OKW Extension - What if we just ignore it?

[Chuck S]

Anyone know what percentage of owners opted for the extension verse didn't? I am not sure what we will do when and if they offer this at our home resort. I think they eventually will.

I read here on the boards that some members were told about 1/3 of the memberships were extended.

As to whether you should extend or not really depends upon several factors, from your personal financial situation to your age and family demographics.

For instance, in my situations, while I could maybe get a few years of use from the extension, I'll be 99 years old in 2057. I have no children or nieces/nephews that could benefit from the extension, so I declined. There has been speculatin that resales would garner more, if I decided to sell in the future, but truthfully, I'm satisfied with what DVC has "returned" so far, and the chance of a few $ extra on a resale isn't a big incentive to spend that $ right now.

 

[salmoneous]

There are a lot of folks on here who DID extend and wanted it. So... since you don't like it's bad?

My objection has nothing to do whether whether or not I would want the offer. It has to do with how the offer was structured. No company should force me to take action if I don't want to buy their product.

 

[Chuck S]

My objection has nothing to do whether whether or not I would want the offer. It has to do with how the offer was structured. No company should force me to take action if I don't want to buy their product.

There was likely no other way under FL Timeshare law that they could structure it any differently, and be able to extend the lease.

 

[TisBit]

My objection has nothing to do whether whether or not I would want the offer. It has to do with how the offer was structured. No company should force me to take action if I don't want to buy their product.

Like having to register on a do not call list, or opting out of credit offers, or signing to decline to extra insurance on your rental......you are always taking action to decline things......at least DVC gave you a few bucks for your time!

 

[dianeschlicht]

My objection has nothing to do whether whether or not I would want the offer. It has to do with how the offer was structured. No company should force me to take action if I don't want to buy their product.

As Chuck said, it's a legal problem to make it comply with Florida timeshare laws.

I see it as another legal issue as well. Since those of us who have owned for a long time might not want the extension and opt out of it ( as we did), by signing our "additional 15 years" back to Disney, they are able to take those extensions and attach them to new contracts that they can now sell after aquiring other (2042) contracts through ROFR. The only way for them to do that legally is to use those 15 years we non-extenders have deeded back to them. I have no issue at all with following this "letter of the law", as long as I don't have to pay for the extra 15 years that I have no use for.

 

[JimC]

DVC has rules and FL has timeshare laws. Both were complied with regarding the extension.

We did not extend because we thought the price too high and the likelihood that we would benefit from it too low. Granted we don't like paperwork any more than the next person, but we realized its importance and appreciate that FL has pretty strict timeshare laws.

To the OP, I agree with others who suggest calling or writing DVC and telling them you will bring your paperwork with you in December and complete it at the sales center. We might do the same thing (and we live here!) -- it will give us an excuse to look at the new models.

 

[LIFERBABE]

Like having to register on a do not call list, or opting out of credit offers, or signing to decline to extra insurance on your rental......you are always taking action to decline things......at least DVC gave you a few bucks for your time!

Initialling to indicate acknowledgement and understanding is completely different than Dh and I having to schedule our time before the bank closes to sign these papers and have them notarized. Or worse, taking time out of our vacation to do something we dont want to do. That's worth more than a few bucks to me.

It's not horrid, its just wrong

 

[TisBit]

Initialling to indicate acknowledgement and understanding is completely different than Dh and I having to schedule our time before the bank closes to sign these papers and have them notarized. Or worse, taking time out of our vacation to do something we dont want to do. That's worth more than a few bucks to me.

It's not horrid, its just wrong

Oh, I agree, just stating that we often do have to take action to decline things in life. The PP seemed to imply that this was somehow different. I agree that it can be somewhat inconvenient, but at least they compensated owners something, instead of just making them do it without compensation.

 

[castleri]

While I realize it's a hassle, I fail to understand "leaving a strongly worded message" What do you say "Please quit abiding by Florida law because I don't like it"? That's why they have to do this, the way the law is written you have to legally opt out.

I doubt this would have been Disney's first choice either. I mean it costs them a lot of money to do this too!

You are correct that it would not have been Disney's first choice either - I spoke with Jim Lewis and the lawyer who was present after the Sept meeting about this very subject. Their answer was that when it was first decided to offer the extension the plan was to have only those who opted in do anything. Then on further checking they found out that legally they had to have those who opted out sign back those extra years to comply with FL law. They also said that they will do everything they can to get people to comply -ie the $30 credit towards dues and reminder lettters and or phone calls after a reasonable time has passed with no response before taking legal measures such as stopping your ability to use points and/or putting a lien on the contract.

 

[calypso*a*go-go]

It's really not that big a deal for me. I go to the bank on a regular basis, so I won't need to make any special trips to get the paperwork notarized. We're opting out because I honestly don't think we would need the extra years. DH and I will be approaching the century mark and will probably be more concerned about SSI than WDW!

 

[DVC92]

Anyone know what percentage of owners opted for the extension verse didn't? I am not sure what we will do when and if they offer this at our home resort. I think they eventually will.

Responding to a complaint with the Florida Timeshare Bureau relating to the extension of OKW to 2057, the attorney for DVD stated that as of February 29, 2008, more than 30% of the members had accepted the extension, but this is not an indication of the total number of OKW resort points involved as sizes of contracts vary.

