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

[lowlight]

Banking and borrowing can upset the 1:1 balance in a year, but not every owner whats to travel every single day.

I think you’re correct, it will never actually occur. I just thought the proposed “what if” was interesting. I think given a pandemic style happening where the resort is closed, built up points, revenge travel, it could very remotely happen if every star aligned, but I think Disney would step in like they did during the pandemic. Still, it is interesting to think of how restrictions could end up being an issue in such a scenario.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

Caveat emptor.

If you buy riv resale and can’t find anything to book, that’s your own dumb fault at that point. You have 4 months on a daily rolling basis to book.

It will never occur...it can't....the number of points that exist are tied to actual rooms and thus, a years worth of points match a years worth of rooms....

Banking and borrowing can upset the 1:1 balance in a year, but not every owner whats to travel every single day.....again, anyone who has access to rooms every day, whether its a day they want to travel or not, is being given the opporunity to use their points. If they choose not to book when something is there, its a choice.

As the language said, if the days and rooms there don't match your desire to travel, it doesn't mean you are being prevented from your membership. If I go on to book RIV today, in the next 11 months there are rooms are all sizes to use points.....and as long as there are days that are there, then the owner has the ability to use their points.

Trying to say, "Well, I couldn't book at 11 months, only 6 months, and the dates I want are now gone, you violated my contract" isn't going to fly.....that 11 month window is a rolling window so one will never be shut out of their resort...

Now, as an owner of both resale and direct RIV points, there is no question I have more flexiblity in how to use those points, and when my dad passed away in 2023, and I had to cancel a trip with resale RIV points, I ended up booking a GV for one night during my next trip because that is all that was there and I didn't want to lose points...

That is why one shouldn't buy a restricted resort like RIV, VDH or CFW resale if one can't plan in advance and itsn't willing to accept the gamble....

Oh I don't disagree. Not in the least. However you're telling me you can't foresee a disgruntled Riv resale owner at SOME point starting a ruckus with Disney because they feel slighted...even if it's on them 100% for not having used their points way in advance. People love being litigious in modern day America no matter how frivolous.

 

[Sandisw]

Oh I don't disagree. Not in the least. However you're telling me you can't foresee a disgruntled Riv resale owner at SOME point starting a ruckus with Disney because they feel slighted...even if it's on them 100% for not having used their points way in advance. People love being litigious in modern day America no matter how frivolous.

Sure…someone who feels entitled might..but I was addressing the fact that there will never be a time when a resale RiV owner will be shut out of being able to use their points.

And that the contract explains things..and that language isn’t just for restricted owners. It applies to all, even those that own direct points.

If someone wants to go right now during the fall, there are dates that are completely sold out everywhere for a lot of dates. They are in the same situation. Want to go and can’t because there are no rooms.

 

[DougEMG]

I understand what you're trying to say. Since resale owners would have the 11 month priority window, as long as they use it, I think is it is very unlikely that that could ever happen, especially at a popular resort that would be difficult to book at 7 months for other owners.

While i agree that it is unlikely that is not the same as impossible.

With no controls in place one has to book in the 11 month window as there exists the very real possibility that there would not be anything available in the 7 month window.

If points were blocked off from trading out there would be a high chance of there being something in available at 7 months.

My argument would be that if a resort has restrictions like this then controls should be in place to stop this 1 way trading on points that can trade.

 

[DougEMG]

You ask a very good question and I don't think who responded really addressed it.
In a traditional exchange system, as many weeks are deposited to exchange than as many are allowed to exchange in.
A vacation club is different, because all members of the club can exchange freely without worrying of balances. But if in that system there are people that cannot exchange out, then others shouldn't be allowed to exchange in (in proportion to the amount of restricted points).
So, for example, if 40% of points are restricted and 20% are used between 11 and 7 months, then it makes sense that 20% of points are kept aside and not allowed to be used by people exchanging in.
I don't think it's likely to happen (every resale owner will be quite alert to use their points as soon as possible), in the example above probably 39,99% of points would be used before 7 months. But it's an interesting "thought experiment". If you have some time to waste and are interested in causing some panic to DVC Management, you might ask

Who would i send an email to on this question

 

[DougEMG]

Not the way the contract is written for us. It says…and I will find it…and this isn’t just in relation to restricted points either…that as long as you have thr ability to book something when the points are valid, then it matched a FCFS system.

