Would you join a lawsuit to revert DVC's resale restrictions?

[Sandisw]

It's a though experiment, so let's pick an unlikely but possible event. Let's say 40% of Riviera is owned in resale contracts. A large part of those owners wait to book for Fall Frenzy, which then starts its 11 months rolling window. They are in competition with other owners as well, so only a small part of that 40% can book, The rolling 11 months window is not enough to ensure that there are enough rooms available for as many points are left to be used.
This violates the POS, because it says that maybe the first choice may not be available, but something somewhere should always be.

Points and rolling windows complicate things. The Florida laws are written from the point fo view of a weeks system and an example might be easier to understand.
If 51 weeks are sold per year (1 is kept for maintenance), then only 51 bookings are allowed. If 10 members deposit their week in RCI or II, then 10 weeks can be booked by external guests and 41 are still guaranteed something at their resort. That's how all exchange systems work (I think, I cannot pretend to know them all).
But if exchange guests are allowed to book before weeks are deposited (like in a Vacation Club), maybe all 51 weeks are booked before owners get a chance to book. And if some of them are restricted to exchange out (because of resale restrictions), then there is nothing to book for them, which I believe is illegal.

This doesn't mean that automatically resale restrictions are illegal. It means that as Doug said, DVC must keep a tally of all resale points in every UY and they have to keep those points for exclusive use of resale owners, to book or bank. Once resale owners have used or banked all their points, then the rest is free for all.
But this means also that under 7 months there might be a case when a room is available and visible in the booking system by a RIV resale owner but not for other members. Which seems to contradict the POS "first come first serve". It's sort of like resale owners are privileged somehow. And this seems to be a paradox that might bring down the whole (restrictions) castle.

@DougEMG you need to write to member services. If it goes like for the point chart debacle, you'll receive an email first and possibly a generic call from MS dismissing your claim. They'll probably tell you about the first come first serve rule like that solves everything, you need to be able to explain how it doesn't. You have to stand your ground and show you know very well what you're talking about. At that point your question might get escalated.
I don't own RIV resale, otherwise I would have written already.

I disagree with the notion that saying something must be available means every day of the year.

It goes on to say that one may not get their first choice of use periods or room type. You can’t ignore that part…it’s both rooms and dates.

So, it may be a thought expiriment but I contend an owner will never be locked out of using their points as long as from today and up until 11 months there are rooms.

 

[zavandor]

I disagree with the notion that saying something must be available means every day of the year.

It goes on to say that one may not get their first choice of use periods or room type. You can’t ignore that part…it’s both rooms and dates.

So, it may be a thought expiriment but I contend an owner will never be locked out of using their points as long as from today and up until 11 months there are rooms.

That's why I made an example with Fall frenzy, it might happen that there are more points leftover than nights available until the end of the UY

 

[kilik64]

That could be true but you are also not guaranteed to get any room for any time you want, you may have to pick another time to go if you don’t get what you want…

That’s the point, as long as you could have gotten something, you were never “locked out”

 

[Sandisw]

That's why I made an example with Fall frenzy, it might happen that there are more points leftover than nights available until the end of the UY

Again, that could be the case for someone with direct points,,, dates wanting to travel are gone everywhere. Being able to trade doesn’t help.

So, we come back that if someone is in a position to lose points it is because they choose not to book during a timeframe when they could and rooms were still available.

What seems to be part of your experiment is that the FCFS aspect of our system wouldn’t apply to restricted points and that those owners should have a longer period to book rooms than someone who buys points direct for thst resort, because they can trade.

And, FL timeshare law does say that rules for using home resort must be exactly the same no matter how you purchase.

 

[zavandor]

Again, that could be the case for someone with direct points,,, dates wanting to travel are gone everywhere. Being able to trade doesn’t help.

So, we come back that if someone is in a position to lose points it is because they choose not to book during a timeframe when they could and rooms were still available.

What seems to be part of your experiment is that the FCFS aspect of our system wouldn’t apply to restricted points and that those owners should have a longer period to book rooms than someone who buys points direct for thst resort, because they can trade.

