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

[Spartan86]

Also, what do you think about THV needing more vacation points to be booked than the ownership interest they convey? There is no lockoff here to muddle the waters.

Sorry, I’m sure it’s buried somewhere in this thread but what was the year-over-year change in total points that you calculated for THV?

 

[RobDoc]

Do you agree or not that the definition in the Florida Law for a Timeshare Unit is equivalent in the DVC POS to that of a Vacation Home?

If yes, than DVC says in the POS that the studios and 1BR are vacation homes, i.e what the FL law calls Timeshare units. In a world without a lockoff premium, there would be no contradiction in having a 2BR lockoff, a studio or a 1BR all as timeshare units. They would convey each a proportional amount of ownership interest, the point charts would be balanced.
FL law allows the timeshare instrument to convey the portions of larger villas as single timeshare units, no contradiction here.

If no, then which one is the entity that matches the definition of timeshare unit? If it's only the 2BR for lockoff, can you point to where in the POS this is written? And then, why studios and 1BR (in a resort where there are no dedicated studios and 1BR) are called Vacation Homes?

Also, what do you think about THV needing more vacation points to be booked than the ownership interest they convey? There is no lockoff here to muddle the waters.

Maybe there are other documents and laws that would apply to this. In that case, I'd like to read them. I am not ready to concede that if DVC did it, then it's fine. Because they've also set the MF for Aulani to a low level to boost sales and so they've been condemned to pay subsidized fees for 50 years by the state of Hawaii. So their track record is not immaculate.

I don't agree that the definitions used by the State of Florida for the timeshare programs are consistent with the definitions you are trying to apply to the DVC situation you have chosen here. You are trying to apply dedicated Studios and 1BRs to accommodations which are a component of a larger accommodation.

As I suggested above, the Studios and 1BRs at SSR are clearly components of a Lockoff 2BR Villa and you are stating "I'd also go one step further and say that since in the SSR POS studios and 1BR are called Vacation Homes too, and since there are no dedicated studios or 1BR at SSR, every rule applying to the "timeshare units" in the FL law has to be applied to the lockoff portions of the 2BR DVC Vacation Homes as well." I do NOT believe that the intent of the State of Florida was that those accommodations have to use both of their definitions. Apparently you do believe that, which is fine.

My understanding is that the THV make up a portion of the SSR Resort along with 2BRs and GVs (Studios and 1BRs are already included as components of Lockoff 2BR villas, in spite of your assertions to the contrary) and should be included in any need for reallocation at that resort. I believe the intent at PVB and CCV is the same regarding the bungalows and cabins included as accommodations at those resorts. Those villa types may be reserved 11 months in advance by owners at their respective resort along with any/all other accommodations. You seem to ignore that fact. If THVs, Bungalows and Cabins are not to to be included in the total points sold at those resorts, perhaps you should argue that they are actually separate resorts, which you already seem to be suggesting.

Has DVC been transparent regarding an explanation to DVC Members regarding the reallocations both past and present? No, but they do have the FL Statutes and POS from each resort to serve as explanation for the actions taken.

As I said before. "Interesting concept."

Perhaps you should also contact the State of Florida for clarification of any statute you wish to apply to this situation.

 

[zavandor]

I don't agree that the definitions used by the State of Florida for the timeshare programs are consistent with the definitions you are trying to apply to the DVC situation you have chosen here. You are trying to apply dedicated Studios and 1BRs to accommodations which are a component of a larger accommodation.

My question was different and was about the definition of a 2BR or a THV or a GV. It was meant to highlight the incongruity in the POS, where the 2BR, lockoff studios and lockoff 1BR are all defined as Vacation Unit, a definition matching the definition of Timeshare Unit for the Florida Law. Maybe it's just a copy and paste from other POS and it's a mistake to include the definition of studios and 1BR in the SSR POS since according to you they don't really matter for anything.

