Older Studios Changing from 4 to 5 People

[OKW Lover]

Wow, did not think of that one.

Like I said, I would really like to see the data of how many owners wanted this arrangement. I bet more of the units sit unopened each night, while the majority of us have to look at and walk around that awkward thing.

Laura

I'm not aware of any poll of the owners concerning sleeper chairs. I'm sure there were "focus groups" consulted, but I don't think there was any wide-scale effort there.

If the chair is unopened, walking around it isn't a big issue. Its just a large chair.

 

[LisaS]

If the chair is unopened, walking around it isn't a big issue. Its just a large chair.

I think LauraLea is referring to the new camper-style fold-down table that juts out into the middle of the room in the studios being retrofitted to sleep five. The placement of the table reduces the open space between the end of the bed and what used to be a dresser but will now be a drop-down bed with a table bolted to the front. And with the table positioned right in front of the TV, I imagine it's a bit awkward to watch TV while sitting at the table unless you move the chair around, completely blocking the walkway at the foot of the bed.

 

[WelcomeHome]

I'm not sure what the actual policy is because I've never tried it, but doesn't DVC allow a 5th person in a 1 bedroom provided you supply your own bedding? What is DVC's current policy on this - can you legally register 5 people in a 1 bedroom with magic bands (and dining plan if desired) included????

Thanks in advance for an answer to this question.

Best wishes,
Dave

 

[Dean]

My personal view is they shouldn't change them and that if anyone challenged it legally, they would likely win the challenge in the absence of a vote of the actual membership. But as long as they stick to a standard of some type it's not that big of a deal to me. Years ago they did not stick to a standard but sometime around the early 2000 they became more formal with their enforcement. The only issue of late has been the computer allowing 5 in all 1 BR units plus one under 3 rather than fixing the computer program as it relates to different resorts.

 

[OKW Lover]

My personal view is they shouldn't change them and that if anyone challenged it legally, they would likely win the challenge in the absence of a vote of the actual membership.

Dean, the rules for the DVC operation do not require a vote of the actual membership for any change. At the time any of us buy into DVC, we ceed our voting rights to Disney Vacation Development (DVD). DVD votes on our behalf for any issue that does require a vote of the membership.

 

[LSchrow]

I am personally very disappointed to see the table / pull down bed combination come to the BWV. For a couple, it makes the studios much less comfortable..

ITA
imho, 4 people in a studio is waaaaay too crowded, 5 would be like squeezing into a circus clown car
& what of the laundry facilities? the 3 washers & 2 dryers won't be nearly enough if studios go to 5ppl.

less room in villa, more wear & tear (extremely close quarters tends to mean more scrapes, dents; heavier use of facilities & amenities)....sounds more like a hostel than a resort.
I know DVC/DVD has neither a need nor want to listen to me personally , but methinks they should (a) only convert a portion of studios, and charge a bit more points on those 5 occupant rooms, or (b) add a - small - surcharge for more than 4.
then, those with 5 in a studio will at least pay for a portion of the higher occupancy costs, rather than the increased usage & maintenance being passed onto all owners at a resort.

 

[Dean]

Dean, the rules for the DVC operation do not require a vote of the actual membership for any change. At the time any of us buy into DVC, we ceed our voting rights to Disney Vacation Development (DVD). DVD votes on our behalf for any issue that does require a vote of the membership.

There are things that can be changed without a vote of the membership and things that cannot. IMO this is hard coded info that can not be legally changed without the vote of the membership. In addition, I don't believe it hasn't been legally changed, they are currently outside the legal documents for OKW & VWL IMO. In fact it may not be able to be changed at all legally with the state at all.

 

[HookdonWDW]

There are things that can be changed without a vote of the membership and things that cannot. IMO this is hard coded info that can not be legally changed without the vote of the membership. In addition, I don't believe it hasn't been legally changed, they are currently outside the legal documents for OKW & VWL IMO. In fact it may not be able to be changed at all legally with the state at all.

