The VGF 2 pricing thread

[Lorana]

You would have to go back to the way units were declared. Not all units have the same vacation homes. A unit could have been all one section, building, or it could have been multiple rooms across multiple buildings.

Without that info there is no way to know because lock offs are based on 2 bedroom but the premium exists. Dedicated rooms muddy it in terms of easy way to figure it all out.

Once a unit is declared, can it be added to? I don’t know. For example, can the new rooms at Big Pine Key at VGF be put into a particular u it already part of the original building???

I believe the answer to this is no, because units are declared in the condo association declarations, and DVC contracts/deeds are sold tied to specific units. You could add more units to the association, but you could not change the nature of the units.

 

[Lorana]

The new path to MK is actually a really big deal to me. I’m am fairly big runner and I love to run while on vacation. It does not need to be super long, but if I can get a decent 5-6 mile run every other day I’m very happy. The new path from VGF to MK is perfect to extent some runs for me. It’s honestly one of my biggest dislikes about AKV, there is no decent route to run (if only they would build a AKV to AK path!).

That is one of my husband's biggest gripes with the AKV, much as we love it! I certainly bemoan the lack of a good walking trial, both between Jambo and Kidani, one to AK, and even one just around some of the savannas. If there was ever a resort that screamed "have beautiful walking trails," this is it. This was a huge miss on Disney's part, IMHO.

Also, we hope they reopen the trail at the Wilderness Lodge soon, too.

 

[JETSDAD]

That is one of my husband's biggest gripes with the AKV, much as we love it! I certainly bemoan the lack of a good walking trial, both between Jambo and Kidani, one to AK, and even one just around some of the savannas. If there was ever a resort that screamed "have beautiful walking trails," this is it. This was a huge miss on Disney's part, IMHO.

Also, we hope they reopen the trail at the Wilderness Lodge soon, too.

AKV's walking trails are just indoors lol.

 

[Sandisw]

I believe the answer to this is no, because units are declared in the condo association declarations, and DVC contracts/deeds are sold tied to specific units. You could add more units to the association, but you could not change the nature of the units.

Thanks. Do you know where you found that info so I can look it up too? I know deeds are tied to units etc but I mean that they can’t add new rooms and amend the units already in them once declared

 

[Lorana]

Thanks. Do you know where you found that info so I can look it up too? I know deeds are tied to units etc but I mean that they can’t add new rooms and amend the units already in them once declared

I am NOT a contractor lawyer or a lawyer of any kind, so this is just my interpretation of the law and POS. But here is what I read to draw that conclusion:

FL Law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0718/0718.html
718.110 (4) "Unless otherwise provided in the declaration as originally recorded, no amendment may change the configuration or size of any unit in any material fashion, materially alter or modify the appurtenances to the unit, or change the proportion or percentage by which the unit owner shares the common expenses of the condominium and owns the common surplus of the condominium unless the record owner of the unit and all record owners of liens on the unit join in the execution of the amendment and unless all the record owners of all other units in the same condominium approve the amendment."

And http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0721/Sections/0721.13.html
"(8) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in s. 718.110, s. 718.113, s. 718.114, or s. 719.1055, the board of administration of any owners’ association that operates a timeshare condominium pursuant to s. 718.111, or a timeshare cooperative pursuant to s. 719.104, shall have the power to make material alterations or substantial additions to the accommodations or facilities of such timeshare condominium or timeshare cooperative without the approval of the owners’ association. However, if the timeshare condominium or timeshare cooperative contains any residential units that are not subject to the timeshare plan, such action by the board of administration must be approved by a majority of the owners of such residential units. Unless otherwise provided in the timeshare instrument as originally recorded, no such amendment may change the configuration or size of any accommodation in any material fashion, or change the proportion or percentage by which a member of the owners’ association shares the common expenses, unless the record owners of the affected units or timeshare interests and all record owners of liens on the affected units or timeshare interests join in the execution of the amendment. "

In the Multi-Site DVC POS, it states:
"7. Substitutions. BVTC has not reserved the right to substitute the accommodations or facilities of one component site for those of another. "

