What the Hell is Wrong with DVC?

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I am disagreeing with you. I am saying despite what the contract says in fine print that the advertising is everywhere and would give rise to a case under IL Consumer Protection. I am fine with you believing not. What people sign in the contract does not matter in regard to the IL act. The act is clear that rights under the act can NOT be waived.

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.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Specifically the italics I posted. They are also from the controlling documents. Disney does not get to decide unilaterally what material alterations are. Disney does not get to decide why people made their purchases.

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.

View attachment 486266

 

[_auroraborealis_]

What if they still keep a couple of deer on the Savannah?

DISNEY DUCKS!!!

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Having been an Illinois resident in the past, good luck with getting the state to devote resources to caring about zebras at your out-of-state timeshare.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

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.

Do we know for a fact that it would require DVD voting in order to exercise an option (such as no longer maintaining animals at the facility) that is explicitly allowed in the contract?

I completely get what you're saying about the marketing vs. the reality of the contract, but the way you're describing this law sounds like it empowers people to not read what they're agreeing to and/or just get terms of the contract thrown out if they don't like them.

I'm all for consumer protection, but the consumer also bears some personal responsibility for their own decisions. What other terms can simply be challenged as "fine print" that doesn't reflect the marketing of the product? Ability to stay at other resorts whenever you want? Banking deadlines? Rising MFs? Resale restrictions?

 

[TraderSamWDW]

Doesn't really matter, at any time there is a live animal on the savanna, it just might be a native wildlife - problem solved, you got animals

 

[DebbieB]

Anything can happen. What if some disease is spread among the animals and requires removal?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I am disagreeing with you. I am saying despite what the contract says in fine print that the advertising is everywhere and would give rise to a case under IL Consumer Protection. I am fine with you believing not. What people sign in the contract does not matter in regard to the IL act. The act is clear that rights under the act can NOT be waived.

So if I live in East Timbuktu, and we have a law that guarantees us the right to smoke anywhere (literally anywhere), does that mean Disney has to allow smoking anywhere I want?

Your argument does not make sense to me.
I’m guessing Florida law here is what matters. It would be impossible for Disney (or anyone) to operate according to every law in the world.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

Having been an Illinois resident in the past, good luck with getting the state to devote resources to caring about zebras at your out-of-state timeshare.

Agreed. Unless someone bought in Illinois at the Doorway to Dreams store (when it was open) I think you'd have a very hard time getting any traction in this specific case if you brought this through the Illinois system.

The 815 ILCS 505/1 really only allows for remedies when one party actively deceives the other in order to coerce a transaction. I could see maybe you'd have a case if you bought at Doorways to Dreams in 2009 and then in 2010 DVC immediately removed the animals. Even then, without proof this was their intention from the get go it would be an uphill fight. But if all of a sudden cost of the upkeep on the animals doubled and DVC had to decide between a $5 increase/year in dues pp or remove the animals...going with removing the animals wouldn't be fraud or a deceptive business practice.

 

[HeightRequirement]

That's because 20% of an entire year's inventory, system-wide, is not available for use. But the resorts run at essentially full occupancy year-round, and each of those nights is represented by points that someone owns. That means that 20% of a year's worth of points, system-wide, can never be used for lodging.

Why is that?

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

It seems to me you already know the answer to your question, unlike some of the people who just want to disagree. I would hope nobody is seriously try to compare a foreign law to law with a sister state under a constitution that guarantee's full faith and credit. Although I will admit that the more I see of the internet the more I believe we need serious civics class. Short response to an unserious post...FL does not get to decide what IL believes is important.

Equally clear. The State of IL has nothing to do with the filing and prosecution of a class action in federal court. Nothing. I can't get into how people respond to things they know nothing about and are to lazy to even spend a minute googling.

Earlier I believe you posted that you would be really upset if the animal were removed. IMO that would a material adverse action. It seems to me that based on what you said before you also would find that a material adverse action. Do you?

qualifies your

Do we know for a fact that it would require DVD voting in order to exercise an option (such as no longer maintaining animals at the facility) that is explicitly allowed in the contract?

I completely get what you're saying about the marketing vs. the reality of the contract, but the way you're describing this law sounds like it empowers people to not read what they're agreeing to and/or just get terms of the contract thrown out if they don't like them.

I'm all for consumer protection, but the consumer also bears some personal responsibility for their own decisions. What other terms can simply be challenged as "fine print" that doesn't reflect the marketing of the product? Ability to stay at other resorts whenever you want? Banking deadlines? Rising MFs? Resale restrictions?

