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

[TK-Tampa]

First, thank you ljmiii for your efforts to organize this. I haven't looked closely enough at the legal basis of these claims, committed enough mental energy to read through the Riviera POS, or shared with my own legal counsel the contents of the disparities to know whether or not there we have reasonable grievances on the matter, but I did want to encourage you to explore this further if you feel the case exists.

I think there are a lot of steps that should precede getting lawyers involved (read: $$$$). Having a conversation with DVC may be one. That would not only help inform you on their position on the matter first hand (as opposed to relying on what others have posted here). This would also provide the members here who tend to take these sort of things more seriously a foundation upon which to get more involved.

I credit zavandor and crvetter as being two very vocal, proactive forces speaking to Disney prior to any legal movement around the reallocation. Their early efforts helped others to say something as well. zavandor in particular, put a lot of effort into the matter (including pushing against a lot of headwind even here on the boards), and his work gave a lot of people the confidence to speak up as well.

While it would be easy for me to post "Yeah, go for it! I'm in!", a lot of people did exactly that on the other thread and never even bothered to call to express to Disney their concerns on the topic. I'll be honest, right now I'm having difficulty seeing how Disney doesn't have a right to do whatever the hell it wants with the new resorts. What's the endgame? That Disney roll back resale restrictions as whole? That Disney backpedal and exclude Riviera from the the club? That Disney create a second, isolated timeshare system starting with Riviera and Reflections? I'm honestly wondering what you see as an end goal.

Do keep us updated on your findings, and thanks again for putting in this effort.

Bing, You bring up a good question about the desired outcome. From my point of view, there are only two equitable outcomes: Either include DRR (and potentially future resorts) as part of the Club, or not. Every Club member should have access to all resorts in the Club. Alternatively, if a resort is not in the Club, then the owners of that resort should not have access to the other resorts in the Club. Rather than do either of these, Disney chose to bifurcate the resort ownership rights based on the where the owners purchased their ownership. Therefore, assuming that they keep DRR in the Club, then the endgame, in my opinion, is to restore the full rights of the underlying property to use all resorts in the Club.

 

[Chuck S]

It is extremely doubtful, IMO, that any changes will be made in regards to the announced relationship between Riviera/newer resorts and the 14 legacy properties. I think the ability to trade in/out of Riviera only for direct purchasers is pretty much set, assuming it has passed the review of the State department responsible for timeshares in Florida and whatever states they wish to actively sell in directly.

 

[crvetter]

It is extremely doubtful, IMO, that any changes will be made in regards to the announced relationship between Riviera/newer resorts and the 14 legacy properties. I think the ability to trade in/out of Riviera only for direct purchasers is pretty must set, assuming it has passed the review of the State department responsible to timeshares in Florida and whatever states they wish to actively sell in directly.

This is a good point and is the difference between this issue and the 2020 Point Allocations. The incorporation of Riviera was subject to regulatory approval where the point charge reallocations were not. I would really say the best first move would be to express dissatisfaction across the board, as prior posters recommended, to DVC for the change: letting them know the resale value is a large positive and you feel the change will crush it and more importantly letting them know that "cheap" or "expensive" points booking at 7 months don't matter to you because the 11 month priority is what really makes points more expensive than others, thus you are comfortable playing on even grounds at 7 months. The latter point is what I was told is the exact reason it was implemented to benefit members when I called to express my dissatisfaction with the change.

This would require more than the infamous less than a dozen, according to DVC, that called to speak with management on the 2020 Point Change.

 

[stewart715]

First off, I am not happy about the recent restrictions. But, I'm not sure there is a lawsuit here. There's two things here being restricted: membership extras and trading ability.

Membership extras:

When you join DVC direct (how all points in the system were created; via initial direct contracts), you signed away membership extras as being being a guaranteed part of membership. Therefore, you signed away the ability to sell them because they were never actually yours to begin with as non-guaranteed incidental benefits.

Trading restrictions:

When you purchased a contract (direct or resale), you were purchasing a contract that had the ability to trade in 14 resorts. The prices in the resale market were based on 4 things: desirability, contract length, number of points and finally the ability to trade into 14 resorts. After the restrictions, none of this has changed. The prices are still based on all of these factors and most importantly, the ability to trade into 14 resorts. Can you argue that the inability to trade in at the 15th, 16th and so on resort plateaus potential appreciation of your investment? Maybe? I don't think there is much of a case there though. As for Riviera, DVC is selling Riviera from point 0 as a new product with new specific restrictions. So again, no lawsuit there because the only people hurt by these Riviera restrictions are new buyers.

