The "Premium" has ALWAYS been there. The first OKW point chart has points needed to reserve a Studio and a 1BR higher than the points to reserve a lockoff 2BR - for all seasons. It was not specifically called a Premium in that POS, but it has existed since the first point chart in 1991.
Well yes and no. I think the complaint is that a point rebalance should actually minimize breakage income. In fact I was told on my two calls with senior leadership that is the effective mandate of the POS, simplest interpretation. As less breakage means even demand and 100% capacity. Also DVCMC sets the point charts and they are a fiduciary and fiduciary rules prevent them from doing anything that is out of our best interest to turn a profit. So if the new point charts increase breakage it is 100% out of line with their fiduciary role and they must rebalance again. However, the limitation is showing that it will increase breakage before it happens, unless someone built a data analytics model with all the data Disney has to prove it.
This is where many of us get more frustrated.
To me, the real complaint, is I had the false impression that the members got 98% of the capacity of the resort. The remaining 2% went to maintenance and missed booking.
I have no idea where you got the idea that member's own 98% of total points at any DVC Resort. DVD has typically maintained about 4% at each resort and, at the older resorts, likely have more inventory through foreclosure and ROFR. At the resorts still being actively sold, they also still have access to additional inventory. Yes, some of that is used for renovation/maintenance. They also have the fiduciary responsibility to rent out Member points used for non-DVC inventory (DCL, ABD, Concierge Collection, Disney Collection, World Passport, etc.) and that also removes resort accommodations from inventory otherwise available DVC Members.
So how does one prove it either way? I can’t help but feel like we’re at an impasse.
I respectfully disagree. The point of the reallocation should be each vacation home should be booked 100% by members. That is literally their responsibility as a fiduciary. So technically that should reduce breakage by definition. Literally the exact words came out of their mouths. They said balancing demand meant that at all units were occupied at the same speed st 100%.If a by-product of the reallocation is that Disney sees additional income but the reallocation otherwise otherwise accomplishes the goal of balancing demand, so be it.
If the goal of the reallocation was to create additional profit for Disney with no benefit to members, then I can agree that there may be a problem.
However, I have seen nothing indicated here other than the same complaints generated by past reallocations.
Could DVCMC be more transparent by providing the data used to define the imbalance? - certainly. However, such information has never been offered in the past and nowhere in our documents does it state that we are entitled to such information. As a result , we are left to our own devices to imagine how DVC Members can benefit from change as evidenced by items posted in this very thread - now 60-plus pages in length.
We have seen a lot of hyperbole where opinions have been stated as fact and 'clearly' has been used to excess (IMHP) for things actually not clear at all. Such is the nature of humans and, of course, the internet.
Thank you for taking the time doing this, really appreciated. However I have to clarify that the document she says is not legally binding is the "Product Understanding Document" that they make buyers sign and is a summary of the POS. One of the points I made to her was that document changed over the years to reflect their different interpretations of the POS without changing the POS itself.
Paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration is legally binding but she couldn't answer about why it seems in clear contradiction with the reallocations they've done since 2013 and she'll come back to me about it.
By the way, today I found this in Florida statute:
The timeshare instrument must also provide for the application of any insurance proceeds arising from a casualty to either the replacement or acquisition of additional similar accommodations or facilities or to the removal of purchasers from the multisite timeshare plan so that purchasers will not be competing for available accommodations on a greater than one-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio.
Paragraph 10.6.3 has been written because of this. Another proof it's legally binding. And that paragraph clearly states that if a unit and all its owners are removed from the system because of destructive damage, then the rest of the resort will be in balance according to the one-to-one rule. This would prevent reallocation of points cross units.
We'll see what she replies to that, maybe that it only applies to the first year?
May I ask you a further favor and ask her one more thing?
The Florida statute says that the one-to-one rule applies to each timeshare unit, not the whole resort.
