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

[we"reofftoneverland]

DVC News is the site that references the maximum reallocation with the meaning I took it to be.

https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...2-exclusive-contemporary-points-chart-preview

That's an interesting article.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

That's an interesting article.

My quick calc on BWV standard studios shows a 15.224 pt/night avg for 2020. So, can they round down? If so, they're at their limit but not over for that category.

 

[Wakey]

DVC has exploited the lock-off premium that has the effect of increasing the cost of studios and 1BRs without having to decrease the cost of 2BRs.

The numbers below are for VGF. You'll see that total points have increased 80,000 going from 2019 to 2020 (this is worst case scenario in which all the studios are booked as studios and not part of a 2BR lock-off). This has the effect of DVC being able to rent out 80,000 points via cash bookings and that incoming money doesn't get disbursed back to the members since DVC already exceeds the maximum that can be reallocated to members to offset MFs. In short, Disney will likely be pocketing a minimum of $1.5 million extra off of VGF alone.

If true, the ones who pay would be the trusting customers of Disney. The more I read on here, the unhappier I get.

 

[skier_pete]

DVC News is the site that references the maximum reallocation with the meaning I took it to be.

https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...2-exclusive-contemporary-points-chart-preview

I've heard mention of this before - but this is the first time I've seen the information in written form. Does anyone have this information direct from Disney for all the resorts? Is it in the POS?

If there were official values on this - I would feel much better about this situation - it would mean they are limited to how much they can push the lock-off premium to. Honestly, the fact that they increased it a bit bothers me less than the idea they can increase it unfettered.

 

[Dean]

I have read all the SSR POS, from start to finish (time I will never get back). I found a few interesring things I'll post tomorrow when I'll have more time, but the biggest issue is that I haven't found an explicit mention that the point charts are balanced around the 2BR booked as 2BR.

Many people have said the in the POS there is explicit mention that the point charts are balanced around 2BR not locked. Where is it? Is it in the multi site POS (which I don't have)?

I know there is wording in the POS for OKW that says that but the reality is that it doesn't have to per FL statute 721. For them to be counted separately the POS would have to specifically stating so.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I've heard mention of this before - but this is the first time I've seen the information in written form. Does anyone have this information direct from Disney for all the resorts? Is it in the POS?

If there were official values on this - I would feel much better about this situation - it would mean they are limited to how much they can push the lock-off premium to. Honestly, the fact that they increased it a bit bothers me less than the idea they can increase it unfettered.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[zavandor]

In SSR POS, the words "two bedrooms" are referenced only once, in Exhibit G, near the definition of 1BR and studios. All defined as Vacation Homes.

In page 4, there is definition of vacation home: means and refers to those portions of a Unit designed and intended for separate use and occupancy. This fits studios and 1BR too. In fact they are defined as Vacation Homes too in Exhibit G.

At the end of page 8, there is the definition of Unit. It says in that in exhibit A each vacation home within each unit is also or will also be identified by a number.
In the POS I have vacation homes have not numbers. However currently both studios and 1BR are identified by a number at every resort. (if other POS show only numbers for 2BR and not the lockoff, please say so).

In page 18, there is a paragraph about how to manage destructive damage to the resort. It says that insurance is paid to members but they loose ownership in the club... resulting in their withdrawal from participation in the Home Resort Reservation Component and the DVC Reservation Component so that members of the club will not be attempting to make reservations for available DVC Resort Vacation Homes on a greater than "one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" as that term is defined in Section 721.05(23), Florida Statutes.