And, FL timeshare law does say that rules for using home resort must be exactly the same no matter how you purchase.

But there could be something available at other resorts which they cannot book, while there might be an excess of room booked by non owners. If 40% of RIV is resale owned and exchangers have booked 61% of it, then some owner will be unfairly unable to book.
Think if RIV is 100% resale owned. Every night booked by other resort owners mean some RIV owner will be missing availability. It doesn't matter that RIV owners have waited until 7 months, because the POS says that if owners wait, the remaining availability might not suit them. In this case, there would be no remaining availability.

 

[Chuck S]

But if the State of Florida thought this would be an issue, they would not have approved it. Basically plan you trips far in advance and book early in that4 month priority window.

 

[CarolMN]

I'm having a hard time imagining that availability will be completely gone for resale Riviera owners if they can't book during the home resort priority period. If one's definition of availability is studios, then maybe. But 1 bedrooms seem to last well past the 7 month window for most times of the year. And so do 2 bedrooms.

https://www.dvcfieldguide.com/availability-tables

 

[CWTC]

I'm having a hard time imagining that availability will be completely gone for resale Riviera owners if they can't book during the home resort priority period. If one's definition of availability is studios, then maybe. But 1 bedrooms seem to last well past the 7 month window for most times of the year. And so do 2 bedrooms.

https://www.dvcfieldguide.com/availability-tables

Agreed - people can get a room but it may not be their preferred accommodation ie a tower studio or standard view studio. The rooms that require less points are more scarce and availability (or lack thereof) of these categories seems to drive most conversations about walking or renting when, although those are contributing factors, the larger issue goes back to supply and demand. The scarcity is compounded by the amount of small contracts out there. I just looked at an aggregator and there are a lot of 75 and 100 point RIV contracts which won’t go very far. Also people are going to have to book during the 4 month home resort advantage window - which honestly I think should be done anyways.

 

[zavandor]

It's not really a matter of what is available now. This is a thread about finding issues in the resale restrictions. Currently less than 1% of RIV is owned resale, so it doesn't really matter for practical purposes. Maybe in 40 years there could be some issues.
The topic of this thread is: has RIV joined the BVTC with rules that are substantially similar to the legacy resorts? Have the BVTC rules been changed to account for the possibility of RIV being owned mostly by resale purchasers? If yes, isn't it really another way to prove that rules are substantially similar? If not, then it's possible more points exchange in than are allowed out, which might be illegal.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I think if America made the losers of lawsuits pay the attorney fees of both parties that discussions like this wouldn’t ever happen.

A great many contracts do just that. It actually is referred to colloquially as an “attorney’s fees” or “prevailing party” clause. We see them very frequently in residential home sales and construction contracts.

 

[CraigInPA]

I see a lot of merit in the argument that Disney needs to set aside, at least until the 2 month breakage window, rooms as represented as points for resale RIV purchasers where those points are expiring in the coming year (i.e., banked or past the banking period).

Imagine this scenario:
Resale RIV owner has 200 banked points and waits until the 6 month period before they expire. He goes online and there's literally nothing available for RIV. He can't trade out to SSR or OKW which probably have availability. All of his banked points are thus worthless.

 

[tjkraz]

It's a though experiment, so let's pick an unlikely but possible event. Let's say 40% of Riviera is owned in resale contracts. A large part of those owners wait to book for Fall Frenzy, which then starts its 11 months rolling window. They are in competition with other owners as well, so only a small part of that 40% can book, The rolling 11 months window is not enough to ensure that there are enough rooms available for as many points are left to be used.

If a restricted Riviera resale owner can't get their preferred room in October or November, then they simply have to book alternate dates at 11 months. Something will be available in December or January or February, etc.

They're going to have fewer fallback options than other points. But they knew that going in and accepted the risk. It's mathematically impossible for the resale owner to have zero options to use their points when considering all dates and room types 11 months in advance. The building has enough capacity for everyone to stay.