DVD has now agreed to provide a developer subsidy to all members who elect to not participate in the extension. The Executive Counsel for WDW, John McGowan stated:
"....we agree that members who elect not to extend should not be required to fund capital repairs after 2042. However, Section 721.13
(3)(c)(3), F.S., provides that full funding of reserves can only be waived by a majority of the members. Consequently, as part of the OKW Extension, DVD, as developer, has already agreed with the association to provide a developer subsidy at the appropriate time (the association is obviously not yet funding capital reserves for capital replacements after 2042) to all members who elect not to participate in the OKW Extension. The purpose of the developer subsidy is to pay a portion of such member's capital reserve assessments in an amount sufficient to fully fund capital reserves and to relieve all such members of the obligations to fund capital replacements after 2042. Thus, DVD has committed to the association that neither.....nor any other members who elect not to extend will pay any reserve assessments for capital improvements made after 2042."

In a letter, I subsequently requested that Jim Lewis make this concession known to the membership. I understand this issue was raised at last December's annual meeting but not responded to. I hope all members will soon be made aware of the subsidy for non-extenders, and how and when it will be implemented.

 

[Laxmom]

30% doesn't sound like a great number to me but you would have to know the total number of owners to know for sure.

That is interesting on the subsidy. I never even thought of the ramifications.
Thanks for the info.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Responding to a complaint with the Florida Timeshare Bureau relating to the extension of OKW to 2057, the attorney for DVD stated that as of February 29, 2008, more than 30% of the members had accepted the extension, but this is not an indication of the total number of OKW resort points involved as sizes of contracts vary.

DVD has now agreed to provide a developer subsidy to all members who elect to not participate in the extension. The Executive Counsel for WDW, John McGowan stated:
"....we agree that members who elect not to extend should not be required to fund capital repairs after 2042. However, Section 721.13
(3)(c)(3), F.S., provides that full funding of reserves can only be waived by a majority of the members. Consequently, as part of the OKW Extension, DVD, as developer, has already agreed with the association to provide a developer subsidy at the appropriate time (the association is obviously not yet funding capital reserves for capital replacements after 2042) to all members who elect not to participate in the OKW Extension. The purpose of the developer subsidy is to pay a portion of such member's capital reserve assessments in an amount sufficient to fully fund capital reserves and to relieve all such members of the obligations to fund capital replacements after 2042. Thus, DVD has committed to the association that neither.....nor any other members who elect not to extend will pay any reserve assessments for capital improvements made after 2042."

In a letter, I subsequently requested that Jim Lewis make this concession known to the membership. I understand this issue was raised at last December's annual meeting but not responded to. I hope all members will soon be made aware of the subsidy for non-extenders, and how and when it will be implemented.

Good post! I'm glad about the subidy! I was wondering about that, but hadn't gotten to the point of asking anyone about it just yet.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Just wanted to add that our guide said something similar to the 30% accepting, and they consider that to be a GREAT number, since they were actually expecting quite a few less than that. I suspect the success of this extension of OKW will determine if the other older DVC resorts will be offered an early extension as well.

Frankly, I don't really think I understand WHY they would offer the extension NOW???? Why not wait until 5 years before the existing one ends?

 

[Chuck S]

Frankly, I don't really think I understand WHY they would offer the extension NOW???? Why not wait until 5 years before the existing one ends?

Because it puts $$ in the bank now.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Because it puts $$ in the bank now.

Of course, but that's no real benefit to members!

 

[disneykidatheart]

Just wanted to add that our guide said something similar to the 30% accepting, and they consider that to be a GREAT number, since they were actually expecting quite a few less than that. I suspect the success of this extension of OKW will determine if the other older DVC resorts will be offered an early extension as well.

Frankly, I don't really think I understand WHY they would offer the extension NOW???? Why not wait until 5 years before the existing one ends?

This is my theory on why they are offering the extension now. At this time they are offering to people who have had no more than 1-16 years of ownership. We are still in the blush of young love for our DVC. In 2042 we are old married couples with DVC and the bloom may be off the rose. By then, who knows what Walt Disney World will be like? Who knows what kinds of health issues we may be encountering as we age? Who knows if Social Security will have gone bust? We will also, by then, be seeing the effect of 45 years of accrued maintenance fees and, for many, may have to decide whether we can continue or really want to visit Disney anymore. I think DVC has more chance of success with renewals at this time. Just my opinion.

 

[DVC92]

Frankly, I don't really think I understand WHY they would offer the extension NOW???? Why not wait until 5 years before the existing one ends?

Enumerated items covered for replacement and repair in the capital reserves budget have varying estimated useful lives of up to 30 years. Therefore , as early as 2012, capital reserves will begin being collected for years beyond 2042. Disney made a business decision to keep OKW going until 2057. Therefore, by selling now, those extending will fully contribute to the capital reserves for years beyond 2042 and lessen the subsidy DVD will need to contribute for the non-extenders for those extra years.

 

[dianeschlicht]

This is my theory on why they are offering the extension now. At this time they are offering to people who have had no more than 1-16 years of ownership. We are still in the blush of young love for our DVC. In 2042 we are old married couples with DVC and the bloom may be off the rose. By then, who knows what Walt Disney World will be like? Who knows what kinds of health issues we may be encountering as we age? Who knows if Social Security will have gone bust? We will also, by then, be seeing the effect of 45 years of accrued maintenance fees and, for many, may have to decide whether we can continue or really want to visit Disney anymore. I think DVC has more chance of success with renewals at this time. Just my opinion.

LOL, well SOME of us are at that "people age" now!!! Frankly, being in our 60's makes us a non-candidate for extension now OR in the future.

 

[kmc33]

We declined the extension offer, and today DVC sent the paperwork that will make it official. It requires us to sign a form in front of two disinterested witnesses and a Notary Public.

This may be a stupid question, but it is the two disinterested parties that I am concerned about. The paperwork says that one of them can be the Notary. Does the other have to be someone who knows you? Coordinating a time that DH and I can both get there is one thing and if we have to arrange for a third person (the second witness) is going to make it more difficult. I am hoping that both witnesses can be from the notary office. Does anyone know if this is the case? Thanks!