WOW DVC Prices !!!

[tom1944]

I agree with you as a practical matter.

However, contract law is very strict. One party cannot modify a contract without the consent of the other party.

I don’t know know the details of the actual contract but at first glance, it appears that Disney was the “slimy” one, trying to strong-arm DVC members to modify the terms of the contract.

I was not paying attention at the time but I would ask how so?

They allowed you to buy additional time and if you did not your original agreement stayed in place.

 

[BaybeeYoda]

The economy is really hurting more than people are letting on. That’s always the long and short of it. Real estate is going to get blasted this year.

I’m looking to move/buy a home. All I see are 1500 sq ft townhouses in areas I’m interested in for $800k when they were 400k three years ago so here’s to hoping.

 

[blizzard]

I was not paying attention at the time but I would ask how so?

They allowed you to buy additional time and if you did not your original agreement stayed in place.

But that’s not how it was done. Disney changed the ground lease, then said send us money. If you didn’t want to send them money, they wanted you to chase down a notary and send them a quit claim (with a “deadline”). Originally they thought everyone would happily send them money, and only a few would go the quit claim route. It actually was going to be at your own expense, before they relented and provided a dues credit to cover the notary and time to do the paperwork. I don’t blame anyone who was not happy with the strong arm tactics and decided to wait it out.

 

[Matty B13]

I’m looking to move/buy a home. All I see are 1500 sq ft townhouses in areas I’m interested in for $800k when they were 400k three years ago so here’s to hoping.

And this is exactly why we are having the issues we have now....... this kinda inflation is just crazy on all assets. I feel bad for anyone stuck have to move right now, and can't wait it out. I went through this when I tried to sell my home in 2010 after buying in 2005, I ended up selling it for the same exact price that I bought it for........ after I but in $50k of home improvements. Tough lesson to learn..... but a good one not to get sucked into FOMO. It is what drove the silly cyrpto market up so high and the recent real-estate market as well. Don't get me started on the NFC craze, that was just pure stupidity.

Heard a lot of the "Greater Foul Theory" last night about the SVB implosion as well and all of the recent crazy things going on.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t get this - if you paid for 2042 then just exit in 2042. Class action lawsuits etc is a slimy thing to do to game the system on technicalities. Doesn’t our legal system have more legitimate things to litigate than original owners trying to squeeze freebies out of thin air ?

I just don’t think it is that simple…at least in my opinion. DVD took it upon themselves… to actually change the contract to end it in 2057.

Changes to the POS apply to all owners…that is why DVD couldn’t add resale restrictions to the new VGF building because it’s a material change to the contract…and owners requires a vote. Do you think if they had done that that owners would not have complained?

Now, had the contract been amended to say the resort ended in 2042 or in 2057 for some owners, then it would be simple…

But that is not what occurred. They changed the actual contract…there is no such things as an original vs new…the newest version applies to everyone since it’s what legally guides the current rules.

That is also why owners filed a lawsuit back then about being on the hook for additional MFs because those buildings are part of the condo association until 2057. DVD must pay any additional costs to maintain all of its interests and can’t pass on that expense to other owners..paraphrasing here…

I think they expected more owners to pay, and they didn’t. They had to stop hassling people to sign and while it makes sense that the deeds people sign limits the group to sue, I believe it was still required legally and they knew it.

Since they never tried it again, I bet they realize it’s going to be messy…and TBH, by then, the original owner pool might be small enough that DVD does nothing…remember, any owner who continues to own, and pays MFs, benefits DVD even if they never paid anything additional.

We shall see in 19 years.

 

[tom1944]

I just don’t think it is that simple…at least in my opinion. DVD took it upon themselves… to actually change the contract to end it in 2057.

Changes to the POS apply to all owners…that is why DVD couldn’t add resale restrictions to the new VGF building because it’s a material change to the contract…and owners requires a vote. Do you think if they had done that that owners would not have complained?

Now, had the contract been amended to say the resort ended in 2042 or in 2057 for some owners, then it would be simple…

But that is not what occurred. They changed the actual contract…there is no such things as an original vs new…the newest version applies to everyone since it’s what legally guides the current rules.

That is also why owners filed a lawsuit back then about being on the hook for additional MFs because those buildings are part of the condo association until 2057. DVD must pay any additional costs to maintain all of its interests and can’t pass on that expense to other owners..paraphrasing here…

I think they expected more owners to pay, and they didn’t. They had to stop hassling people to sign and while it makes sense that the deeds people sign limits the group to sue, I believe it was still required legally and they knew it.

Since they never tried it again, I bet they realize it’s going to be messy…and TBH, by then, the original owner pool might be small enough that DVD does nothing…remember, any owner who continues to own, and pays MFs, benefits DVD even if they never paid anything additional.