Dean, I'm glad to see you posting this, and that is what my thoughts were as well. We're not talking about something minor like changing the wall color or style of furniture. We're talking about something that substantially changes the product that was purchased, and potentially, the ownership costs of that product. I just don't see how this can be done in the manner it was put through.

Of course, until someone challenges it, DVD will do as they please. But to say that they can do anything they want doesn't pass the common sense rule. What if they figured out a way to accomodate 15 in a 2 BR by turning them into a 3 connecting studio configuration (ala Poly) because "that's what the people want"? That's not what I bought. It's not what I want. And I don't see how you can legally force it down my throat, regardless of how many people now want it.

 

[RobDoc]

IMO, our documents do describe what can only be be changed by a member vote and everything else may be changed by DVD without consult of the owners.

There is a specific format should owners at any resort desire to remove DVC as the managing entity - and should that be the decision voted on by the members, that resort would be removed from DVC and then need to find new management (which would include a means to make reservations, maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, transportation, discounts, etc., etc., etc.).

There is no mention in the documents regarding adding furniture (which, in return could increase the allowed occupancy). Occupancy is based solely on the number (and size) of the beds provided. It is not decided by fire code, even though we see that often mentioned as a requirement.

Certainly increasing occupancy would have a negative effect on maintenance, but I find no suggestion in my documents that indicates a vote by owners is required to modify occupancy or furnishings. My understanding is that unless it is specifically allowed by the documents, we (as owners) have relinquished the right to have a say in any other components of the DVC program - leaving those issues up to DVD/DVC via annual and special meetings of those organizations.

Personally, I would like to see owner positions on the DVC Board of Directors so that some ownership voice could be heard, but that is not going to happen either - as the makeup of the Board is not an owner decision as described in the documents.

$0.02

 

[OKW Lover]

Thanks for the research Doc. Its been a really long time since I've gone back and re-read my documents but what you summarized exactly coincides with my recollection.

It sounds to me like DVC/DVD is operating entirely within the contract. As such, we can make our opinions known but have no other choice. Oh, I guess selling is another choice, but how many would do that?

 

[Dean]

My understanding for timeshares in FL and most states is that for changes to be allowed, they must be written in to the documents. Therefore they must be allowed by the legal documents, not precluded. Put another way, if it can't be justified from the documents, an item would be precluded. That's not to say an item has to be spelled out per se but there must be wording one could point to so as to justify such an action if one were in a court or legal proceeding. In this situation I don't believe there is. As for requiring a member vote, anything not specifically allowed that is adverse to the general membership would require such vote. In this case there really are 2 issues. First, can the occupancy be changed at all. Then if it can be, could it be changed unilaterally. My thoughts are that I'm not sure on the first but my first suspicion is it cannot be legally changed. On the second, I don't see anything in the POS and related documents that would allow such a change therefore I'd hold that it would require a vote since I see this as adverse to the membership as a whole. If this were debate club and I were given the job of defending this item, I'd do so under the reservation allowance and the argument that it isn't averse to the general membership but I honestly don't think either would hold up. As noted previously, in the absence of a legal challenge, we're just discussing it.

 

[RobDoc]

My understanding for timeshares in FL and most states is that for changes to be allowed, they must be written in to the documents. Therefore they must be allowed by the legal documents, not precluded. Put another way, if it can't be justified from the documents, an item would be precluded. That's not to say an item has to be spelled out per se but there must be wording one could point to so as to justify such an action if one were in a court or legal proceeding. In this situation I don't believe there is. As for requiring a member vote, anything not specifically allowed that is adverse to the general membership would require such vote. In this case there really are 2 issues. First, can the occupancy be changed at all. Then if it can be, could it be changed unilaterally. My thoughts are that I'm not sure on the first but my first suspicion is it cannot be legally changed. On the second, I don't see anything in the POS and related documents that would allow such a change therefore I'd hold that it would require a vote since I see this as adverse to the membership as a whole. If this were debate club and I were given the job of defending this item, I'd do so under the reservation allowance and the argument that it isn't averse to the general membership but I honestly don't think either would hold up. As noted previously, in the absence of a legal challenge, we're just discussing it.