So this paragraph says that if a Unit cannot be rebuilt, its owners get reimbursed from the insurance and loose their points. This is so the remaining of the resort can still be compliant with the "one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" Florida Law.
Let's say all THV are increased 20% every year to bring them to the same cost of studios and cabins, lowering the rest of the resort. If they are then all destroyed by a hurricane and removed from the system, the rest of the resort would violate the one to one rule and would need a new point charts that would increase all other rooms cost. This wouldn't be a reallocation (as units to take points from do not exist anymore) would be a new points charts. This is not allowed. The logical conclusion is that a reallocation that moves points away from units cannot be allowed.
This paragraph also clearly links the "one-to-one" rule to Vacation Homes.

page 22: 12.12.1 is the paragraph where it says that regardless of the specific unit where someone owns, everyone can book any Vacation Home. And it references to Exhibit G on rules how this is regulated. In Exhibit G studios and 1BR are defined as Vacation homes.

page 68: checkin time is 4pm (not after 4pm). Not related to this discussion, but something debated from time to time.

It appears very clear to me that studios and 1BR lockoff are defined as Vacation homes in the POS, exactly as 2BR. There is no special status given to 2BR lockoff. Studios and 1BR have points charts, can be booked separately, they are identified by a number. At other resorts DVC even sells fixed weeks for them, VGF being the most egregious example, where there are no dedicated studios and yet fixed weeks for studios are sold. They are conveyed as what the Florida Law defines as Timeshare units, so the one-to-one rule applies to them.

Finally, the sentence that I think DVCMC interprets as giving them powers to reallocate across the whole resort.
Page 80 During the base year the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve all Vacation homed during all Use Days in the Condominium must always equal, and be symbolic of, the total number of Ownership Interest owned by Club Members in the Condominium.

However, this is the base requirement, not the only requirement. Later in the POS they describe why a reallocation can happen (to balance demand across the UY, not to create extra points for renovations or to balance demand across different UY) and how it can happen (moving points within the same Vacation Home across different Use Days).

They also interpret this as "there must be at least one booking configuration for lockoff rooms where During the base year the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve all Vacation homed during all Use Days in the Condominium must always equal, and be symbolic of, the total number of Ownership Interest owned by Club Members in the Condominium"
My interpretation of the word "all" is that it refers to "all" Vacation homes, including studios and 1BR. So how can the lockoff premium exist in the first place? I think there could be somewhere in the Florida Law some law allowing this and it would be important to find it, because it might regulate how this can be introduced and if it can be increased. Or maybe it's a vacuum in the law, it's not regulated and developers have just gone by their own interpretation. My problem with this is that it creates the possibilities for abuses against owners and should be regulated somehow.

 

[mab2012]

Yes, it definitely feels different if SSR is a home resort.

Huh? What does my home resort have to do with it?

 

[mab2012]

My quick calc on BWV standard studios shows a 15.224 pt/night avg for 2020. So, can they round down? If so, they're at their limit but not over for that category.

Probably not, but did you weight your average by the number of days at each point level?

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Probably not, but did you weight your average by the number of days in at each point level?

I used the number of weekend nights x the corresponding points cost and the number of weekday nights x the points cost for every season.

So I calculated adventure season to have 21 nights @ 14 pts and 54 nights @ 10 pts, etc and so on.

That's how I'm interpreting....

If that's accurate, it's pretty easy once you know the number of nights by type to apply to all room types and resorts. Unfortunately my laptop is broken or I'd be plugging more numbers in. I did mine by hand.

If anyone wants to check me or do their own, I came up with the following:

Weekend/ weekday

Adventure 21/54
choice 19/48
Dream 21/51
magic 37/93
Premier 6/16

I did this late at night and by hand.......

 

[4luv2cdisney]

@zavandor Did you see this?

https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...2-exclusive-contemporary-points-chart-preview

Maybe the author knows how to get these "legal filings". Clearly Disney doesn't plan on cooperating.

 

[Madame]

Huh? What does my home resort have to do with it?

I apologize if I misunderstood. Is SSR a home resort for you?

 

[DaveNan]

In SSR POS, the words "two bedroom" are referenced only once, in Exhibit G, near the definition of 1BR and studios. All defined as Vacation Homes.

