OKW direct now all extended?

[PSUDinsey]

http://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program/financial/pricing-a-promotions

 

[supersnoop]

I don't think that's new. I'm pretty sure they've only offered the extended OKW contracts direct every since they offered the extension.

 

[PSUDinsey]

Ah when I asked the DVC rep he didn't offer that as an option. So in theory can they start doing that with the othe resorts expiring in 2042?

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Ah when I asked the DVC rep he didn't offer that as an option. So in theory can they start doing that with the othe resorts expiring in 2042?

No.

Not unless they offer extensions to all owners first.

 

[ScubaCat]

All contracts expire in at the termination of the ground lease in 2057. "Not extended" means there's a quit claim deed signed over to Disney for 2042-2057 (some owners didn't pay the assessment and also refused to sign, but they'll likely eventually be compelled to do one or the other. )

 

[Dean]

All contracts expire in at the termination of the ground lease in 2057. "Not extended" means there's a quit claim deed signed over to Disney for 2042-2057 (some owners didn't pay the assessment and also refused to sign, but they'll likely eventually be compelled to do one or the other. )

If they go to sell or transfer, I'd expect DVD to include signing that paperwork as a requirement. Initially the wording was that they'd instituted a special assessment to those that didn't sign. As I understand the POS and state law, I don't believe they have the legal right for a SA in this situation. But the only ways I see to get past this would either be to wait until 2042 and hope they ignore it or to get a lawyer. The way it looks to me is that DVD will own roughly half of OKW or just over at the transfer unless there's a big push later. This would consist of the roughly 1/3 that extended initially, the few that extended later plus the points sold retail since.

 

[ScubaCat]

They do require it to sell/transfer. You can often see the quit claim filed with the deed and ROFR waiver at the same time.

The SA legality is the questionable part, and I have no idea what the law is on that. It seems to me that they if they cannot require it to be paid, they could simply freeze contracts that haven't signed or paid in 2042. If they could do it sooner, that would compel the stragglers to act, but again I have no idea if they can or not.

Gotta love self-inflicted DVD drama...

 

[Dean]

They do require it to sell/transfer. You can often see the quit claim filed with the deed and ROFR waiver at the same time.

The SA legality is the questionable part, and I have no idea what the law is on that. It seems to me that they if they cannot require it to be paid, they could simply freeze contracts that haven't signed or paid in 2042. If they could do it sooner, that would compel the stragglers to act, but again I have no idea if they can or not.

Gotta love self-inflicted DVD drama...

They do hold the cards though I think they'd lose if one pushed it legally but they can throw their weight around. To do a SA it would have to be allowed within the wording of the state laws or the POS. As I read both, there is not wording that would allow this. The situations where a SA is allowed is pretty well spelled out. They backed themselves into a corner when they tied the RTU to the land lease.

 

[ScubaCat]

They backed themselves into a corner when they tied the RTU to the land lease.

That's what it seems like to me as well, but I'm no expert.

 

[Dean]

That's what it seems like to me as well, but I'm no expert.

Given the OKW FAIL in this area, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the rest. Whatever it is, it has to be significantly different than OKW. Much later of a much different option, esp if they make a second run at OKW owners who did not extend.

 

[ScubaCat]

My guess is (assuming they want to continue with the property) they'll just sell new points and offer a discount to those who own as of the original termination date. But time will tell.

 

[TCRAIG]

I don't think that's new. I'm pretty sure they've only offered the extended OKW contracts direct every since they offered the extension.

Yup -only extended

 

[Dean]

My guess is (assuming they want to continue with the property) they'll just sell new points and offer a discount to those who own as of the original termination date. But time will tell.

I see that as problematic. Selling OKW in general will likely be a challenge and selling for only 15 years even more so. And they'll likely be selling in competition with the other on property 2042 resorts as well as the rest of the inventory. I personally don't think it'll be feasible to sell OKW in this manner at a price that'll make Disney happy. No matter what they do with the rest, I suspect they'll effectively close down part of the resort in terms of DVC. Now they may do it as cash rentals or more likely, use it like they did the THV before they were transformed. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave owners a "second chance" but I do not se just selling fresh is as workable.

