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

[Dean]

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.

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.

So this seems to imply that we’ve waived our rights to challenge DVC legally & that they have the right to make decisions which do not benefit the collective membership @drusba

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.

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.

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.

Then my memory is incorrect as I thought it had been looked up and found that they had been declared at a lower amount.

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.

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....

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.

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?

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.

That would have still caused a look because the documents state that where there is an increase there must be a decrease.

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.

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.

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 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.

​

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.

 

[wdrl]

So is there no specific language (which does not leave itself open to interpretation) pertaining to the USE of the unit. I think that’s what @KAT4DISNEY was driving at yesterday, that this language pertains to the SALE of units and not the USE. If that makes sense.

Thanks, I'm beginning to understand what was meant.

A Unit's points may or may not have anything about the "Sale" of a Unit, but it is important when determining the shared operational costs of the resort. Keep in mind that once a condo association is up and operating, the sharing of expenses among the Residential Units is based on each Unit's relative size as determined by its real estate interest. BLT Unit 87A has ~34,975 points, which accounts for ~0.61% of BLT's total points. Therefore, the owners of Unit 87A are accountable for 0.61% of BLT's annual budget of $27.95 million, exclusive of ad valorem taxes. So, even after the initial sales the number of points allotted to a Unit is essential in determining its share of operating expenses. This is another reason why, in my theory, the points in a Unit do not change.

 

[Madame]

Thanks, I'm beginning to understand what was meant.

A Unit's points may or may not have anything about the "Sale" of a Unit, but it is important when determining the shared operational costs of the resort. Keep in mind that once a condo association is up and operating, the sharing of expenses among the Residential Units is based on each Unit's relative size as determined by its real estate interest. BLT Unit 87A has ~34,975 points, which accounts for ~0.61% of BLT's total points. Therefore, the owners of Unit 87A are accountable for 0.61% of BLT's annual budget of $27.95 million, exclusive of ad valorem taxes. So, even after the initial sales the number of points allotted to a Unit is essential in determining its share of operating expenses. This is another reason why the points in a Unit do not change.

If a unit’s booking point cost is inflated beyond that which was originally sold (lockoffs) is that owner not now paying more towards operating expenses of that unit just by virtue of the fact that they are “paying” more & “getting” less? I’m not sure if I am phrasing that correctly.

 

[Dean]

Here's a parallel that's obviously different but has much the same feel. Marriott created their points system and allowed those who owned to have a crossover feature. So they ended up with 2 separate systems of weeks and points that are legally separate and different. Not much different that if we had a DVC II that was legally separate and DVCMC were able to convert any points they owned (ROFR points) to the new system so both DVC I & DVC II potentially had access to the same inventory but at different points costs. Under the old system it was full weeks within a season but for the new system it's strictly points. If you owned under the old system and qualified, you could either make a reservation for a full week in your season or take points instead. As a rule the number of points you get in return for giving up your week will not reserve your week in the points system, we've dubbed this "The Skim" and it varies but let's say it's roughly 10%. If everyone at a given resort took points then reserved back to their home resort, there would be roughly 10% of otherwise available inventory that would not be reserved but would be available. Why they did it this way is unknown but many feel the same as some do about the reallocation, to line their own pockets. Now we do know that a points system, esp a flexible one, is inherently more inefficient and costly from a system perspective. For Marriott part of it is that the demand was not equal for all the weeks within a season so it allowed them to adjust for the differences in demand but even after that it's still not far off a 10% difference it appears.

 

[Madame]

If a unit’s booking point cost is inflated beyond that which was originally sold (lockoffs) is that owner not now paying more towards operating expenses of that unit just by virtue of the fact that they are “paying” more & “getting” less? I’m not sure if I am phrasing that correctly.

& just to follow up, is DVC not shifting even MORE maintenance cost onto owners in this manner.

Ex\. PVB
To rent a studio now requires more points than that studio represented/was sold with at point of sale. Each point has dues attached.

So now DVC (using their own points) can snap up bungalows using less points (& therefore paying even less dues than before), while the tab is paid by owners via point inflation.

Or do I have it wrong?

