Reaching blue card status across different memberships/UY

[pianomanzano]

Currently planing to add on some direct points to our Dec UY contract. Also looking to pick up a small BLT resale contract in the near future to better align with some fall trips. If I were to pick up a second UY like Aug or Sept and then add on points to that UY such that I'd have enough for blue card (e.g. a 100 point add-on to the Dec UY and a 50 point add-on to the Aug/Sept UY), would those direct points across the different UY make me eligible for a blue card? Or would the direct points need to be all on a single UY? Thanks!

 

[erionm]

Currently planing to add on some direct points to our Dec UY contract. Also looking to pick up a small BLT resale contract in the near future to better align with some fall trips. If I were to pick up a second UY like Aug or Sept and then add on points to that UY such that I'd have enough for blue card (e.g. a 100 point add-on to the Dec UY and a 50 point add-on to the Aug/Sept UY), would those direct points across the different UY make me eligible for a blue card? Or would the direct points need to be all on a single UY? Thanks!

All 150 would need to fall under the same membership. Different UYs will result in different memberships.

 

[Sandisw]

Need to be the same. I currently have two UYs…one is white card and one is blue card. Both used to be blue and then I sold the contract last year and it changed.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

What is interesting is that the Membership Extras Acknowledgement and Benefits Statement says this:
"Effective June 3, 2021, to obtain a Disney Vacation Club Membership Card, Members must accumulate a total of at least 150 Vacation Points purchased directly from DVD"

Is there some place later that it designates under a single membership? The separate "memberships" for an ownership that is identical are really only done because of DVC's way of tracking for UY's. Has anybody asked and made certain it isn't simply software that is designed to look at each membership and can't evaluate the Members total holdings? Or if DVC even considered what they state vs what they are doing? I'd interpret that one sentence in the Acknowledgement to indicate it could be holdings in different UY's.

 

[Sandisw]

What is interesting is that the Membership Extras Acknowledgement and Benefits Statement says this:
"Effective June 3, 2021, to obtain a Disney Vacation Club Membership Card, Members must accumulate a total of at least 150 Vacation Points purchased directly from DVD"

Is there some place later that it designates under a single membership? The separate "memberships" for an ownership that is identical are really only done because of DVC's way of tracking for UY's. Has anybody asked and made certain it isn't simply software that is designed to look at each membership and can't evaluate the Members total holdings? Or if DVC even considered what they state vs what they are doing? I'd interpret that one sentence in the Acknowledgement to indicate it could be holdings in different UY's.

Yes. I have asked about it and because each membership is unique, it can not be across them. When we were adding on RIV, I was thinking about putting some in each UY, and it would change the status for blue card for my adult children...which was part of the reason we included them as owners.

It is the same reason that when you want a new UY, they require you to purchase the new buyer minimum. While they use that word, it is all based on the membership itself.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Yes. I have asked about it and because each membership is unique, it can not be across them. When we were adding on RIV, I was thinking about putting some in each UY, and it would change the status for blue card for my adult children...which was part of the reason we included them as owners.

It is the same reason that when you want a new UY, they require you to purchase the new buyer minimum. While they use that word, it is all based on the membership itself.

They need to change the word then if it isn't what they need. And really it's only done because of their own decision on how to track ownership.

 

[Sandisw]

They need to change the word then if it isn't what they need. And really it's only done because of their own decision on how to track ownership.

Each membership is its own so it makes sense that the owner of the membership is eligible when they have what is needed. In terms of the wording...maybe...but to me, that is just semantics.

 

[DonMacGregor]

While they use that word, it is all based on the membership itself.

Each membership is its own so it makes sense that the owner of the membership is eligible when they have what is needed. In terms of the wording...maybe...but to me, that is just semantics.

I think the issue is that it's a contract, where words have very specific and immutable definitions. You aren't allowed the luxury of semantics in contract language. Further, in the quoted excerpt, the word "Member" is capitalized, which, in contract convention, typically means it is a very specifically defined term.

 

[Sandisw]

I think the issue is that it's a contract, where words have very specific and immutable definitions. You aren't allowed the luxury of semantics in contract language. Further, in the quoted excerpt, the word "Member" is capitalized, which, in contract convention, typically means it is a very specifically defined term.

Except these are incidental benefits and disclosure states rules subject to change.

The bold on the word Member above was added by the poster. The entire paragraph is In bold in the official rules

Again, I think the words are used interchangeable and since it doesn’t say one way or the other, in terms of membership, DVD can certainly define it that way…since they always have when people want a new UY…they are required to meet new purchaser minimums .

 

[DonMacGregor]

Except these are incidental benefits and disclosure states rules subject to change.

The bold on the word Member above was added by the poster. The entire paragraph is In bold in the official rules

Again, I think the words are used interchangeable and since it doesn’t say one way or the other, in terms of membership, DVD can certainly define it that way…since they always have when people want a new UY…they are required to meet new purchaser minimums .

I don't want to get bogged down in a contract analysis. Regardless of how the incidental benefits are subject to change (a condition generally understood and explicitly defined in the contract), the actual terms (terms as in language and definitions, not terms as in conditions of the contract) (or any contract for that matter) are not subject to "intechangeability". We're not talking about the benefits or rules changing, we are talking about the legal specificity of the language incorporated into the contract, specifically those terms defining any party to the contract.

The emphasis (bold) was added by the poster, but the word is capitalized in the original text. It is the capitalization which is of importance. As I said above, a capitalized term is a defined term, and cannot be used interchangeably other than with its definition. In other words, you may use the term "Company" (capitalized) in a contract, ONLY if you have previously defined the term as meaning "The Walt Disney Company", and only those two terms may be used interchangeably. You cannot later decide that the capitalized term "Company" can also represent the title company, or a real estate broker, for example.

