People need to stop complaining!

[gr8tdame]

I think we all should be complaining.
According To the 2015 Florida Statutes re incidentals section 721.075
Disney has not terminated incidental benefits so the clause in the contract means nothing. They have simply decided to terminate incidental benefits to a select group.
Under Florida Law Disney no longer has the right to terminate benefits to all members without giving compensation.

 

[gr8tdame]

2) I think those who are stuck with their contracts that have already been submitted to ROFR have a right to complain, but not about their loss of perks. The biggest thing that was taken away from them was their CHOICE. Had they known that they would not be eligible for the perks if they bought resale, they could have factored that into their decision. Perhaps, they would have opted to buy direct instead which would have been to DVD's benefit. By making this change without announcement or grace period, DVD effectively took away their choice. Yes, it has been well-documented that the perks can change at any time, but when you make a decision to buy and get locked into a contract, the terms that were in place when you signed that contract should apply. I don't know if this is anything like a bait and switch, and I'm sure it's perfectly legal...but it's still really underhanded for Disney to do it this way.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The fact that I was not given a choice or informed that As a purchaser I would be in a new subgroup is what angers and upsets me.
Perks or incidentals are not contractual but if they were a material consideration to the negotiations, then as a matter of law, the contract may be rescinded. The legal issue is RELIANCE and whether that reliance was and is material.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

If you haven't purchased yet, you do have choices. You have the choice not to purchase. You have the choice to spend more to purchase direct and get the perks.

Those who are caught in limbo are the ones who haven't got a choice unless they can be let out of their contracts. Because they are not buying from Disney, that isn't up to Disney. They will need to take it up with the seller or broker. Personally I think the sellers/brokers should let them out. I'm not a property lawyer though.

The other option is for Disney to make an exception for contracts in the process of being purchased and allow them the perks, instead of making it adhere to those who closed prior to April 3. That would be something Disney can be asked to do. Whether they can do it or not, probably a lawyer who knows about property contracts would know more.

 

[DisDadDVC]

Two comments I have....

1) I bought resale in 2008 at AKV. To make a long story short, I actually paid MORE for my RESALE contract than what it would have cost me to buy from Disney direct...yes, you read that correctly...I paid MORE for RESALE. So, I do not agree with those who say "I bought direct and I paid more so I deserve more". How much you paid for your contract should have no bearing on the level of benefits you receive. In my opinion, a member is a member, whether they bought direct, bought resale, received it as an inheritance or won it in a contest.

2) I think those who are stuck with their contracts that have already been submitted to ROFR have a right to complain, but not about their loss of perks. The biggest thing that was taken away from them was their CHOICE. Had they known that they would not be eligible for the perks if they bought resale, they could have factored that into their decision. Perhaps, they would have opted to buy direct instead which would have been to DVD's benefit. By making this change without announcement or grace period, DVD effectively took away their choice. Yes, it has been well-documented that the perks can change at any time, but when you make a decision to buy and get locked into a contract, the terms that were in place when you signed that contract should apply. I don't know if this is anything like a bait and switch, and I'm sure it's perfectly legal...but it's still really underhanded for Disney to do it this way.

They did know and should have factored it in. If they didn't then they didn't do their due diligence.

 

[LAMickey14]

YES.

If someone started calling the head of DVC Hitler then that's going a bit too far. But using a very good quote, that started from that situation, and applying it to other times when people might consider coming out of their bubble to empathize with, or help, others, isn't indecent at all.



Yes, we get that.

But I'm in the same situation as you, and I *can* see why I should be outraged. And since we aren't affected, in a big way, our outrage might be heard more. We are outraged (sorry I keep using "we"...don't include yourself in that since you aren't outraged) in a general, philosophical sense.

As I said in another thread, I would rather them take it ALL away from ALL of us rather than create this tiered system.

But I don't want them to take things away; they are taking away too much already. As a direct owner I don't have a single problem with resale people getting the same stuff I get. Current resale people are buying at higher rates than original DVC owners, after all. I can't remember what the points cost was that we ended up with, but I'm sure there are some resale buyers who ended up higher than even we did.

So I really don't want to get into a "I paid more than that guy" thing, because at some point I'll be the lower-cost one.

And lets not forget resales have shorter contracts, resale is not that great iof a deal.

 

[vnovabri]

And lets not forget resales have shorter contracts, resale is not that great iof a deal.