 

[Madame]

Here's a parallel that's obviously different but has much the same feel. Marriott created their points system and allowed those who owned to have a crossover feature. So they ended up with 2 separate systems of weeks and points that are legally separate and different. Not much different that if we had a DVC II that was legally separate and DVCMC were able to convert any points they owned (ROFR points) to the new system so both DVC I & DVC II potentially had access to the same inventory but at different points costs. Under the old system it was full weeks within a season but for the new system it's strictly points. If you owned under the old system and qualified, you could either make a reservation for a full week in your season or take points instead. As a rule the number of points you get in return for giving up your week will not reserve your week in the points system, we've dubbed this "The Skim" and it varies but let's say it's roughly 10%. If everyone at a given resort took points then reserved back to their home resort, there would be roughly 10% of otherwise available inventory that would not be reserved but would be available. Why they did it this way is unknown but many feel the same as some do about the reallocation, to line their own pockets. Now we do know that a points system, esp a flexible one, is inherently more inefficient and costly from a system perspective. For Marriott part of it is that the demand was not equal for all the weeks within a season so it allowed them to adjust for the differences in demand but even after that it's still not far off a 10% difference it appears.

But ‘the Skim” is capped at 10%, right? & this is not the case with DVC point re-allocation/inflation non?

 

[Dean]

I've been reading through the 2 versions of the multi site POS that I have access to right now (they seem the same for this issue) and here's the info I'm seeing starting on page 16 of the 2006 version and page 14 of the 2003 version.

III.3.a (1) Demand Rebalancing - ...have taken into account the location and anticipated relative use demand for each DVC resort and have used their best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to future the best interests of the Club Members taken as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the Vacation Homes and facilities at their Home Resort and at each other DVC resort. Both DVCMC and BVTC shall periodically make such adjustments or amendments to their respective reservation components in order to respond to actual ClubMember use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand for existing Vacation Homes and facilities."

III.3.a.(2) Vacation Points - Lays out that the points are symbolic of the underlying ownership.

III.3.a(2).a Home Resort Vacation Points - A certain number of Home Resort Vacation Points have been or will be established by DVCMC in it's sole, absolute and unfettered discretion for the use of each Vacation Home in each Club Member's Home Resort during each Use Day based upon the demand balancing standard set forth above. The number of home resort Vacation points that a Club Member has will remain fixed and will always be symbolic of the Club Members Ownership Interest. And goes on to say they can change any Vacation Home points with the 20% per year limit and references the maximum reallocation Chart.
​

******* also has a reasonable summary of Previous Points reallocations.

"

 

[Dean]

My take:
There sufficient evidence to say not only can they do so but they shall if demand is too far off. But I understand there is variable information available.
Lockoff's are only protected as the full unit other than the 20% per year limit.
The only protection for smaller units are the Maximum Reallocation Charts and the vicarious limitations for resorts that have dedicate smaller villas.
The only viable options at this point include to meet in person, discuss directly with Disney legal, get a lawyer's involvement, go to arbitration and ultimately to file a lawsuit.

 

[Madame]

I've been reading through the 2 versions of the multi site POS that I have access to right now (they seem the same for this issue) and here's the info I'm seeing starting on page 16 of the 2006 version and page 14 of the 2003 version.

III.3.a (1) Demand Rebalancing - ...have taken into account the location and anticipated relative use demand for each DVC resort and have used their best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to future the best interests of the Club Members taken as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the Vacation Homes and facilities at their Home Resort and at each other DVC resort. Both DVCMC and BVTC shall periodically make such adjustments or amendments to their respective reservation components in order to respond to actual ClubMember use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand for existing Vacation Homes and facilities."

III.3.a.(2) Vacation Points - Lays out that the points are symbolic of the underlying ownership.

III.3.a(2).a Home Resort Vacation Points - A certain number of Home Resort Vacation Points have been or will be established by DVCMC in it's sole, absolute and unfettered discretion for the use of each Vacation Home in each Club Member's Home Resort during each Use Day based upon the demand balancing standard set forth above. The number of home resort Vacation points that a Club Member has will remain fixed and will always be symbolic of the Club Members Ownership Interest. And goes on to say they can change any Vacation Home points with the 20% per year limit and references the maximum reallocation Chart.
​

******* also has a reasonable summary of Previous Points reallocations.

"

So it states that the Vacation Home points can be changed up to a max of 20%, but does not specify whether that 20% must be re-allocated within each room type category or within each resort as a whole.

