING-DING-DING-SALE! It's just that the "guess what, you're now the proud new owner of a 15 year extention contract--just sign this if you really didn't want it" somewhat feels like those old arm-bending presentations. It just doesn't feel right.

I've given a great deal of money to DVC over the years. DVC's still got a great product and I don't see the need for acting in this manner. I know some people will just say "big deal, sign the papers if you don't want it". I know some will say "you are not being forced". But this once sure thing-sign me up for another 50 years-repeat buyer is just feeling that this doesn't feel so right this time around. Call me over-sensitive, but it may be the difference in whether they get more of my money.

ATCMickey

 

[RobDoc]

Notwithstanding what each POS states, I am curious about the language contained in everyone's actual contract/Purchase Agreement. In reviewing mine, item #2 (Ownership Interest Purchased) states that my ownership interest is subject to the Ground Lease and the last paragraph in item #4 (The Disney Vacation Club) states, "The term of the DVC ownership plan is concurrent with the term of the Ground Lease underlying the Condominium and will continue until January 31, 2042, which is the expiration date of the Ground Lease or unless the Ground Lease is sooner terminated in accordance with its own terms." Do newer contracts contain the extension clause?

My main issue is ceding the power to Disney to effectively purchase property in my name and threaten a lien on my current legal ownership unless I sign the new deed over to them.

The Purchase Agreement for our third add-on purchase in March, 1995 does include the "unless otherwise extended" language. I have not yet dug deep enough to uncover our original purchase agreement or the first 2 add-ons and will keep looking.

As for any threats, you must have received something other than the notice of the 9/24 meeting that I got. Can you please post the text of the letter where Disney is trying to purchase property in your name and threatening a lien on your ownership?

 

[rsinj]

.