In page 4, there is definition of vacation home: means and refers to those portions of a Unit designed and intended for separate use and occupancy. This fits studios and 1BR too. In fact they are defined as Vacation Homes too in Exhibit G.

At the end of page 8, there is the definition of Unit. It says in that in exhibit A each vacation home within each unit is also or will also be identified by a number.
In the POS I have vacation homes are not numbers. However currently both studios and 1BR are identified by a number at every resort. (if other POS show only numbers for 2BR and not the lockoff, please say so).

In page 18, there is a paragraph about how to manage destructive damage to the resort. It says that insurance is paid to members but they loose ownership in the club... resulting in their withdrawal from participation in the Home Resort Reservation Component and the DVC Reservation Component so that members of the club will not be attempting to make reservations for available DVC Resort Vacation Homes on a greater than "one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" as that term is defined in Section 721.05(23), Florida Statutes.

So this paragraph says that is a Unit cannot be rebuild, its owners get reimbursed from the insurance and loose their points. This is so the remaining of the resort can still be compliant with the "one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" Florida Law.
Let's say all THV are increased 20% every year to bring them to the same cost of studios and cabins, lowering the rest of the resort. If they are then all destroyed by a hurricane and removed from the system, the rest of the resort would violate the one to one rule and would need a new point charts that would increase all other rooms cost. This wouldn't be a reallocation (as units to take points from do not exist anymore) would be a new points charts. This is not allowed. The logical conclusion is that a reallocation that moves points away from units cannot be allowed.
This paragraph also clearly links the "one-to-one" rule to Vacation Homes.

page 22: 12.12.1 is the paragraph where it says that regardless of the specific unit where someone owns, everyone can book any Vacation Home. And it references to Exhibit G on rules how this is regulated. In Exhibit G studios and 1BR are defined as Vacation homes.

page 68: checkin time is 4pm (not after 4pm). Not related to this discussion, but something debated from time to time.

It appears very clear to me that studios and 1BR lockoff are clearly defined as Vacation homes in the POS, exactly as 2BR. There is no special status given to 2BR lockoff. Studios and 1BR have points charts, can be booked separately, they are identified by a number. At other resorts DVC even sells fixed weeks for them, VGF being hte most egregious example, where there are no dedicate studios and yet fixed weeks for studios are sold. They are conveyed as what the Florida Law defines as Timeshare units, so the one-to-one rule applies to them.

Finally, the sentence that I think DVCMC interprets as giving them powers to reallocate across the whole resort.
Page 80 During the base year the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve all Vacation homed during all Use Days in the Condominium must always equal, and be symbolic of, the total number of Ownership Interest owned by Club Members in the Condominium.

However, this is the base requirement, not the only requirement. Later in the POS they describe why a reallocation can happen (to balance demand across the UY, not to create extra points for renovations or to balance demand across different UY) and how it can happen (moving points within the same Vacation Home across different Use Days).

They also interpret this as "there must be at least one booking configuration for lockoff rooms where During the base year the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve all Vacation homed during all Use Days in the Condominium must always equal, and be symbolic of, the total number of Ownership Interest owned by Club Members in the Condominium"
My interpretation of the word "all" is that it refers to "all" Vacation homes, including studios and 1BR. So how can the lockoff premium exist in the first place? I think there could be somewhere in the Florida Law some law allowing this and it would be important to find it, because it might regulate how this can be introduced and if it can be increased. Or maybe it's a vacuum in the law, it's not regulated and developers have just gone by their own interpretation. My problem with this is that it opens abuses against owners and should be regulated somehow.

