Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[bobbiwoz]

I felt “listened to” years ago when they decided that studios would only have styrofoam cups and plastic glasses. It took a lot of e-mails and calls. Eventually every DVC Resort received dishwashers to thoroughly clean the mugs and glasses.

 

[mustinjourney]

DVD/DVC's job is to make Disney money, period. They will modify, adjust, change the rules, restrict, what ever it takes to sell DVC contracts. Do they make mistakes, history tells us yes, do they go to far and get caught, Aulani tells us yes. They have a reason for everything they do, we aren't told why and we don't always pay attention because they do such a great PR job, all they have to do is send us a DVC magnet.

Bill

That's great. But DVCMC -- who is in charge of the point reallocation, is technically a fiduciary of the membership. So their goal is not supposed to be maximizing profit for Disney. If they decide that is their goal -- then they have breached their fiduciary duty and can be sued for damages.

I'm guessing they figured this out during the last month.

 

[mustinjourney]

If needed in the future here is exhibit "A"

The most important part is at 10mins 30secs to 11mins. Regardless of what the fine print says this says all that needs to be said to a jury for Disney to be worried.

*unless it is for a studio that is part of a 2BR lock-off. If that is the case, we can increase that sucker 20% every year! Do you still want to brag to your friends in 2045? hahahaha

 

[Wakey]

*unless it is for a studio that is part of a 2BR lock-off. If that is the case, we can increase that sucker 20% every year! Do you still want to brag to your friends in 2045? hahahaha

That video is game, set and match for a misselling lawsuit if they ever increase lockoff premium again. Someone needs to download it in case it is ever removed.

 

[Wakey]

The points formulation is clearly defined in ALL POS I've looked at, and I suspect all of them, specifically and directly stating it's based on the non locked off portions. That IS the legal requirement per the POS AND FL statutes. And thus any changes would be calculated as such.

The POS can say what it wants. And whether the POS says that they can increase via lockoff premium without offset elsewhere is in dispute over 60 pages of this thread.
A clear unequivocal claim is made in that video. Much like many people claim to have been told by guides. And of course given the video was/ is the official line, I for one fully believe people were told the same thing face to face.
So does an unclear POS (which would be interpreted contra proferentum anyway) amounting to around 300 pages outweigh what a purchaser is told face to face and on promotional videos in clear unequivocal statements?
When it comes to a misselling lawsuit, I don’t think it does.

 

[Cyberc1978]

That video is game, set and match for a misselling lawsuit if they ever increase lockoff premium again. Someone needs to download it in case it is ever removed.

The POS can say what it wants. And whether the POS says that they can increase via lockoff premium without offset elsewhere is in dispute over 60 pages of this thread.
A clear unequivocal claim is made in that video. Much like many people claim to have been told by guides. And of course given the video was/ is the official line, I for one fully believe people were told the same thing face to face.
So does an unclear POS (which would be interpreted contra proferentum anyway) amounting to around 300 pages outweigh what a purchaser is told face to face and on promotional videos in clear unequivocal statements?
When it comes to a misselling lawsuit, I don’t think it does.

I agree Wakey, you can always argue that ppl should read the fine print before they buy. In this case or video Disney is saying one thing and even if the POS is saying something else then this might be one of the actual reasons why Disney decided to revert the 2020 changes. Disney have marketed one thing and put something else in the fine print. Most of the time that wouldn't be a problem as salesmen will tell a lot of BS to get you on the hook, but here we have it in writing(basically) that they can't increase one without lowering the other.

 

[Bearval]

I agree Wakey, you can always argue that ppl should read the fine print before they buy. In this case or video Disney is saying one thing and even if the POS is saying something else then this might be one of the actual reasons why Disney decided to revert the 2020 changes. Disney have marketed one thing and put something else in the fine print. Most of the time that wouldn't be a problem as salesmen will tell a lot of BS to get you on the hook, but here we have it in writing(basically) that they can't increase one without lowering the other.

