DIS Veteran<br><a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis
- Aug 19, 1999
IMO responses have already been given based on phone calls and emails, one has to escalate. Since I've talked to the FL Timeshare Bureau before, I know they will not take this up but it's worth a try. One has to do something more specific, something where there is teeth to get them to give more information. They are not going to do that by phone or by email interactions. That means a visit in person with an appointment with DVCMC aware this is the topic so they'll have the chance to compile the appropriate information and if they need to vet anything with legal, they can do it ahead of time rather than not knowing and thus not sharing at the meeting. If one wants to hire a lawyer to review the POS with this in mind and to go to the appt, that's only going to be a few thousand $$$, maybe less if they have inherent knowledge of DVC and the POS already. My guess is their legal opinion will be that there isn't a case in this area but even if so, a visit to discuss is likely still worthwhile. I'm pretty sure the POS requires arbitration before a formal lawsuit.First you need to send the details you started the thread with to DVCMC and get a response. Then, I would file a complaint with the Florida Timeshare Bureau before taking legal action. Points or financial remuneration can always be done in the future.
Waives our rights in many cases, 100% correct. As for the benefit issue, it's based on the overall benefit as well as the other POS language. DVC would argue that the allocation is specifically allowed (even required in some situations0 so the other provision wouldn't apply but they could also argue that it IS for the benefit of the membership as a whole.
It is interesting, I'd love to know the base thinking though my guess is to push a % of membership to large villas but it could also improve availability of the smaller villas in all likelihood.I am of the DVC owners who is not really bothered by all this. I believe in reallocation in general. I understand the question about no change in total points by year, just a moving the points around by season. And this was apparently not just that, which is curious to me.
But I never bought just enough points to stay a certain number of days in a particular sized room. So it is more fluid to me, I stay at all different sized room at all different times. I do not notice these changes, not really.
But I will be interested to hear the explanation for how and why this happened this year.
That is my recollection as well. The issue that was put forth about BWV was that the standard view points structure was built into the system but not formally introduced initially.Then my memory is incorrect as I thought it had been looked up and found that they had been declared at a lower amount.
It would cost the membership if it drug on but if they could handle it in house as a nuisance, it wouldn't really cost much for the membership. I don't necessarily think that should be a deterrent, I pointed it out a couple of times just to make sure people were aware it's not some corporate deep pocket, not that that's a reasonable excuse either.Nope. You do realize that a lawsuit would cost members a great deal of money to fight. I’m not prepared financially to do this. Where do you think lawyers fees would be taken from? Sorry that you are short some points .... welcome to my world. If you think that in house counsel will take care of this you are sadly mistaken. They will farm this out to outside counsel and it will cost more than you can imagine...and will, in turn, cost me more. Pay your own attorney to meet with DVC if you are so upset. And if he or she finds shenanigans then demand dvc pays your legal fees. I believe the majority of dvc members are more outraged about the increased dues....how about finding out what led to this insane increase....
Personally I think it was, clearly the studios were the weak link in terms of demand. DVCMC has the demand data, they should know when it's needed after they have sufficient track record. I think whether they did it reasonably or have to authority to do it as they did is the question.I got a question here. Of course raising the points for the one bedrooms was beyond ridiculous, but was raising the points for the studios more justified? I mean hasn't the demand for them grown some what, especially with people like me who bought in with a small contract and will stay for a shorter amount of time?
As I read it, and others the same, this would only apply to the non locked off component of a 2 BR though with resorts that have dedicated units, there would be some vicarious limitations.That would have still caused a look because the documents state that where there is an increase there must be a decrease.
It has ALWAYS been in place back from when the charts were released in 1991, it's just that one resort and apparently, at least one multi site POS give it a name. No matter whether it has a name or not, it's been in place from the beginning.I feel like the issue of the lockoff premium is being lost in all these discussions. Raising the lockoff premium benefits only Disney and doesn't benefit the membership as a whole. (Some members I suppose benefit from the lower 2bedroom rate, but overall since Disney pockets the excess points it is still to their benefit.) I worry that the other questions are going to lose this point in the mix.
As far as the lawsuit goes, I support it, but financially I cannot see putting much money up. Since i don't own a lot of points, the personal financial loss is small ($100 a year) and I c a t justify putting much behind it because of that.
This flows from statutory law. So applicable components are the state statutes, the state rules based on those statutes and the various components of the POS as amended. I can speak with 100 certainty on how the state rules are interpreted in terms of process, I lived it for 3 years taking a new statute and as a group, actually writing the rules and dealing with the state lawyers in this regard. Even then it's not an exact science. The applicable components include the legislative intent which is the governing principle. After that it's what's allowed and what's precluded. For something to be allowed under the statute it must be in conjunction with the legislative intent, not be specifically excluded and have language that allows it in general terms. It does not have to be specifically allowed in print as long as it meets the other requirements. Interpreting the POS falls under the same scrutiny, it must not be in violation of the statues or state rules and be allowed but a given item does not have to be spelled out, it's impossible to do so.I am not a lawyer and I am not even an English native speaker, so I may not be interpreting the docs correctly and I appreciate others giving their interpretations. However I'm not sold on yours, @wdrl.
If I understand your point correctly, the POS says that DVC can "move the points within a Vacation Home", but it doesn't say that DVC "can only move the points within a Vacation home". Hence they can move points within a vacation home but also somewhere else.
If we make a contract and I give you access to the pool in my house and I write: "you can sunbathe within the pool boundaries and 10 yards from the pool", you cannot come and subathe in my living room, because the contract gives you the right to go wherever you want within 10yd of the pool but also anywhere else as it's not explicitly prohibited.
Unless there is a paragraph saying "DVC can do whatever they want except what it's explicitly prohibited", then in that paragraph is described the only way they can do a reallocation.
So if my % of ownership remains the same, they can do whatever they want to the points required to book.
Can you please point me to the paragraph where they say that the total number of points needed to book the whole resort must remain constant? Because if that sentence doesn't bind them, then they can freely double the points for every day of the year, and only decrease a couple of days just to be compliant with the paragraph that says an increase must be balanced by a decrease, like Drusba pointed out in the other thread.
Implication of this are even worst than just the lockoff premium increase.