What the Hell is Wrong with DVC?

[Sandisw]

Not even that. They own a fractional interest in real estate. which is basically a right to use. Like a rental.

Fractional or not, owners have a deeded real estate interest, recorded no differently then a house ownership would.

 

[Cdn Jeff]

The continuing and classic conflict. Will fine print that nobody reads overcome advertising that nobody can avoid or miss.

I bought at AK instead of a different resort (I own at 2 others) exactly and precisely for the savanna and the animals.

As an IL resident I feel pretty confident that if I need safety from Disney doing things like removing the animals then among other avenues the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act will give me a remedy; when and even more so when the question of real estate is separated from the non real estate. I am also confident many other IL Owners at AK would feel the same way triggering a class action and an overwhelming tsunami of bad press. Every potential juror would get this.

No "fraud" as it is commonly understood is required. Only a 'advertisement' provided from the business to the consumer that was intended to be relied on; and it does not require the consumer to have actually been misled. Being mislead is not the same as being gas light (or in other words not informed, distracted, bait and switched).

IL does not allow a waiver of the rights under the act.

(b) The term "merchandise" includes any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate situated outside the State of Illinois, or services.
(f) The terms "trade" and "commerce" mean the advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this State.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2356&ChapterID=67

Illinois laws are going to pertain to a Florida real estate transaction?

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

They certainly are: " include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this State. "

Illinois laws are going to pertain to a Florida real estate transaction?

 

[Cyberc1978]

I’m going to end up losing points. How about a significant discount on tickets or annual passes based on the value of those points (for instance, if rented). So I lose 50 points I get $800-1000 in ticket / pass credit as those points normally rent for $18-20pp.

But you didn’t pay that much for the points. IF and that’s a BIG if DVC will compensate you $$ that would be the operation part of your dues.

 

[crisi]

Illinois laws are going to pertain to a Florida real estate transaction?

Or override a contract you signed that plainly spells out "animals may be removed from the Savannah?" Unless you bought resale, in which case you didn't sign the contract, it was signed when the original owners bought the contract, but you are still tied to it.

 

[bakerworld]

IMO, DVC should take whatever points have been used to reserve in the months they are closed and bank them all into the coming UY. Make them unbank-able for the following UY but they can be borrowed into the current UY if someone can use them or transferred into RCI. Obviously there will be a glut of points for the next year to 18 months but there will also be many who cannot use them. Meanwhile DVC comes out looking like they tried to do right. I think it would be a WIN for all.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Exactly. Consumer Protections "OVERRIDE" contracts.

So maybe you believe Disney is actually all powerful and so you can and roll over if you want but 2 things to think about.

First:
Guess where this is from?
Guess who will decide what "materially adverse way" means?

DVD may not cast a Unit vote as the representative of a particular Unit in a manner that would affect the Owners of the DVC Resort as a whole in a materially adverse way.

2nd and with the caveat that not one single court in the USA will decide Disney is all powerful and can not be sued and proven wrong:

Consumer Protection Acts are specifically to "OVERRIDE" a contract signed.

I am not sure where you get the idea that what one party to a contract is all powerful and the other does as orders but you are wrong. The entire idea of the Acts are to remove the overwhelming power of giant companies and this works very effectively with class action law suits.

Or override a contract you signed that plainly spells out "animals may be removed from the Savannah?" Unless you bought resale, in which case you didn't sign the contract, it was signed when the original owners bought the contract, but you are still tied to it.

 

[crisi]

Exactly. Consumer Protections "OVERRIDE" contracts.

So maybe you believe Disney is actually all powerful and so you can and roll over if you want but 2 things to think about.

First:
Guess where this is from?
Guess who will decide what "materially adverse way" means?

DVD may not cast a Unit vote as the representative of a particular Unit in a manner that would affect the Owners of the DVC Resort as a whole in a materially adverse way.

2nd and with the caveat that not one single court in the USA will decide Disney is all powerful and can not be sued and proven wrong:

Consumer Protection Acts are specifically to "OVERRIDE" a contract signed.

I am not sure where you get the idea that what one party to a contract is all powerful and the other does as orders but you are wrong. The entire idea of the Acts are to remove the overwhelming power of giant companies and this works very effectively with class action law suits.

The won't in this case. It is spelled out clearly what you get in the contract - accommodations. And spelled out clearly what isn't included - animals. (Contract law course and then doing corporate contracts for fifteen years, btw.).

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Exactly. Consumer Protections "OVERRIDE" contracts.

So maybe you believe Disney is actually all powerful and so you can and roll over if you want but 2 things to think about.

First:
Guess where this is from?
Guess who will decide what "materially adverse way" means?

DVD may not cast a Unit vote as the representative of a particular Unit in a manner that would affect the Owners of the DVC Resort as a whole in a materially adverse way.

2nd and with the caveat that not one single court in the USA will decide Disney is all powerful and can not be sued and proven wrong:

Consumer Protection Acts are specifically to "OVERRIDE" a contract signed.

I am not sure where you get the idea that what one party to a contract is all powerful and the other does as orders but you are wrong. The entire idea of the Acts are to remove the overwhelming power of giant companies and this works very effectively with class action law suits.

