VDH - Resale and Use Restrictions Legal in CA?

[Sandisw]

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.

Again, there is nothing in the contracts or in the law that requires the number of points that are exhchanged to maintain a 1:1 ratio. It applies only to the points sold in relation to rooms in that association. The code you refer does not apply to exchanges, just the actual resort one has an ownership interest in. since the timeshare law language thst I posted and someone else posted is clear that the exchange option and terms are up to the developer.

Matter of fact, the current contracts give BVTC the option to create their own point charts for trades..they never have..which could require non owners to pay more points per night than owners because the rule to keep it balanced does not apply for exchanges.

The only requiements thst must be followed are the rules of the home resort because that is where you own and all you are entitled to by CA timeshare law.

It doesn’t matter how many non owners can trade in. Those who own at any resorts are only entitled to what that law and our contracts give them..and that is an advantage of booking where we own over those who don’t own there. Right now, DVC exceeds the requirement…as I said, we get 4 months.

Even now, more points can trade into a resort than can trade out for many of them.

For example. VGF had sbout 2 million points before BPK. But the number of points eligible for trading in was 5 times thst if you consider all the resorts that exist in BVTC

So, just because VGC and VDH exist as the only DL, ir in CA, it doesn’t make them exclusive as they are both part of a multi site timeshare program.

I get the concern that those who want to stay at these two places could find themselves out of luck but that is diffeeent than what the law and the contracts allow.

Using non home resort points falls under the rules of exhanges and not the rules related to the place one has an ownership.

Where that code you mention comes into play is with the points that are deeded to VDH and VGC..and they can never sell more than matches the 1:1 ratio for use. And why the home resort points chart must maintain that balance for owners of that resort

The law you mention specifically uses the word purchaser…and that is how you know it is applies to those who buy at a specific resort, not those who do not.


Remember, the non home resort bookings that are available is based solely on the availability left after owners book so as long as VDH owners get to book and are only competing against other owners for a set amount of time, they have stayed within that code of 1:1 room to points.

 

[Huskerpaul]

Maybe a new Anaheim Tourism District Board can weigh in on this.

 

[ocdb8r1]

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.

1) agreed, it doesn't guarantee you access to any specific date or size room but it does guarantee you access to your home resort. I also agree that while it is unlikely at this stage anyone would be shut out of their resort, if sufficient points at a resort with restrictions are re-sold it becomes increasingly possible (absent DVC ensuring some sort of balance);

2) absent the above, Disney could sell as many points as it wanted regardless of how many units it had "committed" to inventory. Disney must guarantee sufficient inventory for an owner to book and if they permit an imbalance of trades IN compared to trades OUT they cannot reasonably say they have provided that inventory. Disney can't say they only sold the number of points as units were available and then push all those units into the Buena Vista Trading Company or to cash sales....(until the Breakage period).

I'm not trying to defend DVC, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there has to be some reasonable middle ground here. Bottom line - BVTC can only access inventory in an amount owned by those able to participate in BVTC. Resale owners at RIV are unable to participate in BVTC and thus BVTC should not be able to access the amount of inventory owned by RIV resale owners. DVC must do something to ensure this, and "balancing" in vs out is the logical way of doing it (and I don't see any other possible proposal).

 

[D-Trick]

I'm not trying to defend DVC, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there has to be some reasonable middle ground here. Bottom line - BVTC can only access inventory in an amount owned by those able to participate in BVTC. Resale owners at RIV are unable to participate in BVTC and thus BVTC should not be able to access the amount of inventory owned by RIV resale owners. DVC must do something to ensure this, and "balancing" in vs out is the logical way of doing it (and I don't see any other possible proposal).

I'm understanding your argument here.

Simply put, if 25% of all RIV contracts are resale owners, then only 75% of all inventory should be available to BVTC for trading. Likewise, if in 40 years 60% of all RIV contracts are resales, then only 40% should be available for trade.

The problem is that there's no way to declare this. Would it be by points? If not points, then rooms? If someone trades into a GV worth 100 points but then cancels, then does that 100 go to first dibs and someone can trade into a 20pt studio, thus leaving 80 points left available for trade and taking the GV now off the table?

