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

[dvcsince93]

Unofficial and very rough stats based on Orange county recordations:

From 01/01/2018 through April, DVD has sold about 24k contracts of which about about 20k were for $10K or greater.
There have been about 5500 resale deeds rcorded with about 4500 of the deeds being for about $10K or greater.
There have been about 500 Foreclosure deeds with the grantees split about evenly between DVD and 3rd parties.

 

[mustinjourney]

DVCMC has changed their operations, the new SVP in charge, Terri Schultz has really changed things. We see changes with each management change but she has been the worse. Seems like she has something to prove and she has her sights on moving up the Disney ladder.

Some of the contract flippers are resale brokers, they have access to tons of contracts and the seem to do it as a side business.

Bill

Finally looked her up. Totally agree. Her past position was in finance and as treasurer -- so she's definitely more bean counter than customer service oriented.

The ranks at The Walt Disney Company continue to shuffle following the strategic reorganization announced by Disney this spring. As we reported in April, Jeff Vahle was announced as the new President overseeing Disney Signature Experiences. Ken Potrock, the former Vice President of Disney Vacation Club under Jeff, is moving to a new role as President, Consumer Products Commercialization.

Terri Schultz will be the new Vice President of Disney Vacation Club. Prior to becoming VP of DVC, Terri served as Vice President, New Vacation Operations & Disney Cruise Line Finance, and served as Treasurer for Disney Vacation Club Condominium Associations, Inc.

 

[kristenrice]

Question....

How will a fixed-week RESALE at Riviera work? If the owner decides to convert the reservation to points (which can obviously be used only at Riviera), can they still book at the 11-month window? If they decide to change the booking window for resale owners, wouldn't that seriously limit anyone who purchases a fixed-week resale contract? It could turn a semi-flexible timeshare into a "one week, one unit" timeshare.

 

[cmwade77]

Honestly, for me it isn't worth the time or hassle. If someone created a class action lawsuit, I wouldn't opt out, but I have no intention of doing a resale, so it doesn't really matter all that much to me other than holding them accountable to follow the rules, but since this is a new resort, it likely resides under a different set of rules.

 

[skier_pete]

Question....

How will a fixed-week RESALE at Riviera work? If the owner decides to convert the reservation to points (which can obviously be used only at Riviera), can they still book at the 11-month window? If they decide to change the booking window for resale owners, wouldn't that seriously limit anyone who purchases a fixed-week resale contract? It could turn a semi-flexible timeshare into a "one week, one unit" timeshare.

You would have to ask Disney to know for sure, but I think you got it. You would have your fixed week guaranteed, but if you converted it to points, you would only be able to book at your home resort. Right now there's no resale restriction to the 11-month window. Are you asking about the future? If they restricted resale to a shorter window, than yes, a fixed week when converted would be subject too that shorter window if converted, but you would still get the guaranteed fix week. (You are paying a point premium to get a fixed week - they certainly wouldn't take that away.)

That said, realistically there are not a lot of fixed weeks in existance, so this really won't affect the market much. However, many have argued that this would be the most sensible way to get points at Riviera because the resale market would be higher for these points because of the guaranteed week at home resort when you can't trade out your points.

 

[Frederic Civish]

If someone decides to move forward on this, or some of the other possible legal actions, I am ready to contribute a little bit.

 

[HeightRequirement]

Question....

How will a fixed-week RESALE at Riviera work? If the owner decides to convert the reservation to points (which can obviously be used only at Riviera), can they still book at the 11-month window? If they decide to change the booking window for resale owners, wouldn't that seriously limit anyone who purchases a fixed-week resale contract? It could turn a semi-flexible timeshare into a "one week, one unit" timeshare.

this sounds interesting. i also wonder how much the difference in price would be for fixed-week purchases at resale versus direct purchase. i believe the fixed-week costs a premium and, from what i have seen, are usually large contracts. how much % from purchase to resale would an owner lose due to the Riviera restriction and would this make fixed-week less desirable.

 

[James Osborne]

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.

There is such a thing as a lawsuit seeking equitable relief. I grant that all of the expenses would have to be paid by the plaintiffs but if they are just seeking a change in the system instead of money it may still be a viable option for some.

 

[mustinjourney]

There is such a thing as a lawsuit seeking equitable relief. I grant that all of the expenses would have to be paid by the plaintiffs but if they are just seeking a change in the system instead of money it may still be a viable option for some.

There could also be claims under Florida’s deceptive trade practice act (unless timeshare rules trump those laws - I have no idea if that is the case). If FDTPA applies, there are likely an award of attorney’s fees as part of the damages.

 

[James Osborne]

There could also be claims under Florida’s deceptive trade practice act (unless timeshare rules trump those laws - I have no idea if that is the case). If FDTPA applies, there are likely an award of attorney’s fees as part of the damages.

Having never practiced in Florida, I was not aware of the FDTPA. Thanks for the information.

 

[mustinjourney]

Having never practiced in Florida, I was not aware of the FDTPA. Thanks for the information.

I have not either -- I'm in TX and my knowledge of DTPA is purely from my single class a lifetime ago while in law school...so I honestly do not know if it would apply here.

With that said, I just read something that talked about a few instances where the judge actually awarded attorneys fees to the business owner without actually making any finding about filing the case in bad faith, so bringing a FDTPA claim for attorney fees could backfire.
See page 30 of the link below...
https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/analysis-state-summaries.pdf

 

[suemom2kay]

YES!