My understanding is that the THV make up a portion of the SSR Resort along with 2BRs and GVs (Studios and 1BRs are already included as components of Lockoff 2BR villas, in spite of your assertions to the contrary) and should be included in any need for reallocation at that resort. I believe the intent at PVB and CCV is the same regarding the bungalows and cabins included as accommodations at those resorts. Those villa types may be reserved 11 months in advance by owners at their respective resort along with any/all other accommodations. You seem to ignore that fact. If THVs, Bungalows and Cabins are not to to be included in the total points sold at those resorts, perhaps you should argue that they are actually separate resorts, which you already seem to be suggesting.

I have never said that THV are in a different resort. Can you please point me where you got that? I will edit the post and make my intention clearer. What I'm arguing is that reallocations across different timeshare units in the same resort are not permitted. And that (an increase of) the lockoff premium is not permitted.

Most people here think, as a given, that point reallocations can balance the whole resort and not the individual timeshare units. In the original SSR POS, this option wasn't included and reallocations were defined only within single vacation homes to balance seasonal demand. The most recent multi-site POS has the possibility to balance cross units, but this introduces a contrast with the resort POS, which should have precedence. Unless the SSR POS Has been updated too, which is a possibility. But I've not received a notification from DVC about the change, as required by the POS, so it either happened more than 6 years ago or it's in a newsletter I don't receive.
However I am still not sure this change is legal, since lockoff studios, lockoff 1BR, 2BR, GV, THV are all defined as vacation homes == timeshare units and there are constraints and rules that a developer must comply with.

Has DVC been transparent regarding an explanation to DVC Members regarding the reallocations both past and present? No, but they do have the FL Statutes and POS from each resort to serve as explanation for the actions taken.

That's the whole point of this thread, understand if for this reallocation DVCMC has followed the law and the rules they gave themselves.

Perhaps you should also contact the State of Florida for clarification of any statute you wish to apply to this situation.

How can I do this?

 

[skier_pete]

So this might not be as nefarious a move by DVC to line their pockets, but a rethinking of the way to manage the studio demand, or open up more 2 bedroom lock-offs to more people as a whole 2 bedroom unit. But also has the added bonus of making them a ton of money through breakage.

But if you want to redistribute studio demand, the easiest way to do this is raise the studios rates and lower the 1-bedroom rates. More people in studios would book in 1-bedrooms. If Studios and 1-beds were closer in point cost - I for one would consider this more. Instead Disney just made a move that drives me even MORE towards studios. They could've done this example (lower studios and raise 1-beds) very very simply.

But they didn't do this. They raised both. You really can't "Drive" people to 2-bedrooms. I have a family of 3. Why would I ever use a 2-bedroom unit?

 

[4luv2cdisney]

But if you want to redistribute studio demand, the easiest way to do this is raise the studios rates and lower the 1-bedroom rates. More people in studios would book in 1-bedrooms. If Studios and 1-beds were closer in point cost - I for one would consider this more. Instead Disney just made a move that drives me even MORE towards studios. They could've done this example (lower studios and raise 1-beds) very very simply.

But they didn't do this. They raised both. You really can't "Drive" people to 2-bedrooms. I have a family of 3. Why would I ever use a 2-bedroom unit?

Yes, I would never consider a 1 bedroom for even a second now more than ever.

We book 2 studios.

Id consider a 2 bedroom if we reached a point where we need 3 studios. But even then....probably not. I'd probably need a 3 bedroom at that point .

 

[Dean]

The law clearly states "no individual timeshare unit".
They could have written "no timeshare unit", the meaning would have been the same. But they took the time to add individual, to make the point stronger.
How can "no individual timeshare unit" become "resort wide regardless of each individual timeshare unit" in DVCMC interpretation? Unless somewhere else it is stated that for point timeshares the requirement is dropped and it's resort wide. If anyone knows this, please tell us where.
I am making the example of THV because we know for sure they are separate and we know they only increased (twice), so it's an easier argument. [But I do think it applies also to the lockoff premium.]



I will ask for an appointment for September, when I'll be in Orlando. My Home resort has still 35 years remaining, so I'm in for the long run, a few months won't make a difference.
I will also ask if possible for an earlier conference call, I cannot see why they should accept a face-to-face meeting and not a cc.