Resale owners for restricted resorts should know, or will eventually learn, that they need to book in their home booking window. Owners for high demand resorts (ie VGC, BCV) already know this and further drives home the point to buy where you want to stay.

There will always be high demand categories (BWV std, AKV value), but I can't recall any time that an owner complained that they were 100% shut out and couldn't use any of their points in their home booking window.

 

[Sandisw]

1) agreed, it doesn't guarantee you access to any specific date or size room but it does guarantee you access to your home resort. I also agree that while it is unlikely at this stage anyone would be shut out of their resort, if sufficient points at a resort with restrictions are re-sold it becomes increasingly possible (absent DVC ensuring some sort of balance);

2) absent the above, Disney could sell as many points as it wanted regardless of how many units it had "committed" to inventory. Disney must guarantee sufficient inventory for an owner to book and if they permit an imbalance of trades IN compared to trades OUT they cannot reasonably say they have provided that inventory. Disney can't say they only sold the number of points as units were available and then push all those units into the Buena Vista Trading Company or to cash sales....(until the Breakage period).

I'm not trying to defend DVC, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there has to be some reasonable middle ground here. Bottom line - BVTC can only access inventory in an amount owned by those able to participate in BVTC. Resale owners at RIV are unable to participate in BVTC and thus BVTC should not be able to access the amount of inventory owned by RIV resale owners. DVC must do something to ensure this, and "balancing" in vs out is the logical way of doing it (and I don't see any other possible proposal).

It is impossible for any home resort owner to be shut out of using their points. The number of points sold match the number of units.

DVC has the balancing power with banking and borrowng rules

Now, it may mean you have to go a different day, or take a different room size, but as long as the number of points at a home resort sold match, then you are getting what you are agreed to get

BVTC is simply that we, as owners, have access to whatever resorts are there based on the terms of our own DVC resort agreement. We lump the resorts together as restricted vs not but we get to trade based on the current agreement we have with them.

Matter of fact, what you say about balance is already there. RIV/VDH resale can’t access VGF and VGF resale can’t access those resorts.

RIV/VDH resale can’t access SSR and SSR resale can’t acces those. RIV/VDH resale can’t access VGC and VGC resale can’t access those, etc. You get the picture.

I get that people may not like the with the way it is set up, but the changes from 2019 apply equally to all resorts and that js resales from the new resorts and the old resorts can’t trade amongst each other.

Since DVC gives all home resort owners the courtesy of 4 months get booked before allowing those rooms to be accessed by others no resort owners will be forced to lose points unless by choice..and chose I mean not being willing to change dates, etc.

The thread was about legal and nothing in the law in CA prevents DVD from making VDH a restricted resort.

As I shared in my first post, I know there are some owners who feel the change thst BVTC made in 2019 should not have been allowed because of the original clause of “substantially” similar implies a restricted resale resort can’t be part of it.

But, they did grandfather everyone who bought with those terms and amended the agreements thst clause no longer exists. Our POS also says they have the right to amend so in that sense we go in knowing the exchange rules could be changed.

So, everyone buying today buys with the understanding that resale points are restricted in some way.

 

[New Mouse]

I think the bigger problems/Challenges that we get regarding these issues will show up closer to when resorts start leaving the system after expiration. At some point in time if I were to sell my Grand Californian, there would be only 1 or 2 resorts left for people to trade into because Disney fundamentally changed the system way back when. Right now there's little effect on their value so people don't seem to care.

We saw with the Old Key West extension that Disney had absolutely no exit strategy or even a remotely basic legal understanding of what their actions meant. We've also seen several times over the course of DVCs life that Disney executives and lawyers really do not understand their product and their responsibilities to us.

Some of it was because of greed and legitimate fraud. Some of it was because of ignorance. Either way, none of it was legal. For some reason Disney legal has not done a great job when it comes to DVC, so I wouldn't doubt that many challenges could be successful.

 

[ocdb8r1]

BVTC is simply that we, as owners, have access to whatever resorts are there based on the terms of our own DVC resort agreement. We lump the resorts together as restricted vs not but we get to trade based on the current agreement we have with them.

Matter of fact, what you say about balance is already there. RIV/VDH resale can’t access VGF and VGF resale can’t access those resorts.