Finally there is a reason that DVC chose to grandfather resale contracts into membership extras and trading restrictions, though I'm not sure they even had to do that. So I think we are already ahead to some degree. But again, your membership extras were always incidental and never guaranteed and the ability to trade into 14 resorts is still very much a sellable part of your contract. Before January 2019 you could trade in 14 resorts. After January 2019 you can trade into 14 resorts. The next buyer of your contract can trade into 14 resorts. Thus, I don't think the member body as a whole was negatively affected. In fact, the average resale prices have gone up since restrictions were announced.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

First, thank you ljmiii for your efforts to organize this. I haven't looked closely enough at the legal basis of these claims, committed enough mental energy to read through the Riviera POS, or shared with my own legal counsel the contents of the disparities to know whether or not there we have reasonable grievances on the matter, but I did want to encourage you to explore this further if you feel the case exists.

I think there are a lot of steps that should precede getting lawyers involved (read: $$$$). Having a conversation with DVC may be one. That would not only help inform you on their position on the matter first hand (as opposed to relying on what others have posted here). This would also provide the members here who tend to take these sort of things more seriously a foundation upon which to get more involved.

I credit zavandor and crvetter as being two very vocal, proactive forces speaking to Disney prior to any legal movement around the reallocation. Their early efforts helped others to say something as well. zavandor in particular, put a lot of effort into the matter (including pushing against a lot of headwind even here on the boards), and his work gave a lot of people the confidence to speak up as well.

While it would be easy for me to post "Yeah, go for it! I'm in!", a lot of people did exactly that on the other thread and never even bothered to call to express to Disney their concerns on the topic. I'll be honest, right now I'm having difficulty seeing how Disney doesn't have a right to do whatever the hell it wants with the new resorts. What's the endgame? That Disney roll back resale restrictions as whole? That Disney backpedal and exclude Riviera from the the club? That Disney create a second, isolated timeshare system starting with Riviera and Reflections? I'm honestly wondering what you see as an end goal.

Do keep us updated on your findings, and thanks again for putting in this effort.

I personally do not put much credence to their claim on how many contacted them.

 

[crvetter]

I personally do not put much credence to their claim on how many contacted them.

I will say though I was on the phone with them quite a bit so it couldn’t have been that many that yvonne personally talked to. I’d personally bet it was about what she said or less.

 

[Chuck S]

Just a friendly reminder as to the purpose of this thread, just want to clarify....

Please remember that it is fine to discuss the resale changes, the impacts of them, how it affects you, and so forth. You may also encourage members to individually make their feelings known to Disney/DVC/DVD. But the DISBoards may NOT be used in any way to organize a protest or lawsuit against Disney, DVC or any of their operating companies.

 

[Chuck S]

When you purchased a contract (direct or resale), you were purchasing a contract that had the ability to trade in 14 resorts. The prices in the resale market were based on 4 things: desirability, contract length, number of points and finally the ability to trade into 14 resorts.

True, now...but not for early purchasers. There was initially one resort, The Disney Vacation Club Resort, which is still the legal paperwork name of OKW. There were no promises of trading out to other DVC resorts, because there weren't any, and none were guaranteed to be built. Vero Beach came online, next, and was never built out to the original expectations. So the future of DVC was "iffy" at best all those years ago.

 

[vint43]

This is just my opinion. I know people are upset about this. So it was probably better to tread lightly here!

To win a civil lawsuit judgement as an attorney (to make money) - you must prove your client was financially harmed by these changes and can measure the extent of financial injury.

It is not good enough to prove Disney could not do it - you have to show damages to get a payout.

You can’t claim damages based on “theoretical” financial harm. You need to prove it.

I see no evidence of actual financial harm.

Just a bunch of theories of “what might happen”.

All the standing rights people had before the change they have after the change. So no standing rights were changed. You cannot claim injury due to something that you used to be able to do that you now can’t do.

The only angle to prove financial harm would be if the contracts you held immediately lost value after this change. One problem. That did not happen. The contracts in resale did not dramatically change in value after this change.

Every month that goes by where this is the case - the financial damages proof gets worse and worse because every contract gets shorter in life the economy changes etc and it would be hard to prove this change really caused the value change.

