"Owning" DVC?

[J-Dog]

I guess I'm both checking my understanding and am curious how this term even came into vogue. DVC marketing? DVC member misunderstanding of deeds vs ownership? DVC members inflating their equity interests in Disney? It's just a very odd term to use. I find it hilarious that this term is now the normal vernacular.

Carol, You left out one VERY important paragraph that preceded that one:
Right below WITNESSETH:, your DEED should say:

DVD, for and in the consideration of $10.00 and other goods and valuable consideration to it paid by the Purchaser, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and release, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and release unto the Purchaser, the interest in real property (the 'Ownership Interest,' as that interest in real property is further defined in the Declaration of Condominium described below) more fully described as follows:

An undivided .xxx interest.....

Clearly, the OP's reason for starting this thread was to make a condescending point about DVC owners, that has been definitively proven wrong.

Whether or not the DVC contract is legally correct or not is not of consequence - if DVC states that we have an ownership interest, then we aren't "misunderstanding" the use of the word as it is written.

 

[wfjny]

Not sure if it works in the same way in USA, but one of the biggest cultural shock I had moving to the UK is how the real estate market works. Almost the totality of flats are sold ad "leasehold", which means someone buying a flat "owns" it only until the lease expired, usually 125 years. It seams madness to me that after paying London prices (one of the craziest market in the world) for a flat, you don't even own it in perpetuity. 125 years might seem a lot, but banks don't give mortgages if less than 80 years remain, so your child might already have problems selling it. There are laws now that grant the right to renew the lease, but it's an additional expense and it's not cheap. And even some "freehold" houses might have to pay a ground rent fee yearly, forever.
A 50 years lease on a timeshare doesn't feel that crazy after this.

In the US, a little different. You purchase your home, and the accompanying land. You now own it. The local government does charge you taxes on that land and on the value of your home. Those taxes vary greatly from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction. A similar sized home on Long Island, NY may pay ten times as much taxes as someone in rural South Carolina. We have friends that are looking to move, and their taxes on their home in NY is about $15,000 a year. The same sized home in Rural SC had a tax rate of just under $1000 a year.

If you do not pay your mortgage, the bank can foreclose. If you do not pay your taxes, the government can eventually take your home and land. There are many people who have had the land and/or home in their family for generations. We have friends that have 17 acres of land, which was basically half of the 35 acres that their father owned, which had been passed down to him from his father. I think the land and the family goes back about 150 years. While the two sisters had split the 35 acres, the other sister sold it to someone else 20 years ago, otherwise all the land would still be in the family...

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Holy smokes, we went from being property owners to leasehold members, and now on to union organizers all in the course of one thread. This is a fun discussion. If we get to paint BLT purple and throw a Figment statue on the top, then I am all in!

Ownership interest in a leasehold condominium

You are still an owner, you just don't own the same thing.....

 

[beamreach]

Clearly, the OP's reason for starting this thread was to make a condescending point about DVC owners, that has been definitively proven wrong.

Whether or not the DVC contract is legally correct or not is not of consequence - if DVC states that we have an ownership interest, then we aren't "misunderstanding" the use of the word as it is written.

Well, the discussion has been fruitful, since we now know we actually "own" leaseholds. This is very different from tradition timeshare ownership or other real estate ownership more generally. I think it's important for any prospective new members to have a full understanding of what they are joining. Ideas of "ownership" can certainly be misunderstood, as evidenced by the current discussion...whether it is of interest is personal opinion but I believe folks do want to know exactly what they own.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

In the US, a little different. You purchase your home, and the accompanying land. You now own it. The local government does charge you taxes on that land and on the value of your home. Those taxes vary greatly from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction. A similar sized home on Long Island, NY may pay ten times as much taxes as someone in rural South Carolina. We have friends that are looking to move, and their taxes on their home in NY is about $15,000 a year. The same sized home in Rural SC had a tax rate of just under $1000 a year.