DVC already has over 22 years of history allowing more than the stated occupancy so this is no change from that at all. Had someone challenged that unwritten allowance they might have successfully argued that it should not be allowed, but with the history of allowing the practice I don't see there is any argument against at this time.

I suspect in this case if there were to be a vote of all members, the result of the vote would be to allow the higher limits (thus the reason for the reported configuration at the next DVC resort). I also feel that this ship has already sailed and the true chance for disagreement passed long ago.

 

[Dean]

DVC already has over 22 years of history allowing more than the stated occupancy so this is no change from that at all. Had someone challenged that unwritten allowance they might have successfully argued that it should not be allowed, but with the history of allowing the practice I don't see there is any argument against at this time.

I suspect in this case if there were to be a vote of all members, the result of the vote would be to allow the higher limits (thus the reason for the reported configuration at the next DVC resort). I also feel that this ship has already sailed and the true chance for disagreement passed long ago.

Maybe, I am aware of the principle though I'm not sure it applies here when you're talking the big company vs the individual as well as the fact they've never published the long standing flexibility (not really changes) you reference. However, there are changes related to occupancy issues that have occurred more recently opening the door even if one took that position.

 

[wdrl]

My understanding for timeshares in FL and most states is that for changes to be allowed, they must be written in to the documents. Therefore they must be allowed by the legal documents, not precluded. Put another way, if it can't be justified from the documents, an item would be precluded. That's not to say an item has to be spelled out per se but there must be wording one could point to so as to justify such an action if one were in a court or legal proceeding. In this situation I don't believe there is.

I think DVC has a lot of latitude when it comes to modifying the rules and regulations of the condominium associations. The Preamble to the Declaration of Condominium contains the following section:

12.7 Condominium Rules and Regulations. Reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use of Condominium Property may be promulgated and amended from time to time by the Board in the manner provided by its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. A copy of the initial Condominium Rules and Regulations is attached as Exhibit “E”. ​

Under Section 12.7, if someone wanted to challenge DVC's right to establish or change rules and regulations about the use of the Condominium Property, that person would have to establish that a change is unreasonable. In fact, the person would probably have to show that the change is not just unreasonable but actually onerous, which would be an even greater burden of proof to overcome.

Although reasonable people can disagree whether five guests should occupy a studio, it is extremely difficult to argue that having five guests in a studio is onerous to the Membership at large.

 

[RobDoc]

I think DVC has a lot of latitude when it comes to modifying the rules and regulations of the condominium associations. The Preamble to the Declaration of Condominium contains the following section:

12.7 Condominium Rules and Regulations. Reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use of Condominium Property may be promulgated and amended from time to time by the Board in the manner provided by its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. A copy of the initial Condominium Rules and Regulations is attached as Exhibit “E”. ​

Under Section 12.7, if someone wanted to challenge DVC's right to establish or change rules and regulations about the use of the Condominium Property, that person would have to establish that a change is unreasonable. In fact, the person would probably have to show that the change is not just unreasonable but actually onerous, which would be an even greater burden of proof to overcome.

Although reasonable people can disagree whether five guests should occupy a studio, it is extremely difficult to argue that having five guests in a studio is onerous to the Membership at large.

Thanks for that research.

Under Exhibit "10" to the Public Offering Statement - Overview of Vacation Ownership Plan - XI Control:

"DVD retains the right to control the Association even after a majority of the Ownership Interests have been sold. DVD will be authorized to cast the vote for a given Unit at Association meetings in whatever manner it deems appropriate unless it is otherwise unless it is otherwise instructed in writing in advance of such meetings by the owners of 60% of the Ownership Interests in that Unit. This authority extends to the election of the Board of Directors of the Association, as well as to other matters. At least 60% of the Ownership Interests in at least a majority of Units would be required for the Owners to exercise any significant control over the Association. Therefore, as a practical matter, the owners of Ownership Interests in the Units of the Condominium will probably be unable to remove DVD from control of the Association throughout the term of the Condominium.