In the CCV POS, it states:
"7.1.1.3 Not withstanding the maintenance and repair responsibilities of the Association set forth in this Section 7.1.1, prior to the commencement of any construction, reconstruction, alteration, renovation, restoration, repair or replacement of any Common Element or Limited Common Element, or any portion of any Common Element or Limited Common Element, the Association must obtain the approval of DVD, for so long as DVD owns a Unit or an Ownership Interest. Pursuant to Section721.13(8), Florida Statutes, the Board has the right, and without the approval of the Owners, to make material alterations or substantial additions to the Units, Common Elements, Limited Common Elements ,and Association-owned real property, subject to the approval of DVD, for so long as DVD owns a Unit or Ownership Interest. Furthermore, the Board has the right, and without the approval of the Owners, to maintain, repair, alter, rearrange, improve, remove, or replace any or all personal property or furnishings that are part of the Condominium Property, including such personal property including in the Units and Vacation Homes subject to the Vacation Ownership Plan, and are not the property of individual Owners from time to time, subject to the approval of DVD, for so long as DVD owns a Unit or an Ownership Interest."

As the POS did not reserve the right to "change the configuration or size of any accommodation in any material fashion, or change the proportion or percentage by which a member of the owners’ association shares the common expenses" without consent of the owners, they therefore cannot do so without ALL of us who own in a unit consenting to the change.

 

[Sandisw]

I am NOT a contractor lawyer or a lawyer of any kind, so this is just my interpretation of the law and POS. But here is what I read to draw that conclusion:

FL Law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0718/0718.html
718.110 (4) "Unless otherwise provided in the declaration as originally recorded, no amendment may change the configuration or size of any unit in any material fashion, materially alter or modify the appurtenances to the unit, or change the proportion or percentage by which the unit owner shares the common expenses of the condominium and owns the common surplus of the condominium unless the record owner of the unit and all record owners of liens on the unit join in the execution of the amendment and unless all the record owners of all other units in the same condominium approve the amendment."

And http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0721/Sections/0721.13.html
"(8) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in s. 718.110, s. 718.113, s. 718.114, or s. 719.1055, the board of administration of any owners’ association that operates a timeshare condominium pursuant to s. 718.111, or a timeshare cooperative pursuant to s. 719.104, shall have the power to make material alterations or substantial additions to the accommodations or facilities of such timeshare condominium or timeshare cooperative without the approval of the owners’ association. However, if the timeshare condominium or timeshare cooperative contains any residential units that are not subject to the timeshare plan, such action by the board of administration must be approved by a majority of the owners of such residential units. Unless otherwise provided in the timeshare instrument as originally recorded, no such amendment may change the configuration or size of any accommodation in any material fashion, or change the proportion or percentage by which a member of the owners’ association shares the common expenses, unless the record owners of the affected units or timeshare interests and all record owners of liens on the affected units or timeshare interests join in the execution of the amendment. "

In the Multi-Site DVC POS, it states:
"7. Substitutions. BVTC has not reserved the right to substitute the accommodations or facilities of one component site for those of another. "

In the CCV POS, it states:
"7.1.1.3 Not withstanding the maintenance and repair responsibilities of the Association set forth in this Section 7.1.1, prior to the commencement of any construction, reconstruction, alteration, renovation, restoration, repair or replacement of any Common Element or Limited Common Element, or any portion of any Common Element or Limited Common Element, the Association must obtain the approval of DVD, for so long as DVD owns a Unit or an Ownership Interest. Pursuant to Section721.13(8), Florida Statutes, the Board has the right, and without the approval of the Owners, to make material alterations or substantial additions to the Units, Common Elements, Limited Common Elements ,and Association-owned real property, subject to the approval of DVD, for so long as DVD owns a Unit or Ownership Interest. Furthermore, the Board has the right, and without the approval of the Owners, to maintain, repair, alter, rearrange, improve, remove, or replace any or all personal property or furnishings that are part of the Condominium Property, including such personal property including in the Units and Vacation Homes subject to the Vacation Ownership Plan, and are not the property of individual Owners from time to time, subject to the approval of DVD, for so long as DVD owns a Unit or an Ownership Interest."

