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

[Dean]

While I’m not a “timeshare attorney”, I do have experience litigating both civil and criminal matters including contracts in front of judges and juries in court. Just because you have owned timeshares for a while and researched them does not make you an expert on contract law and civil litigation. I’m going to end my involvement in this discussion here when you call something like this hearsay as you don’t know what you’re talking about. Nothing we have discussed is hearsay, but you clearly do not know the definition or the proper application of that term. I cannot argue the intricacies of civil litigation with someone who presumes to know the law better than the numerous attorneys who have chimed in and actually practice law. Should they try this again with the 2021 charts, we’ll be ready. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter.

Arguing what would happen in a court separate from what the contract says without going to court and without directly applicable case law in FL really doesn't have much meaning.

 

[Dean]

Anyone else keep their old DVC sales DVDs sent directly to home? Mine has the exact same guy as the youtube video posted here talking about AKV points charts, but then what he says is different than the youtube video. Here's exactly what he says:
“But here’s a very cool secret about vacation points. Drumroll please. The total number of vacation points on this chart can never change for the life of your membership. While reservation requirements for seasons and dates will vary from year to year, the total number of vacation points for the year will be exactly the same this year as it will be many years later. Imagine bragging……”

But the total hasn't changed as it is based on the non locked off villas.

 

[Spark]

But the total hasn't changed as it is based on the non locked off villas.

I just find it interesting that DVC felt the need to overdub and change what had been sent out to people already...

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I'm not sure if I'm arguing with you are agreeing with the words posted. The 20% change per year is in all POS and applies to all changes unless there is a favorable vote of the actual membership. Based on what's been posted, the VGF POS addresses the issue directly and allows for a change but none of the POS preclude it and the lockoff premium has been in effect from day 1 with what's now OKW. There is no wording in the POS that I can find that precludes such a change directly.

I think that seems to be the same as I was stating.

But the total hasn't changed as it is based on the non locked off villas.

But I think we might be arguing this - actually the total on those charts did change.

What didn't change was the overall resort point totals as the calculation is supposed to go. The Point Charts totals themselves though changed tremendously.

 

[Madame]

But the total hasn't changed as it is based on the non locked off villas.

Do you honestly think that would fly as an explanation in a legal proceeding? I don’t know the answer (I have a Masters in French lit & Classics), but I’d bet no, especially since...

1. increasing the lockoff premium was NOT necessary (they could have raised/lowered points and kept balance)

2. I find it hard to believe they could prove that the increase would benefit the system overall more than say, trying a seasonal shift first (which would be totally justifiable)

3. As @TexasChick123 has pointed out, they are the more sophisticated party and the layman’s terms laid out in the videos and checklists could be considered binding

 

[skier_pete]

But the total hasn't changed as it is based on the non locked off villas.

But the "total number of vacation points on this chart" would change should they increase the lock-off premiums.

I think @Dean what folks are arguing is that just because Disney says they have the right to increase the lock-off premium in their POS, they have also made other promises in their sales brochures, videos, and in person that would be broken if they increased the lock-off premiums. I am definitely not a lawyer, but I know there is some precedent that what a company says can over-ride what the contracts say. We have numerous cases of them saying "The total number of points can't change" They don't say "The total number of points can't change EXCEPT where lock-off premiums apply."

A couple questions for you - you obviously do have a lot more knowledge than most of us. I understand that that the lock-off premium has always existed from day 1. To your knowledge do you have any examples of a time where they have increased the lock-off premium in the way they did this time? In other words - increased the total number of points it would take to book ALL the studios and 1-bedrooms across the entire resort - as they did at SSR, VGF, and a few others. I don't have a full knowledge history of DVC - but I haven't seen anyone mentioning they did this. The closet I think is when they shifted points from the Treehouse Villas to the main SSR, but even that doesn't qualify.

The hard evidence - the ONLY hard evidence - we have is that they made these changes to lock-off premiums and when called out by some members, they rolled it back. Why can only be speculated. But it didn't take a lawsuit or even really to the point of getting lawyers involved.

Has THAT ever happened before on points charts?? Especially on this large a wholesale change? I am only aware of one time such a big sweeping change was made when they adjusted the mid-week/weekend points (not sure on year like 2009?) and it upset a lot of folks, but Disney didn't back off on it because people complained. The recent rebalance of SSR to standard/premium was pretty big for that resort - and again people complained, and again it stuck. Do you really think they just rolled this back to "mull it over" and try again? Something was fishy, and if looks like a fish, smells like a fish, and acts like a fish, it's probably a fish.

