What the Hell is Wrong with DVC?

[KAT4DISNEY]

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".

I had to look up "Estate for years" - it's defined as a type of leasehold. An interesting mix of language!

 

[TraderSamWDW]

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.

I think things are going to get more interesting. If the resorts open June 1, I doubt they are going to run at anywhere near typical DVC occupancy (95 plus percent) which means even more points going into next year. That 20 percent number will grow. If they run at 50 percent, that's a lot of additional points

 

[HeightRequirement]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I had heard they maintain a % and thought 20% sounded high.

 

[Sandisw]

I think things are going to get more interesting. If the resorts open June 1, I doubt they are going to run at anywhere near typical DVC occupancy (95 plus percent) which means even more points going into next year. That 20 percent number will grow. If they run at 50 percent, that's a lot of additional points

I was addressing 20% of the rooms out of service and that not being a normal occurrence in the DVC world,

But, absolutely, if rooms are empty, people made a choice not to go and so they are either losing the points or pushing them forward,

If that happens, we are in for a ride. Maybe summer bookings are also being tracked as part of the data they are using to help the, figure out if they can help with the lost points.

 

[HeightRequirement]

I had to look up "Estate for years" - it's defined as a type of leasehold. An interesting mix of language!

Good point. I usually see leased-fee interest and leasehold interest when a property is divided into a lessor-lessee relationship. Maybe that's only for personal residences rather than timeshares.

 

[HeightRequirement]

I think things are going to get more interesting. If the resorts open June 1, I doubt they are going to run at anywhere near typical DVC occupancy (95 plus percent) which means even more points going into next year. That 20 percent number will grow. If they run at 50 percent, that's a lot of additional points

True. And maybe the phrase "buy where you want to stay" will be ever more relevant.

 

[TraderSamWDW]

True. And maybe the phrase "buy where you want to stay" will be ever more relevant.

Particularly if they up 7 month swap out point requirements to chew up extra points!
While @Sandisw is right about the 20 percent from the closures, I wonder how many more cans will get kicked down the road. That number could easily blow past 30 percent if occupancy is low. Going to be interesting

 

[SpaceMountain77]

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

This is a terrific question and happens to be the one I asked Member Satisfaction when I received and reviewed my first contract for AKV.

In 2012, I was informed that we are guaranteed neither the continued presence of animals nor the type of African wildlife that freely roams. Moreover, the example that was provided included giraffes and zebra. Depending on care and cost, for example, giraffes and zebra could be replaced with a greater number of red river hogs.

Needless to say, removing animals from the savanna would have a significant effect on the reallocation of the point chart. If the savanna was to change, then, I suspect, it would be the type and number of different animals freely roaming.

This is what I understood from Member Satisfaction.

PS: I started this conversation to provide one example of included contract language that would likely be surprising to most.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

It is because there are two different objects. The condo is fee simple and the share of the ground lease is not.

Good point. I usually see leased-fee interest and leasehold interest when a property is divided into a lessor-lessee relationship. Maybe that's only for personal residences rather than timeshares.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Thank you. A couple of the responses make a break appealing. I actually joined for some ideas and thoughts on the point rental in regard to Dave.

Let me leave you with a google search that took a few seconds. I googled the definition of 'fee simple'. Here is what I found, I don't see it related to or limited to rentals at all. You can also check wikepedia.

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
An interest in land. Land owned in fee simple is owned completely, without any limitations or conditions. This type of unlimited estate is called absolute. A fee simple is generally created when a deed gives the land with no conditions, usually using the words like "to John Doe" or "to John Doe and his heirs".

Fee Simple | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

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

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

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?

I would be upset if they were removed. What I'm trying to understand is how, just because I'm unhappy about it, that I would get legal protection from something that I agreed to in the contract I signed?

Previously, you stated that the IL law protected against material alterations to the contract. I interpreted that to mean changing the terms of the contract in a material way. Since the contract addresses this specific circumstance, the contract is not being altered.

What you seem to be saying is that even a change that's explicitly defined in the contract is subject to this law if the customer deems that it's adverse to them.

So, in the terms and conditions of your cell phone contract, it says that your data slows down after you use a certain amount. Therefore, you can have that element of the contract thrown out because you deem it to be adverse to you?

I'm not trying to be argumentative... just trying to understand how your describing this law and how it would be applied in this instance. If DVC openly disclosed in writing that the animals could be removed, and you signed a contract with those terms and conditions, how does that qualify as a deceptive practice that this law would protect you from?

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

So I guess as an owner of BLT if they take away TOWL, which is heavily advertised but explicitly not a guaranteed amenity, Illinois consumer law is going to allow me pursue legal recourse from Disney? That would be wonderful but not likely.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Thank you. A couple of the responses make a break appealing. I actually joined for some ideas and thoughts on the point rental in regard to Dave.

Let me leave you with a google search that took a few seconds. I googled the definition of 'fee simple'. Here is what I found, I don't see it related to or limited to rentals at all. You can also check wikepedia.