So, if I decide I want to go during May, and want a studio, but I go to book at 11 months, I can only get a 1 bedroom, then it’s my choice now not to book…

That’s the whole nature…doesn’t matter if someone else has more options to trade…the rules and FL timeshare law relate to the home resort booking.

That is why they can ever give resale purchaser at any resort who buy resale a different rule for booking the home resort.

Basically, an owner has 365 days to use points and as long as one can book something in those days, then you have been given the opportunity to use your contract.

ETA: Here is the exact language from the MS POS:

View attachment 870213

I'm a RIV resale owner who bought understanding what the resale restriction are and how they could impact me. My question is in regard to this being a line of attack for those hoping to have things change. And personally, I believe DVC broke the rules when they brought RIV in around all resorts having "similar rules".

Here it is talking about your first choice being harder to make the longer you wait. That is fine, but there exists with RIV the potential that there is NO choice the longer you wait. Everyone else always has some sort of choice. When everyone has the exact same trading rights there is always something available, it might not be what you want but you can still book something.

Isn't this the same language that was always there?

The way trading now works, it is in DVC's benefit to reduce the ability of RIV resale owners to book a room because once availability dries up at RIV those owners can't use their points and the points will be wasted, meaning money in DVC's pockets. Examples of what DVC could do are changes the home resort booking window advantage to be 1 month only or DVC puts a sale on RIV rooms using points they got from exchanges both of these would reduce availability for resale owners.

 

[DougEMG]

Prior to resale restriction, every owner always had the ability to use their points somewhere. It might not be when they wanted to use them or where they wanted to use them, but they do have the ability to use them 100%. Now at 7 months, a resale RIV owners MIGHT not have anywhere to use their points. This seem wrong to me.

The trading system only works when everything flows equally, which is probably why they had that original language in the contract saying that resorts must have similar trading rights.

If DVC wants points that can NOT trade out that is find, but then those points should not be trade into. I can see this becoming a potential problem over time with more and more resorts having these resale restrictions.

 

[lowlight]

I can see this becoming a potential problem over time with more and more resorts having these resale restrictions.

Or as more and more Riviera points are resold. Say 5 percent of Riviera points are resale and locked to just Riviera right now. That isn’t a huge deal in normal circumstances. In 10 years that may be 25 percent, especially if the economy slumps even more and people sell off. Is locking 25% of Riv owners to Riv and allowing every direct owner of other resorts to trade into Riv at 7 months enough to break the system? I don’t know. Presumably they have war gamed this scenario out, but who knows.

 

[Stormalong Smiths]

Prior to resale restriction, every owner always had the ability to use their points somewhere. It might not be when they wanted to use them or where they wanted to use them, but they do have the ability to use them 100%. Now at 7 months, a resale RIV owners MIGHT not have anywhere to use their points. This seem wrong to me.

The trading system only works when everything flows equally, which is probably why they had that original language in the contract saying that resorts must have similar trading rights.

If DVC wants points that can NOT trade out that is find, but then those points should not be trade into. I can see this becoming a potential problem over time with more and more resorts having these resale restrictions.

I love the thought exercise (isn’t that what these boards are for? ) and agree that there could potentially be a challenge down the road for anyone buying resale RIV or future restricted resorts. I’ll add an alternative scenario for those enjoying the speculation…

Let’s not forget that non-RIV resale contracts are restricted from booking at RIV, the number of which greatly outnumbers the number of resale RIV contracts that are locked into RIV exclusively. Down the road, is there a possibility of RIV rooms going unused due to an imbalance of “trade-outs” by direct purchasers that are greater than the “trade-ins” with unrestricted points. Would Disney be able to rent these rooms for cash, or would they simply sit empty? I can’t imagine them letting this happen, but if they don’t own the RIV points to cover these rooms, can they use other points to reserve uncooked RIV rooms for cash stays?

I get it that this is highly unlikely to happen (as is the situation @DougEMG posed), but I think it’s worth exploring the other side of the coin, as well. Would this be possible?

 

[lowlight]

Would Disney be able to rent these rooms for cash, or would they simply sit empty?

They would go to breakage. I believe breakage can be unlimited, and DVC only pays for 2.5%.

 

[Stormalong Smiths]

They would go to breakage. I believe breakage can be unlimited, and DVC only pays for 2.5%.

Ah yes, breakage! Thank you. And the owners get the proceeds from any excess beyond 2.5% right?

 

[lowlight]

Ah yes, breakage! Thank you. And the owners get the proceeds from any excess beyond 2.5% right?