RIV/VDH resale can’t access SSR and SSR resale can’t access those. RIV/VDH resale can’t access VGC and VGC resale can’t access those, etc. You get the picture.

If this is what you meant, than we are on the same page. This was the sort of "balancing" I was referring to.

The issue is when you have a mix of both resale and direct points (with different rights). Direct points are sold with access to all resorts. To use an extreme example, if ALL points at RIV were held by resale owners, effectively even direct owners at SSR would not have access to RIV as DVC must hold all inventory for "Home Resort" owners to utilize (and as all Home Resort owners in this extreme example have no rights to use BVTC to access the other DVC resorts, BVTC has no inventory to offer up direct owners at SSR). The only exception to this would be during the 60 day "breakage period" which gives DVC some extra rights to allocate inventory elsewhere. While of course it is unlikely this extreme example (where all of RIV is owned by resale owners) would ever exist, it illustrates that DVC has to ensure some balance between inventory made available to BVTC for owners at other resorts to trade in with "Home Resort" inventory made available to owners who are only permitted to use their points at their Home Resort.

The reservation windows are only tangentially related to this; they only define WHEN one might have access to Home Resort inventory or BVTC inventory...they have no bearing on what is available in each of those buckets of inventory. Some of your previous posts implied that at 7 months DVC/BVTC could provide access to all inventory, regardless how much of the resort is owned by resale owners with restrictions and how much is owned by direct owners with no restrictions. I contend, that is not the case and DVC/BVTC must account for differences in inventory at these times.

 

[Great3]

If this is what you meant, than we are on the same page. This was the sort of "balancing" I was referring to.

The issue is when you have a mix of both resale and direct points (with different rights). Direct points are sold with access to all resorts. To use an extreme example, if ALL points at RIV were held by resale owners, effectively even direct owners at SSR would not have access to RIV as DVC must hold all inventory for "Home Resort" owners to utilize (and as all Home Resort owners in this extreme example have no rights to use BVTC to access the other DVC resorts, BVTC has no inventory to offer up direct owners at SSR). The only exception to this would be during the 60 day "breakage period" which gives DVC some extra rights to allocate inventory elsewhere. While of course it is unlikely this extreme example (where all of RIV is owned by resale owners) would ever exist, it illustrates that DVC has to ensure some balance between inventory made available to BVTC for owners at other resorts to trade in with "Home Resort" inventory made available to owners who are only permitted to use their points at their Home Resort.

The reservation windows are only tangentially related to this; they only define WHEN one might have access to Home Resort inventory or BVTC inventory...they have no bearing on what is available in each of those buckets of inventory. Some of your previous posts implied that at 7 months DVC/BVTC could provide access to all inventory, regardless how much of the resort is owned by resale owners with restrictions and how much is owned by direct owners with no restrictions. I contend, that is not the case and DVC/BVTC must account for differences in inventory at these times.

I just couldn't express in words what I was thinking, but you summed it up well what my concern is about DVC being transparent, that they should be required to protect owners right at their own home resort. They can't offer up all available leftover rooms and points at 7 months mark if the resale owner owns there, unless all of them resale owners already booked during the home resort advantage. Meaning, what's made available for trading should only be the number of points owned by Direct owners minus those that already used their points to book to book during home advantage window.

Even if a resale owner doesn't book something during the 7-11 months window, that owner should be able to book the home resort in under the 7 months mark, because that's what the owner owns their points at. They didn't give up their right and shouldn't lose their right to book the resort, even under 7 months. This is what worry me, and hence why I won't purchase RIV or VDH resale. So, it doesn't matter to me at least, it won't affect me, as I won't have a horse in the race.

Thanks,
Great3

 

[Sandisw]

If this is what you meant, than we are on the same page. This was the sort of "balancing" I was referring to.

The issue is when you have a mix of both resale and direct points (with different rights). Direct points are sold with access to all resorts. To use an extreme example, if ALL points at RIV were held by resale owners, effectively even direct owners at SSR would not have access to RIV as DVC must hold all inventory for "Home Resort" owners to utilize (and as all Home Resort owners in this extreme example have no rights to use BVTC to access the other DVC resorts, BVTC has no inventory to offer up direct owners at SSR). The only exception to this would be during the 60 day "breakage period" which gives DVC some extra rights to allocate inventory elsewhere. While of course it is unlikely this extreme example (where all of RIV is owned by resale owners) would ever exist, it illustrates that DVC has to ensure some balance between inventory made available to BVTC for owners at other resorts to trade in with "Home Resort" inventory made available to owners who are only permitted to use their points at their Home Resort.