As the POS did not reserve the right to "change the configuration or size of any accommodation in any material fashion, or change the proportion or percentage by which a member of the owners’ association shares the common expenses" without consent of the owners, they therefore cannot do so without ALL of us who own in a unit consenting to the change.

That's what I was looking in terms of FL statues and had hoped you might have it already!

So thank you!!!

 

[havoc315]

BLT will have the better views of MK for sure. But VGF has a deferent vibe to the resort and some more upscale dining if you are into that. I honestly like both resorts a lot, just they have some differences, but that’s what great about DVC, I can at 7 months pick from a lot of different styles of resorts/trips.

BLT will have a closer view. But the rooms at VGF will be MUCH bigger.

BLT studios are tiny at 339 square feet.
GFV at 440 square feet.

Massive difference in size.

And I wouldn't say the BLT view is better. It's closer. But it's over a parking lot. From lower floors, the parking lot really dominates the view. The GF view is over water, a much nicer view, IMO.

 

[DougEMG]

I am in the camp of "no, they are not allowed to." I'd have to look it up, but the POS has language around "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit may not be increased or decreased because of any reallocation." I'll find the exact word, but the POS strongly implies they cannot shift points between unit types (different views within the same unit type, yes). I just think they will try again and see if they can get away with it, since they've done so in the past.

When I looked at my contract this was the wording that I also took to mean that they can't change the total number of points in a unit. As owners we own a percentage of a specific unit (a combination of real rooms) which are represented by points. If they changed the total points in a unit, then they are changing our ownership. Hence I think they broke the rules when they reallocated the points out of the treehouses at SSR. Unfortunately rules are only ever any good if they can be enforced and I think DVC plays pretty loose with the rules under the assumption that they will not be challenged on them.

 

[CarolynFH]

I think DVC plays pretty loose with the rules under the assumption that they will not be challenged on them.

I think they did play loose with the rules, until the first iteration of the 2020 points charts came out and they realized that with social media, not only would they be caught, they would be seriously challenged. I know the treehouse villas reallocation was discussed here, but I guess since it only affected those who were SSR owners at the time, it didn't get enough traction. The 2020 points charts affected everyone, so a bigger uproar, and now they know they're being watched closely.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I think they did play loose with the rules, until the first iteration of the 2020 points charts came out and they realized that with social media, not only would they be caught, they would be seriously challenged. I know the treehouse villas reallocation was discussed here, but I guess since it only affected those who were SSR owners at the time, it didn't get enough traction. The 2020 points charts affected everyone, so a bigger uproar, and now they know they're being watched closely.

That, and I think they (somewhat arrogantly) failed to appreciate that with a great many DVC owners shelling out mid to high five-figures on contracts, there just may be a few with the appropriate education and/or experience or credentials to recognize possibly shady financial or legal shenanigans.

 

[Lorana]

I think they did play loose with the rules, until the first iteration of the 2020 points charts came out and they realized that with social media, not only would they be caught, they would be seriously challenged. I know the treehouse villas reallocation was discussed here, but I guess since it only affected those who were SSR owners at the time, it didn't get enough traction. The 2020 points charts affected everyone, so a bigger uproar, and now they know they're being watched closely.

I just looked up what units I owe in SSR, as I picked up 2 resale contracts, and it turns out one of them is the Treehouses - unit 140B, Treehouses 7015 & 7016. Which means I *am* directly affected by the THV reallocation. Maybe I'll dig into this more (as I don't know how many points were shifted) and send a letter to DVC to inquire whether my 100 points accurately reflects my 0.3314% ownership of that unit. I just need to figure out how many points were required to book a THV for the entire year when it opened.

 

[Lorana]

I just looked up what units I owe in SSR, as I picked up 2 resale contracts, and it turns out one of them is the Treehouses - unit 140B, Treehouses 7015 & 7016. Which means I *am* directly affected by the THV reallocation. Maybe I'll dig into this more (as I don't know how many points were shifted) and send a letter to DVC to inquire whether my 100 points accurately reflects my 0.3314% ownership of that unit. I just need to figure out how many points were required to book a THV for the entire year when it opened.

