VDH - Resale and Use Restrictions Legal in CA?

[Great3]

It is fair to say DVC has some dubious legal moves in the past, and it is not unreasonable to review to determine if they did it again.

I am thinking of both Aulani and the OKW extension, both of which were truly dumb moves.

Off topic, sorry OP. But Aulani extension? Did I miss some news, or old news? I am just not aware of any Aulani contract extension offered like for OKW.

Great3

 

[Genie+]

Off topic, sorry OP. But Aulani extension? Did I miss some news, or old news?

Great3

I think with Aulani’s need for Subsidized Dues contracts. Vero DVC also has subsidized.

Could anything cause similar with VDH’s dues over the separation of parking/taxes. I have no clue.

 

[CarolynFH]

Aulani’s need for Subsidized Dues contracts. Vero DVC also has subsidized.

To be clear, AUL has subsidized dues because the state of Hawaii caught DVC deliberately underestimating MFs at the start to enhance sales. The DVC VP and a couple of other executives lost their jobs for that.

Vero DVC has subsidized dues because sales were so slow that DVD cancelled part of the planned resort. It had nothing to do with any malfeasance on DVD’s part.

 

[Great3]

I understand about the subsidized dues at both Aulani and Vero. Was wondering about the contact extension mentioned for Aulani?

Great3

 

[Sandisw]

I understand about the subsidized dues at both Aulani and Vero. Was wondering about the contact extension mentioned for Aulani?

Great3

I think it was meant to have the word extension only apply to OKW…and that the issue with Aulani is building it in the first place.

 

[Great3]

I think it was meant to have the word extension only apply to OKW…and that the issue with Aulani is building it in the first place.

Awe Yes, thanks you. Re-reading the post, I can see now I mis-intepreted what poster was saying. I see now the wording meant exactly what you are saying!!! Thanks for clarifying Sandisw.

Great3

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Awe Yes, thanks you. Re-reading the post, I can see now I mis-intepreted what poster was saying. I see now the wording meant exactly what you are saying!!! Thanks for clarifying Sandisw.

Great3

I perhaps should have used an Oxford comma.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I perhaps should have used an Oxford comma.

I assumed you meant the false MF's while selling Aulani?

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I assumed you meant the false MF's while selling Aulani?

Yep. Because that was legally stupid.

 

[Brian Noble]

I perhaps should have used an Oxford comma.

Never a bad idea!

I have the misfortune of working in an AP Style shop with a Chicago Style sensibility.

 

[sethschroeder]

I am sure DVC/DVD/Disney is quite lawyered up already, so good luck to those that want to try!!!

Guess what Disney has lost plenty of times when it comes to DVC and backed down on things.

I am not saying that is the case here but just 2 years ago I think it was after some of us including myself talked directly with the team that does point charts balancing they actually created the mid-year amendment to the point charts to try and fix the issue they created.

 

[Great3]

Guess what Disney has lost plenty of times when it comes to DVC and backed down on things.

I am not saying that is the case here but just 2 years ago I think it was after some of us including myself talked directly with the team that does point charts balancing they actually created the mid-year amendment to the point charts to try and fix the issue they created.

And for that, I have to be grateful for. Thanks for being one of the ones to take on DVC/DVD/Disney.

I know I benefited from the “fix” to the bad points charts, so thanks again.

As others mentioned, my main concern is an imbalance that might result from these new resale restrictions, and DVC not being transparent as to how they are ensuring a balance of bookings in and out, we just don’t know what is happening.

Great3

 

[Stank]

If you’re in the business of selling timeshares, you’re deservedly suable. History is decided by those who give up and those who don’t. I find it odd cognitive dissonance many who say Goliath has a team of lawyers, don’t bother, are of the same mind that Goliath has a team of lawyers, they’ll find something. Logically, if Goliath can find something, so can you.

So Goliath wins no matter what side he is on simply because he’s Goliath. Yet Goliath has goofed up so many times in the past the notion of invincibility comes down the the defeatist mindset: he’s too big/don’t bother/because he’s big he’s right.

History decided by those who give up and those who don’t. Sue ‘em. And sue ‘em again. Obviously Disney is hoping and praying people just give up. These timeshare laws have so many layers. Disney’s brute-forcing obviously has a trail of errors if anyone so desires to challenge them. They just bank on you retreating because they have suits. Watch a movie, be inspired, don’t rollover like the rest.

I’m looking forward to the OKW holdouts in 2042. They’ll show the rest of us you don’t just give up because Disney legal sent you an email.

 

[Stank]

Quick story on contracts/giving up.

A place I worked at had a contract going back 10+ years. Terrible price escalators realized well after the fact after a particular scenario occurred that left it at a permanently elevated price. I was told it is what it is for the next however many years. Legal had already looked at it. One night the counterparty annoyed me. I pulled out the contract myself, read through it. Came across a couple sentences with a particular, and legally important, word: “shall.” Thought about it, wrote up an email on how our rights weren’t being honored. Fast forward 3 months: renegotiated contract saving $8 million.

I have zero legal training. I didn’t give up. The lawyers did. I figured it out.

 

[Sandisw]

And for that, I have to be grateful for. Thanks for being one of the ones to take on DVC/DVD/Disney.

I know I benefited from the “fix” to the bad points charts, so thanks again.