 

[skier_pete]

BTW - since Disney may monitor these boards - if you are reading this and in need of a data analyzer -one that could make the system better without resorting to unfair practices - I would be willing to relocate. (I currently manage about 35 people and ~$5 million worth of project budgets so I have the background in project management as well.) Resume and references available upon request.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The closet I think is when they shifted points from the Treehouse Villas to the main SSR, but even that doesn't qualify.

.

That reallocation shifted points from SSR to the Treehouses. It's not one that I really looked at but I thought it was offset.

 

[skier_pete]

That reallocation shifted points from SSR to the Treehouses. It's not one that I really looked at but I thought it was offset.

Yeah - I thought it did as well, but it was before my time with using DVC. (Only been doing this 5 years now.)

 

[Dean]

But I think we might be arguing this - actually the total on those charts did change.

What didn't change was the overall resort point totals as the calculation is supposed to go. The Point Charts totals themselves though changed tremendously.

Any change or no change would be based on the non locked version. This is per the POS AND FL statute.

Do you honestly think that would fly as an explanation in a legal proceeding? I don’t know the answer (I have a Masters in French lit & Classics), but I’d bet no, especially since...

1. increasing the lockoff premium was NOT necessary (they could have raised/lowered points and kept balance)

2. I find it hard to believe they could prove that the increase would benefit the system overall more than say, trying a seasonal shift first (which would be totally justifiable)

3. As @TexasChick123 has pointed out, they are the more sophisticated party and the layman’s terms laid out in the videos and checklists could be considered binding

Absolutely. I know we're going in circles but this is clear cut as I read it. Specifically FL statue says the lockoff's are counted as a full villa unless designated otherwise, DVC has NOT designated otherwise. The points formulation is clearly laid out as being derived from the full villa accounting. The lockoff premium was there from the get go. There is no wording that specifically precludes the increase of the lockoff premium. As a contractual matter, I see it as open and shut. Now we never know what will happen if something gets to court so my interpretation is that it says what it says unless one can prove otherwise. The option is always there to go the legal route. But remember that the POS also has the requirement of waiver of a jury trial which stacks the odds further in their favor. Certainly if one can prove they did this for nefarious reasons, I'm there with you. But I still find it difficult to think anyone would want to continue to subjugate themselves to a system they distrusted so much, esp when they have an easy out.

But the "total number of vacation points on this chart" would change should they increase the lock-off premiums.

The chart yes but not the legal points structure.

I think @Dean what folks are arguing is that just because Disney says they have the right to increase the lock-off premium in their POS, they have also made other promises in their sales brochures, videos, and in person that would be broken if they increased the lock-off premiums. I am definitely not a lawyer, but I know there is some precedent that what a company says can over-ride what the contracts say. We have numerous cases of them saying "The total number of points can't change" They don't say "The total number of points can't change EXCEPT where lock-off premiums apply."

I don't read or hear it that way. General statements don't define specific situations. Plus when you purchase you acknowledge that verbal representations are non binding.

A couple questions for you - you obviously do have a lot more knowledge than most of us. I understand that that the lock-off premium has always existed from day 1. To your knowledge do you have any examples of a time where they have increased the lock-off premium in the way they did this time? In other words - increased the total number of points it would take to book ALL the studios and 1-bedrooms across the entire resort - as they did at SSR, VGF, and a few others. I don't have a full knowledge history of DVC - but I haven't seen anyone mentioning they did this. The closet I think is when they shifted points from the Treehouse Villas to the main SSR, but even that doesn't qualify.

Not that I'm aware of, like the rest of you I'd like to know specifically why they did this and have enough information to understand it fully.

The hard evidence - the ONLY hard evidence - we have is that they made these changes to lock-off premiums and when called out by some members, they rolled it back. Why can only be speculated. But it didn't take a lawsuit or even really to the point of getting lawyers involved.

Has THAT ever happened before on points charts?? Especially on this large a wholesale change? I am only aware of one time such a big sweeping change was made when they adjusted the mid-week/weekend points (not sure on year like 2009?) and it upset a lot of folks, but Disney didn't back off on it because people complained. The recent rebalance of SSR to standard/premium was pretty big for that resort - and again people complained, and again it stuck. Do you really think they just rolled this back to "mull it over" and try again? Something was fishy, and if looks like a fish, smells like a fish, and acts like a fish, it's probably a fish.

My interpretation, having dealt with them over the years, is the single best explanation is they didn't have the stomach/backbone for the complaints. This is a trend I've seen from them for years though I thought it'd changed/gotten better. Personally I prefer consistency. But I can't 'speak for them and historically they don't release much info even when I feel they should. It's just speculation on our part, a partial answer should come in the next couple of years as we see what they do or don't do.

 

[Dean]

That reallocation shifted points from SSR to the Treehouses. It's not one that I really looked at but I thought it was offset.

Yeah - I thought it did as well, but it was before my time with using DVC. (Only been doing this 5 years now.)