If you do not pay your mortgage, the bank can foreclose. If you do not pay your taxes, the government can eventually take your home and land. There are many people who have had the land and/or home in their family for generations. We have friends that have 17 acres of land, which was basically half of the 35 acres that their father owned, which had been passed down to him from his father. I think the land and the family goes back about 150 years. While the two sisters had split the 35 acres, the other sister sold it to someone else 20 years ago, otherwise all the land would still be in the family...

That assumes you are talking about a single family home. You could purchase in an apartment building in which case you don't own the land, the exterior walls or your roof

 

[Robbie Cottam]

An incentivized union could coordinate voting readily. Members could exercise their ownership control (on the leasehold) on important issues. Could just start with the biggest issue at hand (whatever that is) and use that as a case study...

Ok I'm bored, I'l jump down this rabbit whole with you.

Hypothetically!

Unit 4B At Disney Bay Lake Tower is comprised of 19,640 vacation points. I got the number number by using a 100 point contract of .5092% interest. I have no way of knowing if that is a one bedroom studio two bedroom Grand Etc..... Nor do I care for the sake of this academic hypothetical case study.

Assuming that SandiSW is correct, and I have no reason to believe that she is not, a 60.0001 percent control interest in that until would be 11786 vacation points. No one person can own or control that many DVC points I believe the maximum any one person may own is 7000 points, but I maybe wrong. So two people would have to own each unit. 5600 points each. BLT on the resale market is $175 dollars per point. So for controlling interest in a single unit, in this highly over simplified Hypothetical you or coordination group would need to spend $2,062,550

I believe there are 281 units. assuming you need a simple majority of those units and all units contain the same 19,640 vacation points you would need to control 141 units at a total cost of $290,819,550. As an owner or with the help of enough owners it is possible to control a DVC resort.... Is it likely NO!

If you want to control a DVC resort there are easier and cheaper ways to do it.
Also before you ever got control, DVC would exercise the ROFR on ever single contract you try and purchase regardless of price.

Again, my initial post was to prove the difference between an ownership interest and a leasee interest.
I in no way think this is practical and I think it is highly improbable, but if you succeed, since it was my idea can I pick the purple I want?

Good luck

 

[beamreach]

Ok I'm bored, I'l jump down this rabbit whole with you.

Hypothetically!

Unit 4B At Disney Bay Lake Tower is comprised of 19,640 vacation points. I got the number number by using a 100 point contract of .5092% interest. I have no way of knowing if that is a one bedroom studio two bedroom Grand Etc..... Nor do I care for the sake of this academic hypothetical case study.

Assuming that SandiSW is correct, and I have no reason to believe that she is not, a 60.0001 percent control interest in that until would be 11786 vacation points. No one person can own or control that many DVC points I believe the maximum any one person may own is 7000 points, but I maybe wrong. So two people would have to own each unit. 5600 points each. BLT on the resale market is $175 dollars per point. So for controlling interest in a single unit, in this highly over simplified Hypothetical you or coordination group would need to spend $2,062,550

I believe there are 281 units. assuming you need a simple majority of those units and all units contain the same 19,640 vacation points you would need to control 141 units at a total cost of $290,819,550. As an owner or with the help of enough owners it is possible to control a DVC resort.... Is it likely NO!

If you want to control a DVC resort there are easier and cheaper ways to do it.
Also before you ever got control, DVC would exercise the ROFR on ever single contract you try and purchase regardless of price.

Again, my initial post was to prove the difference between an ownership interest and a leasee interest.
I in no way think this is practical and I think it is highly improbable, but if you succeed, since it was my idea can I pick the purple I want?

Good luck

coordinating members who have those points already seems like a much better option than acquiring those points yourself...if the issue is important enough, build it and they will come

 

[Robbie Cottam]

coordinating members who have those points already seems like a much better option than acquiring those points yourself...if the issue is important enough, build it and they will come

ok do it that way, we can't seem to get enough people to agree on what type of owner ship we have....
You want the same people to handle important issues?