And you believe, as does @wdrl, that it does not have to be explicitly stated in order for it to be contractually in compliance?

 

[Dean]

If a unit’s booking point cost is inflated beyond that which was originally sold (lockoffs) is that owner not now paying more towards operating expenses of that unit just by virtue of the fact that they are “paying” more & “getting” less? I’m not sure if I am phrasing that correctly.

I think you're overthinking the unit component. A unit (usually collection of villas) served 2 purposes. It ws used to determine the % of the resort you owned and it was used to declare the resort into the club in phases. The points are only symbolic as spelled out in the POS in a number of locations. IMO one can not fully support the idea that the points assigned to a given unit have to be able to reserve that unit with no more or no less and definitely can't use it to say the dues should be tied to the points to reserve rather than the physical % of the resort.

But ‘the Skim” is capped at 10%, right? & this is not the case with DVC point re-allocation/inflation non?

I don't believe so, it was close to 20% in some cases.

ETA: the requirements clearly only fall to the non locked of version anyway.

 

[Wakey]

To be honest, reallocations don't bother me at all. In fact I've thought for a long time they should do the studios and Oct to Dec.

What bothers me is the 1 bed as it seems to make no sense and also this suggestion points can be manufactured out of thin air via lockoff premium.

What really bothers me is DVC kept this from the members at the meeting.

Thus I'd really like an explanation to demonstrate with data the thinking behind this and satisfy me it's not just to make DVD more money.

Then I can consider and revaluate.

 

[Madame]

I think you're overthinking the unit component.

This has been known to happen.

 

[Dean]

So it states that the Vacation Home points can be changed up to a max of 20%, but does not specify whether that 20% must be re-allocated within each room type category or within each resort as a whole.

And you believe, as does @wdrl, that it does not have to be explicitly stated in order for it to be contractually in compliance?

As I read this section, that's true up to 20% for a given year and they've already proven (and I'd previously warned) that this was no limitation, you just change it again next year. In the section of either of the POS there's no wording that I believe anyone could construe would limit them to not altering the total points of a given Villa or unit as long as the total points for the year was unchanged when looking at the "base year" and assuming all lockout's reserved without locking off which is clearly the legal requirement. A by unit or by vacation home restriction would mean they have no ability to make any substantive changes though it would to prevent messing with the lockout off premium anyway. And since the intent is clearly to allow for adjustments as needed on a system basis and there are components that clearly do not restrict to a unit or vacation home, the clear intent it to allow for system adjustments thus this would fit and still allow the change even in the strictest interpretation of some fo the wording, IMO.

As for what's required vs allowed, see my post above on Statutory law. But yes what I understand (and truly know) is for it to be allowed it has to be allowed under state statutes and rules and allowed within the POS. As long as there's not wording that forbids it and there's general wording that allows it, then it's allowed under the POS. They've clearly gone to great lengths to give themselves complete control over this matter without member input. What we don't know is why they took this route (raising studios AND 1BR in many cases) and the speculation is where we're having the hang up. I don't believe it's nefarious even though I don't have the full picture as to the reason. As I've said, I assume it has it's intent at driving people to more 2 BR over smaller units though I'm not sure the components they looked at. They might include lower admin costs (less separate check ins, less housekeeping, less phone calls). Parking with less vehicles might be a component. Clearly direct demand is a component of the reallocation. Lowering room stuffing might also be a component. It does raise questions as for what other changes we might see. Will they start enforcing the occupancy on the 1 BR that sleep 4 and the applicable 2 BR units? Will we see a minimum LOS at some point. Will there be another change next year like the 2010/11 issue.

But like everyone else I'd like a reasonable and honest explanation of why an increase in studios AND 1 BR's. I tend to feel if we had that most would be OK other than those that couldn't see past their own situation and we have plenty of those as well. Personally on such matters I almost never consider my personal situation and when I do and post, I try to separate them and spell out where applicable. The reality is that an individuals personal situation should not come into play here but only the rules, laws and similar. That's not too say we're not sympathetic but it shouldn't affect the system decisions.