We shall see in 19 years.

For someone not around at the time this helps clarify it.

I was unaware they changed the expiration date prior to selling the extension.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I don’t get this - if you paid for 2042 then just exit in 2042. Class action lawsuits etc is a slimy thing to do to game the system on technicalities. Doesn’t our legal system have more legitimate things to litigate than original owners trying to squeeze freebies out of thin air ?

You're labeling the wrong party with a derogatory. DVD unilaterally changed the contract with certain expectations in mind from the owners. When they weren't getting what they expected they went against the POS and attempted to force owners thru various means. That was against owners who had no say in the original action they took to extend.

 

[mlayton14]

You're labeling the wrong party with a derogatory. DVD unilaterally changed the contract with certain expectations in mind from the owners. When they weren't getting what they expected they went against the POS and attempted to force owners thru various means. That was against owners who had no say in the original action they took to extend.

Therefore , due to this attempted forced inconvenience you feel like you are entitled to an additional 15 years of ownership free of charge ….. ok

 

[AstroBlasters]

Heard a lot of the "Greater Foul Theory" last night about the SVB implosion as well and all of the recent crazy things going on.

Is that like when teams would foul Shaquille O’Neil with the hack-a-shaq strategy?

Or are you referring to the “Greater Fool Theory”?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

 

[Matty B13]

Is that like when teams would foul Shaquille O’Neil with the hack-a-shaq strategy?

Or are you referring to the “Greater Fool Theory”?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

I guess it could be "Fowl" since there were a lot of lemmings......

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Therefore , due to this attempted forced inconvenience you feel like you are entitled to an additional 15 years of ownership free of charge ….. ok

Well, I am not an OKW owner so there's that.

But a corporation taking illegal steps to correct an issue they did not foresee and actually caused? I will never be a "fan" of that. It went beyond inconvenience which has been pointed out.

 

[Sandisw]

Therefore , due to this attempted forced inconvenience you feel like you are entitled to an additional 15 years of ownership free of charge ….. ok

Would you have the same opinion if DVD decided to add resale restrictions to the contracts for all the resorts? Do you think owners should be okay with that since the contract says don't buy with the intention of getting any value out of it?

 

[DonMacGregor]

Would you have the same opinion if DVD decided to add resale restrictions to the contracts for all the resorts? Do you think owners should be okay with that since the contract says don't buy with the intention of getting any value out of it?

Not even a remotely close comparison. The original owners entered into an agreement wherein they were promised the free use and enjoyment of the resort until January 31, 2042. The changes to the POS, the extension, the request for a quit claim, none of those altered the original owner's free use and enjoyment of the resort until January 31, 2042. None present any encumbrances to the use of the points and resort. They still enjoy the benefit of the bargain. They get everything they agreed to and expected when they signed their contract. Sure, they were asked to expend time and some potential cost in completing a quit claim deed, and that should have been compensated, but that's it.

The idea of adding resale restrictions, post-agreement, is reductive and does have a material effect on the ability to use the points as originally represented by DVC.

 

[tom1944]

Not even a remotely close comparison. The original owners entered into an agreement wherein they were promised the free use and enjoyment of the resort until January 31, 2042. The changes to the POS, the extension, the request for a quit claim, none of those altered the original owner's free use and enjoyment of the resort until January 31, 2042. None present any encumbrances to the use of the points and resort. They still enjoy the benefit of the bargain. They get everything they agreed to and expected. Sure, they were asked to expend time and some potential cost in completing a quit claim deed, and that should have been compensated, but that's it.

The idea of adding resale restrictions, post-agreement, is reductive and does have a material effect on the ability to use the points as originally represented by DVC.

I agree with this statement.

I could see an argument being made by 2042 owners that by extending the contract out to 2057 the value of their 2042 contract was diminished and they deserve compensation for the loss of value. I still have trouble seeing how that compensation should be 15 years of additional use.

Proving loss of value would be the key.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I agree with this statement.

I could see an argument being made by 2042 owners that by extending the contract out to 2057 the value of their 2042 contract was diminished and they deserve compensation for the loss of value. I still have trouble seeing how that compensation should be 15 years of additional use.

Proving loss of value would be the key.

The third and (arguably) most important element in establishing a tort claim.

 

[Sandisw]

Not even a remotely close comparison. The original owners entered into an agreement wherein they were promised the free use and enjoyment of the resort until January 31, 2042. The changes to the POS, the extension, the request for a quit claim, none of those altered the original owner's free use and enjoyment of the resort until January 31, 2042. None present any encumbrances to the use of the points and resort. They still enjoy the benefit of the bargain. They get everything they agreed to and expected when they signed their contract. Sure, they were asked to expend time and some potential cost in completing a quit claim deed, and that should have been compensated, but that's it.