Basically - even if you could win the case - you cannot prove actual financial harm. So it is a zero dollar verdict for the attorney.

So be prepared to pay all the legal fees.

People who purchase after the change do so with known rules - they have no case at all.

I find it interesting so many people are upset about this change but, when you look at it, they really cannot point to a single actual injury caused by it for them personally.

The contracts they owned before the change have all the same rights. The value of those contracts are about the same still today.

What I think they are really mad about is how it might affect their future purchases.

However, an attorney cannot win financial damages based on a future purchase you have not even made yet because it was not as good as your last purchase.

Basically, you have no financial case. You only have the ability to prove they could not do it. Which means, you pay all the legal fees and get a zero dollar verdict in the end even if you win because you cant prove actual financial harm.

 

[lehrsj]

Yes I would join a lawsuit.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

This is just my opinion. I know people are upset about this. So it was probably better to tread lightly here!

To win a civil lawsuit judgement as an attorney (to make money) - you must prove your client was financially harmed by these changes and can measure the extent of financial injury.

It is not good enough to prove Disney could not do it - you have to show damages to get a payout.

You can’t claim damages based on “theoretical” financial harm. You need to prove it.

I see no evidence of actual financial harm.

Just a bunch of theories of “what might happen”.

All the standing rights people had before the change they have after the change. So no standing rights were changed. You cannot claim injury due to something that you used to be able to do that you now can’t do.

The only angle to prove financial harm would be if the contracts you held immediately lost value after this change. One problem. That did not happen. The contracts in resale did not dramatically change in value after this change.

Every month that goes by where this is the case - the financial damages proof gets worse and worse because every contract gets shorter in life the economy changes etc and it would be hard to prove this change really caused the value change.

Basically - even if you could win the case - you cannot prove actual financial harm. So it is a zero dollar verdict for the attorney.

So be prepared to pay all the legal fees.

People who purchase after the change do so with known rules - they have no case at all.

I find it interesting so many people are upset about this change but, when you look at it, they really cannot point to a single actual injury caused by it for them personally.

The contracts they owned before the change have all the same rights. The value of those contracts are about the same still today.

What I think they are really mad about is how it might affect their future purchases.

However, an attorney cannot win financial damages based on a future purchase you have not even made yet because it was not as good as your last purchase.

Basically, you have no financial case. You only have the ability to prove they could not do it. Which means, you pay all the legal fees and get a zero dollar verdict in the end even if you win because you cant prove actual financial harm.

I don't know that people are looking for financial payout. There's disagreement with what DVC is stating they are allowed to do and the representations and even written materials provided over the year that are contrary to some of what they are doing.

 

[DougEMG]

This is just my opinion. I know people are upset about this. So it was probably better to tread lightly here!

To win a civil lawsuit judgement as an attorney (to make money) - you must prove your client was financially harmed by these changes and can measure the extent of financial injury.

It is not good enough to prove Disney could not do it - you have to show damages to get a payout.

You can’t claim damages based on “theoretical” financial harm. You need to prove it.

I see no evidence of actual financial harm.

Just a bunch of theories of “what might happen”.

All the standing rights people had before the change they have after the change. So no standing rights were changed. You cannot claim injury due to something that you used to be able to do that you now can’t do.

The only angle to prove financial harm would be if the contracts you held immediately lost value after this change. One problem. That did not happen. The contracts in resale did not dramatically change in value after this change.

Every month that goes by where this is the case - the financial damages proof gets worse and worse because every contract gets shorter in life the economy changes etc and it would be hard to prove this change really caused the value change.

Basically - even if you could win the case - you cannot prove actual financial harm. So it is a zero dollar verdict for the attorney.

So be prepared to pay all the legal fees.

People who purchase after the change do so with known rules - they have no case at all.

I find it interesting so many people are upset about this change but, when you look at it, they really cannot point to a single actual injury caused by it for them personally.

The contracts they owned before the change have all the same rights. The value of those contracts are about the same still today.

What I think they are really mad about is how it might affect their future purchases.

However, an attorney cannot win financial damages based on a future purchase you have not even made yet because it was not as good as your last purchase.

Basically, you have no financial case. You only have the ability to prove they could not do it. Which means, you pay all the legal fees and get a zero dollar verdict in the end even if you win because you cant prove actual financial harm.