As others mentioned, my main concern is an imbalance that might result from these new resale restrictions, and DVC not being transparent as to how they are ensuring a balance of bookings in and out, we just don’t know what is happening.

Great3

I don’t know if there is any law that requires them to balance exchanges. They only are required to make sure they follow the law with home resort advantage.

From my review, it’s 30 days for FL and 60 days for CA. Beyond that, I have found nothing that suggests that those eligible for going in on exchange has to be similar to those out.

Now, they can make the trading time different..it doesn’t have to be 7 months, but other than that, I can’t seem to find where it requires them to do such monitoring

As the language of CA states, rules for exchanges are set by the developer and no one should expect those to continue in any form.

The point chart situations were different as they related to home resort and declared points and DVCs broad interpretation of the rules..which, after being contacted, reversed course.

 

[sethschroeder]

DVC not being transparent

What? Never lol

 

[Great3]

Yeah, they don't have to be transparent, and they don't have to balance the exchanges, that's the problem.

Without the resale restrictions, even if your home resort is booked out, you can always book somewhere, even if it's not the resort you want, and/or timeframe you want, but at least you can book something and use your points. Now, it's possible to be locked out completely.

Great3

 

[ocdb8r1]

From my review, it’s 30 days for FL and 60 days for CA. Beyond that, I have found nothing that suggests that those eligible for going in on exchange has to be similar to those out.

It's not a matter of a law forcing them to "balance" exchanges, but rather the contractual agreement that they provide to actual owners what they sold. If they allow more trades IN that OUT they could end up in a situation where (resale) owners of points at that resort (that are unable to trade out due to the restrictions) are unable to make reservations. That doesn't mean that from day 1 they have to make sure IN and OUT are equal, but they've got to maintain sufficient availability for owners at each resort to book their home resort (unless they trade OUT) which suggests some level of balancing.

 

[Sandisw]

It's not a matter of a law forcing them to "balance" exchanges, but rather the contractual agreement that they provide to actual owners what they sold. If they allow more trades IN that OUT they could end up in a situation where (resale) owners of points at that resort (that are unable to trade out due to the restrictions) are unable to make reservations. That doesn't mean that from day 1 they have to make sure IN and OUT are equal, but they've got to maintain sufficient availability for owners at each resort to book their home resort (unless they trade OUT) which suggests some level of balancing.

But our contracts don’t say that. They POS guarantees owners a one month advantage at their home resort. That’s it and that’s all you are entitled to. Of course, DVC currently gives us a 4 month advantage which is well above the current requirements.

So, those who buy in at a restricted resort will always have the ability to book before non owners.

Nothing in our contract guarantees you to any size room or any specific date..and there will never be a time where any one is shut out of the home resort all 365 days in a year.

Once the exchange window opens, all points are equal and at that point, a resale owner may very well find it difficult and will have to be pretty flexible.

ETA: I knew all of this when I decided to buy RIV resale points...I get those booked right at 11 months...but I know that if an emergency happened...like it did when my dad passed...I could end up with lost points...its why I ended up having one night in a GV there with just 4 people...but it was a risk I was willing to take!!

 

[AmicusDye]

But our contracts don’t say that. They POS guarantees owners a one month advantage at their home resort. That’s it and that’s all you are entitled to. Of course, DVC currently gives us a 4 month advantage which is well above the current requirements.

So, those who buy in at a restricted resort will always have the ability to book before non owners.

Nothing in our contract guarantees you to any size room or any specific date..and there will never be a time where any one is shut out of the home resort all 365 days in a year.

Once the exchange window opens, all points are equal and at that point, a resale owner may very well find it difficult and will have to be pretty flexible.

ETA: I knew all of this when I decided to buy RIV resale points...I get those booked right at 11 months...but I know that if an emergency happened...like it did when my dad passed...I could end up with lost points...its why I ended up having one night in a GV there with just 4 people...but it was a risk I was willing to take!!

Good points, but I think the issue could be viewed even more widely than that.

-I agree that VGC resale owners still hold the 11 mo. vs. 7 mo. booking advantage over owners at any other resort, so that property right remains unaffected by any resale/use restrictions with respect to VDH.

-The issue is that as soon as the 7 month window opens, Disney has effectively opened the door to thousands of people who can access VGC. This, by definition, alters the overall ratio of "owners" to "accommodations" for months 0-7.

-Generally, this ratio is "rebalanced" by allowing people at VGC to access accommodations at the 7-month mark that are equivalent to the number of people who now have access to VGC. (This is why it does not matter if one resort has 25 rooms and another has 250. In the end, so long as owners of either resort have access on the same 11mo/7mo timeline the ratio of owners to accommodations remains equivalent).

-As VDH does not exist to VGC resale owners, it's really no different than Disney giving anyone the like access to the rooms at seven months as far as the VGC resale owners are concerned.

-Disney may try to argue that once those VDH owners resell their rights, that will limit the number of people who can access VGC (or any other resort) and that will help "rebalance" the ratios over time. This argument does not work for numerous reasons, obviously.

I don't know, I'm fully open to the idea that I'm completely off base. I often am. But it seems clear to me that they are toying with the owner/accommodation ratios for marketing purposes and that California B&P Code may present an issue if scrutinized.

I'm not the suing type, but that's how a sizeable percentage of people in this crazy state make their bones.