I also agree not everyone who is buying is a real-estate lawyer or a lawyer for that matter that can truely understand the language of the contract . I bet a lot of people went by what the ad that DVD produced and what the salespeople told them. Bait and Switch anyone????

 

[Dean]

Yes I have looked at/read the POS, read this forum and get all that. I am saying if you put this video in front of a jury things may not go so well for Disney. There is the fine print and then there is the selling strategy and they don't seem to be saying the same thing. In my opinion a jury would be willing to put more weight on the sales strategy over the "fine print" of the POS. Sometimes it's not about what is legal or not, it is about what you have promised the consumer.

It doesn't say anything different than the POS says, it's just less specific.

This clearly states my it's the total number of vacation points assigned to the resort. Any increase or decrease to the aforementioned resort points must be be offset. Resort. Not room type.

Please help me understand what I'm missing where it says the balance must be made to the same type of accommodation?

What you're missing are these facts.

1. That FL statutes say the only the full Villa is counted unless the developer has specified otherwise.
2. There is nothing in the POS that states they have so chosen.
3. The POS clearly and specifically states the points for the resort are calculated based on the NON locked off villas, at least in 3 out of 3 I've looked at.

Thus the only plausible interpretation of the points requirement is by full villas only.

The POS can say what it wants. And whether the POS says that they can increase via lockoff premium without offset elsewhere is in dispute over 60 pages of this thread.
A clear unequivocal claim is made in that video. Much like many people claim to have been told by guides. And of course given the video was/ is the official line, I for one fully believe people were told the same thing face to face.
So does an unclear POS (which would be interpreted contra proferentum anyway) amounting to around 300 pages outweigh what a purchaser is told face to face and on promotional videos in clear unequivocal statements?
When it comes to a misselling lawsuit, I don’t think it does.

It's a general statement and it's accurate but general. The technical answer is simply as I listed above in this post. It's very clear. You never know what happens in a court room, they're often more crazy than people in general. But unless one wants to take it that far, arguing against the contractual answer makes little sense.

 

[beercity]

I have not read every page of this thread. But I greatly appreciate the effort of many people to put pressure on Disney to reverse course on this. I do not see this as a victory. This is only a sign that we need to have a unified voice NOW for when this happens again in the future. We need a sort of owners union. I would certainly be willing to contribute money to such an organization that represents the best interests of OWNERS.
Maybe this has already been discussed here, but I think it would be a good idea to at least establish a way for owners concerned about future point reallocation to communicate and delegate people to speak loudly on our behalf.

 

[TheMick424]

How do you think DVC will position seasonal changes? As @drusba pointed out on this thread (or maybe it was the 2020 points chart thread), the DVC seasons were originally aligned to the park demand seasons. Over time, things have shifted/changed, even within the past couple of years. But has DVC previously made adjustments to the Seasons (outside of the normal year to year shifting of holidays)? I don't have enough history to know how this may have been handled in the past.

 

[glamdring269]

How do you think DVC will position seasonal changes? As @drusba pointed out on this thread (or maybe it was the 2020 points chart thread), the DVC seasons were originally aligned to the park demand seasons. Over time, things have shifted/changed, even within the past couple of years. But has DVC previously made adjustments to the Seasons (outside of the normal year to year shifting of holidays)? I don't have enough history to know how this may have been handled in the past.

In my opinion, DVC should align the seasons based on membership usage of the property. It shouldn't be aligned based on park demand.

I write this as a huge fan of F&W and understand a realignment like this would probably cause points to increase there and decrease in the summer.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

It doesn't say anything different than the POS says, it's just less specific.

We may end up agreeing to disagree here, but I will take one more shot at it.

I think you would say that the POS allows for and perhaps even spells out that the LO premium can be increased without any decrease having to be made to adjust for that increase. For example they could raise all the studios at SSR by 2 points per night and per the POS they would not have to have a decrease any where else in the point chart to balance this increase since the POS only recognizes the lock-offs as 2 bedrooms.