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
An interest in land. Land owned in fee simple is owned completely, without any limitations or conditions. This type of unlimited estate is called absolute. A fee simple is generally created when a deed gives the land with no conditions, usually using the words like "to John Doe" or "to John Doe and his heirs".
Fee Simple | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

Ummmm - we can't take the condo with us when the land lease is up.

 

[Shamus]

Is it me or did this discussion take a left turn somewhere - Like maybe back in Illinois?

I would like to see this thread get back to discussing what is actually currently occurring, but maybe it's too late for that.

Not trying to be rude here, but I thought the original topic was a discussion about Pete's rant on what is currently occurring in regards to the pandemic closing and DVC's failure to address it in a manner which doesn't leave members saying What the Hell is Wrong With DVC!

Instead I feel like I'm sitting in Dr. Kingsfield's class on Contract Law.

Hmmm.... on second thought I think that left turn might have been long before we got to Illinois.

 

[Sandisw]

Is it me or did this discussion take a left turn somewhere - Like maybe back in Illinois?

I would like to see this thread get back to discussing what is actually currently occurring, but maybe it's too late for that.

Not trying to be rude here, but I thought the original topic was a discussion about Pete's rant on what is currently occurring in regards to the pandemic closing and DVC's failure to address it in a manner which doesn't leave members saying What the Hell is Wrong With DVC!

Instead I feel like I'm sitting in Dr. Kingsfield's class on Contract Law.

Hmmm.... on second thought I think that left turn might have been long before we got to Illinois.

It is funny how people view things. I think the DVC information as been pretty clear, No holding, borrowed points back, and no changing to banking...until this is farther along, and then maybe we can help those losing points.

Granted, people want that decision now, but I think no news is good news because it means they are still figuring it all out.

If some want an answer sooner, it might not be the one that favors owners.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Funny you say that. I remember when we purchased in 2002, our guide actually stressed there is no guarantee there will be parks in the future. He said they could close them permanently, and we would still own DVC.

Right, same with our in 1997. The original guides were better salespeople and felt responsible for what they were selling. It wasn't Pixiedust and dreams. It was a timeshare.

Exactly. The main reason I say NEVER buy a used house! because you don't know what was done behind all those closed up walls, who did what with the electrical work, etc, etc,
Way too much money to spend on something owned by some shoemaker DIY person going to town

Then again people were screaming when skyliner traffic got diverted past the Boardwalk, they should have known that a DVC contract did not guarantee them peace and quiet.

Exactly the reason you don't want to buy a brand new house. About a week after we moved into our brand new house, in a brand new subdivision, the upstairs toilet overflowed and the ceiing in the kitchen fell down. Found out there were carpet scraps and other debris that had been tossed in the toilet during construction.

 

[Shamus]

It is funny how people view things. I think the DVC information as been pretty clear, No holding, borrowed points back, and no changing to banking...until this is farther along, and then maybe we can help those losing points.

Granted, people want that decision now, but I think no news is good news because it means they are still figuring it all out.

If some want an answer sooner, it might not be the one that favors owners.

Agreed!

But I'm not looking for answers from DVC right now. Just leadership!

If Terri Shultz or a member of her family is ill ... God Bless Her! If not - God help her with her resume!

Still not sure where we are ... Kansas ??? Anyway, Stepping down from my box .... resume your normal activities.

 

[karen4546]

Is it me or did this discussion take a left turn somewhere - Like maybe back in Illinois?

I would like to see this thread get back to discussing what is actually currently occurring, but maybe it's too late for that.

Not trying to be rude here, but I thought the original topic was a discussion about Pete's rant on what is currently occurring in regards to the pandemic closing and DVC's failure to address it in a manner which doesn't leave members saying What the Hell is Wrong With DVC!

Instead I feel like I'm sitting in Dr. Kingsfield's class on Contract Law.

Hmmm.... on second thought I think that left turn might have been long before we got to Illinois.

and i have to go back to the OP's original post..... we have got to get back on topic..... i know this CV-19 is awful for some BUT THE OP AND MYSELF WANT TO GET SATISFACTION FOR WHAT WE BOUGHT AND comments that are off topic are meant to be disparaging are USELESS AND FRANKLY ANNOYING. We are owners of a property that we can not gain access to and therefore we seek a remedy or restitution. Any comments that are so sorry too bad and I want to stay positive and hope that WDW is open in May /June - even though i don't have a June trip booked.

 

[Sandisw]

Let’s remember stay on topic and simply share thoughts/ opinions on the link that was posted.

Thank you.

 

[Cyberc1978]

To stay on topic the communication from DVC haven’t been the best, with that said DVC are assessing what they can and can not do.

I do however hope that they won’t allow any late banking or extending to points. If they do the inventory will be much worse than it is.

I feel sorry for those that risk losing points(myself included) but everyone booking a vacation late in the UY made a choice and took on a risk that if anything were to happen you could lose your points.

Owners with a September or later UY right now have to make a choice, should they cancel their vaca and bank the points (if possible) and book later or take a chance.

After all if this goes on for a lengthy time the membership will only lose one year worth of points.

Since DVC is only a timeshare and never will be more than that, why is that we owners are the ones that complains the most? I’m not hearing other timeshare owners complain, they might but I’m not hearing about it.