SSR actually makes this easy to figure out, from the perspective that the Treehouses were added on later, and thus we know the total number of points declared to the Treehouses: 905,250. And in 2019, the total number of points needed to book all Treehouses in the year is 1,047,840 points, a 15.8% increase. This would mean that my 100 points are, effectively, worth only 84.2 points after their reallocation. I haven't done the math for the 2023 charts, but wanted to share what I found. (Reference here: https://web.archive.org/web/2021042...t/reallocation-impact-on-the-treehouse-villas ).

I don't suppose anyone has access to a spreadsheet or something similar that would make it easy for me to calculate the total number of points required to book THVs for the year? If not, I'll carve out some time over my holiday break to see if I can figure it out.

Also, I came across this in Florida Statue 721.05 (25): “...No individual timeshare unit may be counted as providing more than 365 use nights per 12-month period or more than 366 use nights per 12-month period that includes February 29. The use rights of each owner shall be counted without regard to whether the owner’s use rights have been suspended for failure to pay assessments or otherwise."
As points are a representation of our % ownership of a unit, then it IS a requirement that total number of points to book a resort for the year equal the total points sold for the resort; further (though you'd really need to ask a lawyer on this), it seems to me this does imply that you cannot re-allocate points across units.

 

[Sandisw]

SSR actually makes this easy to figure out, from the perspective that the Treehouses were added on later, and thus we know the total number of points declared to the Treehouses: 905,250. And in 2019, the total number of points needed to book all Treehouses in the year is 1,047,840 points, a 15.8% increase. This would mean that my 100 points are, effectively, worth only 84.2 points after their reallocation. I haven't done the math for the 2023 charts, but wanted to share what I found. (Reference here: https://web.archive.org/web/2021042...t/reallocation-impact-on-the-treehouse-villas ).

I don't suppose anyone has access to a spreadsheet or something similar that would make it easy for me to calculate the total number of points required to book THVs for the year? If not, I'll carve out some time over my holiday break to see if I can figure it out.

Also, I came across this in Florida Statue 721.05 (25): “...No individual timeshare unit may be counted as providing more than 365 use nights per 12-month period or more than 366 use nights per 12-month period that includes February 29. The use rights of each owner shall be counted without regard to whether the owner’s use rights have been suspended for failure to pay assessments or otherwise."
As points are a representation of our % ownership of a unit, then it IS a requirement that total number of points to book a resort for the year equal the total points sold for the resort; further (though you'd really need to ask a lawyer on this), it seems to me this does imply that you cannot re-allocate points across units.

I have seen that, but the only thing that I find difficult sometimes in the statues is points based vs regulsr timeshare as it not always being clear If it is different or not.

But, all good info.

 

[Lorana]

I have seen that, but the only thing that I find difficult sometimes in the statues is points based vs regulsr timeshare as it not always being clear If it is different or not.

But, all good info.

DVC is deeded real estate, and thus falls under "Timeshare Estates" of the Vacation Club statutes (and is not a timeshare license). Its own POS and Declaration documents, as well as the contract you sign at time of purchase, lay out the rules of points: specifically, that points represent the percentage interest of your unit ownership, and that those points were determined at the time of declaration as the points necessary to book all units in the resort for the year. Thus, total point charts and total declared points of a resort are intrinsically linked. And as DVC is a Timeshare Estate, statute 721.57 (1) says "In addition to meeting all the requirements of part I, timeshare estates offered in a specific multisite timeshare plan must meet the requirements of subsection (2)." Which means that DVC must comply with these statutes.

Any DVC's owners total points must represent the % ownership of their interest in their unit, per our contract (this taken from my CCV FW contract): "Purchaser's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as 118 Home Resort Vacation Points for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose. Home Resort Vacation Points are merely reflective of Purchaser's Ownership Interest..."

 

[Sandisw]

DVC is deeded real estate, and thus falls under "Timeshare Estates" of the Vacation Club statutes (and is not a timeshare license). Its own POS and Declaration documents, as well as the contract you sign at time of purchase, lay out the rules of points: specifically, that points represent the percentage interest of your unit ownership, and that those points were determined at the time of declaration as the points necessary to book all units in the resort for the year. Thus, total point charts and total declared points of a resort are intrinsically linked. And as DVC is a Timeshare Estate, statute 721.57 (1) says "In addition to meeting all the requirements of part I, timeshare estates offered in a specific multisite timeshare plan must meet the requirements of subsection (2)." Which means that DVC must comply with these statutes.