I hope we agree that you believe the above to be true (please correct me if I am putting words into your mouth) and I am with you on that.

Now for the video it says and I will quote

"Aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year, this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and
while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year, it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

the above text was preceded by host going over how many points a studio and one bedroom would cost at different times and days of the year. (this context can not be discarded and is a large part of why it is not in alignment with the POS IMHO)

You are saying you watched the video and heard the host going over the studio and one bedroom point cost then go directly into the quoted text above and believe it states they can increase the point cost of all studios at a resort like SSR and not have a decrease anywhere else. How are you getting that from the video?

I feel they are going out of the way to be very direct in saying that they will not raise points of any accommodations without a decrease off setting that increase and is what the sales team has been selling for the last 25+ years and this is not how it is outlined in the POS.

 

[RobDoc]

We may end up agreeing to disagree here, but I will take one more shot at it.

I think you would say that the POS allows for and perhaps even spells out that the LO premium can be increased without any decrease having to be made to adjust for that increase. For example they could raise all the studios at SSR by 2 points per night and per the POS they would not have to have a decrease any where else in the point chart to balance this increase since the POS only recognizes the lock-offs as 2 bedrooms.

I hope we agree that you believe the above to be true (please correct me if I am putting words into your mouth) and I am with you on that.

Now for the video it says and I will quote

"Aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year, this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and
while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year, it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

the above text was preceded by host going over how many points a studio and one bedroom would cost at different times and days of the year. (this context can not be discarded and is a large part of why it is not in alignment with the POS IMHO)

You are saying you watched the video and heard the host going over the studio and one bedroom point cost then go directly into the quoted text above and believe it states they can increase the point cost of all studios at a resort like SSR and not have a decrease anywhere else. How are you getting that from the video?

I feel they are going out of the way to be very direct in saying that they will not raise points of any accommodations without a decrease off setting that increase and is what the sales team has been selling for the last 25+ years and this is not how it is outlined in the POS.

Dean is certainly fully capable of responding and likely will, but in reply to your comment above - nowhere does any POS document state that an increase in LO point cost will NOT need to be balanced by a decrease. In fact, it specifically states the opposite and, to my knowledge, has always applied that policy whenever a LO accommodation has been increased, including the now revised 2020 reallocation - just as stated in the sales video.

 

[TexasChick123]

UGH!!! Just because something is written in a contract does not mean that is is enforceable. Courts strike through clauses in contracts all the time for various reasons and deem them unenforceable. In this case, it could be deemed:

1) ambiguous and interpretation will go to the less sophisticated party (the members)
2) in direct conflict with what members were told (and shown) by the "knowledgeable" salespeople
3) a breach of fiduciary duty to the members where Disney acted in their own best interest and not that of its members which it is required to do by law

These are 3 valid arguments that I thought of off the top of my head. I'm sure if I had more time to think about it, I could come up with many more. Again, something very ambiguous being written in a contract but not clearly outlined to the consumer is troublesome and can be struck down despite its existence. There's nothing else to say about this. They talked to their lawyers and saw that we would all have a case against them for various reasons, so they changed course. Move on!!! There's nothing left to discuss. The point chart has reverted back to 2019 levels. Should they try this again, we can talk about it then.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

Dean is certainly fully capable of responding and likely will, but in reply to your comment above - nowhere does any POS document state that an increase in LO point cost will NOT need to be balanced by a decrease. In fact, it specifically states the opposite and, to my knowledge, has always applied policy that whenever a LO accommodation has been increased, including the now defunct 2020 reallocation.

Doc on this one I think we agree. If they increase the LO (as a whole) they have to have a decrease.

However, it is Dean's position (and I agree) that if a piece of the lock of (ie the studio or one bedroom) is increased there does not have to be a corresponding decrease per the POS. (I am not sure where you fall on this one based on you comments)

He says the video and the POS are in alignment with each other and I and many others do not see it that way so was wanting to engage him in the discussion further to see where he is coming from.