The contract length is dictated by the property, not whether they are resale or direct sale. For example, the contract length for BLT is always the same period of time regardless of where it is purchased. I bought resale knowing the risks of losing some benefits, but the savings of resale outweigh the cost of buying direct with benefits...people just want to have their cake and eat it too. The only people I feel like can be even a little upset are the ones in between an offer and closing, everyone else needs to calm down.

 

[lovin'fl]

Two comments I have....

1) I bought resale in 2008 at AKV. To make a long story short, I actually paid MORE for my RESALE contract than what it would have cost me to buy from Disney direct...yes, you read that correctly...I paid MORE for RESALE. So, I do not agree with those who say "I bought direct and I paid more so I deserve more". How much you paid for your contract should have no bearing on the level of benefits you receive. In my opinion, a member is a member, whether they bought direct, bought resale, received it as an inheritance or won it in a contest.

2) I think those who are stuck with their contracts that have already been submitted to ROFR have a right to complain, but not about their loss of perks. The biggest thing that was taken away from them was their CHOICE. Had they known that they would not be eligible for the perks if they bought resale, they could have factored that into their decision. Perhaps, they would have opted to buy direct instead which would have been to DVD's benefit. By making this change without announcement or grace period, DVD effectively took away their choice. Yes, it has been well-documented that the perks can change at any time, but when you make a decision to buy and get locked into a contract, the terms that were in place when you signed that contract should apply. I don't know if this is anything like a bait and switch, and I'm sure it's perfectly legal...but it's still really underhanded for Disney to do it this way.

I agree with everything you said. I will also add in your #1) that folks have had choices on buying direct or resale so those who bought direct recently, then complain that the resales shouldn't get all the perks that they get because they paid more...well they had a choice to buy direct...everything that is sold direct- at those crazy high prices- can be bought for less on the resale market. And they did get more than resales (they get all the stuff the 2011 restrictions took away from resales).

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

And lets not forget resales have shorter contracts, resale is not that great iof a deal.

Resales do not have shorter contracts. It's a determination on the resort end date so even if one bought that resort direct it would be the same end date. OKW is the odd ball because not everyone extended although the extended contracts are also available resale but if you buy direct you'll be sold the extended.

 

[Miffy]

Has anyone else noticed the irony here? Complaining about complaints!

 

[DisDadDVC]

Has anyone else noticed the irony here? Complaining about complaints!

And then people complaining about the complaints about complaints....

 

[Mo Disney plz]

You being mad at a savvy shopper is ridiculous!!! Be mad at Disney for allowing the loop hole in the first place. Me, I will ride my pre-2011 resale wave til the end. I will look back and smugly smile for staying cool and choosing my investment wisely.

 

[jrmint2]

So, you are a brand new member whose entire post history consists of complaining about people who are upset with this change? Come on, you can tell us, your husband works for DVC or you are paid to post this tripe?

Kind of silly complaining about people complaining.

I bought resale, but am in the grandfathered class. Should any benefits be taken from me retroactively, I will press the state for an audit of the books to ensure my dues are in no way going to cover any of these "benefits" (the member parties and welcome home events in particular). I sincerely doubt they want to cross that line because it would be very difficult to defend their position should this end up being the case. I think this is why the TOTWL access was not included in the benefits reduction as that would be a bright line violation considering it is part of the property and segregating the expenses would be very difficult. As a former Big 5 auditor ready to retire to Florida I would even volunteer to assist in the audit just for something to do.

I wonder if there is a basis for a class action lawsuit? Disney discrimination?

 

[southerngirl528]

I wonder if there is a basis for a class action lawsuit? Disney discrimination?

You're kidding, right? I'd love to sit back and watch someone try that one. (well not really. I don't like unhappy endings and that's what it would be for the plaintiff)

 

[jrmint2]

You're kidding, right? I'd love to sit back and watch someone try that one. (well not really. I don't like unhappy endings and that's what it would be for the plaintiff)

No, I'm not. The publicity would really hurt their image, its a tactic.

 

[robinb]

You're kidding, right? I'd love to sit back and watch someone try that one. (well not really. I don't like unhappy endings and that's what it would be for the plaintiff)

There's a class action lawsuit brought by Patriots fans over Deflategate. Anything can happen.

 

[jedcaum]

Dear Prudence!

 

[LAMickey14]

Resales do not have shorter contracts. It's a determination on the resort end date so even if one bought that resort direct it would be the same end date. OKW is the odd ball because not everyone extended although the extended contracts are also available resale but if you buy direct you'll be sold the extended.