Any DVC's owners total points must represent the % ownership of their interest in their unit, per our contract (this taken from my CCV FW contract): "Purchaser's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as 118 Home Resort Vacation Points for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose. Home Resort Vacation Points are merely reflective of Purchaser's Ownership Interest..."

Exactly. The points are way to simply represent your ownership interest and that never change#, regardless of the points chart.

As I said, my 150 BWV points did not represent the same % of the units and ultimately the resort, but I got to use them as though they did.

So, if I use 20 points in a studio and you use 20 points in a studio, we both get the same benefit for use irrespective of what % its represents in the unit they deeded to because of the total points in the resort. Ultimately, that is what the point chart represents, does it not?

 

[Lorana]

Exactly. The points are way to simply represent your ownership interest and that never change#, regardless of the points chart.

As I said, my 150 BWV points did not represent the same % of the units and ultimately the resort, but I got to use them as though they did.

So, if I use 20 points in a studio and you use 20 points in a studio, we both get the same benefit for use irrespective of what % its represents in the unit they deeded to because of the total points in the resort. Ultimately, that is what the point chart represents, does it not?

I answered a similar question in a different post, so rather than post again, I'll just reference it here:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/2023-point-charts-released.3862115/post-63597719
Points represent two things, and those two things are inexplicably linked:
(1) They represent your % ownership in a unit
(2) They represent points needed in any given season to book a particular Vacation Home Villas

An important consideration is that a unit may compromise more than one Vacation Home Villas.

That consideration is important from a legal standpoint -- and to the question as to whether or not they can move points from one Vacation Villa Type to another - because when Disney balances point charts for the year, they must do two things:
(1) Ensure the total number of points required to book the entire resort remains the same as the total number of points declared in the resort
(2) Points continue to represent the % ownership interest, which means ensuring the total number of points to book a UNIT (not villa) in a given year equals the total number of points that unit represents (based on declaration).

We talk a lot in these boards, and when it comes to point charts, about #1, but #2 must also be true.

So while your 100 points and my 100 points may allow us to book the same number of nights in a specific VILLA TYPE in the year, #2 is *not* the same: their reallocation of 2BR into THVs to raise THVs has made it so that my 100 points no longer represents my ownership interest.

I can understand why it may seem like "why does this matter? We both can do the same thing with 100 points" it matters to settle the question of whether you can take points from high point villas and move them into, say, studios. This is an especially important matter for owners at places like PVB and CCV, where point-hungry Cabins and Villas exist, and where it is important that, say, studios don't become a dumping ground to lower the cost of bungalows/cabins. In the case of THV, what they did is illegal, because my points no longer reflect my ownership interest. (And given that I bought into SSR to stay in Treehouse Villas, ensuring that the point chart for THVs represents THVs and not THVs + points used to lower 2BRs does matter to me personally, though I can get why people who may love 2BRs and love that Disney lowered 2BR costs may not be happy if this is addressed).

Now, I believe that all of SSR units are EITHER 2x2 THVs *or* 2-BRs, and that all Studios and 1BRs at SSR are, in fact, lock-offs. If that's true, then it may be possible in SSR to move points between Studios, 1BRs, 2BRs. I would in fact have to go look at the master declaration to see what the unit makeups are, and if all SSR units are 3-2BRs. However, they cannot reallocate points between THVs and 2BRs because of the requirement that points equal % ownership.

But other resorts - say, for example, CCV, where a unit might be a cabin, or in the case of some of my contracts, one unit is 2 Dedicated 2BRs; another is 1 LO 2BR and 2 Studios; and another is a Dedicated-2BR and a LO-2BR (and my % of ownership varies even when the # of points is the same, due to the size differences in units), the point allocation probably requires points to remain within vacation villa types in order to ensure that # of points = unit % ownership

 

[Sandisw]

I answered a similar question in a different post, so rather than post again, I'll just reference it here:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/2023-point-charts-released.3862115/post-63597719
Points represent two things, and those two things are inexplicably linked:
(1) They represent your % ownership in a unit
(2) They represent points needed in any given season to book a particular Vacation Home Villas

An important consideration is that a unit may compromise more than one Vacation Home Villas.