The reservation windows are only tangentially related to this; they only define WHEN one might have access to Home Resort inventory or BVTC inventory...they have no bearing on what is available in each of those buckets of inventory. Some of your previous posts implied that at 7 months DVC/BVTC could provide access to all inventory, regardless how much of the resort is owned by resale owners with restrictions and how much is owned by direct owners with no restrictions. I contend, that is not the case and DVC/BVTC must account for differences in inventory at these times.

I do contend that the amount of inventory in BVTC available for anyone to trade does not have to be equal....just that the rules are consistent with what the DVC resort agreement is when those resorts enter the system for trades.

So, if, in the extreme example, all of RIV is owned by resale owners, then in essence, there would be very few rooms, if any, for others to trade into RIV. And, the booking window does matter because that is all, any of us have, as a right to book our resort over others who don't own there....

There is nothing stated in our contracts that I can see for any of us to have certain access to each resort and its inventory in an equal way...exchanges are treated differently by the law and don't follow the same rules.

As you said, they must follow the rules of the contract and right now, we have the right, based on availability to convert our home resort points into vacation points at 7 months...which can be changed...and use at whatever other DVC resort rooms exist at that time....

I just do not think there is anything that requires BVTC to ensure that all resorts 'deposit" the same number of their rooms for non owners...as RIV owners, we have the right to book up all of our own rooms, direct points or resale points makes no difference, before anyone gets a chance to stay there. Just because my direct points can trade elsewhere, doesn't mean I have to use them elsewhere, and the impact is the same on what inventory goes to BVTC.

That is why those that do not own at VGC now have a difficult time booking there...because owners bought points to use there and very little is available through BVTC. IMO, its semantics that those rooms could be booked if an owner didn't, but the net result is the same. The number of VGC rooms going into BVTC for use as non owners is small and the ones who determine how many rooms go for non resort owners are the owners of those resorts.

 

[Sandisw]

I just couldn't express in words what I was thinking, but you summed it up well what my concern is about DVC being transparent, that they should be required to protect owners right at their own home resort. They can't offer up all available leftover rooms and points at 7 months mark if the resale owner owns there, unless all of them resale owners already booked during the home resort advantage. Meaning, what's made available for trading should only be the number of points owned by Direct owners minus those that already used their points to book to book during home advantage window.

Even if a resale owner doesn't book something during the 7-11 months window, that owner should be able to book the home resort in under the 7 months mark, because that's what the owner owns their points at. They didn't give up their right and shouldn't lose their right to book the resort, even under 7 months. This is what worry me, and hence why I won't purchase RIV or VDH resale. So, it doesn't matter to me at least, it won't affect me, as I won't have a horse in the race.

Thanks,
Great3

Except they can offer rooms to non owners without all owners having booked first. The law specifically states, in both CA and FL that as an owner, you must be given a certain amount of time to book...and as long as the developer meets that guarantee, then you, as an owner, have the system that you bought in to.

Now, if BVTC wants to change the booking rules for non owners so that trading happens farther out, they have every right to do that, but contractually, and legally, all we are entitled to as owners is to use our points at the resort 30/60 days ahead of everyone else.

So, a resale owner who is locked into to RIV/VDH...and any future resorts...has to be given that window...but beyond that, they do not.

Again, it will make trading into a restricted resort more difficult but so far there has been nothing that anyone can point to in the law or the contracts that states the the number of rooms available for trades at 7 months..or whatever thst booking window is..be based on anything more than what owners have not booked for any given day.

With that, I have shared all my own thoughts.

 

[ocdb8r1]

I just couldn't express in words what I was thinking, but you summed it up well what my concern is about DVC being transparent, that they should be required to protect owners right at their own home resort.

I can't make any promises about actual transparency. Obviously this is going to be "new" to DVC and it will be some time (I think) before there are sufficient resale owners with these restrictions that it makes much a difference.