@Sandisw is the expert on that. If I remember right, breakage within 60 days, DVC pays 2.5% to resort to offset costs, then some percentage goes to the association, and the rest is profit for Disney.

 

[CarolynFH]

Ah yes, breakage! Thank you. And the owners get the proceeds from any excess beyond 2.5% right?

No, it's the other way around. Disney pays the owners a maximum of 2.5% of cash bookings. Anymore after that is gravy for Disney. The annual budgets show that they've reached that max every year for every resort, if I'm remembering the last analysis correctly. If they haven't always reached that amount, it's been a very rare event.

 

[crvetter]

Ah yes, breakage! Thank you. And the owners get the proceeds from any excess beyond 2.5% right?

Other way around. Disney pays the associations up to a max of 2.5% of the budget from any breakage income. The rest is Disneys profit.

 

[Stormalong Smiths]

No, it's the other way around. Disney pays the owners a maximum of 2.5% of cash bookings. Anymore after that is gravy for Disney. The annual budgets show that they've reached that max every year for every resort, if I'm remembering the last analysis correctly. If they haven't always reached that amount, it's been a very rare event.

Other way around. Disney pays the associations up to a max of 2.5% of the budget from any breakage income. The rest is Disneys profit.

Thank y’all! That makes a lot more sense than the way I had it…

 

[CarolynFH]

Thank y’all! That makes a lot more sense than the way I had it…

Makes more sense for Disney, you mean, not for the owners....

 

[Sandisw]

@Sandisw is the expert on that. If I remember right, breakage within 60 days, DVC pays 2.5% to resort to offset costs, then some percentage goes to the association, and the rest is profit for Disney.

We get a credit of up to 2.5% of operating costs from breakage income. The rest goes to DVC and BVTC…and potentially Disney as well.

Since every resort gets the maximum allowed every year, DVC is making money for sure!

 

[Sandisw]

I'm a RIV resale owner who bought understanding what the resale restriction are and how they could impact me. My question is in regard to this being a line of attack for those hoping to have things change. And personally, I believe DVC broke the rules when they brought RIV in around all resorts having "similar rules".

Here it is talking about your first choice being harder to make the longer you wait. That is fine, but there exists with RIV the potential that there is NO choice the longer you wait. Everyone else always has some sort of choice. When everyone has the exact same trading rights there is always something available, it might not be what you want but you can still book something.

Isn't this the same language that was always there?

The way trading now works, it is in DVC's benefit to reduce the ability of RIV resale owners to book a room because once availability dries up at RIV those owners can't use their points and the points will be wasted, meaning money in DVC's pockets. Examples of what DVC could do are changes the home resort booking window advantage to be 1 month only or DVC puts a sale on RIV rooms using points they got from exchanges both of these would reduce availability for resale owners.

But, there will always be RIV rooms since the window is a rolling 11 month window in which the owner can use their points, assuming they don’t wait too long to be beyond the banking window, or too late into the UY to use banked points,

For trading, while we think of everything as one big bucket, when RIV entered, it entered with rules that work the same against each individual resort….which is why I think it works and was legal…especially given the grandfathering who bought with a different set of rules.

For example, RiV is a DVC resort whose resale owners are restricted from SSR in exchange for SSR resale owners not being allowed to go to RIv. rIV resale is restricted from VGF and resale VGF is restricted from RIV.

To me, that is what makes it balance because each resort that was in BVTC and RiV have the same rules for each other. When look at it that way, it makes sense.

And, the initial contracts said “similar agreements” not exactly the same…I would say since direct points bought from DVD all still trade the same, the resort is substantially similar in its rules.

 

[Stormalong Smiths]

Makes more sense for Disney, you mean, not for the owners....

This is the way.

 

[zavandor]

But, there will always be RIV rooms since the window is a rolling 11 month window in which the owner can use their points, assuming they don’t wait too long to be beyond the banking window, or too late into the UY to use banked points,

For trading, while we think of everything as one big bucket, when RIV entered, it entered with rules that work the same against each individual resort….which is why I think it works and was legal…especially given the grandfathering who bought with a different set of rules.

For example, RiV is a DVC resort whose resale owners are restricted from SSR in exchange for SSR resale owners not being allowed to go to RIv. rIV resale is restricted from VGF and resale VGF is restricted from RIV.

To me, that is what makes it balance because each resort that was in BVTC and RiV have the same rules for each other. When look at it that way, it makes sense.

And, the initial contracts said “similar agreements” not exactly the same…I would say since direct points bought from DVD all still trade the same, the resort is substantially similar in its rules.

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.