The possibility of not getting their prime choice of dates, room size and view is something that will have to be considered before buying.

 

[CWTC]

Imagine this scenario:
Resale RIV owner has 200 banked points and waits until the 6 month period before they expire. He goes online and there's literally nothing available for RIV. He can't trade out to SSR or OKW which probably have availability. All of his banked points are thus worthless.

I would say it would have been incumbent upon the owner to understand booking windows and the product they purchased.

If they understood that buying resale meant they could only stay at Riviera and understood the booking windows, then they should have their own system (ie calendar reminders) of their 11 month window. If they did not understand this and/or they did not understand booking windows, then it is on them for not understanding the system they bought into.

In the scenario above, it would not be walkers, renters, or other DVC members (direct or resale) responsible for the lack of availability at month 6. Instead it is the responsibility of the resale owner to understand the system.

 

[tjkraz]

Imagine this scenario:
Resale RIV owner has 200 banked points and waits until the 6 month period before they expire. He goes online and there's literally nothing available for RIV. He can't trade out to SSR or OKW which probably have availability. All of his banked points are thus worthless.

Is it realistic to assume that there will be 6 month periods where "literally nothing" is available for Riviera?

Hypothetically, let's assume that DVC actually does this. They set aside 4 nights in August in a preferred view 1B at a cost of about 200 points which is ostensibly earmarked for this resale owner. How do you keep literally any other Riviera owner from using points for that room?

 

[DonMacGregor]

I would say it would have been incumbent upon the owner to understand booking windows and the product they purchased.

The beginning and end of the conversation.

 

[Sandisw]

But there could be something available at other resorts which they cannot book, while there might be an excess of room booked by non owners. If 40% of RIV is resale owned and exchangers have booked 61% of it, then some owner will be unfairly unable to book.
Think if RIV is 100% resale owned. Every night booked by other resort owners mean some RIV owner will be missing availability. It doesn't matter that RIV owners have waited until 7 months, because the POS says that if owners wait, the remaining availability might not suit them. In this case, there would be no remaining availability.

That’s not what it says though…it says there may not be the rooms available for either the use period or the rooms.

And, there are always rooms at some point if you keep moving dates forward…it seems to me what you are doing is putting an end date on the search…

Thst is not how it works for anyone, resale points or direct points. If someone owns RIV points, direct or resale, each, by law, has to have the same rights to book RiV…one doesn’t get an advantage over the others.

If your experiment is that because a direct RIV points can trade, and a resale can’t , then resale owners should expect rooms to be held back at RIV just for them?

That violates not only the POS but also FL timeshare law which says all booking rules for the home resort have to be the exact same no matter how one buys, if a RIV resale owner gets access to rooms for a longer period of time because they can’t trade, then they would be being given a different home resort period than other RIV owners.

We just won’t agree because the POS says that if you go to book, and the use period is not available, then you may need to choose a different use period…Ie. Different dates….and that you won’t be given any special rules for banking and borrowing because you waited too long to book.

To be an issue, the resort has to be fully booked for 11 months and that simply can not happen.

 

[BayTower2010]

It's not really a matter of what is available now. This is a thread about finding issues in the resale restrictions. Currently less than 1% of RIV is owned resale, so it doesn't really matter for practical purposes. Maybe in 40 years there could be some issues.
The topic of this thread is: has RIV joined the BVTC with rules that are substantially similar to the legacy resorts? Have the BVTC rules been changed to account for the possibility of RIV being owned mostly by resale purchasers? If yes, isn't it really another way to prove that rules are substantially similar? If not, then it's possible more points exchange in than are allowed out, which might be illegal.

Purely playing devil's advocate, if your scenario plays out, there is a clause in RIV that they can make resale points "whole". So to avoid any law suites, they offer resale owners an option for X dollars to be same as direct points. Not many would need to convert, just enough to avoid your issues above. In other words, I do not believe there is a way forward to sue Disney/DVC and win. Too bad, because I feel they have ruined the product. I used to openly support and talk up DVC, but now I find myself trying to talk people out of buying into the program.