However, again, this may be new/novel to DVC, it is not new or novel in the timeshare world. Marriott has this same issue (even more complex) with their mix of points, deeded weeks and resale vs direct owners and has to manage the same. There have always been the same concerns about transparency and fairness, but my observation is that the vase majority of Marriott owners (no matter which bucket they fall into) are relatively happy with availability. I do not think they have been as "transparent" as many would like, but they do have an independent auditor come in and verify their internal trading activity and allocation to ensure it is "fair" and follows some internal rules and processes.

 

[ocdb8r1]

So, a resale owner who is locked into to RIV/VDH...and any future resorts...has to be given that window...but beyond that, they do not.

My concern is that you seem to be conflating the booking window with access to inventory.

In my extreme example where RIV was 100% owned by resale owners with restrictions was to illustrate that even if rooms are available and have not been booked at the 7 month window, owners of other resorts would not have access to those rooms as that inventory would need to be held for only "Home Resort" reservations. No inventory could be made available to BVTC because no RIV owners would be eligible to use BVTC.

I am also not arguing that anything obligates any DVC resort to make inventory available in BVTC for others to trade into EXCEPT where an owner at a resort has used their points to trade into another resort via BVTC, that resort must deposit inventory in a similar point value for access by BVTC.

 

[Sandisw]

My concern is that you seem to be conflating the booking window with access to inventory.

In my extreme example where RIV was 100% owned by resale owners with restrictions was to illustrate that even if rooms are available and have not been booked at the 7 month window, owners of other resorts would not have access to those rooms as that inventory would need to be held for only "Home Resort" reservations. No inventory could be made available to BVTC because no RIV owners would be eligible to use BVTC.

I am also not arguing that anything obligates any DVC resort to make inventory available in BVTC for others to trade into EXCEPT where an owner at a resort has used their points to trade into another resort via BVTC, that resort must deposit inventory in a similar point value for access by BVTC.

Where do you see that those rooms need to be held? The system, even for resale restricted points follow the same legal and contract rules

It’s points based and you are entitled to book your home resort in a FCFS basis during your home resort booking window. That is why the law and our contracts explain that you must be given a set amount of time.

So, an owner who fails to book their home resort during a window, doesn’t get the right to that room later.

Obviously we don’t agree that there is anything beyond the 30/60 days by law and contract that requires an owner of any resort to have the access to any given day

Any failure to do so is on the part of the owner and the developer, DVC, or BCTV isn’t responsible to make sure an owner books on time.

If the law and our contracts only give owners that 30/60 day window before non owners can be let in, then that is all BVTC needs to be sure happens.

ETA. What your thiought might be implying by is that a resale points owner would have to be given different rules for home resort than direct owners…and that is expressly not allowed by FL law.

 

[wnielsen1]

I have no problem with the way things are. A resale owner knows what they bought. They saved a ton of money to deal with restrictions. If they don't book early enough to secure a room, that's on them.

 

[Brian Noble]

The obvious solution to the concern of an exchange imbalance is to reserve during the home resort period. During that period, no exchanges are possible, and only owners can book.

 

[Great3]

Where do you see that those rooms need to be held? The system, even for resale restricted points follow the same legal and contract rules

It’s points based and you are entitled to book your home resort in a FCFS basis during your home resort booking window. That is why the law and our contracts explain that you must be given a set amount of time.

So, an owner who fails to book their home resort during a window, doesn’t get the right to that room later.

Obviously we don’t agree that there is anything beyond the 30/60 days by law and contract that requires an owner of any resort to have the access to any given day

Any failure to do so is on the part of the owner and the developer, DVC, or BCTV isn’t responsible to make sure an owner books on time.

If the law and our contracts only give owners that 30/60 day window before non owners can be let in, then that is all BVTC needs to be sure happens.

Yes, the law and contract agreements doesn't cover this, and by that, it seem DVC/DVD/Disney is within their legal right, which is why they enacted the restrictions they did.

I think what we are saying is this should be not right, and a law / rule should be enacted to cover these points/areas that hasn't come up before, hence why the suggestion about a possible lawsuit. Since, really, all laws and contracts are open to interpretation of their meanings and intent. Just the lawsuit won't by me, since at the end of the day, I decided never to purchase there resale. Now, if somehow someone brings suit and wins to get changes enacted, then I will be grateful to those that did so, and will re-evaluate future DVC purchases. So, I am thankful for this forum, so that I fully understand what I am getting and able to make decisions that make logical sense to me.