That consideration is important from a legal standpoint -- and to the question as to whether or not they can move points from one Vacation Villa Type to another - because when Disney balances point charts for the year, they must do two things:
(1) Ensure the total number of points required to book the entire resort remains the same as the total number of points declared in the resort
(2) Points continue to represent the % ownership interest, which means ensuring the total number of points to book a UNIT (not villa) in a given year equals the total number of points that unit represents (based on declaration).

We talk a lot in these boards, and when it comes to point charts, about #1, but #2 must also be true.

So while your 100 points and my 100 points may allow us to book the same number of nights in a specific VILLA TYPE in the year, #2 is *not* the same: their reallocation of 2BR into THVs to raise THVs has made it so that my 100 points no longer represents my ownership interest.

I can understand why it may seem like "why does this matter? We both can do the same thing with 100 points" it matters to settle the question of whether you can take points from high point villas and move them into, say, studios. This is an especially important matter for owners at places like PVB and CCV, where point-hungry Cabins and Villas exist, and where it is important that, say, studios don't become a dumping ground to lower the cost of bungalows/cabins. In the case of THV, what they did is illegal, because my points no longer reflect my ownership interest. (And given that I bought into SSR to stay in Treehouse Villas, ensuring that the point chart for THVs represents THVs and not THVs + points used to lower 2BRs does matter to me personally, though I can get why people who may love 2BRs and love that Disney lowered 2BR costs may not be happy if this is addressed).

Now, I believe that all of SSR units are EITHER 2x2 THVs *or* 2-BRs, and that all Studios and 1BRs at SSR are, in fact, lock-offs. If that's true, then it may be possible in SSR to move points between Studios, 1BRs, 2BRs. I would in fact have to go look at the master declaration to see what the unit makeups are, and if all SSR units are 3-2BRs. However, they cannot reallocate points between THVs and 2BRs because of the requirement that points equal % ownership.

But other resorts - say, for example, CCV, where a unit might be a cabin, or in the case of some of my contracts, one unit is 2 Dedicated 2BRs; another is 1 LO 2BR and 2 Studios; and another is a Dedicated-2BR and a LO-2BR (and my % of ownership varies even when the # of points is the same, due to the size differences in units), the point allocation probably requires points to remain within vacation villa types in order to ensure that # of points = unit % ownership

Except we don’t chose our units and have no rights or claim on that unit in reference to the points we own.

I do appreciate your details and it’s good for me to have for my investigation into this because they are all points I need more info on.

The treehouse issue is questionable but can’t say one way or the other until I get more specifics from FL people who oversee alll of this.

 

[Lorana]

Except we don’t chose our units and have no rights or claim on that unit in reference to the points we own.

From a legal standpoint, that's irrelevant, though, to your deeded interest. You still own part of a specific unit, and your points still represent your ownership of that unit, and thus by the contract, your # of points should always represent your percentage ownership of the unit. That we aren't required to stay in our unit is beside the point of how our ownership and the points that represent it matter.

I do appreciate your details and it’s good for me to have for my investigation into this because they are all points I need more info on.

Glad I could help!

The treehouse issue is questionable but can’t say one way or the other until I get more specifics from FL people who oversee alll of this.

Please do share the results of your own investigation! I'd love to hear what you learn as well.

 

[Sandisw]

From a legal standpoint, that's irrelevant, though, to your deeded interest. You still own part of a specific unit, and your points still represent your ownership of that unit, and thus by the contract, your # of points should always represent your percentage ownership of the unit. That we aren't required to stay in our unit is beside the point of how our ownership and the points that represent it matter.



Glad I could help!


Please do share the results of your own investigation! I'd love to hear what you learn as well.

I will! My goal is to start the real work in January!!! As I said, I am going to start with FL timeshares division (and whomever else I need to in that realm first) and then take what I learn into conversations with DVC...no sense starting the other way around because we already know that DVC believes that the shift to the treehouses was indeed within bounds.

 

[princesslayla]

Anyone know when these go on sale? We were at VGF last week and no one knew…