 

[jerseyduke]

Not a lawyer, nor do i speak their language, which vaguely resembles English

I remember the POS basically saying that you can switch in (based on availability, etc, etc) to any DVC resort that exists at the time the contract was written. Basically, DRR owners will be given the right to switch into anything CCV and before, but not reflections. CCV owners to poly and before.

Inst the switching into newly created resorts a courtesy? Couldn't Disney just turn around and deny it across the board? IE. Now even direct DRR owners can not switch into reflections? (Only thing in their contract is CCV and before?)

Just trying to understand this....

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Not a lawyer, nor do i speak their language, which vaguely resembles English

I remember the POS basically saying that you can switch in (based on availability, etc, etc) to any DVC resort that exists at the time the contract was written. Basically, DRR owners will be given the right to switch into anything CCV and before, but not reflections. CCV owners to poly and before.

Inst the switching into newly created resorts a courtesy? Couldn't Disney just turn around and deny it across the board? IE. Now even direct DRR owners can not switch into reflections? (Only thing in their contract is CCV and before?)

Just trying to understand this....

It states that there is no guarantee of any new resorts not that there isn't a right to switch into new resorts.

If a new resort is added to the "club" then it stated you would be able to switch into it. DVC decided they could slightly modify that and restrict resale buyers from that provision. IMO Riviera should not be able to be in the "club" unless it follows what was previously done as it's a significant difference.

 

[Firepath]

This is all very interesting and I'm way behind in reading and digesting it all.
Like others have mentioned, I'm not an attorney, it doesn't seem like it will affect me much, and I'm really too busy to get very Involved, but I don't like it. I don't feel like I'm knowledgeable enough to have a discussion with DVC, but I can and will write and I think a lot of others would too if someone would make it a little easier for the challenged among us. It would be wonderful if someone would list the mailing (or e-mail) address, contact names and titles or positions, phone # (for those who do prefer to call), and a brief list of the talking points. The letters might all sound a lot alike, but maybe if they received 100's of them they'd take notice. Then when the knowledgeable spokesperson called, maybe they'd be more inclined to really listen.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but did anything else ever come of this?

 

[katie3008]

I’m also curious whether anything came of this?

As a resale owner, my question is quite basic : What happens when Riviera owners decide they would like to try a different resort after many years at Riviera, and there is a big number for them trading into O14 resorts? Because they will then take up X number of nights from the O14 resorts, but any resale owner can’t reciprocally trade into Riviera, and therefore there are more points in the system then there are nights available, thus putting money into Disney Corp’s back pocket, and leaving resale owners with useless points. This is where the issue of fairness arises. It seems that it shouldn’t be possible for non reciprocal trades, as it results in an oversold timeshare situation, which can’t be legal, right? I would think that at the very least, riviera owners should only be able to trade into O14 resorts in any given year to the extent that there are direct O14 owners seeking to trade into riviera in that same year?

 

[Chuck S]

I’m also curious whether anything came of this?

As a resale owner, my question is quite basic : What happens when Riviera owners decide they would like to try a different resort after many years at Riviera, and there is a big number for them trading into O14 resorts? Because they will then take up X number of nights from the O14 resorts, but any resale owner can’t reciprocally trade into Riviera, and therefore there are more points in the system then there are nights available, thus putting money into Disney Corp’s back pocket, and leaving resale owners with useless points. This is where the issue of fairness arises. It seems that it shouldn’t be possible for non reciprocal trades, as it results in an oversold timeshare situation, which can’t be legal, right? I would think that at the very least, Riviera owners should only be able to trade into O14 resorts in any given year to the extent that there are direct O14 owners seeking to trade into Riviera in that same year?

Resale owners at Riviera can not trade into the existing 14 resorts, only direct purchasers...likewise, only direct purchasers of the original 14 resorts can trade into Riviera. It is reciprocal, just not available to resale purchasers in either direction. Plus, the resale purchasers of the original 14 resorts have the 11 month window to book their home resort...thus it should have no more impact than the original 14 trading among themselves at the 7 month mark. Thus as we always say here, DVC works best for those who book early, and purchase at the resort they want to stay at the most.

 

[katie3008]

Resale owners at Riviera can not trade into the existing 14 resorts, only direct purchasers...likewise, only direct purchasers of the original 14 resorts can trade into Riviera. It is reciprocal, just not available to resale purchasers in either direction. Plus, the resale purchasers of the original 14 resorts have the 11 month window to book their home resort...thus it should have no more impact than the original 14 trading among themselves at the 7 month mark. Thus as we always say here, DVC works best for those who book early, and purchase at the resort they want to stay at the most.

But it’s not actually reciprocal, because the pool of points are not even. What I mean is that if there are 40,000 points belonging to direct O14 members that wish to trade into Riviera in 2022, then direct Riviera owners should not be able to trade into O14 resorts for any more then 40,000 points. While right now the balance might tip the other way, it won’t forever, and then the excess of Riviera owners trading out vs O14 trading in will create an excess of points in O14 that Disney can sell at 100% profit (ie the riviera rooms that resale O14 can’t actually use their points to book) to them as breakage always maxes out. This is where I think it’s not quite right as an arrangement…..

 

[kristenrice]

Resale owners at Riviera can not trade into the existing 14 resorts, only direct purchasers...likewise, only direct purchasers of the original 14 resorts can trade into Riviera. It is reciprocal, just not available to resale purchasers in either direction.

That’s not entirely true… those who purchased resale before the restrictions were put in place can certainly book at Riviera using their resale points. I’m staying at Riviera in October on my resale AKV points.