I’m not a lawyer, but I know we have a few on these boards. I really hope they check in and comment on this.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

The won't in this case. It is spelled out clearly what you get in the contract - accommodations. And spelled out clearly what isn't included - animals. (Contract law course and then doing corporate contracts for fifteen years, btw.).

I think you might have a case if the contract didn't address the presence of animals at all. Then you could cite the marketing showing a giraffe poking his head in your window (can I sue because they are actually not that close?) as implying that they were included in what you bought (i.e. Disney enticed you to buy with the lure of those animals).

But with it spelled out clearly that they are not, and you signed the contract to that effect, I have a hard time understanding how that would be subject to consumer protection.

What if they still keep a couple of deer on the Savannah? Are we guaranteed giraffes and zebras specifically?

P.S. I'm an AKV owner and we would be heartbroken if the animals were no longer there. But if those are the terms we agreed to, I don't see how not liking those terms after the fact gives us standing for a suit.

 

[Deploraboo]

Fractional or not, owners have a deeded real estate interest, recorded no differently then a house ownership would.

I stand corrected. A fee simple interest in the right to use. Basically a rental.

 

[Deploraboo]

I’d assume the contracts are governed by Florida law, a pure assumption, but given that Disney is HQd there, would think so and would imagine FL law as it applies to timeshares is pro Disney,

To get it removed to federal court you’d need a min amount in controversy (believe that 75K but could be higher these days) plus diversity of citizenship or a constitutional issue (naked contractual matter won’t qualify) - called subject matter jurisdiction.

the contract probably had you submitting to FL law and Fl courts, so you should check out the governing law and submission to jurisdiction section. It may have a dispute resolution section taking courts out of it entirely. Again, this is a generality and I am not an owner and have not read the governing agreement).

If this site would let me post more than twice an hour because someone complained about something I said once I could be more helpful.

 

[Sandisw]

I stand corrected. A fee simple interest in the right to use. Basically a rental.

DVC ownership is not a rental. We own the building but lease the Land,

 

[Deploraboo]

Right. And I “own” AAPL.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

DVC ownership is not a rental. We own the building but lease the Land,

I do agree, but I never understood how that works. Members own the building, but they have to give it back in 2042.

 

[Sandisw]

Right. And I “own” AAPL.

You can’t sell a rental. I’m not sure I understand your points so please share what it is your are trying to help others understand

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Right. And I “own” AAPL.

What’s AAPL ?

 

[Sandisw]

I do agree, but I never understood how that works. Members own the building, but they have to give it back in 2042.

I do agree, but I never understood how that works. Members own the building, but they have to give it back in 2042.

Yeah, I don’t know all the legal aspects in depth, but from the way someone once explained it was that Disney leases the land for free to owners in exchange to get the owners property at expiration.

Not sure how true that ism but that was what I got when I asked

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Disney HQ is actually in CA. These lesser and controlled are not. The key being CONTROLLED.

Conflict of law and venue/jurisdiction are extremely complex and nobody should be making assumptions or declarations here as just setting forth the assumptions for one side would take hours. Conflict of laws is not bound by the jurisdiction or venue set in a contract. Law controls contracts and often over rules contracts. Contracts have to work within the boundaries of the law, not the other way around. It is far more common than not for the powerful party to push the boundaries of what they can actually do.

You don't need to 'remove' to federal court. You can file in federal court. It does not take many people, enough to qualify as a 'class' to exceed the amount in controversy.

Again, when one poster "ASSUMES" facts that are not facts it is pretty easy to find the conclusion wanted. It is amazing to me how many 'expert' disney defenders there are here, anxious to apparently please the mouse when nobody is attacking Disney, just pointing out sitting in a sales pitch with non lawyers who are on the other side does not give secret knowledge.

The fact is I, and many other AK owners would believe no animals (and not playing games about one deer or ground mice) is in fact a material alteration.

If I knew how to help you remove the posting restrictions I would but I am new here myself.

I’d assume the contracts are governed by Florida law, a pure assumption, but given that Disney is HQd there, would think so and would imagine FL law as it applies to timeshares is pro Disney,

To get it removed to federal court you’d need a min amount in controversy (believe that 75K but could be higher these days) or a constitutional issue (naked contractual matter won’t qualify) - called subject matter jurisdiction.

the contract probably had you submitting to FL law and Fl courts, so you should check out the governing law and submission to jurisdiction section. It may have a dispute resolution section taking courts out of it entirely. Again, this is a generality and I am not an owner and have not read the governing agreement).

If this site would let me post more than twice an hour because someone complained about something I said once I could be more helpful.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

The fact is I, and many other AK owners would believe no animals (and not playing games about one deer or ground mice) is in fact a material alteration.

It is amazing to me how many 'expert' disney defenders there are here, anxious to apparently please the mouse

Oh, I've been critical of the mouse plenty... I'm just trying to understand how something spelled out in the terms of a contract can be a material alteration of the contract.

If the contract guaranteed they would have exotic animals roaming the savannah and they don't honor that, or change those terms, then I could see that be characterized as an alteration to the contract. I just don't understand how exercising something IN the contract is altering the contract.