The statutes clearly define a lockoff as ONE unit but give the developer the option of defining it as the smaller components. DVC uses unit differently than the statute so Vacation Home or Villa with DVC = Unit in the statutes. All of the POS info I have in my possession says it's by resort. And they really have to have this option to make meaningful changes within the other requirements of the resort. Clearly DVCMC interprets it resort wide, they're the ones you have to convince. You do know your call is not likely to be with anyone that truly is in a decision making position.

How was it not official? It seems more official to me than 5 in a 1 bed, bring your own bed & bedding.

I don’t like that 2 & under enter parks for free either - do they not take up more space with their gear? Are they not people? Same with air travel. I just follow the rules.

My point is that DVC is an erratic mess if they truly are now trying to push families of 5 into 2 bds when they literally just made it possible to book more studios for 5. Begs the question: why are they trying to push members out of 1bds...? Want to bet most breakage is 1beds?

By official, I mean contractual. It's something they've done they can easily undo. You can't push people to 2 BR without pushing them away from both the studio and 1 BR.

As far as I am concerned, DVC caused the entire problem with studios booking up first. First of all DVC reduced the minimum purchase amount for new members to 50 points. This lower points means that new owners really can't book the larger units for a week or more than a day or two by banking or borrowing. Secondly, DVC built the Poly studios to sleep five and allowed members to book a reservation for five. Then DVC remodeled several resorts all but BLT adding a five bed in a studio and allowing members to book the rooms for five guests.

Now instead of changing the guest size on the studios back to four and somehow creating a fifth guest sleeping space in most of the one bedrooms, now with the new 2020 point charts, DVC raises the point cost for studios and one bedrooms and lower the cost of 2BRs.

It doesn't matter how we got here, only where we are (contractually). That they sold it touting studios or sold smaller contracts doesn't have an impact legally/contractually.

 

[DVC92]

How can I do this?

File a complaint with the Florida Division of Timeshares. Here is a link to the complaint form page: http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/lsc/documents/complaint_english.pdf

 

[RobDoc]

Just a concern going forward. It would be wise to explore all options and make sure all remedies are exhausted before proceeding with the action suggested in the title of this thread.

From Exhibit "4" to the Public Offering Statement for the Declaration Of Condominium of the Disney Vacation Club at Walt Disney World Resort, A Leasehold Condominium
Dated 01/06/1992

Article XV
Compliance and Default
​

15.1 Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or the Association to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, or the Condominium Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to them, as they may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable attorneys' fees as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and all proceedings to bankruptcy.

 

[Dean]

Just a concern going forward. It would be wise to explore all options and make sure all remedies are exhausted before proceeding with the action suggested in the title of this thread.

From Exhibit "4" to the Public Offering Statement for the Declaration Of Condominium of the Disney Vacation Club at Walt Disney World Resort, A Leasehold Condominium
Dated 01/06/1992

Article XV
Compliance and Default
​

15.1 Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or the Association to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, or the Condominium Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to them, as they may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable attorneys' fees as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and all proceedings to bankruptcy.

IIRC it also requires non binding arbitration so another level and more costs.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But if you want to redistribute studio demand, the easiest way to do this is raise the studios rates and lower the 1-bedroom rates. More people in studios would book in 1-bedrooms. If Studios and 1-beds were closer in point cost - I for one would consider this more. Instead Disney just made a move that drives me even MORE towards studios. They could've done this example (lower studios and raise 1-beds) very very simply.

But they didn't do this. They raised both. You really can't "Drive" people to 2-bedrooms. I have a family of 3. Why would I ever use a 2-bedroom unit?

When a studio costs the same or more than a 2BR is the time you'd book it would be my guess.
In some cases that's more likely than going studio to 1BR but you have to at least been considering a 1BR instead of a studio to even have it be a thought which is where a lot of the idea that this was done to push people to 2BR's fails.