Pursuant to Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, DVC cannot be removed as manager of the Condominium except by the vote of of seventy-five percent (75%) of the voting representatives of all of the Units present at a meeting of the Association called for that purpose where the Owners other than DVD have assumed control of the Association, or where Owners other than DVD own not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the voting interests in the Condominium. Because DVD is the designated voting cotenant of each Unit and can only be removed as such by the vote of sixty percent (60%) of Owners in each Unit, as a practical matter, Owners will have difficulty in accumulating sufficient votes to terminate DVC as the manager of the Condominium in this manner. Pursuant to Chapter 721, Florida Statutes, DVC may be removed as the manager of the Condominium if at least sixty-six percent (66%) of the Purchasers voting, which shall be at least fifty percent (50%) of all votes allocated to Purchasers, vote to discharge DVC. In the event DVC is terminated as the manager of the Condominium, the contract for the management of Club Member's use rights among the Condominium and other DVC Resorts, if any, will automatically terminate. Such termination would sever the relationships between the Condominium and other DVC Resorts and limit use to accommodations then within the Condominiums."

It would seem that the remedy to address any change in occupancy (and most other operating decisions at the DVC Resorts) may need to be affected by the elimination of DVC as the manager by vote of 66% of the owners (and would not want the consequences of removing DVC as manager since there are other negatives associated with that move also spelled out in the POS).

 

[CarolMN]

Would a large increase in dues be onerous or in the best interest of the membership overall?

I remember a pretty big flap a few years back in which someone challenged the calculation of transportation costs. As I recall, it turned out that the cost of the boat transportation for the EPCOT resorts was divided by 3. BC/YC/BCV paid 1/3, BWI/BWV paid 1/3 and the Swan/Dolphin paid 1/3.

Each 1/3 share was proportionately divided between the resorts utilizing the dock and the proportion was calculated based on the average occupancy of the resort. BWV paid much more than the BWI due to the higher occupancy.

I also remember that as a result of the "challenge", the dues for the BCV ended up higher, but don't remember exactly why. I just remember being surprised at how the costs were shared and the fact the DVC owners paid such a high proportion relative to the non-DVC resorts (IMO).

Anyway, if the "5 in a studio" remodel increases the average DVC resort occupancy, it's my opinion that dues will increase as a result of DVC owners needing to pay for a higher proportion of the shared amenities. That isn't something I could have predicted when I purchased.

It wouldn't bother me so much if they could increase the sleeping capacity without the stupid piece of furniture that combines the pull down bed, the table and also holds the TV. So you can only use one of the three at the same time. How is that better?

P.S. I'm sure Disney can make the change. I just really, really don't like the way they are going about it.

 

[Dean]

I think DVC has a lot of latitude when it comes to modifying the rules and regulations of the condominium associations. The Preamble to the Declaration of Condominium contains the following section:

12.7 Condominium Rules and Regulations. Reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use of Condominium Property may be promulgated and amended from time to time by the Board in the manner provided by its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. A copy of the initial Condominium Rules and Regulations is attached as Exhibit “E”. ​

Under Section 12.7, if someone wanted to challenge DVC's right to establish or change rules and regulations about the use of the Condominium Property, that person would have to establish that a change is unreasonable. In fact, the person would probably have to show that the change is not just unreasonable but actually onerous, which would be an even greater burden of proof to overcome.

Although reasonable people can disagree whether five guests should occupy a studio, it is extremely difficult to argue that having five guests in a studio is onerous to the Membership at large.

I wouldn't agree that occupancy comes under this section personally but I could see how some would think so. In the situation being discussed there is a real and generalized cost issue that would affect every owner monetarily as well as affecting parking, pool crowding, etc. Personally I'm not as worried about the occupancy as much as that they are consistent but it's an interesting topic to me. Historically they were not at all consistent up until around 2000-2001 and have been so until the last couple of years.