Offset by increasing SSR otherwise.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Any change or no change would be based on the non locked version. This is per the POS AND FL statute.

The charts have no footnote stating that and the sales video stated the charts will not change. It is not stating that the resort point total won't change which is what the POS follows in considering lockoffs as 2BR's. The video is quoted as specifically selling the Point Charts as not changing. Two different things and misleading.

 

[Dean]

The charts have no footnote stating that and the sales video stated the charts will not change. It is not stating that the resort point total won't change which is what the POS follows in considering lockoffs as 2BR's. The video is quoted as specifically selling the Point Charts as not changing. Two different things and misleading.

It doesn't state otherwise and the POS specifically says what it says which is very clear on how the points are formulated..

 

[mustinjourney]

While I’m not a “timeshare attorney”, I do have experience litigating both civil and criminal matters including contracts in front of judges and juries in court. Just because you have owned timeshares for a while and researched them does not make you an expert on contract law and civil litigation. I’m going to end my involvement in this discussion here when you call something like this hearsay as you don’t know what you’re talking about. Nothing we have discussed is hearsay, but you clearly do not know the definition or the proper application of that term. I cannot argue the intricacies of civil litigation with someone who presumes to know the law better than the numerous attorneys who have chimed in and actually practice law. Should they try this again with the 2021 charts, we’ll be ready. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter.

 

[mustinjourney]

BTW - since Disney may monitor these boards - if you are reading this and in need of a data analyzer -one that could make the system better without resorting to unfair practices - I would be willing to relocate. (I currently manage about 35 people and ~$5 million worth of project budgets so I have the background in project management as well.) Resume and references available upon request.

so if you change your tune in 6 months from now, we'll all know you sold out!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It doesn't state otherwise and the POS specifically says what it says which is very clear on how the points are formulated..

I actually don't see that a footnote is required or would make a difference. It still states the Point Charts will not change and they did for 2020. The total resort points based on the calculations in the POS are what did not change but the video does not state anything about the total resort points. The calculations show of the changes show that the 2 are not one and the same.

 

[DougEMG]

So why do you think Disney rolled back the point reallocation?

(1) member complaints
(2) fear of bad publicity
(3) fear that a lawsuit would show the reallocation doesn't benefit the members, but does benefit Disney
(4) fear that a lawsuit would show that the data doesn't support the change
(5) higher ups didn't realize what the underlings had done and didn't want to screw over members that badly
(6) fear that a lawsuit would show that points can only be reallocated within the legal units as they were sold not across the entire resort
(7) something else

 

[Wakey]

You can’t put out promotional material and tell people that points will not go up and if they ever do they MUST go down elsewhere, and also say this clearly in the context of studios, then increase points without the requisite balance.
It could be misselling.
Certainly here in the U.K., they would have significant difficulties. The POS is unclear (as stated, interpreted contra proferentum which is the legal way of saying against the maker), but moreover, it could be a case of mis-selling. I have the POS for Saratoga, it is huge , I’m guessing 300+ pages. If a buyer was told what is on that video, or relied upon such statements, and is given a POS later in a pack and DVD expects that they are exonerated from any statements due to some open to interpretation wording buried in 300 pages of legalise, then they may get a shock. But I’m not a US lawyer even if our legal systems are closely aligned. However they do sell directly to the U.K.
There is also, aside from the wording, the fiduciary duty of DVMC to only adjust in the interests of members, this can quite easily be done without increasing Lockoff premium. Increasing Lockoff premium, without the exact same drops elsewhere (i.e. big shavings off 2 beds, much bigger than what we saw) unless there is an extremely compelling reason to do so can never be in member’s interests as it dilutes all member’s points.

 

[skier_pete]

so if you change your tune in 6 months from now, we'll all know you sold out!

Yes, when I'm telling you next year how wonderful all the changes are - be VERY suspicious.

 

[Bearval]

So why do you think Disney rolled back the point reallocation?

(1) member complaints
(2) fear of bad publicity
(3) fear that a lawsuit would show the reallocation doesn't benefit the members, but does benefit Disney
(4) fear that a lawsuit would show that the data doesn't support the change
(5) higher ups didn't realize what the underlings had done and didn't want to screw over members that badly
(6) fear that a lawsuit would show that points can only be reallocated within the legal units as they were sold not across the entire resort
(7) something else

Fear of a lawsuit that they didn't want to take a chance they would lose and then have to follow rules dictated by the outcome of the lawsuit. There may be other things discovered that they have done in the past that they may have to unwind.

I believe Zavandor stated they were asked if they looking to be bought out of their contract, do you think for one minute if they stated "yes" that as part of that agreement they would be required to sign a "nondisclosure agreement and agree not to make any future posts on this topic"? I think they would have.