ROFR Riviera Should Carry Restrictions

[zavandor]

I do believe RIV restrictions are illegal because of the reasons explained in this thread:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...t-to-revert-dvcs-resale-restrictions.3747861/

Long story short: all previous resorts POS had a provision that future resorts could join the BVTC only if they had substantially similar rules to existing resorts. And resale restrictions are certainly not substantially similar.
But someone who bought an original resort with resale restrictions should be willing to test it to court, otherwise Disney wins.
But I think DVC is sitting on a ticking bomb, at any point this could happen and they might be liable for damage.

I do not think a RIV resale owner could sue based on the OP thesis, because RIV contract has the restrictions and they accepted that when they bought it.

 

[Mouseforward]

I do believe RIV restrictions are illegal because of the reasons explained in this thread:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...t-to-revert-dvcs-resale-restrictions.3747861/

Long story short: all previous resorts POS had a provision that future resorts could join the BVTC only if they had substantially similar rules to existing resorts. And resale restrictions are certainly not substantially similar.
But someone who bought an original resort with resale restrictions should be willing to test it to court, otherwise Disney wins.
But I think DVC is sitting on a ticking bomb, at any point this could happen and they might be liable for damage.

I do not think a RIV resale owner could sue based on the OP thesis, because RIV contract has the restrictions and they accepted that when they bought it.

They grandfathered the original owners so they did not lose any rights, lacking any measurable damages, I don't think this there is any case.

 

[Tumnus]

I do believe RIV restrictions are illegal because of the reasons explained in this thread:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...t-to-revert-dvcs-resale-restrictions.3747861/

Long story short: all previous resorts POS had a provision that future resorts could join the BVTC only if they had substantially similar rules to existing resorts. And resale restrictions are certainly not substantially similar.
But someone who bought an original resort with resale restrictions should be willing to test it to court, otherwise Disney wins.
But I think DVC is sitting on a ticking bomb, at any point this could happen and they might be liable for damage.

I do not think a RIV resale owner could sue based on the OP thesis, because RIV contract has the restrictions and they accepted that when they bought it.

Pretty sure that we all agreed to arbitration in our terms and conditions and there's 0% chance this ever gets to courts. Nor would it because it's not illegal.

 

[jimmymc]

It just seems like market manipulation to me. They can drive down the resale price and then resale it higher because the restrictions don’t apply to them. It’s taking money from people who need to sell their contracts.

It is analogous to Apple only allowing the apps that come with the iPhone if you resell it, but if they resell it, it can have all the apps again.

ROFR is market manipulation. It's Disney making sure the gap between direct and resale doesn't get too large. There's no guarantee that contracts are going to hold their value for the owners, just like any other piece of real estate.

 

[zavandor]

They grandfathered the original owners so they did not lose any rights, lacking any measurable damages, I don't think this there is any case.

That why I cannot sue Disney for this, because I have not been damaged by it.
But anyone buying a resale contract at the original resorts gain all the rights and obligations stated in the contract and the POS have not been changed. Anyone buying (say) SSR now get a contract stating that all resorts joining the BVTC must join with substantially similar rules.

 

[zavandor]

Nor would it because it's not illegal.

Care to elaborate?
Do you think RIV joined the BVTC with substantially similar rules as the others resorts?

 

[Sandisw]

That why I cannot sue Disney for this, because I have not been damaged by it.
But anyone buying a resale contract at the original resorts gain all the rights and obligations stated in the contract and the POS have not been changed. Anyone buying (say) SSR now get a contract stating that all resorts joining the BVTC must join with substantially similar rules.

My understanding is that the language has been updated to reflect the new rules beginning with 2019 language.

We agree to allow changes to the DVC resort agreement as well.

And, those buying resale, IIRC, are given something that includes this updated language?

I personally don’t interpret substantially similar the way you do

To me, it ensured resorts of similar level of amenities and room types vs adding something like a value level resort to the program and that trading rules would be similar in nature.

Plus, for direct owners of all resorts, the resort definitely meets the criteria.

Of course, substantially similar is not the same as exactly the same…so I think it’s why it would come down to how one defines it.

 

[zavandor]

My understanding is that the language has been updated to reflect the new rules beginning with 2019 language.

We agree to allow changes to the DVC resort agreement as well.

And, those buying resale, IIRC, are given something that includes this updated language?

I personally don’t interpret substantially similar the way you do

To me, it ensured resorts of similar level of amenities and room types vs adding something like a value level resort to the program and that trading rules would be similar in nature.

Plus, for direct owners of all resorts, the resort definitely meets the criteria.

Of course, substantially similar is not the same as exactly the same…so I think it’s why it would come down to how one defines it.

When you say that the language was updated, do you mean it has been updated in the newest, post-resale resorts, or also in the O14?

Because if it has been changed only in the newest, then it proves the point. It had to be changed so much to accommodate the restrictions because it's so different.

I do not think SSR POS has been changed in that section, but happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Sandisw]

When you say that the language was updated, do you mean it has been updated in the newest, post-resale resorts, or also in the O14?

Because if it has been changed only in the newest, then it proves the point. It had to be changed so much to accommodate the restrictions because it's so different.

I do not think SSR POS has been changed in that section, but happy to be proved wrong.

The multi site POS was changed and I think there were amendments to the other POS done as well

You have to try and find those…as you can’t look at the original one because amendments are in their own document.

But, I think I remember something that you get and have to sign when you buy resale that has the updated info about restrictions being now part of

I know the FL timeshare law addresses that rules can’t be different for home resorts regardless of how you buy…but I think that the ability to update and amend the exchanging rules is there, including on the language of the DVC Resort agreements for all of us.

Of course, neither of us know what would happen if sometime took it to court, but I think it’d be a tough case because those buying resale since 2019 are buying with clause that limits where the points can be used.

 

[Mouseforward]

But anyone buying a resale contract at the original resorts gain all the rights and obligations stated in the contract and the POS have not been changed. Anyone buying (say) SSR now get a contract stating that all resorts joining the BVTC must join with substantially similar rules.

But how were the original owners damaged ? What loss did they suffer ? They can still trade into RiV.

 

[zavandor]

But how were the original owners damaged ? What loss did they suffer ? They can still trade into RiV.

I am not saying that oiginal owers were damaged, I'm saying the opposite. I wrote I cannot personally sue because I've not been damaged. (One could argue the resale value may be hit, but good luck demonstrating it).

I am saying new resale owners could sue based on rules for trading being substantially different for them, while in their contract there's written they should be substantially inilar

 

[zavandor]

The multi site POS was changed and I think there were amendments to the other POS done as well

You have to try and find those…as you can’t look at the original one because amendments are in their own document.

But, I think I remember something that you get and have to sign when you buy resale that has the updated info about restrictions being now part of

I know the FL timeshare law addresses that rules can’t be different for home resorts regardless of how you buy…but I think that the ability to update and amend the exchanging rules is there, including on the language of the DVC Resort agreements for all of us.

Of course, neither of us know what would happen if sometime took it to court, but I think it’d be a tough case because those buying resale since 2019 are buying with clause that limits where the points can be used.

I just landed in Orlando, so I won't do anything for the next two weeks.
But I have never read anyone reporting such a change for old resorts.
The multiscreen POS could be written on sand for what it's worth. the POS are the only thing that matters.