 

[glamdring269]

Ignore this. I'll let the conversation play out as apparently my reading comprehension is failing me today.

 

[skier_pete]

We may end up agreeing to disagree here, but I will take one more shot at it.

I think you would say that the POS allows for and perhaps even spells out that the LO premium can be increased without any decrease having to be made to adjust for that increase. For example they could raise all the studios at SSR by 2 points per night and per the POS they would not have to have a decrease any where else in the point chart to balance this increase since the POS only recognizes the lock-offs as 2 bedrooms.

I hope we agree that you believe the above to be true (please correct me if I am putting words into your mouth) and I am with you on that.

Now for the video it says and I will quote

"Aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year, this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and
while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year, it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

the above text was preceded by host going over how many points a studio and one bedroom would cost at different times and days of the year. (this context can not be discarded and is a large part of why it is not in alignment with the POS IMHO)

You are saying you watched the video and heard the host going over the studio and one bedroom point cost then go directly into the quoted text above and believe it states they can increase the point cost of all studios at a resort like SSR and not have a decrease anywhere else. How are you getting that from the video?

I feel they are going out of the way to be very direct in saying that they will not raise points of any accommodations without a decrease off setting that increase and is what the sales team has been selling for the last 25+ years and this is not how it is outlined in the POS.

This what I get too - the POS says it's legal to raise the lock-off premium without any offset - but the way they have REPRESENTED the process says that they won't do it. And also in pretty much ALL the sales merchandise. And this may be why they backed off - they realized that just because the one legal document allows it - they've basically said that they would always off-set it. Been saying it for 25 years. To go against what they've been saying could be interpreted as predatory practices and get them in big trouble.

I am sure the situation they found themselves in at Aulani get them gunshy from getting into another legal pickle. I still believe that is what happened here. Someone made these changes without vetting it through the right people. The response from Yvonne Chang to the folks on here that she appeared surprised at some of the changes makes me think this.

I feel like we may never know for sure why they pulled back - but we'll have a better idea when the 2021 charts come out. If there's no move to raise lock-out premiums next year at all - well then they decided that they couldn't do it. If they have a toned down version - then they decided that they COULD do it, but wanted to be more subtle to get it by the membership.

 

[RobDoc]

Maybe I'm misreading your post here but I think you're saying:

1) The POS document says LO point cost will not need to be balanced by a decrease.
2) The video also states this.

Not sure I follow #2 but could have missed it. Can you confirm where in the sales video you are seeing/hearing this?

I do not agree with either of your positions.

1). The POS states that any increase will need to be balanced. It does not provide lockoff accommodations any status except as a Lockoff 2BR.

2). The video does NOT state a Lockoff point increase will NOT need to balanced by a decrease. You transcript doesn't include that comment and YOU provided the transcript yourself. Where did you hear that comment in the video?

 

[glamdring269]

I do not agree with either of your positions.

1). The POS states that any increase will need to be balanced. It does not provide lockoff accommodations any status except as included together as a 2BR.

2). The video does NOT state a Lockoff point increase will NOT need to balanced by a decrease. You transcript doesn't include that comment and YOU provided the transcript yourself. Where did you hear that comment in the video?

Well first, I edited my post way before you replied (like 10 minutes ago) so I'm sorry you still ended up replying to it.

Anyway, I pulled it because I know I misread something in your post. With that said, I have no idea at all what transcript you're talking about. I didn't provide any transcript.....

 

[RobDoc]

This what I get too - the POS says it's legal to raise the lock-off premium without any offset - but the way they have REPRESENTED the process says that they won't do it. And also in pretty much ALL the sales merchandise. And this may be why they backed off - they realized that just because the one legal document allows it - they've basically said that they would always off-set it. Been saying it for 25 years. To go against what they've been saying could be interpreted as predatory practices and get them in big trouble.
....

Where and in which POS does it state that no offset is needed for lockoff Studio/1BR point changes?? I have never seen that in print in any DVC document.