Since 1BR's are historically double the requirements of a studio then only edging each of them closer in point requirements is going to shift between those 2 units and would have been a better direction IMO - maybe even in tandem with decreasing 2BR's in some seasons. Those who book multiple studios may look at 2BR's now. But the boards here might need to stop advocating that you don't want to share a villa with family and that you're best off to have your own space to retire to.

 

[RobDoc]

IIRC it also requires non binding arbitration so another level and more costs.

From the May, 1993 OKW POS:
Exhibit "A" - 6.6

Master Cotenancy Agreement - 18. Waiver of Jury Trial: Venue of Actions.

 

[DougEMG]

Are not the following statements true ?
(1) As an owner we own a fix legal percent of a particular unit at a resort and have a legal titled registered document indicating that.
(2) All the owners have to be able to book their unit fully, otherwise their ownership title has been changed which is illegal.

To me, that means DVC can NOT legally reallocate points across units as that would change the value of an owners title. The fact that this makes it harder for DVC to reallocate points is meaningless, they should of sold an ownership in the resort, not in a unit if they wanted to reallocate across the resort.

And just cause DVC did point changes in the past, doesn't mean they were legal. I speed all the time when driving, but just cause I've never gotten a ticket that doesn't mean I am not still breaking the law.

 

[RobDoc]

...How can I do this?

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/lsc/documents/cccomplaint.pdf

From the complaint document:

The division can investigate only alleged violations of the provisions in Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 61B-15 through 61B-24, Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to condominiums, and Chapter 719, Florida Statutes, along with Chapters 61B-75 through 61B-79, Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to cooperatives.

As a result, the division does NOT generally investigate issues involving:
x Maintenance of the common elements or common areas, x Alterations or additions to the common elements or common areas, x Violations of the condominium (or cooperative) documents.

The division does NOT investigate issues involving:
x Contractual disputes; x Criminal matters; x Discrimination pertaining to age, race, special needs, et cetera; and Internal disputes x (for example, most issues involving noise, pets, and parking).

 

[ParkHoppers]

But if you want to redistribute studio demand, the easiest way to do this is raise the studios rates and lower the 1-bedroom rates. More people in studios would book in 1-bedrooms. If Studios and 1-beds were closer in point cost - I for one would consider this more. Instead Disney just made a move that drives me even MORE towards studios. They could've done this example (lower studios and raise 1-beds) very very simply.

But they didn't do this. They raised both. You really can't "Drive" people to 2-bedrooms. I have a family of 3. Why would I ever use a 2-bedroom unit?

Maybe they are trying to get 1 bedroom people to move up to 2 bedrooms. They know the studio crowds habits won’t be changed but if they can get 1 bedroom people to jump up to 2 bedroom they accomplish more 2 bedrooms being booked thus less points used in the overall system. By bumping up 1 bedrooms and lower 2 bedrooms they have lowered the gap between those two. And if as a result some 1 bedrooms end up sitting Disney just swoops in and rents them for cash. Maybe this is the plan.

 

[Matty B13]

But if you want to redistribute studio demand, the easiest way to do this is raise the studios rates and lower the 1-bedroom rates. More people in studios would book in 1-bedrooms. If Studios and 1-beds were closer in point cost - I for one would consider this more. Instead Disney just made a move that drives me even MORE towards studios. They could've done this example (lower studios and raise 1-beds) very very simply.

But they didn't do this. They raised both. You really can't "Drive" people to 2-bedrooms. I have a family of 3. Why would I ever use a 2-bedroom unit?

What I was saying is that DVC is trying to get owners who usually book studios and 1 bedrooms, to use up their points quicker, thus freeing up days for other people who book studios and 1 bedrooms. Not shift demand from studios to 1 bedrooms and 1 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms. Is this a fair way to do it, I don't know? But the real question is it within the POS.

 

[CarolMN]

Are not the following statements true ?
(1) As an owner we own a fix legal percent of a particular unit at a resort and have a legal titled registered document indicating that.
(2) All the owners have to be able to book their unit fully, otherwise their ownership title has been changed which is illegal.