 

[ScubaCat]

Sorry I meant for other properties. The OKW situation is completely different.

 

[Dean]

Sorry I meant for other properties. The OKW situation is completely different.

Even for the other 3 on site properties, I see selling new for 15 years problematic. Maybe they'll extend longer, this would make it more viable as a new sell. I see 30 years as the minimum for that approach. Or they could come up with a different extension method aimed at the current owners. It'll be interesting given the groundwork they laid with OKW. I'm doubting HH & VB will be extended.

 

[ScubaCat]

I actually figured they'd sell new 40-50 year deeds; just resell the same thing for the current going rate. It's all baseless speculation though. Heck, they probably don't even know what they'll do at this point. (I'm sure they have an idea but it'll change many more times over the coming years.)

 

[ELMC]

If they go to sell or transfer, I'd expect DVD to include signing that paperwork as a requirement. Initially the wording was that they'd instituted a special assessment to those that didn't sign. As I understand the POS and state law, I don't believe they have the legal right for a SA in this situation. But the only ways I see to get past this would either be to wait until 2042 and hope they ignore it or to get a lawyer. The way it looks to me is that DVD will own roughly half of OKW or just over at the transfer unless there's a big push later. This would consist of the roughly 1/3 that extended initially, the few that extended later plus the points sold retail since.

Dean, can you please clarify something for me? I'm in the process of buying an OKW 2042 contract via resale and I haven't seen anything about extending or a special assessment. What am I missing?

 

[supersnoop]

Dean, can you please clarify something for me? I'm in the process of buying an OKW 2042 contract via resale and I haven't seen anything about extending or a special assessment. What am I missing?

You should see a quit-claim in the final closing papers.

 

[Dean]

Dean, can you please clarify something for me? I'm in the process of buying an OKW 2042 contract via resale and I haven't seen anything about extending or a special assessment. What am I missing?

Let me back up. I'm sure most of this you know but if not, it's relevant to the issue. ALL of OKW expires in 2057 but for the majority of the "units" there are 2 owners divided by time with DVD owning the last 15 yrs. The situations I've heard about where resale buyers had the option to extend, for now $25 I believe, were where the original owner had never complied with the requirement to sign over the last 15 years. Originally they "offered" to extend for $25 but discounted it to $15 if done within a certain time or to sign over the last 15 years. They threatened a SA if one did neither but I am not aware they've ever carried through and I do not believe they'd have the legal authority to do so. Now I am generally sympathetic to their plight to extend with the ground lease and ownership tied together but when you threaten a SA where it shouldn't be allowed, you lose my sympathy. Likely the better choice would have had members vote to extend and have a smaller SA of $5-8 per point but it would have required an actual vote of the members. They would have made as much or more than the way it was done at a higher cost, had infinitely less costs and removed uncertainty. And if it failed, they had their answer on interest and just let it expire and start over.

 

[ELMC]

Let me back up. I'm sure most of this you know but if not, it's relevant to the issue. ALL of OKW expires in 2057 but for the majority of the "units" there are 2 owners divided by time with DVD owning the last 15 yrs. The situations I've heard about where resale buyers had the option to extend, for now $25 I believe, were where the original owner had never complied with the requirement to sign over the last 15 years. Originally they "offered" to extend for $25 but discounted it to $15 if done within a certain time or to sign over the last 15 years. They threatened a SA if one did neither but I am not aware they've ever carried through and I do not believe they'd have the legal authority to do so. Now I am generally sympathetic to their plight to extend with the ground lease and ownership tied together but when you threaten a SA where it shouldn't be allowed, you lose my sympathy. Likely the better choice would have had members vote to extend and have a smaller SA of $5-8 per point but it would have required an actual vote of the members. They would have made as much or more than the way it was done at a higher cost, had infinitely less costs and removed uncertainty. And if it failed, they had their answer on interest and just let it expire and start over.

Thanks, this is important information. My question pertains to how this is treated in resale contracts going forward. Supersnoop said above that I should see a quit claim deed in my closing packet. I don't. So as a new owner of a resale OKW contract, what is my obligation with regards to the extension?