So, thanks for providing your insights and thoughts, I fully understand your points, and didn't think about it the way you did. Now, understanding your points doesn't mean I agree that "should" be the correct interpretation of the law / contract, but it won't be me challenging it in court. I will just play within the existing rules and move on.

Thanks,
Great3

 

[ocdb8r1]

Where do you see that those rooms need to be held? The system, even for resale restricted points follow the same legal and contract rules

It’s points based and you are entitled to book your home resort in a FCFS basis during your home resort booking window. That is why the law and our contracts explain that you must be given a set amount of time.

So, an owner who fails to book their home resort during a window, doesn’t get the right to that room later.

Obviously we don’t agree that there is anything beyond the 30/60 days by law and contract that requires an owner of any resort to have the access to any given day

Any failure to do so is on the part of the owner and the developer, DVC, or BCTV isn’t responsible to make sure an owner books on time.

If the law and our contracts only give owners that 30/60 day window before non owners can be let in, then that is all BVTC needs to be sure happens.

I think you're misinterpreting the contracts and the window. The Home Resort Priority Window guarantees that owners have exclusive access to their home resort from 11 to 7 months prior to a specific stay date. It does not guarantee the inverse (that other resort owners have access to non-home resort inventory at 7 months). All it does is permit this....subject to that inventory actually being made available to BVTC. DVC cannot provide access to that inventory beyond an amount owned by owners that can participate in BVTC.

In other words, I don't agree with your contention that you must make your Home Resort reservations from 11 to 7 months ahead of time, or risk losing all ability to use your points. That is not what the reservation window language says.

 

[Great3]

The obvious solution to the concern of an exchange imbalance is to reserve during the home resort period. During that period, no exchanges are possible, and only owners can book.

Yes, if I did buy there resale, I would 100% book during home resort window. And yes, if I didn't book before the 7 months mark, it would be on me, and I would blame myself. If I brought there resale, I would do so knowing full well what I gotten into and knowing how much I saved with resale. And I decided the savings aren't worth the risk of having to cancel due to some unforeseen circumstances that aren't even cover by travel insurance at less than the 7 months mark, as Sandisw once mentioned happened to her. It's a risk she is willing to accept, just not me.

Thanks,
Great3

 

[Sandisw]

I think you're misinterpreting the contracts and the window. The Home Resort Priority Window guarantees that owners have exclusive access to their home resort from 11 to 7 months prior to a specific stay date. It does not guarantee the inverse (that other resort owners have access to non-home resort inventory at 7 months). All it does is permit this....subject to that inventory actually being made available to BVTC. DVC cannot provide access to that inventory beyond an amount owned by owners that can participate in BVTC.

In other words, I don't agree with your contention that you must make your Home Resort reservations from 11 to 7 months ahead of time, or risk losing all ability to use your points. That is not what the reservation window language says.

The contract and law says it. You will be given only a one month advantage over non resort owners. After that, DVD can make any exchange rules they want.

So yes, if you fail to book when you have exclusive right to do so, you risk the chance to successfully book your resort.

DVC gives the 4 month advantage which is well above the legal and contractual requirements.

That happens now..plenty of owners can’t get thier home resort if they don’t book during the home resort window.

Great discussion for sure..just don’t see anything that requires them to do more than follow the terms of the contracts and timeshare laws.

 

[DonMacGregor]

The contract and law says it. You will be given only a one month advantage over non resort owners. After that, DVD can make any exchange rules they want.

So yes, if you fail to book when you have exclusive right to do so, you risk the chance to book your resort.

DVC gives the 4 month advantage which is well above the legal and contractual requirements.

The interesting thing in the scenario being discussed is that, in addition to only being able to use their points at RR, our hypothetical 100% resale ownership cohort actually not only has a 4-month booking advantage, they only effectively have a 4-month booking window in total, when all eligible direct owners from all other BVTC resorts (a potentially significantly larger number of owners with a larger cache of points) are free to book at seven months.