The resale is a used contract that is sold with less years left , the original owner ex might have had a contract for 50 yrs, kept it for 15 then sold it, that would leave 35 yrs on the contract , yes it is less years for the second owner. Each to his own but used is used

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The resale is a used contract that is sold with less years left , the original owner ex might have had a contract for 50 yrs, kept it for 15 then sold it, that would leave 35 yrs on the contract , yes it is less years for the second owner. Each to his own but used is used

And lets not forget resales have shorter contracts, resale is not that great iof a deal.

What you wrote was that resale had shorter years. That implied that direct has more and that's an incorrect statement since DVC still sells the all resorts direct and they will have the same number of years as resale (caveat OKW). If you look at Aulani and PVB neither of them are at the full 50 years either. And not all resorts even got 50 years to start out with. It sounds like what you may have meant is that the earlier resorts have few years remaining than the newer resorts and that is true but it doesn't mean they aren't that great of a deal just because they have fewer years left. To some it may mean it's not the best deal for them but there are still lots of things that make them good deals including much lower prices than PVB and Aulani.

 

[Supplanter]

Please don't flame me - I am just trying to understand. Really. I am not an owner.

If you buy resale, you probably paid significantly less than a direct purchase? So shouldn't you have less perks? You got the ultimate perk - you saved a whole lot of money?

But Disney already got paid in total for the time share. Resale Buyers pay the exact same fees. Why should they get less perks?

Why should Disney care about how much someone sells their interest for? What if I want to sell it to a friend for almost nothing? Why should that transfer result in diminished benefits? Why would it be any different if I'm not close friends, or if I don't know the person at all?
Disney has already been paid to provide these services, they aren't offering any discount on resale fees. I don't see any reason they should diminish because of a change in ownership

 

[Brian Noble]

Resale Buyers pay the exact same fees. Why should they get less perks?

The annual dues paid by resale owners cover the operation and upkeep of the resorts, and that is managed by DVCMC, the management company. The perks are paid for by DVD, Disney Vacation Development---the arm of the company that builds and sells DVC resorts. They two are separate entities. So, your annual dues are not paying for any of those perks---those perks are paid for out of sales proceeds of new DVC contracts purchased from Disney.

Furthermore, the existence of a resale market provides competition for purchases from DVD. Therefore, it is in DVD's interest to create incentives for people to buy retail rather than resale.

Florida law requires that the terms of these benefits be disclosed to those who buy from Disney. The old disclosure guide, reflecting the 2011 changes, can be found here:
https://disneyvacationclub.disney.g...erbenefitsguide/MembeBenefitsGuide_011811.pdf

That disclosure guide makes it clear that DVD is the one paying for these benefits, and also states that the value of the benefits is no more than 15% of the purchase price (and I expect it is quite less in practice). The money quote in that disclosure guide is (in all caps and the final sentence underlined):

INCIDENTAL BENEFITS MAY NOT BE HYPOTHECATED, BOUGHT, SOLD, EXCHANGED, RENTED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED, EXCEPT UPON WRITTEN APPROVAL OF DVD, AND ARE SOLELY FOR YOUR BENEFIT AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOUR ASSIGNS OR SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST. IF YOU SELL YOUR OWNERSHIP INTEREST, INCIDENTAL BENEFITS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFER TO YOUR BUYER. THE AVAILABILITY OF INCIDENTAL BENEFITS MAY OR MAY NOT BE RENEWED OR EXTENDED TO SUCH ASSIGNS OR SUCCESSORS-IN INTEREST. DVD RESERVES THE RIGHT, IN ITS SOLE, ABSOLUTE AND UNFETTERED DISCRETION, TO ELECT TO PERMIT TRANSFER OF ANY ONE OR MORE INCIDENTAL BENEFITS, AND, IF IT DOES SO, MAY REQUIRE PAYMENT OF FEES AND/OR CHARGES AS A CONDITION TO TRANSFER.​

DO NOT PURCHASE YOUR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN RELIANCE ON YOUR ABILITY TO TRANSFER THESE BENEFITS IF YOU SELL YOUR OWNERSHIP INTEREST. ​

I'm going to assume (but do not know) that a similar statement existed in the disclosure guide prior to the 2011 changes.

The new, post-4/4 disclosure guide has very similar language:
https://disneyvacationclub.disney.g...formembers/memberbenefitsguide/MEADSFinal.pdf