To me, that means DVC can NOT legally reallocate points across units as that would change the value of an owners title. The fact that this makes it harder for DVC to reallocate points is meaningless, they should of sold an ownership in the resort, not in a unit if they wanted to reallocate across the resort.

And just cause DVC did point changes in the past, doesn't mean they were legal. I speed all the time when driving, but just cause I've never gotten a ticket that doesn't mean I am not still breaking the law.

Statement 1 is true. 2 is not. Reallocations do not change the percentage owned. The number of points you purchased represents your ownership interest. Reallocations do not increase the number points that Disney can sell. Your percentage of ownership remains the same.

Your initial purchase has never guaranteed the number of nights your ownership can reserve.

 

[Dean]

Are not the following statements true ?
(1) As an owner we own a fix legal percent of a particular unit at a resort and have a legal titled registered document indicating that.
(2) All the owners have to be able to book their unit fully, otherwise their ownership title has been changed which is illegal.

To me, that means DVC can NOT legally reallocate points across units as that would change the value of an owners title. The fact that this makes it harder for DVC to reallocate points is meaningless, they should of sold an ownership in the resort, not in a unit if they wanted to reallocate across the resort.

And just cause DVC did point changes in the past, doesn't mean they were legal. I speed all the time when driving, but just cause I've never gotten a ticket that doesn't mean I am not still breaking the law.

There has been 3 different versions of the POS listed at least. Some things posted suggest that a Vacation Home cannot change, another that a unit cannot change and the other that it's by resort. I tend to subscribe to the latter because it's how things have been done previously as well as this time and it's really the only what reallocations are functional. A unit in terms of DVC is often a collection of rooms. Regardless all units and all villas that are lockout's are counted as a the full villa not locked off.

 

[skier_pete]

Maybe they are trying to get 1 bedroom people to move up to 2 bedrooms. They know the studio crowds habits won’t be changed but if they can get 1 bedroom people to jump up to 2 bedroom they accomplish more 2 bedrooms being booked thus less points used in the overall system. By bumping up 1 bedrooms and lower 2 bedrooms they have lowered the gap between those two. And if as a result some 1 bedrooms end up sitting Disney just swoops in and rents them for cash. Maybe this is the plan.

But the studios go first, before either, meaning that even if the 1-BD people want to move to a 2-BD, they aren't available, and that will still leave a bunch of 1-BD available.

What I was saying is that DVC is trying to get owners who usually book studios and 1 bedrooms, to use up their points quicker, thus freeing up days for other people who book studios and 1 bedrooms. Not shift demand from studios to 1 bedrooms and 1 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms. Is this a fair way to do it, I don't know? But the real question is it within the POS.

I think we're saying the same thing in a different way.owners have to use up their points on shorter stays, since it takes more points to stay in studios and 1-beds. The result is there are more unoccupied rooms, and DVC profits from that.

Or members buy more single use points to make up the difference and Disney profits,

or members purchase additional small contracts and Disney profits.

Sense a pattern?

 

[skier_pete]

It occurs to me that the 40 or so people on this thread know what's going on, at least we have an advantage over the tens of thousands of members who in six months are going to go and book there 2020 summer vacation and be completely baffled by the fact they suddenly don't have enough points to book their week at Disney. I wonder how many complaints Disney will field over the next 12 months. Doesn't matter though, since the people making these decisions don't deal with the people that make the complaints.

Anyone going to the upcoming Moonlight Magic events? The execs often show up at these things, I'd love to corner one of them in the park on the topic. It would be worth getting ejected from the event. We're not going in 2019 so can't do this.

 

[ParkHoppers]

But the studios go first, before either, meaning that even if the 1-BD people want to move to a 2-BD, they aren't available, and that will still leave a bunch of 1-BD available.?

Yeah your right once the studios in Lockoff are booked early on the 2 bedrooms become 1 bedrooms. If they think people are going from studios all the way to 2 bedrooms they are in for a disappointment IMO. That’s too big of a jump anyway you slice it.