 

[Dean]

This has been known to happen.

Many of us are guilty, esp on DIS. Been accused of it myself, esp where finances and DVC is concerned. But when you grow up dirt poor being wasteful is physically hurtful, esp when such a % of people in the US are broke and even almost all of those are in the top 1% compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Madame]

Many of us are guilty, esp on DIS. Been accused of it myself, esp where finances and DVC is concerned. But when you grow up dirt poor being wasteful is physically hurtful, esp when such a % of people in the US are broke and even almost all of those are in the top 1% compared to the rest of the world.

I understand that. Dirt poor kid here too. My DM was 1 of 17 kids...

 

[skier_pete]

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'm not arguing against the "lock off premiums existence. I'm arguing against increasing it being in "the best interest of the members" This statement has been quote many times in this and other threads. I feel that DVC good make a pretty good argument for increasing studio point costs if in the process it lowered one-bedroom costs. It doesn't take rocket science to show the data that studios book much, much faster than one bedrooms across almost every DVC resort. And resorts with 2-bedroom lock offs see THOSE disappear quickly because of the popularity of studios. So the argument that raising studios point requirements and lowering 1-beds would be easy to make.

But DVC went and raised both studios and 1-bedrooms across the board, in almost every season. And in some (but very few) cases they lowered the 2-bedroom rate to do it. But only as they needed to keep the reallocation legal. Many cases they raised both without lowering 2-beds in equal proportion, because they could use increased lock-off premiums to do so. In the process, they took 1-bedrooms units - that were already overpriced and therefore the last to book - and made them worse. This is punitive to ANY member that wants to book a trip at later notice, and is forced into a one bedroom because that is all the is left. This change will not slow people booking studios, because by making 1-beds more expensive, it won't be driving current studio users to book them.

I just don't get how they can argue this reallocation benefits the members. It benefits a small portion of members, but hurts most members and strongly benefits Disney. That's the part of the contract I see them breaking, but it feels very difficult to prove.

 

[wdrl]

So it states that the Vacation Home points can be changed up to a max of 20%, but does not specify whether that 20% must be re-allocated within each room type category or within each resort as a whole.

And you believe, as does @wdrl, that it does not have to be explicitly stated in order for it to be contractually in compliance?

My theory is that a reallocation has to point-neutral for the entire resort. Point reallocations do not have to be point-neutral at the Unit level or at the Vacation Home type level.

Contracts are sticky things, and the words that make up contracts are even stickier. Entire careers of lawyers and judges have been based on whether something is explicit or implicit, and on whether this word means that or that word means this. I will state unequivocally and without reservation that I'm not sure whether something has to be explicitly stated in order to be in compliance.

 

[skier_pete]

My theory is that a reallocation has to point-neutral for the entire resort. Point reallocations do not have to be point-neutral at the Unit level or at the Vacation Home type level.

Contracts are sticky things, and the words that make up contracts are even stickier. Entire careers of lawyers and judges have been based on whether something is explicit or implicit, and on whether this word means that or that word means this. I will state unequivocally and without reservation that I'm not sure whether something has to be explicitly stated in order to be in compliance.

I agree that you will have a near impossible time winning an argument against the legality of re-allocation across an entire resort vs required by unit. There's been a well established precedence for doing this, and it's been done many times, and I'm sure the prospect of legality has been broached before and proven valid. I personally wouldn't devote any effort to this line of reasoning.

 

[OKW Lover]

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.

IMO, the purpose of reallocating the needed points is to even out demand for all the different sizes. Some may consider that a "push", others a "pull". Its simply to level supply and demand.

 

[skier_pete]

IMO, the purpose of reallocating the needed points is to even out demand for all the different sizes. Some may consider that a "push", others a "pull". Its simply to level supply and demand.

Again, raising points on 1-bedrooms doesn't do this. They are empirically the least in demand units - easily proven.

You also in an earlier post mentioned th length of stay clause. I don't know how they impose that without making a bunch of empty rooms. There are always rooms left in the booking engine for single night occupancy and they mostly get filled up. If they start requiring 3-night minimum, they'll suddenly have a bunch of unused single night rooms. While in theory that opens up cash income for DVC, how often would they be able to get single night rooms rented?