The idea of adding resale restrictions, post-agreement, is reductive and does have a material effect on the ability to use the points as originally represented by DVC.

This is where we disagree. Any change to the POS is a change to the POS. Just because they decided to extend it for their benefit doesn't absolve them of the fact that the POS guides all owners....just because restrictions are seen to be punitive and extension is a benefit, doesn't change the fact that DVD would be making the change without owners say so...

When you read the new POS, it doesn't say that the resort expires in 2042 for some and that beginning on X date, those owners who have purchased an extension will have use until 2057. There is no longer any mention of 2042 in any of the documents.

I contend that the change of the expiration of the resort was a material change and that by doing so, they should have required owners to vote on it...and they did not. The problem is they didn't get the outcome they thought they would get...most owners either paying or signing deeds over...

Nothing to do with loss of value either. It has to do with whether or not DVD had the legal right to amend the POS and extend the ground lease and the resort expiration unilaterally and have it apply to only owners who were willing to pay for that extension.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Not even a remotely close comparison. The original owners entered into an agreement wherein they were promised the free use and enjoyment of the resort until January 31, 2042. The changes to the POS, the extension, the request for a quit claim, none of those altered the original owner's free use and enjoyment of the resort until January 31, 2042. None present any encumbrances to the use of the points and resort. They still enjoy the benefit of the bargain. They get everything they agreed to and expected when they signed their contract. Sure, they were asked to expend time and some potential cost in completing a quit claim deed, and that should have been compensated, but that's it.

The idea of adding resale restrictions, post-agreement, is reductive and does have a material effect on the ability to use the points as originally represented by DVC.

It's not actually that different. It is ignoring the fact that DVC did indeed hinder use of members until they would sign the quit claim deed.
Also it's a very material change to add resale restrictions to existing contracts.

 

[DonMacGregor]

This is where we disagree. Any change to the POS is a change to the POS. Just because they decided to extend it for their benefit doesn't absolve them of the fact that the POS guides all owners....

When you read the new POS, it doesn't say that the resort expires in 2042 for some and that beginning on X date, those owners who have purchased an extension will have use until 2057. There is no longer any mention of 2042 in any of the documents.

I contend that the change of the expiration of the resort was a material change and that by doing so, they should have required owners to vote on it...and they did not. The problem is they didn't get the outcome they thought they would get...most owners either paying or signing deeds over...

You were arguing that the owners suffered a material damage (hence your rhetorical question regarding adding point restrictions), now you are going back on the POS argument. I think you and others will find that a trier of fact is going to look at what original owners bought, what they knew they were buying, what was represented to them when they entered that agreement, and whether or not they have received the benefit of that bargain.

Agree to disagree, but I just don't see any injury.

 

[DonMacGregor]

It's not actually that different. It is ignoring the fact that DVC did indeed hinder use of members until they would sign the quit claim deed.
Also it's a very material change to add resale restrictions to existing contracts.

I'm pretty sure I said that the addition of restrictions would be a material change and a reductive one at that, and that's what makes it different, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Can people who didn't sign a quit claim still use their points freely and without encumbrance until January 31, 2042? That is what a court will look at. Sure, they might look at the shenanigans pulled by Disney with displeasure, but at the end of the day anyone who bought in 1991 with the understanding that they could enjoy the use of the resort until January 31, 2042 still enjoys 100% of that right.

Anyway, this is not going to get resolved any time soon, so I'll just continue to use my 2042 OKW points until January 31, 2042, just like I understood I could when I bought them.

 

[Sandisw]

You were arguing that the owners suffered a material damage (hence your rhetorical question regarding adding point restrictions), now you are going back on the POS argument. I think you and others will find that a trier of fact is going to look at what original owners bought, what they knew they were buying, what was represented to them when they entered that agreement, and whether or not they have received the benefit of that bargain.

Agree to disagree, but I just don't see any injury.

The injury would come in to play in 2042 when owners who didn't pay for an extension can't use their points at a resort that has not yet expired per the POS document. But, as you said, we see it differently and in 2042, we will know what DVD decides to do and what any original owners decide to do.

But, owners who have to sign a QCD to sell points at OKW are not getting the benefit of the extension that DVD now gets from being able to sell them with a 2057 expiration.

And, resale restrictions I was referring to was when selling, not for use at new resorts. Owners would be very upset if DVD decided to change the POS so that moving forward, resale contracts would be limited to home resort only....which would reduce value.