Anyway, Disney is notorious for lazily written contracts, and for simply ignoring them altogether if they are poorly written or end up not being interpreted in their own best interest. They simply rely on the likelihood that no one wants to challenge them on it. We'll see how the whole 2042/2057 Quitclaim Deed/Extension fiasco plays out at OKW, for example.


ETA: When I say lazy contracts, I'm referring to the boilerplate agreements like those used for DVC sales., where hundreds of thousands exist, and hundreds or thousands are added every week, not the contract signed when they bought Fox. Large national homebuilders do the same thing: they add to, amend, revise, recycle, and generally overedit contracts to the point where you can find any number of errors and contradictions in them. It's easier and cheaper than writing new ones. Unfortunately, it's also like buying a pair of pants when you are 6 years old, and trying to alter them so they still fit you your entire life.

 

[Lorana]

I pulled up my contract and it states this: " “Member” as used in this Statement shall mean a Purchaser who has acquired an Ownership Interest directly from DVD and is a member of the Club in good standing pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Club, including compliance with all Club and DVC Resort rules and regulations and current payment of all annual dues and purchase-money financing. "

 

[Lorana]

The really interesting thing is that it says “directly from DVD.” I think someone posted somewhere (I think In the discussion about the new digital card?) that DVC might be moving towards “Members” (direct) vs “Owners” (resale only), and this would seem to support that?

 

[DonMacGregor]

The really interesting thing is that it says “directly from DVD.” I think someone posted somewhere (I think In the discussion about the new digital card!) that DVC might be moving towards “Members” (direct) vs “Owners” (resale only), and this would seem to support that?

As I said above, old contracts that get revised too often get sloppy, ambiguous, and possibly contradictory. It may be time for a new, clean contract that reflects the direction they seem to be going.

 

[JETSDAD]

I pulled up my contract and it states this: “Member” as used in this Statement shall mean a
Purchaser who has acquired an Ownership Interest directly from DVD and is a member of the Club in good standing pursuant to the terms and
provisions of the Club, including compliance with all Club and DVC Resort rules and regulations and current payment of all annual dues and
purchase-money financing.

The Public Offering Statements refer to all owners as Members or Club Members.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't want to get bogged down in a contract analysis. Regardless of how the incidental benefits are subject to change (a condition generally understood and explicitly defined in the contract), the actual terms (terms as in language and definitions, not terms as in conditions of the contract) (or any contract for that matter) are not subject to "intechangeability". We're not talking about the benefits or rules changing, we are talking about the legal specificity of the language incorporated into the contract, specifically those terms defining any party to the contract.

The emphasis (bold) was added by the poster, but the word is capitalized in the original text. It is the capitalization which is of importance. As I said above, a capitalized term is a defined term, and cannot be used interchangeably other than with its definition. In other words, you may use the term "Company" (capitalized) in a contract, ONLY if you have previously defined the term as meaning "The Walt Disney Company", and only those two terms may be used interchangeably. You cannot later decide that the capitalized term "Company" can also represent the title company, or a real estate broker, for example.

Anyway, Disney is notorious for lazily written contracts, and for simply ignoring them altogether if they are poorly written or end up not being interpreted in their own best interest. They simply rely on the likelihood that no one wants to challenge them on it. We'll see how the whole 2042/2057 Quitclaim Deed/Extension fiasco plays out at OKW, for example.


ETA: When I say lazy contracts, I'm referring to the boilerplate agreements like those used for DVC sales., where hundreds of thousands exist, and hundreds or thousands are added every week, not the contract signed when they bought Fox. Large national homebuilders do the same thing: they add to, amend, revise, recycle, and generally overedit contracts to the point where you can find any number of errors and contradictions in them. It's easier and cheaper than writing new ones. Unfortunately, it's also like buying a pair of pants when you are 6 years old, and trying to alter them so they still fit you your entire life.

Not sure where it’s capitalized but it’s not in the official document as here is the newest version . As you said, let’s not derail, but DVD requires it to be in one membership. Nothing in the document contradicts that, which I think was really my initial point.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Not sure where it’s capitalized but it’s not in the official document as here is the newest version . As you said, let’s not derail, but DVD requires it to be in one membership. Nothing in the document contradicts that, which I think was really my initial point.

View attachment 619797

I’m not sure what you mean. The word “Member(s)” is capitalized in every instance it’s used in those two paragraphs. Because it’s a defined term.
The original question was whether Member and Membership can be used interchangeably, and I remain adamant that they cannot. They are separate, distinct and discrete terms.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not sure what you mean. The word “Member(s)” is capitalized in every instance it’s used in those two paragraphs. Because it’s a defined term.
The original question was whether Member and Membership can be used interchangeably, and I remain adamant that they cannot.

I thought you meant all capitals when you said capitalized! Lol

 

[DonMacGregor]

I thought you meant all capitals when you said capitalized! Lol

Ah….

 

[DonMacGregor]

The Public Offering Statements refer to all owners as Members or Club Members.

Exactly. Obviously a press release or Facebook post aren't legally binding, but if member services were to try create two separate definitions for "Owner" versus "Member", that would obviously cause a conflict with the contracts, in which "Member' and "Owner" ARE interchangeable and immutable terms.

 

[sethschroeder]

Or would the direct points need to be all on a single UY?

Disney would be extremely pushy on making sure all your direct points are on the same contract. I am not even sure if they would currently approve you buying new points on a 2nd contract if you already have direct points.