Good luck

 

[Sandisw]

An incentivized union could coordinate voting readily. Members could exercise their ownership control (on the leasehold) on important issues. Could just start with the biggest issue at hand (whatever that is) and use that as a case study...

Based on the terms of the POS? Not sure that is possible. Again, we all go into this with eyes wide open...or should...and we know how, as owners, we can have a louder say in who the management company is (DVC) and what other decisions that Board of Directors of each association make.

And, as I mentioned, each unit gets one vote. So, even if an owner can find all the other owners of their specific unit, and at least 60% of the owners in that unit agree to want the representative to vote a certain way, every other unit of owners has to do the same thing. What may be an issue for you, may not be for me. And, for all we know, the 60% owners of each unit, may decide to vote the exact same way as the representative would have anyway. Not an easy task to get things changed..

 

[beamreach]

ok do it that way, we can't seem to get enough people to agree on what type of owner ship we have....
You want the same people to handle important issues?

Good luck

great point! hahaha. so true. DVC is a great case study in existentialism. genius DVC marketing to get actual people to exchange actual money for an entity no one can explain.

 

[Sandisw]

great point! hahaha. so true. DVC is a great case study in existentialism. genius DVC marketing to get actual people to exchange actual money for an entity no one can explain.

I think its been explained quite well...just that some view it differently than others.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I guess I'm both checking my understanding and am curious how this term even came into vogue. DVC marketing? DVC member misunderstanding of deeds vs ownership? DVC members inflating their equity interests in Disney? It's just a very odd term to use. I find it hilarious that this term is now the normal vernacular.

It's not a misunderstanding. You own it.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

this horse is done....

 

[wfjny]

That assumes you are talking about a single family home. You could purchase in an apartment building in which case you don't own the land, the exterior walls or your roof

Quite true. Yes, I was thinking of the example of a single family home.

There are many other property types to own, and many ways to do it. I always found the British system interesting for all the reasons mentioned before.

 

[DarthDadMan]

Well... that was an interestingly bitter and regretful read... Can't just wing DVC. Nor can you pin it on marketing. Too big of investment to not understand what you're getting yourself into. Hopefully you'll come to love it though... and if not, sell your contract and move on. That's the beauty of DVC "ownership", there's always a buyer.

 

[DonMacGregor]

great point! hahaha. so true. DVC is a great case study in existentialism. genius DVC marketing to get actual people to exchange actual money for an entity no one can explain.

Or simply one that some can't understand...

 

[Robbie Cottam]

great point! hahaha. so true. DVC is a great case study in existentialism. genius DVC marketing to get actual people to exchange actual money for an entity no one can explain.

I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

I not only understand it, I explained it to you, the rest is up to you and I think I can safely say we are all pulling for you!

 

[BamaGuy44]

great point! hahaha. so true. DVC is a great case study in existentialism. genius DVC marketing to get actual people to exchange actual money for an entity no one can explain.

And yet you found it “hilarious” that people considered it ownership, as if it were so obvious and easy to understand you were amazed you needed to explain it to us. Which is it?

 

[DonMacGregor]

Because you agree to buy it and gratuitous transfer it back to Disney in the end…or, like them being a beneficiary of your estate.

Just not sure how giving it back equates to not owning it since if I sell it before hand, I didn’t give it back to them.

I lease cars as well but I can’t sell it to anyone else during the terms of it. Because I don’t own it.. I don’t get title to it.

Probably the best explanation given so far.

 

[beamreach]

And yet you found it “hilarious” that people considered it ownership, as if it were so obvious and easy to understand you were amazed you needed to explain it to us. Which is it?

It's both, not mutually exclusive. Can both find it hilarious members claim Disney ownership (which clearly isn't the case), but truly be confused about the specifics of something that is like a timeshare but really condo leasehold.