Here's the problem....
Disney is a huge money generator/employer for the state of FL. The AG and several other state and local officials let Disney live in the gray area. Dark Gray, but not black... I have no doubt they effectively generated 2% additional points for KV based on the reallocation. (assumes lock-off are booked as split 75% of the time). The previous split gave them an effective full allotment of points only consuming 95% of the occupancy, now it is only 93%. They need to hold back 2%, so their effective surplus went from 3% of the points to 5%. Yes, the 2BR allotments did not change, but we all know most of the LO are booked as split units. Each time that happens another coin clinks in the Disney coffers.
It "may" be within the letter of the law, but is it within the intent of the law? Does anyone believe an official in FL will go after Disney? Other than Phil Diamond, I have never heard of any.

 

[zavandor]

@zavandor Did you see this?

https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...2-exclusive-contemporary-points-chart-preview

Maybe the author knows how to get these "legal filings". Clearly Disney doesn't plan on cooperating.

I think the author is @tjkraz here on the forum.

I do not believe in the maximum reallocation limit. I think it's just an example, not a binding rule. The only rule that matters in that respect is the one stating that at least one night must be bookable for xx points.
The maximum reallocation rule is interesting in the way that it shows the intention of the original writers of the POS was the reallocation to be allowed only within the same Vacation Home, not across different room types. It shows to potential owners the most extreme reallocation Disney could do, one where there is no difference between seasons and week days. It doesn't show a reallocation equalizing all room types and all seasons.

 

[mab2012]

I used the number of weekend nights x the corresponding points cost and the number of weekday nights x the points cost for every season.

So I calculated adventure season to have 21 nights @ 14 pts and 54 nights @ 10 pts, etc and so on.

That's how I'm interpreting....

If that's accurate, it's pretty easy once you know the number of nights by type to apply to all room types and resorts. Unfortunately my laptop is broken or I'd be plugging more numbers in. I did mine by hand.

If anyone wants to check me or do their own, I came up with the following:

Weekend/ weekday

Adventure 21/54
choice 19/48
Dream 21/51
magic 37/93
Premier 6/16

I did this late at night and by hand.......

Yeah, my average came out slightly lower, 15.15, so I'm not sure where that discrepancy happened, but either way it's over 15. I had the same counts for the number of days in each season.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I kind of think we're barking up the wrong tree anyway. I believe the solution is not a lawsuit it is very public member outrage and media attention.

I just had 2 friends buy this week. I told them to ask about the points charged per night and how they could change in the future and they were given the same response that most of us understood and believed to be true.

It's not right.

 

[zavandor]

I kind of think we're barking up the wrong tree anyway. I believe the solution is not a lawsuit it is very public member outrage and media attention.

I'm doing that too.
I've created a website to publish all the info I can gather about the topic. I don't know if I can share it here so I won't. Anyway my plan is to try and share it on social media and to newspapers. I'm not sure if it's ready yet, as I have a lot of doubts about what can be illegal and what is just unethical, that's why I welcome all comments on this thread, also those against me. I'm no lawyer and the more information and opinions I can get, the better.

 

[mab2012]

I apologize if I misunderstood. Is SSR a home resort for you?

It is, but I think we probably just misunderstood each other. The way I look at it, I'm using my points to book all over the place, so an increase in studio costs limits my options no matter where it happens. We do (happily) stay at SSR, but mostly through an external exchange into one of those ever-available 1BR units.

 

[wdrl]

@zavandor posted: "It appears very clear to me that studios and 1BR lockoff are clearly defined as Vacation homes in the POS, exactly as 2BR (emphasis added). There is no special status given to 2BR lockoff. Studios and 1BR have points charts, can be booked separately, they are identified by a number."

From the SSR Master Declaration, Exhibit G, 1.18: "Two-Bedroom Vacation Home shall mean a Vacation Home containing two (2) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms and a Full Kitchen. Certain of the Two-Bedroom Vacation Homes may be locked-off into One-Bedroom and Studio Vacation Homes as a use convenience only" (emphasis added).

What is clear to one person may not be all that clear to another person.

 

[OKW Lover]

I'd be curious to see how many on this thread are in favor of sometime of legal action. Perhaps the OP could add a poll?