The definition of a timeshare unit is:
“Timeshare unit” means an accommodation of a timeshare plan which is divided into timeshare periods. Any timeshare unit in which a door or doors connecting two or more separate rooms are capable of being locked to create two or more private dwellings shall only constitute one timeshare unit for purposes of this chapter, unless the timeshare instrument provides that timeshare interests may be separately conveyed in such locked-off portions. (my emphasis)
My interpretation is that clearly a 3BR villa is a single timeshare unit. While there are doors separating private dwellings, those cannot be booked independently and you never find in the POS a reference to "the third bedroom of a grand villa".
The same is true for dedicated studios, 1BR and 2BR.
My doubt is for the 2BR lockoff. They can be locked to form two separated Vacation Homes (like Disney calls them). The issue revolves around what conveyed means.
I've looked online but I'm not a lawyer. In the definitions of Conveying in legal terms I've found, it means: granting someone a right on something. So conveying a house means granting ownership of that house.
Can we say that the POS for SSR "conveys" also studios and 1BR?
I think it does because:
- the POS clearly defines the studios and 1BR as Vacation Homes, with no difference of definition from the other room types
- it says Vacation Homes will be numbered and portions of a lockoff have a number
- it explicitly says that a 2BR Vacation Home can be locked off into separate studios and 1BR Vacation Homes.
- there is a rule in the Membership agreement saying that owners will always be able to book at least one night in a studio or a 1BR for XX points
- there is a description of a maximum reallocation that could level the cost of studios and 1BR up to a certain maximum
- DVD sells fixed weeks for studios and 1BR also at resorts that do not have dedicated room (this is my strongest argument)
For all those reasons I think the POS conveys also the locked off rooms, because it grants rights on them to owners. For this reason they have to be considered as timeshare units and so the one-to-one rule applies to them as well.
However, others disagree with me, I really would like the opinion of a lawyer who specializes on Timeshares.
Thank a lot if you could do this!
Yes they did, and that is a possible explanation of how a 1BR is in more demand than a 2BR (based on total bookings total bookings)
The onus would be on the members or some third party to prove otherwise. True proof would have to come in terms of hard hitting legal action unless they released the actual data and my experience with them in the past says this is not going to happen. They MIGHT let you look at some of it in person, that's about the most we can hope for.
Correct and they own 2-4% of sold out resorts PLUS any points unsold or taken ROFR. This difference is first used for maintenance and refurbishment issues. So the questions to me are where do the dollars end up and what was the intent. If the intent was appropriate but they end up with more breakage dollars, I agree, so be it. They also have other rental income from DVC villas outside breakage. But again they own some so that inventory is fair for them to have as breakage.
It should over time but it will never be zero and it may take time to get to where it's going to end up. And it could be the intent were appropriate but it doesn't work as intended.
Members get access to ALL of the resort that's in inventory minus anything blocked off for refurbishment. Breakage is unused inventory. And it's possible these changes could increase it but I doubt it'll give much real change. They already had breakage and roughly 1-2% of unused should go to refurbishments (extrapolating form other timeshares). Plus members get the first 2.5% of income from breakage. So it's only the difference above around 3.5-4% that's unbooked and the difference the last few years to going forward that are in question. The decreases in the 2 BR and the almost certainty that there will be at least some increased usage of 2 BR over the smaller components for lockoff's will offset this somewhat as well. And if past RCI deposits hold going forward, this change will use up some of the extra points in that area alone with no benefit to the system or breakage.
The change to you personally is important to you but it's not the consideration of the system as they have larger mandates.
I think the only way to prove it is if they release their numbers either voluntarily or through legal action, this has been part of my point all along. Unless you're willing to go to the wall, there really isn't a point in putting much effort here.
In theory the goal would be 100% booked at the same pace across all seasons, unit sizes and to a degree, each resort. It's really more like 98% though but I'm going to assume when we say 100% we mean all after appropriate refurbishment needs. That would be slowing down those that were booked the fastest and vice versa.