 

[Sandisw]

Why is that?

Assuming 10 week resort closures, that is about 20% of the rooms now gone from this UY...all those points have to go somewhere, unless some of the, expire,

It is why DVCM hasn’t been able to change the banking rules because until they have an actual idea of how many points that is, what they can legally do, as well as what they can try to do in more creative way, it is too hard to come up with a solution to help out owners who have points that will expire during the closing.

 

[Deploraboo]

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.

not sure who you mean by ‘expert Disney defender’ buddy but you may want to take a break from the keyboard right now.

 

[Sandisw]

It seems to me you already know the answer to your question, unlike some of the people who just want to disagree. I would hope nobody is seriously try to compare a foreign law to law with a sister state under a constitution that guarantee's full faith and credit. Although I will admit that the more I see of the internet the more I believe we need serious civics class. Short response to an unserious post...FL does not get to decide what IL believes is important.

Equally clear. The State of IL has nothing to do with the filing and prosecution of a class action in federal court. Nothing. I can't get into how people respond to things they know nothing about and are to lazy to even spend a minute googling.

Earlier I believe you posted that you would be really upset if the animal were removed. IMO that would a material adverse action. It seems to me that based on what you said before you also would find that a material adverse action. Do you?

qualifies your

If I read the POS correctly, things that would be considered a material change to the product,,.no sure I agree that includes animals..have to be presented to owners for either a vote, or given a way to get out of the contract.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

The Act is linked. The relevant provisions posted in the original post.

"Buechin v. Ogden Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 159 Ill. App. 3d 237, 250 (2d Dist. 1987) (“The majority of the traditional common law elements have been virtually eliminated by the [Act].”).
The ICFA eliminates age old adage of caveat emptor or let the buyer beware.

It removes the common law fraud elements of scienter (that a defendant knew that its alleged misstatements were false) and reliance (that the consumer relied on the misstatements in purchasing the deceptively advertised or represented products or services.) Accordingly, even innocent misrepresentations or misstatements by a seller to a consumer violate the Act and entitle a consumer to recover."

Agreed. Unless someone bought in Illinois at the Doorway to Dreams store (when it was open) I think you'd have a very hard time getting any traction in this specific case if you brought this through the Illinois system.

The 815 ILCS 505/1 really only allows for remedies when one party actively deceives the other in order to coerce a transaction. I could see maybe you'd have a case if you bought at Doorways to Dreams in 2009 and then in 2010 DVC immediately removed the animals. Even then, without proof this was their intention from the get go it would be an uphill fight. But if all of a sudden cost of the upkeep on the animals doubled and DVC had to decide between a $5 increase/year in dues pp or remove the animals...going with removing the animals wouldn't be fraud or a deceptive business practice.

 

[HeightRequirement]

Assuming 10 week resort closures, that is about 20% of the rooms now gone from this UY...all those points have to go somewhere, unless some of the, expire,

It is why DVCM hasn’t been able to change the banking rules because until they have an actual idea of how many points that is, what they can legally do, as well as what they can try to do in more creative way, it is too hard to come up with a solution to help out owners who have points that will expire during the closing.

Thanks. So the 20% unavailability is not a normal part of DVC operations?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

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

I believe it would be leasehold not fee simple. ie - a rental with an end date.

 

[Sandisw]

Thanks. So the 20% unavailability is not a normal part of DVC operations?

No, not at all! Disney maintains about 2% to 5% of the resort, which helps when rooms need to be taken out of service for problems, etc,

But, normally, DVC runs at a pretty high rate of occupancy.

 

[HeightRequirement]

I believe it would be leasehold not fee simple. ie - a rental with an end date.

Not sure if other jurisdictions differ, but just looked at my deed and under ownership interest it states: "The Ownership Interest consists of (a) an undivided fee simple interest in (i) the Condominium Unit". Further down it states: "The Property includes an estate for years in the land...rather than a fee simple interest in the land...The estate for years ends at midnight on January 31".

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

This is one of the reasons time shares have to qualify to sell state by state.

Not sure if other jurisdictions differ, but just looked at my deed and under ownership interest it states: "The Ownership Interest consists of (a) an undivided fee simple interest in (i) the Condominium Unit". Further down it states: "The Property includes an estate for years in the land...rather than a fee simple interest in the land...The estate for years ends at midnight on January 31".