Isn't the loser responsible for the winner's legal cost, or do I have that completely wrong?

 

[vint43]

I don't know that people are looking for financial payout.

A viable defense against fraudulent representation of a contract in civil law is:

"The plaintiff did not suffer any damages because of the fraudulent misrepresentation."

Basically, if you cannot prove you suffered damages, the false representation does not matter, and you still can lose the case.

 

[vint43]

Isn't the loser responsible for the winner's legal cost, or do I have that completely wrong?

Common misconception. We follow the "American Rule":

---------------------
The losing side does not ordinarily have to pay the winning side's attorney's fees, contrary to popularly held belief.

In the United States, the general rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorney's fees, regardless of whether they win or lose.

This allows people to bring cases and lawsuits without the fear of incurring excessive costs if they lose the case.
---------------------

The US Court System was more concerned Disney would slap you with their legal fees if you lose than vice versa. There are exceptions but they are not as common as people think. You would have to assume you would need to fund the entire multi-year case to get to a verdict with low chance of recovering fees. Therefore, you must find a way to assert damages. This gets me back to my original point - most members cannot assert damages.

 

[skier_pete]

I'll be honest, in not sure I could support this one, at least financially. To me I don't really think it's clear cut they are doing anything illegal. Other timeshares have done similar things and not been used over it.

 

[Madame]

I'll be honest, in not sure I could support this one, at least financially. To me I don't really think it's clear cut they are doing anything illegal. Other timeshares have done similar things and not been used over it.

Serious question, not just for you, but anyone who knows because I have no experience with other TSs: do other TSs have similar wording with regards to membership, criteria for adding resorts etc? Dean, when he would talk about these types of restrictions in the past indicated that it would be through a DVC II setup.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

You would have to assume you would need to fund the entire multi-year case to get to a verdict with low chance of recovering fees. Therefore, you must find a way to assert damages. This gets me back to my original point - most members cannot assert damages

Yes. Bottom line is even if you request that the other side pay your fees, there are a couple of different outcomes possible. One is you lose, and you wouldn't have them pay. One is that they aren't asked to pay and you have to pay based on a financial damages payout.

This is why I said you'd have to fund the legal case from the start, initial retainers and discovery costs (time/expenses). Law firms won't take this kind of civil case on contingency ('we only get paid if you win!'). That is actually fairly rare and mostly comes up in high value personal injury, but not in civil suits.

A law firm isn't going to put thousands of hours and multiple years into a case - and that's what this would be - without getting paid as they go.

 

[Drewferin]

I personally believe DVC knows that they are treading on potential legal issues with their RIV resale restrictions. Unless a law suit it brought against them or at least a cease and desist letter being issued DVC wins.

I do not think DVC wants a long drawn out law suit. They do not want bad PR and Dinsey does not want this in the local/national news, blogs, forums. This would be settled out of court in a heart beat to prevent loss DVC sales. The most likely outcome would be to take away the restrictions.

 

[skier_pete]

Serious question, not just for you, but anyone who knows because I have no experience with other TSs: do other TSs have similar wording with regards to membership, criteria for adding resorts etc? Dean, when he would talk about these types of restrictions in the past indicated that it would be through a DVC II setup.

I don't know the answer to this. I know that Marriott is one of the timeshare systems that instituted this program. Any resale purchase of what they call "Legacy Weeks" or basically an old-fashion timeshare week can be used at the home resort, and can be exchanged through Interval, but can't be exchanged within the Marriott system. There point contracts you can buy and get full rights to - but you have to Marriot a fee of $2 / point. I don't know when this was instituted, but it wasn't on the original timeshare.

I still predict that what Disney will eventually do is put some sort of fee on the resales similar to this where they basically get a "cut" to institute the resale points to be full club members - or at least be part of the exchange program. I could see them keeping it at a somewhat reasonable price point. (By this I mean like $20-30 a point.) This way it keeps resale values up, but still differentiates by not giving you full membership. If you realize "Oh I can buy resale Riviera at $120 a point, and then pay $30 a point to get the exchange back, I might as well pay $180 a point and get full benefits."

 

[stewart715]

I've looked at this long and hard. Plain and simple, I don't think they have broken the law or violated their rules in any way. There is simply no evidence that their restrictions have affected or will affect resale values. If they hadn't grandfathered dates in, maybe there is a case (I still don't think so), but they did. I just don't see one here, a waste of time and money quite frankly.